Notice of Updated Information Concerning the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project and Equitrans Expansion Project and the Associated Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments, 25761-25764 [2017-11488]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices
required in order to approve the final
Plan.
3. Decide whether and/or how to
mitigate the effects of the proposed
mining operation to existing public
motorized access.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Final EIS and Record of Decision
The Forest Service would release a
draft ROD in conjunction with the final
EIS. The draft ROD would address
approval of the Plan, and any related
project-specific Forest Plan or Travel
Plan amendments that may be required.
The draft decision would be subject to
36 CFR 218, ‘‘Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review
Process.’’ Depending on the nature of
the forest plan amendments required,
the draft decisions may also be subject
to 36 CFR 219 Subpart B, ‘‘Predecisional Administrative Review
Process.’’
Following resolution of objections to
the draft ROD, a final ROD would be
issued. As the operator, Midas Gold
would have an opportunity to appeal
the decision as set forth at 36 CFR 214,
‘‘Postdecisional Administrative Review
Process for Occupancy and Use of
National Forest System Lands and
Resources.’’
Prior to approval of the Plan, Midas
Gold may be required to modify the
September 2016 Plan to comply with
the description of the selected
alternative in the final ROD. In addition,
the PNF Forest Supervisor would
require Midas Gold to submit a
reclamation bond or provide proof of
other acceptable financial assurance to
ensure that NFS lands and resources
involved with the mining operation are
reclaimed in accordance with the
approved Plan and Forest Service
requirements for environmental
protection (36 CFR 228.8 and 228.13).
After the Forest Service has determined
that the Plan conforms to the ROD as
well as other regulatory requirements,
including acceptance of financial
assurance for reclamation, it would
approve the Plan. Implementation of
mining operations that affect NFS lands
and resources may not commence until
the reclamation bond or other financial
assurance is in place and a plan of
operations is approved.
Preliminary Issues
Issues to be analyzed in the EIS will
be developed during this scoping
process. Preliminary issues expected to
be analyzed include potential impacts
to: Access and transportation; aesthetics
and visual resources; botanical
resources, including wetlands and
threatened, endangered, proposed, and
sensitive species; climate and air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Jun 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
quality; cultural and heritage resources;
environmental justice; federal land
management and environmental
protection; fire and fuels management;
fisheries and wildlife, including
threatened, endangered, proposed, and
sensitive species; geochemistry; geology;
hazardous materials; land use; longterm, post-closure site management;
noise; public health and safety;
recreation; roadless and wilderness
resources; socioeconomics; soils and
reclamation cover materials; timber
resources; water resources (groundwater
and surface water); and water rights.
Permits or Licenses Required
Aspects of the Plan will also require
other permitting, including by the Idaho
Departments of Lands, Environmental
Quality, and Water Resources.
those individuals will not have standing
for objection.
Dated: May 12, 2017.
Robert M. Harper,
Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2017–11483 Filed 6–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Notice of Updated Information
Concerning the Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project and Equitrans
Expansion Project and the Associated
Forest Service Land and Resource
Management Plan Amendments
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; updating information.
AGENCY:
Scoping Process
ACTION:
This notice of intent initiates the
scoping (public involvement) process,
which guides the development of the
EIS. Public comments may be submitted
to the PNF in a variety of ways,
including: via email, via the project Web
site, by mail, and via FAX. In addition,
the PNF will conduct scoping meetings,
during which members of the public can
learn about the Forest Service proposed
action and the NEPA process and
submit written comments. Comments
sought by the PNF include comments
specific to the proposed action,
information that could be pertinent to
analysis of environmental effects,
identification of significant issues, and
identification of potential alternatives.
Written comments may be sent to:
Payette National Forest, ATTN: Forest
Supervisor Keith Lannom—Stibnite
Gold EIS, 500 N. Mission St., McCall, ID
83638. Comments may also be sent via
email with a Subject Line reading
‘‘Stibnite Gold EIS Scoping Comment’’
to comments-intermtnpayette@fs.fed.us, submitted via Web
site at https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/
payette/StibniteGold, or sent via FAX to
1–208–634–0744.
It is important that reviewers provide
their comments at such times and in
such manner that they are useful to
preparation of the EIS. Therefore, to be
most useful, comments should be
provided prior to the close of the
scoping comment period and should
clearly articulate the reviewer’s
concerns and contentions.
Comments submitted anonymously
will be accepted and considered;
however, without an associated name
and address, receiving further
correspondences concerning the
proposed action will not be possible and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25761
The USDA Forest Service
(Forest Service) is participating as a
cooperating agency with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) in the preparation of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (MVP)
and Equitrans Expansion Project (EEP)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
On October 14, 2016, the Forest Service
published in the Federal Register (81
FR 71041) a Notice of Availability of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project and
Equitrans Expansion Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft of Amendments to the
Jefferson National Forest’s Land and
Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to
allow for the MVP to cross through the
Jefferson National Forest. Since that
publication, the Forest Service
determined there is a need to disclose
the following: New information relating
to the proposed LRMP amendments and
the substantive provisions in the 2012
Planning Rule that are likely to be
directly related to the proposed
amendments. In addition, a proposed
change to one of the LRMP amendments
will result in a change to the
administrative review procedures as
outlined in the October 14, 2016
Federal Register Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Information about the MVP Project is
available from the FERC’s Office of
External Affairs at 866–208–FERC
(3372), or on the FERC Web site
(www.ferc.gov). On the FERC’s Web site,
go to ‘‘Documents & Filings,’’ click on
the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link, click on ‘‘General
Search’’ and enter the docket number
CP16–10. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
25762
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or toll free
at 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 FERC such as
orders, notices, and rulemakings.
For information related specifically to
the new information provided in this
Notice, please contact Karen Overcash,
Forest Planner, George Washington and
Jefferson National Forests at 540–265–
5175 or kovercash@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This Notice is specific to the Forest
Service. The Mountain Valley Pipeline
route would cross about 3.4 miles of
lands managed by the Jefferson National
Forest (JNF), in Monroe County, West
Virginia and Giles and Montgomery
Counties, Virginia. The Equitrans
Expansion Project would not cross the
Jefferson National Forest.
The FERC is the NEPA Lead Federal
Agency for the environmental analysis
of the construction and operation of the
proposed MVP and Equitrans Expansion
Project. Under the Mineral Leasing Act
(30 U.S.C. 185 et seq.), the BLM is the
Federal agency responsible for issuing
right-of-way grants for natural gas
pipelines across Federal lands under the
jurisdiction of two or more Federal
agencies. The BLM is therefore,
considering the issuance of a right-ofway grant to Mountain Valley for
pipeline construction and operation
across the lands under the jurisdiction
of the Forest Service and the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Before
issuing the right-of-way grant, the BLM
would need to acquire the written
concurrences of the Forest Service and
the USACE. Through this concurrence
process, the Forest Service would
submit to the BLM any stipulations for
inclusion in the right-of-way grant that
are deemed necessary to protect Federal
property and otherwise protect the
public interest.
The FERC’s Draft EIS for the MVP
Project included the consideration of a
BLM right-of-way grant across Federal
lands, along with the associated
proposed Forest Service LRMP
amendments. The BLM and Forest
Service can adopt FERC’s EIS for agency
decisions, including the necessary
amendments to the LRMP, if the
analysis provides sufficient evidence to
support those decisions and the Forest
Service is satisfied that its comments
and suggestions have been addressed.
Planning Rule Requirements for LRMP
Amendments
On December 15, 2016 the
Department of Agriculture Under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Jun 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment issued a final rule that
amended the 36 CFR 219 regulations
pertaining to National Forest System
Land Management Planning (the
planning rule) (81 FR 90723, 90737).
The amendment to the 219 planning
rule clarified the Department’s direction
for amending LRMPs. The Department
also added a requirement for amending
a plan for the responsible official to
provide notice ‘‘about which
substantive requirements of §§ 219.8
through 219.11 are likely to be directly
related to the amendment’’ (36 CFR
219.13(b)(2), 81 FR at 90738). Whether
a rule provision is directly related to an
amendment is determined by any one of
the following: The purpose for the
amendment, a beneficial effect of the
amendment, a substantial adverse effect
of the amendment, or a lessening of plan
protections by the amendment.
The following descriptions of the
proposed amendments to the JNF’s
LRMP that are anticipated to be
addressed in the Final EIS include a
description of the ‘‘substantive
requirements of §§ 219.8 through
219.11’’ likely to be directly related to
each amendment.
New Information for LRMP
Amendments and Relationship To
Substantive Requirements in the
Planning Rule
The FERC’s Draft EIS for the MVP and
the Notice of Availability published in
the Federal Register on October 14,
2016 included the consideration of
Forest Service LRMP amendments that
would be needed to make the proposed
pipeline construction and operation
consistent with the JNF LRMP (36 CFR
219.15). These amendments would need
to be approved before the Forest Service
could issue a letter of concurrence to the
BLM.
The Draft EIS identified projectspecific plan amendments that would be
needed for the construction and
operation of the MVP that otherwise
could not, or potentially could not, meet
certain standards in the JNF LRMP.
These amendments are considered
project-specific amendments because
they would apply only to MVP and
would not change LRMP requirements
for other projects.
Since the Draft EIS, the Forest Service
has reconsidered whether a projectspecific amendment would still be
necessary to ensure the MVP was
consistent with some of the LRMP
standards, has identified the need for a
project-specific amendment with
respect to several other LRMP
standards, and has determined that a
management prescription reallocation
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
would not be necessary to approve the
project.
Jefferson National Forest
The following proposed amendment
to the JNF LRMP would be a projectspecific amendment, applicable only to
the MVP Project. This amendment
would not change the applicability of
LRMP requirements for other, future
projects.
Proposed Amendment, Part 1: In the
Draft EIS for the MVP and the October
14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of
Availability, the original proposed
amendment, part 1 was to amend the
LRMP to reallocate 186 acres to
Management Prescription 5C—
Designated Utility Corridors from
Management Prescriptions 4J—Urban/
Suburban Interface (56 acres), 6C—Old
Growth Forest Communities Associated
with Disturbance (19 acres) and 8A1—
Mix of Successional Habitats in
Forested Landscapes (111 acres).
Management Prescription 11—Riparian
Corridors would have remained
embedded within the new Management
Prescription 5C area. The basis for this
proposed amendment was from
Forestwide Standards FW–247 and FW–
248:
Standard FW–247: Develop and use
existing corridors and sites to their greatest
potential in order to reduce the need for
additional commitment of lands for these
uses. When feasible, expansion of existing
corridors and sites is preferable to
designating new sites.
Standard FW–248: Following evaluation of
the above criteria, decisions for new
authorizations outside of existing corridors
and designated communication sites will
include an amendment to the Forest Plan
designating them as Prescription Area 5B or
5C.
This Management Prescription (Rx)
allocation change would change
management direction for any future
activities within the designated Rx 5C
corridor, and would not have been
considered a project-specific
amendment.
However, upon further examination,
the Forest Service has determined it
would be preferable to not reallocate the
MVP corridor to a Management
Prescription 5C Utility Corridor that
would be 500 feet wide and would
encourage future co-location
opportunities. Instead the proposal is to
now amend the LRMP with a projectspecific amendment that would exempt
the MVP Project from the requirements
in Forestwide Standards FW–247 and
FW–248. With this change, the 50 foot
wide right-of-way needed for the MVP
would remain within the existing
management prescription areas (of Rx
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices
4A—Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Corridor, Rx 4J—Urban/Suburban
Interface, Rx 6C—Old Growth Forest
Communities Associated with
Disturbance; Rx 8A1—Mix of
Successional Habitats in Forested
Landscapes; and Rx 11—Riparian
Corridors).
This change from a plan amendment
affecting future management to a
project-specific amendment would also
change the administrative review
process for this proposed amendment
from the 36 CFR 219, Subpart B
procedures as described in the October
14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of
Availability, to the 36 CFR 218
administrative review process that
applies to the other proposed projectspecific amendments for this project.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
requirement likely to be directly related
to this part of the amendment is:
§ 219.10(a)(3)—‘‘[The responsible official
shall consider] ‘‘Appropriate placement and
sustainable management of infrastructure,
such as recreational facilities and
transportation and utility corridors.’’
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Amendment, Part 2: The
Forest Service proposes to amend
Forestwide Standards FW–5, FW–8,
FW–9, FW–13, FW–14 and Management
Prescription Area Standard 11–003 to
allow for the construction of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline to exceed
these soil and riparian corridor
protection measures. Standards FW–8
and 11–003 were not originally
identified in the Draft EIS for the MVP
as standards that may need to be
amended. These standards are:
Standard FW–5: On all soils dedicated to
growing vegetation, the organic layers,
topsoil and root mat will be left in place over
at least 85% of the activity area and
revegetation is accomplished within 5 years.
Standard FW–8: To limit soil compaction,
no heavy equipment is used on plastic soils
when the water table is within 12 inches of
the surface, or when soil moisture exceeds
the plastic limit. Soil moisture exceeds the
plastic limit when soil can be rolled to pencil
size without breaking or crumbling.
Standard FW–9: Heavy equipment is
operated so that soil indentations, ruts, or
furrows are aligned on the contour and the
slope of such indentations is 5 percent or
less.
Standard FW–13: Management activities
expose no more than 10% mineral soil in the
channeled ephemeral zone.
Standard FW–14: In channeled ephemeral
zones, up to 50% of the basal area may be
removed down to a minimum basal area of
50 square feet per acre. Removal of additional
basal area is allowed on a case-by-case basis
when needed to benefit riparian dependent
resources.
Standard 11–003: Management activities
expose no more than 10 percent mineral soil
within the project area riparian corridor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Jun 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
The amendment would provide an
exception from these standards for the
MVP Project and include specific
mitigation measures and project design
requirements for the project.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
requirements likely to be directly
related to amending the above standards
are:
§ 219.8(a)(2)(ii)—‘‘[The plan must include
plan components to maintain or restore] Soils
and soil productivity, including guidance to
reduce soil erosion and sedimentation;’’
§ 219.8(a)(2)(iv)—‘‘[The plan must include
plan components to maintain or restore]
Water resources in the plan area, including
lakes, streams, and wetlands; . . . and other
sources of drinking water (including
guidance to prevent or mitigate detrimental
changes in quantity, quality, and
availability);’’ and
§ 219.8(a)(3)(i)—The plan must include
plan components ‘‘to maintain or restore the
ecological integrity of riparian areas in the
plan area, including plan components to
maintain or restore structure, function,
composition, and connectivity.’’
The Draft EIS for the MVP and the
October 14, 2016 Federal Register
Notice of Availability had also
identified that Management Prescription
Area Standard 11–017 may need to be
amended. However, a further review of
this standard has determined that the
proposed pipeline project can be made
consistent with this standard and an
amendment to this standard will not be
needed. This standard is:
Standard 11–017: Tree removals from the
core of the riparian corridor may only take
place if needed to: Enhance the recovery of
the diversity and complexity of vegetation
native to the site; rehabilitate both natural
and human-caused disturbances; provide
habitat improvements for aquatic or riparian
species, or threatened, endangered, sensitive,
and locally rare species; reduce fuel buildup;
provide for public safety; for approved
facility construction/renovation; or as
allowed in standards 11–012 or 11–022.
Potential Amendment, Part 3: The
Draft EIS for the MVP and the October
14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of
Availability had identified that
Forestwide Standard FW–77 may need
to be amended. However, a further
review of this standard has determined
that the proposed pipeline project can
be made consistent with this standard
and an amendment to this standard will
not be needed. This standard is:
Standard FW–77: Inventory stands for
existing old growth conditions during project
planning using the criteria in Appendix D.
Consider the contribution of identified
patches to the distribution and abundance of
the old growth community type and to the
desired condition of the appropriate
prescription during project analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25763
However, while an amendment to
Standard FW–77 will not be needed,
since proposed amendment—part 1 has
been changed and the lands will not be
reallocated to Management Prescription
5C, the pipeline will be located on lands
in Management Prescription 6C. As
such, the following standards in
Management Prescription 6C will need
to be amended to allow for a new utility
right-of-way within this prescription
area:
Standard 6C–007: Allow vegetation
management activities to: Maintain and
restore dry-mesic oak forest, dry and xeric
oak forest, dry and dry-mesic oak-pine old
growth forest communities; restore, enhance,
or mimic historic fire regimes; reduce fuel
buildups; maintain rare communities and
species dependent on disturbance; provide
for public health and safety; improve
threatened, endangered, sensitive, and
locally rare species habitat; control nonnative invasive vegetation.
Standard 6C–026: These areas are
unsuitable for designation of new utility
corridors, utility rights-of-way, or
communication sites. Existing uses are
allowed to continue.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
requirements likely to be directly
related to this part of the amendment
are:
§ 219.8(a)(1)—‘‘The plan must include plan
components, including standards and
guidelines, to maintain or restore the
ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area,
including plan components to maintain or
restore structure, function, composition, and
connectivity.’’
§ 219.11(c)—‘‘The plan may include plan
components to allow for timber harvest for
purposes other than timber production . . .
or portions of the plan area, as a tool to assist
in achieving or maintaining one or more
applicable desired conditions or objectives of
the plan . . .’’
Proposed Amendment, Part 4: The
JNF LRMP would be amended to allow
the Mountain Valley Pipeline to be
exempt from Management Prescription
Area Standard 4A–028 and cross
beneath the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail (ANST) in Giles County,
Virginia. This standard is:
Standard 4A–028: Locate new public
utilities and rights-of-way in areas of this
management prescription area where major
impacts already exist. Limit linear utilities
and rights-of-way to a single crossing of the
prescription area, per project.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
requirement likely to be directly related
to this part of the amendment is:
§ 219.10(b)(1)(vi)—‘‘[The plan must
include plan components to provide for]
Appropriate management of other designated
areas or recommended designated areas in
the plan area.’’
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
25764
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices
The Draft EIS for the MVP and the
October 14, 2016 Federal Register
Notice of Availability had also
identified that Management Prescription
Area Standard 4A–020 may need to be
amended. However, a further review of
this standard has determined that the
proposed pipeline project can be made
consistent with this standard and an
amendment to this standard will not be
needed. This standard is:
Standard 4A–020: All management
activities will meet or exceed a Scenic
Integrity Objective of High.
Potential Amendment, Part 5: After
the Draft EIS was released, it has been
identified that the JNF may also need to
amend Forestwide Standard FW–184 to
allow for the construction of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline to deviate
from the Scenic Integrity Objectives
(SIOs) established in the LRMP. This
standard is:
Standard FW–184: The Forest Scenic
Integrity Objectives (SIOs) Maps govern all
new projects (including special uses).
Assigned SIOS are consistent with Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum management
direction. Existing conditions may not
currently meet the assigned SIO.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
requirement likely to be directly related
to this part of the amendment is:
§ 219.10(b)(i)—‘‘[The plan must include
plan components to provide for] ‘‘Sustainable
recreation; . . . and scenic character.’’
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
If any of the five parts of the proposed
amendment to the JNF LRMP described
above are determined to be ‘‘directly
related’’ to a substantive rule
requirement, the Responsible Official
must apply that requirement within the
scope and scale of the proposed
amendment and, if necessary, make
adjustments to the proposed
amendment to meet the rule
requirement (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and
(6)).
Administrative Review of Plan
Amendment Decisions
The decision for a right-of-way grant
across Federal lands will be
documented in a record of decision
issued by the BLM. The BLM’s decision
to issue, condition, or deny a right-ofway will be subject to BLM
administrative review procedures
established in 43 CFR 2881.10 and the
procedures established in section 313(b)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The
Forest Service concurrence to BLM to
issue the right-of-way grant would not
be a decision subject to the NEPA and
therefore, would not be subject to the
Forest Service administrative review
procedures. The Forest Service would,
however, issue its own draft record of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Jun 02, 2017
Jkt 241001
decision for the project-specific
amendment to the JNF LRMP that
would be subject to the administrative
review procedures under the 36 CFR
218 regulations (per 36 CFR 219.59(b)).
The Reviewing Official for any
objection filed on amending the JNF
LRMP to allow for the MVP Project will
be the Regional Forester for the
Southern Region, or if delegated, the
Deputy Regional Forester (36 CFR
218.3(a)).
Responsible Official for Forest Service
LRMP Amendments
The Forest Supervisor for the George
Washington and Jefferson National
Forests, Joby P. Timm, is the
Responsible Official for amending the
Jefferson National Forest LRMP.
Dated: May 10, 2017.
Robert M. Harper,
Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2017–11488 Filed 6–2–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forests; Delta,
Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa,
Montrose, Ouray, Saguache and San
Miguel Counties; Colorado;
Assessment Report of Ecological,
Social and Economic Conditions,
Trends and Sustainability for the
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forests
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of initiating the
assessment phase of the land
management plan revision for the Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison
National Forests.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National
Forests (GMUG), located on the western
slope of the Colorado Rockies, are
initiating the forest planning process
pursuant to the 2012 National Forest
System Land Management Planning
rule. This process will result in a
revised and updated Natural Resource
Land Management Plan, often referred
to as the Forest Plan, which will guide
all management activities on the GMUG
for the next fifteen years. The current
GMUG Forest Plan was completed in
1983, and was subsequently amended in
1991, 1993, 2005, 2007, and 2009.
Previous efforts to revise the Forest
Plan, including an eight-year effort
involving extensive public participation
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and the development of comprehensive
assessments, a need for change report,
and a proposed plan were shelved due
to the overturning of the 2008 planning
rule. Now that the national 2012
Planning Rule has been established, the
GMUG will reinitiate the plan revision
process.
The plan revision process
encompasses three stages: Assessment,
plan revision, and monitoring. This
notice announces the initiation of the
assessment phase, the first stage of the
plan revision process, which involves
assessing ecological, social and
economic conditions and trends in the
planning area and documenting the
findings in an Assessment report. For
the first phase, the GMUG has posted
helpful resources, including the current
Forest Plan and subsequent
amendments, information from the 2006
and 2007 revision efforts, and the
Citizen’s Guide to National Forest
Planning, on the GMUG Forest Plan
Web site listed below.
During this assessment phase, the
GMUG invites other government
agencies, non-governmental parties, and
the public to share material about
existing and changed conditions, trends,
and perceptions of social, economic and
ecological systems. The GMUG will host
a variety of public outreach forums in
summer and fall of 2017 to facilitate this
effort, and the public is encouraged to
participate and provide meaningful
contributions. The GMUG is seeking
local knowledge of social values,
available data resources, areas of use
and activities, goods and services
produced by lands within the GMUG,
and relevant material that will help
inform desired conditions, standards
and guidelines, land suitability
determinations, and other plan
components. This information will help
identify gaps in the current management
plan and inform the need for change,
highlighting priority issues that should
be addressed in this revision. Public
participation and collaboration are
essential steps to understanding current
conditions, available data, and feedback
needed to support a strategic, efficient
and effective revision process.
Several guiding principles, developed
to overcome stakeholder-identified
challenges, will drive public
engagement throughout the plan
revision process. These guiding
principles include providing direct and
transparent communication through a
variety of methods, maintaining focused
public involvement, building
relationships, and promoting sharing,
learning and understanding between the
agency and the public. These guiding
principles will help the GMUG ensure
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25761-25764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11488]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Notice of Updated Information Concerning the Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project and Equitrans Expansion Project and the Associated
Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; updating information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) is participating as a
cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the preparation of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (MVP) and Equitrans Expansion Project
(EEP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On October 14, 2016, the
Forest Service published in the Federal Register (81 FR 71041) a Notice
of Availability of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project and Equitrans
Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Draft of
Amendments to the Jefferson National Forest's Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) to allow for the MVP to cross through the
Jefferson National Forest. Since that publication, the Forest Service
determined there is a need to disclose the following: New information
relating to the proposed LRMP amendments and the substantive provisions
in the 2012 Planning Rule that are likely to be directly related to the
proposed amendments. In addition, a proposed change to one of the LRMP
amendments will result in a change to the administrative review
procedures as outlined in the October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information about the MVP Project is
available from the FERC's Office of External Affairs at 866-208-FERC
(3372), or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). On the FERC's Web site,
go to ``Documents & Filings,'' click on the ``eLibrary'' link, click on
``General Search'' and enter the docket number CP16-10. Be sure you
have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at
[[Page 25762]]
FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or toll free at 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 FERC such as orders, notices,
and rulemakings.
For information related specifically to the new information
provided in this Notice, please contact Karen Overcash, Forest Planner,
George Washington and Jefferson National Forests at 540-265-5175 or
kovercash@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This Notice is specific to the Forest Service. The Mountain Valley
Pipeline route would cross about 3.4 miles of lands managed by the
Jefferson National Forest (JNF), in Monroe County, West Virginia and
Giles and Montgomery Counties, Virginia. The Equitrans Expansion
Project would not cross the Jefferson National Forest.
The FERC is the NEPA Lead Federal Agency for the environmental
analysis of the construction and operation of the proposed MVP and
Equitrans Expansion Project. Under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
185 et seq.), the BLM is the Federal agency responsible for issuing
right-of-way grants for natural gas pipelines across Federal lands
under the jurisdiction of two or more Federal agencies. The BLM is
therefore, considering the issuance of a right-of-way grant to Mountain
Valley for pipeline construction and operation across the lands under
the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Before issuing the right-of-way grant, the BLM would
need to acquire the written concurrences of the Forest Service and the
USACE. Through this concurrence process, the Forest Service would
submit to the BLM any stipulations for inclusion in the right-of-way
grant that are deemed necessary to protect Federal property and
otherwise protect the public interest.
The FERC's Draft EIS for the MVP Project included the consideration
of a BLM right-of-way grant across Federal lands, along with the
associated proposed Forest Service LRMP amendments. The BLM and Forest
Service can adopt FERC's EIS for agency decisions, including the
necessary amendments to the LRMP, if the analysis provides sufficient
evidence to support those decisions and the Forest Service is satisfied
that its comments and suggestions have been addressed.
Planning Rule Requirements for LRMP Amendments
On December 15, 2016 the Department of Agriculture Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment issued a final rule that amended
the 36 CFR 219 regulations pertaining to National Forest System Land
Management Planning (the planning rule) (81 FR 90723, 90737). The
amendment to the 219 planning rule clarified the Department's direction
for amending LRMPs. The Department also added a requirement for
amending a plan for the responsible official to provide notice ``about
which substantive requirements of Sec. Sec. 219.8 through 219.11 are
likely to be directly related to the amendment'' (36 CFR 219.13(b)(2),
81 FR at 90738). Whether a rule provision is directly related to an
amendment is determined by any one of the following: The purpose for
the amendment, a beneficial effect of the amendment, a substantial
adverse effect of the amendment, or a lessening of plan protections by
the amendment.
The following descriptions of the proposed amendments to the JNF's
LRMP that are anticipated to be addressed in the Final EIS include a
description of the ``substantive requirements of Sec. Sec. 219.8
through 219.11'' likely to be directly related to each amendment.
New Information for LRMP Amendments and Relationship To Substantive
Requirements in the Planning Rule
The FERC's Draft EIS for the MVP and the Notice of Availability
published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016 included the
consideration of Forest Service LRMP amendments that would be needed to
make the proposed pipeline construction and operation consistent with
the JNF LRMP (36 CFR 219.15). These amendments would need to be
approved before the Forest Service could issue a letter of concurrence
to the BLM.
The Draft EIS identified project-specific plan amendments that
would be needed for the construction and operation of the MVP that
otherwise could not, or potentially could not, meet certain standards
in the JNF LRMP. These amendments are considered project-specific
amendments because they would apply only to MVP and would not change
LRMP requirements for other projects.
Since the Draft EIS, the Forest Service has reconsidered whether a
project-specific amendment would still be necessary to ensure the MVP
was consistent with some of the LRMP standards, has identified the need
for a project-specific amendment with respect to several other LRMP
standards, and has determined that a management prescription
reallocation would not be necessary to approve the project.
Jefferson National Forest
The following proposed amendment to the JNF LRMP would be a
project-specific amendment, applicable only to the MVP Project. This
amendment would not change the applicability of LRMP requirements for
other, future projects.
Proposed Amendment, Part 1: In the Draft EIS for the MVP and the
October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Availability, the original
proposed amendment, part 1 was to amend the LRMP to reallocate 186
acres to Management Prescription 5C--Designated Utility Corridors from
Management Prescriptions 4J--Urban/Suburban Interface (56 acres), 6C--
Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with Disturbance (19 acres)
and 8A1--Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested Landscapes (111
acres). Management Prescription 11--Riparian Corridors would have
remained embedded within the new Management Prescription 5C area. The
basis for this proposed amendment was from Forestwide Standards FW-247
and FW-248:
Standard FW-247: Develop and use existing corridors and sites to
their greatest potential in order to reduce the need for additional
commitment of lands for these uses. When feasible, expansion of
existing corridors and sites is preferable to designating new sites.
Standard FW-248: Following evaluation of the above criteria,
decisions for new authorizations outside of existing corridors and
designated communication sites will include an amendment to the
Forest Plan designating them as Prescription Area 5B or 5C.
This Management Prescription (Rx) allocation change would change
management direction for any future activities within the designated Rx
5C corridor, and would not have been considered a project-specific
amendment.
However, upon further examination, the Forest Service has
determined it would be preferable to not reallocate the MVP corridor to
a Management Prescription 5C Utility Corridor that would be 500 feet
wide and would encourage future co-location opportunities. Instead the
proposal is to now amend the LRMP with a project-specific amendment
that would exempt the MVP Project from the requirements in Forestwide
Standards FW-247 and FW-248. With this change, the 50 foot wide right-
of-way needed for the MVP would remain within the existing management
prescription areas (of Rx
[[Page 25763]]
4A--Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor, Rx 4J--Urban/Suburban
Interface, Rx 6C--Old Growth Forest Communities Associated with
Disturbance; Rx 8A1--Mix of Successional Habitats in Forested
Landscapes; and Rx 11--Riparian Corridors).
This change from a plan amendment affecting future management to a
project-specific amendment would also change the administrative review
process for this proposed amendment from the 36 CFR 219, Subpart B
procedures as described in the October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice
of Availability, to the 36 CFR 218 administrative review process that
applies to the other proposed project-specific amendments for this
project.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly
related to this part of the amendment is:
Sec. 219.10(a)(3)--``[The responsible official shall consider]
``Appropriate placement and sustainable management of
infrastructure, such as recreational facilities and transportation
and utility corridors.''
Proposed Amendment, Part 2: The Forest Service proposes to amend
Forestwide Standards FW-5, FW-8, FW-9, FW-13, FW-14 and Management
Prescription Area Standard 11-003 to allow for the construction of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline to exceed these soil and riparian corridor
protection measures. Standards FW-8 and 11-003 were not originally
identified in the Draft EIS for the MVP as standards that may need to
be amended. These standards are:
Standard FW-5: On all soils dedicated to growing vegetation, the
organic layers, topsoil and root mat will be left in place over at
least 85% of the activity area and revegetation is accomplished
within 5 years.
Standard FW-8: To limit soil compaction, no heavy equipment is
used on plastic soils when the water table is within 12 inches of
the surface, or when soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit. Soil
moisture exceeds the plastic limit when soil can be rolled to pencil
size without breaking or crumbling.
Standard FW-9: Heavy equipment is operated so that soil
indentations, ruts, or furrows are aligned on the contour and the
slope of such indentations is 5 percent or less.
Standard FW-13: Management activities expose no more than 10%
mineral soil in the channeled ephemeral zone.
Standard FW-14: In channeled ephemeral zones, up to 50% of the
basal area may be removed down to a minimum basal area of 50 square
feet per acre. Removal of additional basal area is allowed on a
case-by-case basis when needed to benefit riparian dependent
resources.
Standard 11-003: Management activities expose no more than 10
percent mineral soil within the project area riparian corridor.
The amendment would provide an exception from these standards for
the MVP Project and include specific mitigation measures and project
design requirements for the project.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements likely to be directly
related to amending the above standards are:
Sec. 219.8(a)(2)(ii)--``[The plan must include plan components
to maintain or restore] Soils and soil productivity, including
guidance to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation;''
Sec. 219.8(a)(2)(iv)--``[The plan must include plan components
to maintain or restore] Water resources in the plan area, including
lakes, streams, and wetlands; . . . and other sources of drinking
water (including guidance to prevent or mitigate detrimental changes
in quantity, quality, and availability);'' and
Sec. 219.8(a)(3)(i)--The plan must include plan components ``to
maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in
the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore
structure, function, composition, and connectivity.''
The Draft EIS for the MVP and the October 14, 2016 Federal Register
Notice of Availability had also identified that Management Prescription
Area Standard 11-017 may need to be amended. However, a further review
of this standard has determined that the proposed pipeline project can
be made consistent with this standard and an amendment to this standard
will not be needed. This standard is:
Standard 11-017: Tree removals from the core of the riparian
corridor may only take place if needed to: Enhance the recovery of
the diversity and complexity of vegetation native to the site;
rehabilitate both natural and human-caused disturbances; provide
habitat improvements for aquatic or riparian species, or threatened,
endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species; reduce fuel
buildup; provide for public safety; for approved facility
construction/renovation; or as allowed in standards 11-012 or 11-
022.
Potential Amendment, Part 3: The Draft EIS for the MVP and the
October 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Availability had identified
that Forestwide Standard FW-77 may need to be amended. However, a
further review of this standard has determined that the proposed
pipeline project can be made consistent with this standard and an
amendment to this standard will not be needed. This standard is:
Standard FW-77: Inventory stands for existing old growth
conditions during project planning using the criteria in Appendix D.
Consider the contribution of identified patches to the distribution
and abundance of the old growth community type and to the desired
condition of the appropriate prescription during project analysis.
However, while an amendment to Standard FW-77 will not be needed,
since proposed amendment--part 1 has been changed and the lands will
not be reallocated to Management Prescription 5C, the pipeline will be
located on lands in Management Prescription 6C. As such, the following
standards in Management Prescription 6C will need to be amended to
allow for a new utility right-of-way within this prescription area:
Standard 6C-007: Allow vegetation management activities to:
Maintain and restore dry-mesic oak forest, dry and xeric oak forest,
dry and dry-mesic oak-pine old growth forest communities; restore,
enhance, or mimic historic fire regimes; reduce fuel buildups;
maintain rare communities and species dependent on disturbance;
provide for public health and safety; improve threatened,
endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species habitat; control
non-native invasive vegetation.
Standard 6C-026: These areas are unsuitable for designation of
new utility corridors, utility rights-of-way, or communication
sites. Existing uses are allowed to continue.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirements likely to be directly
related to this part of the amendment are:
Sec. 219.8(a)(1)--``The plan must include plan components,
including standards and guidelines, to maintain or restore the
ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and
watersheds in the plan area, including plan components to maintain
or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity.''
Sec. 219.11(c)--``The plan may include plan components to allow
for timber harvest for purposes other than timber production . . .
or portions of the plan area, as a tool to assist in achieving or
maintaining one or more applicable desired conditions or objectives
of the plan . . .''
Proposed Amendment, Part 4: The JNF LRMP would be amended to allow
the Mountain Valley Pipeline to be exempt from Management Prescription
Area Standard 4A-028 and cross beneath the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail (ANST) in Giles County, Virginia. This standard is:
Standard 4A-028: Locate new public utilities and rights-of-way
in areas of this management prescription area where major impacts
already exist. Limit linear utilities and rights-of-way to a single
crossing of the prescription area, per project.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly
related to this part of the amendment is:
Sec. 219.10(b)(1)(vi)--``[The plan must include plan components
to provide for] Appropriate management of other designated areas or
recommended designated areas in the plan area.''
[[Page 25764]]
The Draft EIS for the MVP and the October 14, 2016 Federal Register
Notice of Availability had also identified that Management Prescription
Area Standard 4A-020 may need to be amended. However, a further review
of this standard has determined that the proposed pipeline project can
be made consistent with this standard and an amendment to this standard
will not be needed. This standard is:
Standard 4A-020: All management activities will meet or exceed a
Scenic Integrity Objective of High.
Potential Amendment, Part 5: After the Draft EIS was released, it
has been identified that the JNF may also need to amend Forestwide
Standard FW-184 to allow for the construction of the Mountain Valley
Pipeline to deviate from the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs)
established in the LRMP. This standard is:
Standard FW-184: The Forest Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs)
Maps govern all new projects (including special uses). Assigned SIOS
are consistent with Recreation Opportunity Spectrum management
direction. Existing conditions may not currently meet the assigned
SIO.
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule requirement likely to be directly
related to this part of the amendment is:
Sec. 219.10(b)(i)--``[The plan must include plan components to
provide for] ``Sustainable recreation; . . . and scenic character.''
If any of the five parts of the proposed amendment to the JNF LRMP
described above are determined to be ``directly related'' to a
substantive rule requirement, the Responsible Official must apply that
requirement within the scope and scale of the proposed amendment and,
if necessary, make adjustments to the proposed amendment to meet the
rule requirement (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and (6)).
Administrative Review of Plan Amendment Decisions
The decision for a right-of-way grant across Federal lands will be
documented in a record of decision issued by the BLM. The BLM's
decision to issue, condition, or deny a right-of-way will be subject to
BLM administrative review procedures established in 43 CFR 2881.10 and
the procedures established in section 313(b) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The Forest Service concurrence to BLM to issue the right-of-
way grant would not be a decision subject to the NEPA and therefore,
would not be subject to the Forest Service administrative review
procedures. The Forest Service would, however, issue its own draft
record of decision for the project-specific amendment to the JNF LRMP
that would be subject to the administrative review procedures under the
36 CFR 218 regulations (per 36 CFR 219.59(b)).
The Reviewing Official for any objection filed on amending the JNF
LRMP to allow for the MVP Project will be the Regional Forester for the
Southern Region, or if delegated, the Deputy Regional Forester (36 CFR
218.3(a)).
Responsible Official for Forest Service LRMP Amendments
The Forest Supervisor for the George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests, Joby P. Timm, is the Responsible Official for
amending the Jefferson National Forest LRMP.
Dated: May 10, 2017.
Robert M. Harper,
Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2017-11488 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P