Silverton Guides Helicopter Ski Terrain Exchange Project Environmental Assessment Comment Report Resources January 2017 Table of Contents Resource Page 1 – Purpose and Need 1 2 – Alternatives 3 3 – NEPA Process 7 4 – Plan Consistency 11 5 – Recreation 14 6 – Noise 24 7 – Social and Economic Resources 26 8 – Land Use/Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas 28 9 – Cultural Resources 30 10 – Wildlife 30 11 – Wetland Fens 33 12 – Other 34
Resource Report
Resource ID: 1 Resource Description Purpose and Need
SubResource ID: 1.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 306 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: 1. Document Title Overall the document is written akin to a marketing piece for Silverton Guides heli-skiing rather and what it should be – an objective assessment of all the relevant issues related to a proposal for private commercial use of publicly owned lands. The title in itself is misleading with the description of the proposal as an “exchange.” Generally an exchange infers something akin to an equitable switch or trade, however, the proposal brought forward is what most members of the public would likely characterize as an “expansion.” An increase of acreage potentially allotted to the Special Recreation Permit holder of more than 10,000 acres (approximately 16 square miles) does not meet the “smell test” of being an exchange – it’s an expansion. And it is definitely misleading to present to the public the project as an exchange. We refer you to the initial scoping letter of July 2015 wherein TRFO Field Manager Connie Clementson refers to the proposal as an effort by the “Special Recreation Permit holder to modify their permit.” Later in the document within the description for “What” the proposal involves it states “Modify existing SRP…” The use of the term “exchange” appears very much to be an effort on part of the NEPA contractor and/or SRP holder to minimize the scope of this proposal and downplay its significance both socially and environmentally.
Theme ID: 1.1 Theme Name: Expansion Description: Need is misrepresented; the project is an expansion of terrain not a swap/exchange
CID: 264 Last Name: McShan Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Silverton Guides say then need to "utilize a more diverse terrain” in their "Additional Details to Silverton Guides’ January 2015 Special Recreation Permit Helicopter Ski” for safety. However, they are not just looking more diverse terrain, but they are looking for more terrain, which they fail to mention. They argue their land because of the "microclimate effect creates significant wind scour and transport of snow resulting in dangerous hard slab avalanche conditions with Houghton, Cinnamon, Grouse, Poughkeepsie and Ross PODs getting the brunt of the wind effect”. However, in terms of avalanche danger all of the is prone to avalanches? the San Juans are notorious for avalanches. Furthermore, Ross Basin has pockets that are less steep, less accessible, and less prone to avalanches (https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=37.90553,107.62168& z=14&b= f&a=sg,sma).
Theme ID: 1.1 Theme Name: Expansion Description: Need is misrepresented; the project is an expansion of terrain not a swap/exchange
CID: 249 Last Name: Schiowitz Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Need - Silverton Guides (SG) asserts that their current terrain lacks adequate usable, safe terrain to operate their heliskiing operation at an effective level. In addition, SG claims that the Uncompahgre Gorge act as a wind funnel directly impacting the snow conditions in existing SRP areas. SG asserts that they need more varied, less challenging terrain and more below tree line skiing options. The preliminary EA and SG proposal provide little evidence supporting these claims. A detailed analysis should be conducted showing that weather conditions and snowpack are significantly different in the existing SRP pods and the proposed exchange pods. Multiple weather stations exist near the current SRP areas and the proposed areas. Data from these stations along with snowpack studies should be analyzed with regards to temperature, winds speeds, intensity, direction and duration to support SG claims. - To support SG claim that the current SRP areas topography does not provide enough safe stable terrain, a study should be conducted analyzing the elevation, aspect, slope and tree cover of the current SRP areas versus the proposed exchange areas. Guidelines should be developed in determining what is meant by “safe stable terrain”. SG and the BLM assert that the proposed terrain will allow for a better skiing experience yet they need to provide empirical data to supporting this claim. Table 6 in the EA mentions wind scour, high avalanche risk, and low quality recreational experience as a reason for a pod to be removed from the SRP yet there is no data provided to support these conclusions. In addition, Table 6 of the EA does not provide any data in how terrain was determined to be wind protected or have high quality skiing experience. A more detailed analysis is needed to justify the need for SG’s proposed exchange and expansion.
Theme ID: 1.2 Theme Name: Justification of Purpose and Need Description: Questioning need for additional terrain and requests data to support purpose and need
CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Purpose and Need (PN) statement is inadequate as it lacks metrics and related discussion regarding the need for SG’s proposed terrain expansion. Though the Silverton Special Recreation Area (SRMA) and the Resource Management Plan (RMP) allow and authorize heli-skiing in San Juan County, these plans do not authorize a detailed amount of SRP permit for heli-skiing and it is therefore incumbent on the BLM to specifically explain within the PN statement what the need is for the proposal. The PN should explain to the public the possible rationale and relate numbers that explain the possible need to expand the operations of the SRP holder into 16,000+ acres of new territory where helicopter supported skiing does not, and never had, operated. Because this is a new use on these public lands the BLM, SG, and the SE Group are necessarily required to fully detail the purpose and the need of the proposal – this EA fails to meet that standard.
Theme ID: 1.2 Theme Name: Justification of Purpose and Need Description: Questioning need for additional terrain and requests data to support purpose and need
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 1 of 36 CID: 330 Last Name: Thomas Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: "NEED: In order to operate effectively, Silverton Guides needs an appropriate amount of usable, safe terrain to produce the high quality, diverse and challenging recreational experience desired by skiers." What does the term ‘effectively’ mean? Qualifiers? And what is an ‘appropriate amount’ of ‘usable’ safe terrain? Again, qualifiers are non-existent/missing. This is desire over need as far as I can tell. Numbers and qualifiers would help clarify the above. Additionally, a large amount of the acreage proposed in the10,000+ acre increase, will not be usable as it is too thickly treed. The pods SG’s is giving up have more usable terrain by virtue of the above tree line nature of the terrain. Where is the data, the proof that SG has such a demand by their clients? Where are the user day numbers from SG that should show they even need more user days for heli-skiing? Did they fill last years allotment of user days (600) or is the need predicated on the theory of ‘better varied terrain;’ SG requests? The EA states that; Over the past four seasons Silverton Guides has used approximately 95 percent of their annual user days in one pod, Slagle/Tower “. As such, if they are reaching 95% of their user days in 1 pod, I do not see why SG needs so much additional terrain to accomplish their user day’s goals outside of wanting ‘varied terrain’.
Theme ID: 1.2 Theme Name: Justification of Purpose and Need Description: Questioning need for additional terrain and requests data to support purpose and need
CID: 239 Last Name: Marechal Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA states: “In order to operate effectively, Silverton Guides needs an appropriate amount of usable, safe terrain to produce the high quality, diverse and challenging recreational experience desired by skiers…. Meet demands of guests by providing more varied, less challenging heli-skiing terrain, with more acreage below tree line” a. This observation should be backed up by data demonstrating the amount of demand that Silverton Guides currently has on its helicopter operations b. The EA must include data on the number of days Silverton Guides can’t operate due to the adverse conditions they claim within their existing SRP area c. Silverton Guides proposes no increase in user days, yet propose an increase of 15,000 acres which questions the entire logic of this proposal or swap d. Existing terrain within Silveton Guides’ SRP is below treeline and protected from the wind (California/Treasure area).
Theme ID: 1.2 Theme Name: Justification of Purpose and Need Description: Questioning need for additional terrain and requests data to support purpose and need
CID: 246 Last Name: Saffer Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Brill’s cite safety during dangerous weather and avalanche conditions as their reasoning for requesting the new terrain. I would argue that if the conditions are not conducive to flying the helicopter or putting clients in high risk terrain, the Brill’s have already secured an entire mountain as a ski area for this purpose. Helidrops are not a right, and if conditions do not warrant, it is in their best interest to ski within the controlled boundaries of Silverton Mountain. There is also tree skiing available within their ski area boundaries. The Brills current alpine permitted heliskiing terrain is perfectly suitable for this use. It is remote, to the point of being inaccessible by backcountry skiers for most of the winter. There is no conflict over this terrain.
Theme ID: 1.3 Theme Name: No Need - Existing Terrain is Adequate Description: Question need for project, new terrain would not be better than existing
CID: 95 Last Name: hogan Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I am drawn to comment on this proposal due to my past experience in the area as the BLM Snow Ranger for Silverton Mountain ski area. I feel that some of the assumptions used in the environmental analysis are flawed. I can see why the guides feel that the Uncompahgre Gorge funnels high winds up and into the current ski pods of Ross, Poughkeepsie, Houghton, Cinnamon and Grouse. However, to think that the proposed ski pods will not be similar is wishful thinking. These are all high elevation locations near or on the Continental Divide, all of these high basins are subject to these winds. Depending on storm direction, these sites can have much of the same wind scoured snow, hard slabs and faceted weak snow. In addition, these high-altitude basins generally have a shallow, weaker snowpack and that defines the Continental Snowpack found in these mountains most winter seasons. Considering these complications, one cannot be assured that snow conditions would be better in the proposed pods. In general, the San Juan’s snowpack is known for weak snow with faceted layers and hard slabs which together provide a poor-quality ski experience much of the time above treeline. The final EA needs some wind analysis and operational safety that is more convincing than limited human observations. This would include the use of remote instrumentation to provide this data. Silverton Guides SRP needs ski terrain below treeline out of the high winds. The proposed pods offer some but probably not as many as 600 annual user days would demand in my experience. During drought conditions when winter storms are few and far between, the powder snow product they are selling would be at a premium.
Theme ID: 1.4 Theme Name: Wind Conditions Description: Questions the premise of purpose and need based on wind conditions in pods
CID: 107 Last Name: Bushey Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Also, the claim that SMG does not have good below treeline skiing I don't fully agree with. The areas they currently operate in outside CR25 (South Fork Animas Fork) as well as Animas Forks (West fork Animas River) offer ample 8001500' NW to NE aspect tree skiing areas with moderate pitches for higher avalanche days. They also present little if any user conflict as they are over 2 miles from plowed roads and travel to them is complex through avalanche terrain, and in most times impassible. If there is another solution, I recommend SMG operating farther from commonly used road's, as these areas are very easy for recreational travelers to frequent and create conflict.
Theme ID: 1.5 Theme Name: Tree Skiing Description: Questions the premise of the purpose and need to expand tree skiing options
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 2 of 36 CID: 299 Last Name: Porrett Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: A huge draw to our mountain is the fact that we have a heli option. Not all our guests partake, but when the snow is challenging, it is a huge perk that can turn around an entire trip. The affordability of the single heli drop is key, and the access for the All Day heli skiing/riding is wonderful. For many it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. We see people from all income levels, and we know how important it is that our guests are choosing to travel from all over the world to see us and spend their hard earned money on what we have to offer. This is why it is so crucial that we have suitable terrain. Our goal is to provide the guest with the best heli skiing experience possible. In low snow fall years, it has not only been challenging to provide guests with the “untouched” or “bottomless” conditions that every skier/rider dreams of, but even just getting soft turns can be challenging. By attaining this new proposed terrain, we are opening up new options for giving our guests the best possible experience. We know that more of this terrain is useable and it is less affected by the elements, thus soft snow will last longer and we can continue to give our guests the experience they came for.
Theme ID: 1.6 Theme Name: Support Purpose and Need Description: Comments supporting the stated purpose and need
CID: 293 Last Name: Paul Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The new proposed heli terrain area would allow us to provide guests with different and more consistent terrain, resulting overall in a higher quality experience for our guests.
Theme ID: 1.6 Theme Name: Support Purpose and Need Description: Comments supporting the stated purpose and need
Resource ID: 2 Resource Description Alternatives
SubResource ID: 2.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 306 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Lack of Specificity Needed for Analysis and Comment The EA lacks the necessary details for the public to understand the specifics of the SRP proposal and therefore be all and support the offering of relevant and in-depth comments. The lack of specificity and analysis seems to indicate a desire for “yes” or “no” comments on the proposal, rather than what is legally framed within NEPA and necessary on a pragmatic basis to make a worthy decision, that is, detailed comments on the specifics provided within a proposal and the subsequent analysis of social and environmental impacts. a. As an example, for this proposal it is important to understand where the proposed landing zones (LZ) might be, especially for those at the termination of the runs. At the Open House Silverton Guide’s Mr. Pietrick shared the information that at this stage of the process it was not possible to indicate exactly where the landing zones would be. We certainly appreciate this reality, however, a general knowledge of the approximate location of the LZ’s is necessary to make an informed comment per the SRP proposal. For example, perhaps we have overlooked it in the document, but we see no reference to the possibility that the LZ’s might (or could) be located at a location other than the low-elevation termination of a pod, and therefore could be established at a higher location in the pod. This differentiation could of course significantly alter the user conflict and displacement situation and therefore is entirely and importantly relevant. We note that in the permittee’s current operations skiing down to meet ground transportation is commonplace and therefore unless there is information presented otherwise in the EA it’s easy to infer that “skiing to the county road” will be the norm. As well, on the maps provided with the EA it is that some pods (Southeast as an example) are specifically designed to connect to county roads. The lack of information regarding LZ’s makes it realistically impossible to comment on the possible location of LZ’s that is certainly a key component of the proposal. b. As a second example, we note that the EA lacks information and associated analysis regarding road closures. Once again, perhaps we have missed this issue in the EA, but we see no information or discussion regarding the issue of probable and/or possible road closures. We foresee the likelihood that closures of County Road 110 and 2 would increase due to either avalanche control efforts or from the “results” of avalanche control efforts. There are many unexamined questions that are not addressed in this EA regarding the issue: Has San Juan County been engaged as to the possible increase in closures? Has the responsibility and jurisdiction for both road closures and snow removal been addressed? Has it been assessed what the possible impact might be on both the public and on other SRP permitees and their operations, including the potential of geographic displacement and economic loss? Has the liability issue been addressed regarding Silverton Guides use of explosives for control work above county roads? What will the notification system be for closure – only at the site, or radio, or website and/or other? This is obviously an issue of significance due to it’s safety and economic consequences – yet entirely absent in the EA.
Theme ID: 6.1 Theme Name: Additional Detail Description: Comments requesting additional information about the proposed project
CID: 74 Last Name: Berry Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA also mentions two egress ski out corridors in the Southeast pod for vehicle pick-up. Where are these? Could only be where all other users would be – down the snow covered roads to County Road 2.
Theme ID: 6.1 Theme Name: Additional Detail Description: Comments requesting additional information about the proposed project
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 3 of 36 CID: 336 Last Name: Turgeon Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: 3. Will Silverton Ski Resort open their ski area for uphill ski access? This proposal effectively removes prime ski area for locals with the threat of their unsafe and avalanche causing helicopter activity. Colorado leads the nation in uphill access for ski resorts and Silverton operates on federal land. At a minimum they should offer something in return for taking land away from local use.
Theme ID: 6.1 Theme Name: Additional Detail Description: Comments requesting additional information about the proposed project
CID: 330 Last Name: Thomas Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Proposed Action Ch.3: To minimize flying time for guests Silverton Guides would likely continue to focus user days in the Slagle/Tower, Bonita/Emery/McCarty, and California/Treasure pods. However, in adverse weather conditions (primarily when winds affect the Slagle/Tower, Bonita/Emery/McCarty, and California/Treasure pods, but the helicopters can still fly), the Illinois/Hancock, Southeast, Round, and Minnie/Maggie pods would offer greater variety of high quality terrain." ‘…would likely… terminology should be eliminated and replaced with a restriction on pod user days.
Theme ID: 6.2 Theme Name: Modify Operations Description: Suggests operational modifications to the project
CID: 142 Last Name: Deveaux Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I suggest the heli guide sevice expand to an on the snow tour service.Who else is doing that? Many more people would be interested that could not or would not afford an expensive helicopter ride.
Theme ID: 6.4 Theme Name: On-the-Snow Description: Comment suggesting over-the-snow transport alternative
CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA fails to offer the necessary Range of Alternatives called for by NEPA as there are only two offered, No Action and the Proposed Action. We would assume that SG offered their preferred alternative and the GFO sketched out the No Action one. The EA contractor (SE Group), however, failed to the deliver to the public, and their client, the required and necessary range of alternatives and unfortunately this shortcoming was not corrected through the oversight of the GFO. There was no need for the SE Group to reach far to find other alternatives that could and should have been included in the EA as many ideas presented in the scoping comments are feasible foundations for other alternatives. For example, one idea offered amidst the more than 200 public comments was a suggestion that SG’s operations could be set back from the San Juan County (SJC) road system in the newly proposed ski pod s by two to three miles. An entire alternative could have been developed around this concept and certainly would have addressed dozens of concerns expressed in scoping comment letters. Unfortunately the SE Group took the apparent “easy way” and developed the absolute minimum of alternatives. This might have been successful for a SRP proposal in which their was a small amount of territory involved and little controversy, however, this is not the case when more than 24 square miles of publicly owned multiple use lands are “on the table” for which the public offered more than 200 scoping comment letters. The EA should be revised and reissued with additional alternatives in the mix. As the EA was issued there appears to be a premise that the choice is either zero acres of new territory for Silverton Guides to engage or 16,000 acres, with no alternatives within that range of acreage.
Theme ID: 6.5 Theme Name: Range of Alternatives Description: Comment about the range of alternatives per NEPA
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The 2008 EA determined that the Illinois/Hancock, Round Mountain, Southeast, and Minnie/Maggie pods were not suitable for heli-skiing in part because of the BLM’s desire to strike a balance between the different types of winter recreation offered in the Silverton area. By allowing heli-skiing in remote areas that don’t see very much activity from other user groups and not permitting heli-skiing in pods closer to town or near Wilderness and Wilderness Study Area boundaries, the 2008 decision balanced heli-skiing with other uses. There is nothing in this current EA that explains why pods that were rejected in the 2008 EA would be appropriate for heli-skiing today. Likewise, what is proposed in the current EA completely misses the mark when it comes to balancing uses – the pods that SMG would be “trading” are not utilized by human-powered winter recreationists or snowmobilers. Instead, the proposed permit area would cram heli-skiing in on top of all of the other established uses, displacing recreationists and escalating conflict.
Theme ID: 6.6 Theme Name: 2008 EA Selected Alternative Description: Comment discussing alternative selected in 2008 EA
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 4 of 36 CID: 304 Last Name: Singer Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The proposed action was initially analyzed in 2008. At that time the "pods" that are currently being proposed to included in the expanded permit were removed from the authorization because of Lynx habitat, backcountry skier safety and displacement, safety of the public driving County Road 2, noise pollution for the citizens of Silverton, and the potential for avalanche control work to damage fragile historic mining structures. These issues are still as much a concern today as they were in 2008. The current EA has not address or resolved them. Therefore a Finding of No Significant Impact is not possible and the Silverton Guides EA should not be authorized.
Theme ID: 6.6 Theme Name: 2008 EA Selected Alternative Description: Comment discussing alternative selected in 2008 EA
SubResource ID: 2.2 SubResource Description: Modify Pods in Project
CID: 4 Last Name: Barr Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I am in support of helicopter skiing in the following pods: Illinois/Hancock, Minnie/Maggie, and Round pods. I do not support helicopter skiing in SE pod as currently mapped in the EA for the Silverton Mountain Guides Ski Terrain Exchange. Within the SE pod I do support use in the Maggie Gulch drainage as it is relatively hard to access do to avalanche exposure on the road. Some back country skiers however could be present on the lower elevation north facing slopes. I do not support helicopter skiing in the lower and mid elevation Minnie Gulch drainage below the Minnie Maggie pod, within the SE pod, as it offers an amazing opportunity for a wilderness like experience within a short distance from CR 2. The Cunningham Gulch area is also very easy to access to many user groups including, but not limited, to nordic skiers, back country skiers and even walking, it offers a remote feeling experience. This is a spectacular area and would be directly and negatively affected by helicopter landing zones and the presence of commercial helicopter skiing activity. I believe there is an important general recreational user interface, not identified in the EA, specifically in lower and mid elevation Cunningham Gulch, Minnie Gulch areas and the Arrastra Gulch area.
Theme ID: 7.1 Theme Name: Exclude Some Pods Description: Request modification of project to exclude certain pods
CID: 347 Last Name: Weller Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The proposed pod of Illinois and Hancock is located right across from one of the busiest backcountry skiing spots in our area and less than two miles from town. Having helicopter traffic in this area will make this area less desirable to those that use it. I personally ski lower elevations of this pod as it contains some areas I use during high hazard. One of the main points of this proposal is to get helicopter usage away from the Red Mountain area. So I see this pod making no sense. It will really have a huge impact on the whole cement creek drainage with helicopters flying its whole length. Noise and explosives will also be heard from the town of Silverton in this area. I strongly oppose this pod.
Theme ID: 7.1 Theme Name: Exclude Some Pods Description: Request modification of project to exclude certain pods
CID: 346 Last Name: Welch Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: After reading through all of the documentation available publicly on the BLM website, I completely understand Silverton's concerns and operational challenges with their currently permitted heli terrain. As such, in general terms I do not oppose their desire to swap some of the existing pods for new pods. Specifically, I do not have objections to their acquisition of the Illinois/Hancock zone (as this terrain must already be avalanche controlled to provide safe access to the ski area and is located adjacent to the existing area). I have moderate objections to the addition of the Round and Minnie/Maggie zones as their locations of approximately 2mi from CR2 mean they are easily accessible for snowmobiles and moderately fit backcountry skiers in the area. I have significant objections to the addition of the Southwest pod. Although Silverton did exclude terrain that descends directly to CR2, most of this terrain is easily accessible to any backcountry skier of average fitness, and there is significant terrain included in the proposal that is very close to CR2.
Theme ID: 7.1 Theme Name: Exclude Some Pods Description: Request modification of project to exclude certain pods
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: We appreciate that the BLM and SMG removed some of the most hotly contested pods from the proposed expansion - Prospect Gulch, Corkscrew/Powerline, and MinneHaha. These pods were included in the initial scoping map but removed in the updated July 2016 map. However, Round Mountain, Southeast, and Minnie/Maggie Gulch are also very popular with pedestrians and snowmobile users. These pods are easily accessible from the town of Silverton and provide an important winter recreation resource for locals and visitors. The Southeast Pod includes a groomed Nordic loop trail and various unplowed roads that are used as access routes by skiers heading into the backcountry. People access the Round Mountain pod directly from Silverton without driving. It is unacceptable to have heli-skiing occurring in these frontcountry areas when there are other options.
Theme ID: 7.1 Theme Name: Exclude Some Pods Description: Request modification of project to exclude certain pods
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 5 of 36 CID: 101 Last Name: Burkhart Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Specifically, I think the Maggie/Minnie areas should be accessible only by human powered means (i.e. skins, snowshoes, etc.). I will not do so if I have to worry about the area being “tracked out” (or worse, bombed out) by those that desire and can afford to take a helicopter to the top. If the BLM feels that helicopter access issues can be mitigated for areas other than Minnie/Maggie including to impacts to nonhuman populations (e.g. lynx habitat), than I suppose I am okay with it in those areas.
Theme ID: 7.1 Theme Name: Exclude Some Pods Description: Request modification of project to exclude certain pods
CID: 197 Last Name: Kane Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: avoid approval of Silverton guides' application for expanded helicopter access to additional popular recreational areas such as Arrastra Gulch, King Solomon area, Cunningham Creek, Stony Pass, Minnie and Maggie Gulch
Theme ID: 7.1 Theme Name: Exclude Some Pods Description: Request modification of project to exclude certain pods
CID: 75 Last Name: Hahn Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: If a separate solution is needed, I recommend SMG operating at least 3 miles from all commonly used and plowed roads, as these areas are easy for recreational travelers to frequent and create conflicting safety concerns. Also, I would like to see all areas of Minnie and Maggie Gulch excluded from the proposal as they present major conflict with snowmobile recreationalists through CR23 and CR24. Last, the plot should be reduced in Cunningham Gulch to south of the intersection of CR4 and CR3 at Rocky Gulch to minimize conflict with backcountry recreationalists.
Theme ID: 7.2 Theme Name: Use Remote Terrain Description: Pods should be further from the roads where less accessible to backcountry users
CID: 243 Last Name: Roush Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I think a wider buffer zone should exist between the Southeast Pod and both Highway 2 and the Cunningham Gulch road, where travel consistently exists from other user groups.
Theme ID: 7.2 Theme Name: Use Remote Terrain Description: Pods should be further from the roads where less accessible to backcountry users
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: However, our concerns with this project are not so much that the BLM and SMG are proposing to expand the area where SMG would be able to operate the heli-ski guiding business. Our concerns are with the actual pods that are being considered as part of this expansion. As Winter Wildlands Alliance stated in our scoping comments, there are places that are appropriate for helicopter-assisted skiing and there are places that are not. It is not appropriate for helicopter-assisted skiing to occur in areas that are popular with and frequently visited by other users such as human-powered skiers, snowshoers, and snowmobilers.
Theme ID: 7.2 Theme Name: Use Remote Terrain Description: Pods should be further from the roads where less accessible to backcountry users
CID: 310 Last Name: Smith Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: That Silverton Guides be permitted to operate in only the Slager/Tower pod because they have indicated that cannot operate safely elsewhere.
Theme ID: 7.3 Theme Name: Suggested Alternative Pods Description: Suggests certain areas to include in exchange
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 6 of 36 CID: 359 Last Name: Wolf Organization: Continental Divide Trail Society Representative: True
Substantive Comment: BLM Should Consider Alternative Project Locations with Less Adverse Impact The CDNST is located (on or close to the Continental Divide) in or adjacent to portions of the MinnieMaggie and Southeast sections of the SRP – specifically, from about one mile north of the Minnie Gulch trail south to the Cunningham Gulch Trail. A reasonable alternative would be to require a no-fly zone within those limits (in the SRP north and south of Stony Pass) so as to substantially reduce the impact of authorized operations upon the setting of the CDNST and the use and enjoyment of trail users. We recommend a width of one mile from the Continental Divide, but that might be modified on the basis of further analysis. If such a no-fly zone is established, the project would have less impact and thereby might conform to the established BLM policy. In that event, we would not object to the Proposed Action for the remainder (about 95%, we estimate) of the SRP. This 95% would be an “alternative location” to the proposed location (the 100% that the SRP represents).
Theme ID: 7.3 Theme Name: Suggested Alternative Pods Description: Suggests certain areas to include in exchange
CID: 128 Last Name: Calkins Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Proposal Helpfully, SMG describes Cunningham Gulch and Spencer basin as being two zones that are of particular importance to the proposal given that they offer terrain that is protected from the wind. Spencer Basin is remote, requiring an approach of at least 5 miles. It is unlikely that SMG would encounter a significant number of backcountry tourers in this zone. For the most part, backcountry skiers and riders do not stray more than a few miles from CR2. If SMG were to carve out a 3 mile buffer zone around CR2, it would reduce interactions between backcountry tourers and heli skiers, significantly decreasing the risk profile for all users. This compromise would enable SMG to use the terrain that they describe as mostimportant to the swap while still allowing existing backcountry users to operate safely and enjoyably in the CR2 zone. Furthermore, I would suggest that SMG not be required to relinquish any existing terrain. The joy of heli-skiing (I suppose, having never done it myself) is being able to access terrain that is not accessible to other users. When the conditions allow skiing in those more remote pods, it would be a shame for SMG to be unable to bring clients to ski Houghton or Cinnamon or the others.
Theme ID: 7.3 Theme Name: Suggested Alternative Pods Description: Suggests certain areas to include in exchange
CID: 311 Last Name: Sokolowski Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: From what I see on the Terrain Exchange map, there are some places that I agree with a terrain swap but others I do not. I would propose a terrain swap that does not include areas that are easily accessed by roads and backcountry skiers. These areas include: the entire Illinois/Hancock area and parts of the Southeast area. The parts of the Southeast area that are easily accessed on foot by mining roads are: terrain to the NNE of Middle Mountain, terrain to the NNE of Galena Mountain, and terrain to the NNE of King Solomon Mountain. A backcountry skier can be at the top of the peaks closest to County Road 2 (King Solomon, Galena and Middle) within a couple of hours. A helicopter is not necessary to gain those those peaks in winter. If a skier has access to a helicopter, why wouldn’t they want to get dropped off in the middle of nowhere and ski in a place no one else can get to? On a mountain like King Solomon, heliskiers would meet a group of backcountry skiers who had just hiked up from their cars at the summit. And I think it would ruin the experience for both parties. My thought would be to push the Southeast area boundary farther to the SSEE. And take the the Illinois/Hancock area out of the terrain swap completely it is too close to County Road 110. Basically, just keep helicopters out of the terrain that is accessible by foot.
Theme ID: 7.3 Theme Name: Suggested Alternative Pods Description: Suggests certain areas to include in exchange
CID: 212 Last Name: Grogan Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Leave the existing Silverton heli-ski terrain where it is. The current heli-ski terrain that was permitted in 2008 to SMG is inaccessible to day users because it’s too far away & the route to get there is dangerous so there are currently no conflicts. This is why Silverton Guides states that they haven’t had any conflicts with people on foot because no one can safely get back there. I think it would be foolish to change an existing successfully working permit area. The BLM would end up with having to manage massive numbers of conflicts if they allow Silverton Guides to instead heli-ski in popular corridors that are very accessible to day users (CR 2 & Cement Creek) who drive up to the Silverton area just for the day. And these satellite areas are becoming more popular now that the Hwy 550 corridor is getting more congested with backcountry skiers every year.
Theme ID: 7.4 Theme Name: No Action - Keep Existing SRP Description: Current SRP is preferable to proposed modification in regards to user conflict
Resource ID: 3 Resource Description NEPA Process
SubResource ID: 3.1 SubResource Description: General
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 7 of 36 CID: 119 Last Name: Collins Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I am a Silverton resident greatly concerned about: the permitting process and inability to locate hard copies of the supporting documents. Under RCRA a public reading room is required pursuant to the Public Participation Act. Doesn't NEPA also require hard copy information to be readily available to the Public?
Theme ID: 11.1 Theme Name: Hard Copy Document Availability Description: Comment about the availability of hard copy documents for review
CID: 249 Last Name: Schiowitz Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: In Appendix A of the EA the BLM Staff determined that access and transportation issues were present but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required. The BLM and SG should provide detailed analysis of access and transportation issues caused by the Proposed Action, because the proposed exchange pods are adjacent to or near San Juan County Roads that are open in the winter and avalanche mitigation has the potential to close or burry these roads. An analysis should be conducted designating all historical and potential avalanche paths in the proposed pods that cross county roads and the effects of closing these roads to the surrounding community.
Theme ID: 11.2 Theme Name: Deficient EA Description: EA did not respond to issues raised in scoping comments
CID: 88 Last Name: Bohnert Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I believe the Environmental Assessment (EA) is inadequate. The EA must be reissued to include a through analysis of all 200+ public comments previously submitted and should include numerous alternatives for management direction. Issues the EA failed to analyze include the following topics: a. User conflict and displacement b. Avalanche control and safety issues c. Noise impacts and Wildlife issues d. Suitability of San Juan Mountains for heliskiing due to unstable snowpack and certification standards for heliskiing guides e. Additional challenges to guaranteeing areas are free of users prior to avalanche control bombing
Theme ID: 11.2 Theme Name: Deficient EA Description: EA did not respond to issues raised in scoping comments
CID: 249 Last Name: Schiowitz Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: In Appendix A of the EA the BLM Staff determined that Visual Resources and Forest Vegetation issues were present but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required. In the EA the BLM states that the Proposed Action does not involve any tree removal or activity/management action that would affect forest resources and that the Proposed Action does not involve any tree removal or infrastructure, however, the act of avalanche mitigation has the potential to cause large destructive avalanches that may kill or destroy large stands of trees. More detailed analysis and study is needed to determine the environmental consequences caused by avalanche mitigation and the potential for tree damage and destruction in the proposed pods.
Theme ID: 11.2 Theme Name: Deficient EA Description: EA did not respond to issues raised in scoping comments
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The 2008 EA is a much more detailed and useful document than the current analysis. Among the many things included in the 2008 EA that are missing from the current EA are: • Detailed maps of the proposal showing topography, land ownership, landing/re-fueling zones, and wildlife/environmental resources (pages 19 and 24 of 2008 EA) • Detailed descriptions of the pods (page 32-34 of 2008 EA)
Theme ID: 11.2 Theme Name: Deficient EA Description: EA did not respond to issues raised in scoping comments
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 8 of 36 CID: 306 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Third, the lack of information and analysis from experts on the subjects of related to the proposal is woefully lacking. Where is the input and ideas from avalanche control experts? And from experts who know the San Juan Mountains in the Silverton area from decades of experience? Or information from what was learned (and therefore modified) from the Wasatch Mountain heli-ski permitted operations that involve a tremendous amount of front country and heli-skiing user conflict and safety considerations? Certainly there are Best Management Practices that have evolved and are now utilized for heli-ski operations elsewhere on federal lands – why not bring those forth to the public for their review and comment? Perhaps even a case example or research could have been cited regarding conflicts with backcountry winter users and heli-ski operations. The idea of NEPA is open up the treasure chest of ideas, information, possibilities, expertise, opportunities, research, experience and so on for examination and consideration. An inadequate process will inevitably “backfire” on those involved – let’s not travel that trail.
Theme ID: 11.2 Theme Name: Deficient EA Description: EA did not respond to issues raised in scoping comments
CID: 306 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: In conclusion, and based on the analysis we have offered above, we recommend that the Preliminary EA be withdrawn, returned to the contractor for revision, and that a new public comment period be offered when an adequate and lawful NEPA document can be shared with the public that offers sufficient information and analysis upon which they can base their comments.
Theme ID: 11.2 Theme Name: Deficient EA Description: EA did not respond to issues raised in scoping comments
CID: 70 Last Name: Bidwell Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Proposal would appear to dramatically reduce accessible backcountry terrain for the public. Past performance from Silverton Guides suggests the area proposed for addition will be closed to public access dramatically limiting easily accessible backcountry terrain, especially moderate terrain with reasonable avalanche risk. While the scoping notice does not clearly specify whether or when the area might be closed to the public, most have logically assumed that it would be closed due to avalanche control work as has occurred elsewhere. Nonetheless it is extremely difficult for the public to comment on the Proposal without any detail about what is proposed. I believe BLM should reopen scoping with a more clear proposal that details the impacts of the proposed permit expansion on public use to the project area. Based on the limited information in the scoping notice, I assume the proposed expansion areas could be closed to the public to facilitate avalanche control work. If that is not the BLM's understanding or intention, than a revised scoping notice should clearly explain how public use to the permit area would be managed and what the implications on public safety would be. If such an alternative exists (that retains public access to the proposed permit expansion areas), the BLM should expand the scope of the Proposal to evaluate in its EA whether the same operational alternative could also apply to all other areas within the current Silverton Guides permit including Velocity Basin. From a safety perspective I see no reason why Silverton Guides operational approach would differ across its permit area.
Theme ID: 11.3 Theme Name: Reopen Scoping Description: Not enough project description to comment on the project
CID: 347 Last Name: Weller Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: One I was a little upset that I was not informed by the BLM about this second comment period as I had commented in the first. It also has me concerned now that the offices have switched to a whole new set of people. I was not able to attend your public get togethers here and look forward to meeting the new crew.
Theme ID: 11.4 Theme Name: Commenting Issues Description: Challenges with scoping comments, and submitting comments online
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 9 of 36 CID: 306 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: From our experience in engaging NEPA processes for many years, we believe receiving approximately 200 scoping comments from the public and stakeholders represents a very impressive showing of interest in the proposal. As well, only a few of these letters are socalled form letters – most of which seem to be in favor of the Silverton Guides’ interests – most of the letters are personalized and specific in their nature. Overall, there is a high level of interest in the proposal and we believe it’s a fair assessment that a high level of controversy surrounding the project exists, too. As noted previously, the scoping comments (in the form of the PDF of scanned comments) and a summary of comments were posted by the GFO approximately a week after the EA was released. To date we have been engaged in a review of the scoping comments and it’s crystal clear that a wide array of issues were brought forth. We also discerned that some comments include very important details, ideas nuances that could ultimately be useful in crafting a decision. It’s also true that there were dozens of comments indicating concerns regarding potential user conflicts and the likely displacement of current users. We have two concerns related to the scoping comments submitted primarily in the summer of 2015. First – though our initial work of matching the scoping comments with the comment summary indicates a worthy gathering of the issues, we did notice that several comment letters appear to be truncated and therefore possibly not fully documented in the accumulated scoping comment PDF document. For example, the comment letter that we submitted (which is the only comment letter we definitely know the length of) was five pages in length and only three pages are included in the scoping comments. We obviously don’t know when 40% of our comment letter went missing – was it reviewed as part of the scoping analysis and not properly scanned, or was it never fully reviewed for the scoping summary? Second – a survey by us of eight scoping commenters indicates only six commenters received notification of the EA’s release on November 10. While both of these incidents may seem rather insignificant in scope, from our point of view these shortcomings certainly don’t instill confidence in the NEPA process – are additional scoping comments (like ours) missing in action, and what percentage of scoping commenters never received direct notification of the preliminary EA’s release?
Theme ID: 11.4 Theme Name: Commenting Issues Description: Challenges with scoping comments, and submitting comments online
CID: 300 Last Name: Powers Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: BLM needs to truly solicit public input. Week day public meetings, disregard of public concern and comments in the draft proposal, and a website so complicated that locating NEPA documents practically requires training, are all examples of circumvention of the BLM's legal obligation to solicit public input during the NEPA process.
Theme ID: 11.4 Theme Name: Commenting Issues Description: Challenges with scoping comments, and submitting comments online
CID: 77 Last Name: Harries Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I presented a lengthy list of my concerns re: this issue many months ago, and I want your assurance that these comments are being considered in your decision. I realize that the management of this area has been transferred from the Tres Rios to the Gunnison office. I have heard that the comments submitted to the Tres Rios office are not being considered in this decision. Please advise if this is rumor is (or is not) true. Lastly, I would like to express my displeasure with the ability to submit comments online. If this option is available, it is not readily apparent after my lengthy search online. Expecting people to remember, or correctly transpose this email address leads me to believe that public comments are not valuable… Hopefully this is received, please acknowledge,
Theme ID: 11.4 Theme Name: Commenting Issues Description: Challenges with scoping comments, and submitting comments online
CID: 102 Last Name: Boyd Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Language of the EA Countless times throughout this document and almost exclusively in sections, which are addressing the potential negative impacts of the proposed expansion, the verbs “may” and “could” and “possible” (though not a verb), are used when it is nearly certain to be the case. Conversely, and also very common throughout the document, “would” appeared, but almost always as it relates to a positive outcome for the proponent. Some examples: (EA p.22) “Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The exchange of heliskiing terrain in Silverton Guides’ SRP could result in changes to noise impacts in the study area.” (EA p.23) “...this project could lead to increased noise levels in the Town of Silverton.” (EA p.35) “Issue: The project may affect the recreational experience for users in the study area.”, “Issue: The project may affect noise levels in the study area.” ”Issue: The project may affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for federally Proposed, Threatened or Endangered wildlife Species (PTES), BLM sensitive species, migratory birds, and species of local concern (SOLC).” (EA p.19) “While impacts to backcountry skiers and snowmobilers are possible, the frequency of helicopter flights to the proposed SRP pods is anticipated to be a relatively low proportion of the total trips. ” Conversely... (EA p.19) “The terrain in the Illinois/Hancock, Southeast, Round, and Minnie/Maggie pods would improve the recreational experience for guests of Silverton Guides. This terrain is less susceptible to winds, which would result in higher quality snow conditions and fewer snow stability limitations. To minimize flying time for guests Silverton Guides would likely continue to focus user days in the Slagle/Tower, Bonita/Emery/McCarty, and California/Treasure pods. However, in adverse weather conditions (primarily when winds affect the Slagle/Tower, Bonita/Emery/McCarty, and California/Treasure pods, but the helicopters can still fly), the Illinois/Hancock, Southeast, Round, and Minnie/Maggie pods would offer greater variety of high quality terrain.” This is a subtle, though complete disregard for objectivity. In examples which do not favor the proponent, this language minimizes the negative effects of the proposal, should it be approved. It appears this document is only objective when it needs to be, with few exceptions. Unknowns should be stated as such and with consistency.
Theme ID: 11.5 Theme Name: EA Language Description: EA mischaracterizes impacts with poor language
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 10 of 36 CID: 82 Last Name: Hawse Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I have read the entire Environmental Assessment and I have many concerns, which I will outline here. The information provided says that 230 letters were received from the public during the initial comment period. It does not state how many were against, or in favor of the proposal. This makes it difficult to know how much weight is given to public opinion and primarily the communities concerns in the decision-making process
Theme ID: 11.6 Theme Name: Public Opinion Description: EA should disclose public opinion/opposition to the project
CID: 235 Last Name: Lynston Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I also want policy changes in community consultation to be public consent. Our taxes dollars are paying for the land you administer-on behalf of the public therefore, our consent needs to be the determining factor in what permits are granted and the best use of the land.
Theme ID: 11.6 Theme Name: Public Opinion Description: EA should disclose public opinion/opposition to the project
CID: 306 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: As you know, the EA’s (DOI-BLM-S060-2016-0022-EA) release announced on November 10, 2016 through a letter from Mr. Waters included an overall description of the project. On this date on the GFO website maps were also available as well as a letter from the project proponent, Silverton Guides, explaining their proposal and the initial scoping letter and map from July, 2015. However, there were numerous documents not available on the website that would be helpful, if not necessary, for the public to thoroughly understand and examine the diversity of issues related to Silverton Guides’ heli-skiing Special Recreation Permit (SRP) proposal. It is our understanding and observation that none of the following documents were available to public on the release of the EA on November 10: 1. Biological Assessment 2. Scoping Comments 3. Summary of Scoping Comments 4. Heli-trax EA and Decision Record (2008) 5. Alpine Triangle Recreation Area Management Plan EA with Appendices and Decision Record (2010) At the request of our organization, and perhaps others engaged in the process, most of these documents (#’s 2 – 5 above) were posted upon the website approximately one week after the public release of the EA. To our awareness, the Biological Assessment has not been made available to the public as of this date – approximately 17 days into the 33 day comment period. The documents listed above are specifically relevant to the overall understanding and examination of Silverton Guides’ proposal to modify their SRP and it is a disservice to the public to not provide these documents from the outset. We are curious regarding the seeming lack of due diligence in providing all of the necessary and related documents at the time of the EA’s release. We speculate: 1) does the GFO think there is a low level of public interest in the proposal? We would think that would be negated by the fact that more than 300 pages of comments were received during the scoping process. 2) Does the GFO think that the “initial” EA for this heli-skiing operation was not sufficiently relevant to post? We hope not considering the reality that the expansion territory desired by the project proponent is essentially the same territory that was denied for use through the 2008 NEPA analysis and decision. 3) Does the GFO think that the Biological Assessment is either not particularly relevant, “too technical” or otherwise not integral to any management decision the proposal?
Theme ID: 11.8 Theme Name: Public Availability of Documents Description: Analysis documents were not available for public review during EA comment period
Resource ID: 4 Resource Description Plan Consistency
SubResource ID: 4.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 310 Last Name: Smith Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Alpine Triangle Recreation Plan states that RMZ-1 (alpine backcountry) is primarily to be managed for non-motorized uses but that existing permits for heliskiing will be honored. The Plan does not contemplate modified or new heli-skiing terrain.
Theme ID: 16.1 Theme Name: Alpine Triangle RAMP Description: Project is inconsistent with this plan
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 11 of 36 CID: 359 Last Name: Wolf Organization: Continental Divide Trail Society Representative: True
Substantive Comment: We are concerned about impacts upon the use and enjoyment of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) in the event that the proposed change were to be approved. We do so in accordance with the statement of our mission, which is “to help in the planning, development, and maintenance of the CDT as a silent trail and to assist users plan and enjoy their experiences along the route.” Since the Society was founded in 1978, we have accordingly participated in the review of BLM proposals regarding its regulations and directives, management plans, and projects? we welcome the opportunity to do so, once again, today. The EA Lacks Needed Analysis to Determine Significance of Impacts upon the CDNST The Proposed Action has been found to be in compliance with “applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including [12 enumerated statutes, executive orders, and BLM Manual chapters]. EA Section 2.5, p.13. However, there is no mention of the National Trails System Act. Nor is there any mention in the EA of the CDNST. Although the EA identifies as an issue to be analyzed “potential conflicts with [existing recreational use] resulting from the Proposed Action” (EA Section 1.5, p.3), conflicts with use of the CDNST are nowhere discussed. Had it been considered, this would have been documented in Appendix A, the interdisciplinary team analysis record checklist. This is rather surprising inasmuch as the checklist (p. A3) includes “National Historic Trails,” with the determination that such trails are “NP” (not present). Had “National Scenic Trails” been listed, the CDNST should have been classified as “PA” (present and requires further analysis) because analysis of the issue is necessary to determine the significance of the impacts (p. A1). The Proposed Action Would Substantially Interfere with the Nature and Purposes of the CDNST The general rule of the National Trails System Act (NTSA) is that “the use of motorized vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited,” with limited exceptions such as emergencies and landowner access. With regard specifically to the CDNST, motorized uses may be authorized if they will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail – but only if those uses were allowed by administrative regulations at the time of designation (in 1978). NTSA Sec. 7c), 16 USC 1246(c). The use of snowmobiles, however, may be permitted where properly designated. (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C.) We regard a helicopter to be a motorized vehicle within the scope of NTSA. The use of helicopters appears to have lacked any authorization in 1978? and, in any event, such use as contemplated in the proposed action would “substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail.” The “nature and purposes of the CDNST are to provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor.” (2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan). BLM uses the term “corridor” to apply to “a public land area of sufficient width to encompass National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or to be restored.” (BLM Manual 6280, Chapter 1.D.11) Heli-skiing allows a company to ferry skiers “to the top of a mountain” in a helicopter (EA, p.12)? landings at or near such a site would certainly fall within the corridor of the CDNST. The intrusion of helicopters on the CDNST conflicts with “primitive hiking … opportunities,” with associated noise that disturbs (and does not conserve) the natural resources along the corridor. BLM Should Follow Its Protocol for Proposed Actions which May Adversely Impact the CDNST BLM Manual 6280 (Chapter 5, Sec. 5.3) sets out a protocol for proposed actions which may adversely impact designated national trails. “The BLM may not permit proposed uses along National Trails which will substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail and the BLM shall make efforts, to the extent practicable, to avoid authorizing activities that are incompatible with the purposes for which such trails were established.” (5.3 A.2.) In determining the scope of analysis of a proposed action that is likely to cause adverse impact (where, as here, a CDNST management corridor has not been established in a land use plan): “… a BLM National Trail inventory and assessment is required, and should be broad enough to be able to identify reasonable alternative project locations with potentially less or no adverse impact.” (5.3 B.2.ii).
Theme ID: 16.2 Theme Name: CDNST Description: Project is inconsistent with management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
CID: 359 Last Name: Wolf Organization: Continental Divide Trail Society Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Proposed Action Would Substantially Interfere with the Nature and Purposes of the CDNST The general rule of the National Trails System Act (NTSA) is that “the use of motorized vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited,” with limited exceptions such as emergencies and landowner access. With regard specifically to the CDNST, motorized uses may be authorized if they will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail – but only if those uses were allowed by administrative regulations at the time of designation (in 1978). NTSA Sec. 7c), 16 USC 1246(c). The use of snowmobiles, however, may be permitted where properly designated. (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart C.)
Theme ID: 16.2 Theme Name: CDNST Description: Project is inconsistent with management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 12 of 36 CID: 342 Last Name: Warren Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Introduction I have reviewed the preliminary environmental assessment (EA) relating to a proposed change to Silverton Guides’ Special Recreation Permit for heli-skiing operations near the Town of Silverton, Colorado. Seeing no discussion about the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST), I am concerned about impacts upon the use and protection of the CDNST in the event that the proposed change was to be approved. The proposal as presented would substantially interfere with protecting the nature and purposes of the CDNST and as such should have been addressed through Environmental Impact Statement processes. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail The EA fails to address the presence of the CDNST within the project area. The CDNST was located along this section of the Continental Divide in 2007 as result of a GOCO project and was celebrated as an important Federal agency and state partnership at that time—see the attached Stony to Cataract Partnership document. The CDNST location and potential National Trail Management Corridor (MS-6280) is shown on a map of the project area—see the attached Silverton Heli-Ski CDT map. “The BLM, as National Trail manager, inventories the National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings, and the primary use or use(s); establishes the National Trail Management Corridor through the land use planning process; manages resources and uses in a manner that will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the National Trail; makes efforts to avoid incompatible activities; and monitors the National Trail” (MS-6280). The EA describes that the Proposed Action has been found to be in compliance with “applicable laws, regulations, and policies (EA, Section 2.5). However, there is no mention of the National Trails System Act. Although the EA identifies as an issue to be analyzed “potential conflicts with [existing recreational use] resulting from the Proposed Action” (EA Section 1.5, p.3), conflicts with use and the protection of the CDNST are not discussed or disclosed. Nature and Purposes of the CDNST The general rule of the National Trails System Act (NTSA) is that “the use of motorized vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited,” with limited exceptions such as emergencies and landowner access. With regard specifically to the CDNST, motorized uses may be authorized if the use would not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of this National Scenic Trail, but only if those uses were allowed by administrative regulations at the time of designation in 1978 (NTSA Sec. 7(c)), 16 USC 1246(c)). Permitted use of helicopters for recreational purposes appears to have lacked any authorization in 1978. In any event, such use as intended in the proposed action would substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the CDNST. The “nature and purposes of the CDNST are to provide for high-quality scenic, primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor.” In addition, the Comprehensive Plan further describes, “Backpacking, nature walking, day hiking, horseback riding, nature photography, mountain climbing, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are compatible with the nature and purposes of the CDNST” (2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan). Skiing is a recognized use of the CDNST corridor; however, not when assisted by helicopters, which would degrade CDNST values. BLM uses the term “corridor” to apply to “a public land area of sufficient width to encompass National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or to be restored” (BLM Manual 6280, Chapter 1.D.11). Heli-skiing allows a company to ferry skiers “to the top of a mountain” in a helicopter (EA, p.12); landings at or near such a site appear to be within the proposed permitted boundary and would certainly fall within the corridor of the CDNST. The intrusion of helicopters on the CDNST conflicts with “primitive hiking … opportunities,” with associated noise that disturbs (and does not conserve) the natural resources along the corridor. The EA emphasizes the importance of the area for providing habitat for the recovery of wolverines within Colorado. With these impacts, helicopter assisted skiing within the CDNST corridor would substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of this national scenic trail and should not be approved. BLM National Trail Management Policy BLM Manual 6280 (Chapter 5, Sec. 5.3) sets out a “protocol for proposed actions which may adversely impact designated national trails.” “The BLM may not permit proposed uses along National Trails which will substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and the BLM shall make efforts, to the extent practicable, to avoid authorizing activities that are incompatible with the purposes for which such trails were established” (Chapter 5, Sec. 5.3 A.2.) BLM site-specific management considerations describes, “Where necessary, notice may be provided to permittees or lease operators of the presence of a congressionally designated National Trail and the BLM’s responsibility not to permit uses along trails that would substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail, and also to make efforts to avoid activities incompatible with the purposes for which trails were established, to the extent practicable, while respecting valid existing rights. (Chapter 5, Section 5.5 A.6). For reference, I have included the most recent version of a CDNST Planning Handbook (see the attached CDNST Planning Handbook document). The handbook includes land management plan and NEPA guidance that may be useful for this project and for when the RMP is revised or amended. Recommendations The following are recommendations for addressing the planning and management of the CDNST within the project area as related to the heli-skiing proposal: 1. Avoid impacts to the CDNST corridor by excluding from the heli-skiing permit the National Trail Management Corridor (NTMC) area as depicted on the attached map. This would include any helicopter assisted skiing that originates on private land within the CDNST NTMC; and 2. Consider through NEPA processes expanding the extent of the CDNST corridor to better protect high-quality wolverine habitat to further fulfill the conservation purposes of this National Scenic Trail. For this purpose, I recommend expanding the CDNST NTMC to include the Maggie Gulch and Minnie Gulch pods. Another option is to suspend addressing the proposal, as it relates to the Maggie Gulch and Minnie Gulch pods, until such time that the Resource Management Plan and the Alpine Triangle Final Recreation Area Management Plan are amended to address the requirements for establishing the CDNST NTMC.
Theme ID: 16.2 Theme Name: CDNST Description: Project is inconsistent with management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA does not address how the proposed expansion would impact the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). The list of considered statutes listed in the EA fails to mention the National Trails System Act despite the fact that the CDNST appears to travel through the Minnie/Maggie and Southeast Pods. Under the CDNST Comprehensive Plan the CDNST is to be managed to provide for high quality scenic non-motorized recreation opportunities and to conserve natural, historic, and cultural resources along the trail corridor.1 The Comprehensive Plan includes direction on how to manage visual resources2, recreation3, and permitting4 among other things. Our comparison of the maps in the project file with the location of the CDNST indicates that some of the flyway corridors within the expansion area would end about half a mile or so from the CDNST. To confirm whether, or how, this proposed expansion may conflict with management of the CDNST the EA should include a map showing the trail’s location in relation to the proposed pods. In order to protect the nature and purpose of the CDNST the BLM should include a ½ mile buffer of all helicopter activity from the trail travelway. Moreover, the BLM should consider amending the Resource Management Plan to address MS-6280 National Trail Management Corridor location and protection requirements prior to considering the issuance of a heli-skiing permit for the area adjacent to the CDNST travelway.
Theme ID: 16.2 Theme Name: CDNST Description: Project is inconsistent with management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 13 of 36 CID: 309 Last Name: Skinner Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Alpine Triangle Final Recreation Area Management Plan states: “FLPMA … provides the BLM with an operating mandate to emphasize the concepts of multiple use and sustained yield within this RAMP. Sec 202 (c) requires the BLM to “use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield in developing land use plans.” The BLM CO Gunnison Alpine Triangle Recreation Area Management Plan website states “Our basic goals are simple: 1. To facilitate the public’s enjoyment of these recreation opportunities.” The requested exchange of pods for guided heli-skiing follows the BLM mandate of multiple use and sustainable yield. The exchange will provide Alpine Triangle visitors a broader winter recreation experience. The unique heli-skiing adventure will increase positive socio economic benefits throughout the County. The positive benefits of this exchange far outweighs any perceived negatives
Theme ID: 16.3 Theme Name: Multiple Uses Description: Project consistent with multiple use mandate
Resource ID: 5 Resource Description Recreation
SubResource ID: 5.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 82 Last Name: Hawse Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Noise and visual impacts of other users: With the Proposed Pods, noise and visual impacts to other users would be significant. The proposed flight corridors perhaps lessen noise in Silverton for the Pods south of County Road 2 but they increase impacts for users and private land holders along County Road 2, specifically the historically used Eureka Ice Climbs. The Illinois/Hancock Pod would most definitely increase noise and visual impacts of the town of Silverton, the adjacent popular ice climb and popular backcountry skiing zones that have not been studied for use.
Theme ID: 21.1 Theme Name: Adverse Impact to Dispersed Recreation Experience Description: Project would detract from the recreational experience of dispersed users
CID: 168 Last Name: Foster Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: People seek out the areas off of county road 22 and the adjacent drainages to experience nature and untrammeled public lands. While these areas may be less popular than Red Mountain Pass and the Cement Creek drainage, this does not reflect a decreased value to those who do travel there. Opening this land to guided heli skiing would negatively affect the experience of a vast majority of users by introducing noise and view pollution, in addition to the potential reduction in access due to road closures and avalanche mitigation. Allowing guided heliskiing would effectively exclude a large segment of recreational users who are not interested in competing with guided clients for terrain. The proposed land is ideal for recreational users for the same reasons that Silverton Mountain wants to use it: there is an abundance of belowtreeline terrain, where safe travel is possible on days with considerable avalanche hazard.
Theme ID: 21.1 Theme Name: Adverse Impact to Dispersed Recreation Experience Description: Project would detract from the recreational experience of dispersed users
CID: 251 Last Name: McCoy Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA recognizes moderate snowmobile usage in many areas to be expanded but simply never addresses how impacts to this usage will be minimized which is very concerning when the permittee business model is "more terrain more often".
Theme ID: 21.11 Theme Name: Impact Minimization Description: How will impacts to recreation users be avoided or minimized
CID: 207 Last Name: Rubin Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Increased ski traffic, the result of heli skiing – will ensure that terrain is tracked out much more quickly. When this happens, the terrain becomes unattractive for all skiers, but heli skiers in particular. Therefore, they will need more and more terrain to satisfy the customer base. Silverton Mountain Guides have a specified terrain. Expanding terrain by 10,000 plus acres is not a solution.
Theme ID: 21.12 Theme Name: Increased Skier Traffic Description: Project would result in terrain being "skied-out" more quickly
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 14 of 36 CID: 243 Last Name: Roush Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Minnie/Maggie Gulch area appears to have much less activity by other user groups and also might require less active control work due to slope angles and aspects.
Theme ID: 21.13 Theme Name: Pod Specific Observations Description: Comments about use and terrain in certain pods
CID: 243 Last Name: Roush Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I think the Illinois/Hancock region along Cement Creek likely has very few conflicts with other user groups since it is adjacent to the current SRP and is on the East side of Cement Creek. It will likely require more active avalanche mitigation due to slope angle and potential for slides onto Highway 110 compared to other pods in the proposal.
Theme ID: 21.13 Theme Name: Pod Specific Observations Description: Comments about use and terrain in certain pods
CID: 246 Last Name: Saffer Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I am writing in OPPOSITION to the Brill’s request to expand Silverton Mountain’s heliskiing operation into popular backcountry skiing routes along San Juan County Road 2. The areas that Mr. Brill has requested for use are areas of use by the local backcountry skiing community. I strongly believe that allowing expanded heliskiing would cause increased pressure, conflict, and safety issues between public users and Silverton Mountain’s operation. Backcountry skiing is the fastest growing sector in winter sports. In the San Juans, our dangerous snowpack requires special attention and consideration when choosing appropriate terrain to ski. As the backcountry skiing population has grown, pressure on ski terrain such as Minnie and Maggie Gulches, Arastra Gulch/King Solomon, (and many others) has also increased. These areas provide accessible routes and quality skiing that is enjoyed by the public population. In recent years these areas have seen drastically increased public use. Backcountry skiers have to carefully assess snowpack and terrain to ski safely. We do not have explosives to detonate to test and clear out slopes to ski as Silverton does. The areas requested for use provide relatively safe skiing options for backcountry users and are used throughout most of our winter season. As large as the San Juans are, there are relatively few zones that provide accessible, safe, and viable ski lines.
Theme ID: 21.2 Theme Name: Increased Interest in Backcountry Skiing Description: Terrain should be available for increased numbers of dispersed users
CID: 362 Last Name: Yanko Organization: Silverton Mountain Patrol/Guide Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Again, it is critical to look at the current map, but the most likely conflict is in the Maggie/Minnie drainages. The lower reaches and typical usage of Maggie/Minnie do not offer ideal helicopter pickups and user friendliness for a typical Heli skier anyway. As you move South from there the other popular runs are NOT being shown as a part of the SMG operating permit request. The Illinois/Hancock pods typically see visits from a handful of local snowshoer’s, one or two hunters and rarely anyone else like an uphill/downhill skier.
Theme ID: 21.3 Theme Name: No Impact to Dispersed Users Description: Project would not impact dispersed recreation users
CID: 105 Last Name: Brill Organization: Silverton Guides Representative: True
Substantive Comment: User Conflicts/Socio Economic Benefits: Silverton Guides removed its request for the terrain proximate to CR 2 in April 2016. The primary Heli Skiing is to the east, and several miles from the road. Silverton Guides has committed to flying to alternate terrain if other users (e.g., hikers, backcountry skiers, snowmobiles, wildlife) are in the immediate area. In addition, the proposed terrain east of CR 2 receives sparse backcountry skier use based on common knowledge, as well as documented monitoring of the area performed during the 2015/16 winter season. County officials were also taken on overflights of the proposed terrain during the winter of 2015/16 to assess the volume of backcountry use of the proposed areas. This was during an extended period without new snow, making it easy to spot and count tracks. In a three-week span in February of 2016, 12 total tracks were observed by the County officials. Those 12 tracks were limited to areas near CR2 and are not part of the terrain exchange proposal. A form letter circulating from the San Juan Citizens Alliance incorrectly states that this proposal would “displace thousands of user-days by backcountry skiers, ice climbers, snowmobilers, dog walkers Nordic tourers and others.” It would be fantastic if there were indeed, “thousands” of people accessing the terrain east of CR 2 in the winter months. If that were the case, the town of Silverton would have a robust winter economy unrelated to Silverton Mountain and Silverton Guides. Sadly, it does not. The majority of businesses in Town close down for the winter as the small local population is only capable of sustaining a small number of commercial enterprises. The Helicopter terrain exchange is critical to the viability of Silverton Guides and Silverton Mountain. The majority of visitors select Silverton Mountain as their winter destination for the Mountain’s lift-served ski experience and because they know that we offer the opportunity to Heli ski at an affordable price. Silverton Guides offers the lowest priced Heli skiing in the US, making Heli skiing an aspirational experience for all of our guests. The proposed terrain will allow us to be able to attract more visitors, ultimately helping to create a more robust winter economy for the town of Silverton.
Theme ID: 21.3 Theme Name: No Impact to Dispersed Users Description: Project would not impact dispersed recreation users
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 15 of 36 CID: 217 Last Name: Kloster Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The "backcountry user economy" simply does not exist in Silverton and the public use of the proposed terrain swap area is almost non existent. I fly near the proposed terrain swap pods dozens of times each year and I hardly ever see the use of that land.
Theme ID: 21.3 Theme Name: No Impact to Dispersed Users Description: Project would not impact dispersed recreation users
CID: 90 Last Name: Borrego Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: There should be no expansion of the permit beyond existing boundaries. as a snowmobiler, we see an increase in riders every season. this includes locals and out of state riders. Our areas are already becoming overcrowded and needless to say unsafe. Please save this area for snowmobilers..
Theme ID: 21.4 Theme Name: Snowmobilers Description: Project would impact snowmobilers in the area
CID: 239 Last Name: Marechal Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA states: “Low to moderate backcountry use has been observed (including skiers, snowmobiles, and other users) in the area along County Road 2.” a. This observation should be backed up by hard data. b. Generic and unsubstantiated statements like the one quoted above do not belong in EAs. c. Before the BLM can move forward with this proposal, it must verify this statement to ensure that confrontations between backcountry users and heli-ski operations are not highly likely.
Theme ID: 21.5 Theme Name: Backcountry Use Description: Questions analysis of backcountry use in project area
CID: 102 Last Name: Boyd Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: (EA p.17) ”...Other winter recreational use in the study area includes backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. The highest levels of backcountry skier use in the area occur at the summit of U.S. Highway 550 and along County Road 110 across from the Silverton Mountain Ski Area. Low to moderate backcountry use has been observed (including skiers, snowmobiles, and other users) in the area along County Road 2. Low recreation use was observed in the Illinois/Hancock pod.” Who preformed this study? Why hasn’t this independent agency been cited? There is no supporting analysis reflecting these claims. Again, this reads as the word of the proponent. If a proper analysis were completed, it’s findings would tell a very different story. The Southeast, Minnie/Maggie and Round pods are heavily used by nordic skiers, snowshoers, walkers, snowmobiles and backcountry skiers. It is true, however, that backcountry skiing is less frequent in lower half of these areas, but it’s not for a lack of desire and this only applies to the “early season.” These areas receive less snow and thus takes longer to “fill in” and become skiable. For example, it is rare that you can ski to the bottom of Cunningham, Maggie or Minnie, not to mention, exit back to the road without encountering a very unstable snowpack, a generous amount of bushwacking, and largely unskiable terrain in the bottom third of any of the desirable avalanche paths/ski paths. This is the result of less snow in these areas, nothing more. If the weather changed and these areas began to see more snow, it would likely see as much use if not more than HWY 550.
Theme ID: 21.5 Theme Name: Backcountry Use Description: Questions analysis of backcountry use in project area
CID: 222 Last Name: Kuhn Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Table 6. Existing Recreation Summary states that the Round, Minnie/Maggie and Illinois/Hancock pods have low backcountry skier use. This may be true when compared to the hordes of people that ski Red Mountain Pass. However, I ski these areas frequently and consistently see many other skiers and winter recreationalists. The Summary also calls Round and Minnie/Maggie pods “remote, being 2 miles from CR 2”. Two miles from a plowed road accessed on snow packed skiable roads is not remote for a back country skier. The Southeast pod is the very best of our backcountry skiing and winter recreation and I would say heavily used. Being able to ski into these 4 pods on county roads (Minnie, Maggie, Arrastra, Lakawana,Cunningham, Hancock) from plowed roads (CR 2 and CR110) is what makes them especially valuable to backcountry users. The statement (in Chapter 3) that the terrain in these four pods is less susceptible to winds is a well known fact. For this reason the statement that “ use of the proposed pods would occur primarily during windy conditions when dispersed recreation use levels are low” is inaccurate. The truth is there are many more winter recreationists in these areas on windy days. Backcountry users who might otherwise go to Red Mtn pass come to these areas on windy days. As a matter of fact, I went up Arrastra road into the Southeast pod today, because it was a windy day, and I encountered several others. So, even on a weekday in early December, this is a popular area. I am additionally concerned that if Mr. Brill was given access to these areas for heli skiing and avalanche blasting that he could close these county roads to the public as he has closed the county road along the S. Fork of Cement Creek into Velocity basin.
Theme ID: 21.5 Theme Name: Backcountry Use Description: Questions analysis of backcountry use in project area
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 16 of 36 CID: 239 Last Name: Marechal Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA states: “While impacts to backcountry skiers and snowmobilers are possible, the frequency of helicopter flights to the proposed SRP pods is anticipated to be a relatively low proportion of the total trips. Additionally, use of the proposed pods would occur primarily during windy conditions when dispersed recreation use levels are low”. a. Again, hard numbers MUST be presented on the frequency of trips to the proposed pods for a meaningful review by the public. b. Why would dispersed recreation use levels be low during windy conditions? Backcountry skiers want to ski below treeline terrain on such windy days as much as Silverton Guides. The probability of user confrontation would actually be higher!
Theme ID: 21.5 Theme Name: Backcountry Use Description: Questions analysis of backcountry use in project area
CID: 310 Last Name: Smith Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Recreation Scope of Analysis only includes backcountry skiing and snowmobiling as other winter recreational uses and underestimates the current winter recreational use. It neglects snow shoers, snow bikes, and individuals that walk the river road (County Road 2) daily. The Round pod is accessible by snowmobile and a favorite spring snow destination. The Southeast and Minnie/Maggie pods are popular backcountry ski destinations due to ease of access.
Theme ID: 21.5 Theme Name: Backcountry Use Description: Questions analysis of backcountry use in project area
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: According to the 2008 FONSI the BLM has been monitoring heli-ski activity, including use of explosives, for many years. The results of this monitoring should be used to inform this current analysis. The fact that the current EA does not mention anything about what has been learned over these years of monitoring suggests to us that the monitoring has not occurred as required. Prior to authorizing any new, expanded, heli-ski guiding in this area the BLM should take the steps necessary to better understand the impacts of heli-skiing as it presently occurs in the Alpine Triangle. In the event that this monitoring has indeed been occurring and its results were simply omitted from the EA, the BLM should issue a new EA that incorporates these monitoring results into the analysis.
Theme ID: 21.7 Theme Name: BLM Monitoring Description: EA should include information gathered through monitoring
CID: 204 Last Name: Gosney Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I use the multiple use winter trail along the Animas River when it is groomed. If the Silverton Mountain Heli-operation is preforming avalanche control work – would that trail be closed? I oppose control work that would close the winter trail.
Theme ID: 21.8 Theme Name: Access Conflicts Description: Project would restrict access to popular backcountry areas by dispersed users
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: As part of any environmental analysis the BLM is required to consider the cumulative impacts of this project and other activities occurring in the general area. Although the EA mentions that Telluride Hellitrax operates in the vicinity, it does not discuss what the cumulative impacts of expanding the Silverton Guides heli-ski permit area in the context of all of the areas that are already permitted for heliski use. To address this issue the EA should include a map showing how much of the Silverton backcountry is currently under permit for heli-ski use and how this would change with the proposed expansion. This would help the BLM and the public to understand this project in a larger context.
Theme ID: 21.9 Theme Name: Cumulative Impacts Description: Impacts of other heli guides in the vicinity on availability of backcountry terrain
SubResource ID: 5.2 SubResource Description: Safety
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 17 of 36 CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: A more complete EA would have acknowledged that the proposed expansion will escalate user conflict and would have examined management options to reduce conflict. Possibilities include identifying pods that possess similar attributes to the proposed pods but are not within the Silverton frontcountry or heavily used by people on foot or snowmobile. The BLM could, and should, also consider a timesharetype management strategy wherein popular pods – Southeast, Round Mountain, and Minnie/Maggie – are not utilized by SMG on the weekends (when other users are more likely to be present). This type of timeshare strategy has been very effective in reducing user conflict in the Wasatch mountains, where Wasatch Powderbirds runs a heli-ski operation in heavily used frontcountry areas. Powderbirds does not fly in Little or Big Cottonwood Canyons on weekends because these are the two most heavily used areas in the Wasatch range. On the weekends, Powderbirds flies to more remote areas where there are far fewer other users. The BLM could also require that SMG post a daily flight plan so that other users would know where the helicopters would be flying and could plan their day accordingly. This idea was suggested in scoping comments but completely ignored in the EA.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 39 Last Name: Riley Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I would like the BLM to perform a winter study to assess the user impacts and avalanche hazards. Please require Silverton Guides to post their daily flight plan so backcountry skiers can avoid helicopter use. Please restrict Silverton Guides from flying in popular backcountry areas on weekends. Please require Silverton Guides to be required to attach Recco reflectors to all bombs before dropping them so that unexploded ordinance can be quickly recovered. In winter, access to county roads become seriously dangerous for residents and visitors. Please do not allow heli-skiing above open or groomed roads, mainly near or above CR2 & CR110.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 59 Last Name: Barney Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The lack of information and snow safety expertise in the EA in regards to public safety, while considering heliskiing/ explosive use in Avalanche paths above open and maintained winter roads. The proposed permit is unprecedented and there is no other heliski operation in a continental snowpack that heliskis or performs avalanche control work above open/maintained winter roads. If property is damaged or people die on a public road by an avalanche that SMG intentionally started who is liable? People die skiing with guided operations, but what happens when the public, who didn’t sign up for the adherent risk or sign the waivers, dies? In San Juan County last year alone two human triggered avalanches covered open and maintained roads. One put 15’ of avalanche debris on hwy 550 and the other was in Silverton Mountain’s. ski area terrain. A patroller using a small explosive charge on December 24th intentionally started an avalanche that hit an open CR 110, the BLM snow ranger wrote a report, and I believe issued SM a warning for their reckless actions. Less than a mile down this same road, SMG is asking to use explosives and ski terrain that is also directly above CR110 and includes avalanche paths that run every year. As an avalanche forecaster and heliski guide, ski area terrain and heliski terrain is managed very differently. This is the exact reason why Telluride Helitrax does not have terrain in their permit that is above open/ maintained winter roads. Remotely triggered avalanches are another real concern in this snowpack especially with the use of explosives. If you look in SMG monthly operational reports I’m sure you will see references to remote avalanches started by explosives. They can be triggered 1000’ away and start avalanches on a totally different aspect. Remotely triggering avalanches that hit the road are a concern for the explosive work done on King Solomon, Galena, and Middle Mountain by SMG. As a professional avalanche forecaster and heliski guide, I would strongly recommend that the BLM hire a third party avalanche forecaster to advise them on the dangers to the public on CR 110 and 2 if SMG was to operate and use explosives in the proposed heliski terrain. Safety is an SMG reason for wanting to exchange land but again, speaking as an avalanche professional, with intimate knowledge of both the terrain SMG wants and wants to give back, this terrain is not a safer snowpack or less windy. Again I urge the BLM to hire a third party expert to assist them with this assessment.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 63 Last Name: Barton Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I must in good conscience state that I believe that the approval of this proposal would increase the risk of an avalanche accident occurring involving the general public. The new terrain requested is more accessible thus far more heavily used by the public in winter than the current permitted heli terrain. This creates a potential situation in which Silverton Guides could cause explosive triggered avalanches on slopes near or even above un suspecting skiers, snowmobilers and snowshoers. If this new terrain is approved I would be concerned to take may family up there for fear of a helicopter showing up un announced and dropping explosives on the slopes above us. I saw nothing in the proposal about closing roads and sweeping public out of these areas prior to explosives being used for avalanche mitigation. Closures and sweeps are industry standard practices when explosives are used to bring down avalanches onto public roads. (Note Little Cottonwood Canyon,Ut.) One responsible solution would be to require Silverton Guides to make a public announcement, perhaps via social media, alerting the public by 7:00 p.m. the evening prior as to the schedule and locations of planned blasting operations in the new terrain. Secondly closure signs would need to be placed (and removed) at the start of each of the multiple county roads that lead into the new terrain similar to how Silverton Mountain currently closes County Rd. 52. during blasting operations. I have travelled extensively in the proposed new terrain and can report that it has close to 4000 vertical feet of relief, extremely steep slope angles and regular high velocity winds, which combine to make it some of the most avalanche prone terrain in the San Juans. Explosives will undoubtedly need to be used extensively to create a margin of safety for Silverton Guides clients. It would be negligent not to also consider the safety of my 70 year old mother on cross country skis below.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 18 of 36 CID: 300 Last Name: Powers Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: BLM needs to consider the safety of other backcountry users on public lands when considering what terrain is appropriate for helicopter guiding. Helicopter guided skiing in popular and easily accessible backcountry use areas is inherently unsafe for the other user groups. Specifically, conducting avalanche mitigation, landing helicopters, and guiding clients above other users would clearly pose a significant avalanche risk. The proposed Pods on County Roads 2 and Cement Creek are highly popular with human powered backcountry users in the winter months, and due to the Pods being below treeline, it would be difficult for helicopter guides to know if other users are in the area. Therefore, it is more appropriate to continue limiting helicopter guided skiing to area which are less popular and less accessible during the proposed months of operation.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 75 Last Name: Hahn Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: With a consistently lower snowpack (approximately 60%) than that of Red Mountain Pass, it generally contains very dangerous deep slab avalanche potential. With SMG operating in this area, users would be at a very large risk operating in that area at the same time due to this danger. The slidepaths on Galena and Middle Mountain can, and do avalanche full path over the road every year and present significant danger to anyone operating on or around the roads they can cross. Fly by procedures do not do enough to mitigate these risks as deep slab avalanche can and will propagate against multiple paths placing recreationalists in danger. Many of these types of avalanches are very difficult to predict, even as an expert. Bruce Tremper, one of the most educated and respected avalanche professionals in the word is quoted to say "deep slabs are a mystery that even professionals don't understand very well and sometimes guess wrong". Take for instance the Sheep’s Creek Avalanche in April 2013 which was caused by a remote trigger of a deep slab avalanche which claimed the lives of 5 expert backcountry users. http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/acc/acc_report.php?accfm=inv&acc_id=505. Also, in a similar area near Silverton Mountain, there is evidence of deep slab avalanches, for example this avalanche in the Cement Creek drainage which propogated against multiple paths in January 2012. http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/obs/obs_report.php?obs_ id=11486. These two events show recreating near a path SMG is operating in at that time can present a risk to all users, likely causing users to no longer recreate in these areas due to that risk. Also, the claim that SMG does not have adequate below treeline skiing is incorrect. The areas they currently operate in outside CR25 (South Fork Animas Fork) as well as Animas Forks (West fork Animas River) offer ample 800-1500' NW to NE aspect tree skiing areas with moderate pitches for higher avalanche days. These areas have the same wind effect as the areas proposed to swap, and are similar aspect and elevation for the land they are proposing to swap for.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Numerous scoping comments addressed public safety, raising concerns about how SMG would manage avalanche terrain above open roads without restricting public access, or how they would ensure that other users would not be present prior to conducting avalanche control work or dropping clients. Any backcountry skier knows that you don’t start skiing a run if there are other skiers below you and, in normal backcountry situations, it’s relatively easy to assess whether other skiers are present. When a helicopter is added the mix, however, the equation changes. From the vantage of a helicopter, in treed areas, it can be almost impossible to see if there are other skiers in the area and the likelihood of landing on top of a mountain that others are ascending is high. This is a serious safety concern and one that the EA does not address. The EA states that SMG will perform a “visual reconnaissance” to check for people prior to deploying explosives or heli-skiing but does not describe what this would entail. The EA, and permit, should detail at what elevation this reconnaissance would occur, how long SMG guides would need to search for other users prior to taking action, and how SMG would assess whether or not there were individuals or wildlife in difficult to see areas, such as gullies or trees. The EA should also have discussed whether visual reconnaissance is an adequate safety measure for the proposed pods given the topography, vegetative cover, and level of recreational use within them. The BLM, and SMG, could (and should) have consulted with other heli-ski operators and avalanche professionals operating in the San Juan mountains to determine industry best practices. It is our belief that the “visual reconnaissance” as described in the EA is an inadequate safety precaution.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 338 Last Name: Walker Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: In the application letter Silverton Guides alleges that they need to exchange pods in their current permit area for "safer'' terrain. However, if you look at the areas that Silverton Guides is asking to expand into the exact opposite is true. Maggie/Minnie Gulch, Cunningham/Arrastra Gulch and the Illinois/Hancock areas are all steep avalanche exposed terrain that will require extensive avalanche control work and they don't provide any lower angle terrain, the type of terrain that is needed for safe skiing during high avalanche hazard. In fact nearly all of the exchange terrain will require landing zones near or above tree line at the top of steep avalanche shuts. If the applicant is interested in safe skiing during high avalanche hazard he picked the wrong areas. The objective avalanche hazard is just as high in the new area as it is in the currently permitted terriane. In the application Silverton Guides provided several photos of runs in the current permit area that are impacted by high winds and they allege by moving to the new permit areas the wind problem will go away. Wind is a constant problem above tree line in Colorado and it is unrealistic to think that moving from one valley to another will make any difference in the quality of the snow. Wind and changes that it makes to the snowpack are the primary reason that it is difficult to operate a helicopter ski operation any place in Colorado.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 19 of 36 CID: 102 Last Name: Boyd Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: (EA p.19) “...The terrain in the Illinois/Hancock, Southeast, Round, and Minnie/Maggie pods would improve the recreational experience for guests of Silverton Guides. This terrain is less susceptible to winds, which would result in higher quality snow conditions and fewer snow stability limitations.” This is simply not true. But more importantly, who preformed this study? Why hasn’t this independent agency been cited? There is no supporting analysis reflecting these claims. Again, this reads as the word of the proponent. If a proper analysis were completed it’s findings would acknowledge the shallower snow pack and it’s resulting increase level of instability (higher avalanche danger), similarly complicated windaffected snow, and in reality a likely increase in need for snow stability testing, likely with explosives. And if there is an increase in explosive use, there would be a significant concern with remotely triggered avalanches in terrain that is near by but not the actual path being mitigated. A proper analysis by an independent agency would address this, but no such study has been completed. (EA p.19) “...While impacts to backcountry skiers and snowmobilers are possible, the frequency of helicopter flights to the proposed SRP pods is anticipated to be a relatively low proportion of the total trips. Additionally, use of the proposed pods would occur primarily during windy conditions when dispersed recreation use levels are low.” Most everyone seeks the trees/protected terrain during windy conditions. Wouldn’t this increase the likelihood of user conflicts? And if we’re all seeking the trees then doesn’t this pose a significant safety concern for the public who may be in the trees skiing or ascending terrain that SG’s is controlling? Point being, there is NO way to guarantee the absence of other users. This issue is far more complicated that the proponent and this EA has explained. And if there is no way to guarantee the absence of other users, then the area must be closed while control work is being preformed, displacing all other user groups. There is no mention of this in the EA. This topic must be addressed and studied.
Theme ID: 22.1 Theme Name: Avalanche Risk Description: Proposed terrain has high risk of avalanche, SG activity would pose risk to backcountry users in area
CID: 70 Last Name: Bidwell Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The BLM should assess and disclose the operational and safety record of the current Silverton Guides operation. It would be of particular interest to the public to understand whether that operation has been in compliance with its current permit stipulations, and how the BLM has made that determination (any monitoring that has gone on or other data collected on for example). It is widely suspected that the Silverton Mountain operation that is now under the same ownership as Silverton Guides regular exceeds its permitted numbers of skiers during the unguided season. BLM should provide the public with credible, independent documentation about the Silverton Guides actual use and safety record within their current permit area to inform consideration of the impacts of the proposed expansion.
Theme ID: 22.2 Theme Name: Silverton Safety Record Description: Disclose safety record of Silverton/Silverton Guides
CID: 95 Last Name: hogan Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Finally, I would like to say that the BLM’s main concern here is to protect the public who ski with Silverton Guides. I was involved with the direct field monitoring of the BLM Silverton Mountain ski area for six years (2002-2008). As a result, I feel it is extremely important to monitor for operational compliance of the snow safety aspect of this permit. This is a very difficult and sometimes dangerous snowpack to operate a Heliski business in. The fragile weak snowpack found outside the developed ski area boundary is well known and documented. This is where the permittee operates. Guides must have excellent snow safety skills, and trust and rely on good safe SOP’s to ski in this terrain. This requires a high standard snow avalanche/ forecasting program to insure the overall safety for the guides and clients. A BLM snow ranger is needed to monitor operational safety on a daily basis during the season and not be afraid to increase safety requirements if deemed necessary at any time.
Theme ID: 22.3 Theme Name: Operational Safety Concerns Description: SG training and practices
CID: 87 Last Name: Hirshberg Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: While working as an avalanche forecaster in the San Juans, I interacted with many local ski areas and ski guiding operations. There are many excellent operations in the San Juans. I am impressed with what Silverton Mountain accomplishes in their terrain. I have great respect for the avalanche workers, patrolers, and guides that work there. Many of them are my colleagues and friends. However, the following are practices that I observed at Silverton Mountain compared to other operations in the area: Silverton Mountain Guides and Silverton Mountain does not apply certain standard practices or standards of professionalism that have become ubiquitous in ski guiding. They are not a member of professional guiding associations such as American Mountain Guides Association or Heli Ski US. They do not require their guides to be members of these organizations. Membership in professional associations, their trainings, accreditation, and certifications represent the standards within professional mountain and ski guiding including scope of practice guidelines for the types of terrain that guides can work in given their level of training. This is similar to the scope of practice for a health care practitioner. Most other ski and mountain guiding services in the San Jauns, including the other heli-ski service, hold membership or accreditation to one of these two associations. Many ask their guides to have training or certifications from these organizations. Silverton Mountain Guides does not. Silverton Mountain does not have transparency around explosive use, mitigation, avalanche occurrences, close calls, or accidents that occur at their operation. I personally know of at least one serious avalanche accident involving workers that went unreported. They do not share information about snowpack and avalanche conditions with other professionals or the Colorado Avalanche Information Center. Information sharing is standard practice among ski guides and ski area operations, including throughout the San Juans. By comparison, Telluride Ski Area has some of the best information sharing and reporting of any ski area in the state. Many land management agencies (including Denali National Park, Mt Rainier, Rocky Mountain National Park, Canadian Crown Lands, and Parks Canada) consider professional practices and standards heavily when granting commercial guiding permits. Much in the same way that professional standards, training, and certifications are imperative to practicing healthcare, real estate, or law. While most ski areas and ski guide service around the San Juan region uphold these standard practices and professional affiliations, Silverton Mountain Guides does not. Granting Silverton Mountain Guides a land swap and permit expansion would send the message that it is not important for other guide services and ski areas to hold to professional standards in order to get a commercial use permit. These standards are in place for risk management and worker and client safety. All things that the Bureau of Land Management should promote in their permittees.
Theme ID: 22.3 Theme Name: Operational Safety Concerns Description: SG training and practices
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 20 of 36 CID: 317 Last Name: Stahl Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: road closures, the very delicate and volatile continental snowpack, and of course the storage and usage of both ground and airborne explosive materials, safety systems in place for Medevac of guides and clients, catastrophic event jurisdiction and plan
Theme ID: 22.3 Theme Name: Operational Safety Concerns Description: SG training and practices
CID: 178 Last Name: Roof Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Silverton Guides’ helicopter, when here in San Juan County, is an invaluable rescue asset to ALL user groups in San Juan County and in this region. A helicopter allows ‘birds eye view” to scan vast and varied terrain, ensuring no conflict or overlap between a Silverton Guides helicopter ski/ snowboard trip, and another user group’s members within the same area.
Theme ID: 22.4 Theme Name: Improve Safety Description: Project would improve safety for backcountry users
CID: 100 Last Name: Brugge Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Another concern of those opposed to this land swap seems to be safety with regards to backcountry users. Silverton guides has fully committed to utilizing alternate terrain if backcountry users are in the area. This is a practice that has been successfully used without incident in the current helioperation zones. Furthermore, avalanche mitigation in these areas through forecasting, skicutting, and artificial releases will improve the safety of these zones for backcountry enthusiasts by consistently mitigating the terrain by initiating several small results throughout the season, instead of allowing for a large avalanche to threaten the area without professional mitigation. Before the use of any explosives in the terrain are used, it goes without saying that a thorough inspection of the avalanche path, run out, and start zone will always be made for all potential backcountry users.
Theme ID: 22.4 Theme Name: Improve Safety Description: Project would improve safety for backcountry users
CID: 205 Last Name: Grant Organization: Silverton MountainPoints North Heli Adventures Mountain Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Lastly, as far as avalanches hitting county roads, the amount of avalanches hitting county road 10 (where Silverton Mountain currently operates) has decreased over the last 15 years due to the amount of avalanche control work and skier compaction, thereby actually making it safer for travel on county roads.
Theme ID: 22.4 Theme Name: Improve Safety Description: Project would improve safety for backcountry users
CID: 105 Last Name: Brill Organization: Silverton Guides Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Safety: At the outset, it is important to note that the majority of avalanche mitigation involves forecasting, ski cutting and avoidance route finding in dealing with hazardous snow. When conditions dictate, as stated in the draft EA, Silverton Guides will conduct explosive blasting following industry standardized helicopter blasting scan and avoid procedures. These are the same protocols utilized to keep State mountain pass highways open, as well as by every Heli skiing operator across the Western US. The standardized procedures used at every Heli skiing operation (that conducts blasting work) include a thorough visual reconnaissance of the slopes in question to assure the absence of individuals (e.g., hikers, backcountry skiers, snowmobiles, wildlife) from the hazard area. Heli blasting SOP used industry-wide has always been scan and avoid. Most Heli skiing permits issued are SRP/SUP’s which typically require non-exclusive use and don’t allow closure of the terrain. Scan and avoid SOP has been used for decades by Heli ski operators without a single incident of explosives triggering an avalanche onto a backcountry user. This longstanding methodology has been developed over decades by the FAA and USFS. Silverton Guides has operated successfully for years without incident, using the same FAA approved standard operating procedures. Heli ski operations located in major population centers outside of Salt Lake City, Utah in the Wasatch (which operates within the greatest concentration of backcountry users in the US) use the same procedures, as do Heli skiing operators in Telluride, Sun Valley, and Jackson Hole. All of these operators have conducted decades of Helicopter avalanche blasting in much more densely populated areas using the same SOP, without incident. Avalanche mitigation is a benefit to all backcountry travelers by reducing the frequency of large, destructive, natural avalanche cycles. This benefit is the byproduct of initiating smaller, less destructive, initiated avalanche events. The control work conducted by Silverton Guides should help San Juan County open their roadways faster in the spring since there will be less large scale avalanche debris to plow. This should make road openings faster, more efficient (using less diesel fuel) and less expensive for San Juan County.
Theme ID: 22.5 Theme Name: Adequate Safety Procedures Description: Silverton Guides uses accepted safety protocols
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 21 of 36 CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA also glosses over how SMG will conduct avalanche control work within the expansion area. It states that currently the majority of stability assessments conducted by Silverton Guides do not use explosives but that helicopter explosive deployment is proposed as part of this expansion (EA page 8). The reader is left unsatisfied, however, in reading the analysis of how this hazard (explosives) will be managed. For example, while the EA states that SMG will notify the BLM of the location of unexploded ordinance and attempt to retrieve unexploded ordinance in the spring, the EA doesn’t delve into a discussion of how many unexploded ordinances the public should expect to encounter. The EA should include an analysis of the percentage of explosives that fail to detonate, the dangers of unexploded ordinance, and measures to alleviate these dangers. In the Wasatch, Recco reflectors are attached to all explosives before deployment in order to facilitate recovery of unexploded ordinance. The BLM should require that SMG follow this example. Likewise, there should be some discussion, and requirements, related to when it is appropriate to use explosives for avalanche mitigation and when other methods should be employed.
Theme ID: 22.6 Theme Name: Additional Safety Analysis Description: Requests additional analysis of avalanche risks
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA is misleading to state that the new terrain is “safer” than the terrain in SMG’s existing pods. Numerous commenters who are very familiar with the terrain the proposed pods, the San Juan snowpack, and avalanche safety dismissed the idea that the terrain in the proposed pods is somehow “safer” than in SMG’s existing pods, yet the EA does not investigate this issue, instead relying on SMG’s claims that the terrain in the new pods is indeed safer than their existing terrain. A NEPA document should not just rely on claims made by the projects proponents. We understand that it is unlikely for the BLM to have in-house avalanche experts. However, there are a number of resources that the agency could have utilized. Many of the individuals who submitted scoping comments are avalanche professionals and across the board these individuals expressed detailed concerns about avalanche safety. The BLM could, and should, have consulted with the Colorado Avalanche Information Center, which has specialists in the San Juan region.
Theme ID: 22.6 Theme Name: Additional Safety Analysis Description: Requests additional analysis of avalanche risks
CID: 87 Last Name: Hirshberg Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I previously held the position of Backcountry Avalanche Forecaster for the Colorado Avalanche Information Center in the San Juan Mountains during the winters of 2013-14 and 2014-15. During this time, I observed cycles of very large and destructive avalanches running near to or even hitting CR 110 while the road was open to the public. CR 110 is road guests drive to access Silverton Mountain. During these avalanche cycles CR 110 remained open while nearby Hwy 550 was closed, sometimes for days, due to avalanche danger. CR 110 closures are ultimately the responsibility of San Juan County. However, Silverton Mountain has an agreement to work with San Juan County regarding avalanche safety and closures of CR 110. During one avalanche cycle in late winter of 2014 a natural avalanche in the Tiger path (part of Silverton Mountain’s mitigated lift-accessed tenure) ran full track at size D3 (large enough to bury a car or destroy a cabin). This avalanche covered CR 110 with avalanche debris while the road was open. The current SJNF/ BLM Snow Ranger also observed this avalanche. Fortunately, no one was injured. The following year explosives triggered the same avalanche path producing another D3 sized avalanche. This avalanche did not hit the road, but it came close and could have similarly hit an open road. At best, Silverton Mountain has not taken sufficient efforts to keep avalanches in their permitted terrain from hitting CR 110 while the road is open to the public. At worst, this commercial operation has a conflict of interest in being tasked with advising closures of public roads which lead to their business. Road closures which would negatively impact the business. This is already a public safety issue. I fear that if the Silverton Mountain Guides terrain is expanded to more accessible parts of CR 110 as well as on CR 2 this problem would worsen. Silverton Mountain Guides would be increasing the risk to the travelers by triggering avalanches with explosives in this area. They have already proven reluctant to close roads due to avalanches, so I would like to know how can they insure the safety of residents and recreationalists as they expand into even more popular terrain?
Theme ID: 22.7 Theme Name: Road/Terrain Closures Description: Safety issues related to avalanche mitigation, potential closures
CID: 59 Last Name: Barney Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: If SMG is permitted the proposed terrain with an explosives permit and is operating responsibly, CR 110 and CR 2 will be closed more often than they currently are. These roads are a huge benefit to our community with year round residents that reside on both roads. Not only do the people of Silverton use these roads to access the mountains surrounding our town, but we also have tourists who visit Silverton (adding to the winter economy) to: Ice climb, ski tour, snow shoe, snowmobile and cross county ski. The Town historically groomed a crosscountry ski track that is located up Cunningham gulch that would have to be closed to the public while SMG is skiing or using explosives in much of this area.
Theme ID: 22.7 Theme Name: Road/Terrain Closures Description: Safety issues related to avalanche mitigation, potential closures
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 22 of 36 CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA describes how the San Juan County “Snow Hazard Avalanche” maps and “Avalanche Atlas” were used to determine whether historical structures would or would not be at risk from activities associated with the SMG expansion. These seem like excellent resources that could have also been used to determine how SMG activities within the proposed expansion area may put other resources at risk – such as open roads, groomed trails, or popular backcountry egress points. For instance, the Illinois/Hancock pod contains a well-known avalanche path that leads directly to County Road 110. It would seem that SMG activities within the pod would elevate the risk of an avalanche running into the road – causing a public safety issue for anybody driving down the road. However, the only “discussion” in the EA about avalanche hazard in relation to the Illinois/Hancock pod is to state that this pod has moderate avalanche hazard.
Theme ID: 22.7 Theme Name: Road/Terrain Closures Description: Safety issues related to avalanche mitigation, potential closures
CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Road closures. There is no discussion of the likelihood of road closures related to the possible expansion of SG’s proposed terrain expansion. There are many questions that should be discussed and answered if possible: Which sections of road might be affected? Will road closures be affected and operated by SG’s staff or by SJC personnel? Might closures be enacted for all avalanche control activities or “only” when there is a high level of possibility of debris reaching the roadway? How will the public be informed of control activities and road closures? Whose equipment will be utilized to remove debris from roadways due to control activities? Who will pay for this need?
Theme ID: 22.7 Theme Name: Road/Terrain Closures Description: Safety issues related to avalanche mitigation, potential closures
CID: 105 Last Name: Brill Organization: Silverton Guides Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Road Closures: Concerning road closures associated with avalanche control, Silverton Guides has been the San Juan County avalanche control contractor for more than 15 years. San Juan County has not requested or conducted avalanche control in the CR 2 corridor since (prior to) 1999 and CR 2 typically remains open all winter long. Silverton Guides isn’t requesting to ski any of the roadway avalanche paths above CR2. There would be no road closures of CR 2 by Silverton Guides. Concerning CR 110, San Juan County has historically not requested avalanche control on the Illinois Gulch slide path because it only has displayed potential to hit the road in very unique circumstances (e.g., last hit the road since a huge storm cycle in 1978). Hancock Gulch is an unremarkable slide path that is not listed on the avalanchemapping.org website and has never hit 110 according to local records. Nobody has a greater economic or personal interest to minimize road closure times than Silverton Guides. CR 110 is the life blood to our business as it’s the only route to access our business located 6 miles from town.
Theme ID: 22.7 Theme Name: Road/Terrain Closures Description: Safety issues related to avalanche mitigation, potential closures
SubResource ID: 5.3 SubResource Description: Dispersed Use Conflicts
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Mixing helicopter-access skiing with these other backcountry, and frontcountry, activities poses a safety risk and reduces the public’s access to public lands. This concern, that SMG is proposing to operate in areas that are frequently used by people on foot or snowmobile rather than expanding into areas where there are not competing uses, is one that was raised by many others during the scoping period yet the EA does not address this issue or discuss other options for where SMG could potentially expand their operations. Indeed, despite the fact that the majority of people who submitted scoping comments raised concerns about user conflict and displacement, the EA only mentions “user conflict” twice and does not mention displacement at all. The EA dismisses extensive public input, stating only that “Heli-skiing in the proposed pods would result in increased opportunity for user conflicts” (page 19). This cursory treatment of a very significant issue not only fails to acknowledge the public’s concerns but does not do justice to analyzing the issue or finding a way to resolve it. Surely there are other places in the San Juan mountains that would make for wonderful heli-skiing but are far enough away from plowed access points that there is very little other use. These are the places the BLM and SMG should be considering yet because the EA fails to adequately address issues related to user conflict and displacement it misses the opportunity to find solutions to these problems.
Theme ID: 23.1 Theme Name: Dispersed Use Conflicts Description: Project would create conflicts with dispersed users
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 23 of 36 CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA lacks the analysis, nor does it offer alternative management scenarios, to the issue that appears to have been of most concern to a high percentage of scoping comments, that is, user conflict and user displacement. Despite the obvious reality that this is a “hot button” issue it is essentially dismissed entirely with the EA. We can assure the GFO, the SE Group and Silverton Guides that this issue will not “disappear” by the absence of a discussion of this topic in the EA or any analysis of this challenging issue. We can find nothing in the EA that attempts to quantify or analyze the possibility of likelihood of user conflict and displacement other than these two statements: • Under the No Action description (page 18) it states that “Minimal user conflicts would continue throughout the SRP.” • Under the Proposed Action description (page 19) it states that “Heli-skiing in the proposed pods would result in increased opportunity for user conflicts.” Once again the scoping comments, though not providing analysis, identify the issues that should be analyzed related to user conflict and analysis. However, this “treasure trove” of information and ideas offered by the public was ignored. While we don’t expect the SE Group or GFO to take the public comments at face value, they certainly offer ideas, concerns and solution from winter users regularly in the area that should have utilized. We found no discussion or review of possible impacts on these user groups, and there are many – backcountry skier, ice climbers, county road “walkers” (sometime just taking their dog for a walk), snowmobilers, snowshoers, snowbikers, cross country ski “tourers”, and perhaps others. What are their numbers? What is the concentration of their use? Are there other locales in the county they could use? These, and many more questions, need to be addressed in this EA. In sum we find it inexcusable that the GFO appears to be poised to move ahead with a SRP modification that would certainly increase user conflicts on out public lands, and astonishingly ignores the issue. The San Juan County area is already rife with challenging user conflict issues and frankly there is no need to exacerbate the situation during the winter months with the approval of a SRP modification that would appears to benefit very few people as compared to those who would be adversely affected.
Theme ID: 23.1 Theme Name: Dispersed Use Conflicts Description: Project would create conflicts with dispersed users
CID: 365 Last Name: Ziercher Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The proposed terrain expansion would put the helicopter in areas that already receive frequent use as they are prime for non helicopter access backcountry skiing. I am also concerned about impacts on the groomed ski trail along the upper animas river corridor above the town of Silverton. I believe any expansion to heli access should be away from roads used in the winters by current back country users and not closer to them.
Theme ID: 23.1 Theme Name: Dispersed Use Conflicts Description: Project would create conflicts with dispersed users
CID: 330 Last Name: Thomas Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Additionally, when wind affects the higher elevation snowpack, BC users also migrate to lower elevation areas to seek better snow, thus resulting in MORE not less user conflicts with BC users and heli-ski operations.
Theme ID: 23.1 Theme Name: Dispersed Use Conflicts Description: Project would create conflicts with dispersed users
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA states that use of the proposed pods would occur primarily during windy conditions, yet fails to explain why this would be the case or why this type of use would somehow reduce user conflict. It simply states that the new terrain is less susceptible to winds, without any empirical evidence to back this claim up. Numerous scoping comments, submitted by skiers with extensive on-the-ground knowledge of the terrain in the proposed pods, testify to the fact that the snowpack is just as wind-affected in the proposed pods as it is in the areas already held by SMG permits. Even if one were to accept the claim that the proposed pods are less wind-affected and that SMG will only utilize these pods on windy days there is nothing in the EA to explain how this helps alleviate user conflict. In our experience, backcountry skiers are rarely held back by wind, and indeed, if it’s calm enough to fly a helicopter then it will certainly be calm enough for human-powered skiers to be out and about. Stating that the proposed pods will be used primarily during windy conditions brings nothing to the discussion and is irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Theme ID: 23.1 Theme Name: Dispersed Use Conflicts Description: Project would create conflicts with dispersed users
Resource ID: 6 Resource Description Noise
SubResource ID: 6.1 SubResource Description: General
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 24 of 36 CID: 343 Last Name: Waterman Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The current terrain sits on the other side of a 4000' mtn from the town of Silverton. This geographic barrier helps to reduce the noise caused by avalanche mitigation through the use of explosives. I read in their application that they do not intend to use any more explosives than they currently do, but they already use far more explosives than any other mountain in Colorado and probably more than anywhere in the lower 48. On days that the mountain is doing avalanche mitigation it sounds like a war zone in Gladstone and that noise is applified by the shape of the mountains. We have all heard what explosives would sound like closer to the town of Silverton? just think about the 4th of July fireworks display and how many echoes report back from a single explosive. This noise was not mentioned at all in the EA and I believe it will be far more intrusive than the 85Db that the helicopter operates at. This level of noise is classified in between annoying and very annoying in the EA and is approaching the noise level that is equivalent to a busy city street. Silverton is located in the heart of the San Juan Mountains with the closest real town over 50 miles away. People live here because they enjoy the silence and solitude that a small secluded mountain town offers and a private company should not be able to operate on public lands that degrade this decreasing commodity enjoyed by all who visit here.
Theme ID: 26.1 Theme Name: Town of Silverton - Negative Description: Noise impacts in Town of Silverton would be negative
CID: 249 Last Name: Schiowitz Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Please provide evidence that helicopter noise will not be significant near the town of Silverton. Have any local studies been conducted to support this conclusion? By allowing abundant helicopter noise near the Town of Silverton, and in the proposed exchange pods the sense of remoteness will be lost and the additional noise will be a nuisance to the public. Who will be responsible for enforcing the proposed No Fly Zone? What punishment will be provided to SG if they violate the No Fly Zone?
Theme ID: 26.1 Theme Name: Town of Silverton - Negative Description: Noise impacts in Town of Silverton would be negative
CID: 222 Last Name: Kuhn Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Environmental Assessment states that “use of explosive charges is rare (11 missions in the 2015-16 season)”. 11 missions in a 12 week season would equate to an average of one per week with each mission dropping several bombs per hour for hours. In addition to these 11 missions, Mr. Brill also heavily bombs the Silverton Mountain Ski Area starting before the ski area opens. This bombing activity is likely not included in the EA as “heli- skiing within the Silverton Mountain Ski Area is under a separate permit” and “unrelated to this analysis or permit.” I hear Mr. Brill's bombs frequently not “rarely” and am concerned that he would bomb these 4 pods close to Silverton frequently as well.
Theme ID: 26.1 Theme Name: Town of Silverton - Negative Description: Noise impacts in Town of Silverton would be negative
CID: 201 Last Name: Glick Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The applicant's published "proposed flight corridors" shows a route above 13,500 feet going from Upper Cement Creek past Dome Mountain (summit 13,370). From a pilots perspective this is ludicrous. Maybe on a nice day, for the views, on oxygen. FAR 135.89 requires the pilot to be on oxygen anytime above 12,000 feet. (as you know (?) heliskiing is governed by Part 135 rules) Also, the applicant has stated that this new terrain is needed especially for weather days with windy or low ceiling conditions when the higher terrain is shut down. What route would the pilot take, who was not on oxygen for each trip from base, and not wanting to get beat up by ridgetop turbulence, or crash into the side of Dome Mountain in poor visibility? The obvious? head down Cement Creek, hang a left around Boulder Mountain (where the elk are wintering) and shoot over to Maggie or wherever. Then back the same way, as many times a day as needed, for safety. There is nothing that says SG's pilot can't fly this way all day every day, only a deceptive green arrow showing our citizens a "preferred" route, and a blurry green "no fly" zone on some map right over the town itself. If approved as proposed there will be a substantial increase of helicopter noise in the town of Silverton and a substantial disturbance to our wintering elk herd. Nothing in the EA addresses this reality.
Theme ID: 26.1 Theme Name: Town of Silverton - Negative Description: Noise impacts in Town of Silverton would be negative
CID: 105 Last Name: Brill Organization: Silverton Guides Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Noise: A no fly buffer has been provided around the town of Silverton and the typical flight corridor to the terrain east of CR 2 is more than 4 miles from Silverton at an elevation of approaching 14,000’. Helicopter sound is typically not audible beyond a mile away.
Theme ID: 26.3 Theme Name: Town of Silverton - Positive Description: No fly zone would prevent noise impacts in Town of Silverton
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 25 of 36 CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Helicopter Noise. Perhaps we overlooked an element of the EA, but we can find no solid information and subsequent analysis of the heli-noise issue. We understand that the proponent has suggested that a “no fly zone” encircle Silverton, but we have no idea if the size and shape of this zone is predicated on any specific findings. Was heli-noise testing undertaken either thorough quantitative measuring or in some other manner? Our understanding of the issue is that though Silverton would be “enveloped” in a no-fly zone there would still be heli-noise in Silverton, though we don’t see this reality noted in the EA. The heli-free travel zone might certainly insure that flights do not specifically traverse above Silverton and its close environs, however, the boundaries of the no-fly zone certainly are not a barrier to heli-noise emanating from outside of the zone. In short, information and analysis of heli-noise is sorely lacking in the EA despite it being an issue noted by dozens of scoping commenters in 2015. The EA is also lacking in a thorough analysis of the number helicopter flights that could occur to service the new territory requested by Silverton Guides. While the maximum user days is noted in the EA, there appears to be information or analysis offered regarding the average number of guests per flight or other related information that could be utilized to estimate the number of flights in total per season and per day.
Theme ID: 26.4 Theme Name: Noise Analysis Description: Questions about methodology of noise analysis
CID: 310 Last Name: Smith Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The Illinois/Hancock pod is very close to Silverton and will result in considerable noise impacts from avalanche control and helicopter operations. The noise impact for the proposed action would be considerable in comparison to current terrain where there is little to no impact beyond the Silverton Mountain base area and the upper reaches of County Road 110. The cumulative noise impacts for the proposed action clearly states that there would be increased noise in the towns of Silverton and Ophir.
Theme ID: 26.5 Theme Name: Illinois/Hancock Description: Questions about noise from operations in Illinois/Hancock pod
CID: 339 Last Name: Wall Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: If they fly a helicopter that is only half full, they could fly multiple times during one day, stressing the environment and creating noise pollution, potentially harm wildlife and creating a very unwelcoming place to visit due to noise, lack of wildlife and leading to less visitation to Silverton
Theme ID: 26.6 Theme Name: Noise - General Description: General comments about noise impacts
Resource ID: 7 Resource Description Social and Economic Resources
SubResource ID: 7.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 2 Last Name: Altman Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Although the positive impacts brought to the local Silverton economy by Silverton Mountain’s clients is unquestionable, I see this expansion as suiting the needs of a few and not meeting the needs of the larger community. I feel this proposed swap unfairly prioritizes the desires of one commercial user(Silverton Guides and Silverton Mountain Ski Area), over those of other commercial and non commercial users in the aria. When we look at the motivations for this swap objectively, I think its clear that SIlverton Guide operations are seeking to expand their permitted area to lower elevations for purely profit seeking motives. By bringing clients to the top of a lift that is already running, and then flying them to adjacent terrain, the savings in jet fuel and other maintenance costs is obvious. Although this is an understandable motive from a business perspective, I also think its reasonable for them to continue to offer their clients access to higher, less accessible terrain for a price their clients can afford.
Theme ID: 31.1 Theme Name: Profit-seeking motives Description: Comments about Silverton Guides wanting to make money at the expense of other users
CID: 272 Last Name: Meadows Organization: Canyon View Motel Representative: True
Substantive Comment: As previously noted, our winter business comes predominantly from skiers and snowboarders who have come to Silverton as a result of the Mountain's marketing efforts. These guests are our life blood in the winter months and it stands to reason that a more comprehensive helicopter skiing product will help attract more people to town. This is important for the Canyon View Motel, as well as the other local businesses that try to operate year-round. Without skiing, snowboarding and Heli Skiing as an attraction, there would be almost no visitors here in our "off season."
Theme ID: 31.2 Theme Name: Importance of Economic Impact Description: Comment supports SG's role in the economy of Silverton and San Juan County
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 26 of 36 CID: 288 Last Name: Nordquist Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I would also like to comment that I believe that the Helicopter Ski Terrain Exchange would have socioeconomic benefits for the Town of Silverton and its residents, local businesses of all types, and San Juan County in general. By providing a safer, more varied, and less challenging helicopter skiing experience, Silverton Mountain Ski Area and Silverton Guides would improve client satisfaction. A large percentage of the people visiting Silverton in the winter are doing so to ski at Silverton Mountain Ski Area and a growing number are coming to enjoy the heli-skiing. By boosting the winter tourism experience, the Town of Silverton could attract more people during a slow time of year to help infuse much needed revenue into the local economy.
Theme ID: 31.2 Theme Name: Importance of Economic Impact Description: Comment supports SG's role in the economy of Silverton and San Juan County
CID: 176 Last Name: Hutcherson Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Finally, this proposed change does not necessarily benefit the town of Silverton's economy. By getting rid of unguided days and focusing on heliaccess, they are reducing the overall number of participants using Silverton Mtn. This change may correlate to more money for the owners, but the reduction of traffic through Silverton could damage the economy.
Theme ID: 31.3 Theme Name: Economic Impact is Exaggerated Description: Comments that doubt the increased economic impact from the proposal
CID: 3 Last Name: Balleweg Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The benefits to community claimed by Silverton Mountain are almost certainly exaggerated and minimal. Existing business owners state that current Silverton Mountain skiers don’t spend much time or money in the community and the economic impact has been much less than what initially promised. There is no evidence to suggest an significant increase in skier visits as a result of expansion, plus affluent skiers who can afford the daily rate are much more likely to use Telluride for accommodations. A detailed economic study which should be required would most likely reveal much more positive economic impact from increased visits from conventional winter recreationalists.
Theme ID: 31.3 Theme Name: Economic Impact is Exaggerated Description: Comments that doubt the increased economic impact from the proposal
CID: 346 Last Name: Welch Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Silverton points to industry data showing growth in the backcountry segment as an indicator of increased interest in helicopter skiing. This argument is fundamentally flawed. Snowsports Industries of America (SIA) measures this segment by sales of humanpowered touring gear such as alpine touring boots and bindings, avalanche rescue gear, and climbing skins. AT boots and bindings and skins are not required nor desired for helicopter skiing, and avalanche rescue gear can be rented from the heli ski provider. Sales in these segments do NOT indicate an increased interest in helicopter skiing, they indicate an increased interest in human powered backcountry skiing. This terrain swap does not drive economic development and growth in the Silverton area. Human powered backcountry skiing is growing, not helicopter skiing. Silverton is not requesting an increase in user days. Therefore the proposed terrain swap is not likely to significantly increase economic activity. This terrain swap makes the Silverton area less desirable as a tourist destination for backcountry skiers, which as a growing user group, has the potential to increase economic activity in the Silverton area (through patronage of lodging, restaurants, bars, local gear shops, and local guide services).
Theme ID: 31.4 Theme Name: User Conflicts Reduce Economic Impact Description: Increased Commercial Use and associated user conflicts may keep other users away from the area, reducing economic impacts
CID: 105 Last Name: Brill Organization: Silverton Guides Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Workforce Housing: We wanted to clarify that Silverton Guides provides several units of workforce housing (the draft EA stated Silverton Guides did not provide workforce housing).
Theme ID: 31.5 Theme Name: Housing Description: Comment to clarify in EA that Silverton Guides does provide workforce housing
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 27 of 36 CID: 367 Last Name: Gonzales Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Page 28 of the EA says, “According to Silverton Guides, the average guided skier stays in Silverton for 2.7 days and spends $508 per visit. The average helicopter-guided skier typically spends $593 per visit, an additional $85. Self-reporting like this is merely anecodotal, and before being relied upon for a decision, should be verified. Simply taken at face value, I submit that this small marginal benefit will not outweigh the increased Search & Rescue and EMS costs. The Sheriff has the statutory responsibility for search and rescue within the county. The Silverton San Juan County Ambulance is a nonprofit organization that hosts spaghetti dinners to raise much-needed funds. The permit would have a direct impact on the safety of its volunteers and the resources available to the organization. Beyond community support of the 1% sales tax increase in 2012 for EMS operations and proceeds from the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Search & Rescue Card, I want to make sure we don’t stretch them too thin should they not be able to comment for socio-political reasons
Theme ID: 31.6 Theme Name: Emergency Services Description: Expanded permit did not take into account potential increase for Search and Rescue and EMS services
Resource ID: 8 Resource Description Land Use/Wilderness/Wilderness Study Area
SubResource ID: 8.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 25 Last Name: Klingel Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: They also need to be buffered from operating so close to designated Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas. Helicopters destroy wilderness for a long distance from their actual position. This is especially true when they are dropping explosives. The buffer needs to be several miles
Theme ID: 36.1 Theme Name: Wilderness character Description: Helicopter traffic and heli-skiing would alter wilderness characteristics of area
CID: 176 Last Name: Hutcherson Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Some of the proposed pods border Wilderness study areas, which are managed in the same manner as a Wilderness area. This means that Silverton Guides could potentially be accessing areas by helicopter that are protected from any motor vehicle use.
Theme ID: 36.1 Theme Name: Wilderness character Description: Helicopter traffic and heli-skiing would alter wilderness characteristics of area
CID: 358 Last Name: Wingers Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I personally will go no where a helicopter is being used. The new area Mr. Brill wants to use is a very quiet, pristine group of gulches and canyons, that are close to Silverton and to the Rio Grande Wilderness. To think that a helicopter 1000 feet from a Wilderness area is not going to disturb the pristine nature of this area is ludicrous. Helicopters can be heard a mile away. I have 40 years experience of filming from a helicopter and know all to well the way they disturb nature.
Theme ID: 36.1 Theme Name: Wilderness character Description: Helicopter traffic and heli-skiing would alter wilderness characteristics of area
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: We appreciate that the BLM has proposed measures to protect Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness areas from the impacts of helicopter use. These areas provide opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation including human-powered winter snowsports. They are high-priority landscapes for our users. Protecting these areas from helicopter user will ensure that noise impacts are minimized and human encounters remain at a low level to preserve naturalness. These protected areas are also important for wildlife habitat and other natural resources. We support the proposed measures to preserve the Wilderness character in these areas if the BLM choses to move forward with the proposed action.
Theme ID: 36.1 Theme Name: Wilderness character Description: Helicopter traffic and heli-skiing would alter wilderness characteristics of area
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 28 of 36 CID: 82 Last Name: Hawse Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Much of this terrain borders the Weminuche Wilderness Area and although I understand that this is permissible and there are no fly zones set on the boundary, I do not trust that this will be upheld. As a helicopter ski guide I know that landing zones are almost always most desirable and safest right on ridge tops. I do not believe that this would be enforced adequately and I do not trust that SG would adhere to these restrictions. I understand they have operated illegally on private and federal lands locally and in Alaska. These are real concerns when expanding their operating area especially when adjacent to Wilderness boundaries. •
Theme ID: 36.2 Theme Name: Enforcement of landing in Wilderness Description: Concerns over enforcement of landing zones within or near Wilderness or WSAs.
CID: 179 Last Name: Hutson Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Negative and conflicting use since some of the proposed exchange areas are located within the Bonita Peaks Mining District, a Superfund District.
Theme ID: 36.3 Theme Name: Mining district Description: concerns that skier pods are within mining districts and/or Superfund site
CID: 74 Last Name: Berry Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: In the EA, the RMZ’s for the new pods are not revealed and need to be. The document says they are within RMZ1 and RMZ2. Any RMZ1’s should not be permitted as they are areas for non-motorized recreational opportunities and experiences.
Theme ID: 36.4 Theme Name: Uses in RMZs Description: This is an inappropriate land use for RMZ 1 areas
SubResource ID: 8.2 SubResource Description: Public v. Commercial Use of Lands
CID: 1 Last Name: Albrecht-Harvey Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: BLM should not prioritize commercial over public use: The BLM has no obligation to prioritize the commercial use of public lands ahead of the interests of recreational users and other businesses who currently and historically have utilized these accessiblebyroad front country areas without the concerns of helicopter noise, avalanche control activities and possible road closures.
Theme ID: 37.1 Theme Name: Public versus commercial use Description: BLM should not prioritize commercial over public use in this area
CID: 70 Last Name: Bidwell Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Based on the assumption that the proposed expansion areas would be partially or fully closed to the public, I offer the following additional comments: The Proposal is unfair to the public. The proponent of the proposal, and indeed the BLM in its scoping materials, frame the Proposal as an "exchange" despite the fact that the proposal would dramatically increase the size of Silverton Guides permit area. The inaccessible portions of the Silverton Guides' permit area being released provide little recreational benefit to the public due to the nature of the terrain and the challenges of accessing it without a helicopter. It is unrealistic and dangerous for backcountry enthusiasts to access all portions of the current permit area without the aid of a helicopter. In addition to the recreational and environmental impact of the proposal, the BLM should consider the impacts to the proposal from an environmental justice perspective. Most of the pubic is unable to afford helicopter skiing, and closing access to vast areas of easily accessible public lands for the benefit of a minority of economically advantaged individuals is unjust.
Theme ID: 37.1 Theme Name: Public versus commercial use Description: BLM should not prioritize commercial over public use in this area
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 29 of 36 CID: 131 Last Name: Collins Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: This really comes down to the fact that public lands should be for public use, and that federal agencies have a mandate to manage public lands for a wide variety of public uses. This is not the private playground for business that offers exclusive trips to very small number of highpaying clients. And specifically to this proposal, we are talking about literally the only open roads in San Juan County during the winter, with multiple areas that the public relies on for winter recreation. I appreciate all uses of public lands, and frequent many ski resorts that are on leased federal land. But I also strongly oppose the appropriation of public lands that leads to a significant reduction of the public's access to our beautiful backcountry.
Theme ID: 37.1 Theme Name: Public versus commercial use Description: BLM should not prioritize commercial over public use in this area
CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: While the BLM/GFO is obligated to consider proposals brought forward by entities desiring to operate a business on public lands, the GFO is not obligated to approve a business operation as proposed. Rather the BLM is obligated to consider all probable and possible aspects of such a proposal as this one promulgated by Silverton Guides, including the overall benefit to the public. The public’s use an enjoyment of their lands should not be substantially diminished by the GFO’s approval of a Special Recreation Permit – indeed, the GFO should assess the balance between the business interest and all other users, commercial or not. We are not aware of who the other handful of Special Recreation Permit holders are in San Juan County, but it is especially important that these businesses with resources and commitments already established, and essentially sanctified by their SRP, not be adversely affected. We note that one SRP holder, Kling Mountain Guides, notes extensive concerns in their scoping comment letter and from our attempt to match their concerns with the EA we fail to find that their concerns were addressed adequately. We wonder if Kling and the other SRP holders were specifically queried regarding their concerns or suggestions as would seem appropriate and necessary.
Theme ID: 37.1 Theme Name: Public versus commercial use Description: BLM should not prioritize commercial over public use in this area
CID: 9 Last Name: Calvin Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: BLM has been in the commercial business allowing access, use and generating revenue since inception.
Theme ID: 37.3 Theme Name: Commercial use is OK Description: Commercial use has occurred on BLM lands for a long time and should be allowed to contine
Resource ID: 9 Resource Description Cultural Resources
SubResource ID: 9.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 136 Last Name: Davenport Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Cultural Resources It seems unlikely that the swap would effect any cultural resources. It has been my experience that the explosives generally only impact the snow surface. When avalanches are created they can be very destructive, but given the scope of the path an outline of destruction could be identified and predicted. It seems Silverton Guides could avoid destroying any historical or cultural resources, such as old mining structures.
Theme ID: 41.1 Theme Name: Historic and Mining Structures Description: Comments about possible impacts to cultural resources: historic and mining structures in particular.
CID: 3 Last Name: Balleweg Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The area also contains some of the best preserved cultural resources from the mining era, which will be threatened by misuse or removal due to easy helicopter access. Mining artifacts have been previously removed from the area by helicopter, and allowing additional helicopter access will almost certainly result in more.
Theme ID: 41.1 Theme Name: Historic and Mining Structures Description: Comments about possible impacts to cultural resources: historic and mining structures in particular.
Resource ID: 10 Resource Description Wildlife
SubResource ID: 10.1 SubResource Description: General
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 30 of 36 CID: 204 Last Name: Gosney Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I am concerned about the wildlife that winters in this proposed area. These areas have high summer demand and winter is a time for the wildlife to rest. Helicopters, bombs, and higher use will affect winter wildlife.
Theme ID: 46.1 Theme Name: Wildlife - impacted by heliski activities Description: Impacts to wildlife due to heliski operations (helicopters, avalanche mitigation)
CID: 74 Last Name: Berry Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The wildlife analysis in this EA is lacking. The EA says Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are not present in the winter. Wrong, they are on windswept ridges in both the newly requested pods as well as their existing terrain. There is no mention of the Mountain Goats that live in this country and Moose in the drainages and in willows between town and Howardsville. Also the lynx is present and depending where the skiing occurs? it may impact the Lynx.
Theme ID: 46.2 Theme Name: Wildlife population health Description: Genetic diversity, biodiversity, movement and migration corridors, and general comments about impacts to wildlife populations.
CID: 143 Last Name: Dever Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: It is difficult to consider all of the ecological impacts from flying a noisy helicopter around in the winter mountains when animals face their most challenging survival conditions. I encourage your thorough effort at this task. I think this is especially important considering all of the motorized traffic through these mountains in the summer. Beyond the resident natives and/or introduced species I remind you to consider migrating populations. Potential species impacted include: canada lynx, ptarmigan, mountain goat all above treeline. Conflict with moose is an increasing concern for moose and human alike. Golden eagles on the cliffs west of the Animas valley could be adversely affected by flight traffic, as well as Sandhill cranes that seasonally migrate over and through these mountains.
Theme ID: 46.2 Theme Name: Wildlife population health Description: Genetic diversity, biodiversity, movement and migration corridors, and general comments about impacts to wildlife populations.
CID: 32 Last Name: McLauglin Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: It is also highly disturbing that an important dispersal area for threatened wildlife with every disconnect, it becomes more difficult for a population to maintain genetic connectivity and flow of important allelic diversity, especially toward the more island-like habitat to the south. This runs dangerously counter to biological and ecological principles, and BLM should not increase any activity deleterious to native wildlife so dependent upon public lands for survival.
Theme ID: 46.2 Theme Name: Wildlife population health Description: Genetic diversity, biodiversity, movement and migration corridors, and general comments about impacts to wildlife populations.
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: During scoping, commenters asked the BLM to consider how the expansion would impact lynx, ptarmigan, wintering elk, and other wildlife. The EA addressed impacts to lynx, wolverine, and ptarmigan. There was no mention of elk in the analysis. The Biological Assessment referred to in the EA has not been released for public review, making it impossible to ascertain wildlife impacts that may result from this project. We requested the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation twice – in an email to Elijah Waters on November 17 and again November 29 – but did not receive an answer to our request. Without the opportunity to review these documents we cannot provide substantive comments on the wildlife analysis. However, we can compare the 2008 EA to the current EA to identify some things that are missing.
Theme ID: 46.3 Theme Name: General wildlife (analysis) concerns Description: General concerns about wildlife and "nature" being impacted by proposal and whether analysis was adequate
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 31 of 36 CID: 238 Last Name: Maddux Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Wildlife issues: If the San Juan Citizen's Alliance claims that there are "thousands" of skier days in the proposed permit lands, then perhaps they disturb the wildlife more than the helicopter touching down momentarily to drop a handful of skiers on occasion.
Theme ID: 46.4 Theme Name: No Impact to Wildlife Description: Wildlife would not be impacted by project
SubResource ID: 10.2 SubResource Description: Threatened and Endangered Species
CID: 32 Last Name: McLauglin Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Unfortunately, should BLM allow this use, the incursion of numerous skiers and skiing days will require the use of explosives to prevent fatalities by snow avalanche. Since skiing/snowboarding alone cause heavily increased avalanching , any permitting of Silverton Guides may have relatively large unforeseen effects on flora and fauna wintering in the forested areas involved. In particular the snowshoe hare/Canada lynx population might be affected by this extra avalanching, and the diminution of higher level snowpack will lower the elevation of the topmost spring runoff, changing and very likely reducing plant composition and thus a cascade of changes may occur. More directly, the severely increased noise and habitat disruption caused by helicopters, explosives, vastly increased avalanching, will surely reduce or eliminate local populations of the two abovenamed species. Additionally, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Agency's long-term biological study of the lynx population dynamics of the Southern Rockies (the only long-term study anywhere, will be disrupted, through these highly artificial jarring changes, rendering a radiation of non-natural effects compromising understanding of these threatened species. This issue is of increased importance due to the unpredictable effects now occurring in climate change. Due to the fact that CPD has spent large amounts of public monies on their comprehensive reintroduction program and monitoring its success, and due to the known fact that lynx have as a result populated areas of northern Mew Mexico, strong consideration of the advantages of denying intrusion of this highly disruptive artificialnoise inducing project, are in order
Theme ID: 47.1 Theme Name: Lynx and lynx habitat concerns Description: Concerns about impacts specifically on lynx and lynx habitat from proposed change in use and heliski operations
CID: 194 Last Name: George Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I would also like to point out that there has not been enough research on the effects of a helicopter, along with increased skier traffic on the wildlife in this area. In 1999, as a senior in high school, I worked for the BLM in their “Youth in Natural Resources” program. One of our tasks that summer was to survey the snowshoe hare populationby way of counting their scatto see if it was feasible to reintroduce Lynx to the San Juan Mountains. There were enough and the BLM reintroduced the Lynx to this area, now a short 17 years later it seems that all that work might be in vain as there has not been any study to see what effects a higher skier population, along with the introduction of a helicopter might have on the Lynx.
Theme ID: 47.1 Theme Name: Lynx and lynx habitat concerns Description: Concerns about impacts specifically on lynx and lynx habitat from proposed change in use and heliski operations
CID: 25 Last Name: Klingel Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I believe the impact to lynx and wolverine from heavy helicopter traffic and bombing will be very significant! It may convert the entire project area into unsuitable habitat for both species. Clearly, some actual study of these impacts to these species is necessary before you can say the impact won't be significant. I do have experience with wolverines and helicopters in Alaska. They react strongly to the presence of helicopters there. Lynx are pretty secretive animals. I suspect they will abandon the area. As proposed, this project will destroy a lot of area for some wildlife and back country skiiers. It needs to be scaled down considerably. I am a retired wildlife biologist.
Theme ID: 47.2 Theme Name: Combined TES concerns Description: Concerns about impacts generally on TES or sensitive species including lynx, wolverine, ptarmigan.
CID: 82 Last Name: Hawse Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Impacts to Lynx, Ptarmigan and Wolverine habitat are considerable and severely reduce their corridors of possible travel. It is clearly stated that Yes these species or habitat is affected by the Proposed Action, including snow compaction, disturbance effects from human presence, helicopter and snow stability testing activities.
Theme ID: 47.2 Theme Name: Combined TES concerns Description: Concerns about impacts generally on TES or sensitive species including lynx, wolverine, ptarmigan.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 32 of 36 CID: 343 Last Name: Waterman Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: It simply isn't even close to a fair exchange especially considering they want to operate closer to the town of Silverton, closer to wilderness boundaries, inside wilderness study areas all of which is prime habitat for the Canadian Lynx. The EA stated that they didn't think it would have much impact on the Lynx because they're nocturnal, but failed to analyze how it would affect their primary food source the snowshoe hair. More human influence created by a helicopter skiing will scare more snowshoe hairs out of their hiding places and cause those them to expend more energy, which they're trying to conserve in the hardest time of year to survive in the winter. This will also leave more snowshoe hair tracks in the snow and create a feeding frenzy for the lynx for the first couple of years, but could leave the cats with no food source in a few short years. Skier compaction will also make traveling over snow easier for lynx and could create additional unintentional problems in the future.
Theme ID: 47.3 Theme Name: Lynx analysis adequacy Description: Concerns about lynx analysis and whether analysis was adequate
CID: 307 Last Name: Buickerood Organization: San Juan Citizens Alliance Representative: True
Substantive Comment: We are specifically concerned about the possible negative consequences of the proposed expansion into 24 square miles of new territory on the threatened Canada lynx. While the impacts may be negligible, we are befuddled as to why there was evidently a different finding per potential harm to the lynx in the 2008 EA as compared to the current finding, or so we understand it to be without having read the Biological Assessment. As this is the identical territory under consideration and we are not aware of a significant increase in the lynx population in this area of the San Juan’s, the public is left to speculate what has changed over the past decade. The EA and its accompanying documents must provide the public with the necessary information and analysis to understand this situation. To our count, the dozens of scoping comments related to wildlife demonstrate a strong interest in insuring the well being of lynx and other wildlife.
Theme ID: 47.3 Theme Name: Lynx analysis adequacy Description: Concerns about lynx analysis and whether analysis was adequate
CID: 207 Last Name: Rubin Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I feel like the comments in the current EA do not adequately address impacts to the lynx population. I did not see any specific data or research stated, but rather a simple statement about expanded helicopter operations probably not being a significant issue for the lynx. How was that conclusion reached? When I asked for more indepth information, the response was simply, “informed professional judgement”. Shouldn’t a heliski expansion need to prove lack of impact based on evidence, rather than assumed no impact?
Theme ID: 47.3 Theme Name: Lynx analysis adequacy Description: Concerns about lynx analysis and whether analysis was adequate
CID: 239 Last Name: Marechal Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA states: “The risk of disturbance to lynx from skier presence is expected to be low because of temporal separation between skier activities (daylight hours) and most lynx activities (primarily nocturnal). In addition, most skier activities will occur in alpine bowls and basins, generally well above the elevation of primary lynx habitat.” a. I have personally observed lynx during the day in alpine bowls and basins on more than four occasions within the past three years. b. The impact of heli-skiing on the lynx mandates further studies by the BLM and Silverton Guides.
Theme ID: 47.3 Theme Name: Lynx analysis adequacy Description: Concerns about lynx analysis and whether analysis was adequate
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The 2008 EA contained maps showing how the permit area and proposed pods overlapped with lynx habitat. The current EA does not. However, by looking at the map on page 19 of the 2008 EA one can see that the Illinois/Hancock pod contains a lot of lynx habitat, as do the lower elevation portions of the Round Mountain, Southeast, and Minnie/Maggie pods. These pods also contain lynx linkage areas. The 2008 EA also explains how much lynx habitat would be impacted by the project, including differentiating between areas of intense disturbance and other areas within the pods. The 2008 EA concludes that that lynx would likely react negatively to helicopter and snow stability testing activities. It is somewhat baffling that the current EA would be so lacking in information when the BLM has the exact information needed at its own fingertips – no doubt quite a bit of the analysis and information from the 2008 EA could have been applied to this current EA and we are unclear as to why it was not.
Theme ID: 47.3 Theme Name: Lynx analysis adequacy Description: Concerns about lynx analysis and whether analysis was adequate
Resource ID: 11 Resource Description Wetland Fens
SubResource ID: 11.1 SubResource Description: General
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 33 of 36 CID: 249 Last Name: Schiowitz Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The EA does not fully consider the impact to wetlands, fens and water of the US by the Proposed Action. The EA used the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory database and the CNHP Wetland Mapper database to ascertain the presence of know wetlands and fens within the project area and requires that landing zones and snow stability testing would not occur within 200 feet of identified fens. Please provide a map of the areas showing wetlands, fens and the buffer zones. How will the BLM enforce this requirement and what are the consequences not adhering to these requirements? -The EA states that Fen peat is susceptible to damage in winter by freezing if the insulating layer of snow is removed or compacted. If SG conducts avalanche mitigation that results in an avalanche removing the snowpack from fen areas or piling large amounts of snow over fens resulting in compaction of the snowpack then there is potential for fen damage. Therefore, the BLM and SG should delineate all historical and potential avalanche paths in the exchange pods and compare them to the intersection with fen areas. SG should be restricted to conducting avalanche mitigation and snow stability testing only in areas that would not cause avalanches from damaging fens and other wetlands.
Theme ID: 51.1 Theme Name: Impacts to wetlands and fens Description: Concerns that impacts to wetlands and fens were not clearly identified, analyzed, or mapped in the EA
Resource ID: 12 Resource Description Other
SubResource ID: 12.1 SubResource Description: General
CID: 269 Last Name: Mach Organization: Colorado Mountain Club Representative: True
Substantive Comment: The BLM should also consider this project in the context of climate change. The EA should examine how climate-change driven changes in the snow season will affect all forms of winter recreation in the Silverton area. For instance, if the areas where consistent snow can be reliably found are changing this may exacerbate any user conflict issues.
Theme ID: 56.1 Theme Name: Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Description: Comments about heliski operation releasing greenhouse gases and contributing to climate change.
CID: 179 Last Name: Hutson Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: Negative impacts to Air Quality on a Class I Area (Weminuche Wilderness). Emissions of VOC and NOx during winter months contribute to the formation of ozone.
Theme ID: 56.1 Theme Name: Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Description: Comments about heliski operation releasing greenhouse gases and contributing to climate change.
CID: 336 Last Name: Turgeon Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: 5. The helicopters could crash. Will there be available resources for emergency response? Will the crashed aircraft be removed and if so is there a financial bond specifically purchased for this expensive removal. The taxpayers cannot be left with the bill for an incident.
Theme ID: 56.2 Theme Name: Waste Concerns Description: Comments about recreation and heliski operations leaving waste or uncovering waste.
CID: 336 Last Name: Turgeon Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: 7. The EA should also address the additional human wastes to be added in these areas by the higher use caused by these helicopter activities. Will facilities need to be added? Who will pay for these facilities?
Theme ID: 56.2 Theme Name: Waste Concerns Description: Comments about recreation and heliski operations leaving waste or uncovering waste.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 34 of 36 CID: 336 Last Name: Turgeon Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: 6. What protocol will BLM establish for complaints against the operator if the permits are issued? Will there be resources for BLM officers to investigate claims? This clearly will need to be added by line item for the budget. A study should be performed to establish additional funding. Inspections of the back country terrain will be needed. this requires additional funding, perhaps more BLM Field officers. What is the true cost here and does BLM plan to have the US Taxpayers foot the bill?
Theme ID: 56.3 Theme Name: Helicopter Technical Matters Description: Comments about helicopter/heliski technical operations, permitting, FAA requirements, fees, insurance, emergency operations, complaints, etc.
CID: 336 Last Name: Turgeon Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: 1. What are the limits of insurance that Silverton Guides plans? This would include liability insurance for negligence. It is likely they will not have enough insurance to cover loss of life or injury to others. 2. Will there be an additional bond above the limits of insurance? $20M USD is a starting point with up to 8 people possibly killed by an avalanche triggered by reckless helicopter skiing. One look at the "assets" of Silverton Resort and it is clear there is little financial capacity to accommodate a grieving family in the event of loss of life.
Theme ID: 56.3 Theme Name: Helicopter Technical Matters Description: Comments about helicopter/heliski technical operations, permitting, FAA requirements, fees, insurance, emergency operations, complaints, etc.
CID: 313 Last Name: Speegle Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: If approved, these new areas will need constant monitoring from the BLM. I also understand that the BLM Snow Ranger that was responsible for monitoring both the Silverton Ski Area and Helsinki operation and permit stipulations no longer works there, and that the Gunnison Office is not going to rehire anyone in that position. I worked very carefully with the Forest Service monitoring the Telluride Helitrax operation on USFS lands, and the BLM Snow Ranger on the BLM lands in Mr. Brill's permit. He needed constant supervision for his Safety Program by the BLM Snow Ranger, and we were always at odds over his taking shortcuts due to financial strains on his business. Since this area has been transferred from the San Juan (Tres Rios) BLM Office to the Gunnison BLM Office, I would not expect you to fully understand the intricacies of either managing the permit for a Ski Area or a Helsinki Operation. But the Safety concerns and regulations are clearly spelled out in both permits, and it would benefit you to be very careful in monitoring these dangerous activities on BLM lands for the benefit of the public.
Theme ID: 56.3 Theme Name: Helicopter Technical Matters Description: Comments about helicopter/heliski technical operations, permitting, FAA requirements, fees, insurance, emergency operations, complaints, etc.
CID: 37 Last Name: Pearson Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: I am writing to offer brief comments regarding the Silverton Guides EA from the perspective of a property owner within the targeted heli-skiing pods. I own patented claims both within existing terrain (Slagle/Tower pod) and proposed new terrain (Minnie/Maggie pod). My concern is that my property not be used for a private, commercial profit operation without my consent. I am also concerned about helicopter trespass on my property without permission, and liability concerns that may be associated with that unauthorized use of private property. I understand BLM’s response is that it only permits use on public lands, but the proposed activity cannot occur without necessarily utilizing private property such as mine that is situated on the ridge tops which are the targeted helicopter landing zones. It is unreasonable for BLM to issue a special recreation permit that must also include helicopter trespass on private property without discussing and evaluating the consequences of that decision. BLM is creating the problem of helicopter trespass on private property through issuance of its heli-skiing permit, trespass that would certainly never occur except for BLM’s action. BLM in effect has made its property adjacent and surrounding my property an attractive nuisance from my perspective. Specifically, I own the Poor Man, Ida No. 2 and Bee patented lode claims that span the ridge at the head of Maggie Gulch, and that include several level locations along the divide that are obvious helicopter landing zones. It is reasonable to anticipate that a helicopter pilot looking to drop off skiing guides and clients at the top of the Maggie Gulch basin will find those level spots on my property the most enticing and suitable landing locations. That’s why my concern about BLM creating the problem of unauthorized helicopter trespass on my property through its issuance of a special recreation permit that only feasibly can be implemented by landing on property such as mine. I request that BLM’s analysis consider this unauthorized trespass as a foreseeable consequence of the proposed action. I also request that any permit include a requirement that the operator obtain consent to land helicopters on private property. I would also like to see publication of the user data, including the lat/long of the landing zones so it is clear to property owners where helicopters are landing and dropping skiers. Finally, I am concerned about the permittee dropping explosive devices for avalanche control on my property, and particularly the possibility that unexploded devices could be left behind on my property as a result of the heli-skiing operations. This again is a consequence to my property that is only likely to occur because of BLM’s action. In the absence of BLM issuing a heli-skiing permit for its lands adjacent to and surrounding my property, no one would be flying around dropping explosives on my property in a remote location like the head of Maggie Gulch. I also own a collection of patented mining claims on the top of Tower Mountain, which was previously identified as a landing zone in the prior permitting decision, and is within one of the existing terrain pods not presently under consideration for expansion or trade. However, the same question about publication of lat/long data of the landing zones would provide clarification about whether or how often my property is being used for helicopter landings without permission.
Theme ID: 56.4 Theme Name: Private Property Concerns Description: Comments about impact of proposal on private property rights and on-the-ground private property issues.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 35 of 36 CID: 121 Last Name: Constantine Organization: Explorer’s Club Southwest Representative: True
Substantive Comment: BLM Gunnison Field Manager Elijah Waters need to completely recuse himself from the decision to expand heliskiing in Silverton. Although I seriously doubt that will happen. That’s why I will request an investigation into the undisclosed preexisting relationship Mr. Waters has regulating Silverton Heli Guides in Alaska. And even more importantly, an investigation into the mysterious shift in jurisdiction of BLM lands surrounding Silverton from the BLM Dolores Field Office to the Gunnison Field Office soon after Mr. Waters was transferred from Glennallen, Alaska to Gunnison, Colorado where the decision to expand heliskiing is now in his hands. Gunnison is not only twice as far from Silverton as Dolores, it is in a different watershed, which is contrary to normal BLM districting standards. San Juan County Commissioners opposed the redistricting and were baffled by the lack of communication with the BLM over it. There appears to be evidence that the BLM State Director is involved as well.
Theme ID: 56.5 Theme Name: Conflict of Interest - Elijah Waters Description: Comments about Elijah Waters having a possible conflict of interest.
CID: 368 Last Name: Mead Organization: Representative: True
Substantive Comment: This petition had the comissioners go from a stance of Pro terrain “swap” to one of taking no sides. I feel that this petition should be considered by you all as well. The number of folks not wanting this terrain “swap” to go through greatly outnumbers the ones for it. This petition was done walking around the town of Silverton over a two week period. No social media was used. Allowing this “swap would not align with your mission of sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the USE and Enjoyment of Present and Future Generations.
Theme ID: 56.6 Theme Name: Petition Comment Description: Comment about the petition that was submitted and why it should be considered.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Page 36 of 36