Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66355

1 Viking Voyageur Gas Transmission Company,

L.L.C.’s application was filed with the Commission

Continued

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

12. PECO Energy Company

[Docket No. ER98–779–000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, PECO Energy Company (PECO),

filed under § 205 of the Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq., a Transaction

Agreement dated October 30, 1997, with

Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (Enron),

under PECO’s FERC Electric Tariff

Original Volume No. 1 (Tariff). The

Transaction Agreement is for a term of

fourteen (14) months.

PECO requests an effective date of

November 1, 1997, for the Transaction

Agreement.

PECO states that copies of this filing

have been supplied to Enron and to the

Pennsylvania Public Utility

Commission.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

13. PECO Energy Company

[Docket No. ER98–780–000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, PECO Energy Company (PECO),

filed under § 205 of the Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq., a Transaction

Agreement dated October 30, 1997, with

NorAm Energy Management, Inc.

(NEM), under PECO’s FERC Electric

Tariff Original Volume No. 1 (Tariff).

The Transaction Agreement is for a term

of fourteen (14) months.

PECO requests an effective date of

November 1, 1997, for the Transaction

Agreement.

PECO states that copies of this filing

have been supplied to NEM and to the

Pennsylvania Public Utility

Commission.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

14. Union Electric Company

[Docket No. ER98–781–000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, Union Electric Company (UE),

tendered for filing Service Agreements

for Non-Firm Point-to-Point

Transmission Services between UE and

AIG Trading Corporation and Tenaska

Power Services Company. UE asserts

that the purpose of the Agreements is to

permit UE to provide transmission

service to the parties pursuant to UE’s

Open Access Transmission Tariff filed

in Docket No. OA96–50.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

15. Union Electric Company

[Docket No. ER98–782–000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, Union Electric Company (UE),

tendered for filing Service Agreements

for Market Based Rate Power Sales

between UE and Morgan Stanley Capital

Group Inc., and PacifiCorp Power

Marketing, Inc. UE asserts that the

purpose of the Agreements is to permit

UE to make sales of capacity and energy

at market based rates to the parties

pursuant to UE’s Market Based Rate

Power Sales Tariff filed in Docket No.

ER97–3664–000.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

16. Union Electric Company

[Docket No. ER98–783–0000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, Union Electric Company (UE),

tendered for filing Service Agreements

for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission

Services between UE and AIG Trading

Corporation, Morgan Stanley Capital

Group Inc., and Tenaska Power Services

Company. UE asserts that the purpose of

the Agreements is to permit UE to

provide transmission service to the

parties pursuant to UE’s Open Access

Transmission Tariff filed in Docket No.

OA96–50.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

17. PECO Energy Company

[Docket No. ER98–784–000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, PECO Energy Company (PECO),

filed under § 205 of the Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq., a Transaction

Agreement dated October 30, 1997, with

Horizon Energy company (HORIZON

ENERGY) under PECO’s FERC Electric

Tariff Original Volume No. 1 (Tariff).

The Transaction Agreement is for a term

of fourteen (14) months.

PECO requests an effective date of

November 1, 1997, for the Transaction

Agreement.

PECO states that copies of this filing

have been supplied to HORIZON

ENERGY and to the Pennsylvania Public

Utility Commission.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

18. The Empire District Electric

Company

[Docket No. ER98–785–000]

Take notice that on November 25,

1997, The Empire District Electric

Company (EDE), tendered for filing a

service agreement between EDE and

Aquilla Power Corp., providing firm

point-to-point transmission service

pursuant to the open access

transmission tariff (Schedule OATS) of

EDE.

EDE states that a copy of this filing

has been served by mail upon Aquilla

Power Corp., 10750 E 350 Highway,

Kansas City, MO 64138.

Comment date: December 29, 1997, 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. 97–33040 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. CP98–60–000; and CP98–62–

000]

Viking Voyageur Gas Transmission

Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To

Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement for the Proposed Viking

Voyageur Pipeline Project, Request for

Comments on Environmental Issues,

and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

and Site Visit

December 15, 1997.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) will prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

that will discuss the environmental

impacts of the construction and

operation of the facilities proposed in

the Viking Voyageur Pipeline Project.1
66356 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

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, NE,

Room 2A, Washington DC 20426, or call (202) 208–

1371. Copies of the appendices were sent to all

those receiving this notice in the mail.

This EIS will be used by the

Commission in its decision-making

process to determine whether the

project is in the public convenience and

necessity.

Additionally, with this notice we are

asking a number of Federal agencies (see

appendix 2) with jurisdiction and/or

special expertise with respect to

environmental issues to cooperate with

use in the preparation of the EIS. These

agencies may choose to participate once

they have evaluated the proposal

relative to their agencies’

responsibilities.2

Summary of the Proposed Project

Viking Voyageur Gas Transmission

Company, L.L.C. (Voyageur) proposes to

build new natural gas pipeline and

compression facilities to transport 1.4

billion cubic feet per day of natural gas

from Noyes, Minnesota to Joliet, Illinois

to move new natural gas supplies from

western Canada markets to the Upper

Midwest.

Voyageur requests Commission

authorization, in Docket No. CP98–60–

000, to construct and operate the

following facilities:

• 773 miles of 42-inch-diameter

pipeline extending from the border of

the United States (U.S.) and Canada

near Noyes, Minnesota in Kittson

County to a point near Joliet, Illinois in

Will County. Of the 773-mile-long

mainline, about 359 miles would be

located in Minnesota, 325 miles in

Wisconsin, and 89 miles in Illinois;

• 22 new meter stations including

one in Kittson County, Minnesota, four

in Wood County, Wisconsin, two in

Waushara County, Wisconsin, two in

Dodge County, Wisconsin, one in

Jefferson County, Wisconsin, three in

Walworth County, Wisconsin, three in

McHenry County, Illinois, one in Kane

County, Illinois, one in Kendall County,

Illinois, and four in Will County,

Illinois;

• Four compressor stations each with

31,000 horsepower of compression in

Kittson County, Minnesota, Otter Tail

County, Minnesota, Polk County,

Wisconsin, and Waushara County,

Wisconsin. The two compressor stations

in Minnesota and the compressor

station in Polk County, Wisconsin

would be built within the fenced

property of existing Viking Gas

Transmission Company compressor

station sites;

• Associated pipeline facilities,

including 48 new mainline valves and

four pig launchers and five pig

receivers, and permanent access roads

for access to compressor stations and

valves; and

• Two new operations and

maintenance facilities in Walworth

County, Wisconsin and Kendall County,

Illinois.

The general location of Viking

Voyageur’s proposed project facilities is

shown in appendix 1. If you are

interested in obtaining procedural

information, please write to the

Secretary of the Commission.

In addition, Voyageur requests in

Docket No. CP98–62–000 a Presidential

Permit to site, construct, operate, own,

and maintain facilities at the

international border between the U.S.

and Canada near Noyes, Minnesota.

Voyageur’s pipeline would originate at

the point of interconnection with the

Canadian facilities of TransVoyageur

Gas Transmission.

In Illinois and Wisconsin, several

local distribution companies are

considering building lateral pipelines to

interconnect with Voyageur. Although

these facilities would not be under the

jurisdiction of the FERC, to the extent

they can be identified they will be

discussed in the EIS. The following is a

list of the nonjurisdictional laterals

currently under consideration:

Lateral pipeline

Pipeline

diameter

(inches)

Approximate

length

(miles)

State

Marshfield .. 6 1.9 WI

Wausau ..... 12 65.0 WI

Wisconsin

Rapids .... 6 0.2 WI

Steven

Point ....... 8 20.7 WI

Green Bay/

Sheboygan ......... 30/24/12 191.8 WI

Madison ..... 16 42.8 WI

Milwaukee 22 32.5 WI

Eagle ......... 16 7.6 WI

Delavan ..... 8 0.6 WI

Hampshire 16 0.11 IL

Plano ......... 20 0.34 IL

Aux Sable .. 20 0.21 IL

Land Requirements for Construction

Approximately 670 miles (86 percent)

of Voyageur’s pipeline would be

installed parallel to various existing

utility rights-of-way. Where possible,

Voyageur’s right-of-way would overlap

the existing rights-of-way as much as 85

feet during construction to minimize

impacts. Voyageur’s proposed route

deviates from the existing rights-of-way

in selected locations to avoid impact on

homes, existing utility structures (meter

stations, etc.), improve waterbody

crossings, and for other environmental

or engineering reasons.

Construction of the Viking Voyageur

Pipeline Project would affect a total of

about 12,851 acres. Of this total, about

10,321 acres would be disturbed by

construction along the pipeline right-ofway. The aboveground facilities would

affect about 72 acres of land during

construction. Pipe storage, staging ares

and warehouse sites would affect about

2,458 acres. All these acreage figures are

subject to change.

Voyageur proposes to use a right-ofway width of 105 feet for construction,

with provisions for additional

temporary work areas as necessary for

waterbody, highway and railroad

crossings, and extra topsoil storage.

Following construction and restoration

of the right-of-way and temporary work

spaces, Voyageur would retain a 30-to

50-foot-wide permanent pipeline rightof-way depending on whether the

pipeline is co-located with other

utilities or on new right-of-way. Total

land requirements for the permanent

right-of-way would be about 4,476 acres.

About 72 acres would be retained for

the operation of the new aboveground

facilities. The remaining 8,303 acres of

land affected by construction of the

project would be restored and allowed

to revert to its former use.

The EIS 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 EIS 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 EIS. All comments

received are considered during the

preparation of the EIS. 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.

Currently Identified Environmental

Issues

The EIS will discuss impacts that

could occur as a result of the

construction and operation of the

proposed project. We have already
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices 66357

identified a number of issues that we

think deserve attention based on a

preliminary review of the proposed

facilities and the environmental

information provided by Voyageur.

These issues are listed below. This is a

preliminary list of issues and may be

changed based on your comments and

our analysis.

• Air Quality and Noise

—Effect on local air quality and noise

environment as a result of

construction.

—Effect on local air quality and noise

environment as a result of operation

of the compressor stations.

• Soils

—Temporary and permanent impacts on

prime farmland soils.

—Mixing of topsoil and subsoil during

construction.

—Compaction of soil by heavy

equipment.

—Impacts on drain tiles and irrigation

systems.

—Erosion control and right-of-way

restoration.

• Water Resources

—Effect of construction on areas with

shallow

—Effect of construction on crossings of

186 perennial waterbodies.

—Crossing of 14 rivers 100 feet wide or

greater.

—Crossing the St. Croix River which is

designated as a National Scenic

Waterway containing federally listed

endangered mussels, and the Rum

River which is designated as a

Minnesota State Wild and Scenic

River.

—Crossing 21 trout streams, 7

exceptional resource waters, 4

outstanding resource waters, 2

Northern Pike spawning waters, and 1

wildlife/fish migration corridor.

—Potential for erosion and sediment

transport to the waterbodies.

—Effect of construction on groundwater

and surface water supplies.

—Impact on wetland hydrology.

• Biological Resources

—Short- and long-term effects of rightof-way clearing and maintenance on

wetlands, forests, riparian areas, and

vegetation communities of special

concern.

—Effect on wildlife and fisheries

habitats.

—Impact on federally threatened

species such as the bald eagle and

prairie bush clover, and federally

endangered species such as the

Karner blue butterfly, gray wolf,

winged mapleleaf mussel, Higgins’

eye pearly mussel, and the Indian bat.

• Cultural Resources

—Effect on historic and prehistoric

sites.

—Native American concerns.

• Socioeconomics

—Effect of the construction workforce

on demands for services in

surrounding areas.

—Impact on property values.

• Land Use

—Impact on crop production.

—Impact on residential areas.

—Effect on public lands and special use

areas including waterfowl production

areas, state game refuge, state wildlife

management areas, national and state

scenic trails, state forest lands, state

canoe rivers, state parks and

recreation areas, public fishing areas,

public hunting grounds, and forest

preserves.

—Impact on future land uses and

consistency with local land use plans

and zoning.

—Visual effect of the aboveground

facilities on surrounding areas.

• Reliability and Safety

—Assessment of hazards associated

with natural gas pipelines.

• Cumulative Impact

—Assessment of the combined effect of

the proposed project with other

projects, including other natural gas

transmission and distribution lines,

which have been or may be proposed

in the same region and similar time

frames.

•Nonjurisdictional Facilities

—Assessment of the effects of the

construction of lateral pipelines that

would be entirely within state

jurisdiction.

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 Draft EIS which

will be mailed to Federal, state, and

local agencies, public interest groups,

affected landowners and other

interested individuals, newspapers,

libraries, and the Commission’s official

service list for this proceeding. A 45-day

comment period will be allotted for

review of the Draft EIS. We will

consider all comments on the Draft EIS

and revise the document, as necessary,

before issuing a Final EIS. The Final EIS

will include our response to each

comment received on the Draft EIS and

will be used by the Commission in its

decision-making process to determine

whether to approve the project.

Public Participation and Scoping

Meetings

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:

• Send two copies to: Lois Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Room 1A, Washington, D.C. 20426.

• Label one copy of the comments for

the attention of the Environmental

Review and Compliance Branch, PR–

11.1;

• Reference Docket Nos. CP98–60–

000 and CP98–62–000; and

• Mail your comments so that they

will be received in Washington, D.C. on

or before January 20, 1998.

In addition to or in lieu of sending

written comments, we invite you to

attend the public scoping meetings the

FERC will conduct in the project area.

The locations and times for these

meetings are listed below.

Schedure of Public Scoping Meetings

for the Viking Voyageur Pipeline

Project Environmental Impact

Statement

Jan. 5, 1998 7:00 pm—Elgin, Illinois,

Holiday Inn, 345 West River Road,

847–695–5000

Jan. 6, 1998 7:00 pm—Nekoosa,

Wisconsin, Lake Arrowhead

Clubhouse, 1195 Apache Lane, 715–

325–2938

Jan. 7, 1998 7:00 pm—Dresser,

Wisconsin, Trollhaugen Ski Area,

Convention Center, 2232 100th

Avenue, 715–755–2955

Jan. 8, 1998 1:00 pm—Crookston,

Minnesota, Northland Inn, Highway

2, 218–281–5210

7:30 pm—Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,

Holiday Inn, 1155 Highway 10 East,

218–847–2121.

The public meetings are designed to

provide you with more detailed

information and another opportunity to

offer your comments on the proposed

project. Voyageur representatives will

be present at the scoping meetings to

describe their proposal. Interested

groups and individuals are encouraged

to attend the meetings and to present

comments on the environmental issues
66358 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Notices

they believe should be addressed in the

Draft EIS. A transcript of each meeting

will be made so that your comments

will be accurately recorded.

On the dates of the meetings, we will

also be conducting limited site visits to

the project area. Anyone interested in

participating in the site visit may

contact the Commission’s Office of

External Affairs identified at the end of

this notice for more details and must

provide their own transportation.

Becoming an Intervenor

In addition to involvement in the EIS

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 3).

The date for filing of timely motions

to intervene in this proceeding has been

extended to January 4, 1998. After that

date, parties 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.

Environmental Mailing List

This notice is being sent to

individuals, organizations, and

government entities interested in and/or

potentially affected by the proposed

project. It is also being sent to all

identified potential right-of-way

grantors. As details of the project

become established, representatives of

Voyageur may also separately contact

landowners, communities, and public

agencies concerning project matters,

including acquisition of permits and

rights-of-way.

All commentors will be retained on

our mailing list. If you do not want to

send comments at this time but still

want to keep informed and receive

copies of the Draft and Final EIS, you

must return the Information Request

(appendix 4). If you do not send

comments or return the Information

Request, you will be taken off the

mailing list.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Paul

McKee in the Commission’s Office of

External Affairs at (202) 208–1088.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–33039 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Transfer of License

December 12, 1997.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Transfer of

License.

b. Project No.: 2347–022.

c. Date filed: November 5, 1997.

d. Applicants: Wisconsin Power &

Light Company and Midwest Hydro,

Inc.

e. Name of Project: Janesville Central.

f. Location: On the Rock River, in the

City of Janesville, in Rock County,

Wisconsin.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 USC 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicants Contact: Charles

Alsberg, President, MIdwest Hydro, Inc.,

116 State Street, P.O. BOX 167,

Neshkoro, WI 54960, (920) 292–4628.

i. FERC Contact: Thomas F. Papsidero

(202) 219–2715.

j. Comment Date: January 28, 1998.

k. Description of Filing: Application

to transfer the license for the Janesville

Central Project to Midwest Hydro, Inc.

l. This notice also consists of the

following standard paragraphs: B, C1 &

D2.

B. Comments, Protests, or Motions to

Intervene—Anyone may submit

comments, a protest, or a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.

In determining the appropriate action to

take, the Commission will consider all

protests or other comments filed, but

only those who file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

Commission’s Rules may become a

party to the proceeding. Any comments,

protests, or motions to intervene must

be received on or before the specified

comment date for the particular

application.

C1. Filing and Service of Responsive

Documents—Any filings must bear in

all capital letters the title

‘‘COMMENTS’’,

‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS

AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, OR

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as

applicable, and the Project Number of

the particular application to which the

filing refers. Any of the above-named

documents must be filed by providing

the original and the number of copies

provided by the Commission’s

regulations to: The Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

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

20426. A copy of any motion to

intervene must also be served upon each

representative of the Applicant

specified in the particular application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,

state, and local agencies are invited to

file comments on the described

application. A copy of the application

may be obtained by agencies directly

from the Applicant. If an agency does

not file comments within the time

specified for filing comments, it will be

presumed to have no comments. One

copy of an agency’s comments must also

be sent to the Applicant’s

representatives.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–32977 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Transfer of License

December 12, 1997.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a. Type of Application: Transfer of

License.

b. Project No.: 2348–013.

c. Date filed: November 5, 1997.

d. Applicants: Wisconsin Power &

Light Company and Midwest Hydro,

Inc.

e. Name of Project: Beloit Blackhawk.

f. Location: On the Rock River, near

the City of Beloit, in Rock County,

Wisconsin.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act, 16 USC 791(a)–825(r).

h. Applicants Contact: Charles

Alsberg, President, Midwest Hydro, Inc.,

116 State Street, P.O. Box 167,

Neshkoro, WI 54960, (920) 292–4628.

i. FERC Contact: Thomas F. Papsidero

(202) 219–2715.

j. Comment Date: January 28, 1998.

k. Description of Filing: Application

to transfer the license for the Beloit

Blackhawk Project to Midwest Hydro,

Inc.