Jefferson National Forest; Monroe County, West Virginia; Giles and Montgomery County, Virginia. Mountain Valley Pipeline and Equitrans Expansion Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 77142-77144 [2020-26515]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
77142
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: Recordkeeping burden for
the State agencies is estimated to be 4.59
total annual hours for respondents using
FNS–292A, and 4.426 total annual
burden estimates for respondents using
Respondent
category
Type of respondents
(optional)
Instruments
State Government ........
Food Distribution State
Agencies Staff.
SNAP State Agencies
Staff.
Commodity Distribution
Form FNS–292A.
D–SNAP Benefit
Issuance Form FNS
292–B.
......................................
......................................
State Government ........
Total ......................
Pamilyn Miller,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–26375 Filed 11–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–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; revised.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The USDA, Forest Service
(FS) published a notice of intent to
prepare 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 in the Federal
Register on July 30, 2020. The Notice of
Intent (NOI) informed the public of the
MVP project proposed action: To
construct and operate a buried 42-inch
natural gas pipeline across
approximately 3.5 miles of the Jefferson
National Forest (JNF). The NOI
identified the FS as the lead agency and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
as the Federal cooperating agency. A
corrected NOI has been prepared to
update the responsible official for the
FS, to update the applicability of the FS
predecisional administrative review
process, and to update contacts for both
parties.
DATES: The Draft SEIS was available on
September 25, 2020 and the Final SEIS
is anticipated in December, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information on this project,
please contact Ken Arney, the Regional
Forester for the Southern Region, by
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Nov 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
Frequency
of response
Total annual
responses
FNS–292A
55
1
55
0.0835
4.59
FNS–292B
53
1
53
0.0835
4.426
....................
108
1.000
108
0.084
9.02
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
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Hours per
response
Annual
burden
(hours)
Number of
respondents
Form
leaving 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 Victoria Craft, U.S. Bureau
of Land Management Realty Specialist,
at: (888) 603–0261.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
FNS–292B, for a combined total of 9.02
total annual burden hours rounded
down to 9 total annual burden hours.
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/
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
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 National Forest Systems
(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 is 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Nov 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 road.
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-
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77143
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
FW14 (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:
§ 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).
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
77144
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices
Responsible Officials
For the Forest Service, the responsible
official is the Under Secretary, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and the Environment. For the
BLM, the responsible official is the
Eastern States Director.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
Forest Service
Given the purpose and need, the FS
responsible official 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:
• Whether to approve a Forest Plan
amendment that would modify eleven
standards in the JNF’s Forest Plan;
• Determine what terms and
conditions, or stipulations should apply
to a BLM ROW grant;
• Whether to issue a written letter of
concurrence to BLM if the decision is to
assent to the project on NFS lands; and,
• Whether to adopt all or portions of
the FERC FEIS that is relevant to 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:11 Nov 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 not be
subject to either the 36 CFR 218 or 36
CFR 219 pre-decisional administrative
review because the responsible official
is the Under Secretary of Agriculture,
Natural Resources and Environment (36
CFR 218.13(b); 36 CFR 219.13(b)).
James E. Hubbard,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2020–26515 Filed 11–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Central Montana Resource Advisory
Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Central Montana
Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)
will hold a virtual meeting. The
committee is authorized under the
Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act (the Act) and
operates in compliance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The purpose
of the committee is to improve
collaborative relationships and to
provide advice and recommendations to
the Forest Service concerning projects
and funding consistent with the Act.
RAC information can be found at the
following website: https://
www.fs.usda.gov/main/hlcnf/
workingtogether/advisorycommittees.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
December 15, 2020, beginning at 6:00
p.m., Mountain Standard Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to
cancellation. For status of meeting prior
to attendance, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
with virtual attendance only. For virtual
meeting information, please see the
website listed under SUMMARY.
Written comments may be submitted
as described under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. All comments, including
names and addresses when provided,
are placed in the record and are
available for public inspection and
copying. The public may inspect
comments received at Helena-Lewis and
Clark National Forest Supervisor’s
Office. Please call ahead to facilitate
entry into the building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, by
phone at (406) 791–7754 or via email at
dave.cunningham@usda.gov.
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
Eastern Standard Time, Monday
through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review provisions for Secure Rural
Schools RAC to make recommendations
on recreation fee proposals and Title II
projects;
2. Discuss and make
recommendations on recreation fee
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77142-77144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26515]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; revised.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service (FS) published a notice of intent to
prepare 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 in the Federal Register on July 30, 2020.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) informed the public of the MVP project
proposed action: To construct and operate a buried 42-inch natural gas
pipeline across approximately 3.5 miles of the Jefferson National
Forest (JNF). The NOI identified the FS as the lead agency and the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the Federal cooperating agency. A
corrected NOI has been prepared to update the responsible official for
the FS, to update the applicability of the FS predecisional
administrative review process, and to update contacts for both parties.
DATES: The Draft SEIS was available on September 25, 2020 and the Final
SEIS is anticipated in December, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
project, please contact Ken Arney, the Regional Forester for the
Southern Region, by leaving 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 Victoria Craft, U.S. Bureau of Land Management Realty
Specialist, at: (888) 603-0261.
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/
[[Page 77143]]
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 National Forest
Systems (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 is 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 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 road. 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 FW14 (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).
[[Page 77144]]
Responsible Officials
For the Forest Service, the responsible official is the Under
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the
Environment. For the BLM, the responsible official is the Eastern
States Director.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Forest Service
Given the purpose and need, the FS responsible official 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:
Whether to approve a Forest Plan amendment that would
modify eleven standards in the JNF's Forest Plan;
Determine what terms and conditions, or stipulations
should apply to a BLM ROW grant;
Whether to issue a written letter of concurrence to BLM if
the decision is to assent to the project on NFS lands; and,
Whether to adopt all or portions of the FERC FEIS that is
relevant to 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 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 not be subject to either the 36 CFR 218 or 36 CFR 219 pre-
decisional administrative review because the responsible official is
the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment
(36 CFR 218.13(b); 36 CFR 219.13(b)).
James E. Hubbard,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2020-26515 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
