Jefferson National Forest; Monroe County, West Virginia; Giles and Montgomery County, Virginia; Mountain Valley Pipeline and Equitrans Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 45863-45865 [2020-16507]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 147 / Thursday, July 30, 2020 / Notices
Description of Respondents: Farmers
and Ranchers.
Number of Respondents: 36,550.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
Annually.
Total Burden Hours: 20,428.
Ruth Brown,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–16493 Filed 7–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Jefferson National Forest; Monroe
County, West Virginia; Giles and
Montgomery County, Virginia;
Mountain Valley Pipeline and Equitrans
Expansion Project Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a
supplemental environmental impact
statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The USDA Forest Service (FS)
is preparing a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
to the 2017 Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP)
and Equitrans Expansion Project. The
MVP project proposed action that is
specific to National Forest System (NFS)
lands is to construct and operate a
buried 42-inch natural gas pipeline
across approximately 3.5 miles of the
Jefferson National Forest (JNF). The FS,
as the lead agency, and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), as the Federal
cooperating agency, have decisions to be
made based on a review of the 2017
FERC FEIS and this supplemental
analysis.
SUMMARY:
The Draft SEIS is expected to be
available by September 2020 and the
Final SEIS is anticipated later in 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
media inquiries or to leave a message
about the project on the JNF, please
contact Nadine Siak via email at
SM.FS.GWJNF-PA@usda.gov or leave a
voicemail at 1–888–603–0261.
Individuals who use telecommunication
devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8
a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday. For inquiries for the
BLM, contact Francis Piccoli by email
at: Fpiccoli@blm.gov or by phone at
(209) 912–7717.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Jul 29, 2020
Jkt 250001
Background and History
The MVP is a proposed 303.5 mile
interstate natural gas pipeline that
crosses about 3.5 miles of the JNF, in
Monroe County, West Virginia and Giles
and Montgomery County, Virginia. The
FS and the BLM participated as
cooperating agencies with the FERC in
the preparation of the MVP EIS. On June
29, 2017, the Notice of Availability for
the FERC FEIS and the FS Draft Record
of Decision (ROD) for the Mountain
Valley Project Land and Resource
Management Plan Amendment was
published in the Federal Register.
On December 1, 2017, the FS adopted
the FEIS and a ROD was signed by the
JNF Forest Supervisor. The ROD
amended the JNF Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan) to allow
the project to be consistent with the
Forest Plan. The ROD included resource
protection terms and conditions for the
BLM to include should their decision be
to grant a right-of-way (ROW).
Therefore, both BLM and the FS have
overlapping jurisdiction concerning the
issuance of the terms and conditions, or
stipulations included within the ROW
grant.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 185 et seq.) (MLA), the BLM is
the Federal agency responsible for
issuing ROW grants for natural gas
pipeline across Federal lands under the
jurisdiction of two or more Federal
agencies. The BLM is, therefore,
responsible for considering the issuance
of a ROW grant for the MVP for pipeline
construction and operation across the
lands under the jurisdiction of the FS
and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). In 2017, the BLM
received written concurrence to proceed
from both federal agencies and on
December 20, 2017 issued a ROD
approving the MLA ROW grant to
construct and operate the MVP pipeline
across federal lands. The BLM ROD
included a temporary use authorization.
Project implementation began in
December 2017 and continued until July
27, 2018 when the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated and remanded the
FS’s decision approving the JNF plan
amendment and BLM’s MLA ROW
decision. However, the Court vacated
the BLM’s MLA ROW decision only as
it related to the portion through FS
lands; the ROW across USACE lands
was not affected and that decision
remains in place. The Fourth Circuit
concluded that aspects of the FS
decision failed to comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA). The Court
upheld the BLM’s adoption of and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45863
reliance on FERC’s FEIS as satisfying
the requirements of NEPA in support of
the MLA ROW decision across federal
lands. The Court, however, vacated
BLM’s decision approving the MLA
ROW across the JNF, concluding that
the BLM did not analyze and determine
whether the proposed route utilized
rights-of-way in common to the extent
practical, as required by the MLA, 30
U.S.C. 185(p).
On May 1, 2020, Mountain Valley
Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley)
submitted a revised MLA ROW
application to the BLM seeking to
construct and operate the natural gas
pipeline across the JNF. Mountain
Valley also requested that the FS amend
the JNF Forest Plan consistent with the
issues identified by the Fourth Circuit
Court. On May 28, 2020, the BLM
deemed Mountain Valley’s revised
application complete. For more detailed
information on the background and
history of the MVP project, see the
project website at: https://
www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/
landmanagement/projects/
?cid=stelprd3827827.
Purpose and Need for Action
The FS’s purpose and need for the
proposed action is to respond to a
proposal from Mountain Valley to
construct and operate a buried 42-inch
interstate natural gas pipeline that
would cross NFS lands on the JNF along
a proposed 3.5-mile corridor. A FS
decision is needed because the project
would not be consistent with several
JNF Forest Plan standards including
utility corridors, soil, riparian, old
growth, the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail (ANST), and scenic
integrity without a project-specific
amendment. Relatedly, there is a need
to determine what terms and conditions,
or stipulations should be provided to
the BLM in order to protect resources
and the public interest consistent with
the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 185(h).
For the FS, a supplemental analysis
and new decision are needed because
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the FS ROD. The Court
identified both NFMA and NEPA issues.
To resolve the Court’s NFMA issues,
there is a need, at a minimum, to apply
FS Planning Rule requirements to soil
and riparian resources and evaluate
both the purpose and the effects of the
amendment to threatened and
endangered aquatic species, consistent
with 36 CFR 219.13(b)(5). To ensure all
resources potentially affected by the
amendment receive equal consideration,
there is a need to apply the Planning
Rule requirements to resources
including water; terrestrial and
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
45864
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 147 / Thursday, July 30, 2020 / Notices
botanical threatened and endangered
species; old growth; the ANST; scenic
integrity; and to evaluate the purpose
and effect of the amendment.
The Court also identified NEPA
deficiencies. There is a need for the FS,
at a minimum, to demonstrate that an
independent review of the
sedimentation analysis has occurred,
that predicted effects are supported with
rationale, and that previous concerns
and comments related to erosion and its
effects have been satisfied. To meet this
objective, there is a need to evaluate and
assess erosion, sedimentation, and water
quality effects in relation to anticipated
mitigation effectiveness. To address
Court issues related to meeting MLA
requirements (30 U.S.C. 185(p)), there is
a need to analyze and determine
whether the proposed route utilizes
rights-of-way in common to the extent
practicable. Relatedly, the FS needs to
re-evaluate the feasibility and
practicality of having routes that are not
on NFS lands.
There is new information and
changed circumstances to consider
since the FS ROD was signed in
December 2017. New information
includes recent federally listed
threatened and endangered species and
critical habitat designations. Changed
circumstances include the status of the
project and road use. Over fifty percent
of the MVP project has been
implemented and stabilization efforts
are ongoing; and, the proposal no longer
includes the use of the Pocahontas,
Mystery Ridge, or Brush Mountain
Forest Roads. Given the new
information and changed circumstances,
the FS needs to evaluate the sufficiency
of the terms and conditions, or
stipulations that would be submitted to
the BLM.
The BLM’s purpose and need for
action is to respond to Mountain
Valley’s revised MLA ROW application
for the MVP project to construct and
operate a natural gas pipeline across
NFS lands consistent with the MLA, 30
U.S.C. 185, and BLM’s implementing
regulations, 43 CFR part 2880. Under
the MLA, the BLM has responsibility for
reviewing Mountain Valley’s ROW
application and authority to issue a
decision on whether to approve,
approve with modifications, or deny the
application. The BLM’s review of the
ROW application will focus, in part, on
the FS supplemental analysis for NFS
lands to make their decision, but also
intends to rely on the FERC FEIS,
consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s
decision. The BLM will work as a
cooperating agency with the FS to
complete the necessary environmental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Jul 29, 2020
Jkt 250001
analysis to address the issues identified
by the Fourth Circuit.
Proposed Action
In response to the purpose and need,
the FS would provide construction and
operation terms and conditions, or
stipulations (terms) as needed for the
actions listed below. The terms and
conditions, or stipulations would be
submitted to the BLM for inclusion in
the ROW grant. The FS would also
provide concurrence to the BLM to
proceed with the ROW grant. The
operation and maintenance actions that
need terms and conditions, or
stipulations and FS concurrence
include:
• Construction of a 42-inch pipeline
across 3.5 miles of the JNF.
• The use of a 125-foot-wide
temporary construction ROW for
pipeline installation and trench spoil.
The width would be reduced to
approximately 75 feet to cross most
wetlands. Once construction is
complete, the MVP would retain a 50foot permanent ROW to operate the
pipeline.
• The use of above-ground facilities,
limited to pipeline markers (e.g., at road
and trail crossings) to advise the public
of pipeline presence, and cathodic
pipeline protection test stations that are
required by Department of
Transportation.
An integral part of the proposed
action is the Plan of Development (POD)
that guides pipeline construction,
operation, and maintenance. The POD
includes resource mitigation for
reducing or eliminating impacts to
resources. See the FERC FEIS, Sec. 1.5
for a complete list of requirements for
the MVP that is managed by the FERC.
Forest Plan Amendments
Eleven Forest Plan standards on the
JNF are proposed to be amended to
make the project compliant with the
Forest Plan, i.e., allow the BLM to grant
a ROW. Standards include: FW–248
(utility corridors); FW–5 (revegetation);
FW–8 (soil compaction in water
saturated areas); FW–9 (soil impacts
from heavy equipment use); FW–13 and
FW–14 (exposed soil and residual basal
area within the channeled ephermal
zone); 11–003 (exposed soil within the
riparian corridor); 6C–007 and 6C–026
(tree clearing and utility corridors in the
old growth management area); 4A–028
(Appalachian National Scenic Trail and
utility corridors); and FW–184 (scenic
integrity objectives).
The FS’s Planning Rule at 36 CFR
219.13(b)(2) requires responsible
officials to provide notice of which
substantive requirements of 36 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
219.8 through 219.11 are likely to be
directly related to the amendment.
Whether a Planning 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 (36 CFR
219.13(b)(5)). Based on those criteria,
the substantive Planning Rule
provisions that are likely to be directly
related to the amendments are:
§ 219.8(a)(1) (terrestrial ecosystems);
§ 219.8(a)(2)(ii) (soils and water
productivity); § 219.8(a)(2)(iv) (water
resources); § 219.8(a)(3)(i) (ecological
integrity of riparian areas); § 219.9(b)
(contributions to recovery of threatened
and endangered species); § 219.10(a)(3)
(utility corridors); § 219.10(b)(1)(vi)
(other designated areas); § 219.10(b)(1)(i)
(scenic character); and § 219.11(c)
(timber harvesting for purposes other
than timber production).
Responsible Officials
For the FS, the responsible official is
the Forest Supervisor of the George
Washington and Jefferson National
Forests. For the BLM, the responsible
official is the Eastern States State
Director.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Forest Service
Given the purpose and need, the
Forest Supervisor will review the
proposed action including the POD,
alternatives, the terms and conditions,
stipulations, the environmental
consequences that would be applicable
to NFS lands, public comment, and the
project record in order to make the
following decisions: (1) Whether to
approve a Forest Plan amendment that
would modify eleven standards in the
JNF’s Forest Plan; (2) Determine what
terms and conditions, or stipulations
should apply to a BLM ROW grant; and,
(3) Whether to adopt all or portions of
the FERC FEIS that is relevant to NFS
lands. The NEPA decisions will be used
to determined whether the FS will
provide concurrence to the BLM for the
ROW grant across NFS lands.
While the Equitrans Expansion
project was included in the FERC FEIS,
it is not on NFS lands. Therefore, no
analysis will be prepared or decision
made on that project.
Bureau of Land Management
Consistent with the MLA, 30 U.S.C.
185, and BLM’s implementing
regulations, 43 CFR part 2880, the BLM
will review Mountain Valley’s revised
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 147 / Thursday, July 30, 2020 / Notices
MLA ROW application, the FERC FEIS,
and the FS supplemental anlaysis to
determine whether to approve, approve
with modifications, or deny the MLA
ROW application through the NFS
lands. As a cooperating agency, the BLM
intends to rely on and adopt the FS
supplemental analysis for its decision,
as long as the analysis provides
sufficient evidence to support the
decision and the FS addresses the
BLM’s comments and suggestions to the
BLM’s satisfaction. Before issuing a
decision on Mountain Valley’s
application, the BLM would need the
FS’s written concurrence. Through the
concurrence process, if the BLM’s
decision is to approve the ROW, the FS
would submit to the BLM any
stipulations for inclusion in the ROW
grant that are deemed necessary to
protect the environment and otherwise
protect the public interest consistent
with 30 U.S.C. 185(h); 43 CFR 2885.11.
The BLM decision would be
documented in a separate ROD.
Public Engagement Process
JNF Forest Plan Amendment
• The purpose and effects of the
Forest Plan amendment on resources
including those within the utility
corridor; soil; water; riparian; terrestrial;
botanical, and aquatic threatened and
endangered species; old growth; the
ANST, scenic integrity; and,
• How the proposed amendment
meets Planning Rule requirements.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Independent Review of Sedimentation
Analysis
• An evaluation and assessment of
erosion and sedimentation and its
associated effects to water quality and
threatened and endangered aquatic
species;
• An evaluation of predicted effects
in relation to anticpated mitigation
effectiveness, supported with rationale;
and,
• Disclosure on how previous
concerns and comments related to
erosion and its effects that were
provided to the FERC have been
satisfied.
16:38 Jul 29, 2020
There is new information and
changed circumstances to consider
since the FS ROD was signed in
December 2017. New information
includes recent Federally listed
threatened and endangered species and
critical habitat designations. Changed
circumstances include the status of the
project and road use (see Purpose and
Need for Action).
Additional opportunities for public
comment will be provided when the
Draft SEIS is available. A FS decision to
amend the Forest Plan will be subject to
the Forest Service predecisional
administrative review procedures
established in 36 CFR part 218 (per 36
CFR 219.59(b)). Those wishing to object
must meet the requirements at 36 CFR
part 218, subpart A and B for the
project.
Tina Terrell,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System.
[FR Doc. 2020–16507 Filed 7–29–20; 8:45 am]
Scoping was completed and
summarized in the FERC FEIS (FEIS,
Section ES–2, 1.4). Written, specific
comments, including those that were
relevant to NFS lands, identified
concerns and issues that were addressed
in the FEIS. Scoping will not be
repeated and this SEIS will focus on the
topics identified by the Fourth Circuit
Court and others that are closely related
to the Court’s findings including:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
New Information and Changed
Circumstances
Jkt 250001
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Notice of Public Meeting of the West
Virginia Advisory Committee
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice is hereby given,
pursuant to the provisions of the rules
and regulations of the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights (Commission), and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) that a meeting of the West
Virginia Advisory Committee to the
Commission will convene by conference
call at 11:30 a.m. (ET) on Tuesday,
August 4, 2020. The purpose of the
meeting is to discuss possible topics for
the Committee’s civil rights project.
DATES: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 11:30
a.m. (ET).
Public Call-In Information:
Conference call-in number: 1–800–367–
2403 and conference call ID number:
2629531.
SUMMARY:
Ivy
Davis at ero@usccr.gov or by phone at
202–376–7533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested
members of the public may listen to the
discussion by calling the following tollfree conference call-in number: 1–800–
367–2403 and conference call ID
number: 2629531. Please be advised that
before being placed into the conference
call, the conference call operator will
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45865
ask callers to provide their names, their
organizational affiliations (if any), and
email addresses (so that callers may be
notified of future meetings). Callers can
expect to incur charges for calls they
initiate over wireless lines, and the
Commission will not refund any
incurred charges. Callers will incur no
charge for calls they initiate over landline connections to the toll-free
conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments
may also follow the discussion by first
calling the Federal Relay Service at 1–
888–364–3109 and providing the
operator with the toll-free conference
call-in number: 1–800–367–2403 and
conference call ID number: 2629531.
Members of the public are invited to
make statements during the Public
Comments section of the Agenda. They
are also invited to submit written
comments, which must be received in
the regional office approximately 30
days after the scheduled meeting.
Written comments may be mailed to the
Eastern Regional Office, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, 1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150,
Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to
Corrine Sanders at ero@usccr.gov.
Persons who desire additional
information may contact the Eastern
Regional Office at (202) 376–7533.
Records and documents discussed
during the meeting will be available for
public viewing as they become available
at: https://www.facadatabase.gov/
FACA/FACAPublicViewCommittee
Details?id=a10t0000001gzmCAAQ;
click the ‘‘Meeting Details’’ and
‘‘Documents’’ links. Records generated
from this meeting may also be inspected
and reproduced at the Eastern Regional
Office, as they become available, both
before and after the meetings. Persons
interested in the work of this advisory
committee are advised to go to the
Commission’s website, www.usccr.gov,
or to contact the Eastern Regional Office
at the above phone number, email or
street address.
Agenda: August 4, 2020 at 11:30 a.m.
(EST)
I. Rollcall
II. Welcome
III. Project Planning
IV. Other Business
V. Next Planning
VI. Meeting
VII. Open Comments
VIII. Adjourn
Dated: July 27, 2020.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2020–16511 Filed 7–29–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45863-45865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16507]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Jefferson National Forest; Monroe County, West Virginia; Giles
and Montgomery County, Virginia; Mountain Valley Pipeline and Equitrans
Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service (FS) is preparing a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the 2017 Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and Equitrans Expansion
Project. The MVP project proposed action that is specific to National
Forest System (NFS) lands is to construct and operate a buried 42-inch
natural gas pipeline across approximately 3.5 miles of the Jefferson
National Forest (JNF). The FS, as the lead agency, and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), as the Federal cooperating agency, have
decisions to be made based on a review of the 2017 FERC FEIS and this
supplemental analysis.
DATES: The Draft SEIS is expected to be available by September 2020 and
the Final SEIS is anticipated later in 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For media inquiries or to leave a
message about the project on the JNF, please contact Nadine Siak via
email at [email protected] or leave a voicemail at 1-888-603-
0261. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. For
inquiries for the BLM, contact Francis Piccoli by email at:
[email protected] or by phone at (209) 912-7717.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and History
The MVP is a proposed 303.5 mile interstate natural gas pipeline
that crosses about 3.5 miles of the JNF, in Monroe County, West
Virginia and Giles and Montgomery County, Virginia. The FS and the BLM
participated as cooperating agencies with the FERC in the preparation
of the MVP EIS. On June 29, 2017, the Notice of Availability for the
FERC FEIS and the FS Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Mountain
Valley Project Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment was
published in the Federal Register.
On December 1, 2017, the FS adopted the FEIS and a ROD was signed
by the JNF Forest Supervisor. The ROD amended the JNF Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan) to allow the project to be consistent
with the Forest Plan. The ROD included resource protection terms and
conditions for the BLM to include should their decision be to grant a
right-of-way (ROW). Therefore, both BLM and the FS have overlapping
jurisdiction concerning the issuance of the terms and conditions, or
stipulations included within the ROW grant.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185 et seq.) (MLA), the
BLM is the Federal agency responsible for issuing ROW grants for
natural gas pipeline across Federal lands under the jurisdiction of two
or more Federal agencies. The BLM is, therefore, responsible for
considering the issuance of a ROW grant for the MVP for pipeline
construction and operation across the lands under the jurisdiction of
the FS and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 2017,
the BLM received written concurrence to proceed from both federal
agencies and on December 20, 2017 issued a ROD approving the MLA ROW
grant to construct and operate the MVP pipeline across federal lands.
The BLM ROD included a temporary use authorization.
Project implementation began in December 2017 and continued until
July 27, 2018 when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded the FS's decision approving the JNF plan amendment and BLM's
MLA ROW decision. However, the Court vacated the BLM's MLA ROW decision
only as it related to the portion through FS lands; the ROW across
USACE lands was not affected and that decision remains in place. The
Fourth Circuit concluded that aspects of the FS decision failed to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The Court upheld the BLM's
adoption of and reliance on FERC's FEIS as satisfying the requirements
of NEPA in support of the MLA ROW decision across federal lands. The
Court, however, vacated BLM's decision approving the MLA ROW across the
JNF, concluding that the BLM did not analyze and determine whether the
proposed route utilized rights-of-way in common to the extent
practical, as required by the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 185(p).
On May 1, 2020, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley)
submitted a revised MLA ROW application to the BLM seeking to construct
and operate the natural gas pipeline across the JNF. Mountain Valley
also requested that the FS amend the JNF Forest Plan consistent with
the issues identified by the Fourth Circuit Court. On May 28, 2020, the
BLM deemed Mountain Valley's revised application complete. For more
detailed information on the background and history of the MVP project,
see the project website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/landmanagement/projects/?cid=stelprd3827827.
Purpose and Need for Action
The FS's purpose and need for the proposed action is to respond to
a proposal from Mountain Valley to construct and operate a buried 42-
inch interstate natural gas pipeline that would cross NFS lands on the
JNF along a proposed 3.5-mile corridor. A FS decision is needed because
the project would not be consistent with several JNF Forest Plan
standards including utility corridors, soil, riparian, old growth, the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST), and scenic integrity without
a project-specific amendment. Relatedly, there is a need to determine
what terms and conditions, or stipulations should be provided to the
BLM in order to protect resources and the public interest consistent
with the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 185(h).
For the FS, a supplemental analysis and new decision are needed
because the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the FS ROD. The
Court identified both NFMA and NEPA issues. To resolve the Court's NFMA
issues, there is a need, at a minimum, to apply FS Planning Rule
requirements to soil and riparian resources and evaluate both the
purpose and the effects of the amendment to threatened and endangered
aquatic species, consistent with 36 CFR 219.13(b)(5). To ensure all
resources potentially affected by the amendment receive equal
consideration, there is a need to apply the Planning Rule requirements
to resources including water; terrestrial and
[[Page 45864]]
botanical threatened and endangered species; old growth; the ANST;
scenic integrity; and to evaluate the purpose and effect of the
amendment.
The Court also identified NEPA deficiencies. There is a need for
the FS, at a minimum, to demonstrate that an independent review of the
sedimentation analysis has occurred, that predicted effects are
supported with rationale, and that previous concerns and comments
related to erosion and its effects have been satisfied. To meet this
objective, there is a need to evaluate and assess erosion,
sedimentation, and water quality effects in relation to anticipated
mitigation effectiveness. To address Court issues related to meeting
MLA requirements (30 U.S.C. 185(p)), there is a need to analyze and
determine whether the proposed route utilizes rights-of-way in common
to the extent practicable. Relatedly, the FS needs to re-evaluate the
feasibility and practicality of having routes that are not on NFS
lands.
There is new information and changed circumstances to consider
since the FS ROD was signed in December 2017. New information includes
recent federally listed threatened and endangered species and critical
habitat designations. Changed circumstances include the status of the
project and road use. Over fifty percent of the MVP project has been
implemented and stabilization efforts are ongoing; and, the proposal no
longer includes the use of the Pocahontas, Mystery Ridge, or Brush
Mountain Forest Roads. Given the new information and changed
circumstances, the FS needs to evaluate the sufficiency of the terms
and conditions, or stipulations that would be submitted to the BLM.
The BLM's purpose and need for action is to respond to Mountain
Valley's revised MLA ROW application for the MVP project to construct
and operate a natural gas pipeline across NFS lands consistent with the
MLA, 30 U.S.C. 185, and BLM's implementing regulations, 43 CFR part
2880. Under the MLA, the BLM has responsibility for reviewing Mountain
Valley's ROW application and authority to issue a decision on whether
to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application. The
BLM's review of the ROW application will focus, in part, on the FS
supplemental analysis for NFS lands to make their decision, but also
intends to rely on the FERC FEIS, consistent with the Fourth Circuit's
decision. The BLM will work as a cooperating agency with the FS to
complete the necessary environmental analysis to address the issues
identified by the Fourth Circuit.
Proposed Action
In response to the purpose and need, the FS would provide
construction and operation terms and conditions, or stipulations
(terms) as needed for the actions listed below. The terms and
conditions, or stipulations would be submitted to the BLM for inclusion
in the ROW grant. The FS would also provide concurrence to the BLM to
proceed with the ROW grant. The operation and maintenance actions that
need terms and conditions, or stipulations and FS concurrence include:
Construction of a 42-inch pipeline across 3.5 miles of the
JNF.
The use of a 125-foot-wide temporary construction ROW for
pipeline installation and trench spoil. The width would be reduced to
approximately 75 feet to cross most wetlands. Once construction is
complete, the MVP would retain a 50-foot permanent ROW to operate the
pipeline.
The use of above-ground facilities, limited to pipeline
markers (e.g., at road and trail crossings) to advise the public of
pipeline presence, and cathodic pipeline protection test stations that
are required by Department of Transportation.
An integral part of the proposed action is the Plan of Development
(POD) that guides pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance.
The POD includes resource mitigation for reducing or eliminating
impacts to resources. See the FERC FEIS, Sec. 1.5 for a complete list
of requirements for the MVP that is managed by the FERC.
Forest Plan Amendments
Eleven Forest Plan standards on the JNF are proposed to be amended
to make the project compliant with the Forest Plan, i.e., allow the BLM
to grant a ROW. Standards include: FW-248 (utility corridors); FW-5
(revegetation); FW-8 (soil compaction in water saturated areas); FW-9
(soil impacts from heavy equipment use); FW-13 and FW-14 (exposed soil
and residual basal area within the channeled ephermal zone); 11-003
(exposed soil within the riparian corridor); 6C-007 and 6C-026 (tree
clearing and utility corridors in the old growth management area); 4A-
028 (Appalachian National Scenic Trail and utility corridors); and FW-
184 (scenic integrity objectives).
The FS's Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.13(b)(2) requires responsible
officials to provide notice of which substantive requirements of 36 CFR
219.8 through 219.11 are likely to be directly related to the
amendment. Whether a Planning 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 (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5)). Based on those criteria, the
substantive Planning Rule provisions that are likely to be directly
related to the amendments are: Sec. 219.8(a)(1) (terrestrial
ecosystems); Sec. 219.8(a)(2)(ii) (soils and water productivity);
Sec. 219.8(a)(2)(iv) (water resources); Sec. 219.8(a)(3)(i)
(ecological integrity of riparian areas); Sec. 219.9(b) (contributions
to recovery of threatened and endangered species); Sec. 219.10(a)(3)
(utility corridors); Sec. 219.10(b)(1)(vi) (other designated areas);
Sec. 219.10(b)(1)(i) (scenic character); and Sec. 219.11(c) (timber
harvesting for purposes other than timber production).
Responsible Officials
For the FS, the responsible official is the Forest Supervisor of
the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. For the BLM, the
responsible official is the Eastern States State Director.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Forest Service
Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisor will review the
proposed action including the POD, alternatives, the terms and
conditions, stipulations, the environmental consequences that would be
applicable to NFS lands, public comment, and the project record in
order to make the following decisions: (1) Whether to approve a Forest
Plan amendment that would modify eleven standards in the JNF's Forest
Plan; (2) Determine what terms and conditions, or stipulations should
apply to a BLM ROW grant; and, (3) Whether to adopt all or portions of
the FERC FEIS that is relevant to NFS lands. The NEPA decisions will be
used to determined whether the FS will provide concurrence to the BLM
for the ROW grant across NFS lands.
While the Equitrans Expansion project was included in the FERC
FEIS, it is not on NFS lands. Therefore, no analysis will be prepared
or decision made on that project.
Bureau of Land Management
Consistent with the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 185, and BLM's implementing
regulations, 43 CFR part 2880, the BLM will review Mountain Valley's
revised
[[Page 45865]]
MLA ROW application, the FERC FEIS, and the FS supplemental anlaysis to
determine whether to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the
MLA ROW application through the NFS lands. As a cooperating agency, the
BLM intends to rely on and adopt the FS supplemental analysis for its
decision, as long as the analysis provides sufficient evidence to
support the decision and the FS addresses the BLM's comments and
suggestions to the BLM's satisfaction. Before issuing a decision on
Mountain Valley's application, the BLM would need the FS's written
concurrence. Through the concurrence process, if the BLM's decision is
to approve the ROW, the FS would submit to the BLM any stipulations for
inclusion in the ROW grant that are deemed necessary to protect the
environment and otherwise protect the public interest consistent with
30 U.S.C. 185(h); 43 CFR 2885.11. The BLM decision would be documented
in a separate ROD.
Public Engagement Process
Scoping was completed and summarized in the FERC FEIS (FEIS,
Section ES-2, 1.4). Written, specific comments, including those that
were relevant to NFS lands, identified concerns and issues that were
addressed in the FEIS. Scoping will not be repeated and this SEIS will
focus on the topics identified by the Fourth Circuit Court and others
that are closely related to the Court's findings including:
JNF Forest Plan Amendment
The purpose and effects of the Forest Plan amendment on
resources including those within the utility corridor; soil; water;
riparian; terrestrial; botanical, and aquatic threatened and endangered
species; old growth; the ANST, scenic integrity; and,
How the proposed amendment meets Planning Rule
requirements.
Independent Review of Sedimentation Analysis
An evaluation and assessment of erosion and sedimentation
and its associated effects to water quality and threatened and
endangered aquatic species;
An evaluation of predicted effects in relation to
anticpated mitigation effectiveness, supported with rationale; and,
Disclosure on how previous concerns and comments related
to erosion and its effects that were provided to the FERC have been
satisfied.
New Information and Changed Circumstances
There is new information and changed circumstances to consider
since the FS ROD was signed in December 2017. New information includes
recent Federally listed threatened and endangered species and critical
habitat designations. Changed circumstances include the status of the
project and road use (see Purpose and Need for Action).
Additional opportunities for public comment will be provided when
the Draft SEIS is available. A FS decision to amend the Forest Plan
will be subject to the Forest Service predecisional administrative
review procedures established in 36 CFR part 218 (per 36 CFR
219.59(b)). Those wishing to object must meet the requirements at 36
CFR part 218, subpart A and B for the project.
Tina Terrell,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 2020-16507 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
