```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28084-28085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13112]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / 
Notices

[[Page 28084]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

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

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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
```