Solitude Appeal

This document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215.

The appellant's name, address and phone number is as follows:

Citizens' Committee to Save Our Canyons
PO Box 112017
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147
801-363-7283

Record of Decision for the Solitude Mountain Resort Master Development Plan Update; Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, decision maker; date of decision: January 15, 2002.

(Hereinafter referred to as the "ROD")

SOC has been intensely involved in the Solitude Mountain Resort Master Development Plan since its inception. SOC has participated in the scoping process, attended the open house sponsored by the Forest Service, met with Solitude Management, met with Forest Service personnel and submitted detailed comments in response to both the scoping document and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

1. Pulse Gondola decision (D7)
2. Inadequate plant and animal surveys

Pulse Gondola

(1) Analysis and Approval of the Pulse Gondola does not Meet NEPA's Requirement for Consideration of Reasonable Alternatives.

A. Introduction

The authorization of the construction of the Pulse Gondola was not based upon an analysis of reasonable alternatives. The decision is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious under NEPA standards and should be vacated.

NEPA requires an agency to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project. NEPA regulations require that agencies "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives?" (40 CFR 1502.14) "The alternatives analysis is characterized as 'the heart of the environmental impact statement." Colorado Environmental Coalition, 185 F.3d at 1174 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). To fulfill this NEPA requirement, the "Forest Service is required to rigorously explore all reasonable alternatives to the [proposed action] in comparative form, and give each alternative substantial treatment in the environmental impact statement." Id. (citing 40 C.F.R.§§1502.14, 1502.1, 1502.14(a); 42 U.S.C. §§4332(2)(C)(iii) & (E); All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1444 (10^th Cir. 1992))(emphasis added).

To assess the sufficiency of an agency's alternatives analysis, the Tenth Circuit applies the "rule of reason." Colorado Environmental Coalition, 185 F.3d at 1174 (citing Pueblo Council, 975 F.2d at 1445).

The rationale behind approval of construction of the Pulse Gondola in the ROD is that the Gondola will promote efficient and convenient skier circulation throughout the base area of Solitude. Indeed, efficient and convenient skier circulation may be a laudable goal. However, SOC does not believe that the Forest Service adequately analyzed reasonable alternatives for achieving that goal, as required by NEPA.

B. There has been Insufficient Analysis of an Intra-Resort Ground Shuttle as an Alternative to the Pulse Gondola.

In the ROD, Forest Supervisor Tidwell states:

"I recognize that other alternative means of transporting visitors are available and were analyzed in the FEIS. " (ROD, page 9)

"The EIS evaluates a number of alternative means of transporting visitors throughout the three base areas at the resort." (Response to Comments to the FEIS, Volume II page 3-42)

"An intra-base shuttle system would likely be employed with impacts as described in alternative 3." (FEIS, page 4-201)

Similarly, the FEIS states:

"The distribution of skier services to the three base areas would eliminate the need for the pulse gondola as these services would be proximate to existing and proposed parking resources within reasonable skier walking distances. A good balance between lift capacities and base area locations would result from this alternative. A shuttle system could be employed as describe in Alternative 4." (FEIS, page 4-196)

"As an alternative to the Pulse Gondola, Solitude would develop an internal resort ground transportation system to move people about the resort." (FEIS page 2-45)

"An intra-base shuttle system would likely be employed. Such a shuttle system could be employed primarily between Moonbeam and Eagle Express, but distribution of skier services would reduce the need to move guests between base areas. Specifically, beginner and novice skiers as well as other guests requiring services not available at Eagle Express would be well served by a intra-base shuttle system." (FEIS p 4-199)

C. For the record, SOC finds the intra-resort shuttle the best alternative for providing efficient and convenient skier transport for the following reasons:

(1) Ground shuttle vehicles can efficiently transit between the Eagle Express Day Lodge and the Moonbeam Center or continue on to the Last Chance Mining Camp. If the shuttle continues on to the Last Chance Mining Camp, it will use the intra-resort service road, which is being upgraded to a uniform 20-foot width and to meet county code. Also, the entry to this road near the Moonbeam Center is being moved and rebuilt, as authorized by the ROD. Thus, the shuttle could take advantage of modifications to the resort authorized by the ROD.

(2) The Pulse Gondola provides only three points of access to skiers: (a) The Eagle Express Lodge, which will be located at the far west end of the Moonbeam lot; (b) the far east end of the Moonbeam lot, at the Moonbeam Center; and (c) the Last Chance Mining Camp, which is near the Village at Solitude. There are no points of access between the Moonbeam Center and the Eagle Express Day Lodge, the entire distance of the Moonbeam parking lot. This limited ingress/egress to the Pulse Gondola is not "convenient" to the average Solitude patron. On the other hand, an intra-resort ground shuttle provides an infinite and varied number of skier pickup locations.

(3) An intra-resort ground shuttle provides convenient ingress and egress. Within a very short distance of their cars, skiers step on to the shuttle. Nothing more.

(4) An intra-resort ground shuttle has no negative visual impact. Unlike the Pulse Gondola, an intra-resort ground shuttle service has no negative visual impact. It certainly meets the VQO of modification and the Sensitivity Level 1 standards.

(5) An intra-resort ground shuttle (especially natural gas powered) would have no measurable negative air quality impacts.

(6) Authorized improvements in skier services (food service and restrooms) obviates much of the purported need for the Pulse Gondola. With the expansion of the Last Chance Mining Camp building, the expansion of the Moonbeam Center and the construction of the Eagle Express Day Lodge, all of which are destined to provide an acceptable level of skier services, as defined by the Forest Service, it will no longer be necessary for skiers to travel along the base area in order to avail themselves of these services. Even with the Pulse Gondola, skiers will commonly not use the gondola to access skier services because the only ingress and egress to the gondola is found at these same locations that will provide (meeting Forest Service standards) skier services.

(7) The existing Link lift already provides skier access from the Moonbeam Center to the Last Chance Mining Camp building and the Village at Solitude. The FEIS does state that the congestion, on peak days, is substantial in and around the Link lift, Moonbeam II lift and the Moonbeam Center (FEIS page 3-110). With the authorized re-design of the Moonbeam Center area, though, this congestion will be substantially lessened. Also, currently the Link lift has a comfortable carrying capacity of only 250 (FEIS, Table 3-31). An upgrading of this lift would increase the CCC substantially, thereby providing skiers quick and comfortable access to the Last Chance Mining Camp and the Village at Solitude.

(8) Terrain features at the base area provide a natural shuttle from the east to west. The Solitude base area very gently slopes from east to west. Skiers at the Last Chance Mining Camp building can coast and easily pole down ski trails and along the southern edge of the Moonbeam parking lot to access their vehicles or continue on to the Eagle Express Day Lodge. In most cases skiers will ski back to their vehicles at the Moonbeam lot, rather than take off their skis and enter the Last Chance Mining Camp building to gain access to the Pulse Gondola that in turn will take them to either the Moonbeam Center (where they will still need to walk the same distance to their vehicles if the Pulse Gondola did not exist) or the Eagle Express Day Lodge where the skiers will then need to walk uphill to their vehicles at the Moonbeam lot. At the end of the day, skiers using the Eagle Express lift will not ski to any of the gondola access points. Instead, they will ski downhill directly to their vehicles.

(9) The West End parking lot and access lift will not be built. Alternative 2, Solitude's preferred alternative, included the "West End" parking lot and associated lift. This lot would have been built at the far west end of the permit area on the north side of Big Cottonwood Creek. A chairlift would have been necessary to transport skiers across Big Cottonwood Creek to the Eagle Express Day Lodge. The ROD disallowed this lot and associated lift. This is a significant fact because, if the lot and lift had been built, the lift would have dumped skiers of all abilities at the Eagle Express Day Lodge. Within the mix of skiers finding themselves at the Eagle Express Day Lodge would be those of novice abilities. Novice skiers would not want to access the ski slopes via the Eagle Express lift. Instead, they would need to make their way to the Moonbeam Center. One of the rationales for the Pulse Gondola is to move novice skiers from the Eagle Express area to Moonbeam Center and beyond. In the absence of the West End lot and associated lift, there will be no novice skiers needing transportation to the Moonbeam Center at the beginning of the day, nor will there be any novice skiers needing transport to the Eagle Express Day Lodge and West End parking lot at the end of the day.

(10) Intra-resort ground shuttles are an accepted, and tested, mode of intra-resort transport at ski resorts. (Likely for reasons 1-9 listed above). Indeed, Solitude would find itself in good company with such a transport system. Both Snowbird and Deer Valley (both high-end ski resorts) use such shuttles and manage well without intrusive base gondola systems.

D. The FEIS Fails to Analyze Skier Walking distances, Patterns and Behavior.

Much of the justification for the Gondola arises from the claim that skiers at Solitude must walk too far from the Moonbeam parking lot to the Moonbeam Center or the permitted Eagle Express Day Lodge. However, the FEIS does not support this assertion with comparable figures on the distance patrons must travel (by walking, skiing or shuttling) from the parking lots to skier service access points at other resorts. The fact is that the maximum walking distances at Deer Valley and Snowbird easily rival those at Solitude. Alta uses an unsophisticated rope tow shuttle from its lower parking lot to the Albion Basin area. Both Deer Valley and Snowbird use intra-resort ground shuttles to ferry skiers from their parking lots. Indeed, the only horizontal gondola/lift used to shuttle skiers in Utah is located at The Canyons Ski Resort. The Canyons gondola dramatically, and negatively, impacts the visual quality of The Canyons base area, which can only be described as cluttered. See attached photos of The Canyons gondola system. Yet, the FEIS does not mention or review The Canyon's gondola (or the lack of any such gondola at other resorts) in discussing the need for the Pulse Gondola at Solitude. The fact that the gondola at The Canyons is located on private land is immaterial to the required analysis.

The only statement of need for the Pulse Gondola is found in alternative 2:

"After completion of the Village at Solitude, nearly all day skier parking will occur in the Moonbeam Parking lot. However, the west end of the Moonbeam lot is beyond what most users would consider a comfortable walking distance (over 1,000 feet) to the Moonbeam Center. The proposed Pulse Gondola would provide an important link between all major base area facilities." (FEIS 2-32)

In the end, the FEIS failed, completely, to analyze an intra-resort shuttle as an alternative to building an intrusive gondola running three-fifths of a mile through the Solitude base area. The wide acceptance of intra-resort ground shuttles and their complete lack of any measurable cost to the environment require that good decision making include such an analysis. The ROD decision granting authority to build the Pulse Gondola without considering this alternative violates NEPA. See Appendix A for an in-depth quantitative discussion of distances skiers must walk to gain access to skier services.

E. The FEIS fails to Analyze the Existing Link Lift as an Alternative to the Pulse Gondola.

There is, at least, one additional alternative to Pulse Gondola that is a viable option for guest transport inside Solitude that, like the intra-resort shuttle, is not discussed or analyzed in the EIS process. That alternative is the Link lift, which already provides a method for skier circulation around the base area by transporting skiers from the Moonbeam Center to the Last Chance Mining Camp and to the Village at Solitude.

The EIS is devoid of an analysis of upgrading the Link lift as a reasonable alternative to the pulse gondola. The FEIS notes only that congestion exists at the Link lift and Moonbeam Center area is substantial on peak days (FEIS page 3-110). However, the ROD authorizes the re-design and expansion of the Moonbeam Center to expand skier services and to lessen congestion on busy weekend days. Moreover, the Link lift's comfortable carrying capacity as now constructed is only 250 (FEIS, Table 3-31). Upgrading existing lifts in the same alignment is not a novel approach to increasing carrying capacity and decreasing congestion. This alternative is obviously preferable from an environmental standpoint to adding new lifts to the terrain. Yet, nowhere in the FEIS do we find any discussion about upgrading the Link lift to a higher CCC, and therefore making it an attractive means of transporting skiers to the Last Chance Mining Camp and the Village at Solitude. Upgrading this lift would also make it more user-friendly to novice skiers who use it to access the Easy Street run.

It is apparent (for reasons not disclosed) that Solitude would rather build a wholly new mode of transport, the Pulse Gondola, than upgrade the Link lift and use an intra-resort ground shuttle system to efficiently move skiers throughout the base area. However, the purpose of an EIS is to determine whether Solitude's preferred alternative, the Pulse Gondola, is the best alternative, given its environmental consequences. There is no discussion of the Link lift alternative in the FEIS and this failure violates NEPA, thereby creating a fatal flaw in the decision-making process to allow construction of the Pulse Gondola.

(2) The Pulse Gondola does not Meet Visual Quality Objectives

A. Introduction

The ROD concludes that the Pulse Gondola lift is consistent with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource plan's Visual Quality Objectives because the land upon which the gondola is to be built is designated as a visual quality "modification" area under that Plan. (ROD, page 9) That conclusion is vulnerable to persuasive dissent. It is true that ski resort base areas are "modification" visual quality areas. (1985 Forest Management Plan, page IV-25 - 26.) The visual quality analysis in the FEIS and, accordingly, the analysis upon which the ROD is based, is insufficient to determine whether the gondola complies even with the standards for areas designated as "modification" areas - and in fact it may not.²

B. There is No Description of the Pulse Gondola upon Which Any Analysis may be Based.

To judge the visual impact of any improvement, one must know what it will look like. The sole description of the Pulse Gondola found in the FEIS reads as follows:

"A two stage pulse gondola (people mover) would be installed from the west end of the expanded Moonbeam parking lot/Eagle Express Day Lodge (Figure 2-5; C14; C15) to the Last Chance Mining Camp (Figure 2-5; D1), with a midway terminal located at the Moonbeam Center. The gondola would have a total length of about 3,150-Ft. A pulse gondola would employ a technology similar to the tram at Snowbird and is called a jig-back system. In the case of the Pulse Gondola, a tight grouping of gondola cars (typically four to eight cars) would move to and from each base area as a "pulse." Each pulse would originate at LCMC and Eagle with Moonbeam as the midway point. Tower height and spacing would be similar to a conventional chairlift." (FEIS, page 2-31)

C. The FEIS, 1985 Forest Management Plan and ROD are at Odds on the Visual Impact of the Pulse Gondola.

The FEIS sets a reasonable standard for evaluating visual resources. Specifically, the FEIS notes:

"The objective of scenic resource management in ski areas is to provide quality recreation experiences and opportunities without detracting from the essence of the landscape. Blending all facilities with the valued landscape setting is the basic concept of scenery management. Scenery is one of the key elements in determining resort preferences and skier satisfaction. Viewing outstanding scenery while participating in winter sports activities is one of the primary reasons skiers are attracted to winter sports sites on NFS lands. The visual quality of Big Cottonwood Canyon is important to visitors and residents during all seasons." (FEIS, page 4-122)

"Sensitivity levels are a measure of people's concern for the scenic quality of the National Forests. In other words, sensitivity level is a particular degree or measure of viewer interest in the scenic qualities of the landscape." (1985 Forest Plan, page M-1)

To assure that areas designated as "modification" for visual quality (the lowest VQO) take into consideration the scenic integrity of the landscape, the management direction for such areas requires:

" All activities will be designed to blend with the existing landscape." (Forest Plan, page IV-29)

"The area's visual quality is designated as modification; the pulse gondola is consistent with both these management directions as they are designated in the Forest Plan." (ROD, page 9)

This lift would be visible from some areas within and adjacent to the resort, including the Giles Flat Residences, Highway 190 a primary travel route at the Moonbeam entry and above the Village, and other areas within the permit boundary. The Pulse Gondola and associated lift apparatus and terminal facilities may be perceived to increase the urbanization into the area and diminish the experience for some, especially adjacent residents. (Page 4-191)

Conclusions are not the equivalent of analysis. SOC cannot, from any information provided in the FEIS tell what the proposed Gondola will look like - from any view - or what the Forest will look like with the Gondola in place.

The management plan in place since 1985 requires that scenic integrity be protected and that requires a concerted effort to determine how a particular development will or will not blend into the landscape. Yet, the ROD has approved the construction of the Pulse Gondola that spans 3,150 foot long - the length of most of the special use permit base area - without knowing or describing what that Gondola will look like. Accordingly, the approval of the Pulse Gondola does not meet the standards for the management of visual quality set forth in the Management Plan.

Conclusion

SOC asks that the decision to allow the construction of the Pulse Gondola be vacated due to the failure of the FEIS to analyze reasonable alternatives and the fact that the Pulse Gondola most likely fails the VQO of modification and the Sensitivity Level 1 standard.

Inadequate plant and animal surveys

A. Introduction

The Forest Service Manual in Section 2670.22 requires that units "Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions." USDA Regulation 9500-4 directs the Forest Service: "Habitat for all existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife species will be managed to maintain at least viable populations of such species. In achieving this objective, habitat must be provided for the number and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of a species throughout its geographic range... Monitoring activities will be conducted to determine results in meeting population and habitat goals." In Section 2670.32, the Forest Service Manual requires the Forest Service to assist states in conservation of endemic species and to develop management objectives for sensitive species in cooperation with states.

These regulations require that the Forest Service go beyond what is described and prescribed in the Solitude EIS to ensure that decisions and actions do not result in the loss of viability or create significant trends toward federal listing of any species or cause a further decline of any listed species.

B. The Canada Lynx is an Endangered Species and Honeycomb Canyon is Potential Habitat.

The Record of Decision, page 19, section 49, allows the implementation of a vegetation management plan at Solitude. Included in this plan would be the thinning of a dense forest west of the Challenger trail (FEIS, page 4-107). This would have a very negative effect on this identified lynx habitat and would go against agreements signed by the Forest Service to preserve lynx habitat.

The Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis, is a federally listed threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and is the subject of a 2000 Conservation Agreement signed by Region 4 of the Forest Service. The Solitude DEIS (page 3-40) found "an area of dense conifers on the east slope of Honeycomb Canyon which contains the essential characteristics of Canada lynx denning habitat." But the DEIS claims that the area is essentially an island of habitat lying within a matrix that is fragmented. However, the goals of the conservation agreement are to preserve lynx habitat and increase connectivity, not destroy it. The Conservation Agreement, on page 5, says: "The FS agrees that Forest Plans should include measures necessary to conserve lynx for all administrative units identified as having lynx habitat."

The 1997 Utah Gap Analysis for predicted habitat shows upper Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons as "critical value habitat" for the lynx. The December, 1999, Biological Assessment of the Effects of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans on Canada Lynx shows in the map on Figure 6, that the vast majority of the Wasatch Range, including Solitude is specified as primary Lynx habitat with higher connectivity potential for lynx (see attached copy).

The US Fish and Wildlife Service put out a list of federally listed species and habitat by county in Utah in September 2001. The Canada lynx is listed for Salt Lake, Utah, Summit and Wasatch counties. Solitude is located at the nexus of these four counties. While Solitude is in Salt Lake County, it is just a little over a mile to Summit County, just over two miles to Wasatch County and under three miles to Utah County. Lynx are known to have a very large home range from 17 square miles to 85 square miles (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983), one report has the home range of male lynx at 147 square miles (Apps 2000). Furthermore, lynx have been known to travel even further when under environmental stress. The EIS and the Biological Assessment for the Solitude Master Plan suggest that no lynx has ever been known to inhabit areas within Salt Lake County. This is factually incorrect. There are reports of lynx in the 1800's in Salt Lake County. A good example is a report by William Robinson, a correspondent for the London Times and Field and an associate of Charles Darwin, reported in the Field in 1870 that he visited the Deseret Museum and Menagerie in Salt Lake City. John W. Young, son of Brigham Young, was the owner. Robinson saw six captive lynx and other animals mostly from the nearby mountains. "One of the lynxes was caught when going up an apple tree in Salt Lake City."

The Uinta Forest has plotted known historic locations of lynx at http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/uinta/gis/pages/ and have identified more than a dozen locations at the west end of the Uintas and three more in the Kamas Valley. These three are just over twelve miles from Solitude and well within lynx range.

The 44-acre lynx denning sight located by Forest Service biologists in Honeycomb Canyon is not an isolated island as purported in the FEIS (page 4-107), but rather an important refuge in a north/south lynx linkage corridor. Honeycomb Canyon is over two miles long and its east slope is covered with a coniferous forest currently penetrated with only four very narrow, steep expert ski runs. This two-mile section is an integral part of a much larger lynx corridor that runs north/south along the crest of the Wasatch Range and connecting to the Uintas to the east. It provides linkage to forested ranges with known lynx locations and habitat in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana and even Canada.

The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS), 2nd edition August, 2000, which was written by an inter-agency committee of lynx experts from the Forest Service, BLM, FWS and Parks Service states that: "Most ski areas are located on north-facing slopes, where ample snow conditions provide for longer use periods during the ski season. In western states, many of these landscapes feature spruce-fir forests. At the southern extent of the range of the lynx, these tend to be the best habitat for snowshoe hares and lynx." It goes on to say "In areas of concentrated recreational use (e.g. large ski areas), it may be necessary to maintain or provide 'diurnal security habitat'" and "In landscapes where there is widespread or intense recreational use, the natural patterns of human and lynx activity may provide the opportunity to maintain both uses in the landscape."

The LCAS also outlines project planning standards for developed recreation in lynx habitat: "...to ensure that federal actions do not degrade or compromise landscape connectivity when planning and operating new or expanded recreation developments" and "When designing ski area expansions, provide adequately sized coniferous inter-trail islands, including the retention of coarse woody material, to maintain snowshoe hare habitat." The LCAS seems to be very relevant to the situation at Solitude.

Adolfson Associates of Seattle, Washington, known nationwide for their expertise in preparing biological assessments and impact statements, has outlined common flaws associated with survey work of endangered species. The Solitude FEIS has used the "not known to occur here" flaw in regard to many rare species, including the lynx. While Forest Service biologists have identified lynx habitat they have not looked for the lynx itself. There is no record in the Solitude document file of any hair snare surveys or other lynx survey techniques at Solitude. The snowshoe hare is the main prey of lynx but no survey work has been completed at Solitude to determine if there are sufficient hares to support lynx. Furthermore, such secondary food sources for lynx, such as red squirrels and pika, have not been surveyed for either. As Adolfson suggest you should "assume species presence if habitat is present" until sufficient surveys have been conducted to justify the conclusion of species absence.

The Solitude Record of Decision allows for thinning of the area west of the Challenger run in Honeycomb Canyon, much of which is on Forest Service property. Part of this area is the same area identified by Forest Service as lynx denning habitat. Thinning this area and promoting skiing in this area would destroy the lynx habitat and eliminate hares, their prime food source from this area. In the response to comments on page 3-122, it is suggested that mitigation measure WLF-3 would reduce the effect on lynx habitat. However, this measure was designed to protect raptor habitat, not lynx habitat, and is conditional on safety concerns that would be high if skiers are encouraged to ski throughout the lynx habitat. Furthermore, this mitigation only applies to snags 18 inches in diameter or more.

Direction should be given prohibiting the thinning of the area that has been identified as lynx denning habitat on Forest Service land at Solitude.

C. Bats The EIS also states that potential bat habitat exists within the Solitude boundaries (see p. 3-38). Two bats are discussed as sensitive species in the EIS on p. 3-42: the Spotted Bat, Euderma maculatum, and Townsend's Big Eared Bat, Corynorhinus townsendii. Townsend's Bat is considered to be among the most threatened bats in the western US by the National Bat Working Group. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) lists Townsend's Bat as sensitive with declining population and limited range and goes on to state, "this species is especially vulnerable to human disturbance, particularly at maternity?" The FEIS volume II, page 3-120 says that bat surveys were not conducted for these two species." The EIS and the Solitude document file do not contain any reference of a survey of potential bat roost sites or hibernacula. It is impossible to ascertain the impacts of the ROD to bats until you know their whereabouts or the location of their habitat. Direction should be given to bring in a bat expert to determine the location and habitat of these two rare bats at Solitude and assess the impact of the ROD there upon.

D. Shrew Another mammal listed in Appendix G-2 of the FEIS with a high probability of existing in upper Big Cottonwood is the dwarf shrew, Sorex nanus. It is listed on the Utah DWR as a species of Special Concern/ Conservation taxa and is on the sensitive species list due to restricted or specialized habitat. According to the Biota Information System of New Mexico, Sorex nanus is imperiled in New Mexico and rare in Arizona. The Forest Service in Region 2 also lists it as a sensitive species. It is a species of special concern in Wyoming. Sorex nanus lives in alpine or subalpine rockslides and is known from Bald Mountain, near Mirror Lake in the western edge of the Uinta Range, that is less than 37 miles from Solitude. There are 110 acres of alpine, krummholz and rock cover in the Solitude boundaries (DEIS p. 3-23), which might provide suitable habitat for the dwarf shrew. The FEIS Volume II, page 3-120 states that: "No surveys or analyses were conducted for the dwarf shrew." Section 2670.32, the Forest Service Manual requires cooperation with states on conservation species. Direction should be given to survey likely habitat at Solitude for the dwarf shrew.

E. Snakes The Solitude EIS in Appendix G lists wildlife species of riparian areas that can potentially occur at Solitude. Among the list are the Utah mountain kingsnake, Lampropeltis pyromelana, and the Utah milk snake, Lampropeltis triangulum. Another snake, the smooth green snake, Opheodrys vernalis, is known from mountain wetlands in the Wasatch Range. All three of these snakes are on the sensitive species list of the Utah DWR due to declining populations, distribution and/or habitat. All three of these species are also on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive species list. The Draft Management Plan for the Uinta National Forest, May, 2001 listed all three snakes as "species at risk." Solitude is less than 4 miles from the Uinta National Forest. While the viability of all three species is of concern, FEIS Volume II, page 3-121 states: "No surveys or analyses were conducted for snakes." Section 2670.32, the Forest Service Manuel requires cooperation with states on conservation species. Direction should be given requiring surveys of likely habitat of these three rare snakes at Solitude and impacts upon them assessed.

F. Boreal Toad Of particular concern is the impact Solitude's proposed changes will have on the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) and its habitat. According to the Snowbird FEIS, p. 3-80, the boreal toad has been confirmed on three occasions at Snowbird. This toad is currently listed in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico as endangered and is a candidate species for the US Endangered Species Act. It is also the subject of an October 1998 Conservation Plan and Agreement between those states and many other interested parties including the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Geological Service. It is listed on the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Sensitive Species List as a species of special concern with declining population and is also on the new Region Four Forest Service Draft Sensitive Species List (1999). Historically, this toad was found near Silver Lake in Big Cottonwood Canyon as well as nine other locations from Parley's Canyon to Alta, see "Historical Distribution, Current Status and Range Extension of Bufo boreas in Utah" by D.A. Ross, T.C. Esque, R.A. Fridell and P. Hovingh, Herpetologlogical Review, 1995. Furthermore, new genetic work by Dr. Anna Goebel, University of Colorado, closely links the boreal toads of northern Utah to those of Colorado. Mark S. Jones of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Aquatic Research, states that: "Mitochondrial data suggest that toads [Bufo boreas] migrated into Colorado from northern Utah, because haplotypes very closely related to those in Colorado and southeast Wyoming have been found in northern Utah."

SWCA environmental consultants did conduct a boreal toad survey of three locations at Solitude on June 2, 2000 and did not find any sign of the toad. However there is far more potential boreal toad breeding habitat at Solitude than was searched. Solitude's EIS, Table 3-9, indicates there are twenty-seven acres of wetland-riparian area in the project, almost all of which could represent potential breeding habitat. We learn from the 1998 Boreal Toad Conservation Agreement (page 7), that the toads are found between 8,000 and 11,000 feet and breeding takes place in shallow (6 to 12 inches), quiet water in lakes, marshes, bogs, ponds and wet meadows, that would describe much of the riparian area at Solitude. The SWCA report dated October 17, 2000 specifically states: "It should be noted that there were no sensitive wildlife surveys conducted in Honeycomb Canyon during the 2000 field season." Direction should be given to complete the boreal toad surveys at likely sites at Solitude including Honeycomb Canyon.

G. Pika Another small mammal that will be impacted by the changes at Solitude is the Wasatch pika, Ochotona princeps wasatchensis. The Wasatch pika is listed as a sensitive species by the Utah DWR due to restricted or specialized habitat. The pika lives only on talus slopes at 8,000 to 11,315 feet but mostly between 9,000 and 10,000 feet. Table 3-9 of the EIS indicates there are 110 acres of alpine, krummholz and rock habitat at Solitude with talus slopes occurring in upper Honeycomb Canyon, near Lake Mary and above Lake Solitude. The EIS, pp 3-36-37, mentions pika occurring in upper Honeycomb Canyon and scattered in the broad band of limber pine/Douglas fir forest that extends across the upper elevations of Solitude including Mill F South Fork and Eagle Ridge Face.

The DWR lists the pika as a sensitive species due to restricted or specialized habitat. The Wasatch pika was formerly designated as a Category 2 species for consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act before Category 2 was eliminated in 1996. The 1991 Brighton FEIS, which was incorporated into the Solitude DEIS by reference, used the Wasatch pika as a Management Indicator Species for scree/talus habitats and the Wasatch/Cache National Forest Preliminary AMS recommends pika as a management indicator for alpine communities.

The Wasatch pika is a keystone species for talus slopes. The University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology states on their web site that: "Pika are important in maintaining the diversity and abundance of alpine meadow plant species. Plant diversity increases in areas where pika are actively haying large grasses and forbs." Furthermore, pikas provide valuable food to other species. According to the Biota Information System of the New Mexico Game and Fish, pikas are preyed upon by hawks, goshawks, eagles, owls, weasel, marten, bobcat, red fox and even the threatened lynx.

Mary M. Peacock and Andrew T. Smith writing in Oecologia, 1997 in their article "The effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal patterns, mating behavior and genetic variation in a pika (Ochotona princeps) metapopulation" found that 81% of pika populations that were isolated in islands from the main population had gone extinct. The EIS states on page 4-105 that the bike trail through Honeycomb Canyon could physically or effectively fragment habitat with increased intrusion of people. Pika are likely to occur on either side of the proposed bike trail. The EIS on p. 4-106 continues with the analysis: "An indirect impact of constructing the lift would be an increase in winter use of Honeycomb Canyon facilitated by the improved skier access offered by the new lift. However, no species sensitive to human disturbance are known to occur in Honeycomb Canyon in the winter?." But they overlooked the pika, which do not hibernate, are active all winter, are very sensitive to habitat fragmentation and occur in Honeycomb Canyon. Furthermore, avalanche control will be increased in areas accessed by the Honeycomb return lift (EIS p. 2-25). This increased use of explosives will further fragment the environment and negatively impact pika. Section 2670.32, the Forest Service Manuel requires cooperation with states on conservation species. Direction should be given to survey populations of Wasatch pika at Solitude and assess the impacts to them.

H. Rare Plant Survey The FEIS (pp. 3-28 to 3-32) lists forty-three "Special Status Plant Species" and their "Habitat Requirements" and the "Probability of Occurrence" at Solitude and the survey results from the plant survey performed July 20-22, 2000 by Intermountain Ecosystems, Dr. Ron Kass. However, in reviewing the report (see attached copy) submitted by Intermountain Ecosystems on September 29, 2000, there are many discrepancies between it and the information presented in the FEIS. The Intermountain Ecosystems report only lists sixteen species that it surveyed for, not forty-two. Referring to the sixteen surveyed, Kass states on page one of his report: "A comprehensive list of rare species either known or have the potential to occur within the study area are listed (Table 1)."

Clearly, Dr. Kass did not survey for all forty-two species but rather did a directed survey looking for the sixteen species he delineates in Table 1, at specific habitats that might be directly impacted. This by no means would have concomitantly included all 26 of the other species as their habitats differ greatly. In reviewing all plant documents in the Solitude doccument file, Dr. Kass's list of sixteen rare species closely follows a document entitled "Central Wasatch Rare Plants" (see attached copy), rather than the original forty-two rare plant species identified by the Forest Service ID team.

The author of the plant section of the FEIS has misstated and misrepresented Dr. Kass's report. NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1502.24 require "professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements." If the ID team thought that forty-two plant species should have been surveyed for, then direction should be given to complete this task. Dr. Kass, or another botanist of his caliber, should complete field survey work for the other twenty-six species and a supplemental report issued clearly stating if or if not these species are at Solitude. This report should also evaluate any effect that any decision authorized in the Solitude ROD will have upon these rare species that are found and the report should be made available to the public.

Two species that Dr. Kass searched for, Lesquerella garrettii (Garrett's bladderpod) and Lesquerella utahensis (Utah bladderpod), and did not find, may have been located by Keith Clapier, Forest Service Ecologist in a survey he did between Fleet Street and Fluid Drive runs just below the Apex Chair lift in August of 1996 (see attached copy). While it is difficult to tell the two species apart both are Utah rare endemics and he did find some 463 individual lesquerella. The FEIS (page 1-31) acknowledges that Garrett bladderpod has been located at Solitude. Apparently Kass did not search this area or have access to Clapier's report. Direction should be given to search the area between Fleet Street and Fluid Drive again and a report issued, including an analysis of the impact that the ROD may have on these rare species.

One rare plant species, which became a candidate for the Endangered Species Act on May 10, 2000, the slender moonwort (Botrychium lineare), was not included in the original list of forty-two special status plant species at Solitude in the DEIS. D. R. Farrar confirmed a historic collection of the Slender moonwort, from Silver Lake, adjacent to Solitude, as Botrychium lineare on July 23, 2001. There are only about 180 individuals of this species known throughout its range.

Henry R. Maddux, Utah Field Supervisor for the Fish and Wildlife Service, in a letter to Thomas Tidwell, Forest Supervisor, dated January 4, 2002 states: "Habitat for the Slender moonwort occurs in the project area, though surveys have not yet been conducted. We recommend that the Forest Service complete surveys for the Slender moonwort in suitable habitats in the project area, particularly at Lake Solitude and its associated wetlands and wet meadows. Surveys would provide an opportunity to incorporate conservation measures for the species in the project planning, if necessary." Direction should be given for surveys for the slender moonwort to be conducted at Solitude as soon as is possible.

The ROD, in VEG-12 and WLF-10, does call for more survey work of new alignments and facility footprints just prior to construction. However, having a biologist walk in front of a backhoe or bulldozer is not the same as conducting a scientific survey, assessing impacts and writing a report that is available to the public for review. Furthermore, checking only construction impacted areas ignores indirect effects of the ROD on TES species.

The Solitude ROD authorizes over 40 individual projects, because some of the effects, both direct and indirect, of these projects upon TES species of plants over the 6-10 year lifespan of the Master Development Plan cannot be completely foreseen, an on-going TES plant monitoring plan should be required. In the Snowbird Ski Resort MDP Appeal # 00-04-00-0073, page 21, direction was given requiring such a monitoring plan at Snowbird. Solitude should be directed to do the same.

I. Management Indicator Species In the response to comment WL-DC-2 in Volume II of the FEIS (page 3-119) it states: "The wildlife surveys outlined in the EIS cover all species identified as management indicator species (MIS)....MIS were chosen as a tool in this analysis because they provide a way to address numerous species that utilize a given habitat, including species that do not receive special management status." While the usefulness of MIS is debatable, especially when it comes to protecting sensitive species, the commitment of the Forest Service is required by the National Forest Management Act, 36 CFR 219.19, and the Forest Service Manual 2600. It is therefore difficult to understand why there was no meaningful scientific baseline survey of the following Wasatch-Cache MIS (1985 Forest Plan) in the Solitude EIS or Solitude record file: warbling vireo, MacGillivray's warbler, yellow-bellied sapsucker, pine siskin, mountain bluebird, water pipit, green-tailed towhee, pine marten, elk, mule deer and moose. The pine marten is a good example, in response to comments in the FEIS (page 3-122); it clearly states that no surveys were conducted for the pine marten even though pine marten habitat exists in the project area. While survey work completed at Brighton on these MIS is a good starting place, direction should be given requiring the completion of baseline surveys for all MIS species at Solitude. The location and density of each species should be determined at Solitude in order to make a meaningful comparison to the "minimum viable" presented in Appendix G3 of the FEIS. It is almost useless from a management perspective to merely state that they are present as was done in the FEIS on page 3-38. Alternatively, direction could be given to conduct new baseline surveys at Solitude of all proposed new MIS species in the proposed new Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan.

Appendix A

A model of skier movement in the base area of Solitude was developed. Simulation was used to determine how far skiers at Solitude must walk to reach the lifts they wish to access, and to understand what factors affect that distance. (See attached photo of the Moonbeam parking lot)

The simulation model below demonstrates that skiers using an intra-resort shuttle system would not be required to walk further than those using a Pulse Gondola system under most circumstances.

The model and data are described below (Methods). Briefly, skiers arrive at Solitude by either mass transit or in their own vehicles. Skiers have destinations (lift terminals) dependent on their skill level and the terrain available from each of the five lifts. Those that drive park so as to minimize the distance they must walk to reach their destinations, taking into account the available methods of intra-resort transportation (the Link lift and a shuttle or Gondola system). The numbers of skiers that visit on any given day are drawn from 1,810 days of skier visitation data from twelve seasons. The distribution of skier visitation is appended below. The numbers of skiers that have to walk various distances are totaled over all days, and from this data, the distribution of distances walked, as well as the mean, median, 85^th percentile, and maximum distances walked are computed. The assumptions of the model can then be altered, the computation repeated, and the results can be compared between scenarios. In particular, the effects of different means of intra-resort transportation can be compared.

On low visitation days, skiers can park very near to the Moonbeam Center and Link lift, or to the Eagle Express, so they can reach their preferred lift without walking far. On such days skiers just walk. On busier days, they must park further away, and so must walk further or use some form of transportation. The last part of the Moonbeam lot to fill up, when no shuttle or Gondola system is available, is the middle to western part of the lot. Under this scenario, 85% of skiers walk less than about 760 ft. and half walk less than ~360 ft. The mean distance walked is 453 ft, and the maximum is 1,640 ft. Only 6.7% of skiers (over twelve seasons) would have to walk more than 1,000 ft. These conditions are by definition unusual, happening on high visitation days (see Skier Visitation, below). Thus the point made in the FEIS - that 1,000 ft. is too far for a skier to walk by Forest Service standards - is irrelevant.

Figure: Frequency and cumulative frequency distributions of skiers vs. distance they must walk, with no shuttle or Pulse Gondola.

With only the proposed three-shuttle stop route, the 85^th percentile walking distance, over all skiers and all 1810 days is ~420 ft. Attached histogram of walking distances for all days and cumulative chart. Median is 280', mean 307'. The maximum distance that a few skiers must walk is ~870', when the lot is full. How long does it take to walk 420' with gear? Intuitively - how long is a downtown SLC block? And were these people going skiing or for a lounge? How far is it to walk through the mall? From a mall parking lot into the mall? Burdened by stuff, no less.

Figure: shuttle only .

With only the Gondola operating as proposed, the 85^th percentile walking distance is ~560 ft. Attached graphs. The Moonbeam lot fills from either end, instead of from either end and the middle. Due to the off-lot position of the Gondola stations, skiers cannot park as near the stations, and must walk further off the lot. Implementing the Gondola instead of a shuttle system requires the 85^th percentile skier to walk ~120 ft further. The median distance is 320 (40' more), the mean is 372 (65' more). 0.29% of skiers would have to walk more than 1000 ft, and the maximum is 1060. To put these differences in context, the Gondola station nearest the Moonbeam lift base (realigned) is still 170' away. So in any case, skiers would have to walk that far uphill.

Figure: Gondola only

Data for the locations of lift terminals, Pulse Gondola stations, potential shuttle stops, and parking areas were extracted from an electronic copy (.pdf) of Figure 2-5 (Alternative Two, Base Area, p. 2-28). Briefly, extraneous parts of the image were deleted, points of interest were marked or filled in black, and the resulting simplified image was analyzed using NIH Image (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/nih-image/) to extract the coordinates of various locations, using the scale given in the figure legend. Parking areas were represented as sets of points (approximately one point per 7x7 foot area.) Only the Moonbeam lot, with the approved expansions, and the lot located on private land to the west were analyzed. These sets of points were further clustered to yield one point per car, on the assumption that 158 cars can be parked per acre (FEIS 3-72). No pattern of parking was applied; vehicle positions were evenly distributed across parking areas. Approximately 0.6 acres of the east end of the Moonbeam lot was excluded from the model, since some part of that area is intended to accommodate mass transit vehicles. Due to the central location of this parking, not allowing skiers to park there increases the distance they must walk. The entire area of parking to be built on private land to the west was opened to parking, but it is the last to fill up on busy days.

Complete daily skier visitation records for Solitude were available for twelve seasons, those ending in 1985 through 1998 (with the exception of the season ending in 1996; that data set was incomplete, and so was not used.) These years include Solitude's historical high (season ending 1995, 242,227 skiers for the year), so they are representative of the visitation range that is expected of Solitude in the next five to ten years (FEIS 4-179: "The 2001 forecast indicates skier visits in 2010 at Solitude will not be significantly higher than the historical high.") If the number of vehicles on a simulated day exceeds the available parking on the Moonbeam lot, no further skiers are allowed.

To compute the distance a skier would need to walk to reach his or her destination (one of the five main lift terminals: Sunrise, Powderhorn, Apex, Moonbeam, or Eagle Express), every day of the 1,810 days' worth of visitation data was simulated. The recorded number of skier visits was generated. Destinations (lift terminals) were assigned to skiers in accordance to the typical skill levels of skiers and the terrain available from the lifts. Skiers would then choose a combination the available means of transportation (walking, the Link lift, and either an intra-resort shuttle system or the Pulse Gondola) to move from their arrival point (either the mass transit drop-off point at Moonbeam Center, or a point in a parking lot) to their destination lift. Of the available paths to a destination, skiers choose the one that requires the least walking. Time spent waiting for transportation was not considered; therefore, skiers who would save only a few feet by using transportation will wait for it rather than walk.

Six percent of skiers day are assumed to use mass transit (according to FEIS p. 3-68, 12-18% of skiers use mass transit; this analysis has therefore overestimated parking usage and thereby the distance that skiers must walk.) Each vehicle carries 2.5 skiers (FEIS 3-67), and all skiers in a vehicle have the same destination. The expected 187 parking spaces in the Village (FEIS 2-20) were not considered, nor were skiers staying in the Village counted towards skier visitation; in other words, all skiers were assumed to drive and park or use mass transit to reach Solitude. This simplification causes the analysis to overestimate parking space usage and thereby the distance that skiers must walk.

Skiers park in such a way as to minimize the distance they must walk. In the Moonbeam lot, this means they will park near the Moonbeam center, since it is near the Moonbeam lift, the Link lift, and either a Gondola station or shuttle stop, or they will park near other shuttle stops or Gondola stations. Skiers are allowed to proceed directly to lifts, without stopping to purchase tickets or visit restrooms and locker rooms. In many cases, their paths go through base areas, but not always. The effect of this simplification is to reduce the average distance that skiers must walk. At the end of the day, it is assumed that skiers can get closer to their vehicles by skiing down to the parking areas than by using other forms of transportation. In this model, skiers do not change their destinations based on where they can park; in reality, they might, which would reduce the distance they would need to walk.

By allowing or disallowing parts of the model, then simulating skier visitation over the 1,810 days of skier visitation data, the distances skiers must walk can be compared under different scenarios. Most of the assumptions of the model discussed above can be easily changed, allowing a user to understand what factors affect the distances skiers must walk most strongly, and how far skiers must walk under various realistic conditions.

The median number of skiers per day visiting Solitude for the twelve seasons of data available is 1,144 skiers. On the 85^th percentile day, 2548 skiers visited Solitude. The mean number of skier visits was 1,371, and the maximum was 5,694. The 95th percentile level of skier visitation was 3,328, which is approximately the number of skiers that can be accommodated on the expanded Moonbeam lot if an average proportion of them use mass transit. The skier visitation frequency and cumulative distributions are shown below.

Figure: Skier visitation frequency distribution (histogram).

Figure: Cumulative skier visitation distribution.

Adding a fourth stop for a ground shuttle at the east end of the new parking area on private land, near the Eagle Express lodge where a Gondola station is proposed, further reduces the distances skiers must walk (Table 1, four stops).

If a shuttle system with just three shuttle stops were used, with one stop in the middle to western end of the Moonbeam lot, and the others at the Moonbeam Center and Last Chance Mining Camp, the distances skiers must walk would be sharply reduced. Adding a fourth stop at the east end of the new parking area on private land, near the Eagle Express lodge where a Gondola station is proposed, further reduces the distances skiers must walk (Table 1, four stops). Allowing two stops on a shuttle line through the Moonbeam lot would further reduce these distances, and flexible stop locations would do even more. Such alternatives were not simulated.

This analysis shows that a reasonable shuttle system would be more effective in transporting skiers around the resort. It would ensure that no skiers would walk more than 770 feet. On the other hand, the proposed Gondola system would force some skiers to walk over 1000 feet, and the average skier would walk an extra 73 feet. Thus this quick analysis confirms the intuition that a shuttle system would be superior to the Gondola system. In combination with the other benefits of a shuttle system, when compared to the Gondola system, it seems clear that an adequate analysis in the FEIS would have supported the adoption of a shuttle system and a rejection of the Gondola proposal.

² SOC notes that the FEIS and the ROD propose 4 amendments to the Forest Land Management Plan to accommodate the Solitude Master Plan - including redrawing the map of the SUP to incorporate the proposed area of the Pulse Gondola within the "modification" VQO. The ROD, for the first time, reflects the language of those amendments and concludes each of the amendments is "nonsignificant" amendments to the governing Plan.

NFMA requires public participation in review of Forest Plan amendments. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(d); 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(f) (now 36 C.F.R § 219.9(c)). To this end, any action which constitutes a "significant change" in a forest plan is subject to the same procedure necessary to formulate the plan itself. Southern Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 779 F. Supp. 1353, 1357 (N.D. Ga. 1991)}{fs28Southern Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock}{fs28 , 779 F. Supp. 1353, 1357 (N.D. Ga. 1991)}{ vacated on other grounds, 993 F.2d 800. However, even "[i]f the change resulting from [an] amendment is determined to be not significant for purposes of the planning process, the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures." 36 C.F.R § 219.10(f). Thus, "[i]f an amendment is found to be not significant, then the amendment is subject only to a thirty day notice requirement and the completion of an environmental assessment." Alcock, 779 F. Supp. at 1357; see Sierra Club v. Cargill, 11 F.3d 1545, 1547 (10^th Cir. 1993)}{fs28Sierra Club v. Cargill}{fs28 , 11 F.3d 1545, 1547 (10}{fs28th}{fs28 Cir. 1993)}{; 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(f), (now 36 C.F.R § 219.9(c)).

More specifically, the Forest Service must determine the significance of and provide public notice and comment for a proposed forest plan amendment before the agency decides to adopt it. 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(f), (now 36 C.F.R § 219.9(c)) (Forest Service may implement a non-significant amendment only after "appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures")(emphasis added); FSM 1922.5 (Forest Service "shall? [p]rovide appropriate public notification of the decision prior to implementing the changes") (emphasis added); FSH 1909.12, § 5.32(3) (even if amendment is not significant, "the Forest Supervisor may not implement it until after appropriate public notification and satisfactory.")