FEIS for Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental Forest Service Impact Statement Southwestern Region for Arizona Snowbowl February 2005 Facilities Improvements Volume 2 Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Coconino National Forest Coconino County, Arizona FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ARIZONA SNOWBOWL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSAL VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA FEBRUARY 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 1.0 NEPA PROCESS...........................................................................................................................................3 2.0 USFS POLICY.............................................................................................................................................13 3.0 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE......................................................................................................................19 4.0 MODIFIED ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................21 5.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................25 6.0 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................40 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS........................................................................................................................89 8.0 WILDERNESS ............................................................................................................................................91 9.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES.............................................................................................94 10.0 VEGETATION..........................................................................................................................................151 11.0 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................................160 12.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES.................................................................................................172 13.0 TRAFFIC, PARKING AND RESORT ACCESS...................................................................................176 14.0 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................183 15.0 RECREATION..........................................................................................................................................189 16.0 AESTHETIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................200 17.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY..........................................................................................................................205 18.0 CLIMATE..................................................................................................................................................211 19.0 NIGHTLIGHTING...................................................................................................................................223 20.0 SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................224 21.0 WATER IMPOUNDMENT .....................................................................................................................235 22.0 SNOWMAKING .......................................................................................................................................238 23.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE...............................................................................................................244 24.0 HUMPHREYS POD .................................................................................................................................260 25.0 AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................................................262 26.0 PUBLIC SAFETY.....................................................................................................................................264 APPENDIX A: SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTORS ON THE DRAFT EIS APPENDIX B: COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS FROM TRIBES, FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES, AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 – Response to Comments Table of Contents RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ARIZONA SNOWBOWL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS DRAFT EIS The Notice of Availability for the Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2004. The minimum 45-day comment period for a DEIS was extended to 60 days at the outset due to the controversial nature of this proposal, and ended on April 13. Copies of the DEIS were burned to CD and distributed to the public, with hard copies of the document sent to tribes. Hard copies were available to anyone who requested them throughout the 60-day comment period. In response to the DEIS, a total of 9,887 comments were received by the Forest Service via various mediums, including: letters; form letters; faxes, emails; public meeting comment forms, petitions and oral comments. This number accounts for numerous repetitious comments included in form letters and petitions. The number of commentors on the DEIS totaled 5,716 (the reader should note that some commentors submitted numerous and multiple forms of comments). Individuals who submitted comments outside of the 60-day comment period do not have standing to appeal the decision on this analysis, as per 36 CFR Part 215.13. However, all comments received outside of the comment period were retained and these individuals received copies of the FEIS. In addition, many comment letters were received in the general time of the DEIS comment period, but were clearly intended (as based on both date and content) to be submitted in response to the initial scoping period. These letters were recorded as such, and retained in the scoping project file. Every medium of conveying comments was scrutinized for substantive comments,1 and contact information for each commentor was entered into a master database. All substantive comments were extracted from each commentor, and were entered into the database, as well. These substantive comments provide the foundation for which this Response to Comments is based. Depending on the resource or context, substantive comments organized into 26 groupings (see Table of Contents), and responded to either individually or thematically. Individual comments were sufficiently unique enough in nature or context that they were carried forward verbatim into the RTC and responded to. Thematic comments were created to be representative of common themes that were expressed by numerous (in some cases hundreds of) individuals. Many tables and figures from the FEIS were carried forward into the responses provided in this RTC, and include table numbers for reference. Tables 1 Per 36 CFR Part 215, “substantive” comments are those that are “within the scope of the proposed action, are specific to the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action and include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.” Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 – Response to Comments Page 1 and figures that do not include numbers in their headings indicate that they are unique to the RTC and they are therefore not found in the FEIS. Appendix A of Volume 2 indicates the names and affiliations (if applicable) of people who submitted timely and substantive comments on the DEIS, and the general theme of their comment(s). Names and addresses of those submitting non-substantive comments were entered into the master database. All names and addresses were recorded with as much due diligence as possible, based on the legibility of information as submitted by the commentor. Letters received with illegible or incomplete names and addresses were retained in the project file. As required by Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 24.1(3), Appendix B of Volume 2 provides copies of comment letters received on the DEIS from Tribes, federal, state and local agencies and elected officials. Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 – Response to Comments Page 2 1.0 NEPA PROCESS Thematic Comments 1.1 Extend the comment deadline for the DEIS. NEPA requires that, at a minimum, the public be provided 45 days to comment on a Draft EIS. Due to the controversial nature of this project, the Coconino National Forest made the decision to extend this to 60 days. The Forest Supervisor concluded that two months provided ample time for the public to submit comments on the DEIS and, therefore, the comment period was not extended further. As indicated in Chapter 1 of the FEIS, 9,887 substantive comments were received on the DEIS. 1.2 The Forest Service should have conducted public meetings on the DEIS in the communities of the affected