19922 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

1Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation’s

application was filed with the Commission under

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of

the Commission’s regulations.

2The appendices referenced in this notice are not

being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are

available from the Commission’s Public Reference

and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, or call (202) 208–

1371. Copies of the appendices were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail.

4. Arizona Public Service Company

[Docket No. ER96–1619–000]

Take notice that on April 23, 1996,

Arizona Public Service Company (APS),

tendered for filing an Amendment No.

1 (Amendment) to Service Schedule B

(Schedule) of the Power Service

Agreement between APS and Citizens

Utilities Company (Citizens). The

Amendment extends the term of the

Schedule through December 31, 2004.

The parties request an effective date

60 days after filing.

Copies of this filing have been served

upon Citizens and the Arizona

Corporation Commission.

Comment date: May 13, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

5. New England Power Pool

[Docket No. ER96–1620–000]

Take notice that on April 23, 1996,

the New England Power Pool Executive

Committee filed a signature page to the

NEPOOL Agreement dated September 1,

1971, as amended, signed by Strategic

Energy, Limited Partnership (Strategic

Energy). The New England Power Pool

Agreement, as amended, has been

designated NEPOOL FPC No. 2.

The Executive Committee states that

acceptance of the signature page would

permit Strategic Energy to join the over

90 Participants already in the Pool.

NEPOOL further states that the filed

signature page does not change the

NEPOOL Agreement in any manner,

other than to make Strategic Energy a

Participant in the Pool. NEPOOL

requests an effective date on or before

March 28, 1996, for commencement of

participation in the Pool by Strategic

Energy.

Comment date: May 13, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

6. Dennis R. Hendrix

[Docket No. ID–2958–000]

Take notice that on April 23, 1996,

Dennis R. Hendrix (Applicant) tendered

for filing a supplemental application

under Section 305(b) of the Federal

Power Act to hold the following

positions:

Director: Texas Commerce Bank, National

Association

Director: Tampa Electric Company

Comment date: May 13, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10991 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. CP96–127–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Intent To

Prepare an Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed Lanham X–2 Storage

Replacement Project and Request For

Comments on Environmental Issues

April 29, 1996.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental assessment (EA) that will

discuss the environmental impacts of

the construction, abandonment, and

operation of the facilities proposed in

the Lanham X–2 Storage Replacement

Project.1 This EA will be used by the

Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether an

environmental impact statement is

necessary and whether to approve the

project.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation (Columbia) proposes to

construct and operate approximately 6.8

miles of storage pipelines consisting of

0.6 mile of 12-inch-diameter, 0.8 mile of

10-inch-diameter, 0.8 mile of 8-inchdiameter, 2.6 miles of 6-inch-diameter,

and 2.0 miles of 4-inch-diameter

pipelines. These facilities would replace

approximately 7.5 miles of existing

storage pipelines proposed for

abandonment consisting of 0.4 mile of

12-inch-diameter, 1.0 mile of 10-inchdiameter, 0.5 mile of 8-inch-diameter,

2.3 miles of 6-inch-diameter, and 3.3

miles of 4-inch-diameter pipelines. All

of these facilities are within the Lanham

X–2 Storage Field in Kanawha and

Putnam Counties, West Virginia.

Columbia proposes these actions to

replace aged, deteriorated facilities.

The project would also involve the

replacement of wellhead piping and

measurement facilities at 20 existing

wells, installation of an on-line pigging

system on the 10-inch-diameter

pipeline, and installation of fluid

gathering facilities. Columbia would

also construct four pig launchers and

receivers, one gate valve setting, and

three anode beds with associated

rectifier poles and cables. In addition,

storage well 7067 would be abandoned

and storage well 7126 would be

converted to an observation well.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1.2

Land Requirements for Construction

Approximately 43 percent of the

replacement pipeline would be located

in new rights-of-way. The remaining

construction rights-of-way would

partially or fully overlap Columbia’s

existing rights-of-way. Columbia intends

to use a75-foot-wide construction rightof-way for approximately 55 percent of

the replacement pipeline. Columbia

would use a 100-foot-wide construction

right-of-way for the remaining 45

percent of the replacement pipeline for

side hill cuts and topsoil conservation

areas. Additional working spaces

adjacent to the construction right-orway (such as for stream crossings and

staging areas) would be identified

during the environmental analysis and

approved before use.

Over, about 104d acres of land would

be disturbed by construction and

abandonment, including three new

access roads, one pipeyard, and 45

staging areas. Columbia would also

widen as many as 25 existing access

roads to be used for the project. Full

control of all areas where existing

pipeline would be abandoned in-place

(approximately 22 acres) and all

disturbed areas outside of the new

permanent rights-of-way (approximately

62 acres) would revert back to

landowners after construction and

restoration have been completed.

The EA Process

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19923

impacts that could result from an action

whenever it considers the issuance of a

Certificate of Public Convenience and

Necessity. NEPA also requires us to

discover and address concerns the

public may have about proposals. We

call this ‘‘scoping’’. The main goal of the

scoping process is to focus the analysis

in the EA on the important

environmental issues. By this Notice of

Intent, the Commission requests public

comments on the scope of the issues it

will address in the EA. All comments

received are considered during the

preparation of the EA. State and local

government representatives are

encouraged to notify their constituents

of this proposed action and encourage

them to comment on their areas of

concern.

The EA will discuss impacts that

could occur as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project under these general

headings:

• geology and soils

• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands

• vegetation and wildlife

• public safety

• land use

• endangered and threatened species

• cultural resources

We will also evaluate possible

alternatives to the proposed project or

portions of the project, and make

recommendations on how to lessen or

avoid impacts on the various resource

areas.

Our independent analysis of the

issues will be in the EA. Depending on

the comments received during the

scoping process, the EA may be

published and mailed to Federal, state,

and local agencies, public interest

groups, interested individuals, affected

landowners, newspapers, libraries, and

the Commission’s official service list for

this proceeding. A comment period will

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we

recommend that the Commission

approve or not approve the project.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

We have already identified several

issues that we think deserve attention

based on a preliminary review of the

proposed facilities and the

environmental information provided by

Columbia. Keep in mind that this is a

preliminary list. The list of issues may

be added to, subtracted from, or

changed based on your comments and

our analysis. Issues are:

• Eleven residences are near the

construction rights-of-way.

• Waterbodies would be crossed at 19

locations by new and retirement

construction. One of these, the Pocatalico

River, has been designated as a high quality

stream and is over 100 feet wide at two

proposed wet ditch crossings.

• Construction and abandonment activity

would disturb 23 wetlands.

• Cultural resources have been identified.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by sending

a letter addressing your specific

comments or concerns about the project.

You should focus on the potential

environmental effects of the proposal,

alternatives to the proposal (including

alternative routes), and measures to

avoid or lessen environmental impact.

The more specific your comments, the

more useful they will be. Please follow

the instructions below to ensure that

your comments are received and

properly recorded:

• Address your letter to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426;

• Reference Docket No. CP96–127–

000;

• Send a copy of your letter to: Ms.

Elizabeth Secrest, EA Project Manager,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Room 72–50,

Washington, D.C. 20426; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, D.C. on

or before June 6, 1996.

If you wish to receive a copy of the EA,

you should request one from Ms. Secrest

at the above address.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EA

scoping process, you may want to

become an official party to the

proceeding or become an ‘‘intervenor’’.

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intervenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a motion to intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

The date for filing of timely motions

to intervene in this proceeding has

passed. Therefore, parties now seeking

to file late interventions must show

good cause, as required by section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived.

Environmental issues have been

viewed as good cause for late

intervention. You do not need

intervenor status to have your scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Ms.

Elizabeth Secrest, EA Project Manager,

at (202) 208–0918.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11050 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[FERC Docket No. CP95–35–000; PRPB

Docket No. 94–62–1219–JPM]

Puerto Rico Planning Board;

EcoEle ́ctrica, L.P.; Notice of

Availability of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Statement for the Proposed

EcoEle ́ctrica LNG Import Terminal and

Cogeneration Project in Guayanilla,

Puerto Rico

April 29, 1996.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the

Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) have

prepared this joint final environmental

impact statement/environmental impact

statement (FEIS/EIS) on the natural gas

facilities proposed by EcoEle ́ctrica, L.P.

(EcoEle ́ctrica) in the above dockets.

The FEIS/EIS was prepared to satisfy

the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act and Puerto

Rico’s law requiring an EIS under the

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality

Board Regulations (article 4[c] of Law

No. 9). The FERC and PRPB staffs

conclude that approval of the proposed

project, with appropriate mitigation

measures including receipt of necessary

permits and approvals, would have

limited adverse environmental impact.

The Joint EIS evaluates alternatives to

the proposal.

The joint EIS assesses the potential

environmental effects of the

construction and operation of the

proposed EcoEle ́ctrica LNG Import

Terminal and Cogeneration project,

which includes the following facilities:

• A marine terminal for unloading

liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers, two

1,000,000-barrel LNG storage tanks, and

an LNG vaporization system.

• A 461-megawatt (±10%) electric

cogeneration facility that would use the

vaporized LNG as a fuel source. The

power plant facility would consist of

two gas turbines fueled by natural gas

and one steam generator. The gas

turbines could also use propane (LPG)

as a secondary fuel and low sulfur

number 2 oil as an emergency fuel.

• A desalination facility that could

generate up to 4,000,000 gallons of

potable water per day. The multistage

flash system would use the surplus heat

from power production to produce