# Rocky Mountain Region Crested Butte Ski Area Expansion, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest, Gunnison County, CO > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-7941 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** April 4, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-7941. Public record. Not legal advice.