Aspen Highlands EIS, Ski Area Improvement and Expansion Analysis, White River National Forest; Pitkin County, Colorado

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