Laserfiche WebLink
<br />E. FOREST PLAN <br /> <br />Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (CEQ 1502.20), the FEIS <br />was tiered to the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan <br />("Forest Plan" USDA Forest Service, 1984). The Forest Plan provides long-range <br />management direction for the WRNF. All uses of NFSL must be consistent with <br />management prescriptions and standards aqd guidelines in the Forest Plan. <br /> <br />The Forest Plan designates the Snowmass Ski Area as a winter sports site (lB) and <br />establishes a general management prescription to integrate ski area development <br />and year-round recreation consistent with other resource management, to provide <br />healthy tree stands, vegetative diversity, forage,production for wildlife and <br />livestock, and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. The Burnt Mountain <br />portion of the permit area is identified as a potential area for additional <br />development during the planning period. <br /> <br />Forest Plan Amendment 90-2 gives additional direction for recreational resources <br />on the Forest, including the following goals: <br /> <br />. Provide a wider variety of site amenities that satisfy the desires of <br />recreational visitors; <br />. Provide additional downhill skiing opportunities in accordance with Forest <br />Plan direction. Emphasis will be on expansion of existing sites to meet <br />demand; and <br />. Encourage the private sector to satisfy the demand for appropriate non- <br />skiing resort experiences 'at existing permitted resorts and through the <br />development of facilities on private land. <br /> <br />The selected actions involve upgrading and expansion of winter and summer <br />recreational development in an area allocated to winter resort recreation by the <br />Forest Plan. These actions will site-specifically implement land use allocations <br />and management prescriptions specified for the' area in the Forest Plan, as well <br />as respond to the development proposal of ASC. As indicated in the preceding <br />discussion, this decision is consistent with programmatic direction set forth in <br />the Rocky Mountain Regional Guide and the Forest Plan. <br /> <br />II. DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION <br /> <br />I have read the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) ;Eor,the Snowmass Ski <br />Area MOP and I fully understand the environmental effects it discloses. After <br />careful consideration of the analyses, applicable laws, and public comments, I <br />have selected for implementation, and authorize the permittee to construct, the <br />MOP components discussed below and shown in Figure 2. The Selected Alternative <br />does not directly correspond to one of the alternatives examined in the FEIS, <br />rather it is a composite of MOP components from the entire range of FEIS <br />alternatives. The discussion of authorized components presented below will also <br />make it apparent that this ROD does not contain the final decision for the design <br />and location of every potentially constructed MOP component. For certain <br />facilities, the permittee is provided with options, some of which are mutually <br />exclusive, for facility location and design. This approach is intended to <br />provide the permittee and local community with some flexibility in deciding where <br />investments are- best made to serve_ customers, provide economic benefits, and <br />mitigate potential off-site impacts. Although the Selected Alternative is not <br />identical to one of the individual alternatives assessed in the FEIS, the <br />singular and cumulative environmental impacts of the authorized MOP components <br />are well within the range of physical, biological, and social impacts analyzed <br />and disclosed in the FEIS. <br /> <br />Page . 4 <br /> <br />RECORD OF DECISION <br />