[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3449-3450]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
White River National Forest; Summit County, CO; Breckenridge Ski
Resort--Peak 6 Terrain Development Proposal
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the anticipated environmental effects of
the Breckenridge Ski Resort Peak 6 Terrain Development proposal. This
proposal is designed to provide for an improved balance of services to
meet the needs and expectations of guests.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by February 17, 2008. The draft environmental impact statement is
expected in November 2008 and the final environmental impact statement
is expected in January 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Maribeth Gustafson, Forest
Supervisor, c/o Roger Poirier, Winter Sports Program Manager, White
River National Forest, 900 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-
0948.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelly Grail--Snow Ranger, Dillon
Ranger District, P.O. Box 620, Silverthorne, CO 80498,
sgrail@fs.fed.us, or (970) 262-3484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action addresses issues related
to the quality of the recreational experience. Presently, alpine
skiing/snowboarding and other resort activities are provided to the
public through a Special Use Permit (SUP) issued by the White River
National Forest. All elements of the proposal are within the existing
SUP boundary area. The proposed improvements are consistent with the
2002 Revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan).
Purpose and Need for Action
Given the current visitation rates, guest experiences, and terrain
distribution concerns, the following needs are addressed by the
proposed action:
1. Better accommodation of current daily visitation levels.
2. Reduced skier/rider congestion on BSR's existing Intermediate
and Advanced Intermediate terrain network and associated lifts.
3. Reduced waiting time for lifts at BSR.
4. Efficient dispersal of Intermediate and Advanced Intermediate
skiers/riders across the entire skiable terrain network.
5. Additional lift-served terrain to accommodate the existing
terrain distribution deficit.
6. Additional hike-to access servicing advanced ability levels.
7. Sufficient infrastructure in pods to serve guests.
Proposed Action
All proposed projects are within Breckenridge Ski Resort's (BSR)
existing SUP boundary. The proposed action includes:
Developing terrain on Peak 6 that would encompass
approximately 450 acres of traditional downhill and hike-to skiing
accessed by a single lift.
Installing a bottom-drive, high-speed, detachable, six-
person lift to service the Peak 6 terrain with a slope length of 5,963
feet, a vertical rise of 1,537 and a design capacity of 3,000 people
per hour.
Constructing a food and beverage facility (including
restrooms and associated infrastructure) at the bottom terminal of the
proposed lift. The food and beverage facility would be approximately
1,800 square feet in size and seat approximately 150 guests.
Constructing a ski patrol/warming hut at the proposed top
terminal location on Peak 6.
Rehabilitating and extending decommissioned roads within
the South Barton timber sale patch cut areas to specific locations to
gain access to Peak 6 for construction and future maintenance needs.
Installing a power line to the proposed top terminal
location in a corridor that minimizes impacts to environmentally
sensitive areas.
Responsible Official
The responsible official is Maribeth Gustafson, Forest Supervisor
for the White River National Forest, 900 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 948,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602. The responsible official will
document the decision and reasons for the decision in a Record of
Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215
or part 251.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Based on the analysis that will be documented in the forthcoming
EIS, the responsible official will decide whether or not to implement,
in whole or in part, the proposed action or another alternative
developed by the Forest Service.
Scoping Process
Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an
integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be
used to identify issues and develop alternatives to BSR's proposal. To
assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as
possible. Input provided by interested and/or affected individuals,
organizations and governmental agencies will be used to identify
resource issues that will be analyzed in the Draft EIS. The Forest
Service will identify significant issues raised during the scoping
process, and use them to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation
measures and project design features, or analyze environmental effects.
Comment Requested
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides
the development of the environmental impact statement.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for
comment. 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
[[Page 3450]]
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 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
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.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal
and will be available for public inspection.
Dated: January 8, 2008.
Maribeth Gustafson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8-631 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P