WSP07149

• File Number: 8200.765
• Description: White River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 3/1/1994
• Author: USFS
• Title: Snowmass Ski Area - Record of Decision - Final Environmental Impact Statement - White River National Forest - Aspen Ranger District
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

01'''''"'''71
,. 'J"" .,. .
" '..".....

J

Additional snowmaking will require authorization by the Snowmass Water and
Sanitation District (SWSD) for the necessary water withdrawals. The District has
been granted water rights by the State of Colorado to divert water from Snowmass
and Brush Creeks for municipal and industrial purposes. Forest Service approval
of additional snowmaking on NFSL will be subject to the minimum streamflows
established by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). COE has indicated
that the existing SWSD Section 404 permit for the Snowmass Creek pipeline may
need to be amended to accommodate snowmaking.

The Aspen area is a nonattainment area for compliance with air quality standards
under the Colorado State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (CAAA) prohibit federal actions which do not conform with the SIP.
Specifically, activities on federal land cannot cause or contribute to new
violations, increase the frequency or severity of existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of conformity with the SIP. Although the Snowmass Ski Area is
located outside the Aspen nonattainment area, the authorized expansion could
potentially increase emissions within the nonattainment area due to its
proximity. As a consequence I conformity with the SIP must be demonstrated for
any activities authorized. I have determined that implementation of the
transportation mitigation requirements identified in Section II.F.1 above will
ensure confo~mity with the CAAA and SIP. This conformity determination applies
to impacts of the direct and indirect emissions related to federal actions wi thin
the nonattainment area over which the agency has control.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently established final rules for
determining conformity of federal actions with SIPs. These regulations do not
apply to this project because the Forest Service has made this conformity
determination prior to the March 15, 1994 effective date for the new regulations.
Therefore, the Forest Service will make its conformity determination under the
substantive requirements of Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) for compliance with
Section 7 of the Threatened and Endangered Species Act was required. This
section of the Act requires all federal agencies to ensure that their actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered
species or result in the destruction or modification of critical habitat. The
Forest Service received a draft Biological Opinion from USFWS which concluded
that the proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
certain Colorado endangered fishes but that "reasonable and prudent alternatives"
developed by the USFWS will offset this jeopardy. After USFWS has received a
letter from ASC agreeing to the payment of a depletion fee, which is part of the
reasonable and prudent alternative, the Biological Opinion will be finalized and
the Section 7 consultation process completed.

Consultation is also required by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State
Historic Preservation Officer. Section 106 requires special review of any
undertaking that could affect historic properties that are included or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This consultation
process will not be complete until the final site location of facilities, roads
and trails have been surveyed by a certified archeologist and Tribal
representative and the process directed by Section 106 is completed.

b. Related Off-site Actions

Some of the activities I am authorizing are located partially on private land,
e.g. East Village lift and snowmaking, and will also require approval by TOSV.
Through its zoning and building permit authorities, TOSV reviews and approves
development activities within its boundaries. The Town has annexed the Snowmass
Ski Area. Although the Forest Service does not recognize the authority of the
Town or the County over land use actions within the permit area, I am committed
to cooperating with these jurisdictions in both this EIS process and local review
procedures.

RECORD OF DECISION

Page . 27

:.,