24298 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

1CNR has filed a companion petition for

declaratory order in Docket No. CP96–385–000 for

a determination that the facilities will be nonjurisdictional gathering facilities upon transfer to

CNR.

2See General Terms and Conditions Section 46,

Stranded Facilities Charge, of Columbia’s tariff. The

sale of gathering facilities proposed by this filing is

a significant first step in Columbia’s exit from the

gathering business and the mitigation of the

associated stranded costs.

3The Conaway Compressor Station is certificated

and functionalized as a gathering facility.

4Columbia identifies Columbia Gas of Kentucky,

Inc., and Mountaineer Gas Company, as local

distribution companies, and Columbia Gas of

Pennsylvania, Inc., as being involved as mainline

tap customers with certificated points of delivery

located on the gathering facilities to be spundown

to CNR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Weintraub—ECN, Bonneville

Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621,

Portland, Oregon 97208–3621, phone

number 503–230–5373, fax number

503–230–5699.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BPA is

proposing to provide watershed

restoration funds to several entities,

including the Yakama Indian Nation,

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes

of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation,

Nez Perce Tribe, Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Umatilla County, the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Pendleton

High School, the Umatilla Watershed

Council; U.S. Forest Service, Walla

Walla County Conservation District,

Oregon Department of Transportation,

Grande Ronde Model Watershed,

Washington Model Watersheds, and

Idaho Model Watersheds. Restoration

projects are proposed for streams in the

Deschutes, John Day, Hood, Fifteenmile,

Umatilla, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde,

Methow, Yakima, Clearwater, Salmon,

and Imnaha watersheds. The types of

projects proposed include: riparian

fencing to keep cattle out of streams;

suppression of noxious weeds and

revegetation of denuded streambanks to

provide cover and reduce erosion;

removal of ‘‘push up’’ type diversion

dams and installation of control

structures to eliminate passage barriers;

conversion of irrigation diversions from

streams to groundwater and/or sprinkler

systems; consolidation of irrigation

ditches; woody debris placement;

streambank bioengineering and

stabilization; dredge tailing removal;

channel restoration; erosion control and

stabilization of road banks; construction

of sediment traps and overwintering

habitat; removal of coffer dams and

debris for passage improvement; dam

reconstructuring; and updating/

rehabilitation of fish screens.

Further information is available from

BPA at the address above.

Issued in Portland, Oregon, on May 7,

1996.

Thomas C. McKinney,

NEPA Compliance Officer for Environment,

Fish and Wildlife Group.

[FR Doc. 96–12051 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP96–386–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Application

May 8, 1996.

Take notice that on April 29, 1996,

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue,

SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25325–

1273, filed in Docket No. CP96–386–000

an application pursuant to Section 7(b)

of the Natural Gas Act for permission

and approval to abandon certain

certificated gathering facilities by

spindown to Columbia Natural

Resources, Inc. (CNR), a nonjurisdictional affiliate,1 all as more fully

set forth in the application on file with

the Commission and open to public

inspection.

Columbia proposes to transfer to CNR

certain certificated and uncertificated

gathering facilities at net book value

estimated to be $28 million as of

December 31, 1996, pursuant to a

purchase and sale agreement dated

April 25, 1996. Columbia explains that

it intends to credit the net sales

proceeds to the Stranded Facilities

Charge in accordance with the tariff

provisions placed into effect in its

current Section 4 general rate case in

Docket No. RP95–408–000.2 Columbia

states that the facilities are located in

Fayette and Somerset Counties,

Pennsylvania; Dickenson, Tazewell and

Buchanan Counties, Virginia; Pike,

Knott, Breathitt, Magoffin, Floyd,

Johnson, Lawrence, Letcher and Martin

Counties, Kentucky; and Kanawha,

Boone, Cabell, Logan, Putnam,

Wyoming, Raleigh, Fayette, Mercer,

McDowell, Mingo, Wayne and Lincoln

Counties, West Virginia. It is further

stated that the facilities involve eighteen

gathering systems that contain 2,729

miles of low pressure, predominately

small diameter pipeline, 4,475

horsepower of compression, meters, etc,

(see the attached appendix). Columbia

states that only twelve of the lines

(totaling 51.4 miles of 2–12 inch

pipeline) and one compressor station

(900 horsepower),3 and associated

points of delivery and receipt and

various appurtenant facilities,4 have

been certificated; and certain

certificated facilities are currently

functionalized as transmission facilities

and others are recorded as gathering

facilities.

Columbia states that its proposal is

the result of unbundling under Order

No. 636 and the subsequent elimination

of its merchant function. Furthermore,

the proposal is part of the transfer and

sale of a larger group of gathering

facilities to CNR, which will operate the

facilities on an open access,

nonjurisdictional basis. Columbia

advises that CNR owns an interest in

over 6,500 oil and gas wells; has total

acreage holdings of more than 2.3

million acres; and approximately twothirds of CNR’s natural gas production

flows through the gathering facilities

proposed to be transferred to CNR.

Columbia advises that it would file to

refunctionalize to transmission any of

its gathering facilities located between

the facilities sold to CNR and

Columbia’s transmission facilities. Such

refunctionalization would eliminate the

possibility that a shipper would pay

gathering charges to both CNR and

Columbia if, prior to the proposed

abandonment, only one such gathering

charge would have been paid.

As more fully set forth in its

application, Columbia requests:

(1) Authorization to abandon by sale

to CNR the certificated facilities as

further identified in Exhibits T, Z, and

Z1.

(2) Approval of the accounting

treatment specified in Exhibit Y.

(3) Such other authorizations as the

Commission deems necessary including,

without limitation, authority to

abandon, conditioned upon the receipt

by Columbia of Section 4 authorization

to abandon service, the Points of

Delivery as identified in Exhibit T

which are served from the certificated

facilities and the non-certificated

gathering facilities to be sold to CNR.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before May 20,

1996, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a

protest in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24299

1CNR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the

Columbia Gas System, Inc.; headquartered in

Charleston, West Virginia; and incorporated in

Texas and licensed to do business in the States of

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West

Virginia. CNR performs all the oil and gas drilling

and production operations of The Columbia Gas

System, Inc., in the Eastern United States. CNR

owns an interest in over 6,500 oil and gas wells and

has total acreage holdings of more than 2.3 million

acres. Approximately two-thirds of CNR’s natural

gas production flows through the facilities subject

to CNR’s petition.

2A companion application was filed by Columbia

in Docket No. CP96–386–000 for authorization to

abandon the certificated portion of the facilities by

sale to CNR.

under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR

157.10). All protests filed with the

Commission will be considered by it in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken but will not serve to make the

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

to a proceeding or to participate as a

party in any hearing therein must file a

motion to intervene in accordance with

the Commission’s Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to

the jurisdiction conferred upon Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission by

Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act

and the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure, a hearing will be held

without further notice before the

Commission or its designee on this

application if no motion to intervene is

filed within the time required herein, if

the Commission on its own review of

the matter finds that permission and

approval for the proposed abandonment

are required by the public convenience

and necessity. If a motion for leave to

intervene is timely filed, or if the

Commission on its own motion believes

that a formal hearing is required, further

notice of such hearing will be duly

given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for Columbia to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

APPENDIX—COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION SUMMARY OF CERTIFICATED AND UNCERTIFICATED FACILITIES

TO BE SPUNDOWN BY TRANSFER AND SALE TO CNR

Gathering system

Pipeline System pressure

(psig)

Compressor

(HP) Length

(miles)

Diameter

(inches)

Total

No.

1 Summit .............................................................................................. 9 2–6 8 90–200 0

2 Ohiopyle ............................................................................................ 17 2–12 5 ...................... 0

3 Walbridge .......................................................................................... 143 2–8 267 40–80 0

4 Hubball-Horse Creek-Nye ................................................................. .................... 2–20 1,322 40–80 820

5 Buff Lick ............................................................................................ 212 (1) 286 2–100 Yes

6 Inez-Kermit ........................................................................................ 635 1–18 984 40–80 959

7 Beaver Creek .................................................................................... 93 1–12 133 10–70 0

8 Boldman ............................................................................................ 288 1–18 364 50–180 0

9 Johns Creek ...................................................................................... 21 2–8 26 35–60 300

10 Canada (P–74) ................................................................................. 95 2–10 151 100–120 300

11 Canada (P–28) ................................................................................. 13 2–8 9 40–100 0

12 Conaway ........................................................................................... 121 2–20 149 70–120

250–400

900

13 Majestic Thacker ............................................................................... 152 1–10 184 30–70 950

14 Briar Mountain .................................................................................. 16 2–6 19 20–60 300

15 Stafford ............................................................................................. 32 1–6 49 45–75 Yes

16 Huff Creek (V–38) ............................................................................. .................... 2–10 17 75–125 Yes

17 McDowell–Tazewell .......................................................................... 41 2–6 46 30–50 0

18 Egeria ................................................................................................ 20 2–6 37 30–50 Yes

1Various.

[FR Doc. 96–11983 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP–96–385–000]

Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.;

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

Take notice that on April 29, 1996,

Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.

(CNR),1 P.O. Box 6070, Charleston, West

Virginia 25362–0070, filed in Docket

No. CP96–385–000 a petition pursuant

to Section 16 of the Natural Gas Act

(NGA) and Rule 207(a)(2) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)), for a

declaratory order disclaiming

Commission jurisdiction over certain

facilities, operations, rates and the

services provided through the facilities,

all as more fully set forth in the petition

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection.

CNR seeks a declaratory order from

the Commission finding that certain

certificated and uncertificated natural

gas gathering facilities, and the

ownership and operation of those

facilities, proposed to be acquired from

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia) would not be subject to the

jurisdiction of the Commission under

the NGA upon transfer of the facilities.2

CNR seeks a determination that the

Commission’s authority to regulate rates

under Sections 4 and 5 of the NGA does

not extend to CNR’s gathering system as

it is proposed to be operated.

CNR states that the facilities are

located in Fayette and Somerset

Counties, Pennsylvania; Dickenson,

Tazewell and Buchanan Counties,

Virginia; Pike, Knott, Breathitt,

Magoffin, Floyd, Johnson, Lawrence,

Letcher and Martin Counties, Kentucky;

and Kanawha, Boone, Cabell, Logan,

Putnam, Wyoming, Raleigh, Fayette,

Mercer, McDowell, Mingo, Wayne and

Lincoln Counties, West Virginia. CNR

describes the facilities as eighteen

gathering systems composed of ‘‘webtype’’ or ‘‘backbone’’ configurations of

lines that are of a size and operated at

pressures consistent with the gathering

function, located in a production area,

upstream of processing facilities, and

gather gas from receipt points for

subsequent delivery to Columbia’s

transmission lines or to other points of

delivery on the gathering system.

CNR asserts that the individual

elements of the ‘‘Modified Primary

Function’’ Test, when applied to these