[Federal Register: November 19, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 67718-67723]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19no04-44]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP02-90-003]
AES Ocean Express, L.L.C. (Ocean Express); Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Modifications to
the Ocean Express Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues
November 15, 2004.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental
impacts of the Modifications to the Ocean Express Pipeline Project
proposed by Ocean Express in Broward County, Florida, State Waters of
Florida, and Federal Waters of the United States.\1\ The Ocean Express
Pipeline Project received a certificate of public convenience and
necessity from the Commission on January 29, 2004 in Docket Nos. CP02-
90, et al. Ocean Express has requested necessary authorizations for a
pipeline right-of-way in Federal waters from the MMS. Ocean Express has
now proposed changes to their original proposal, and those proposed
changes will be reviewed by Commission and MMS staff. The Ocean Express
Pipeline Project modifications reflect the incorporation of tunnel
construction methodology for the nearshore portion of the pipeline, as
well as certain other design changes, for the natural gas pipeline
between the United States and the Bahamas. This EA will be used by the
Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project modifications are in the public convenience and necessity. The
MMS will have primary responsibility for offshore analysis in U.S.
waters and will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regarding Florida State waters review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ocean Express's application was filed with the Commission on
September 9, 2004, as supplemented on September 15, 2004 and
September 20, 2004, under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and part
157 and part 284 of the Commission's Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FERC is the lead agency and the MMS is a Federal cooperating
agency for this project because the MMS has jurisdiction by law as well
as special expertise regarding the potential environmental impacts
associated with that portion of the proposed pipeline that would be
installed on the Outer Continental Shelf.
This notice is being sent to landowners, individuals,
organizations, and government entities that expressed an interest in
the original project and received a copy of FERC's Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Ocean Express Pipeline Project (issued
November 28, 2003). No new landowners are affected by the proposed
modifications. It is also being sent to all identified potential right-
of-way grantors. If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may
be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition
of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed
facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the
Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain.
Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the
pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance
with state law.
FERC prepared a fact sheet entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas
Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?''. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).
Summary of the Proposed Project
As certificated, the Ocean Express Pipeline Project would consist
of a new 24-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline, and certain
ancillary facilities, that would extend approximately 54.5 miles from a
receipt point on the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary between the
United States and the Bahamas to two delivery points in Broward County,
Florida, one at an interconnection with the existing Florida Gas
Transmission System (FGT) pipeline at the Florida Power and Light (FPL)
Fort Lauderdale Power Plant, and the other at an interconnection with
the FPL gas line that serves the FPL Fort Lauderdale plant. Ocean
Express's proposed modifications reflect the incorporation of tunnel
construction methodology for the nearshore portion of its pipeline, as
well as certain other design changes. Ocean Express developed the
proposed modifications to address the local gas markets demand for peak
period deliverability and certain delays that it has encountered in
meeting its proposed construction schedule.
Ocean Express explains that the use of the tunnel construction
methodology would allow it to construct the nearshore portion the
pipeline using an approximately 14,000-foot-long tunnel, with certain
minor route changes to accommodate the methodology, as opposed to the
horizontal directional drills (HDDs) that the Commission has already
approved. Ocean Express also proposes to increase the pipeline diameter
from 24 inches to 26 inches and internally coat the pipeline, to allow
for increased hourly flow rates, but does not propose to increase the
certificated capacity (842,000 dekatherms/day) of its pipeline.
Additionally, Ocean Express proposes to install a pressure reducing
station inside the tunnel to reduce the onshore Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure (MAOP) to 1,480 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)
or less, from the certificated MAOP of 2,200 psig. An aboveground
tunnel shaft/access building and gas vent would also be installed at
the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle.
Ocean Express designed the proposed tunnel construction
installation to further minimize the potential for direct impacts and
the risk of inadvertent impacts to sensitive marine resources,
particularly the hardbottom and coral reef resources that occur in the
nearshore environment of the project area. The proposed tunnel
modification would replace previously certificated plans to perform two
HDDs under the nearshore reef systems, with the HDDs connected by a
direct pipelay segment between two of the dominant reef trends. The
tunnel modification would avoid the need for offshore construction work
spaces to the west of the dominant reef trends. Ocean Express indicates
that elimination of those work spaces would minimize direct impacts and
significantly reducing the potential for inadvertent impacts in
proximity to the reefs (e.g., unanticipated spills, anchor impacts,
work vessel passage over reefs, etc.). Additionally, Ocean Express
states that the equipment used to construct the tunnel would not use
drilling fluids under high pressure, thereby eliminating the potential
risk of an inadvertent release of drilling muds, or frac-out, which
could potentially have
[[Page 67719]]
occurred in association with the HDD installation methodology.
The proposed tunnel would begin at an entrance point at the Dania
Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle (RMP 48.0, TMP 47.5), as proposed with
the certificated HDD installation method, and exit approximately 200
feet east of the mapped edge of the easternmost reef trend (TMP 44.8).
An entrance shaft, consisting of a 40-foot-diameter by 140-foot-deep,
single concrete caisson, would be constructed at the tunnel entry
point. From that point, an earth pressure balance (EPB) tunnel boring
machine would be used to construct a watertight, approximately 13,500-
foot-long, 13.6-foot-diameter, concrete-lined tunnel. At the end of
this main tunnel (TMP 44.9), a 42-inch-diameter microtunnel measuring
approximately 650-feet-in-length would be constructed by either a
microtunnel boring machine or by hydraulic jacking of a casing out to
the ocean floor.
Once completed, the tunnel would provide a conduit for installation
of the nearshore portion of the pipeline. The pipeline string to be
installed within the main tunnel would be assembled inside the tunnel.
The pipestring installed within the microtunnel would be prefabricated
offshore and pulled back into the microtunnel to accomplish tie-in
between the pipeline within the main tunnel and the offshore, direct
lay portion of the pipeline. An approximately 2,000-foot-long
pipestring would be assembled within an offshore pull corridor using an
anchor positioned work barge. A prefabricated pipe support measuring
approximately 100-feet-long by 9-feet-wide would be positioned near the
microtunnel exit. This pipe support would be used to support the
prefabricated pipestring across a span created by the 4 to 6 degree
seabed slope at the tunnel exit during pull back into the microtunnel.
Following pipeline installation, articulated concrete mats would be
used to cover and protect the segment of the pipeline extending from
the tunnel exit to a water depth of 200 feet. This concrete mat covered
segment of the pipeline would measure approximately 2,300-feet-long by
9-feet-wide and would encompass an area of approximately 0.5 acre.
No onshore alignment changes would be required in association with
the proposed modifications. Ocean Express has slightly revised its
proposed nearshore route to accommodate the tunnel installation
methodology and to minimize construction activities outside the tunnel.
The revised nearshore route would reduce the length of the proposed
pipeline by approximately 0.5 mile, but would not differ substantively
in alignment from the certificated route. Seaward of the tunnel exit
point, an approximately 0.8-mile-long segment of pipeline would extend
to a tie-in with the previously authorized route at RMP 44.0/TMP 44.0.
East of this point, the offshore route would be unchanged by the
proposed modifications.
The previously certificated facilities, as modified by the Ocean
Express proposal, are summarized in Table 1 below, and the proposed
alignment of the modified nearshore project facilities is shown in
Appendix 1.\2\ If you are interested in obtaining detailed maps of a
specific portion of the project, send in your request using the form in
Appendix 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (map), are available on the Commission's Web site at
the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
``Additional Information'' section of this notice. Copies of the
appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Requirements for Construction
As a result of the tunnel installation methodology, Ocean Express
indicates that the offshore temporary workspaces for pipeline
installation would be reduced from approximately 1,840 acres to
approximately 1,466 acres. The 200-foot-wide construction right-of-way
for the offshore segment of the project that was previously authorized
would be maintained. All land requirements associated with the tunnel
exit/tie-in, pipelay fabrication and construction, and laybarge
anchoring would be contained within the 200-foot-wide construction
right-of-way and the additional workspace areas identified in Appendix
1. Pipelay construction from TMP 44.2 to the EEZ boundary (MP 0) would
be performed using a dynamically positioned laybarge. Following
construction, a permanent 25-foot-wide right-of-way would be retained
in State of Florida territorial waters (RMP 43.0 to TMP 47.5) for
pipeline operation and maintenance. The alignment and width (200 feet)
of the proposed permanent right-of-way for the offshore segment of the
pipeline in federal waters would be unaffected by the proposed
modifications.
Table 1.--Ocean Express Pipeline Project Summary of Previously Authorized Project Facilities as Modified by the Current Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
Facility \1\ Pipeline diameter length (miles) Milepost \3\ Location/jurisdiction
\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Segment:
Pipeline........................ 26-inch*.................... 43.0 MP 0.0 to RMP 43.03......... U.S. Federal Waters.
Pipeline........................ 26-inch*.................... *4.5 RMP 43.03 to TMP 47.5....... Florida State Waters.
Onshore Segment:
Pipeline........................ 26-inch*.................... 6.1 TMP 47.5 to 53.62........... Broward County.
Pipeline \4\.................... 20-inch..................... 0.7 FPL MP 0.0 to 0.35.......... Broward County.
Aboveground Facilities \5\...... N/A \6\..................... N/A TMP 53.62 & TMP 47.5*....... Broward County.
Underground Facilities \7\...... N/A......................... N/A TMP 47.5*................... Broward County.
Total Length: 54.3 miles \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes project facilities or characteristics included in the proposed modification and that would differ from the certificated facilities.
\1\ Project facilities include pipeline and associated facilities.
\2\ Approximate length provided in statute miles.
\3\ ''MP'' refers to Milepost; ``RMP'' refers to Revised Milepost; and ``TMP'' refers to Tunnel Milepost.
\4\ Includes dual 20-inch lateral lines to the FPL Fort Lauderdale Power Plant.
\5\ The term ``Aboveground Facilities'' for purposes of this table includes the proposed meter stations, mainline shutoff valve, and pig launching/
receiving station located at TMP 53.62 and the tunnel shaft/access building and gas vent at TMP 47.5 proposed in association with the modification.
\6\ N/A indicates not applicable.
\7\ The term ``Underground Facilities'' for purposes of this table includes the pressure reducing station and mainline shutoff valve at TMP 47.5
(located inside the tunnel) proposed in association with the modification.
[[Page 67720]]
\8\ Does not include 40.4 miles of non-jurisdictional pipeline that would be constructed in waters between the Bahamas and the EEZ.
Ocean Express is not proposing any alignment changes to the onshore
portion of the project and does not anticipate that the increase in
diameter of the pipeline from 24 inches to 26 inches would affect the
size of the onshore construction or permanent rights-of-way. A
temporary concrete segment fabrication batch plant would be constructed
as part of the tunnel modification and would require approximately 8 to
12 acres of existing light industrial or industrial zoned land in order
to fabricate the tunnel concrete segments. Ocean Express anticipates
that they would enter into a lease agreement with a local landowner for
this land requirement. With the exception of Ocean Express's temporary
concrete-segment fabrication batch plant facility, the onshore
construction activities would not deviate from certificated land
requirements for access roads, additional workspace/storage areas, or
pipe and contractor yards. The onshore aboveground facilities would be
identical to the certificated project with the exception of a newly
proposed tunnel shaft utility/access building and gas vent, which would
service the underground pressure reducing station that would be located
at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle.
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.
This process is referred to as ``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 staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to 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.
In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ''We'', ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geology;
Soils and sediments;
Water resources;
Fishery resources, benthic communities, and wildlife;
Protected, threatened, and endangered species;
Land use and visual resources;
Cultural resources;
Socioeconomics;
Air quality and noise;
Reliability and safety; and
Cumulative impacts.
We will not discuss impacts to certain resource areas since they
are not present in the project area, or would not be affected by the
proposed facilities in a manner substantially different than has
already been evaluated in the certificated project. These resource
areas include:
Onshore vegetation communities, including wetlands;
Onshore wildlife and fisheries; and
Recreation.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to lessen or avoid
impacts on the various resource areas.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be included 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 make
our recommendations to the Commission.
To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section of this notice.
Currently Identified Environmental Issues
FERC staff participated in a technical meeting with representatives
from Ocean Express and federal, state, and local agencies on September
24, 2004. We also attended a public open house (informational meeting)
sponsored by Ocean Express on October 7, 2004. The issues and concerns
identified by the commentors during those meetings will be considered
in the preparation of the EA.
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 Ocean Express. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis. The issues include:
Fishery resources and benthic communities, especially
relating to potential impacts to marine hardbottom habitats and coral
reef resources;
Water resources, including the potential for sedimentation
and/or turbidity effects associated with ``punch out'' at the eastern
terminus of the tunnel;
Tunnel stability and the potential for subsidence;
Aquatic toxicity of soil conditioners and foams used in
tunnel construction;
Potential impacts to operations at the U.S. Navy's Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Carderrock Division (NSWCCD) resulting from the
proposed modifications;
Increased onshore vehicle traffic and congestion
associated with the proposed modified installation method; and
Safety and security of the proposed modifications.
Ocean Express indicates that the proposed tunnel modification would
further avoid or minimize impacts to the nearshore reef systems and
significantly reduce the risk of unanticipated impacts, as compared to
the HDD construction methodology authorized by the FERC certificate.
Table 2 summarizes and compares the anticipated direct and indirect
marine habitat impacts associated with the proposed modifications to
those associated with the HDD construction methodology. Specifically,
the landfall HDD exit point, the 9,100-foot-long concrete mat covered
segment between the dominant reef trends, and the offshore HDD entry
location would be eliminated under the proposed modification.
Additionally, the pre-assembled pipestring that would have been floated
over the eastern most reef trend for installation within the landfall
HDD bore would be eliminated. Because these elements of the project and
their associated construction workspaces would be eliminated, Ocean
Express indicates that the tunnel modification would significantly
reduce direct impacts and the risk of inadvertent impacts in proximity
to the reefs. Further, Ocean Express states that the EPB tunnel boring
machine would not use drilling fluids under high pressure, thereby
eliminating the potential risk of a frac-out, which could potentially
have
[[Page 67721]]
occurred in association with the HDD installation methodology.
Ocean Express predicts that the equipment that would be used to
construct the microtunnel can be operated in a manner that would avoid
creation of a sediment plume in the marine environment at the tunnel
exit point. Additionally, the tunnel installation methodology would not
require dredging to excavate the tunnel exit point, which would be
required by the previously approved HDD installation method. Even
though the proposed tunnel installation methodology greatly reduces the
potential for turbidity and sedimentation generating activities, Ocean
Express continues to use its previous estimates for turbidity and
sedimentation associated with the HDD installation exit point as a
conservative measure of impact estimation. Ocean Express would also
continue with its plans to monitor for potential unanticipated
environmental damage, both during and after construction.
Table 2.--Ocean Express Pipeline Project Comparison of Marine Benthic Impacts in State of Florida Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certificated HDD installation method
Proposed tunnel installation method
--------------
Temporary impact (acres)
Permanent impact (acres)
Temporary impact (acres)
Permanent impact (acres)
--------------
Habitat type \1\
Habitat type \1\
--------------
Work area segment (state waters) Sand w/ Sand Sand w/ Sand Sand w/ Sand Sand w/ Sand
rubble rubble rubble rubble
-------------------------------------------------
West of Reef 3:
Direct Impact............................... 0.31 2.91 0.07 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Indirect Impact............................. 0.00 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
East of Reef 3:
Direct Impact............................... 0.38 1.02 0.16 0.29 0.36 0.86 0.15 0.38
Indirect Impact............................. 0.28 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.28 \2\ 0.69 0.00 0.00
--------------
Subtotal.................................. 0.97 8.71 0.23 2.07 0.64 1.55 0.15 0.38
--------------
Total Impact \3\........................ 1.20
10.78
0.79
1.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Sand w/Rubble'' (Habitat Type B) consists of sand and rubble habitat with 5 to 20 percent biotal coverage, while the remaining percentage consists
of sand and rubble with less than 5 percent biotal coverage. ``Sand'' (Habitat Type D) consists of sand in proximity to hardbottom/reef resources with
less than 5 percent biotal coverage.
\2\ This area corresponds to the previous estimates of sedimentation/turbidity impact associated with excavation of the offshore HDD exit location.
Ocean Express is continuing to use this value as a conservative estimate of the sedimentation/turbidity impacts that would be associated with the
microtunnel exit point.
\3\ Total impact includes estimated additive effect of both temporary and permanent impacts.
Ocean Express has reported that after extensive consultation with
tunneling experts, review of available geologic data, as well as a
review of previously completed tunneling projects, there appears to be
no major technical obstacles to successful completion of the proposed
tunnel. During tunnel construction, Ocean Express would implement
various measures to stabilize the tunnel and minimize the potential for
tunnel collapse. The overburden above the tunnel would be maintained at
a minimum of 30 feet, and pre-fabricated concrete segments designed to
withstand internal and external loading forces would be used to
stabilize the tunnel as the EPB tunnel boring machine advances.
Additionally, Ocean Express would implement a Tunnel Monitoring and
Control Program to ensure that tunnel stability is monitored and
maintained. The Commission will evaluate the feasibility of the
proposed tunnel modification in consideration of site-specific geologic
conditions and experience gained from other tunneling projects.
The U.S. Navy's NSWCCD is located in proximity to the proposed
nearshore pipeline route, and a portion of the proposed pipeline would
cross a U.S. Navy restricted area. The NSWCCD uses systems that are
highly sensitive to magnetic interference and could be affected by the
proposed pipeline project. In order to address the Navy's concerns,
Ocean Express proposed to construct approximately 3.8 miles of its
pipeline using low magnetic pipe. Under the proposed modification, this
portion of the pipeline would be reduced to 3.3 miles, but the
alignment would still traverse one corner of the Navy restricted area.
Ocean Express is coordinating the proposed modifications with the
NSWCCD and anticipates amending the February 5, 2003 Memorandum of
Agreement with NSWCCD to accommodate technical issues related to the
proposed modifications.
Spoil materials removed from the tunnel would be loaded on trucks
at the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle and removed offsite for
disposal. Ocean Express estimates that about 8,004 cubic yards of spoil
would be removed to construct the tunnel shaft and about 97,330 cubic
yards of spoil would be removed to construct the tunnel and microtunnel
corridors. Soil conditioners and foaming agents would be used to
stabilize the tunnel face during excavation activities and could
contaminate spoil material removed during excavation activities. Ocean
Express anticipates that proper handling of tunnel spoils would prevent
any potential degradation of soil, surface water, or ground water
quality.
The pre-fabricated concrete segments used to line the tunnel and
the pipeline segments installed within the portion of the tunnel
constructed using the EPB tunnel boring machine would be delivered to
the Dania Beach Boulevard Traffic Circle construction site. This
activity in combination with the removal of spoil from the site could
impact local traffic flow patterns. These activities would generate an
increased volume of traffic through the duration of the tunnel boring
and pipeline installation process, which is expected to last
approximately 15 months. Ocean Express is currently in the final stages
of revising its traffic study to gauge the anticipated increased truck
traffic in and around the Dania Beach Boulevard
[[Page 67722]]
Traffic Circle associated with implementation of the proposed
installation modifications. Ocean Express will file the traffic study
with FERC once the study is complete, but has indicated that it would
employ the necessary traffic control devices to ensure that
construction activities avoid or minimize any impact to the local
traffic flow. Day to day construction activities would be scheduled to
account for heavier than usual traffic flow and to avoid high traffic
periods. Additionally, an on-site storage facility at the Dania Beach
Boulevard Traffic Circle construction site would be designed to hold
several days of production materials to give added flexibility.
The pipeline and ancillary facilities associated with the proposed
project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation Minimum Federal
Safety Standards in 49 CFR part 192, and any other applicable safety
standards. These standards govern the distance between sectionalizing
block valves and require the pipeline owner to install cathodic
protection, use other corrosion-preventing procedures, and perform
various maintenance activities. During construction, pipeline weld
inspections and hydrostatic tests would be conducted to verify pipeline
integrity and ensure the pipeline's ability to withstand the maximum
designed operating pressure. Additionally, the proposed tunnel would be
designed, constructed, installed, inspected, operated, and maintained,
as applicable, in accordance with applicable U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Health and Safety Administration and local building code
requirements. Precautions would also be taken to ensure that the
facilities associated with the proposed modifications are secured
during operation. The natural gas vent and tunnel shaft utility access
building that would be located at the Dania Beach Traffic Circle, would
be enclosed within a secured fenced area and the access door to the
Tunnel Shaft Utility/Access building would be locked. The door and
fence would be alarmed to prevent intruders.
The non-jurisdictional facilities associated with the previously
certificated Ocean Express Pipeline Project, which consist of a
pipeline and liquefied natural gas terminal and regasification facility
that would be located within the jurisdiction of the Bahamian
government, are discussed in the FEIS. We will briefly describe the
location and status of these facilities in the EA.
Public Participation
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal
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 an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3.
Reference Docket No. CP02-90-003.
Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC, on or before December 20, 2004.
Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under
the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments you will need to create a free account which can be
created on-line.
Becoming an Intervenor
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. 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 3).\4\ Only intervenors have
the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.
Environmental Mailing List
This notice is being sent to landowners, individuals,
organizations, and government entities that expressed an interest in
the original project and received a copy of FERC's Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Ocean Express Pipeline Project (issued
November 28, 2003). By this notice we are also asking governmental
agencies, especially those in Appendix 4, to express their interest in
becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA.
Additional Information
Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings. General information about the MMS and
detailed information regarding Florida state and federal waters can be
accessed at the MMS Internet Web site (http://www.mms.gov).
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
[[Page 67723]]
Finally, public meetings or site visits, if conducted, would be
posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E4-3259 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P