82 FR 25761 - 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
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 106 (June 5, 2017)
Forest Service
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 106 (June 5, 2017)
| Page Range | 25761-25764 | |
| FR Document | 2017-11488 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 25761-25764] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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]] [email protected], 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 [email protected]. 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices 25761
required in order to approve the final quality; cultural and heritage resources; those individuals will not have standing
Plan. environmental justice; federal land for objection.
3. Decide whether and/or how to management and environmental Dated: May 12, 2017.
mitigate the effects of the proposed protection; fire and fuels management; Robert M. Harper,
mining operation to existing public fisheries and wildlife, including Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
motorized access. threatened, endangered, proposed, and Forest System.
Final EIS and Record of Decision sensitive species; geochemistry; geology; [FR Doc. 2017–11483 Filed 6–2–17; 8:45 am]
hazardous materials; land use; long-
The Forest Service would release a term, post-closure site management;
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
draft ROD in conjunction with the final noise; public health and safety;
EIS. The draft ROD would address recreation; roadless and wilderness
approval of the Plan, and any related DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
resources; socioeconomics; soils and
project-specific Forest Plan or Travel reclamation cover materials; timber Forest Service
Plan amendments that may be required. resources; water resources (groundwater
The draft decision would be subject to and surface water); and water rights. Notice of Updated Information
36 CFR 218, ‘‘Project-Level Pre- Concerning the Mountain Valley
decisional Administrative Review Permits or Licenses Required Pipeline Project and Equitrans
Process.’’ Depending on the nature of Aspects of the Plan will also require Expansion Project and the Associated
the forest plan amendments required, other permitting, including by the Idaho Forest Service Land and Resource
the draft decisions may also be subject Departments of Lands, Environmental Management Plan Amendments
to 36 CFR 219 Subpart B, ‘‘Pre- Quality, and Water Resources.
decisional Administrative Review AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
Process.’’ Scoping Process ACTION: Notice; updating information.
Following resolution of objections to
This notice of intent initiates the SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service
the draft ROD, a final ROD would be
scoping (public involvement) process, (Forest Service) is participating as a
issued. As the operator, Midas Gold
which guides the development of the cooperating agency with the Federal
would have an opportunity to appeal
EIS. Public comments may be submitted Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
the decision as set forth at 36 CFR 214,
to the PNF in a variety of ways, and the Bureau of Land Management
‘‘Postdecisional Administrative Review
including: via email, via the project Web (BLM) in the preparation of the
Process for Occupancy and Use of
site, by mail, and via FAX. In addition, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (MVP)
National Forest System Lands and
the PNF will conduct scoping meetings, and Equitrans Expansion Project (EEP)
Resources.’’
Prior to approval of the Plan, Midas during which members of the public can Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Gold may be required to modify the learn about the Forest Service proposed On October 14, 2016, the Forest Service
September 2016 Plan to comply with action and the NEPA process and published in the Federal Register (81
the description of the selected submit written comments. Comments FR 71041) a Notice of Availability of the
alternative in the final ROD. In addition, sought by the PNF include comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project and
the PNF Forest Supervisor would specific to the proposed action, Equitrans Expansion Project Draft
require Midas Gold to submit a information that could be pertinent to Environmental Impact Statement and
reclamation bond or provide proof of analysis of environmental effects, the Draft of Amendments to the
other acceptable financial assurance to identification of significant issues, and Jefferson National Forest’s Land and
ensure that NFS lands and resources identification of potential alternatives. Resource Management Plan (LRMP) to
involved with the mining operation are Written comments may be sent to: allow for the MVP to cross through the
reclaimed in accordance with the Payette National Forest, ATTN: Forest Jefferson National Forest. Since that
approved Plan and Forest Service Supervisor Keith Lannom—Stibnite publication, the Forest Service
requirements for environmental Gold EIS, 500 N. Mission St., McCall, ID determined there is a need to disclose
protection (36 CFR 228.8 and 228.13). 83638. Comments may also be sent via the following: New information relating
After the Forest Service has determined email with a Subject Line reading to the proposed LRMP amendments and
that the Plan conforms to the ROD as ‘‘Stibnite Gold EIS Scoping Comment’’ the substantive provisions in the 2012
well as other regulatory requirements, to comments-intermtn- Planning Rule that are likely to be
including acceptance of financial payette@fs.fed.us, submitted via Web directly related to the proposed
assurance for reclamation, it would site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ amendments. In addition, a proposed
approve the Plan. Implementation of payette/StibniteGold, or sent via FAX to change to one of the LRMP amendments
mining operations that affect NFS lands 1–208–634–0744. will result in a change to the
and resources may not commence until It is important that reviewers provide administrative review procedures as
the reclamation bond or other financial their comments at such times and in outlined in the October 14, 2016
assurance is in place and a plan of such manner that they are useful to Federal Register Notice.
operations is approved. preparation of the EIS. Therefore, to be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
most useful, comments should be Information about the MVP Project is
Preliminary Issues provided prior to the close of the available from the FERC’s Office of
scoping comment period and should
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Issues to be analyzed in the EIS will External Affairs at 866–208–FERC
be developed during this scoping clearly articulate the reviewer’s (3372), or on the FERC Web site
process. Preliminary issues expected to concerns and contentions. (www.ferc.gov). On the FERC’s Web site,
be analyzed include potential impacts Comments submitted anonymously go to ‘‘Documents & Filings,’’ click on
to: Access and transportation; aesthetics will be accepted and considered; the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link, click on ‘‘General
and visual resources; botanical however, without an associated name Search’’ and enter the docket number
resources, including wetlands and and address, receiving further CP16–10. Be sure you have selected an
threatened, endangered, proposed, and correspondences concerning the appropriate date range. For assistance,
sensitive species; climate and air proposed action will not be possible and please contact FERC Online Support at
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:31 Jun 02, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_25867/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices 25763
4A—Appalachian National Scenic Trail The amendment would provide an However, while an amendment to
Corridor, Rx 4J—Urban/Suburban exception from these standards for the Standard FW–77 will not be needed,
Interface, Rx 6C—Old Growth Forest MVP Project and include specific since proposed amendment—part 1 has
Communities Associated with mitigation measures and project design been changed and the lands will not be
Disturbance; Rx 8A1—Mix of requirements for the project. reallocated to Management Prescription
Successional Habitats in Forested The 36 CFR 219 planning rule 5C, the pipeline will be located on lands
Landscapes; and Rx 11—Riparian requirements likely to be directly in Management Prescription 6C. As
Corridors). related to amending the above standards such, the following standards in
This change from a plan amendment are: Management Prescription 6C will need
affecting future management to a to be amended to allow for a new utility
project-specific amendment would also § 219.8(a)(2)(ii)—‘‘[The plan must include right-of-way within this prescription
change the administrative review plan components to maintain or restore] Soils
area:
and soil productivity, including guidance to
process for this proposed amendment reduce soil erosion and sedimentation;’’ Standard 6C–007: Allow vegetation
from the 36 CFR 219, Subpart B § 219.8(a)(2)(iv)—‘‘[The plan must include management activities to: Maintain and
procedures as described in the October plan components to maintain or restore] restore dry-mesic oak forest, dry and xeric
14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of Water resources in the plan area, including oak forest, dry and dry-mesic oak-pine old
Availability, to the 36 CFR 218 lakes, streams, and wetlands; . . . and other growth forest communities; restore, enhance,
administrative review process that sources of drinking water (including or mimic historic fire regimes; reduce fuel
applies to the other proposed project- guidance to prevent or mitigate detrimental buildups; maintain rare communities and
specific amendments for this project. changes in quantity, quality, and species dependent on disturbance; provide
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule availability);’’ and for public health and safety; improve
§ 219.8(a)(3)(i)—The plan must include threatened, endangered, sensitive, and
requirement likely to be directly related locally rare species habitat; control non-
plan components ‘‘to maintain or restore the
to this part of the amendment is: ecological integrity of riparian areas in the native invasive vegetation.
§ 219.10(a)(3)—‘‘[The responsible official plan area, including plan components to Standard 6C–026: These areas are
shall consider] ‘‘Appropriate placement and maintain or restore structure, function, unsuitable for designation of new utility
sustainable management of infrastructure, composition, and connectivity.’’ corridors, utility rights-of-way, or
such as recreational facilities and communication sites. Existing uses are
transportation and utility corridors.’’ The Draft EIS for the MVP and the allowed to continue.
Proposed Amendment, Part 2: The October 14, 2016 Federal Register The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
Forest Service proposes to amend Notice of Availability had also requirements likely to be directly
Forestwide Standards FW–5, FW–8, identified that Management Prescription related to this part of the amendment
FW–9, FW–13, FW–14 and Management Area Standard 11–017 may need to be are:
Prescription Area Standard 11–003 to amended. However, a further review of
§ 219.8(a)(1)—‘‘The plan must include plan
allow for the construction of the this standard has determined that the
components, including standards and
Mountain Valley Pipeline to exceed proposed pipeline project can be made guidelines, to maintain or restore the
these soil and riparian corridor consistent with this standard and an ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic
protection measures. Standards FW–8 amendment to this standard will not be ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area,
and 11–003 were not originally needed. This standard is: including plan components to maintain or
identified in the Draft EIS for the MVP Standard 11–017: Tree removals from the restore structure, function, composition, and
core of the riparian corridor may only take connectivity.’’
as standards that may need to be
place if needed to: Enhance the recovery of § 219.11(c)—‘‘The plan may include plan
amended. These standards are: components to allow for timber harvest for
the diversity and complexity of vegetation
Standard FW–5: On all soils dedicated to native to the site; rehabilitate both natural purposes other than timber production . . .
growing vegetation, the organic layers, and human-caused disturbances; provide or portions of the plan area, as a tool to assist
topsoil and root mat will be left in place over habitat improvements for aquatic or riparian in achieving or maintaining one or more
at least 85% of the activity area and species, or threatened, endangered, sensitive, applicable desired conditions or objectives of
revegetation is accomplished within 5 years. and locally rare species; reduce fuel buildup; the plan . . .’’
Standard FW–8: To limit soil compaction, provide for public safety; for approved Proposed Amendment, Part 4: The
no heavy equipment is used on plastic soils facility construction/renovation; or as
when the water table is within 12 inches of JNF LRMP would be amended to allow
allowed in standards 11–012 or 11–022. the Mountain Valley Pipeline to be
the surface, or when soil moisture exceeds
the plastic limit. Soil moisture exceeds the Potential Amendment, Part 3: The exempt from Management Prescription
plastic limit when soil can be rolled to pencil
Draft EIS for the MVP and the October Area Standard 4A–028 and cross
size without breaking or crumbling. beneath the Appalachian National
Standard FW–9: Heavy equipment is 14, 2016 Federal Register Notice of
Availability had identified that Scenic Trail (ANST) in Giles County,
operated so that soil indentations, ruts, or Virginia. This standard is:
furrows are aligned on the contour and the Forestwide Standard FW–77 may need
slope of such indentations is 5 percent or to be amended. However, a further Standard 4A–028: Locate new public
less. review of this standard has determined utilities and rights-of-way in areas of this
Standard FW–13: Management activities that the proposed pipeline project can management prescription area where major
expose no more than 10% mineral soil in the impacts already exist. Limit linear utilities
be made consistent with this standard
channeled ephemeral zone. and rights-of-way to a single crossing of the
and an amendment to this standard will prescription area, per project.
Standard FW–14: In channeled ephemeral
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
zones, up to 50% of the basal area may be not be needed. This standard is:
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule
removed down to a minimum basal area of Standard FW–77: Inventory stands for requirement likely to be directly related
50 square feet per acre. Removal of additional existing old growth conditions during project
basal area is allowed on a case-by-case basis planning using the criteria in Appendix D.
to this part of the amendment is:
when needed to benefit riparian dependent Consider the contribution of identified § 219.10(b)(1)(vi)—‘‘[The plan must
resources. patches to the distribution and abundance of include plan components to provide for]
Standard 11–003: Management activities the old growth community type and to the Appropriate management of other designated
expose no more than 10 percent mineral soil desired condition of the appropriate areas or recommended designated areas in
within the project area riparian corridor. prescription during project analysis. the plan area.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:31 Jun 02, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_25867/page/3.svg)
![25764 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 / Notices
The Draft EIS for the MVP and the decision for the project-specific and the development of comprehensive
October 14, 2016 Federal Register amendment to the JNF LRMP that assessments, a need for change report,
Notice of Availability had also would be subject to the administrative and a proposed plan were shelved due
identified that Management Prescription review procedures under the 36 CFR to the overturning of the 2008 planning
Area Standard 4A–020 may need to be 218 regulations (per 36 CFR 219.59(b)). rule. Now that the national 2012
amended. However, a further review of The Reviewing Official for any Planning Rule has been established, the
this standard has determined that the objection filed on amending the JNF GMUG will reinitiate the plan revision
proposed pipeline project can be made LRMP to allow for the MVP Project will process.
consistent with this standard and an be the Regional Forester for the The plan revision process
amendment to this standard will not be Southern Region, or if delegated, the encompasses three stages: Assessment,
needed. This standard is: Deputy Regional Forester (36 CFR plan revision, and monitoring. This
Standard 4A–020: All management 218.3(a)). notice announces the initiation of the
activities will meet or exceed a Scenic assessment phase, the first stage of the
Responsible Official for Forest Service plan revision process, which involves
Integrity Objective of High.
LRMP Amendments assessing ecological, social and
Potential Amendment, Part 5: After
The Forest Supervisor for the George economic conditions and trends in the
the Draft EIS was released, it has been
Washington and Jefferson National planning area and documenting the
identified that the JNF may also need to
Forests, Joby P. Timm, is the findings in an Assessment report. For
amend Forestwide Standard FW–184 to
Responsible Official for amending the the first phase, the GMUG has posted
allow for the construction of the
Jefferson National Forest LRMP. helpful resources, including the current
Mountain Valley Pipeline to deviate
Dated: May 10, 2017. Forest Plan and subsequent
from the Scenic Integrity Objectives
amendments, information from the 2006
(SIOs) established in the LRMP. This Robert M. Harper,
and 2007 revision efforts, and the
standard is: Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National
Citizen’s Guide to National Forest
Standard FW–184: The Forest Scenic Forest System.
Planning, on the GMUG Forest Plan
Integrity Objectives (SIOs) Maps govern all [FR Doc. 2017–11488 Filed 6–2–17; 8:45 am]
Web site listed below.
new projects (including special uses). BILLING CODE 3411–15–P During this assessment phase, the
Assigned SIOS are consistent with Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum management GMUG invites other government
direction. Existing conditions may not agencies, non-governmental parties, and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE the public to share material about
currently meet the assigned SIO.
existing and changed conditions, trends,
The 36 CFR 219 planning rule Forest Service
and perceptions of social, economic and
requirement likely to be directly related
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and ecological systems. The GMUG will host
to this part of the amendment is:
Gunnison National Forests; Delta, a variety of public outreach forums in
§ 219.10(b)(i)—‘‘[The plan must include summer and fall of 2017 to facilitate this
plan components to provide for] ‘‘Sustainable Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa,
Montrose, Ouray, Saguache and San effort, and the public is encouraged to
recreation; . . . and scenic character.’’
Miguel Counties; Colorado; participate and provide meaningful
If any of the five parts of the proposed Assessment Report of Ecological, contributions. The GMUG is seeking
amendment to the JNF LRMP described Social and Economic Conditions, local knowledge of social values,
above are determined to be ‘‘directly Trends and Sustainability for the available data resources, areas of use
related’’ to a substantive rule Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and and activities, goods and services
requirement, the Responsible Official Gunnison National Forests produced by lands within the GMUG,
must apply that requirement within the and relevant material that will help
scope and scale of the proposed AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. inform desired conditions, standards
amendment and, if necessary, make ACTION:Notice of initiating the and guidelines, land suitability
adjustments to the proposed assessment phase of the land determinations, and other plan
amendment to meet the rule management plan revision for the Grand components. This information will help
requirement (36 CFR 219.13 (b)(5) and Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison identify gaps in the current management
(6)). National Forests. plan and inform the need for change,
highlighting priority issues that should
Administrative Review of Plan SUMMARY: The Grand Mesa, be addressed in this revision. Public
Amendment Decisions Uncompahgre and Gunnison National participation and collaboration are
The decision for a right-of-way grant Forests (GMUG), located on the western essential steps to understanding current
across Federal lands will be slope of the Colorado Rockies, are conditions, available data, and feedback
documented in a record of decision initiating the forest planning process needed to support a strategic, efficient
issued by the BLM. The BLM’s decision pursuant to the 2012 National Forest and effective revision process.
to issue, condition, or deny a right-of- System Land Management Planning Several guiding principles, developed
way will be subject to BLM rule. This process will result in a to overcome stakeholder-identified
administrative review procedures revised and updated Natural Resource challenges, will drive public
established in 43 CFR 2881.10 and the Land Management Plan, often referred engagement throughout the plan
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
procedures established in section 313(b) to as the Forest Plan, which will guide revision process. These guiding
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The all management activities on the GMUG principles include providing direct and
Forest Service concurrence to BLM to for the next fifteen years. The current transparent communication through a
issue the right-of-way grant would not GMUG Forest Plan was completed in variety of methods, maintaining focused
be a decision subject to the NEPA and 1983, and was subsequently amended in public involvement, building
therefore, would not be subject to the 1991, 1993, 2005, 2007, and 2009. relationships, and promoting sharing,
Forest Service administrative review Previous efforts to revise the Forest learning and understanding between the
procedures. The Forest Service would, Plan, including an eight-year effort agency and the public. These guiding
however, issue its own draft record of involving extensive public participation principles will help the GMUG ensure
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:31 Jun 02, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM 05JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_25867/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-14 10:00:33
Document Modified: 2018-11-14 10:00:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; updating 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 [email protected], 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. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 25761 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR