# Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Master Development Plan, Arapaho National Forest, (Administered by the White River National Forest), Summit County, Colorado > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-17554 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** July 7, 1997 - **Citation:** 62 FR 36254 ## Text SUMMARY: On August 9, 1996, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the effects of a Master Development Plan for Arapahoe Basin Ski Area (A- Basin) was published in the Federal Register (pages 41562 to 41563). The Master Development Plan would update the 1982 plan presently in effect and outlines a number of ski area modifications and new facilities, including limited snowmaking. The NOI stated that the draft EIS would be published in late 1996 or early 1997 and the final EIS would be completed in mid 1997. This project has been delayed in order to analyze another stream as a potential water source for the snowmaking. Additional stream studies will be completed in the summer and fall of 1997. We now expect to publish the draft EIS in early 1998, to ask for public comment for a period of 45 days, and to complete a final EIS in mid 1998. DATES: The formal scoping period ended September 7, 1996, however comments from interested parties and agencies are still being accepted. ADDRESSES: Send written correspondence to: Tere O'Rourke, District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service, P.O. Box 620, 680 Blue River Parkway, Silverthorne, CO, 80498 or FAX to (970) 468-7735. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Bailey, NEPA Coordinator, (970) 468-5400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Arapahoe Basin Master Development Plan (MDP) was completed in 1996 to update the 1982 Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Master Plan (1982 Plan). The 1982 Plan currently guides the Forest Service in their administration of the ski area's Special Use Permit. A majority of the upgrades described in the 1982 Plan have been implemented, with the exception of the proposed snowmaking facilities. Given the age and status of the 1982 Plan, the Forest Service and A- Basin determined that an updated plan would be appropriate at this time. The purpose of and need for the proposed MDP are as follows: --Update the 1982 Plan which is outdated (almost 15 years old). Most of the improvements described in the 1982 Plan have been implemented. In addition, new ski area technologies, planning strategies, and environmental philosophies have emerged during this time which warrant consideration in an updated plan. --Increase summer recreational opportunities at A-Basin, potentially to include off-season alpine skiing, mountain biking, interpretive trails, and an alpine slide. --Provide off-season public skiing opportunities and race camp experiences for young racers through the use of snowmaking to cover approximately 15-30% of the skiable terrain at A-Basin. This would also provide for fall training facilities for the U.S. Ski Team (USST). --Upgrade and improve restaurant, parking, patrol headquarters, and other facilities at the resort. --Encourage year--round use of the facilities while maintaining the resort character. The decision to be made is whether or not to approve and accept the proposed MDP as a portion of the existing special use permit. The range of preliminary alternatives include Alternative A (No Action, Status Quo), Alternative B (Proposed Action: A-Basin MDP), and Alternative C (Modified Proposed Action, with conventional smowmaking and no alpine slide). Public comment was received in response to the August 9, 1996 Notice of Intent. Newsletters have been mailed to the public and two public meetings were held in August, 1996. The comments received have been analyzed and distilled into a set of preliminary analysis issues which include: recreation/resort experience, user conflicts/safety/ skier density, hydrologic basin capacity, water quality and tundra ecosystem. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ``404 Permit'' for dredging and filling waters and/or wetlands may be required. The Forest Service has requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to cooperate in the environmental analysis. We expect to publish the draft environmental impact statement in early 1998, to ask for public comment for a period of 45 days, and to complete a final environmental impact statement in mid 1998. The 45-day public comment period on the draft EIS will commence on the day the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a ``Notice of Availability'' in the Federal Register. The responsible official will be the Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81602. The Forest Service believes that 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 be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but 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. [[Page 36255]] 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: June 25, 1997. Ben L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 97-17554 Filed 7-3-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-BW-M --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-17554. Public record. Not legal advice.