"The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment."

The following Save Our Canyons (SOC) review of the Wasatch Powderbird Guides Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is designed to alert the Forest Service to SOC's "positions and contentions" regarding the aforementioned DEIS. As requested by the Forest Service in its instructions to reviewers, SOC's comments are specific, and address the adequacy of the DEIS.

In its Abstract, the authors of the DEIS state that the "analysis focuses on direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the physical, biological, and social aspects of the human environment." Due to serious and numerous omissions in analyses of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the physical, biological, and social aspects of the human environment, Save Our Canyons has found the DEIS to be entirely inadequate.

The National Environmental Policy Act states that "if a draft (environmental impact) statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency Forest Service shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion."

The Wasatch Powderbird Guides DEIS contains numerous and serious omissions and inadequacies, any of which require--by NEPA regulations--substantial revision and issuance of a Supplemental DEIS:

• The back-country user data presented is nearly seven years old and woefully out of date.
• The Forest Service failed to seriously and extensively evaluate several "reasonable" (by NEPA law) alternatives.
• The Forest Service's assessments of wildlife issues fall far short of NEPA requirements as well as wildlife requirements in several other Federal laws and Forest Service regulations.
• The DEIS fails to provide "high quality scientific analysis" and reliable wildlife data regarding several species located in the permit area.
• On reading the DEIS, one is struck by the impression that it was prepared not to fulfill the needs of the public, but specifically to fulfill the desires of the helicopter skiing concession.

If the Forest Service chooses to issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on the basis of this DEIS, the only Alternative that satisfies NEPA and Forest Service Regulations is Alternative A, the "No Action" alternative.

Glossary

In the Glossary of the DEIS, a "standard" Forest Service and helicopter ski industry definition of a "Skier Day" consists of eight runs by one skier in one day. The Glossary states that the "standard" WPG Skier Day is seven runs per skier per day. That's nearly a 12% difference. The confusion should be clarified and all references to Skier Days in the DEIS should be changed to conform to a common definition of a Skier Day.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE "PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL" CHAPTER OF THE DEIS

"NEPA requires that complete emphasis added environmental information be made available to federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals who may be interested in or affected by the Proposed Action."

Background

In its Background section (1.3) the DEIS omits, both partially or entirely, a number of important and pertinent historical events from the chronology and, in at least one case, misstates the known facts.

The following information should be added to the chronology:

1975-1978: The first conflicts between back-country users and heli-skiers begin in the Catherine Pass and Grizzly Gulch/Twin Lakes areas. A Forest Service survey of winter recreation in Millcreek, Big and Little Cottonwood canyons (Dahlgreen and Thorim) documents the conflicts and foresees current problems if the Forest Service chooses to manage the helicopter concession in a laissez-faire manner.

1981: In the April, 1981 Forest Service report titled "Issues and Concerns for Forest Planning," the WCNF Issues Identification Team summarized the following concerns: "Control helicopter over- flights. How will conflicting helicopter ski use be regulated? Re- solve conflict with cross country skiers."

1985: The writeup in the DEIS should have included Forest Plan "directions" to mitigate loss of back-country skiing terrain and to monitor winter use in popular areas, and should have included a "guideline" for issuing a heli-ski SUP that "use of the area will not unreasonably interfere with existing recreation use."

Mid- to late 1980's: THE STATEMENT AS PRESENTED IS NOT TRUE. The severity and number of conflicts listed by the Forest Service in its 1981 "Issues and Concerns for Forest Planning" escalate significantly as convenience, ability levels and back-country tourer numbers increase.

1992: On issuing the WPG SUP renewal, the Regional Forester directs the WCNF to undertake a study of back-country use patterns to determine levels of conflict.

1993: ADD TO EXISTING TEXT: Conflicts between heli- and back-country skiers continue to increase. The "Back-country Winter Recreation Study" (now referred to as the first "Briggs" study is released to the public.

1994: The second Briggs study is completed and released to public.

1997: NOWHERE IN THE TEXT DOES IT STATE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS TERMINATED AT WPG'S REQUEST.

June, 1999: Forest Service publishes the long-awaited DEIS on Wasatch Powderbird Guides.

Section (2343.03.1) of the Forest Service Manual states, in part: "Authorize concession developments only where there is a demonstrated public need."

The DEIS fails to evaluate the public need for a service such as that provided by Wasatch Powderbird Guides.

In the spirit of 40 CFR 1500.1 (b) that "information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments...," the FEIS must present a convincing case for the "public need" for a heli-ski service such as that provided by Wasatch Powderbird Guides.

• No analysis, public opinion survey, evidence of any kind is presented in the DEIS to demonstrate the public need for a helicopter skiing service.
• If such a need is shown to exist, there is no evidence presented that the need must be met in the crowded Wasatch Mountains.
• Section 2343.03.1 of the Forest Service Manual states that the Forest Service should authorize concession developments "only where there is a demonstrated public need." It further warns against permitting concession development "solely for the purpose of establishing a profit-making commercial enterprise."
• The first "purpose and need" of the proposal stated in the DEIS (p S-2) is: "Meeting demand for the opportunity to safely ski untracked powder in the Wasatch back-country by forest users who have adequate skiing skills but lack the specialized equipment, avalanche knowledge, and terrain familiarity."
• The DEIS fails to present evidence that helicopter skiing is the sole means by which the objective stated above can be met. There is no discussion in the DEIS of non-heli-skiing alternatives that meet the demand stated above.
• The DEIS has failed to list and describe local non-commercial entities (such as the Wasatch Mountain Club) that can meet the demand stated above.
• The DEIS has failed to list and describe local commercial entities (such as Exum Mountain Adventures guide service, Snowbird Guide service, and the Ski Utah Interconnect Tour) that can meet the demand for the "opportunity to safely ski untracked powder in the Wasatch by forest users who have adequate skiing skills but lack the specialized equipment, avalanche knowledge, and terrain familiarity."
• The DEIS has failed to list and describe non-local (nearby) commercial entities (such as Park City Snowcats, Powder Mountain Snowcats and Helicopter, or Timberline Helicopter) that can fulfill the demand stated above.
• Any commercial or non-commercial entities must also fulfill the needs stated in the Forest Service Manual (2343.02) that priority be given "to provide a diversity of recreation activities that emphasize the forest setting and rustic, natural resource-based recreation opportunities." The Forest Service must evaluate the WPG Special Use Permit with respect to that directive.
• The DEIS must evaluate the purpose and need of a helicopter skiing concession in the context of FSM 2343.02 that priority be given to developments concessions that offer "moderately" priced services as opposed to "services affordable only by the affluent." The DEIS must list the competitive prices/costs of the various services that can meet the first "demand" in the Purpose and Need section.
• The DEIS fails to analyze income demographics of helicopter skiers in the context of FSM 2343.02. As such priority should be given to developments concessions that offer "moderately" priced services as opposed to "services affordable only by the affluent."

Managing for Minimal Conflicts.

In the third bullet statement in the "Purpose and Need" section, the DEIS states that "managing for safety and minimal conflicts among users is a primary concern."

The DEIS fails to reveal and to discuss the extraordinarily high numbers of public complaints filed with the Forest Service against the heli-ski permittee. During the last 6-7 years, in Save Our Canyons' opinion, more public complaints have been filed against this permitteee than against all other permittees who conduct business on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Nor does the DEIS reveal and discuss various Forest Service avalanche experts' observations and opinions concerning WPG and its attitudes on use of explosives.

The excessive number and type of public complaints received by the Forest Service lead many to the conclusion that the Powderbird Guides too frequently operates in an unprofessional, unethical, and unsafe manner.

Non-Forest Service complaints include allegations of trespassing, of blocking public roadways, of unwelcome landings on private property, of unauthorized use of public roads for staging and of repeatedly spooking a golden eagle from its nesting site in a local canyon.

In a For the Record memorandum written by Wasatch-Cache National Forest Avalanche Forecaster, the WPG operation is described as not having been a "good faith operator": "WPG has not been a good faith operator, as the violations which have accumulated attest. To refresh the reader's memory, WPG was caught skiing on non-permit Forest land on Lookout Mountain, WPG performed an unauthorized bombing mission to cause avalanches for a camera man, WPG was reprimanded for excessive use of bombs during a critically unstable avalanche cycle in 1987."

Other Forest Service reprimands and/or warnings have accumulated since the memorandum. All reprimands as well as other Forest Service warnings should also be part of the DEIS document.

This absence of complaint information flies in the face of the DEIS promise to focus on the "social aspects of the human environment" as stated in the Abstract and the "minimum conflicts among users" primary concern. (Analysis of the exceptionally high number of public complaints and Forest Service reprimands directed at the heli-ski concession is also absent from DEIS 3.2.6 Interaction Between Helicopter Skiers and Ski Mountaineers as well as DEIS 3.3. Such absences preclude "meaningful analysis" that is required by NEPA; according to NEPA 1502.9 such inadequacies require the agency to "prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion."

Forest Plan Direction

The "forest plan direction" stated in the DEIS omits three important goals and directives that relate to back-country use and possible conflicts with helicopter skiing. All of these goals and directives should have been included in the DEIS:

• Mitigation of lost cross-country skiing terrain will be considered in any development proposal.
• Analyses of impacts to loss of cross-country terrain due to proposed and ongoing developments at Snowbird, private ski area land expansions (many times in former heli-ski terrain), The Canyons Resort, Deer Valley, and Park City should have been included, since such losses may tend to concentrate back-country use in the heli-ski permit areas.
• In order to understand the implications of land use decisions examples: ski area expansions, heli-skiing on dispersed cross-country skiing population, more information must be gathered.
• "Forest Supervisor shall review the conditions on the land at least every five years to determine whether conditions or demands of the public have changed significantly."

It has been 8 years since the last helicopter skiing decision was made. That the "conditions or demands of the public have changed significantly" is obvious to anyone who has read the extensive public comment files generated during scoping, and various environmental assessment processes, or has attended Forest Service sponsored public forums and recent informal meetings of the Salt Lake District Ranger with back-country users.

• "Monitor winter use in popular areas. If health or safety conflicts occur, evaluate and resolve these conflicts." The following guideline is to be used: "resolve safety problems without separating uses whenever possible. If uses must be separated, favor use that provides the greatest good to the greatest number in the long run."
• No attempts have been made by the Forest Service to "monitor winter use in popular areas" since the Briggs studies of 1993-94.

Scoping and Identification of Issues

In the Scoping and Identification of Issues section, the authors of the DEIS state that six "substantive issues" were identified: recreation, safety, economics, wilderness, wildlife, and vegetation. Two of these issues, recreation and safety, were identified as "driving issues" to be addressed in the DEIS.

The authors of the DEIS omitted the most important function of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest: to maintain and provide a quality watershed for residents of the communities located beneath and in the forest. Watershed considerations should have been included among the "substantive issues" of the DEIS.

Based on the fact that a federally protected species of raptor (golden eagle) , as well as other threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, may be affected by the proposed action, and NEPA's directive (1500.1) to "take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment," the DEIS should have included "wildlife" as a major driving issue.

There is no mention of the effect of heli-ski overflights on residents who live in proximity of heli-ski flight patterns and landing and take-off sites. Numerous complaints which have been made against WPG by property owners over the years should have been sufficient grounds for including an analysis of adverse helicopter associated impacts on residents. Additionally, the problem of helicopter jet fuel caused air pollution in the basins and valleys of Big and Little Cottonwood canyons should have been analyzed.

In the "vegetation" section of the DEIS, only "snowpack stability testing" was considered.

DEFICIENCIES IN THE
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study.

The DEIS is further deficient because it dismisses several "reasonable" alternatives on grounds that are insupportable at best, are contradicted in other sections of the DEIS, and fail to document all relevant data in the Forest Service's possession.

Sec. 1505.1(e) of the NEPA regulations requires a "range of alternatives" to be discussed in an Environmental Impact Statement. It includes all "reasonable" alternatives which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated. Sec. 1502.14 requires an EIS to examine all "reasonable" alternatives to the proposal.

Note 46 Fed. Reg. 18026: "In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is 'reasonable' rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative.

Closing the Entire Tri-Canyon Area to WPG Operations Pemanently or on Weekends. This is a combination of two possible distinct and "reasonable" alternatives under NEPA law : 1-Closing the tri-canyons terrain permanently, and 2- Closing the tri-canyons terrain on weekends.

Both alternatives should have been analyzed in detail and independent of each other. Both should have been presented as bona fide alternatives that "would be quite effective" in reducing helicopter skiing conflicts with back-country users.

Dismissing closure of the entire tri-canyon area either permanently or on weekends to heli-skiing, based on a claimed economic infeasibility, is not credible without a more detailed economic analysis. WPG has, in the past, claimed that various restrictions placed upon it would put it out of business, but this hasn't happened yet! The Forest Service has no obligation to make the concession financially viable.

A claimed economic infeasibility does not satisfy NEPA and CEQ requirements for excluding an alternative from consideration. Either the FEIS must show that this alternative is impractical for any operator or it needs to be seriously considered and evaluated.

The One Helicopter Alternative. A single helicopter alternative should have been analyzed as a separate alternative rather than as a sub-option of another alternative. It is not uncommon for small helicopter ski operations to use only one helicopter. An alternative based on the use of a single copter would lessen the number conflicts and, thus, needs to be fully addressed in the FEIS. By not addressing this alternative, the DEIS fails the "all reasonable alternatives" test of NEPA.

Basing the Permit on WPG's Proportion of Actual Back-country Use. This alternative was dismissed from further analysis and consideration on the basis that the Forest Plan directs uses "not to be segregated if possible."

The authors of the DEIS justify their lack of current data for a valid use-allocation system on the basis of being "beyond the budgetary and staffing limitations" of the agency.

"Segregation of uses" in the Forest Plan is predicated on safety considerations. There are sufficient reports of "endangerments" in The Forest Service's extensive file of public complaints against the heli-ski concession. Several inter-office communications and "For the Record" memoranda by forest and district experts and managers question the safety of the heli-ski operation. There are also avalanche accident reports as well as reports of helicopter crashes in the files.

Before dismissing this "reasonable" alternative, the FEIS must exhibit, make public, and analyze all pertinent documents in its files for "safety" related issues.

¥ The recent expenditures by the Forest Service of approximately $130,000 to send 77 employees to "observe" (and "frolic") at several Colorado ski resorts flies directly in the face of "budgetary limitation" claims.

Soliciting Applications from Other Potential Operators. This alternative was rejected on the basis that the "current permit holder has performed acceptably."

NEPA (40 CFR 1500.1(b)) states, in part, that "expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA."

To justify the conclusion to dismiss the alternative from further consideration the FEIS must catalog and analyze each and every agency concern and complaint in reference to the permittee. These analyses should include all inter-office communications by forest as well as district personnel.

¥ In order to meet the the above-stated NEPA requirement, the FEIS must include and analyze all letters of complaint submitted by the public before and during the DEIS public comment period.

The number of complaints adds credence to this, improperly discarded, alternative.. An analysis of other forest's actions against permittees that receive inordinate numbers of public complaints is essential.in the discussion of this alternative.

A Citizens' Proposal for a Golden Eagle Friendly Alternative

This alternative would require spatial and temporal closure of terrain that contains known golden eagle nesting sites. Because wildlife preservation and enhancement of habitat are goals of the Forest Plan and the area harbors a protected species this alternative should undergo a complete and thorough environmental evaluation. Terrain closures would be based on the courting/mating habits of the protected species.

This eagle-friendly alternative would also fulfill the NEPA 1505.2(b) requirement of an "environmentally prefered alternative" that causes the least damage to the "biological and physical environment." In its 40 Most Asked Questions Conserning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, the Council on Environmental Quality suggests that the public reviewing a Draft EIS can "assist" the lead agency "to develop and determine an environmentally preferable alternative by providing their views in comments on the Draft EIS."

This alternative would be especially compatible with the "maintain or improve the current productivity level of wildlife habitat" goal of the Forest Plan and the DEIS statement on p. 1-6 that "all uses of the forest must be consistent with the Forest Plan."

Mitigation and Management Requirements Common to the Proposed Action and All Action Alternatives

Deficiencies In Mitigation Measures. NEPA law states that "mitigation measures must be considered even for impacts that by themselves would not be considered "significant" and that "all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures....are to be identified."

The mitigation measures published in the DEIS have omitted two critical safety-related conditions that were an integral part of the 1998-99 Special Use Permit. These two mitigation measures: not landing on ridges above other recreationists and not skiing above them (distances from tourers were included in the mitigation conditions) were put into the permit as a result of many back-country users' complaints to the agency of endangerments by landings above touring parties and by heli-skier ski descents of slopes directly above tourers. By including these mitigation measures in the Permit, Forest Service officials acknowledged the need for such safety related measures.

A constantly growing number of complaint letters to the Forest Service alledge frequently unprofessional conduct by WPG guides toward other users of the back-country. The DEIS is deficient in failing to analyze the claims and to analyze and include several "reasonable" mitigating measures.

One such measure would require WPG'S guides to be certified by an internationally recognized professional organization. This option might lead to WPG'S providing a safer and more professional service and may lessen the potential for conflicts with other forest users. Another mitigating measure would include sanctions for WPG's violations of any mitigating measures or of the terms of their Special Use Permit. To date, forest officials have been extremely lax in assuring that the permittee adheres to the terms of his permit.

Since this DEIS is primarily a "recreational and safety" driven document, these safety and recreation conditions should be included in the mitigation measures published.

Impact Comparison

Recreational Impacts. Recreational Impacts," the DEIS states, "are the primary concern addressed in this analysis."

The DEIS states that "accurate figures on the current number of back-country recreationists other than heli-skiers are not available." This analysis considered the results of studies completed in 1993 and 1994 with Forest Service participation. These studies indicated that back-country recreationists accounted for about 17,000 visitor-days (all or part of a day) in the tri-canyons area back-country in the winter, that about 6,900 of these visits were by ski mountaineers, and at least a third were in terrain not used by WPG. The DEIS concluded that "use has undoubtedly increased since the studies were completed."

The last decision notice regarding the WPG five-year permit was issued in October, 1991. This was appealed by both sides. The final decision from Regional Forester Gray Reynolds was in March, 1992. At that time, he directed the Forest Supervisor to monitor the permit with Forest Service Snow Rangers and avalanche forecasters in the field, seven days a week during winter. It is unfortunate that this directive has only been followed half-heartedly at best by the Forest Service. Now, eight years later, the issue is being revisited once again, with no data concerning increased dispersed recreation use since the Briggs 1993-94 studies.

This failure to gather current data has resulted in a faulty DEIS, unable to move beyond the 1992 decision, that leaves the same concerns expressed at that time still unaddressed.

The Briggs studies' numbers do not reflect current forest usage by back-country recreationists in winter. No meaningful analysis (as required by NEPA) of the impact of helicopter operations on these forest users can be done unless more accurate and up-to-date data are available.

The DEIS states that "potential safety impacts are closely correlated with recreational impacts, and according to the WCNF Forest Plan, they are the primary consideration in determining whether helicopter skiing should continue on the forest," and "recreational impacts are the primary concern addressed in this analysis, specifically the interaction among helicopter skiers and other recreationists."

Based on the lack of valid data, these statements alone should invalidate any assessment of the effects of helicopter skiing on other back-country recreationists.

Even though the Salt Lake District Ranger has received numerous complaints and descriptions of heli-ski/back-country recreationist conflicts, the DEIS fails to document and describe WPG's past history of conflicts with back-country users. These conflicts include flying over tourers in wilderness areas and endangering the lives of back-country recreationists by landing directly above them in known avalanche terrain. Many such incidents have been reported to the WCNF, but are not discussed in the DEIS.

"Agencies are further directed to utilize information collected by applicants, their consultants, or other parties as long as the agency makes an independent evaluation of the content and scientific credibility of the information (40 CFR 1506.5 (c))".

This DEIS uses outdated back-country recreationists numbers and states that "accurate figures on the current number of back-country recreationists other than helicopter skiers are not available." Not only did the agency not attempt to check the scientific credibility of the data, they did not even attempt to collect any current data. Based on CFR regulations this alone should invalidate this DEIS.

Safety Impacts

Do Helicopters in Flight Cause Avalanches? The DEIS states that "no evidence exists that helicopters in flight can cause avalanches."

This is an important safety-related issue and, according to NEPA law, requires "accurate scientific analysis, and expert agency comments." "The information," NEPA directs, "must be of high quality." Simply making a statement on the basis of a self-interested party's (the permittee) experiences will not do.

On the issue of helicopter flight induced avalanches, the FEIS must include and analyze accurate scientific data and experts' evaluations.

Helicopter Landings on Ridges and Above Other Back-country users. In the same paragraph, the DEIS reports the actuality of helicopter landings on cornices "which collapsed, releasing slides on the slopes below." The DEIS states that the risk of this recurring and injuring other back-country users is low.

A "low risk" is not equal to NO Risk! By permitting heli-ski descents and/or heli landings above other forest users, the Forest Service (via its permittee) imposes an unnecessary risk on other forest users

A thorough analysis of acceptable and unacceptable risks for back-country tourers must accompany any discussion of risks associated with heli ridge landings and heli ski descents above others.

Throughout the permit history of WPG, in letters to the Forest Service, numerous non-helicopter back-country users consider such agency imposed risks unacceptable during their use of the public forest lands.

By including "no landings above other back-country users" and a "no skiing above back-country users" mitigation measures into the permit (as was done for the 1998-99 permit the potential risk to other back-country users may be decreased to zero.

The following paragraph in the DEIS discusses the "low probability" of collisions between helicopter skiers and other recreationists "in the open, relatively uncrowded terrain of the permit area."

The FEIS must include a discussion of collision risks associated with WPG's "home runs," runs that conclude a heli-ski day and that may descend narrow trails or forest jeep roads such as the one in White Pine Gulch. Such roads and trails are often near popular canyon trailheads and are used by beginner tourers/snowshoers and often by families with children.

A tabulation of such "home run" areas should be included in the FEIS.

Slope Stability Testing. Two small paragraphs deal with avalanche testing and use of explosives to trigger avalanches. The DEIS is deficient in that it does not mention the safety-related issues of "sympathetic avalanche releases" and "post-control releases," nor are these issues analyzed in a valid manner with expert opinions (available in the Forest Service's own publications.) Discussion of any incidents where early-morning back-country users were only seen at the last minute before explosives were thrown from the helicopter must be included in the FEIS.

Aircraft Accidents. In a subsequent paragraph, the DEIS states that "the helicopters and their operation apparently pose no substantial threat to others or to helicopter skiers themselves."

As early as 1980, the Forest Service indicated a concern over heli-skiing related avalanche accidents or accidents involving the helicopter.

The statement in the DEIS too easily dismisses the possibility of aircraft accidents.

The FEIS must include a summary and analysis of all aircraft accidents and the conclusions reached by Forest or other accident investigative agencies. Special attention must be paid to "pilot error" related accidents.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Recreation

Sources of Information. The DEIS states: "As required by NEPA, this analysis DEIS is based on the best and most current information available." The data used in this DEIS does not accurately reflect the actual numbers of ski mountaineers currently visiting the Wasatch Range. The numerous letters received by the WCNF detailing potentially life endangering conflicts between WPG and ski mountaineers have not been used. This creates an unfair bias in favor of WPG.

Ski mountaineer use of the Wasatch has increased significantly , and is still growing. The DEIS does not address this growth, nor does it provide current data, but instead, it is based upon 6-year old data. Both WPG and the WCNF were aware that the EIS process was forthcoming and made no attempt to collect accurate data. It appears that the WCNF has not even had the foresight to use the Utah Avalanche Forecast Center's field personnel, who are WCNF employees, to collect skier use data during their field observation days.

Based on the lack of accurate and current data, which could have been easily obtained by the WCNF, this DEIS does not meet NEPA requirements.

Title 40, Protection of Environment, Chapt. V-CEQ, part 1502-EIS, Sec. 1502.22. Incomplete or Unavailable Information states "if the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeble significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement." The WCNF could have collected data on back-country recreationists by using inexpensive methods, which may have included: 1. using the UAFC forecasters on their field observation days; 2. using the WCNF Snow Rangers in the field to survey back-country users, 3. conducting studies similar to the 1993-94 Briggs studies.

The WCNF made no attempt to collect current information about the number of back-country recreationist using the Wasatch and the frequency of their visits. This data is essential to the determination of significant adverse impacts to the human environment and, based on 40 CFR Sec 1502.22, should have been included in this DEIS.

The 1991 Record of Decision, with the accompanying 1992 appeal decision, required the Forest Service to monitor back-country usage, as does the Forest Plan. A monitoring plan was never initiated, resulting in a collection of random personal observations and anecdotes which do not accurately reflect back-country user numbers and attitudes.

In addition, the delay of the release of this DEIS from the original projected date of February to June, 1999 did not allow an opportunity for the WCNF to collect back-country recreationist user numbers during the winter season. This appears to have been an attempt by the WCNF to curtail attempts to invalidate the archaic data contained in the DEIS.

Types of Back-country users. Since the Briggs Studies five user groups have seen dramatic increases in numbers, accordingly, use of the Wasatch has similarly increased.

• These five user groups include intermediate level free heel telemark skiers, which group has seen a recent surge in numbers due to trendiness associated with the new plastic telemark boot. This group is moving into the back-country after learning to telemark and becoming disenchanted with the crowding and expense of local downhill ski areas.
• The groups of alpine skiers and randonee skiers have also seen refinement in bindings and the introduction of alpine trekkers, which plug into fixed heel alpine bindings allowing for uphill travel like free heel skiers. This group is also seeking solitude and freedom from competition for fresh tracks at ski areas.
• Snowshoers have seen technological advances with better, lighter, and easier to use equipment. Snowshoeing allows dedicated hikers to enjoy their sport throughtout the winter. Once rarely seen in the Wasatch, the snowshoe mountaineer is now common.
• At the time of the Briggs studies "split snowboarders" were using either prototype Vole Split Decision boards or were cutting snowboards in half and installing a split kit or buying very expensive European models. For the coming winter, Vole has five different models available, with other manufacturers scrambling to catch up. The potential increase in winter usage of the Wasatch by this new user group is potentially significant, but is not addressed.
• Snowmobilers are the final group which is missing from any survey. Stock snowmobiles now have the power and mobility which only customized machines had in 1993. Impacts are being seen outside motorized areas, in wilderness, and watershed non-motorized areas. They are also listed as a detriment to heli-skiing in certain areas, but no data is included.

Back-country Use Other than Helicopter Skiing. The second paragraph, detailing "modifications in the survey sample design," removal of ski mountaineer trailheads, and a difference in snowfall between the 1993 and 1994 basically invalidates the latter study, leaving only the already flawed 1993 study for use in the DEIS. As stated before, the 1993 Briggs data is seriously out of date, and thus, irrelevant for use in the DEIS and for formulation of alternatives and a meaningful discussion of recreational impacts.

Trailhead Use. The "Trailhead Use" section relies entirely on the obsolete Briggs studies published in 1993-94. At the time of publication, the data gathered was challenged as "undercounting" of back-country users due to the limited period of the day that data was collected.

The trailhead use data gathered in 1993-94 is totally obsolete. Over the last few years, the Forest Service has enlarged several trailheads. Today, even with the enlargements, the trailheads often overfill during weekends.

The FEIS cannot rely on the obsolete data of the Briggs studies for discussions of "trailhead use" patterns.

WPG Use Levels and Patterns. The title of Table 3-3 is exceptionally misleading. The title refers to the "Number of Guests Skiing with WPG" and the second column from the left is titled "Number of Clients."

SOC does not believe WPG has ever had more than 100 clients in its entire operating history. Is Table 3-3 not a reference to "skier days," rather than number of guests or clients?

Simultaneous Use Study. The Simultaneous Use Study published by WPG in 1998 receives heavy emphasis in the DEIS.

This "survey" also appears to be seriously flawed. A reading of methods and exceptions used to gather this data point out inaccuracies which compromise this data. Exceptions are made to counting skiers in Grizzly Gulch, the South-facing terrain above Alta/Snowbird, and White Pine when accessible from Snowbird. Excluding these numbers also excludes all the people traveling to or returning from heli-skiing terrain. If these people were included and counted, back-country use numbers would undoubtedly be much higher.

The back-country use since the Briggs studies has been approximated by several extremely active back-country observers as being up to three times higher than either the Briggs study or the "Simultaneous Use" study by WPG. (Appendix A: Steve Williams' "Back-country Skier Observation in the Tri-Canyon Area of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest During the Winter of 1997-1998.)

Interaction Between Helicopter Skiers and Ski Mountaineers. In this section, as well as several other sections, the DEIS places emphasis on conflicts between heli-skiers and ski mountaineers. Helicopter skiing affects many other types of winter back-country recreationists who may be attempting to enjoy their national forest.

The FEIS needs to address and adequately analyze conflicts betwen heli-skiers and cross-country skiers, snowshoers, and all other users of the forest. Heli-skiing disturbance is not confined only to "shared terrain." Helicopter noise and low altitude overflights seriously affect back-country recreationists, as well as nearby canyon residents, in areas located near to helicopter skiing terrain.

Noise. Given that one of the primary conflicts between WPG operations and non-motorized back-country users is noise, a far more complete analysis of the effects of helicopter noise is required than that which is presented in the DEIS.

Helicopter and fixed wing sight-seeing overflights of public lands have generated growing controversies for many years within many public lands agencies. The FEIS needs to examine the record of this controversy and summarize the relevant data and analyze data that have already been obtained.

In Table 3-5, at what distance were the noise levels for the AStar helicopter measured? An explanation of the units EPNdB is also required.

Safety. The WPG Special Use Permit files contain numerous complaints and allegations of back-country safety and ethics violations. Inter-office communications and "memoranda for the record" by Avalanche Forecasters and other Forest and District personnel also suggest that Forest management has been continually questioning the safety aspects of the heli-ski concession. The public complaints alone should be justification for termination of the SUP, or at the least, separation of uses in the critically crowded and frequently conflicted areas.

The FEIS must acknowledge, examine, and discuss each and every public complaint made, as well as Forest Service inter-office communications and frequent "For The Record" memoranda of its staff.

Avalanche Forecasting. The permittee's philosophy of avalanche risk assessment and snow stability evaluation by use of explosives reads well in the DEIS. It does not, however, resonate with many back-country users' observations in the field. Nor does it resonate with observations by some Forest Service professionals.

• To comply with NEPA law, requiring a thorough examination of an issue, the FEIS must consider, analyze, and address the permittee's record of permit violations in context of "unauthorized" and "excessive" bombing practices. `
• The FEIS must thoroughly examine other Forest Service permitted helicopter skiing operations with respect to use of explosives to "test" snow stability.
• The FEIS must also examine the charge "often made by WCNF avalanche professionals," that "WPG .... treats the back-country as if it were their ski area, applying large doses of explosives not merely to test the snow stability, but to perform active avalanche control."

Risk to Other Back-country Recreationists. The FEIS must include a discussion of collision risks associated with WPG's "home runs," runs that conclude a heli-ski day and that may descend narrow trails or forest jeep roads such as the one in White Pine Gulch. Such roads and trails are often near popular canyon trailheads and are used by beginner tourers/snowshoers and often by families with children.

A tabulation of such "home run" areas should be included in the FEIS.

Explosives Use

The continued use of explosives for "slope stability testing" and avalanche control may have serious short and long term consequences on the quality of water in an important Salt Lake City watershed.

The DEIS is seriously deficient in the data provided for evaluation of the impacts of the proposals on water quality. Apparently, the preparers have made the assumption that helicopter skiing will not impact water quality. This assumption is faulty as detailed below.

The hand charges used in avalanche control will probably use nitrogen based explosives. Commonly used detonators contain heavy metals such as lead. The DEIS fails to specify the type and amount of explosives and the nature of the detonators that will be used.

The DEIS focuses on the safety hazards of an accidental detonation by a dud, but there is an additional hazard from duds: leaching the explosives into the water. Explosives pose a health risk to humans and the environment even at very low parts per billion concentrations. The fate of the unexploded explosive, the nitrogen and detonator residues following detonation is into Big Cottonwood, Little Cottonwood, Mill Creek and other streams resulting in an incremental deterioration of water quality.

The incremental increase in explosives use and dispersion of explosives more widely in the watershed by helicopter skiing should be carefully evaluated. Use of explosives in areas where significant infiltration of the toxic products into ground water may produce long term deterioration of water quality. Upper Days Fork for example, has no surface runoff during much of the snow melting season; the water infiltrates into the ground water system to reemerge later in springs near the mouth of Days fork and elsewhere. One spring near the mouth of Days Fork now contains .5 ppm nitrate and other springs in the Brighton Resort area contain up to 1.5 ppm nitrate.

WPG and the Local Economy. On reading the meager section on WPG and the local economy it is obvious that WPG'S contribution to the local economy is very little, if any. WPG indicates an average of $122,000 in salaries for 24 employees, all but two of whom are seasonal employees. That is about equal to the total salary of a single upper level executive in one of Utah's financial, administrative, academic, or medical establishments, or two ranked academicians or two engineers, or four office workers. Scarcely a powerful impact economically.

Special Use Permit Fees and Where They Go. If the thousands of work-hours by Forest Service employees are factored in, WPG's contribution to the U.S. Treasury may becomes negative; the U.S. taxpayer, it appears, may be subsidizing this controversial and "marginally profitable" enterprise.

The Forest Service gets an average annualized $10,000 yearlyÊfee from WPG for what essentially amounts to the machine harvestingÊof its powder snow resources. But that fee goes totally to the U. S. Treasury. That is scarcely sufficient for the administrationÊand oversight the Forest service must provide for such exclusiveÊpleasure of a relative few.

Cost of documentation and publication of the DEIS far exceedsÊthe $10,000 benefit. For example by end of July the Forest ServiceÊestimate the cost of the 1999 DEIS at $78,000, which exceedsÊ$50,000 or five years of fees. It shouldÊbe noted that Forest Service and WPG split the costs until WPG'sÊcontribution reaches a maximum of $58,000. Thereafter the ForestÊService pays. Currently the contribution of each to date is aboutÊ$39,000. Count that as a subtraction to WPG as well as U.S.Êtaxpayers.

The FEIS needs to document more extensively than the DEIS WPG'S claims of benefiting the local economy in context to what local back-country users' contribution is to the same economy.

Wilderness. The DEIS fails to address impacts that the helicopter skiing operation has on back-country users who have to cross heli-ski terrain on their way to wilderness areas such as Mt. Olympus, Twin Peaks, and Lone Peak.

Vegetation

Avalanche Influences on Vegetation. Any operation that throws upwards of 300 two-pound hand charges a season is practicing explosives avalanche control work. Let's not obfuscate the issue here. Slope stability evaluation and avalanche control work are not equivalent. Just because a slope avalanches when explosives are dropped from a hovering helicopter, does not necessarily mean that the same slope would avalanche from the weight of a skier.

Because WPG practices random explosive avalanche control work it has the potential to release very large and destructive avalanches. It's true that avalanches increase the biological diversity of an area such as the slidepath. The DEIS does not, however, address how these very large, destructive avalanches are affecting the age structure of the trees, primarily spruce/fir communities, and some douglas fir communities.

Under natural conditions some of these slidepaths would not have avalanched and over the course of a few days, the weight of the snowpack along with the heat of the sun would have worked out any instability. Consequently, a few scattered conifers along the slidepath would have survived another avalanche cycle.

Over the course of several years, a very small percentage may survive. With random explosive avalanche control work, however, that same slide path will slide, consequently removing all vegetation in its path.

Wildlife

NEPA procedures require "high quality," "accurate scientific analysis," and "expert agency comments" in the information to be presented in an environmental impact statement. The DEIS is exceptionally deficient in its assessments of helicopter skiing related activities on a number of species and their habitats. The USFS is required to analyze all threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that could possibly be present within a specified study area, yet, the DEIS does not even address the northern goshawk.

The USFS had the ideal situation to study wildlife without the presence of helicopters and the effects of helicopter intrusions on golden eagles last winter (1998-99) when WPG'S helicopters were absent from the area until late February. It was the first winter in 26 years that had a heli-free January and February in the central Wasatch. Such studies could have cost very little and would have provided badly-needed information regarding the area's population of protected golden eagles and possibly other species.

Peregrine Falcons. The DEIS states "there is one confirmed sighting of a peregrine falcon pair from July 1994 within the WPG permit area." This is not true. Keith Clapier, Seth Shaw, and Dave Prey were stooped by a peregrine falcon in January, 1998 while standing on the ridge between Mary Ellen Gulch and Mineral Basin. This positive identification by qualified observers was reported to officials of the Uinta National Forest. It's obvious there is no seasonal separation between peregrines and WPG if the birds are soaring ridgelines at 10,000 ft in January.

The reason there are no "additional reports of this species" is because no Forest Service observers are hiking to American Fork Twin Peaks in mid winter. The flying of WPG'S helicopters, however, may be scaring the birds away.

Note: Additional Save Our Canyons' comments on the DEIS wildlife issue deficiencies continue in Ellie Ienatsch's Comment On Impact To Wildlife As Presented In The Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Wasatch Powderbird Guides Permit Renewal, July 20, 1999. Her analysis follows: