Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit; El Dorado Co., CA, Douglas Co., NV, Alpine Co., CA, Heavenly Mountain Resort Master Plan Amendment, 2006, 51328-51329 [05-17154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51328
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 70, No. 167
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
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.
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
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:17 Aug 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Notices
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.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section
21)
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
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:17 Aug 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
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
Forest Service, USDA.
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.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51329
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
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51328-51329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17154]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 /
Notices
[[Page 51328]]
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-pacificsouthwest-
ltbmu@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.
[[Page 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
