December 13, 1996

Michael Sieg
Salt Lake Ranger District
6944 South 3000 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84121

Re: Comment by CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR CANYONS on "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Alta Ski Area Master Development Plan Update - October 1996" (DEIS)

Dear Mike:

Thank both you and Rob Cruz for all your help in providing copies of the DEIS as well as a good deal of clarifying information. We have also had help from the Alta Lift Company which has hosted site visits, met with groups from SAVE OUR CANYONS, and provided us with maps and other information. Thank you also for helping to extend the length of the public comment period. I believe and hope that this will enhance the quality and thoroughness of this public comment.

Let me point out at the outset of these comments that SAVE OUR CANYONS does not wish to dispute the desirability and plans for most of the items presented in the DEIS. These include the Albion Ticket Office expansion, the Albion Day Lodge remodeling, the Watson Shelter replacement, the Upper Grizzly Parking Lot widening, the Albion Patrol Building remodeling, the Supreme Patrol Building remodeling, the Germania Patrol Building removal and replacement (although possible conflicts with the Salt Lake County Canyons Master Plan and its prohibition on structures on ridge lines will need to be resolved), the Supreme Generator Building construction, the Vehicle Maintenance Shop expansion, and the General Office Building remodeling.

When it comes, however, to trail modification, "managing the vegetation", lift replacement, and expansion of snowmaking facilities we have concerns and comments. The DEIS (II-5) states very well the central theme that will be the basis of many of our comments.

Little Cottonwood Canyon, especially Albion Basin, is a popular destination for summer visitors who come to experience the magnificent wildflowers, the mountain scenery with its unique geological formations, and to hike, bike or camp . . . Because Albion Basin is a major attraction on the Wasatch Front, and use has dramatically increased in recent years, any changes to the scenic quality of the area, whether large or small, should be carefully analyzed for their impact on the area's scenic attractiveness.

Albion Basin is not just another corner of another commercial ski development. (One is tempted to shout," It's Albion Basin we're talking about , for crying out loud!") Albion Basin is a unique world treasure and one of the chief ornaments enhancing the attractiveness of the Salt Lake City area as a place to live and to visit. Its role as a summer destination matches that of its role as part of a ski resort. The Forest Service and the Alta Lift Company need to recognize the special responsibilities and prohibitions that exist and will continue to affect the difficult decisions that must be made to protect this precious resource. It is unfortunate that plans for the development of commercial operations and the preservation of this area should come into conflict, but this is happening. To be sure, it is complicated and vexing when a ski resort happens to be using terrain which is an important and much visited summer recreation area. When this is the case, as with Albion Basin, the desires of the commercial ski resort frequently will clash with those of all other competing users. The outcome of these clashes should not always be acquiescence to the preferences of the resort operators.

Summary Statement of the position of SAVE OUR CANYONS

Consequently, and as argued in more detail below, SAVE OUR CANYONS, if forced to choose, supports:

Alternative 3 (no realignment) on the Sunnyside Lift replacement Alternative 1 on Devil's Elbow Trail modifications Alternative 1 on Roller Coaster Trail modifications Alternative 1 on Crooked Mile Trail modifications

We find the trail modification projects to be inadequately justified, their harmful consequences insufficiently acknowledged, and the differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 to be too inconsequential to find any alternative other than that of No Action to be remotely acceptable. We have expressed very similar objections and opinions in previous public comment periods in letters of February 17, 1994 and May 2, 1996. We maintain that Alternatives 2 and 3 do irreparable harm to the quality of the area as a summer destination for hiking, camping, and wildflower viewing.

On all the trail modification projects, on the implementation of the Vegetation Management Plan, and the surface disturbances connected with implementing the snowmaking plans (1.7 miles of width up to 30 feet) we request that any further decisions be postponed until all affected individuals and groups have an opportunity to inspect the areas affected by the plans detailed in the DEIS. The reasons for this request are detailed below.

The Timing of the Release of the DEIS

It is extremely unfortunate that this DEIS was released in late October of 1996 just as the snow was beginning to fall in Albion Basin. This, along with the very short public comment period, means that, during that comment period, the general public will not be able to inspect the affected areas of Albion Basin except under snow. It would be desirable for people to be able to visit the areas where controversial projects are being proposed, Devil's Elbow, Roller Coaster, and Crooked Mile ski runs, and compare their present state with the area on upper Devil's Elbow that was regraded in 1992 and with which comparison is invited in the DEIS. Since there is no time schedule proposed for those trail alterations, we request that any decision on these projects be postponed until after the summer season of 1997 so that meaningful, informed, and broadly based public input can be offered. Under the present time schedule, this is impossible. How many members of the general public have walked the courses of Devil's Elbow, Roller Coaster, and Crooked Mile with the details presented for the first time ever in Appendices A and C of the DEIS in hand? One? Two? None? The full extent of the planned trail modifications have never before been made public.

In studying the DEIS we became aware of a number of deficiencies of this document. We are concerned that these deficiencies are so grave as to affect any decisions based on the DEIS.

A Basic Flaw in the DEIS

The DEIS is fatally flawed in its clear omission of any serious analysis of the impact of the proposals on the non-skiing recreational use of the area. In Chapter III, Affected Environment, the DEIS recognizes the tremendous use of this wonderful area by non-skiers. It notes that it is "one of the most heavily visited National Forest areas along the Wasatch Front", and that "people visit Albion Basin to observe the dramatic scenery...". Accordingly, it seems obvious that the DEIS would need to "take a hard look at" the impact of the proposals on this scenery and recreationists' enjoyment of their visits. Yet in Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences, there is only a page and a half of discussion of the impact of the proposals on recreation, and that is solely on winter skiing experiences. There is nothing describing, let alone analyzing, the consequences of the impact on summer and fall use despite the Forest Service's clear and acknowledged recognition of this impact when it invites comparison of the proposed actions with the actions of 1992 (pages II-20, II-29, IV-2, IV-65). How, in fact, could this summer use have been analyzed in this DEIS wherein hiking trails appear nowhere on any map provided?

Similarly, there is no mention, let alone serious discussion, of the impact on such use in Section 4.41.1, which describes the "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources". Our point as to the failure of the DEIS to properly analyze these issues under NEPA cannot be more forcibly made than by looking at the DEIS summary chapter, where, under the heading of "hiking, biking and pleasure driving" the DEIS says there will be "no change" under either Alternative 2 or 3. This, despite, the Forest Service's knowledge of the criticisms of the proposed actions if only through our organization's communications (2/17/964 and 5/2/96) to the Forest Service of our concerns in this regard.

Misuse of the Forest Plan

Also, we would like to register our complaint as to what we believe to be a misinterpretation of the application of the Forest Plan to the Alternatives. On p. IV-37, under the chapter on the Environmental Consequences , there is an implication that the Forest Service must approve Alta's proposals in order to be in compliance with the Forest Plan's goal to provide the Forest Service's share of developed recreation opportunities . . . and to meet demand for downhill skiing by allowing additional facilities . . . " This is a very general goal, and does not require that the Forest Service allow each resort to build whatever it wants. The DEIS says Alternative 1 "would not fully satisfy this goal". How do we know that, when there is no discussion of the needs of downhill skiing in the area? Can other resorts satisfy the goal? The Forest Plan is supposed to apply to the whole of the Wasatch-Cache, not just one resort at a time. The DEIS must be rectified to properly apply the Forest Plan to the Alternatives.

Indeed, one can argue that plans for all four of the major resorts in the central Wasatch area should be analyzed together in order to judge the areas ability to meet the needs of downhill skiing and the cumulative impacts involved with its development in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.

Statements of Purposes of Proposed Projects

Calling something an "improvement" does not make it an improvement.

Throughout the DEIS, statements of purpose are often framed in such a way as to make it seem that one of the proposed action alternatives is inevitable because only by undertaking that action can the purpose be accomplished. EIS analyses which begin with artificially restrictive statements of the purpose and need for the proposed project have been successfully challenged in courts. (Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 983 F. 2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991), citing City of New York v. Dept. of Transportation, 715 F.2d 732, 743 (2nd Cir. 1983). The Burlington court held that an agency "may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative from among the environmentally benign ones ... would accomplish the goals of the agency's action". Id. An agency may not "consider only those alternatives with the same end result" California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 767 (9th Cir, 1982))

At the very outset of the DEIS (p. S-1), the proposal is described as providing "improvements" in the ski area facility. The purpose of an environmental study is to examine the effects of proposed actions to determine whether, on balance, these actions produce improvements or degradations - not to assume , by using loaded language at the outset, that improvement is the inevitable outcome. CEQ Regulations specifically prohibit decisions preceding analysis.

Trail alterations are referred to as "trail improvements" in many places in the DEIS. On p. I-10 we find the statement, "The Forest Supervisor is the deciding officer who will determine whether to 'improve' (quotes added) and expand the existing facilities." Who would choose not to "improve" something? Such non-neutral evaluative language has no place in an Environmental Impact Statement.

Other examples: It is said (p. S-1) that there is a need to resolve "existing deficiencies" of Alta operations. The existence of the supposed deficiencies is simply assumed but not documented. By defining the current status of the resort as "deficient", an atmosphere is created in which some sort of action seems to be almost mandatory. By this rhetorical trick, the "No Action" alternative is being dismissed peremptorily on page one of this document. In fact, we find on page II-13 Alternative 1 being described as one that "would not meet skiers expectations . . . or address other objectives as stated under Purpose and Need". Thus, here in the section supposedly devoted to a factual description of the alternatives, Alternative 1 is being depicted as an alternative that can by definition not meet needs or purposes.

Again on page S-1 reference is made to "the need to meet current and future public expectations for a quality recreational experience". We find no demonstration of this so-called "need" in the document: no data, not even any anecdotal evidence. Within the same paragraph there is also mentioned, as part of the purpose, the "improvement" of the early season skiing experience for novice to intermediate skiers. Improvement as judged and established by whom? Have skiers been polled? We learn the answer to this question on page III-51 where it is admitted that no surveys of visitor satisfaction have been conducted. In Table S-1 sections of certain trails are described as being "inconsistent pitches". This sounds alarming and it would seem that some sort of action would be almost compulsory. But what are these "inconsistent pitches". What makes a section of a trail "inconsistent"? Again, who is judging?

It is interesting to contrast these confident statements about skiers' preferences with a statement appearing on page III-55 of the DEIS: "...The Ski Area has earned the loyalty of local skiers through its proximity, consistently affordable ski ticket prices, challenging ski terrain, and no snowboard policy " (underlining added). I have been happily skiing at Alta for 37 years and have never heard complaints of pitch inconsistency or of any dissatisfied expectations.

Many more examples could be cited, but in the light of just these few, it does not come as a total surprise when - aside from the perfunctory and required No Action alternative - a very limited range of alternatives is offered for public comment.

The Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

It appears that Alternative 1 has been included only because it is required to be included by law. It is dismissed before it is presented and, as mentioned above, even in the very process of being presented.

In the "Scoping Notice (of the) Proposed Master Development Plan Update (of the) Alta Ski Lifts" (MDP) dated April 5, 1995 (must be a typo for 1996) four alternatives were identified for further evaluation. One of these (numbered 2 in the earlier MDP) was: "An alternative which would protect the unique qualities of Albion Basin." This alternative has vanished from consideration between May 1996 and October 1996. Why?

In a category similar to the lost MDP Alternative 2 are the "Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated from Further Study" starting on page I-11 of the DEIS. We find the "Reasons for Elimination" to be, for the most part, arbitrary and inadequate. The reasons offered often appear to say that the alternatives were not considered because they would not meet the desires of the applicant.

The only alternatives offered beyond the pro forma No Action are designated Alternatives 2 and Alternatives 3. Apart from the clearly preferable Alternative 3 in the case of the Sunnyside Lift replacement, there is very little to choose between them. A glance at Figures II-5 and II-8 show immediately the infinitesimal difference between these alternatives in the case of the Devil's Elbow and Roller Coaster trail alternations. On page IV-29 we learn that, with regard to Conifer/Tall Forb Communities, "Alternatives 2 and 3 vary from one another by approximately 0.5 acres." The estimated total acres of ground disturbance involved in Alternatives 2 and 3, conifers/tall forbs and all, are listed as 50.27 and 44.59 respectively. This is only an 11% difference.

So far as the objectionable trail modifications are concerned, DEIS Alternatives 2 and 3 are essentially indistinguishable.

We are well aware that there is no requirement that the alternatives presented be those we ourselves would choose and that the Forest Service is only required to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" (40 CFR 1502.14). Also "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. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant". (Questions and Answers About the NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed Reg 18026 et seq., March 16, 1981).

Note that courts have held that the "rule of reason" constrains agencies in determining the purpose and need for a project. See the citations above under "Statements of Purposes of Proposed Projects".

Further, "The goal of NEPA is to ensure that federal agencies infuse in project planning a thorough consideration of environmental values, The consideration of alternative requirement furthers that goal by guaranteeing that agency decision makers have before them and take into proper account all possible approaches to a particular project . . . which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance". (Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1088), cert. Denied, 489 U.S. 1066 (1989).

Do Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 together satisfy "the rule of reason"? They do if Alternative 1 is considered to be a truly viable alternative and not one to be dismissed at the outset. Otherwise not, since, in setting forth the needs and purposes of the projects, summer users have been consistently ignored while the commercial ski development of the Albion Basin area has been emphasized. This skews the "statements of purpose" against which the "reasonableness" of the alternatives are to be measured.

Some Disturbing Recent History

The language being used (II-29, II-30) now in 1996 to distinguish the DEIS's Alternative 3 from 2 reads as follows:

As with Alternative 2, terrain modifications would be varied but instead of continuous ground disturbing activities producing an average width of approximately 75 feet, blasting, grading, filling and surface rock removal would be confined to specific areas.

This is disturbingly reminiscent of the 1991 language of the Scoping Letter (1/2/91) describing the trail alterations then proposed for Upper Devil's Elbow:

(Proposed is) blasting and widening the Glory Hole cat track from a 20 foot tread width to a 50 foot tread width (as well as) selectively removing loose boulders below the Glory Hole cat track down to the Cecret lake turn.

These were the details on which the public was invited to comment in early 1991.

Five months later in the 5/23/91 Decision Memo (no public comment invited) these proposals have changed more nearly to describe the subsequent tragic events:

Blasting "Razorback" ridge, lowering its profile and widening the Gloryhole cat track to a 200 foot width. . . Blasting two large rock outcroppings between the Cecret Lake turn and "Monkey's Hump," using the blasted rock to fill depressions around boulders.

Nothing very selective about this. The results, which we are invited on page II-20 to use to envision the proposed trail modification projects of this DEIS, are all too visible to the summer visitor. Not only an eyesore, the area is also an acknowledged and ongoing erosion problem (IV-2).

With this sorry history to contemplate, how can one believe that even the trivial differences between Alternative 2 and 3 trail modifications would, in fact, be maintained in the actual execution?

Inadequacy of Maps and Other Details

The maps provided with the DEIS are inadequate in a number of ways. Although many of the details of trail alterations on Devil's Elbow and Roller Coaster are described with reference to places called Monkey's Hump and Oil Pan Corner, neither of these appears on any of the maps in the document.

A telling detail: On page IV-58 we find these sentences: "While skiers may find changes acceptable and/or desirable for their recreation experience, hikers and other recreationists may not. The greatest impacts from proposed changes will be to the non-ski season visitors, such as hikers, campers, and bikers, who experience foreground and middle ground views of disturbed areas or new development. " And yet, hiking trails either are totally absent from the maps provided or are not identified as such. An oversight, perhaps, but an oversight which comes from the overall dismissal of the significance of the conflict between skier and non-skier uses. Evidently, the preparers of the DEIS weren't concerned enough about summer usage even to include hiking trails in their maps.

Due to rather perfunctory editing, the DEIS is from time to time incomprehensible. Figure III-13, as presented, is useless since no description of the meaning of the numbers appearing on that map are provided anywhere. The Table IV-1 referred to on page IV-3 does not appear to exist. It is certainly not the table with that label on page IV-8 nor, apparently is it Table IV-3 on page IV-21 since the totals there don't agree with the numbers cited in the text. There is evidence in the document that it was, in some parts, produced more with an eye toward impressive bulk rather than to substance. It appears that Table III-18 was included more or less as filler since it contains an enormous and startling (but not discussed) fluctuation for 1995/96 in the decade-long trends of that table. One wonders whether anyone was reading this part as they compiled it. Did the compilers, in fact, sometimes dismiss the idea that anyone would actually read the DEIS? This is a "long hard look"?

There is an interesting example in Chapter III of the failure to use some of the pertinent data presented in the DEIS. It is clear from a number of compilations and graphs (e.g. Figure III-7 and Figure III-10) that, while winter average daily traffic (WADT) has held pretty constant during the last 5 years, the summer average daily traffic (SADT) has increased by a whopping 25%. This striking fact, which dramatizes the ever-growing summer visitation to Little Cottonwood Canyon, is not commented upon. This is yet another example of the tendency of this DEIS to downplay the importance of summer recreational use of the Alta area.

Vegetation Management Plan

The "glading and thinning" described in the DEIS and in the "Forest Management Plan" prepared by James N. Long and Scott D. Roberts for Alta Ski Lifts in 1994 are cause for concern since it "impacts approximately 120 acres of subalpine-fir . . . over several years". This is, evidently proposed in the interests of "forest health". One must ask how this study and its proposals, which was apparently contracted by and prepared for the Alta Lift Company, is being proposed as Forest Service Policy. Was there any public input in the formulation of this Management Plan? Glading and thinning, a rather drastic process involving removal of up to 1/3 of the trees in a given area, may facilitate some skiing. What does it do to the visual quality for the summer visitor? We are not told.

Snowmaking

The justification and need for the vastly expanded snowmaking facilities is weakly supported in the DEIS. This supporting language is outlined in the paragraph on the bottom of page III-47:

Early in the season and during less than favorable snow years, the existing terrain with snowmaking coverage on the mid and lower portions of the mountain provides limited opportunities for intermediate and advanced skiers. Additionally, under conditions when the Sugarloaf lift cannot be operated as a triple lift, due to insufficient snow cover on Devil's Elbow and Roller Coaster trails, potential conflicts arise when skiers of different ability try to negotiate the same terrain. Lift lines at the Sugarloaf lift are also longer than designed for due to inadequate terrain availability.

These inconveniences and potential conflicts seem rather slight disadvantages when compared with the very extensive disturbance of the surface involved in the snowmaking schemes. There was a time, not so long ago, when the ski season started when there was enough snow for the ski season to start.

Connected with the snowmaking proposals are plans to fill in 325 linear feet of the stream along Crooked Mile ski run with small bouldery rocks. The impact of this action is not discussed in the Environmental Consequences chapter see section 4.3.3 (page IV-26). Instead a bureaucratic strategy is proposed for sidestepping the federal policy requiring that there be no net loss of wetlands.

When it comes to establishing how much snowmaking is needed, the reasoning becomes hard to follow. On page IV-7 we learn that "This snowmaking parameter was determined upon after reviewing current operations." This describes when the parameter was determined but not how or why.

On page IV-8, in the discussion of a "7-day goal for snowmaking operations", there is a certain circularity in the reasoning. (1) A "goal" is set up. (2) A proposal which will not reach this goal is outlined. (3) This proposal is then rejected because it won't meet the goal. (4) This rejection is used to justify another and final proposal. Voila! All the while the original goal remains unexamined.

Supposing that the need for the expanded snowmaking facilities could be justified, how could the facilities be put in place without the very extensive impact which is mentioned, namely the 30 foot wide 1.7 miles of ground disturbance? Isn't there some less drastic scheme? This DEIS does not leave the reader with much confidence that other possibilities have been very thoroughly explored since middle-ground alternatives are not presented.

Concluding Remarks

Let me close this unfortunately long letter by quoting one last time from the DEIS: "The blasting of polished rock would represent a irreversible and irretrievable loss of a resource." (IV-65 ) That glacial polish can serve as an emblem for what is at stake. It is true that Albion Basin has been pretty well beaten up over the years and that it is far from being in a pristine state. Past mistakes, however, need not be used as precedent for similar mistakes in the present and future. In spite of more than a century of depredation Albion Basin somehow retains its allure and its magic. In talking with Salt Lakers about this mountain meadow area, I find that many of them regard the area as almost sacred. Right now is the time to stop the destruction. Ski operations in the area must accommodate in the future, as they have in the past, to the notion that there are many demands Albion Basin besides those of their industry. The blasting, bulldozing, trench digging, tree cutting, and stream filling in Albion Basin must come to an end somewhere short of complete sacrifice of the area to a single use.

It is unrealistic to expect the ski resorts to take on, in the spirit of altruism, the responsibility to set aside some of their plans for development on public land. This is a role that only the Forest Service, with public support, can play. We find no language in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan that suggests that the Forest Service is obligated to approve the objectionable trail modification and snowmaking proposals described in this DEIS. The national forests do not exist solely for the downhill ski industry. Denying some proposals will become increasingly important as the population of Utah continues its rapid growth and the conflicts between business interests and the concerns of the public (true and legitimate stake holders in the fate of public lands) become sharper and more frequent. Please help us.

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in this crucial process of public input.

B. Gale Dick
President