[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28084-28085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13112]
========================================================================
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. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 /
Notices
[[Page 28084]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Aspen Highlands EIS, Ski Area Improvement and Expansion Analysis,
White River National Forest; Pitkin County, Colorado
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to disclose effects of
alternative decisions it may make to allow upgrading and/or expansion
of recreational facilities within the existing permit boundaries of the
Aspen Highlands Ski Area, on the Aspen Ranger District of the White
River National Forest.
DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be
received on or before July 28, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rob Iwamoto, Aspen District Ranger,
White River National Forest, 806 West Town, Aspen, CO 81611. Veto J.
LaSalle, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, is the
Responsible Official for this EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Arthur Bauer, Project Coordinator, Aspen Ranger District--(970) 544-
0082 or (303) 925-3445.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 12, 1995, Special Use Permittee Aspen
Skiing Company submitted a proposal to amend their Master Development
Plan for the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. The scope of the proposal
includes replacing two lifts with a new moderate capacity, high speed
quad chairlift; extending a catwalk to serve additional expert terrain
within the Loge Bowl area; adding a new lift and additional terrain to
the Steeplechase area; replacing the existing mid-mountain restaurant
with a new restaurant in the same location; relocating the Ski Patrol
Headquarters; adding two new ski lifts into two separate Bowl Areas;
and the addition of approximately 300 acres of snowmaking. Actions
proposed on National Forest System Lands fall within the existing
permit area boundary. The applicant's proposal also would involve
development on adjacent private lands which have land use jurisdictions
outside of Forest Service control.
The applicant's proposal is consistent with governing programmatic
management direction contained in the Rocky Mountain Regional Guide and
FEIS for Standards and Guidelines (1983) and in the final EIS and Land
and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest
(``LMP,'' 1984). These documents direct that first priority for ski
area development is the expansion of existing areas. The LMP allocated
the proposed expansion area to downhill skiing use and assigned a
potential development capacity of 4,500 skiers-at-one-time (SAOT). The
site-specific environmental analysis provided by the EIS will assist
the Responsible Official in determining which improvements are needed
to meet the following objectives: Accommodate predicted short and long-
term demand for skiing; continue the supply of high quality
recreational opportunities at Aspen Highlands; maintain the
attractiveness and viability of the permittee's operation; and, sustain
the resource uses and amenity values which local communities depend on
and enjoy. Alternative development plans will be carefully examined for
their potential impacts on the physical, biological, and social
environments so that tradeoffs are apparent to the decisionmaker.
Public participation will be fully incorporated into preparation of
the EIS. The first step is the scoping process, during which the Forest
Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from
Federal, State, and local agencies, and other individuals or groups who
may be interested or affected by the proposed action. This information
will be used in preparing the EIS.
Several public meetings will be held in the Aspen, CO area
throughout the public involvement process. The exact dates and
locations of these meetings will be published in local newspapers at
least two weeks in advance. The first scoping meeting is currently
slated for late-June.
Preliminary issues include the potential effects of proposed
actions and related off-site developments on the following elements of
the biological, physical and social environments: Wildlife populations,
big game habitats, and overall biological diversity; vegetation,
wetlands and riparian areas; streamflow and fisheries habitat; scenic
quality; air quality; noise levels; wilderness resource values; four-
season recreational resource opportunities; surface erosion and
landslide hazards; quality of and capacity for downhill skiing; traffic
and transportation systems; the cost and supply of public utilities and
services; local commercial establishments; housing availability and
cost; personal income and revenue base to local and state governments;
development in surrounding areas; health and human safety; and, the
overall quality of life for local residents. The direct, indirect,
cumulative, short-term, and long-term aspects of impacts on national
forest lands and resources, and those of connected or related effects
off-site, will be fully disclosed.
Preliminary alternatives include the applicant's proposal
(described above) and No Action, which in this case is continuing
current administration of the ski area. Additional alternatives will be
developed after the significant issues are clarified and management
objectives carefully defined. The Responsible Official will be
presented with a range of feasible and practical alternatives.
Permits and licenses required to implement the proposed action
will, or may, include the following: Amended Special Use Permit from
the Forest Service; Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers; consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
compliance with section 7 of the Threatened & Endangered Species Act;
certification from the Colorado Department of Health Air Pollution
Control Division that air quality standards would be met; certification
from the Water Quality Control Division for Section 401 compliance and
permit for Pollution Discharge Elimination System, certification from
the Tram Board; review from the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources Division of Wildlife, Colorado Geologic Survey, Colorado
Natural Area Office, Water Conservation Board, and Division
[[Page 28085]] of Water Resources; approval from Colorado Department of
Highways for any state highway redesign or access improvement;
clearance from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office; and
various review, zoning, subdivision and permit approvals from Pitkin
County and the Town of Snowmass Village.
The Forest Service predicts the draft environmental impact
statement will be filed during the winter of 1995/96 and the final
environmental impact statement during the summer of 1996.
The Forest Service predicts the draft environmental impact
statement will be filed during the winter of 1995/96 and the final
environmental impact statement during the summer of 1996.
The Forest Service will seek comments on the draft environmental
impact statement for a period of 45 days after its publication.
Comments will then be summarized and responded to 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 environmental impact 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 is addressing these points.)
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers
notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statement 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 DEIS stage
but that are not raised until after completion of the Final EIS may be
waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Anqoon 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 45 day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when they 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.
Dated: May 23, 1995.
Veto J. LaSalle,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-13112 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-11-M