Snowcreek Golf Course Expansion

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was withdrawn by the Forest Supervisor on November 3, 1992.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