Save Our Canyons: Comments on Snowbird MDP DEIS

   

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

"A decision maker must not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents.... The EIS must examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. 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. " (46 Fed. Reg. 18026). [underline added]
    The alternatives to the Proposed Action included in the DEIS are inadequate in a number of important ways. SOC believes that in at least one instance the reasoning used to discard one of the alternatives enumerated but "not analyzed in detail" is defective.
   

HIDDEN PEAK

Three alternative structures are being considered for Hidden Peak:
  1. the Proposed Action (Hidden A), a 78,000 square foot building including a restaurant, bar, restrooms, retail space, ski patrol and mountain operations facilities, interpretive center, and conference facilities,
  2. Alternative A, a 22,545 square foot structure housing a restaurant, rest rooms, and ski patrol and mountain operations facilities, and
  3. the No Action Alternative, involving minor renovations to the existing 1,681 square foot structure.
    It simply defies credibility that there are only three reasonable options for a range of structures spanning nearly two orders of magnitude in size. In this regard, the draft analysis fails utterly to satisfy either the requirements of NEPA or the CEQ policies and procedures detailing how NEPA should be implemented. This failure is so glaring as to be sufficient in and of itself to invite immediate appeal. (The DEIS abounds with such appealable errors.) SOC suggests that the appropriate course of action for the Forest Service is to develop a more reasonable and complete set of alternatives with respect to Hidden Peak and analyze such alternatives in a manner consistent with current law and policies. Given the importance of public input into decisions as controversial as those affecting Hidden Peak, these analyses should be published as a supplement to the DEIS and made available for public comment prior to publication of the final EIS.
    Note that the Forest Service does not have the option of approving a "compromise" structure somewhere between the presented alternatives:
"A decision maker must not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents." (46 Fed. Reg. 18026)
Any alternative ultimately approved must be detailed in the EIS and subjected to a full environmental analysis.
    SOC proposes the following four additional alternatives, any of which would satisfy many of the Purposes and Needs as set forth in the DEIS, yet would also have the potential to minimize the inevitable environmental impacts that would be associated with either the Hidden A or Alternative A proposals. All of these additional alternatives clearly satisfy the common sense standard for reasonableness. The first three are also clearly feasible from technical and economic standpoints, while the fourth would require further study in this regard.
ALTERNATIVE F:
A one-story building on Hidden Peak, which would replace the existing structure and be used solely for the purposes of a warming hut, ski patrol facility, restrooms, and small equipment shed. This one-story building would be well set back from the edge of the peak to eliminate or reduce its visibility from distant vantage points. Except for the set back, this is similar to the original Phase One proposal for the tram terminal. If it satisfied the purposes and needs of the development in 1971, it cannot now be dismissed by a claim that such a structure would not satisfy the purposes and needs of Snowbird today.
ALTERNATIVE G:
An underground facility at the top of Hidden peak, which would replace the existing structure and be used solely for the purposes of a warming hut, ski patrol facility, restrooms, and small equipment shed.
ALTERNATIVE H:
A semi-underground/semi-above ground one-story building on and in the top of Hidden Peak, which would replace the existing structure and be used solely for the purposes of a warming hut, ski patrol facility, restrooms, and small equipment shed. This one-story building would be well set back from the edge of the peak to eliminate or reduce its visibility from distant vantage points.
ALTERNATIVE I:
An underground tram receptor, similar to those in Chamonix, France, completely replacing the existing above ground structures. This would also preclude the need for a separate tunnel to Mineral Basin, as skiers could ski out either side of the peak. If restaurant facilities are to be included on the top of Hidden Peak, this is the only option capable of minimizing the visual impact.
    All alternatives should use minimum feasible square footage and should comply with Salt Lake County's FCOZ ordinance.
   

MINERAL BASIN

Meal service on the top of Hidden Peak is justified largely in terms of skier circulation and skier services for those using the proposed new lifts in Mineral Basin. The No Action Alternative fails to even mention the possibility of providing skier services on private land in Mineral Basin itself. Given the Forest Service mandate to
"encourage business enterprises engaged in providing ... facilities and services to locate on private lands,"
this option must be given a full environmental review. This mandate also requires the Forest Service to deny Snowbird's application because resort like The Canyons in Summit County can handle the alleged public need. It is generally quick and safer to drive to The Canyons than to Snowbird from downtown Salt Lake and from the airport.
    Construction of two lifts in Mineral Basin (Mineral A, Mineral B), ski run development in Mineral Basin, substantial terrain modifications in Mineral Basin (Mineral C, Mineral D, Mineral F), and a portion of the avalanche control for Mineral Basin (Mineral F) are all included as part of the No Action Alternative. In all of these cases, specific note is taken of the fact that construction will take place on private land.
    The DEIS allegedly justifies the Purposes and Needs for the Mineral Basin permit expansion (Mineral G) in terms of the expansion of lift skiing into Mineral Basin. The DEIS bases the Purposes and Needs for either of the proposed structures on Hidden Peak (Hidden A, Alternative A) on purported skier circulation requirements involving the use of lift-supported skiing in Mineral Basin. One might, therefore, reasonably suppose that Snowbird would re-examine its development plans for Mineral Basin should Snowbird not be allowed to place major new structures on Hidden Peak or should its permit area not be expanded into Mineral Basin proper. From this, it follows that the Mineral Basin development constitutes a cumulative impact of other Proposed Actions and Alternatives. It should therefore not be included in the No Action Alternative and should not receive a less than complete environmental review due to the fact that the development occurs on private land.
   

GAD 3

The DEIS supposedly justifies the Gad 3 Lift by alleging that this lift is necessary to provide access to additional terrain at the western edge of the permit area. Elsewhere, we have questioned the validity of this rationale. If providing access to skiable terrain in this area does, in fact, satisfy a public need, then the alternative of realigning the existing Gad 2 Lift needs to be examined (ALTERNATIVE J). Realigning this lift to the west and making it a hundred feet higher would allow better access to the desired terrain. Some of the terrain at the western edge of the permit area would still require traverses and a bit of climbing. However, as has been proven at Alta, some skiers will consider this highly desirable since it will increase the availability of powder for those willing to put in an extra bit of effort.
   

DEVELOPMENT AT ANOTHER RESORT

The alternative of providing for the public good by allowing the development described in the proposed Snowbird MDP to instead occur at another resort is dismissed from detailed analysis in the DEIS. Three reasons are given:
  • The Forest Service has invested public resources in Snowbird and thus has an interest in protecting this public investment by addressing Snowbird's private needs.
  • The alternative of development at an alternate site should be applied when skier capacity is increased, which is not part of this proposal.
  • The other resorts on the District and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) which might be considered as alternative sites for such development already have site-specific development plans.
    SOC is unaware of any law or regulation mandating that once the Forest Service commits public resources to a private development that it then must forever continue the expenditure of additional public resources. Indeed, such a requirement would be foolish. The real reason behind the first of the rationales given for not pursuing the alternative of development elsewhere is that the applicant doesn't like this alternative. This reason does not relate to a valid public need as construed by CEQ regulations regarding the NEPA process.
    The argument that development at an alternate site should be considered only when skier capacity is increased is also unsupported by any law or regulation of which SOC is aware. In the case of those aspects of the proposed plan involving Hidden Peak, it is also irrelevant. Is the Forest Service really claiming that consideration of the alternative of development elsewhere to serve the same public need is required only under the narrow circumstances of an increase in peak skier capacity?
    The validity of the final rationale in the DEIS for the failure to consider the alternative of development at another resort is directly contradicted by the DEIS itself. Section 2.4.1 refers only to other resorts in the District [the Salt Lake Ranger District?] and the WCNF. Section 3.7.2.1.2.6 makes clear that the local ski areas serving the same customer base as Snowbird are Park City, Deer Valley, and The Canyons. The administrative artifact placing these ski areas outside of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is hardly grounds for eliminating the alternative of development elsewhere. Equally significant, the three Summit County ski areas are on private land. It would, therefore, appear that the DEIS is arguing that the Forest Service should specifically assist Snowbird by providing access to public lands so that it can compete with other private sector companies operating purely on private land.
   

USE OF MILITARY WEAPONS FOR AVALANCHE CONTROL

Alternatives to the use of military weapons in avalanche control were dismissed from detailed analysis in the DEIS. SOC believes that the reasoning for taking this action was faulty. SOC's safety-related objections to the use of military ordnance in the avalanche control program(s) are not be confused with any opinion it has about the desirability of an effective avalanche control program. SOC does not object to avalanche control. We do, however, object to failure of the DEIS to fully evaluate the use of military ordnance.
    The Forest Service (Salt Lake District Ranger, the person closest to the venue) has said that the
"use of military weapons has proven to be very effective and cost effective."
The Forest Service also has stated that
"events in recent years have demonstrated that avalanche control, and in particular the use of military weapons for avalanche control is not environmentally benign. There are numerous safety issues associated with avalanche control work, and in particular the use of military weapons, that needs to be evaluated and reviewed by both the public and the profession."
    The DEIS lists four reasons why alternatives to the use of military ordnance were not considered. SOC finds these reasons deficient and consider the safety issue to be of paramount concern. We are surprised that the Forest Service would allow the DEIS to be released without adequately addressing the safety issue.
    The safety issues associated with use of military ordnance are not new to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. They have been of concern to snow rangers working in the Alta area as early as 1965. In a letter to Forest Supervisor George Tourtillott that year, Snow Ranger Warren Baldsiefen was the first to articulate the potential hazards posed by use of military artillery:
"The dud problem, particularly in a National Forest of heavy summer traffic, has grave overtones, and their accidental detonation by hapless hikers has been the source more than once, of my waking in a nightmarish sweat. To have been the cause, though indirectly and through no negligence of mine, of some innocent person's death or injury, is more than I wish to live with. These feelings are shared by the others working here in winter.
In the mid-1980's the top terminal of Alta's Wildcat ski lift was pierced by a military round that passed unexploded through the thin shell of the terminal (just a few inches from the counterweight cable) and exploded on hitting the ground somewhere near the base facilities (including a public restaurant) of the Alta's upper ski lifts.
    The problem of duds--projectiles that for some unknown reason have not exploded on contact with their target--received statewide attention in the late 1940's when a youngster hiking near a Utah National Guard encampment picked up a dud, tampered with it, and blew himself up in the process. In a subsequent out-of-court settlement over a quarter million dollars were paid by the government to his surviving relatives. In a subsequent communication to the Forest Service the U.S. Attorney (T. Koskella) suggested strongly that an accident resulting from one of the avalanche duds "probably would be indefensible in court."
    The rationale for avoiding an in-depth analysis of the use of military weapons for avalanche control starts by stating that Little Cottonwood Canyon's avalanche control program is considered a model of safety. Perhaps so, but the use of military ordnance is fraught with danger. As stated in an internal Forest Service memorandum,
"Already, we have seen an overshoot at Alta which detonated beside an established snowmobile trail, the recent death of a Forest Service ranger, the aging of the ordnance used, and the significantly increased usage of the back-country in and adjacent to Snowbird and Alta on a year-round basis."
Complacency is clearly unwarranted.
    "As recently as 1994", the Forest Service stated that there "had never been an accident involving duds or shrapnel." By 1998, another Forest Service memo listed six such incidents. The facts of the matter all indicate that the number of incidents has been increasing in Forest Service-controlled territory. The mere fact that there has been only the Alta incident in Little Cottonwood Canyon is as much a factor of luck as skill. It would be irresponsible not to do an in depth analysis of the risks, as such incidents could result in serious injuries or deaths.
    It is our understanding that an EA or EIS has in fact never been performed on the use of military ordnance in Little Cottonwood Canyon, either on a programmatic or site specific basis. If not now, while an applicant is renewing its Master Development Plan, then when does the Forest Service anticipate that such an environmental review would be performed?
    The DEIS states that the issue of military weapons is not relevant to the current decision, since the Proposed Action does not involve any changes to current use. Perhaps there is not a planned change in what weapons are used, but there certainly are changes that have occurred since the inception of the use of military weapons for avalanche control in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The problem in Little Cottonwood Canyon is that it has been heavily developed over time and now there is shooting over occupied structures. The Forest Service's (Ordnance) Safety Officer has looked at the Forest Service's present practices and has said that
"the Forest Service is crazy to do what it's doing. The Army would never do, nor approve it." [e.g., shooting over occupied structures]
    It has been reported that one 75mm recoil-less rifle has been replaced with a 105mm "pack howitzer" in Little Cottonwood Canyon. This is a change in magnitude, as the ranges of the two weapons are 1500 meters and 15 miles, respectively. The change also may have different environmental impacts in terms of risks to the public and the gunners. With the recent overshoot at Alta, the changed weaponry's coverage is a definite change in the scope of avalanche control safety. Has this or another change in ordnance been made? Or, is a change being contemplated? If so, when is it to be made and will an environmental review be performed? If so, then why not now? NEPA applies to all discretionary federal actions. Avalanche control and site specific methods of controlling avalanches involve a discretionary land use decision which requires an environmental analysis (Forest Service Manual, section 1950). Has an environmental review ever been performed as required? If not, why not? And, why not now?
    There is a letter in the Forest Service Archives in Colorado from an attorney in the Forest Service to a Forest Supervisor related to the usage of military ordnance in the control of avalanches. He stated that if there were to be an accident involving the Forest Service's usage of military ordnance, the Forest Service would have no adequate defense. Therefore, it is indefensible and incomprehensible that the Forest Service refuses to address this important safety issue at this time. If not now, and if Snowbird is granted permission to proceed with its forty year MDP, it may not be possible to re-address this safety issue for years.
    The Forest Service Manual, Section 2343.11, paragraph 4 states:
"Deny development and use of terrain that requires military ordnance for avalanche control, until the holders can own or operate the necessary equipment."
This policy statement has not been addressed in the DEIS.
    The use of military ordnance in Big Cottonwood has been discontinued.
    In a memo dated June 28, 1998, Doug Abromeit, Director, National Avalanche Center, US Forest Service, recommended that the Snowbasin Ski Resort consider installing Gaz-Ex Exploders to mitigate the avalanche hazard. In a different memo, he stated that
"the Forest Service encourages and works with ski area permittees to find alternatives to military artillery."
Why isn't the Forest Service doing this with Snowbird? If there is truly no practical alternative to the use of military ordnance in Little Cottonwood Canyon, should not an environmental review at least be performed to identify the hazards and risks to the public? The DEIS does not do this.
   

DEIS FAILS TO DESCRIBE A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Finally, we note that no Preferred Alternative is described in the DEIS. The Forest Service is required to
"identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement" (43 FR 55994).
Wasatch-Cache Forest Service personnel regularly talk about "forging a partnership" with commercial ski areas and have often appeared to act as advocates for the Proposed Action described in the DEIS. If the Forest Service already has a favored outcome, it should be described in the DEIS. It is not enough to argue that articulation of a Preferred Alternative is being deferred pending completion of the environmental analysis, since a Preferred Alternative must in any case be listed in the final EIS. Public involvement in this decision will be best served by allowing for public comments as early as possible on the contemplated decision, not just on the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. This can appropriately be done in a supplement to the DEIS made available for public comment.
Previous: Purpose and Need    Next: Affected Environment    Table of Contents

Back to Save Our Canyons: Snowbird Archives

Revised July 23, 2004