[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51329-51332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17179]


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

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

[[Page 51330]]

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: [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 51332]]

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