Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51329 

Permits or Licenses Required 

The TRPA will issue project specific 

permits for projects and activities 

within the Lake Tahoe Region, as 

approved under the Heavenly Mountain 

Resort Master Plan Amendment. 

Comment Requested 

This notice of intent initiates the 

scoping process which guides the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation in Subsequent 

Environmental Review 

A draft environmental impact 

statement will be prepared for comment. 

The comment period on the draft 

environmental impact statement will be 

45 days from the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that it is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 

comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Tyrone Kelley, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor, LTBMU. 

[FR Doc. 05–17154 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

White River National Forest; and Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 

National Forests; Bull Mountain 

Natural Gas Pipeline 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

conduct scoping and prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the Bull Mountain Natural Gas 

Pipeline Project, Delta, Garfield, 

Gunnison, and Mesa Counties, 

Colorado. 

SUMMARY: SG Interests I, LTD (SGI) of 

Houston, Texas, has submitted to the 

White River National Forest, the Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison 

National Forests, and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Glenwood 

Springs Field Office, a proposal to 

authorize SGI to construct, operate and 

maintain a 20-inch pipeline system to 

transport natural gas from production 

operations in the Bull Mountain Unit, 

21 miles northeast of Paonia, CO, to the 

existing Divide Creek pipeline system, 

10 miles south of Silt, CO, for delivery 

into interstate natural gas pipeline 

systems. The proposed pipeline crosses 

portions of Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, and 

Garfield Counties, CO. In addition to the 

natural gas pipeline, an 8-inch water 

pipeline would be installed in the same 

trench during the construction 

operations. The water pipeline would 

transport produced water from well 

drilling activities to a commercially 

available disposal facility at the north 

end of the pipeline. SGI has submitted 

a right-of-way application and 

temporary use are application to the 

Glenwood Springs Field Office of the 

BLM, which is the authorizing agency 

for natural gas pipelines under the 

Mineral Leasing Act where the lands are 

managed by two or more Federal 

agencies. 

Total length of the proposed pipeline 

is approximately 252.5 miles, starting 

on private land located in Section 10, 

T11S, R90W, 21 miles northeast of 

Paonia, CO, and traversing north 

approximately 8.2 miles on the Grad 

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison 

National Forests to the White River 

National Forest boundary. It then 

continues north for 8.1 miles in the 

White River National Forest-Rifle 

Ranger District. From the White River 

National Forest, it traverses 

approximately 3.5 miles of BLM, and 

then crosses onto private lands at 

Section 5, T8S, R91W (5.6 miles total on 

private land for entire length), and 

connects the existing Divide Creek 

pipeline located in Section 1, T8S, 

R92W. The proposed pipeline route 

starts in Gunnison County on the south 

end, and crosses north through portions 

of Delta, and Mesa Counties, and ending 

at the Divide Creek Compressor Station 

in Section 1, T8S, R92W, Garfield 

County, CO. The proposed pipeline 

route follows existing pipeline routes 

for approximately 44% of the entire 

length across all land ownerships. On 

National Forest lands, the proposed 

pipeline route follows existing pipeline 

routes for approximately 57% of the 

total proposed route on National Forest 

lands. The proposed pipeline deviates 

from existing pipeline routes for 

engineering constructability issues or to 

avoid private land where there have 

been landowner objections. 

In addition to the pipeline proposals, 

the proposal action includes proposals 

by the White River National Forest and 

the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and 

Gunnison National Forests to change the 

area within and adjacent to the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way to a 

‘‘Utility Corridor’’ management 

prescription. This would require a 

Forest Plan amendment for each Forest. 

These Forest Plan amendments would 

be considered non-significant per Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 1922.51–2. 

‘‘Adjustments of management area 

boundaries or management 

prescriptions [that] do not cause 

significant changes in multiple use goals 

and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management.’’ The Plan 

amendments would place the lands in 

the appropriate management 

prescription for utility corridors. This 

management prescription describes the 

desired condition, and contains 

standards and guidelines that are 

appropriate for utility corridors. The 

proposed utility corridor management 

51330 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

area designation may be from 8–12 

miles in length on each Forest, 

depending on the analysis. 

DATES: Comments concerning the 

proposal and the scope of the analysis 

will be accepted and considered at any 

time after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register and prior to a 

decision being made. To be most helpful 

in the design of the proposed action, 

development of any alternatives, project 

design features, mitigation measures, 

and the subsequent environmental 

analysis, comments should be received 

within 45 days of publication of this 

NOI in the Federal Register. A scoping 

notice will also be distributed by mail 

to a project mailing list on, or about, the 

date that this notice is published in the 

Federal Register. Public meetings will 

be announced through local news media 

sources such as the Glenwood Springs 

Post Independent, Grand Junction Daily 

Sentinel, Delta County Independent, 

and the Rifle Citizen Telegram. Detailed 

information about the proposed action, 

including maps and pending public 

meetings will also be posted on the 

White River National Forest Web site at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record on this proposal and will 

be available for public inspection. An 

electronic e-mail address for comments 

is available at: comments-rockymountain-white-river@fs.fed.us. Please 

include the project name in the subject 

line of your e-mail comments. 

A draft EIS (DEIS) is expected to be 

filed with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and available for public 

review during March, 2006. When a 

DEIS is available, the EPA will publish 

a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register. The comment period 

on the DEIS will be for a period of not 

less than 45 days from the date the EPA 

publishes the NOA in the Federal 

Register. The final EIS is expected to be 

available in August, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in 

writing should be mailed to: District 

Ranger, White River National Forest, 

Rifle Ranger District, 0094 County Road 

244, Rifle, Colorado, 81650. 

In addition, e-mail comments can be 

submitted to comments-rockymountain-white-river@fs.fed.us. Please 

include the project name in the subject 

line of your e-mail. Comments should 

include: (1) Name, address, telephone 

number, organization represented, if 

any; (2) title of the document on which 

the comment is being submitted; and (3) 

specific facts and supporting reasons for 

the Responsible Official to consider. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Grode, Project Manager, GMUG NF, 

Grand Valley Ranger District, 2777 

Crossroads Blvd., Unit 1, Grand 

Junction, Colorado, 81506. Telephone 

970–263–5828, or Fax 970–263–5819. 

Telephone for the Hearing Impaired is 

970–945–3255. In addition, information 

about the proposal, including details of 

the proposed action and maps, will be 

posted on the White River National 

Forest Web site at: www.fs.fed.us/r2/ 

whiteriver. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose and need of this action 

is to authorize SG Interests I, LTD to 

construct, operate and maintain a 20- 

inch natural gas pipeline and an 8-inch 

water pipeline on National Forest 

System and Bureau of Land 

Management lands. The need for the 

construction of the Bull Mountain 

Pipeline is to transport natural gas from 

production operations in the Bull 

Mountain Gas Leasing Unit for delivery 

into interstate natural gas pipeline 

systems, in order to provide energy 

resources to the national energy market. 

The ‘‘Greasewood Hub’’, near Meeker, 

Colorado is the interstate system to 

which the natural gas from the Bull 

Mountain Pipeline would be delivered. 

The existing 6-inch Ragged Mountain 

Pipeline (RMP), which is near the Bull 

Mountain production area, does not 

have the capacity to transport 

anticipated natural gas production from 

the Bull Mountain Unit and adjacent gas 

leasing units. 

A secondary action is proposed by the 

White River National Forest and the 

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison 

National Forests to create amendments 

to their respective Forest Plans. The 

amendments would change the current 

management prescriptions in a corridor 

along and adjacent to the final route of 

the proposed pipeline, if authorized by 

the BLM, to a ‘‘Utility Corridor’’

management prescription. The purpose 

and need to change the Forest Plan 

management prescriptions along the 

pipeline corridor is to allow for primary 

management goals in each Forest Plan to 

be consistent with future on-the-ground 

management within the utility corridor. 

Proposed Action 

Total proposed pipeline system length 

is approximately 25.5 miles. A 4-acre 

compressor station site would be 

located on the southern end of the 

project on private lands and this 

proposal will be considered a connected 

action for this analysis. The proposed 

action maximizes use of existing 

pipeline and roadway corridors for new 

construction, existing transportation to 

interstate pipelines, and has been 

designed with capacity allowances to 

meet foreseeable production increases. 

The proposed pipeline route follows 

existing pipeline routes for 

approximately 44% of the entire length 

across all land ownerships. On federal 

lands, the proposed pipeline route 

follows existing pipeline routes for 

approximately 57% of the total 

proposed route. In addition to the 20- 

inch natural gas pipeline, an 8-inch 

water pipeline will be installed in the 

same ditch during the construction 

operations. The water pipeline would 

transport produced water to a 

commercially available disposal facility 

at the north end of the project, as a 

disposal facility is not available in the 

Bull Mountain Unit area. The 20-inch 

and 8-inch pipeline and related 

facilities will be designed to Department 

of Transportation (DOT) CFR 39 part 

192 standards and American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) Class 600 

specification with launchers and 

receivers for pigging. Pipeline burial 

depths will be 36 inches below grade in 

normal soil, 48 inches below grade 

across streams, or 18 inches below grade 

in solid rock. Additional depth 

requirements will be viewed on a case 

by case basis. Variable width temporary 

use areas (TUA) are requested to 

accommodate construction. A 

temporary right-of-way of 75 feet would 

be used during the construction, with 

some additional Temporary Use Areas 

for vehicle and equipment parking and 

vehicle turn-a-rounds. A permanent 

right-of-way of 50-feet would be granted 

if the proposal is approved. 

Construction operations would include 

clearing of up to 100 foot corridor of 

vegetation, in most cases 75 feet, 

moving in heavy equipment and the 20′′ 

and 8′′ pipe sections, digging trench for 

pipeline up to 48′′ deep, revegetation 

and reclamation of disturbed areas after 

pipeline construction. An approximate 

10–12 feet wide corridor of non-forested 

(grassland and shrub) habitat would be 

maintained for the lifetime of the 

pipeline permit. The remainder of the 

cleared 50-foot permanent corridor 

would be allowed to revegetate to a 

forested condition, in suitable habitats. 

Noxious weeds would be monitored and 

treated by the proponent (SGI) for the 

lifetime of the pipeline permit. 

Total acres impacted, including 

temporary use areas, during the 

construction activities would be 

approximately 295 acres. The 

permanent 50-foot right-of-way would 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 51331 

include approximately 155 acres for the 

length of the pipeline. 

The proposed Bull Mountain pipeline 

interconnects to the existing 14-inch 

pipeline at the Divide Creek Compressor 

Station in Section 1, T8S, R92W, 

Garfield County, CO. There would be a 

metering and pigging facility at this 

proposed interconnect site, and one 

main line block valve along the route. 

The proposed pipeline is designed to 

adequately transport a wide variety of 

gas volumes to meet presently 

foreseeable production levels. 

The pipeline project crosses T11S, 

R90W Sections 3, 4 & 10; T10S, R90W 

Sections 18, 19, 30, 31, 32 & 33; T10S, 

R91W, Sections 2, 11, 12, & 13; T9S, 

R91W, Sections 3, 10, 11, 14, 23, 26 & 

35; T8S, R91W, Sections 5, 6, 8, 17, 20, 

21, 28, 33 & 34; and T8S, R92W, Section 

1, within Gunnison, Delta, Mesa, and 

Garfield Counties, CO. This route starts 

from a proposed compressor station on 

private land located in Section 10, 

T11S, R90W, runs north to intersect the 

Ragged Mountain Pipeline (RMP) 

pipeline in Section 33, T10S, R90W 

(half way between Fed 10–90–32 and 

Fed 10–90–33 Well locations) and then 

intersects the RMP pipeline again in 

between Sections 29 & 32, T10S, R90W. 

From this point, the route parallels 

existing pipeline corridors including the 

Ragged Mountain Pipeline (RMP), 

Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (RMNG), 

and Divide Creek Pipeline to the 

maximum extent possible to make use 

of the previously cleared corridor areas 

for construction. 

The pipeline route separates from the 

RMP pipeline to avoid a private 

property located in Sections 10, 11, 14, 

T9S, R91W but rejoins it after bypassing 

that property. The pipeline route then 

intersects the RMNG 6-inch pipeline 

located in Section 3, T9S, R91W and 

parallels this existing pipeline corridor 

until its separates in Section 33, T8S, 

R91W. It traverses north on White River 

National Forest until it moves onto BLM 

land, following approximately the 

western boundary between BLM and 

private lands. The pipeline route heads 

westerly and crosses onto private lands 

at Sections 5, 6, T8S, R91W, and 

connects to the 14-inch Divide Creek 

Pipeline located in Section 1, T8S, 

R92W. 

The proposed pipeline route passes 

through a total of 9.2 miles of 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) on 

National Forest Lands. Approximately 

6.7 miles of the 9.2 miles of the 

proposed pipeline route within National 

Forest IRAs follow an existing pipeline 

route constructed in 1982. Specifically, 

the proposed pipeline route traverses 

through approximately 6.0 miles on the 

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and 

Gunnison National Forests Clear Creek 

Roadless Area #186, 1.4 miles of the 

White River National Forest Baldy 

Mountain Roadless Area #67, 1.7 miles 

of the White River National Forest East 

Willow Roadless Area #73, and 0.1 mile 

of the White River National Forest Reno 

Mountain Roadless Area #66. Total 

acres impacted by construction 

activities (including temporary use 

areas) in inventoried roadless areas on 

National Forest Lands would be 

approximately 115 acres. The 

permanent 50-foot right-of-way for the 

pipeline would involve approximately 

56 acres of inventoried roadless areas. 

In addition to the pipeline 

construction and right-of-way proposals, 

the proposed action includes proposals 

by the White River National Forest and 

the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and 

Gunnison National Forests to change the 

area following the selected or 

authorized pipeline route to a ‘‘Utility 

Corridor’’ management prescription. A 

‘‘Utility Corridor’’ is defined in the 

White River National Forest Plan as a 

‘‘linear strip of land defined for the 

present or future location of 

transportation or utility facilities within 

its boundaries.’’ This designation of a 

utility corridor would require a Forest 

Plan amendment for each Forest, which 

would be considered non-significant 

amendments according to FSM 

1922.51–2. ‘‘Adjustments of 

management area boundaries or 

management prescriptions [that] do not 

cause significant changes in multiple 

use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management.’’ These 

Plan amendments would place the land 

in the appropriate management 

prescription for utility corridors. This 

prescription describes the desired 

condition, and contains standards and 

guidelines that are appropriate for 

utility corridors. The actual width of the 

utility corridor would be determined 

during the analysis process. The 

proposed utility corridor management 

area designation on White River 

National Forest is 8.15 miles in length 

and 8.23 miles on the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre and Gunnison National 

Forests. The White River National 

Forest would change the management 

area prescription for the proposed 

pipeline right-of-way from the existing 

prescription of #5.43-Elk Habitat, and 

#5.41-Deer and Elk Winter Range, to a 

management prescription of #8.32- 

Designated Utility Corridor. The Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison 

National Forests would change the 

management area prescription for the 

proposed pipeline right-of-way from the 

existing prescription of #6B-Livestock 

Grazing, to a management prescription 

of #1D-Utility Corridor. 

The proposal for the pipeline 

construction and right-of-way is not 

contingent upon Forest Plan 

amendments by the White River 

National Forest or the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre and Gunnison National 

Forests. 

Connected Actions 

A 4-acre compressor site for the Bull 

Mountain pipeline is planned to be 

located on private land on the southern 

end of the pipeline. Stringent noise 

abatement structures and techniques 

would be employed, per agreement with 

the landowner. 

The Henderson lateral pipeline is 

another pipeline proposed by SGI 

Interests to transport existing gas 

production in the Bull Mountain unit 

1.7 miles to the Ragged Mountain Gas 

Gathering System pipeline. This 

proposal consists of a 6-inch and a 24- 

inch natural gas steel pipeline to 

transport natural gas from production 

operations in the Bull Mountain Unit 

Area and a 6-inch high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) to transport 

produced water from drilling activities. 

The 24-inch pipeline may also be used 

as the future suction line from the Bull 

Mountain Gathering System to feed the 

proposed Bull Mountain Pipeline. The 

6-inch steel pipeline length is 

approximately 1.2 miles. Total 24-inch 

steel pipeline length is approximately 

0.5 mile. Total 6-inch HDPE pipeline 

length is approximately 1.7 miles. An 

environmental analysis is on-going for 

this project by the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National 

Forests. 

Preliminary Issues 

Preliminary issues identified so far 

include: (1) Impacts of pipeline 

construction and operation on scenic 

qualities and roadless character; (2) 

impacts of vegetation removal causing 

erosion and additional sediment loads 

into streams; (3) geologic hazards and 

unstable soils affecting the stability of 

the pipeline; (4) noxious weed increases 

from ground disturbance, imported 

equipment use and imported materials 

such as road gravel, seed mixes, and 

erosion control materials; (5) impacts on 

existing Forest System roads and 

increased traffic affecting recreational 

users during construction; (6) impacts 

on shallow groundwater resources and 

springs from pipeline constructions; (7) 

impacts on existing mineral lease 

holders and existing natural gas 

operations, and (8) impacts on streams 

and wetlands from pipeline 

51332 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices 

construction, road use, and pipeline 

stream crossings. 

The proposal and detailed proposed 

action is being developed with 

environmental concerns in mind. 

Detailed project design criteria and 

mitigation measures to reduce 

environmental impacts will be 

developed and adopted as part of the 

proposed action and will be listed in the 

DEIS. 

Possible Alternatives 

No other alternatives are currently 

proposed. Several ‘‘route options’’ were 

considered in the development of the 

current proposed pipeline route by SGI; 

however, those options were not 

incorporated into the proposed route 

due to constructability and engineering 

issues and/or due to private landowner 

refusal to allow access. One or more 

alternatives to the proposed action may 

be analyzed for the DEIS, based on 

issues determined through public 

scoping. 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The Forest Service is the lead agency 

for the NRPA analysis. The BLM will 

participate as a cooperating agency. The 

BLM has the authority to authorize a 

right-of-way for natural gas pipelines 

under the Mineral Leasing Act, with 

Forest Service concurrence, when 

portions of the pipeline are on NFS 

lands. However, the White River 

National Forest has prepared a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

taking on the lead role for the NEPA 

analysis for the Bull Mountain pipeline 

project, with the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, Gunnison National 

Forests and the BLM as cooperating 

agencies. 

Responsible Officials 

The Responsible Official for making a 

decision on this proposal for approving 

a pipeline right-of-way is Jamie Connell, 

Field Office Manager, Glenwood 

Springs Field Office of the BLM. The 

Responsible Official for making a 

decision on the proposed amendment to 

the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and 

Gunnison National Forests Land and 

Resource Management Plan is Charles 

Richmond, Forest Supervisor, Grand 

Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison 

National Forests. The Responsible 

Official for making a decision on the 

proposed amendment to the White River 

National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan is Maribeth 

Gustafson, Forest Supervisor, White 

River National Forest. The lead Line 

Officer for this NEPA analysis is the 

District Ranger on the Rifle Ranger 

District, White River National Forest. 

Nature of Decisions To Be Made 

The decisions to be made are (1) to 

authorize the right-of-way as proposed 

by SGI or an alternative; and (2) whether 

or not to approve Forest Plan 

amendments for the White River 

National Forest and the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre and Gunnison National 

Forests to change the management area 

direction for the pipeline right-of-way to 

a management prescription of a utility 

corridor. The decision to construct the 

pipeline construction and permit a 

right-of-way is not contingent upon 

Forest Plan amendments to designate 

the pipeline route as a utility corridor 

by either the White River National 

Forest or the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre 

and Gunnison National Forests. 

Permits or Licenses Required 

Additional permits or licenses, which 

may be required in addition to Forest 

Service authorizations, include a 

Stormwater Management Plan and a 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 

permit. A complete list of local and 

federal permits required is available 

upon request. An operation and 

monitoring plan will be required from 

the proponent, which will be approved 

by the Forest Service and the BLM. 

Some mitigation measures may be 

added to the decision for public safety 

during construction operations. 

Early Notice of Importance of Public 

Participation 

The comment period on the draft 

environmental impact statement will 

not be less than 45 days from the date 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register. 

The Forest Service believes, at this 

early stage, it is important to give 

reviewers notice of several court rulings 

related to public participation in the 

environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of draft environmental impact 

statements must structure their 

participation in the environmental 

review of the proposal so that is 

meaningful and alerts an agency to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, 

environmental objections that could be 

raised at the draft environmental impact 

statement stage but that are not raised 

until after completion of the final 

environmental impact statement may be 

waived or dismissed by the courts. City 

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of 

these court rulings, it is very important 

that those interested in this proposed 

action participate by the close of the 

comment period so that substantive 

comments and objections are made 

available to the Forest Service at a time 

when it can meaningfully consider them 

and respond to them in the final 

environmental impact statement. 

To assist the Forest Service in 

identifying and considering issues and 

concerns on the proposed action, 

comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be as specific 

as possible. It is also helpful if 

comments refer to specific pages or 

chapters of the draft statement. 

Comments may also address the 

adequacy of the draft environmental 

impact statement or the merits of the 

alternatives formulated and discussed in 

the statement. Reviewers may wish to 

refer to the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations for implementing 

the procedural provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. 

Comments received, including the 

names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be considered part of the 

public record and will be available for 

public inspection. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 

21) 

Dated: August 24, 2005. 

Don Carroll, 

Acting Forest Supervisor, White River 

National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 05–17179 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records 

AGENCY: Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. 

ACTION: NRCS is revising the System of 

Records from 1994. 

SUMMARY: Publication of the NRCS 

revision to the System of Records to 

reflect an Agency reorganization 

changing the name of the Soil 

Conservation Service to the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, to 

change the system name to reflect 

categories of files contained in the 

system, to add a routine use to allow 

records to be accessed by technical 

service providers and contractors, and 

to update authorities, agency contact