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 

FNS–292B, for a combined total of 9.02 

total annual burden hours rounded 

down to 9 total annual burden hours. 

Respondent 

category 

Type of respondents 

(optional) Instruments Form Number of respondents 

Frequency 

of response 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Annual 

burden 

(hours) 

State Government ........ Food Distribution State 

Agencies Staff.

Commodity Distribution 

Form FNS–292A.

FNS–292A 55 1 55 0.0835 4.59 

State Government ........ SNAP State Agencies 

Staff.

D–SNAP Benefit 

Issuance Form FNS 

292–B.

FNS–292B 53 1 53 0.0835 4.426 

Total ...................... ...................................... ...................................... .................... 108 1.000 108 0.084 9.02 

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 

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/ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Notices 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: 

§ 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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4
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 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Central Montana Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES4