42118 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices

1Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 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.

3The Commission intends to adopt the

environmental documents created by the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management

Service (MMS) and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (COE) for the offshore facilities.

• Send two copies of your letter to: Lois

Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First St.,

N.E., Room 1A, Washington, D.C.,

20426;

• Label one of the comments for the

attention of the Environmental

Review and Compliance Branch, PR–

11.2;

• Reference Docket No. CP97–563–000;

and

• Mail your comments so that they will

be received in Washington, D.C. on or

before August 30, 1997.

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 timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties not seeking to file late

interventions must show good cause, as

required by § 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.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20527 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP97–92–001]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation; Notice of Intent To

Prepare an Environmental Assessment

for the Proposed Mobile Bay Project

and Request for Comments on

Environmental Issues

July 30, 1997.

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 and operation of the

facilities, about 75.66 miles of 24- and

30-inch-diameter pipeline, 30,000

horsepower (hp) of compression, an

offshore junction platform and

connecting facilities at another

(nonjurisdictional) platform, proposed

in the Mobile Bay Project.1 This EA will

be used by the Commission in its

decision-making process to determine

whether the project is in the public

convenience and necessity.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco) wants to expand

the capacity of its facilities in the Gulf

of Mexico and Alabama to transport an

additional 350 million cubic feet of

natural gas per day (Mmcfd) to the

interstate market from sources offshore

in the Gulf of Mexico. Transco seeks

authority to construct and operate:

• 15,000 horsepower (hp) of

compression at new Compressor

Station 83 in Mobile County,

Alabama;

• 15,000 hp of additional compression

at Compressor Station 82 in Mobile

County, Alabama;

• 19.08 miles of 30-inch-diameter

pipeline from existing Compressor

Station 82 in Mobile County, Alabama

to a new offshore junction platform in

Mobile Block 822 (this segment

involves approximately 4.00 miles of

onshore pipeline);

• a new offshore junction platform in

Mobile Block 822, including a 24-

inch-sphere launcher and appurtenant

facilities;

• 56.58 miles of 24-inch-diameter

pipeline from the new offshore

junction platform in Mobile Block 822

to a new platform (owned by SOCO

Offshore, Inc. (SOCO)) in Main Pass

Viosca Knoll Block 261; and

• a 24-inch-sphere launcher,

measurement equipment, riser pipe

and appurtenant facilities on SOCO’s

new platform in Main Pass Viosca

Knoll Block 261.

The location of the project facilities is

shown in appendix 1.2 If you are

interested in obtaining procedural

information, please write to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Land Requirements for Construction

Construction of the proposed onshore

facilities would require about 56.4 acres

of land. Following construction, about

15.7 acres would be maintained as new

aboveground facility sites. The

remaining 40.7 acres of land would be

restored; 17.4 acres would be allowed to

revert to its former use and 23.3 acres

would be permanent pipeline right-ofway.

The EA Process

The National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to

take into account the environmental

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

onshore portion of the proposed project

under these general headings: 3

• Geology and soils

• Land use

• Water resources, fisheries, and

wetlands

• Cultural resources

• Vegetation and wildlife

• Air quality and noise

• Endangered and threatened species

• Public safety

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Notices 42119

be allotted for review if the EA is

published. We will consider all

comments on the EA before we make

our recommendations to the

Commission.

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

Transco. This preliminary list of issues

may be changed based on your

comments and our analysis.

• Two federally listed endangered or

threatened species may occur in the

onshore portions of the proposed

project area.

• A total of 16.3 acres of agricultural

land would be affected.

• There is the potential for noise impact

due to the new compression at the

new and existing stations.

• A nonjurisdictional processing plant

will be constructed in conjunction

with the interstate pipeline facilities.

We expect to adopt the environmental

reviews done by the COE and the MMS

covering wetland and offshore issues.

The COE will also be addressing the

crossing of Dauphin Island by

directional drilling.

Nonjurisdictional Facilities

Williams Field Services Company

(WFS) will construct and operate a 600

MMcfd nonjurisdictional processing

plant (including a 350 MMcfd

separation facility) immediately

upstream of Compressor Station 82. The

plant will be designed to remove liquids

and liquefiables from the offshore

pipeline and deliver interstate pipeline

quality natural gas to the suction side of

Transco’s Compressor Station 82.

SOCO will construct a new

production/gathering platform in Main

Pass Viosca Knoll Block 261. We will

not be addressing this facility in our EA

because we will adopt the analysis done

by the MMS.

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 locations or routes), and

measures to avoid or lessen

environmental impact. The more

specific your comments, the more useful

they will be. Please carefully follow

these instructions to ensure that your

comments are received in time and

properly recorded:

• Send two copies of your letter to: Lois

Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First St.,

NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC

20426;

• Label one copy of the comments for

the attention of the Environmental

Review and Compliance Branch, PR–

11.2;

• Reference Docket No. CP97–92–001;

and

• Mail your comments so that they will

be received in Washington, D.C. on or

before August 29, 1997.

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 timely motions to

intervene in this proceeding has passed.

Therefore, parties now seeking to file

late interventions must show good

cause, as required by § 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 comments considered.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20526 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Application Filed With the

Commission

July 30, 1997.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Settlement

Agreement.

b. Project No: 2916–004.

c. Date Filed: June 26, 1997.

d. Applicant: East Bay Municipal

Utility District.

e. Name of Project: Lower Mokelumne

River.

f. Location: Mokelumne River,

Amador, Calaveras, and San Joaquin

Counties, California.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jon A.

Myers, Manager, Water Resources

Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility

District, 375 Eleventh Street, Oakland,

CA 94607–4240, (510) 278–1121.

i. FERC Contact: John Schnagl, (202)

219–2661.

j. Comment Date: September 10, 1997.

k. Description of Application: On

March 10, 1981, the Commission issued

a license for the Lower Mokelumne

River Project to the East Bay Municipal

Utility District (EBMUD). On July 1,

1991, pursuant to reserved authority in

the license, Commission staff initiated a

license reopener proceeding to

determine if modifications to project

facilities or operations were necessary

for the conservation and development of

fish and wildlife resources in the

Mokelumne River. In November 1993,

the Commission released a final

environmental impact statement (FEIS),

recommending modifications to the

license. Recommended modifications

included among other items, new

minimum flow and minimum pool

elevation requirements, ramping rates,

studies on pulse flows, instream habitat

enhancements, and further studies and

monitoring to define mitigation needs

for salmon and trout in the lower river.

In 1994, EBMUD participated in

settlement discussions with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG), and other parties to resolve

issues of dispute in the proceeding. In

1995, 1996, and 1997 EBMUD, the FWS,

and the CBFG continued negotiations.

These parties have filed a Settlement

Agreement (SA) with the Commission.

The SA is under consideration in the

proceeding before the Commission as an

alternative to the actions recommended

in the FEIS issued in 1993.

The SA includes changes in instream

flows, development of a Lower

Mokelumne River Partnership to

develop and implement measures to

protect and enhance anadromous fish,

development of a Lower Mokelumne

River Stakeholders Group to

recommend ecosystem protection and

improvement, EBMUD establishing a $2

million Partnership Fund, EBMUD

providing $12.5 million to expand and

upgrade the Mokelumne River Fish

Hatchery, coordination by the parties of

fishery and habitat studies and

monitoring programs, and development

of a process to measure the success of

flow requirements, non-flow measures

and other actions contained in the SA.