Vail Category III Ski Area Development; White River National Forest; Eagle County, CO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Vail Category III Ski Area Development; White River National

Forest; Eagle County, CO

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, USDA will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to disclose the effects of alternative plans for

developing the Category III portion of Vail Ski Area. Vail Ski Area is

located on the Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River National

Forest and operates under a Forest Service special use permit.

DATES: Written comments concerning the preliminary assessment of the

scope of the analysis, the issues, or the alternatives, should be

received on or before April 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to William A. Wood, District Ranger,

P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Loren Kroenke, Project Manager, Holy Cross Ranger District. Ph. (303)

827-5715.

Responsible official: Veto J. LaSalle, Forest Supervior, White

River National Forest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Vail Ski Area operates on the White River

National Forest, Holy Cross Ranger District, and is located about 100

miles west of Denver, Colorado. The Category III area encompasses the

upper (eastern) portion of the Two Elk Creek watershed and comprises

the southern extent of the special use permit boundary. It is

approximately 4,000 acres in size.

The proposal consists of two parts. The first includes a request to

construct 3 ski lifts, one restaurant, 2 picnic facilities, and provide

about 1,000 acres of lift-accessed ski terrain. The ski terrain would

be composed of about equal portions of existing open bowls, gladed

trails through trees, and traditional runs cut in more dense, forested

areas. A system of service road/ski-ways would be constructed to

circulate skiers and provide construction and maintenance access. The

area is currently closed to public motorized use and would remain so.

In the second part of the proposal, Vail Associates, Inc. has

proposed construction of lift in a mostly developed portion of the ski

area called Tea Cup Bowl. Construction of several ski trails and a

short section of road would also be associated with the Tea Cup lift.

For both the Category III and Tea Cup projects, implementation is

proposed to begin 1995 and would span several summers.

The proposed project is consistent with prior agency decisions and

plans. The area is included in the Rocky Mountain Regional Guide (1983,

Revised May 1992) as a Category 1 priority for future ski area

development study. The 1984 White River National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan EIS and Record of Decision allocated this area

to management emphasizing developed alpine skiing. Finally, an

Environmental Assessment prepared in 1986 examined a proposed Master

Development Plan for the entire Vail Ski Area. In the Decision Notice

approving this Master Development Plan, the Forest Service authorized

additions to the permit boundary and provided site-specific approval

for construction of developments on much of the special use permit

area. However, the Decision Notice required further environmental

analysis for the Category III area following submission of a detailed

development plan.

The proposed action is intended to improve existing ski conditions

at Vail Ski Area, address skier preferences for bowl and gladed skiing

opportunities, and better distribute skiers, particularly during the

critical Christmas to New Year's Day period and when unfavorable

weather or snow conditions prevail in the existing Back Bowls. As well,

action is needed to respond to a request which would implement previous

land allocation decisions.

Public participation will be fully incorporated into preparation of

the EIS. The first step is the scoping process during which the Forest

Service will seek information, comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, and local agencies, and other individuals or groups who may be

interested or affected by this action. This information will be used in

preparation of the EIS. Scoping includes inviting participation,

determining the project's scope, and identifying potential issues. The

public will also be invited to participate in developing the

alternatives and identifying and reviewing the potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and its alternatives.

Preliminary issues associated with this proposal include effects

relating to elk habitat, habitat for North American lynx, biological

diversity, non-motorized recreation, wetlands, water quality,

maintaining quality skiing opportunities, and the demand for additional

skiing opportunities. As well, there are concerns regarding parking and

transportation in the Town of Vail. The process will examine these and

other issues. This analysis will focus on key issues and eliminate from

detailed study insignificant issues or those which have been addressed

in previous environmental review.

Alternatives will be developed and examined which respond to the

significant issues and which are consistent with the purpose and need

for the action. Tentatively, the alternatives include the applicant's

proposal (described above) and No Action, which assumes that no

development will be allowed. Additional preliminary alternatives

include: the proposal outlined in Vail's 1985 Master Development Plan,

which included additional trail development and a modified version of

Vail's current proposal which would include less trail development.

These alternatives will be modified as a result of public scoping. In

the EIS, the direct and indirect effects of each of the alternatives,

together with effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions will be evaluated.

The lead Agency in the preparation of the EIS is the Forest

Service. The process will also include consideration of designating

cooperating agencies. Among those who may become cooperating agencies

are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Implementation of this proposal may require a permit from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The Forest Service anticipates the Draft EIS will be filed in the

Fall of 1994, and the Final EIS in the Spring of 1995. The comment

period on the Draft EIS will be 60 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 reviewers 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 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

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: February 25, 1994.

Veto J. Lasalle,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 94-6203 Filed 3-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M