[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 127 (Monday, July 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34502-34504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16263]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Snowcreek Golf Course Expansion

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, will prepare a 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed expansion of the 
Snowcreek Golf Course on National Forest System lands. The proposed 
expansion is located adjacent to the Town of Mammoth Lakes, within the 
boundary of the Inyo National Forest, Mono County, California. The EIS 
will evaluate at least four alternatives, the expansion as proposed, 
land exchange between the Forest Service and the proponent, expansion 
of the golf course on private lands, and denial of the Special-Use 
Application (the No Action alternative). In addition, the agency 

[[Page 34503]]
gives notice of the environmental analysis and decision making process 
that will occur on the proposal so that interested and affected people 
are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final 
decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by July 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the 
proposed Snowcreek Golf Course Expansion to Dennis Martin, Forest 
Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 873 North Main Street, Bishop, 
California 93514, ATTN: Snowcreek.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions about this environmental impact statement to Bob 
Hawkins, Winter Sports Specialist, Inyo National Forest, 873 North Main 
Street, Bishop, California 93514 or telephone (619) 873-2400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An application for the expansion of the 
Snowcreek Golf Course was first submitted by Dempsey Construction 
Corporation in 1990. An Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice/
Finding of No Significant Impact approving the proposal were issued by 
the Forest Supervisor on February 1, 1991. That decision was appealed 
pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR part 217. During the appeals process 
it became apparent that the Forest Supervisor did not have the 
authority to approve construction of a golf course, as that authority 
is reserved by the Chief of the Forest Service. The original decision 
was withdrawn by the Forest Supervisor on November 3, 1992. The 
application was forwarded to the Chief for review. The Chief denied the 
application based on policy on August 24, 1994.

    Dempsey Construction Corporation re-applied for the use on December 
13, 1994. The new application contained additional information 
regarding how the proposed use conformed with Forest Service Policy. 
Based on this new information, the application was accepted for review 
by the Chief on May 25, 1995. Acceptance of the application 
acknowledges that the expansion of the golf course on National Forest 
System lands is consistent with agency policy as well as statutory 
mission. The Chief also delegated the authority to make a final 
decision on the proposal to the Inyo National Forest Supervisor.
    The proposal to expand the existing golf course includes adding an 
additional 9 holes, as well as the infrastructure needed to support the 
activity, such as irrigation systems, decorative water storage ponds, 
driving range, parking lot, clubhouse/pro-shop building, and storage/
maintenance facilities. The golf course will be open to the public for 
a four month, 120-day season from June 10 to October 10. The expected 
use is estimated at 25,000 rounds of golf. Irrigation for this project 
will be with a combination of reclaimed wastewater and pumped ground 
water from private property. Estimated irrigation water demand is 
390,000 gallons per day during the peak growing season. Turf management 
will be guided by the objectives of Integrated Plant Management, which 
is defined as the use of pest and environmental information and pest 
control methods to help prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage. The 
tools of pest management include cultural, mechanical, physical, 
biological, and chemical methods of pest control.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis. The first point is the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). The Forest Service has and is seeking information, comments, 
assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other 
individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by 
the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the 
draft EIS. The scoping process includes:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been 
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
    4. Exploring additional alternatives.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 
and connected actions).
    6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    Mailings to individuals and agencies that participated in the 
previous planning efforts will provide them with information about the 
proposed project. Public meetings, if held, will be announced locally. 
Federal, State, and local agencies, user groups, and other 
organizations who would be interested in the study will be invited to 
participate in scoping the issues that should be considered.
    The draft EIS is scheduled to be completed by August 1995. The 
comment period on this draft environmental impact statement will be 45 
days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of 
availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that 
those interested in the proposal participate at that time.
    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, 
533 (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 45-day 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 EIS 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 EIS 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.
    After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments will 
be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final 
environmental impact statement. The final EIS is expected to be 
completed by December 1995. The final EIS is expected to be completed 
by December 1995. The Forest Service is required to respond in the 
final EIS to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible 
official will consider the comments, responses, and environmental 
consequences discussed in the final EIS and applicable laws, 
regulations, and policies in making his decision on the proposal.
    The decision will either be approval of the proposal as submitted, 
approval of the proposal as modified, or denial of 

[[Page 34504]]
the proposal (No Action). If the proposal is approved, a special use 
permit would be issued for the construction and operation of a golf 
course. The responsible official will document the decision and 
rationale in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to 
appeal under 36 CFR 215 or regulations applicable at the time of the 
decision. Dennis Martin, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 873 
N. Main, Bishop, California 93514 is the responsible official for 
review of the proposal.

    Dated: June 26, 1995.
Dan Totheroh,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-16263 Filed 6-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M