Document ID: FERC-2016-0625-0001
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Notice
Title: Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
Posted Date: 2016-05-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28060-28064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10784]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-554-000; CP15-554-001]

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To 
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Land and 
Resource Plan Amendment(s) for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, 
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues Related to New Route and 
Facility Modifications, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

    On February 27, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC or Commission) issued in Docket Nos. PF15-5-000 and PF15-6-000 a 
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Planned Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, and 
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public 
Scoping Meetings (NOI). On September 18, 2015, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, 
LLC (Atlantic) and Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) filed applications 
with the FERC in Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-555-000 pursuant to 
sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 
284 of the Commission's regulations. Atlantic and DTI are seeking 
Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificates) to 
construct, own, and operate a natural gas pipeline and related 
facilities. On March 1, 2016, Atlantic filed an amendment to its 
application to incorporate route and facility modifications in West 
Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. This Supplemental Notice is 
being issued to seek comments on the new pipeline route and facility 
modifications and opens a new scoping period for interested parties to 
file comments on environmental issues specific to these modifications.
    Information about the facilities proposed by Atlantic and DTI can 
be found on our public dockets referenced above and on each applicant's 
Web site at www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/atlantic-coast-pipeline or 
www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/natural-gas/supply-header-project. The 
FERC's environmental impact statement (EIS) will encompass all proposed 
facilities and be used by the Commission in its decision-making process 
to determine whether the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) and Supply 
Header Project are in the public convenience and necessity.
    The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the 
EIS. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating 
agency because the ACP would cross the Monongahela National Forest 
(MNF) and the George Washington National Forest (GWNF) in West Virginia 
and Virginia. As a cooperating agency, the USFS intends to adopt the 
EIS per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1506.3 to 
meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) regarding Atlantic's application for a Right-of-Way Grant and 
Temporary Use Permit for crossing federally administered lands. In 
addition, there may be a need for the USFS to amend the MNF and GWNF 
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) to allow for the ACP to be 
constructed on USFS lands. The EIS will also provide the documentation 
to support needed amendments to the LRMPs. Additional details on the 
USFS' LRMP Amendment Process is provided on page 8.
    The Commission previously solicited public input on the ACP in the 
spring of 2015. We \1\ are specifically seeking comments on the new 
pipeline route and facility modifications to help the Commission staff 
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EIS. Your comments 
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable 
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts 
from the new route and proposed modifications. To ensure that your 
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so 
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 
2, 2016. If you have previously provided comments on the ACP or Supply 
Header Projects, you do not need to resubmit them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff 
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. In lieu of or 
in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to 
attend the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 20, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.  Marlinton Community Wellness
                                             Center, 320 9th Street,
                                             Marlinton, WV 24954.
Saturday, May 21, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-7:00     Bath County High School, 464
 p.m.                                        Charger Lane, Hot Springs,
                                             VA 24445.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28061]]

    The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide an opportunity 
to verbally comment on the project modifications. You may attend at any 
time during the meeting, as the primary goal of a scoping meeting is 
for us to hear and document your environmental concerns. There will not 
be a formal presentation by Commission staff; however, we will be 
available to answer your questions about the FERC environmental review 
process. Representatives of Atlantic will also be present to answer 
questions about the project.
    Verbal comments will be recorded by a court reporter and 
transcripts will be placed into the docket for the project and made 
available for public viewing on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 12 
``Additional Information'' for instructions on using eLibrary). It is 
important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written 
or electronically submitted comments. If a significant number of people 
are interested in providing verbal comments, a time limit of 3 to 5 
minutes may be implemented for each commenter to ensure all those 
wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so within the designated 
meeting time. Time limits will be strictly enforced if they are 
implemented.
    This Supplemental Notice is being sent to the Commission's current 
environmental mailing list for this project, including those landowners 
that are newly affected by the proposed pipeline route modifications. 
State and local government representatives are asked to notify their 
constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on 
their areas of concern.
    If you are a newly affected landowner receiving this notice, a 
pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition 
of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed 
facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable 
agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that 
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if the 
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline 
company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation 
would be determined in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural 
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for 
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses 
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent 
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of Project Modifications

    In its amended application, Atlantic proposes a major route change 
through the MNF and GWNF that would affect landowners in Randolph and 
Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia and Highland, Bath, and Augusta 
Counties, Virginia. Other, smaller route changes proposed in the 
amendment would affect landowners in Nelson and Dinwiddie Counties, 
Virginia; and Cumberland and Johnston Counties, North Carolina. The 
amended facilities would increase the total length of the pipeline from 
about 556 miles to 599.7 miles and compressor station horsepower from 
40,715 horsepower to 53,515 horsepower at the proposed Buckingham 
County, Virginia compressor station, all as more fully described in the 
amended application. An overview map of the proposed ACP and SHP and 
illustrations of these alternatives are provided in Appendix 1. 
Detailed alternative route location information can be found on DTI's 
interactive web mapping application at https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/atlantic-coast-pipeline.

GWNF 6 Route Modification (Randolph and Pocahontas Counties, West 
Virginia; Highland, Bath, and Augusta Counties, Virginia)

    To reduce potential impacts on the Cheat Mountain salamander, West 
Virginia Northern flying squirrel, and Cow Knob salamander, and to 
avoid sensitive habitats and land uses, Atlantic incorporated the GWNF 
6 Alternative into its proposed pipeline route between AP-1 mileposts 
(MPs) 47.5 and 115.2. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, 
the GWNF 6 Route Modification initially heads south approximately 13 
miles, passing east of Hicks Ridge and west of Kumbrabow State Forest. 
The route continues south/southeast approximately 13 miles, crossing 
Point Mountain and passing east of Elk Mountain and Mingo Knob. The 
route enters Pocahontas County, West Virginia southeast of Mingo Knob 
at Valley Mountain, and continues south approximately 8 miles, crossing 
Mace, Tallow, and Gibson Knobs, passing west of the Snowshoe Ski 
Resort. South of Gibson Knob, the route heads southeast approximately 
17 miles, passing south of Cheat Mountain and Back Allegheny Mountain; 
crossing Cloverlick Mountain, Seneca State Forest, and Michael 
Mountain; and entering Highland County, Virginia just west of Big 
Crooked Ridge.
    After entering Virginia, the GWNF 6 Alternative continues east 
approximately 3 miles then southeast approximately 8 miles, crossing 
Little Ridge, Big Ridge, and Little Mountain and passing east of Piney 
Ridge. The route enters Bath County, Virginia near U.S. Highway 220, 
and continues southeast approximately 14 miles, crossing Back Creek 
Mountain, Jack Mountain, and Tower Hill Mountain and passing south of 
Shenandoah Mountain at South Sister Knob. The route heads northeast 
approximately 20 miles, passing north of Chestnut Ridge; entering 
Augusta County, Virginia near Brushy Ridge; and crossing Deerfield 
Valley on the east side of Shenandoah Mountain. The GWNF 6 Alternative 
intersects Atlantic's filed route near MP 115.2 at Broad Draft near 
West Augusta, Virginia.
    In addition to the route modification described above, Atlantic 
also proposes to increase the horsepower of its proposed Compressor 
Station 2 in Buckingham County, Virginia and install eight additional 
valve sites.

Snowshoe Route Adjustment (Randolph and Pocahontas Counties, Virginia)

    Atlantic incorporated the Snowshoe Route Variation into its 
proposed route between AP-1 MPs 66.7 and 70.1 to avoid modeled habitat 
for the Cheat Mountain salamander and the Cheat Mountain Civil War 
Battlefield, as well as reducing the amount of forest land and other 
sensitive environmental features crossed. Relative to Atlantic's 
originally proposed route, the Snowshoe Route Variation initially heads 
west/southwest for 0.8 mile, crossing the main ridge on Valley 
Mountain, then continuing for approximately 2.6 miles, descending 
Valley Mountain, crossing Dry Fork Spring and Middle Mountain, and 
entering the valley along Big Fork Spring. The route then crosses 
Highway 56 in the valley, and continues to the south/southwest for 
approximately 1.3 miles, ascending Tallow Knob and reconnecting to the 
originally proposed route at MP 70.1.

Singleton Route Adjustment (Bath County, Virginia)

    Atlantic incorporated the Singleton Route Adjustment into its 
proposed route between AP-1 MPs 91.9 and 92.7 to avoid an open-space 
conservation easement held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. 
Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Singleton Route 
Adjustment is generally parallel to and within 0.3 mile of the 
corresponding segment of the originally proposed route.

[[Page 28062]]

Horizons Village 2 Route Adjustment (Nelson County, Virginia)

    In response to our environmental information request dated December 
4, 2015, and to avoid crossing the Spruce Creek Tributary Conservation 
Site, Atlantic incorporated the Horizons Village 2 Route Adjustment 
into its proposed pipeline route between AP-1 MPs 162.0 and 162.8. 
Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Horizons Village 
2 Route Adjustment would pass approximately 310 feet south of the 
conservation site.

Highway 29 Route Adjustment (Nelson County, Virginia)

    In response to our environmental information request dated December 
4, 2015, and to avoid an area of high slip potential, improve the 
location for the crossing of Highway 29, and optimize the amount of 
agricultural and open land crossed, Atlantic incorporated the Highway 
29 Route Variation into its proposed pipeline route between AP-1 MPs 
167.0 and 171.1. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the 
Highway 29 Route Variation initially heads south for approximately 0.2 
mile following a ridge to the top of Roberts Mountain, then continues 
southeast for approximately 1.7 miles following a ridge to the base of 
Roberts Mountain at the crossing of Davis Creek. This segment of the 
route crosses Highway 29 on the same north trending finger ridge as the 
proposed route, but in an area with flatter terrain at the crossing. On 
the south side of the highway, the route continues to the southeast for 
approximately 2.2 miles, including a 0.2-mile-long segment parallel to 
Starvale Lane. The Highway 29 Route Variation reconnects to the 
originally proposed route on the east side of Wheelers Cove Road at 
approximately MP 171.1.

Beaver Pond Creek Route Adjustment (Dinwiddie County, Virginia)

    In response to our environmental information request dated December 
4, 2015, and to reduce the number of crossings of Beaver Pond Creek and 
address comments provided by the Ward Burton Wildlife Foundation, 
Atlantic incorporated the Beaver Pond Creek Route Variation into its 
proposed pipeline route between AP-1 MPs 256.5 and 259.3. Relative to 
Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Beaver Pond Creek Route 
Variation initially heads south/southwest for approximately 111.1 miles 
to a point just south of Whitmore Road, then heads south for 
approximately 1.6 miles over mostly upland terrain, crossing Beaver 
Creek Pond in one location, reconnecting with the originally proposed 
route near MP 259.3.

Juniper Farms Route Adjustment (Johnston County, North Carolina)

    Atlantic incorporated the Juniper Farms Route Variation into its 
proposed route between AP-2 MPs 96.9 and 98.4 to avoid a wetland 
mitigation bank, and to reduce the amount of sensitive environmental 
features and constraints crossed. Relative to Atlantic's originally 
proposed route, the Juniper Farms Route Variation initially heads 
southwest for approximately 1.2 miles, passing east of the eastern 
boundary of the mitigation bank. The route variation then reconnects 
with the originally proposed route at MP 98.4 on the north side of the 
Neuse River crossing.

Fayetteville Major Route Modification (Cumberland County, North 
Carolina)

    In response to our environmental information request dated December 
4, 2015, and to increase collocation with an existing Progress Energy 
Carolinas (PEC) 500 kilovolt electric transmission line, and reduce the 
number of affected property owners, the number of waterbody crossings, 
and temporary wetland impacts, Atlantic incorporated the Fayetteville 
Major Route Alternative into its proposed pipeline route between AP-2 
MPs 133.1 and 157.5. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, 
the Fayetteville Major Route Alternative initially heads south/
southeast for approximately 3.9 miles to the point where it intersects 
the existing PEC electric transmission line, crossing Drum Road, 
Interstate 95, and Goldsboro Road. The route then heads south for 
approximately 16.7 miles, parallel to and adjacent to the electric 
transmission line corridor, and crosses Clinton Road and Cedar Creek 
Road. The route continues west for approximately 5.5 miles, crossing 
Tabor Church Road, Cape Fear River, and North Carolina State Highway 87 
reconnecting with the originally proposed route near MP 157.5.

The EIS Process

    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental 
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the 
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA 
also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have 
about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal 
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the 
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests 
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We 
will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of 
the construction and operation of the proposed projects under these 
general headings:

[ballot] Geology and soils;
[ballot] land use;
[ballot] water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
[ballot] cultural resources;
[ballot] vegetation and wildlife;
[ballot] air quality and noise;
[ballot] endangered and threatened species;
[ballot] outdoor recreation and scenery
[ballot] socioeconomics; and
[ballot] public safety.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed 
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to 
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We 
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the 
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the 
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have 
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully 
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning 
on page 9.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and USFS also have 
responsibilities under NEPA and can adopt the EIS for their own 
agencies purposes. The USFS intends to use this EIS to evaluate the 
effects of the ACP on lands and facilities managed by the agency and to 
address any proposed amendments of applicable LRMPs that would be 
necessary to make provisions for the projects.
    With this Supplemental Notice, we are asking agencies with 
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the 
environmental issues related to these projects to formally cooperate 
with us in the preparation of the EIS.\2\ Agencies that would like to 
request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for 
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this 
notice. As discussed above, the USFS has expressed its intention to 
participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS to 
satisfy its NEPA

[[Page 28063]]

responsibilities related to these projects. In addition to the USFS, 
the USACE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection, and West Virginia Division of 
Natural Resources have also agreed to participate as cooperating 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing 
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Actions of the U.S. Forest Service

    On November 12, 2015 Atlantic submitted a right-of-way grant 
application to the USFS to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually 
decommission a natural gas pipeline that crosses lands and facilities 
administered by the USFS. In addition, there is a need for the USFS to 
consider amending affected LRMPs to make provision for the ACP right-
of-way.
    The proposed action before the USFS has two components. First, in 
accordance with the Minerals Leasing Act, the USFS would issue a right-
of-way grant in response to ACP's application for the project to occupy 
federal lands. The USFS may submit specific stipulations, including 
mitigation measures, for inclusion in the right-of-way grant related to 
lands, facilities, and easements within its jurisdiction. Second, the 
USFS may need to amend its LRMPs for the Monongahela and George 
Washington National Forests if analysis shows that construction of the 
ACP would not be consistent with the LRMP standards or other plan 
components. In addition, the ACP, as proposed, does not follow a 
designated utility corridor through the GWNF. If the proposed route 
were authorized with the right-of-way grant, the GWNF LRMP would need 
to be amended to change the current Management Areas in the corridor to 
Management Area 5C-Designated Utility Corridors. The MNF does not have 
LRMP direction that would require a similar plan amendment to 
reallocate management prescriptions.
    The USFS Regional Foresters of the respective national forests have 
authority to grant a right-of-way in response to Atlantic's application 
for natural gas transmission on federal lands under the Mineral Leasing 
Act of 1920. The Responsible Official for amendment of Forest Service 
LRMPs is the Forest Supervisor of the applicable national forest. 
However, the Regional Forester of the applicable national forest may 
elect to be the Responsible Official for the plan amendments as well, 
since the Regional Forester will be the Responsible Official for the 
right-of-way grant.
    This NOI initiates the scoping process for the potential LRMP 
amendments and for the issuance of the right-of-way grant. The 
decisions will be tiered to the analysis contained in the FERC EIS for 
the ACP. The Notice of Availability for the FERC draft EIS will contain 
more detailed information associated with the LRMP amendments.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's 
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation 
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and to solicit 
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian 
tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic 
properties.\3\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential 
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the projects develop. 
On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all 
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction 
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and 
access roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on 
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of 
consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations 
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those 
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or 
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in 
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific 
comments or concerns about the ACP and proposed USFS LRMP amendments. 
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, 
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental 
impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. 
To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please 
send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington 
DC on or before June 2, 2016. If you have previously provided comments 
on the ACP or Supply Header Projects, you do not need to resubmit them.
    The USFS is participating as a cooperating agency with the FERC in 
this public scoping process. With this notice, the USFS is requesting 
public comments on the issuance of the ROW Grant that would allow the 
ACP to occupy federal land. The USFS is also requesting public comments 
on the potential amendments of USFS LRMPs to make provision for the ACP 
right-of-way on the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests.
    Comments on actions by the USFS should be submitted through the 
FERC comment process and within the timeline described. The submission 
of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to 
participate in subsequent administrative or judicial review of USFS 
decisions. Comments concerning USFS actions submitted anonymously will 
be accepted and considered; however, such anonymous submittals will not 
provide the commenters with standing to participate in administrative 
or judicial review of USFS decisions.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit 
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the 
appropriate project docket number (CP15-554-000 for the ACP) with your 
submission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all 
comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. 
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert 
staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or efiling@ferc.gov. 
Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are 
properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment 
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the 
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested 
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling 
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the 
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments 
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your 
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking 
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If 
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select 
``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to 
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 
20426.

[[Page 28064]]

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local 
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; 
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other 
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also 
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's 
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property 
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within 
certain distances of aboveground facilities, as well as anyone who 
submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental 
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the 
information related to this environmental review to all individuals, 
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially 
affected by the planned projects.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental 
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to 
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would 
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the 
attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EIS scoping process, you may want 
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the 
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the 
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard 
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. 
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a 
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in 
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web 
site.

Administrative Review of USFS Decisions

    Decisions by the USFS to issue ROW Grants and amend LRMPs are 
subject to administrative review. Pre-decisional objections to the ROW 
Grant decisions and project-specific MNF and GWNF LRMP amendments that 
are applicable only to the ACP, as provided under Title 36 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations Part 219.59(b) (36 CFR 219.59[b]), may be filed 
under the 36 CFR 218 regulations, Subparts A and B. For objection 
eligibility (218.5), only those who have submitted timely, specific 
written comments during any designated opportunity for public comment 
may file an objection. Issues to be raised in objections must be based 
on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the 
proposed project and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is 
based on new information that arose after a designated opportunity for 
comment (218.8(c)). The GWNF plan amendment for the reallocation of 
management areas to Management Area 5C-Designated Utility Corridors 
would be subject to the pre-decisional objection process under the 
regulations at 36 CFR 219, Subpart B. For objection eligibility 
(219.53), only those who have submitted substantive formal comments 
related to a plan amendment during the opportunities for public comment 
during the planning process for that decision may file an objection. 
Objections must be based on previously submitted substantive formal 
comments attributed to the objector unless the objection concerns an 
issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the ACP is available from the 
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the 
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the 
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket 
number, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP15-554). Be sure you 
have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact 
FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 
208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also 
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the 
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called 
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances 
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time 
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with 
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to 
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the 
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10784 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P