10036 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices

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, NE., Washington, DC

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.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5339 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket Nos. CP96–178–000, CP96–178–

002, CP96–248–000, CP96–248–003, CP96–

249–000, CP96–249–003 and CP97–238–000]

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.,

Portland Natural Gas Transmission

System, and Portland Natural Gas

Transmission System and Maritimes &

Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of

Technical Conference

February 27, 1997.

On March 6, 1997, the Commission

staff will convene a technical

conference with Maritimes & Northeast

Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes) and

Portland Natural Gas Transmission

System (PNGTS) in response to

PNGTS’s February 24, 1997 request. The

purpose of this technical conference is

to discuss the filing of the revised

environmental report in Docket No.

CP97–238–000 scheduled to be made by

PNGTS and Maritimes on March 17,

1997 and the amendment to be filed by

PNGTS in Docket Nos. CP96–249–000,

et al. In addition, procedures will be

discussed to make the subject filings

suitable for analysis by the Commission

staff. Further, PNGTS and Maritimes

should be prepared to discuss the

attached questions from staff and should

answer them in writing as part of the

proposed March 17, 1997 filing. The

meeting will begin at 9:30 am, in a room

to be designated at the Commission’s

headquarters, 888 First Street NE,

Washington, DC.

When adequate information is filed in

the joint application to permit it to be

publicly noticed and when all related

amendments in the PNGTS and

Maritimes proceedings are filed and

considered complete, the Commission

staff will issue a notice to convene a

technical conference to be held at a

location near the proposed joint project

area. The exact time and location will be

provided in that notice.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

Appendix

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.L.C

(M&NP); Portland Natural Gas

Transmission System (PNGTS); Docket

No. CP96–178–000 et al.

Environmental Information Request

1. The following facilities are listed in

only the application or table 1–2 of

resource report 1 (not both), filed on

February 10, 1997. Please clarify if they

are proposed for the Joint Facilities

Project:

a. The 0.6-mile-long, 20-inch-diameter

Haverhill Lateral and associated meter

station for the interconnection with

Tennessee Gas Pipe Line Company

(Tennessee) (application page 14);

b. the Granite State Meter Station on

the Newington Lateral for the

interconnection with Granite State

(application page 13);

c. the interconnection with Public

Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) from

the acquired Northern Utilities Meter

Station (application page 14); and

d. the S.D. Warren Meter Station on

the Westbrook Lateral (resource report

table 1–2, page 7).

2. If the Haverhill Lateral is part of the

Joint Facilities Project, update the

resource tables to include all relevant

environmental information.

3. if the Northern Utilities meter

station is acquired for the

interconnection with PSNH, what

modifications would be required and

how much land would be disturbed?

4. Provide a listing by milepost (MP)

of all areas along the Joint Facilities

mainline and laterals that have not been

surveyed.

5. M&NP and PNGTS indicate that the

following information will be filed

when they become available:

a. Original U.S. Geological (USGS)

7.5-minute-series topographic maps

with mileposts showing the proposed

route and meter stations;

b. alignment sheets (scale not smaller

than 1:6,000) showing the exact location

of all meter stations, pig launchers/

receivers, block values and any other

aboveground facilities, staging areas and

extra work spaces, pipe storage yards,

and temporary and permanent access

roads needed during construction and

operation (scheduled for March 17,

1997);

c. acreage of each wetland disturbed

during construction and acreage of

forested wetlands that would be

permanently converted to other cover

types;

d. volume, discharge rate, and source

and discharge locations of hydrostatic

test water;

e. residences within 50 feet of the

construction work area by milepost and

site-specific plans for residences closer

than 25 feet to the construction work

area; and

f. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control

Guidelines (Guidelines) for the Joint

Facilities Project. When filing these

Guidelines, clearly indicate whether all

of the provisions contained in our

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and

Maintenance Plan and Wetland and

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation

Procedures (Procedures) are

incorporated. For any individual

provision that M&NP and PNGTS

consider unnecessary, technically

infeasible, or unsuitable due to local

conditions, please provide alternative

measures that M&NP and PNGTS would

use to ensure an equal or greater level

of protection. Be specific and definitive

in describing these alternative measures.

Please provide the above items or a

schedule indicating when they will be

filed.

6. Provide right-of-way cross section

diagrams for segments of the mainline

and laterals that would parallel existing

rights-of-way. Clearly indicate the

amount of existing right-of-way that is

presently maintained clear of forest

vegetation.

7. These project plan/reports

previously filed by M&NP and PNGTS

contain differing data and mitigation

techniques. Please provide the following

to resolve these inconsistencies:

a. A wetland delineation report for the

Joint Facilities Project.

b. A spill prevention and containment

plan detailing specific measures that

would be taken to cleanup and dispose

of any accidental discharge within a

municipal watershed, or within 100 feet

of wetlands or waterbodies. Indicate

what portions of our Procedures

(version 12/2/94) M&NP and PNGTS

will incorporative into its plan, and for

those it will not, indicate why and what

alternative measures would be used.

c. A plan prepared in consultation

with the Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, and Maine State Historic

Preservation Officers (SHPO) identifying

the procedures M&NP and PNGTS will

follow if human remains are discovered

during cultural resources investigations

or construction, or if unanticipated

historic properties are discovered

during construction.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10037

d. A directional drill contingency

plan that what describes what methods

M&NP and PNGTS would use to contain

and manage drilling muds during

construction.

e. Resource Report 11, Reliability and

Safety.

8. Provide copies or the current status

of all required Federal, state, and local

government approvals.

9. Provide a detailed description of

the construction techniques to be used

for the Squamscott River (MP 34.2),

Piscataqua River (MP 47.9), Mousam

River (MP 73.1), Saco River (MP 81.8),

and Presumpscot River (MP 97.6)

crossings. The descriptions should

include:

a. Crossing method to be used (open

cut or directional drill);

b. if open cut, the method to be used

to excavate the trench underwater;

c. if open cut, the techniques to be

used to minimize turbidity and

sedimentation impacts associated with

trenching in the river;

d. if open cut, the location of spoil

storage areas and the mitigative

measures that would be used to control

and store the spoil;

e. if open cut, the method to be used

to pull the pipeline across the river,

including the amount of time required

for the pull;

f. if open cut, the material and method

to be used to backfill the trench

underwater;

g. an explanation of the location and

size requirements of the extra

workspaces on each bank (such as

trench size and work to be done in each

workspace); and

h. an estimate of the total length of

time required for each phase of

construction (such as river crossings

and restoration).

Please indicate if either M&NP’s or

PNGTS’s previously filed river crossing

plans for any of these waterbodies are

still accurate for the Joint Facilities

Project. There is no need to re-file river

crossing plans that are still current.

10. In its February 24, 1997 data

response, PNGTS stated that due to

favorable geotechnical conditions, it

intends to directionally drill the

crossing of the Piscataqua River. The

Joint Facilities Project environmental

report shows M&NP’s proposed crossing

as the preferred location. If an open-cut

crossing of the Piscataqua River is still

proposed, please provide a summary of

discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and state (New Hampshire

and Maine) agencies concerning the

feasibility and impact of an open-cut. If

no discussions have taken place,

provide a schedule for future

discussions with those agencies.

11. In its February 24, 1997 data

response, PNGTS stated that due to

unfavorable geotechnical conditions,

directional drilling of the crossings of

the Powwow River, Great Brook, their

associated wetlands, and New

Hampshire State Route 107A

(approximate MPs 26.5 to 26.9) is

inappropriate. PNGTS proposes a

combined open-cut/push-pull

technique. Provide responses to items b

through h in question 10, as well as any

additional measures PNGTS will take to

mitigate impacts on these waterbodies

and wetlands.

12. Provide a site-specific crossing

plan for the Exeter River (MP 29.7) that

addresses:

a. Protection of the downstream

drinking water supply;

b. avoidance of riparian vegetation

removal or active restoration of the

riparian zone with woody vegetation;

c. minimization of sedimentation; and

d. avoidance of interference with

migratory fisheries.

13. Discuss the feasibility of crossing

Branch Brook (MP 71.2) using a dry

crossing technique (e.g., flume, dam and

pump, horizontal bore, directional

drill). Provide a site-specific crossing

plan that addresses protection of the

downstream drinking water supply.

Indicate the downstream distance to all

drinking water intakes. Provide copies

of all correspondence and describe

communications with appropriate

agencies and/or water supply

authorities regarding the crossing of

Branch Brook.

14. Provide a report summarizing

your January 28, 1997 meeting with the

Maine Department of Environmental

Protection regarding stream crossing

issues, which you stated would be filed

with the Commission on or about

February 4, 1997.

15. Will M&NP and PNGTS prohibit

refueling activities and storage of

hazardous liquids within at least a 200-

foot-radius of all private wells and at

least a 400-foot-radius of all municipal

or community water supply wells? If

not, how would M&NP and PNGTS

minimize the potential for

contamination of private and

municipal/community water supply

wells?

16. M&NP and PNGTS indicate that

potentially contaminated sediments

may be found in the Great Bay

tributaries, Pickering Brook, Piscataqua

River, and Saco River tributaries and in

soils within the former Pease Airforce

Base. Provide copies of all relevant

correspondence and provide specific

construction and mitigation measures

that would be used to contain and avoid

spread of contaminants found in

sediments or soils.

17. Table 3–3 indicates that one

federally listed endangered species, the

small whorled pogonia (Isotria

medeoloides) occurs within the pipeline

corridor. Provide:

a. A copy of the 1996 survey report

prepared by qualified biologists using

U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) approved

survey methods. The survey report must

include the following information:

(1) Name(s) and qualifications of

person(s) conducting the survey;

(2) method(s) used to conduct the

survey;

(3) date(s) of survey;

(4) areas surveyed (include

mileposts);

(5) potential impacts, both beneficial

and negative, that could result from

construction of the proposed project;

and

(6) proposed mitigation that would

substantially minimize or eliminate

these potential negative impacts.

b. FWS comments on the survey

conducted.

c. A timetable for completion of any

surveys for this species that are

scheduled for 1997, including all

previously unidentified extra work

areas, staging areas, and access roads.

18. Provide a copy of the consolidated

report on state rare, threatened, and

endangered species surveys conducted

in 1996 and copies of all relevant recent

correspondence with state agencies.

Also, provide a timetable for completion

of the 1997surveys and filing of the

report, and the species to be surveyed.

19. For all staging areas, extra work

spaces, pipe storage areas, and other

similar areas that would disturb

wetlands, provide the following

information:

a. MP location;

b. dimensions;

c. type of wetland that would be

disturbed;

d. acreage of wetland that would be

disturbed; and

e. reasons the wetland cannot be

avoided.

20. Table 6–2 identifies 11 active sand

and gravel pits where PNGTS and

M&NP will coordinate their activities

with the owners, and 25 other mineral

operations in the project vicinity.

Identify any access roads to active sand

and gravel pits that would be crossed by

the pipeline. Provide the MP location of

each road and copies of correspondence

and records of communications with the

owners/operators of these sand and

gravel pits. Discuss plans to minimize

disruption of these operations.

21. Provide the locations by MP of all

septic systems that would be crossed by
10038 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices

the Joint Facilities Project. What do

M&NP and PNGTS intend to do if a

septic system is damaged during

construction and cannot be repaired to

its former capacity?

22. Provide the following information

on the proposed developments in

Plaistow (MP 19.4), Newton (MPS 21.8

and 23.5), and Greenland (MP 40.1):

a. Development plans filed with the

towns;

b. status of permitting; and

c. status of construction.

23. For all public or designated

recreation land identified on table 8–3,

describe the areas that would be affected

and any requested or proposed

mitigation to minimize impact on

natural resources or recreational

activities.

24. If any of the meter stations include

pressure reduction/regulation valves

and line heaters, provide the expected

Ldn at the nearest noise sensitive areas

(specify direction and distance) near the

stations. What measures would be used

to limit noise from these meter stations?

25. PNGTS and M&NP have not

identified extra work areas, staging

areas, or access roads and assessed

potential impact on cultural resources

from these activities. Please consult

with the State Historic Preservation

Officers as these locations are identified

regarding the need for cultural resources

surveys and the appropriate level of

intensity of those surveys. If additional

surveys are needed, update the schedule

provided in your January 27, 1997 filing

for when they would be done. Also,

update Table 4.5 (areas requiring

survey) from the January 27, 1997 filing.

Include the following in the updated

schedule and Table:

a. Areas where deep testing is

required; and

b. areas requiring additional

archeological evaluation.

All material filed with the

Commission containing location,

character, and ownership information

about cultural resources must have the

cover and any relevant pages therein

clearly labeled in bold lettering:

‘‘CONTAINS PRIVILEGED

INFORMATION—DO NOT RELEASE.’’

26. Provide photoalignment sheets or

USGS 7.5-minute-series maps of the

Joint Facilities pipeline route and

mileposts that show the following:

a. Beginning and ending points of all

areas where cultural resource

identification surveys have been

completed;

b. beginning and ending points of all

areas where cultural resource

identification surveys remain to be

completed; and

c. locations (including boundaries

where these are known or can be

estimated) of all identified cultural

resources located on or immediately

adjacent to the project’s construction

right-of-way or extra work areas,

including those listed in table 4–1.

27. Please initiate discussions with

the SHPOs regarding the acceptability of

letter type clearance reports for

individual areas as needed, and a final

consolidation report for the entire

project, as an approach to the numerous

small parcel surveys which this project

may require. Provide the results of these

discussions and the reaction of each

SHPO to this approach.

28. Provide copies of the NRHP

nomination forms for the William Fogg

Library and the Conway Junction

Railroad Turntable Site.

29. Please document all

correspondence and other consultation

with Indian tribes, Native American

groups, ethnic groups, and other

interested persons concerning cultural

resource issues.

30. Please provide a schedule for

when treatment plans for effected

significant cultural resources would be

submitted. See section VIII in OPR’s

‘‘Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural

Resources Investigations’’ (Guidelines).

31. On October 10, 1996, M&NP’s

Cultural Resources Executive Summary

indicated that Native American

archaeological sites were located at

M&NP’s MPs 21.5 and 31.0. Table 4–1

of Resource Report 4 for the Joint

Facilities Project identifies four

arheological sites at M&NP MPs 20.4,

22.8, 20.1 and 32.5 Please explain this

discrepancy.

32. In order to reduce land use

impacts, discuss the feasibility of

installing the Dracut Meter Station

adjacent to the existing Tennessee Meter

Station north of Methuen Street.

33. To minimize impacts within the

Arrow Woods subdivision (MPs 4.5 to

5.3), discuss the feasibility of installing

the pipeline on the edge or within the

existing New England Power right-ofway.

34. Provide an explanation for the

selection of the proposed joint route in

the following areas:

a. Between MPs 17.1 and 18.0, the

proposed route would cross North

Avenue between two residences and

then use an existing residential road

which provides access to six residences.

M&NP’s original route in this area

would only affect three residences and

would cross diagonally through an

empty lot.

b. The Maine Nature Conservancy has

indicated a preference for the pipeline

to be placed on the east side of the

powerline through the Kennebunk

Plains (MPs 71.0 to 72.2). The proposed

route (PNGTS’s) would be on the west

side of the powerline. M&NP’s route

was on the east side.

c. The National Spiritual Assembly of

the Baha’s indicated concern with a

pipeline crossing through Monsalvat

(also known Sunset Hill) because of its

significant cultural and religious value

(MPs 49.0 to 49.5). The proposed route

would cross the western portion of this

area. M&NP proposed Reroute 2 would

entirely avoid this area.

d. The selection of the PNGTS route

for the Westbrook Lateral instead of the

M&NP route. Provide an environmental

comparison of these two routes that

includes:

(1) Acreage of both the permanent and

construction right-of-way;

(2) the size and location of any nontypical work areas required;

(3) the length in miles that would be

adjacent to existing rights-of-way,

including any proposed overlap of the

construction or permanent right-of-way;

(4) the number of residences, schools,

or hospitals within 50 feet of the edge

of the construction right-of-way;

(5) the distances to Westbrook Junior

High School (MPs 1.74–1.94), and

Westbrook Community Hospital (MPs

2.14–2.24), and copies of all

correspondence with these facilities

regarding the proposed right-of-way.

(6) the number of waterbodies and

wetlands crossed and the length of each

wetland crossing; and

(7) the acres of forest that would be

cleared.

M&NP and PNGTS may supplement

its response with other information that

may be relevant to the analysis of the

alternative and/or with suggestions to

the route that would result in fewer

environmental impacts.

35. In our December 10, 1996 letter,

we identified the M&NP independent

route from MPs 35.8 to 36.9 as part of

our potential joint pipeline route.

However, you state that your route for

that segment is ‘‘virtually the same as

M&NP’s independent route’’, and the

same segment of ‘‘the FERC route

involves a new ROW alignment’’. Please

explain.

[FR Doc. 97–5331 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M