| January 27,
2000
Jack Blackwell
USDA/USFS/Region 4
Federal Building 324
25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
RE: Notice of Appeal of Record of
Decision, Snowbird Ski and Summer
Resort's Master Development Plan Proposal.
Dear Mr. Blackwell,
The following is a notice of Appeal of
the Record of Decision, for
Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's Master Development Plan Proposal.
This document is an appeal filed
pursuant to 36 CFR part 215.
The decision document which is the
subject of this appeal is the
Record of Decision, Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's Master
Development Plan Proposal, published on December 13, 1999. The
officials responsible for this decision are Bernie Weingardt, Forest
Supervisor for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, and Peter W. Karp,
Forest Supervisor for the Uinta National Forest.
The following individuals and
organization are appellants herein:
B. Gale Dick, President
SAVE OUR CANYONS
P.O. Box 58671
Salt Lake City,UT 85158-0671
801-359-5764
William B. Thompson
863 East 13th Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
801-359-8024
Wild Utah Forest Campaign
165 S Main Street, Lower Level
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801-539-1355
Wasatch Mountain Club
Sierra Club
The appellants seek the following:
-
Reversal of the Forest Service
approval of the Hidden Peak
Structure which is arbitrary and capricious based on the following
grounds (see below `*' for more detail):
- Conduct a full and independent
review of the Mineral Basin analysis
as the `no-action alternative' in the MDP EIS. The independent review
should include elements described in MB1-MB11.
- Rescind the decision to allow
expanded skiing terrain (not
avalanche control) on public lands in Mineral Basin.
*Decision is in violation of the Salt
Lake County Foothills Canyons and Overlay Zone ordinance which
prohibits developments on designated ridge lines.
*Decision is in violation of the
Forest Plan's guidance that says, `Do not place structures on the
skyline.'
*The EIS failed to publish the
approved amendment number 43 (Record of Decision `attachment #2') to
the Forest Plan prior to the release of the Record of Decision and
FEIS.
*The proposed amendment to the Forest
Plan is a "significant, not a "non-significant" amendment to the Forest
Plan.
*The proposed amendment to the Forest
Plan is insufficient for bringing the Hidden Peak structure in
compliance with the Forest Plan.
*Decision violates the Forest Service
Manual guidance for areas designated as "Preservation", "Retention"and
"Partial Retention."
* The Draft EIS misrepresents USFS
actions and land status facts * which served to evade the requirements
of NEPA.
* The Record of Decision was
defective regarding the specificity of * the decision and the rationale
used to justify it.
* The EIS is defective regarding the
range of alternatives considered * and the specificity of the preferred
alternative.
* The EIS failed to adequately
consider comments previously provided.
Violations of the applicable law,
regulation, and policy justifying
the request to vacate the decision are detailed below.
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THIS APPEAL
HIDDEN
PEAK STRUCTURE
HP1.
The Record of Decision with regard to
the Hidden Peak Structure is unacceptably vague.
HP2.
The Record of Decision with regard to
the Hidden Peak Structure leaves future decisions to Forest Service
personnel
that should rightly be subject to public comment before implementation.
HP3.
Alternative F is substantively
different from any of the alternatives presented in the draft EIS and
thus
should have been submitted to public comment before publication of the
final
EIS or the Record of Decision.
HP4.
The EIS improperly excluded analysis of
an alternative smaller than Hidden A.
HP5.
The viewshed analysis in the EIS is
incomplete and misleading.
HP6.
The Record of Decision is inadequate
with respect to mitigation measures for night-time light pollution.
HP7.
No analysis is presented of the Purpose
and Need for the Hidden Peak facility should the Mineral Basin area not
be
developed.
HP8.
The Forest Service improperly amended
the Forest Plan (amendment number 43).
HP9.
The approved amendment number 43 will
not bring the Hidden Peak structure into compliance with the Forest
Plan.
HP10.
The impacts of the approved amendment
number 43 have not been studied.
HP11.
No analysis was made on the effect
the size of the Hidden Peak structure would have on future developments
in
Mineral Basin.
HP12.
The Forest Service acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner in issuing the Record of Decision with
regard
to the Hidden Peak Structure, since the rationale for the Record of
Decision
with regard to expanded skier services located in Hidden Peak Structure
is
factually incorrect.
HP13.
The rationale for the Record of
Decision with regard to the effects of the Hidden Peak Structure on
skier
circulation is unsupported in the EIS.
HP14.
The situation at Snowbird is not
unique. The decision to allow a major ridge line structure is therefore
a
significant change in the nature of recreational development on the
Forest.
HP15.
The size of the allowed structure is
based on guidelines inappropriate to the situation, rather than being
based on
the minimum required facility necessary to satisfy the stated needs.
HP16.
The Record of Decision with regard
to the Hidden Peak Structure effectively encourages the applicant to
proceed
in a manner inconsistent with the stated conclusions regarding Purpose
and Need
included elsewhere in the Record of Decision.
HP17.
The Forest Service acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner in issuing the Record of Decision with
regard
to the Hidden Peak Structure, since the decision is inconsistent with
its own
findings of Purpose and Need.
HP18.
The Record of Decision incorrectly
states that Alternative A is too small to satisfy the Purpose and Need.
HP19.
The space allocated for mountain
operations in the Record of Decision is unsupported in the EIS.
HP20.
The space for snowcat storage in
Alternative F and the Record of Decision is totally unsupported in the
EIS.
HP21.
The EIS fails to justify a need for
retail space on Hidden Peak.
HP22.
Neither the EIS nor the Record of
Decision justifies dedicated "interpretive space."
HP23.
The analysis of glare in the EIS is
incomplete and misleading.
HP24.
The EIS is inconsistent in the
importance it gives county ordinances.
HP25.
The EIS fails to discuss health and
safety issues associated with a fire in or near the Hidden Peak
structure.
HP26.
The EIS is seriously deficient with
regard to the seismic safety of the Hidden Peak Structure.
HP27.
The Hidden Peak structure violates
county ordinances.
MINERAL
BASIN
MB1.
The EIS failed to conduct a full and independent review of the
MB analysis as the `no-action alternative' in the MDP EIS. The
independent review should include MB1-MB11.
MB2.
Substantive comments were made in the draft EIS which were
incorrect at the time they were made and known to have been incorrect
by both the applicant and the Forest Service.
MB3.
KW Brown and Associates failed to act as a disinterested party
in preparing the EIS.
MB4.
The Forest Service failed in its obligation to verify that the
Small Tracts Act Interchange did not result in significant
environmental impacts.
MB5.
The Forest Service inappropriately used a Categorical Exclusion
for the Small Tracts Act Interchange.
MB6.
The Forest Service failed to analyze the impacts to these public
lands from the developments directly resulting from the Small Tracts
Act Interchange.
MB7.
The Forest Service failed to conduct scoping on a Categorical
Exclusion.
MB8.
In the Mineral Basin Small Tracts Act Interchange the Forest
Service used imprecise and antiquated BLM land survey records rather
than updated ground surveys already conducted by Snowbird.
MB9.
The WCNF failed to issue Snowbird an SUP to cross federal lands
to access their private property.
MB10.
The WCNF failed to issue other permits on actions which
impacted public lands as a result of Snowbird's developments on
private land.
MB11.
The EIS fails to adequately analyze the effects of MDP projects
on Mineral Basin as well as the impacts of Mineral Basin on the MDP
and the environment.
MB12.
The EIS fails to justify the need for expanded skiing terrain
on public lands in Mineral Basin.
AREA-WIDE
IMPACT ANALYSIS
AW1.
The EIS fails to include an area-wide impact analysis.
AW2.
The Purpose and Need fails to consider
the ski area development underway and planned on private land in Summit
County.
CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS
CI1
The cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed.
WATER
QUALITY
WQ1.
The EIS and the Record of Decision fail to adequately consider
water quality issues related to snow making as proposed in the Record
of Decision.
PLANTS
AND ANIMALS
PA1.
The EIS inadequately lists and evaluates impacts on plants and
animals.
PA2.
The EIS inadequately analyzes the impact of the proposal on
sensitive plant species.
TRAFFIC
T1.
The EIS fails to consider the cumulative impact of weekend and
mid-week traffic congestion on the skiing experience of those visiting
the Alta Ski Area.
ATTACHMENTS:
-
Analysis of the Mineral Basin Small
Tracts
Act Interchange, with
maps of Mineral Basin land ownership prior to the exchange.
- Photograph of Mineral Basin lift
construction and blasting.
- Copy of Save Our Canyon's Mineral
Basin expansion letter to SL
District Ranger Dan Jiron and response.
- Viewshed
map of the Hidden Peak structure.
- Seismic
safety of Hidden Peak structure
- Sensitive
plant and animal analysis
- Save Our Canyon's
grandfathering letter regarding the Hidden Peak structure
- WRNF improper amendment of Forest
Plan
- Utah
Skier Visit Analysis critique
Next: Hidden
Peak
|
