February 21, 1995
Michael Sieg, District Ranger
Salt Lake Ranger District
6944 South 3000 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
RE: Snowbird Baby Thunder Chairlift--Environmental Assessment
Dear Mike:
We are writing to express our objections to the Environmental Assessment dated January 20, 1995 for the Snowbird Baby Thunder Chairlift (the "EA"). We believe the evaluation of the proposed chairlift in the EA is flawed because it improperly analyzes the need, it does not adequately address the cumulative effects, and it ignores or unjustifiably minimizes adverse environmental consequences. If the Forest Service wishes to entertain the Baby Thunder chairlift proposal, we argue that it should be evaluated (1) in terms of needs of downhill skiers in the area, not just Snowbird, (2) in connection with a review of all other ski resort proposals for Little and Big Cottonwood Canyons, and (3) in light of realistic assumptions.
1. Need for Beginner and Intermediate Ski Runs.
We have two objections to the analysis of the need for the Baby Thunder chairlift. First, there seems to be some confusion about the "mix" of terrain at Snowbird currently. Table 2 "Ski Area Comparisons" on page 45 of the EA clearly shows that Snowbird has 15% beginner runs, 35% intermediate runs and 50% expert runs. The EA notes that the source of this information is the White Book, which in turn gets its information from the ski resorts themselves (EA, page 44). But if you look at Snowbird's own advertising, the mix is measurably different: 25% beginner runs, 30% intermediate and 45% advanced. (See the Snowbird entry in Ski Utah's 1994-95 Vacation Planner, a copy of which is attached. Apparently there is an acknowledgement of this on page 43 of the EA; the discrepancy with Table 2 is not explained.) This is a significant difference, because, as the EA points out, ski area planners consider a distribution of 10% to 20% beginner runs and 40% to 60% intermediate runs "optimal"; as advertised, Snowbird is not out of line.
More importantly, the Forest Service is improperly analyzing the supposed need for easier terrain by looking at Snowbird's facilities alone, rather than what is available to local and visiting skiers generally. What is need for easier terrain if one looks at Little and Big Cottonwood canyon resorts altogether? What about if you add in Wolf Mountain, Park City and Deer Valley, which are right next door? Or if you add Snowbasin, Powder Mountain and Sundance? Or the proposed new resorts in Summit County? By putting blinders on, the EA manages to make a weak case for adding a new chairlift; it should have evaluated the needs of beginner and intermediate skiers in light of all realistic alternatives.
As to the other problems (congestion, race course alignments, etc.), it is apparent that the EA did not evaluate whether these issues could be satisfactorily resolved by means other than the proposed chairlift. Did the Forest Service ask Snowbird if there were any other alternative solutions to these problems (apart from the claim for need for additional easy terrain)?
2. Cumulative Effects. This EA demonstrates clearly the serious problem the Forest Service and the public have in properly evaluating any particular proposal; as in the past 20 years, the Forest Service is looking at just one component of a ski resort's plans, and concluding it does not have much of an impact. Again, by putting blinders on, the Forest Service can ignore the increasing degradation of this jewel of an area by reviewing only the resort's specific proposal, and by saying only so many additional cars and people will come, and only so many acres of vegetation will be destroyed, and only so many tons of soil will wash down into the stream. The list of other items being considered by Alta and Snowbird alone fill two pages in the EA; there are many other projects being planned or discussed by the Big Cottonwood Canyon resorts. We believe the Baby Thunder chairlift proposal should be evaluated at the same time as the other Snowbird/Little Cottonwood Canyon projects, so that the Forest Service and the public can appreciate all of the impacts on the affected environment and how it can used and enjoyed. The EA states on page 6 that
"[b]ecause has not subjected its entire Mountain Master Plan to the public review and environmental analysis process required under NEPA, the Forest Service has not approved the plan as a whole."
We believe that approval of the Baby Thunder chairlift cannot be given until that master plan is reviewed and analyzed under NEPA; approval of the Baby Thunder chairlift now constitutes the "segmenting" of projects that the courts have consistently condemned.
The "Cumulative Effects Analysis" of the EA, which should have addressed these points, is completely useless to the Forest Service decision makers and the public. The discussion on pages 89-96 is merely a listing of all of the projects which have been recently approved or are being considered by the ski resorts and the Forest Service, not a detailed, intelligent discussion of the possible adverse effects of the projects considered as a whole. The fact that the EA in effect segments Snowbird's proposed activities is essentially admitted in the document itself:
"The Forest Service analyzes each of the proposals individually..."
EA, page 91.
This segmenting issue is especially troubling considering that the ski resort and the Forest Service are not allowing the public to evaluate the pros and cons of these projects, including the Baby Thunder chairlift, in light of other proposals which are apparently under consideration. For example, look at the White Pine Canyon issue. For many, the Baby Thunder chairlift is just the starting point for access to the terrain in White Pine Canyon. With just one more lift which would be accessible from the top of Baby Thunder, the ridgeline would be reachable. Accordingly, the Forest Service should not analyze Baby Thunder without an express, written agreement with Snowbird that they will not seek White Pine, or the EA should be expanded with the assumption that White Pine will inevitably become part of the resort.
The EA, instead, is actually confusing to the public on this point. On page 14, the EA states that "[n]or has Snowbird proposed constructing a day lodge or expanding into White Pine or American Fork Canyons or elsewhere in Little Cottonwood." There have been many articles in the media which flatly contradict that statement. Look at the Snowbird entry in the Ski Utah publication which is enclosed: under "White Pine Valley" on the map, Snowbird put "Proposed future expansion". In the January 25 -February 7, 1995 issue of Wasatch Canyon Reporter, the interview with the CEO of Snowbird quotes him, in responding to a question of whether Snowbird considers the Mineral Basin an area to develop, as saying "Absolutely". We understand you have seen Snowbird plans showing a lift which would reach the ridgeline above White Pine accessed from the top of Baby Thunder (please correct us if that is incorrect). The EA should analyze how much easier development of White Pine will be if the Baby Thunder chairlift is built, and what the environmental consequences of that will be. Again, unless you have written assurances that Snowbird will not develop White Pine, this is another example of segmenting. The fact that the Interdisciplinary Team did not "feel" that the Baby Thunder chairlift would lead to proposals for these actions, in light of what Snowbird has repeatedly said, is an inadequate reason for excluding these potentialities.
3. Adverse Effects Ignored or Minimized.
a. Water Quality.
Each of the alternatives (other than the no-action alternative) results in "3-6 tons per year" of sediment delivery to Little Cottonwood Creek. Given the fact that the Creek is a non-degradation segment, is this permissible under state and federal law?
In addition, we thought that all new toilets had to be connected to the sewer line. Are vault toilets (referred to on page 15 of the EA), from which Snowbird "would pump waste regularly", permitted? Where is the analysis of what would happen if the pumping operation resulted in spillages? (See the Environmental Assessment on Big Cottonwood Canyon sewer line.)
b. Traffic and Parking.
Our main objection to the analysis of traffic and parking is the segmenting problem discussed earlier.
In addition, we believe the proposal and the EA unrealistically assume that additional parking near the base of the lift will not be deemed a necessity very soon. The original plans had a parking lot located there, because of the configuration of the lift and the fact that once people ski down the runs, it is an uphill walk to the existing parking lots. The EA should consider the implications of allowing additional parking, contrary to current policy and the Salt Lake County Wasatch Canyons Master Plan. The Forest Service should not facilitate the need to breach an important element of management without examining the effects.
Also, the EA's analysis of the current parking situation, which admittedly will be exacerbated by the construction of the Baby Thunder chairlift, is inadequate. The EA on page 42 quotes a Snowbird official to the effect that parking demand "rarely" exceeds capacity. This is an exaggeration at best, and the Forest Service should obtain reliable, independent information about existing parking problems before trying to determine how they will get worse.
Finally, the EA states on page 30 that, among the mitigation measures that must be complied with, Snowbird must "continue to encourage mass transit use through continued financial support..." In light of Snowbird's position on non-support of new ski buses, this measure needs to be clarified.
We acknowledge the detailed work that the Forest Service has done to evaluate and deal with certain, specific environmental issues, such as minimizing damage to the alder community. However, we object to the overly narrow perspective on the proposal as a whole, and urge you to reconsider the proposal in connection with all of Snowbird's plans.
Sincerely yours,
CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR CANYONS
By ___________________________________
Member, Board of Trustees
June 5, 1995
Mr. Dale Bosworth
Regional Forester and Appeal Deciding Officer
USDA Forest Service
324 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Dear Mr. Bosworth:
This is an appeal of the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact issued on April 13, 1995 (the "Decision") by Deputy Forest Supervisor William P. LeVere with respect to the construction of the Baby Thunder Chairlift (the "Proposed Chairlift") by the Snowbird Corporation at the Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort in Little Cottonwood Canyon ("Snowbird").
In accordance with 36 CFR 215.14, Citizens' Committee to Save Our Canyons, a Utah non-profit corporation (the "Appellant"), hereby states as follows:
This appeal is filed by the Appellant pursuant to 36 CFR part 215.
The specific changes in the Decision that the Appellant seeks and the portions of the Decision to which the Appellant objects are specified in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 below.
The Decision fails to consider comments previously provided, on February 21, 1995 (the "Appellant's Comment Letter"), by the Appellant with respect to the Proposed Chairlift as specified in Paragraphs 1 and 2 below.
The Appellant believes the Decision violates applicable laws, regulations and policy as specified in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 below.
The name and address of the Appellant is as follows: Citizens'
Committee to Save Our Canyons
P.O. Box 58671
Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0671
A representative of the Appellant can be reached by telephone at 355-7117.
This appeal is based on the following four points:
1. No additional lifts or other improvements should be allowed at Snowbird until Snowbird has prepared a proposed Master Development Plan ("MDP") and the MDP has been approved by the Forest Service in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). In the Appellant's Comment Letter, the Appellant noted that the January 19, 1995 pre-decisional Environmental Assessment (the "1995 Baby Thunder EA") acknowledged that "[b]ecause Snowbird has not subjected its entire Mountain Master Plan to the public review and environmental analysis process required under NEPA, the Forest Service has not approved the plan as a whole." The Appellant's Comment Letter went on to state that:
"We believe that approval of the Baby Thunder chairlift cannot be given until that master plan is reviewed and analyzed under NEPA; approval of the Baby Thunder chairlift now constitutes the 'segmenting' of projects that the courts have consistently condemned."
The Decision Notice glossed over this issue, which we believe is at variance with the requirements of NEPA, in violation of the Forest Service's own policy, and contrary to good public policy. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been any comprehensive environmental analysis of Snowbird. When the first Special Use Permit was issued, there was no significant evironmental evaluation because this was before NEPA, and since then, only a few minor environmental assessments have been completed. In Appendix F of the 1995 Baby Thunder EA, response number 13 states:
"Snowbird has not submitted a Master Plan to the Forest Service. Snowbird has developed several documents, maps, and models that describe, in a conceptual sense, a long term vision for the resort. These, including their 1978 Master Plan Update, have been used for Snowbird's internal discussion and planning. These have not been submitted to the Forest Service for review or approval. The items in them, including the Bay Thunder Chairlift until now, have not been evaluated or approved through the legally required environmental analysis process."
The regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) specifically require that the Forest Service consider the cumulative impacts of projects on the National Forest. 40 CFR Part 1508.7 defines cumulative impact as:
"the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time."
This cumulative effects analysis has never been completed for Snowbird.
In addition, Forest Service direction and policy make it very clear that a Master Development Plan is a requirement of the Forest Service Special-Use Permit. Forest Service Manual 2341 (R-4 Supplement 2300-93-3) provides in part:
"2. Require permittees to prepare a Master Development Plan (MDP) in accordance with FSM 2341 and FSM 1950, if appropriate, prior to the construction of new lifts and structures, relocations, environmental modifications, improvement additions, relocations or other significant changes." (emphasis added).
The Forest Service Winter Sports Guidebook states:
"The Master Development Plan is a requirement of the special use permit."
Besides establishing the policy of requiring master development plans, the Guidebook also describes very well their desirability and usefulness to the Forest Service and the public:
"Master Development Plans - These should be kept current (reviewed every five years), reflect the ultimate planned capacity of the resort and show an adequate balance of facilities for all expected uses within the permitted area.
The objective of a master development plan is to plan for the long-term investment of facilities and improvements on National Forest Land.
The master development plan is justified due to the complexity or resort development and to allow good agency understanding and public disclosure of potential changes that may result from development on private lands.
A master development plan is a requirement of the special use permit and must be completed by a specified date in order to be in compliance with the special use permit. Failure of the permittee to comply with the terms of the permit shall cause the authorization to terminate under its terms.
It is the intent of the master development plan to describe how and when development will take place.
A master development plan provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to development, encompassing the resort complex as it is presently envisioned into the future.
Master development plans prepared for acceptance by the Forest Service must address all the proposed improvements to be located on National Forest lands and adjacent private lands which are part of the entire integrated operation."
In this connection, it should be noted that NEPA applies to "renewals" of special use permits. See the August 25, 1989 Memorandum from Michael J. Gippert to Deputy Chief Overbay, Subject: Whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to renewal of Forest Service special-use authorizations and grazing permits, and the May 27, 1994 Letter from Regional Forester Dale Bosworth to Forest Supervisors, Subject: NEPA and Special Use Permit Actions, copies of which are in the Baby Thunder file.
This is an important issue, because Snowbird has made it very clear that it intends to expand beyond its current boundaries and it has a large number of planned and projected proposals. Snowbird identifies the White Pine Expansion Area on its Ski Utah maps. Also, in an article in the January 25-February 7, 1995 issue of the Wasatch Canyons Reporter, Ray Gardiner, Snowbird CEO, was asked:
"Does Snowbird consider the Mineral Basin an area to develop?" His reply was "Absolutely. It would be a wonderful ski area."
Additionally, Snowbird has included anticipated hotels and other facilities, on private and Forest Service land, on maps that they call their "Snowbird Master Plan." A copy of this unapproved plan is enclosed. And since the Decision was issued, Snowbird has added additional facilities (e.g., three story day lodge including shops and restaurants on Hidden Peak, expansion of Mid-Gad restaurant, new restaurant at Lower Gad, among others) to its proposed Five Year Plan which is now out for public review.
It is clear that to comply with law and Forest Service regulations, Snowbird needs to complete a MDP before any additional lifts or facilities are approved.
2. The Forest Service should take into consideration the availability of alternative "beginner" runs in close proximity to Snowbird in deciding whether Snowbird needs such additional capacity.
In the Appellant's Comment Letter, the Appellant made the point that the 1995 Baby Thunder EA analyzed Snowbird's request for a new chairlift to access more "beginner" runs without reference to the local situation as a whole. The Appellant's Comment Letter stated that:
"More importantly, the Forest Service is improperly analyzing the supposed need for easier terrain by looking at Snowbird's facilities alone, rather than what is available to local and visiting skiers generally. What is the need for easier terrain if one looks at Little and Big Cottonwood canyon resorts altogether? What about if you add in Wolf Mountain, Park City and Deer Valley, which are right next door? Or if you add Snowbasin, Powder Mountain and Sundance? Or the proposed new resorts in Summit county? By putting blinders on, the [pre-decisional] EA manages to make a weak case for adding a new chairlift; it should have evaluated the needs of beginner and intermediate skiers in light of all realistic alternatives."
The 1995 Baby Thunder EA does not respond to this point.
3. The assumptions about mass transit and traffic mitigation upon which the traffic analysis in the 1995 Baby Thunder EA is based have been rendered obsolete by Snowbird's refusal to participate with the other three ski areas and UTA in providing mass transit.
Traffic in the Cottonwood Canyons has been a significant environmental issue for years. This has been recognized and addressed in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan, the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan, and most recently the Salt Lake County Wasatch Canyons Master Plan. All of these plans identify the need for an effective mass transit system in the canyons. Traffic mitigation and mass transit has been a condition of all decisions allowing for increases in lift capacity at the ski areas. Snowbird has been a major contributor to traffic in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The year Snowbird opened ski season traffic in Little Cottonwood canyon more than doubled and it has doubled again since 1972. Both the 1994 and 1995 Baby Thunder EAs contain mitigation measures requiring Snowbird to financially support mass transit in the canyons (EA Mitigation Measures T1, T2, T3). Since the Decision was issued, Snowbird has told UTA that it will no longer participate in the mass transit program as it has in the past, and as the three other resorts in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons have pledged to do in the future. The status quo seems to be that the UTA will cut back service to Snowbird by 90%, unless Snowbird agrees to pay for its share of necessary new buses. Until this issue is resolved satisfactorily, no additional lift capacity should be allowed at Snowbird. See enclosed articles.
4. If a new Special Use Permit is issued to Snowbird based on the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 the term should NOT be extended beyond the current term which expires in 13 years.
While the Decision does not specify that the term will be 40 years,
this is what Forest Service personnel said was planned in a meeting on
May 17, 1995 with representatives of the Appellant. Issuance of a
permit with a term of 40 years is not required by the 1986 Act. The
1986 Act authorizes a maximum term of 40 years if certain standards are
met. The 1986 Act also requires compliance with NEPA in its
implementing. The regulations implementing the 1986 Act, 36 CFR 251.56
(b) (2) (E), indicate that a 40 year term should not be allowed in
Snowbird's case because it has no approved Master Development Plan.
Extending the term of Snowbird's Special Use Permit by 27 years is not
an issue that was discussed in the scoping document or analyzed in
either of the environmental assessments on the Proposed Chairlift. The
March 1994 Baby Thunder EA was silent on the issue and the April 1995
Baby Thunder EA contained only a minor reference to a 40-year term and
both the 1994 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact and
the 1995 Decision contain no reference to the term of the new permit.
This should have been identified in the "Decisions Needed" section in
the 1995 Baby Thunder EA. It is clear that extending a Special Use
Permit by 27 years is a discretionary Federal decision to which NEPA
applies. In the January 1995 document entitled "Evaluation of Term
Grazing Permits and the NEPA Process Working Document", a provision in
the "Legal Framework" section states:
"Expiring term grazing permits have no legal right of renewal. Thus,
the Forest Service is presented with a clean slate and need not
reauthorize the same type/level/intensity of grazing or any grazing at
all."
We assume that the same logic applies to the "renewal" of a Special Use
Permit for a ski area.
Also, to quote from a December 14, 1993 letter from District Ranger Mike Sieg to an applicant for a new special use permit for a use which had been permitted by the Forest Service for over 60 years, explaining why an environmental analysis was needed to re-authorize the use of a 60 year old facility:
"Special use permits are issued with an expiration date for several reasons. One is so that we can re-evaluate the use to see if it is still appropriate in light of current laws, regulations, policy, and public demands. It is also an opportunity to bring facilities such as the lodge up to current health and safety laws, regulations, and standards. We take a decision to commit National Forest System land for 15 years to a private club type use seriously. This is particularly important in an area such as Brighton where public demands for the use of the National Forest are increasing. [Obviously, this point would be equally applicable to the head of Little Cottonwood Canyon.] An environmental analysis is required of any proposed use of National Forest System land. This analysis, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), assesses the nature and significance of the physical, biological, social, and economic effects of a proposed action and its reasonable alternatives."
To extend the Snowbird permit by 27 years will preempt this review from taking place when the current permit expires in 13 years. A decision to extend the term of the Snowbird permit by 27 years is a discretionary Federal decision that is not supported by the Baby Thunder EA.
In a May 27, 1994 letter from you to Forest Supervisors regarding NEPA and Special Use Permit Actions, you said in part:
"NEPA applies to all discretionary Federal actions. Issuance, renewal, or transfer of a special use permit for use and occupancy of National Forest System lands involves a discretionary land use decision (Federal action) which requires an environmental analysis in accordance with FSM 1950. We have traditionally believed that routine permit renewals and transfers were 'environmentally benign' actions and therefore not subject to NEPA. However, there is the inherent decision opportunity to decline to renew or transfer a permit and thereby discontinue the use and occupancy, or to renew or transfer with different terms and conditions that may have different environmental effects."
If the intent is to issue a Special Use Permit to Snowbird extending the term by 27 years, we ask that you instruct the Forest Supervisor to complete the required environmental documentation and issue a written decision stating his decision to do so.
We appreciate your attention to this appeal.
CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR CANYONS
cc: William P. LeVere
Michael Sieg
Revised May 29, 1999