This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

51328 

Vol. 70, No. 167 

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit; El 

Dorado Co., CA, Douglas Co., NV, 

Alpine Co., CA, Heavenly Mountain 

Resort Master Plan Amendment, 2006 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, will prepare a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the Heavenly Mountain 

Resort Master Plan Amendment, 2006. 

This update includes operational 

improvements for more efficient use of 

existing and proposed ski facilities, 

better skier dispersal, summer activities 

and lodge locations. Heavenly Mountain 

Resort is located within El Dorado and 

Alpine Co., California, and Douglas Co., 

Nevada, on the border between 

California and Nevada, adjacent to the 

community of Stateline. This Master 

Plan Amendment is submitted based on 

the existing 1996 Master Plan as part of 

Heavenly’s special use permit. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

October 3, 2005. The draft 

environmental impact statement is 

expected by December 2005 and the 

final environmental impact statement is 

expected by June 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Janine Clayton, Acting Forest 

Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit, 35 College Dr., South 

Lake Tahoe, California, 96150, email: 

comments-pacificsouthwestltbmu@fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas Ridley, Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit, 35 College Dr., South Lake Tahoe, 

CA, 96150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Alpine skiing is the predominant land 

use within the Heavenly Management 

Area. The Master Plan Amendment, 

2006 is expected to optimize the quality 

of skiing based upon annual 

assessments of the skiing experience. 

The Forest Plan identifies maintaining a 

quality ski resort as a desired future 

condition, thus the Master Plan 

Amendment, 2006 responds to changes 

in technology, resort ownership, market 

trends and user preferences. 

Proposed Action 

The Heavenly Master Plan 

Amendment, 2006 is intended to update 

the existing 1996 Heavenly Ski Resort 

Master Plan in order to incorporate 

recommendations from comprehensive 

studies regarding lift technology, 

mountain utilization and lodge 

locations. The DEIS will tier where 

appropriate from the adopted 1996 

Heavenly Ski Resort EIS/EIR. The 

Master Plan provides for more efficient 

use of ski facilities and summer 

activities, a better balance of skiers/ 

riders between lifts and trails, and 

improvement of facilities within the 

existing, developed ski area to maximize 

guest safety and experience. 

Possible Alternatives 

Alternative 1 is a No Action/No 

Project alternative. All future 

development would adhere to projects 

listed in the existing approved master 

plan and be subject to all mitigation 

measures, project limitations and 

timelines described therein. Alternative 

2 is the Proposed Action and is based 

on updating the 1996 Heavenly Ski 

Resort Master Plan. The goal is 

improvement rather than expansion of 

resort lift technology, facilities and 

recreation activities. Additional 

alternatives may differ from the 

Proposed Action with possible revisions 

to the North Bowl Express alignment, 

ski trail design, snowmaking, and 

relocation of facilities and roads. 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies 

The USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit will serve as 

the lead federal agency. It will produce 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) that satisfies the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency (TRPA). The TRPA is 

the lead agency under the Tahoe 

Regional Planning Compact and will 

serve as the lead agency for a TRPA EIS. 

El Dorado County, California will serve 

as the lead agency for preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 

under the California Environmental 

quality Act (CEQA). The intention is to 

produce a joint document meeting the 

requirements of NEPA, TRPA and 

CEQA. 

Responsible Official 

The responsible official is Janine 

Clayton, Acting Forest Supervisor, Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 

College Dr., South Lake Tahoe, 

California, 96150. 

Nature of Decision To Be Made 

The Forest Service expects that a DEIS 

will be filed and made available to the 

public and other commenting entities in 

December, 2005. Following public 

comment, a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) is scheduled to be 

issued in June 2006 by the Forest 

Service. The LTBMU expects an 

insignificant amendment to the Forest 

Plan. 

Scoping Process 

A public scoping meeting will be held 

on Wednesday, September 21 at 7 p.m. 

at the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit’s Forest Supervisor’s office, 35 

College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, 

California. Scoping will occur on 

September 14 at the TRPA Advisory 

Planning Commission meeting at the 

TRPA Governing Board Rooms, 128 

Market Street, Stateline, NV. Scoping 

will continue at the September 28 TRPA 

Governing Board meeting at the North 

Tahoe conference center, 8381 North 

Lake Blvd., Kings Beach, CA. 

Preliminary Issues 

During preparation of the Master Plan 

Amendment 2005 Environmental 

Assessment, the following issues were 

identified: The need to prepare a 

project-level biological evaluation to 

analyze old growth and wildlife habitat; 

scenic quality, and project 

implementation in a stream 

environment zone. Due to the 

significance of these issues, it was 

decided to complete an EIS and not 

issue a decision under the EA. 

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