[Federal Register: August 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 51329-51332]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30au05-28]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
comments-rocky-mountain-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-rocky-mountain-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: http://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