[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7941]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 4, 1994]


                                                    VOL. 59, NO. 64

                                              Monday, April 4, 1994
      

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

 

Rocky Mountain Region Crested Butte Ski Area Expansion, Grand 
Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, Gunnison County, CO

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) on a proposal to upgrade and expand the Crested Butte 
Ski Area. The proposal includes constructing new North Face and Third 
Bowl lifts and runs, constructing a restaurant at the top of the Silver 
Queen lift, and the development of Crested Butte North on Snodgrass 
Mountain. All proposed developments on National Forest System lands 
have been allocated to ski area use in the Forest Plan. That decision 
will not be reconsidered in the EIS, unless an effect on some 
significant resource which cannot be mitigated is discovered through 
this analysis. The ski area operates under a special-use permit granted 
to the Crested Butte Ski Area, Inc. The proposal would increase the 
Crested Butte Mountain capacity by approximately 20%. The Crested Butte 
North ski area expansion may lead to the development of North Village 
on private land at the Base of Snodgrass Mountain.
    The expansion proposal will help maintain Crested Butte's standing 
as a world class resort by enhancing skier capacity and the quality of 
the Crested Butte skiing experience.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received 
in writing by June 1, 1994. The draft EIS is scheduled for publication 
in September 1995 and the final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) in 
March 1996. A general information meeting will be held at Emerald 
Ballroom at Crested Mountain Village in the Town of Crested Butte at 7 
p.m. on March 29, 1993.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Crested Butte Ski Area Analysis, 
USDA Forest Service, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Burch, Forest Planner, (303) 874-
7691 or Craig Magwire, (303) 641-0471.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal for expansion at Crested Butte 
will cover improvements planned to take place over the next decade.
    The EIS will provide information and analysis to support three 
different Forest Service decisions on the Crested Butte expansion 
proposal.
    1. Part of the proposal includes improvements on the main mountain 
previously analyzed in an environmental assessment and approved in 
1982. The 1982 decisions are more than five years old and need to be 
reviewed to ensure all important environmental factors have been 
considered and analyzed to the latest standards before major 
construction begins.
    2. Other proposals are new developments located on the main 
mountain within the area currently served by lifts and will be reviewed 
to minimize or avoid environmental effects.
    3. The most significant part of Crested Butte Ski Corporation's 
proposal is the development of Crested Butte North, which is off the 
main mountain outside the area currently served by lifts, but within 
the existing permitted ski area boundary. The Crested Butte North 
proposals have been previously examined and approved in a 1982 
environmental assessment, but never built. The decision to be made 
regarding Crested Butte North is whether, based on updated 
environmental analysis, any significant resource concerns not 
considered in previous studies would alter previous authorizations, and 
under what specific conditions proposed development might be 
authorized.
    All of the ski area development proposals are within the existing 
ski area boundary. Both the Forest Plan and the Regional Guide allocate 
this area to ski area use and development. Decisions to manage the area 
within the ski area boundary for ski area use and development will be 
revisited, unless the analysis discovers a very significant resource 
effect that cannot be mitigated. At this point we do not anticipate any 
effects such as this.
    Other agencies will use the EIS to aid in making their decisions. A 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ``404 Permit'' to dredge and fill waters 
and/or wetlands may be required, depending upon which alternative is 
selected for Implementation. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will use 
information developed through this analysis process to formulate their 
findings on potential effects to Threatened or Endangered plant and 
animal species. Local county and city officials will use information 
developed to aid in their planning and decision making on adjoining 
private lands.
    The Forest Service will ask the U.S. Army Corps and U.S. Fish & 
Wildlife Service to cooperate in the environmental analysis, and may 
request cooperation from other Local, State, or Federal agencies.
    The Forest Service invites comments and suggestions on the scope of 
the analysis to be included in the draft environmental impact statement 
(DESI). Preliminary internal scoping helped determine the need for an 
EIS. Issues, or areas of concern, identified so far include:
    (1) Water quality,
    (2) Water quantity for snow-making and consumption,
    (3) Vegetation,
    (4) Wetlands,
    (5) Air quality,
    (6) Wildlife,
    (7) Cultural resources,
    (8) Geologic hazard,
    (9) Avalanche hazard,
    (10) Recreational opportunities (downhill skiing and dispersed 
winter recreation),
    (11) Transportation (highways, air),
    (12) Growth impacts on local infrastructure, and
    (13) Other social and economic impacts.
    Alternatives to be considered will address different possible 
locations for facilities including lifts, runs, restaurants, roads and 
trails. The no action alternative, as required by NEPA, will be 
considered for each element of the proposal.
    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 have been 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 Circuit, 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 45 
day draft environmental impact statement 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. Please note that comments on 
the draft environmental impact statement will be regarded as public 
information.
    The Deciding Official will be Robert L. Storch, Forest Supervisor, 
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, 2250 Highway 50, 
Delta, Colorado 81416.

    Dated: March 17, 1994.
Robert L. Storch,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 94-7941 Filed 4-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M