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

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