2147 Newport Place NW RECEIPT REQUESTED Washington, DC 20037

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: Appeal No.: A215 Date: July 8, 2010 Robert P. Coronado CERTIFIED -RETURN 2147 Newport Place NW RECEIPT REQUESTED Washington, DC Dear Mr. Coronado: On June 17, 2010, you filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor, Terri Marceron signed the Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) approving Alternative 2 of the Heavenly Mountain Resort 2010 Capital Projects Environmental Assessment (EA) on May 10, I have reviewed the entire appeal record, including your written Notice of Appeal (NOA), the DN/FONSI, EA, and supporting documentation. I have weighed the recommendation from the Appeal Reviewing Officer and incorporated it into this decision. A copy of the Appeal Reviewing Officer's recommendation is enclosed. This letter constitutes my decision on the appeal and on the specific relief requested. FOREST ACTION BEING APPEALED The project area is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit located in Eldorado and Alpine Counties, California; and Douglas County, Nevada. The project was developed by Heavenly Resort to improve existing facilities and infrastructure for more efficient and enjoyable use by the recreating public. Forest Supervisor, Terri Marceron selected Alternative 2, as analyzed in the Final Environmental Assessment. Alternative 2 includes the following activities: Constructing a new, 14,965 square foot, day-use, Gondola Lodge with a 5,624-square foot concrete patio. Relocate Umbrella Bar from its current location where the Gondola Lodge will be constructed to Snow Beach. Relocate children s Magic Carpet Ski School lift to the Discovery Forest area near Big Easy Street. Reduce height of boulders and large woody debris on 4.2 acres of the California Trail. Replace the existing fixed-grip double Galaxy lift with a higher capacity detached quad (the Galaxy Express) which will include widening the lift corridor from 30 feet to 33 feet. Construct four new trails to supplement the existing Galaxy and Perimeter Trails. America s Working Forests - Caring Every Day in Every Way Printed on Recycled Paper

2 Robert P. Coronado 2 Add below-ground snowmaking to existing trails U1 and U2 in the Galaxy pod. APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER'S FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Documentation demonstrated compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies in light of the appeal issues raised by appellants: failure to develop an adequate range of alternatives, failure to evaluate all unauthorized routes, and the decision is not sufficient to establish NEPA compliance for ground-disturbing activities. Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor on the Sierra National Forest, found that the project is an appropriate and reasonable response to direction in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan and is in compliance with the plan. The purpose and need for the projects were clear. The Forest Supervisor s decision logic and rationale were clear and well documented. The Forest Supervisor was responsive to public concerns. ARO Scott Armentrout recommended affirmation of the Forest Supervisor s decision on all issues and denial of all requested relief. DECISION I agree with the ARO s analysis as presented in the recommendation letter. The issues are similar to the comments made by the appellants during the comment period. All appeal issues raised have been considered. I affirm the Forest Supervisor s decision to implement Alternative 2. I deny all requested relief. The project may be implemented on, but not before, the 15 th business day following the date of this letter (36 CFR 215.9(b)). My decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture [36 CFR (c)]. Sincerely, /s/ Robert G. MacWhorter ROBERT G. MACWHORTER Appeal Deciding Officer Deputy Regional Forester Enclosure

3 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Regional Office, R Club Drive Vallejo, CA (707) Voice (707) Text (TDD) File Code: Date: July 2, 2010 Subject: To: Heavenly Mountain Resort 2010 Capital Projects Appeal No. # A215 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Appeal Deciding Officer I am the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer for this appeal. This is my recommendation on disposition of the appeal filed by Robert Coranado, appealing Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Supervisor, Terri Marceron s Decision Notice (DN) for the Heavenly Mountain Resort 2010 Capital Projects Environmental Assessment (EA). The decision was signed on May 10, 2010 and the legal notice of the decision was published on May 12, DECISION BEING APPEALED The project area is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit located in Eldorado and Alpine Counties, California; and Douglas County, Nevada. The project was developed by Heavenly Resort to improve existing facilities and infrastructure for more efficient and enjoyable use by the recreating public. Forest Supervisor, Terri Marceron selected Alternative 2, as analyzed in the Final Environmental Assessment. Alternative 2 includes the following activities: Constructing a new, 14,965 square foot, day-use, Gondola Lodge with a 5,624-square foot concrete patio. Relocate Umbrella Bar from its current location where the Gondola Lodge will be constructed to Snow Beach. Relocate children s Magic Carpet Ski School lift to the Discovery Forest area near Big Easy Street. Reduce height of boulders and large woody debris on 4.2 acres of the California Trail. Replace the existing fixed-grip double Galaxy lift with a higher capacity detached quad (the Galaxy Express) which will include widening the lift corridor from 30 feet to 33 feet. Construct four new trails to supplement the existing Galaxy and Perimeter Trails. Add below-ground snowmaking to existing trails U1 and U2 in the Galaxy pod. APPEAL SUMMARY The Heavenly Project was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on October 1, The scoping letter was mailed to approximately 39 local tribal organizations, other agencies, individuals, and groups potentially interested in or affected by the Proposed Action on November 30, The pre-decision Environmental Assessment (EA) was sent to 33 addresses via the mail and 15 electronically. The final EA was sent to 56 addresses via the mail and 24 electronically. Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

4 2 There were 23 comments received by the close of the comment period. Robert Coronado submitted timely comments and is eligible to appeal this decision. The legal notice of decision was published May 12, 2010; the deadline for filing appeals was June 28, This appeal was filed on June 17, 2010 and is timely. Forest Supervisor, Terri Marceron had an appeal disposition conference call with Mr. Coronado on July 6, No issues were resolved. As relief the appellant requests that an EIS be prepared. ISSUES AND RESPONSES Issue 1: The FONSI failed to address the issues raised in the comments on the EA regarding climate change. (Appeal, pp. 1-2) Response: The Forest Supervisor responded to the issues of climate change that were raised during the comment period in Appendix C of the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on pages RTC-5 through RTC-6. The Forest Supervisor determined there are not any significant project effects on climate change because the proposed action affects only a small area of National Forest System lands; and due to the limited size and scope of the project, the effects of the Proposed Project cannot be meaningfully evaluated under current science, modeling, and policies. The Climate Change section in Chapter 1 of the Final EA (pp through 1-18) was expanded to show compliance with Washington Office and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on addressing climate change. It also described how improvements will save energy (such as how upgrading the snowmaking equipment will save 15,000,000 kwh in an average snowmaking year). I find the Forest Supervisor adequately addressed comments raised in regards to climate change and followed agency and CEQ guidance on addressing climate change. Issue 2: The expansion of the Heavenly Mountain resort will increase traffic levels and result in an increase of carbon monoxide. Vehicle traffic in the Lake Tahoe Basin, which is classified as a Federal non-attainment area under the Federal Clean Air Act, must be reduced or mitigated. The EA does not state how the Clean Air Act will be met. (Appeal, pg. 2) Response: Although the appellant called the project a expansion of Heavenly Resort, it is not an expansion. All of the proposed projects are within the portions of the Special Use Permit area that have been developed (DN/FONSI, pg. 2). The 2010 Capital Projects are qualitative in nature-meaning they were designed to support/maintain the visitors who are already coming to the ski area, and not to attract additional visitation to the resort; therefore the improvements are not designed nor likely to produce measurable increases in visitation to the resort or additional vehicular traffic in South Lake Tahoe (DN/FONSI, Response to Comments, pg. RTC-3).

5 3 The Forest Supervisor determined it was not necessary to analyze traffic-related issues for this project because traffic was already analyzed in the 2007 EIR/EIS/EIS. The EA tiered to the 2007 EIR/EIS/EIS for determinations of traffic-related issues (DN/FONSI, Response to Comments, pg. RTC-3). The 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTO) for the Lake Tahoe Basin found that traffic volumes along the US Highway 50 corridor through South Lake Tahoe have actually decreased. Based on Caltrans and NDOT traffic counts, peak month traffic volumes have decreased by 20 percent from record highs in 1988 with Annual Average Daily Trips declining by 23 percent for the same period (DN/FONSI, Response to Comments, pg. RTC-4). The 2008 RTP also showed a similar decline in the 8-hour average Carbon Monoxide readings taken near the base of the gondola since 1988 (DN/FONSI, Response to Comments, pg. RTC-4). Appendix A of the DN/FONSI (pg. A-5) also contains mitigation measures for maintaining air quality during the construction phase of the project. I find that the Forest Supervisor adequately considered project impacts to air quality and applied the appropriate mitigation measures. Issue 3: It is unclear if this decision complies with Executive Order and to support.wildlife restoration programs for the Region, including programs for endangered species and uncommon species. (Appeal, pp. 3-4) Response: Compliance with Executive Order and is discussed in length in the Response to Comments section of the DN/FONSI (Attachment C, pp. RTC-4; RTC-8 through RTC- 13). The proposed project will have no effect to threatened or endangered species because none of these species nor their critical habitat are present in the project area (DN/FONSI, pg. 14). The appellant is concerned about habitat loss for bald eagles, spotted owl, northern goshawks, and mountain quail. None of these species are Threatened or Endangered (Wildlife BA/BE, Table 1). The EA acknowledges that 17.2 acres of mid-seral conifer forest will be removed, but will have no effect on the species due to the amount of habitat that exists on National Forest System lands (Final EA, pg. 3-54). I find the Forest Supervisor complied with Executive Order and Issue 4: It is unclear if this decision complies with Executive Order to take action to improve the water quality of Lake Tahoe through restoration of [all] parts of the watershed and control sources of contaminants [including eroded soils and sediments]. (Appeal, pg. 4) Response: Compliance with Executive Order is discussed in length in the Response to Comments section of the DN/FONSI (Attachment C, pp. RTC-4; RTC-10 through RTC-13).

6 4 The EA disclosed that 16.7 acres of ground disturbance would occur under alternative 2 and that Best Management Practices and Project Design Features (Final EA, pp through 2-22) are included in the EA to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation associated with all of the projects (Final EA, pg. 3-78). I find that the Forest Supervisor complied with Executive Order to control sources of contamination of Lake Tahoe. FINDINGS Clarity of the Decision and Rationale -- The Forest Supervisor s decision and supporting rationale are clearly presented in the Record of Decision. Her reasons for selecting Alternative 2, are logical and responsive and consistent with direction contained in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Plan Land and Resource Management Plan (1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (February, 2004). The purpose of the proposal as stated above is clear and the benefits are displayed. Effectiveness of Public Participation Activities and Use of Comments Public participation was adequate and well documented The project was added to the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. The Forest mailed scoping letters, and distributed draft and final EAs to interested groups and individuals. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit has maintained current information on planning and activities on its web page. Responses to the comments received are detailed and included as part of the EA. The decision of the Forest Supervisor indicates she considered and responded to public input. RECOMMENDATION My review was conducted pursuant to and in accordance with 36 CFR to ensure the analysis and decision is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and orders. I reviewed the appeal record, including the comments received during the comment period and how the Forest Supervisor used this information, the appellant's objections and recommended changes. Based on my review of the record, I recommend the Forest Supervisor's decision to implement Alternative 2 be affirmed on all issues in this appeal. I recommend that the Appellants' requested relief be denied on all issues. /s/ Scott G. Armentrout SCOTT G. ARMENTROUT Appeal Reviewing Officer Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest