[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 127 (Monday, July 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34502-34504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16263]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Snowcreek Golf Course Expansion
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, will prepare a
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed expansion of the
Snowcreek Golf Course on National Forest System lands. The proposed
expansion is located adjacent to the Town of Mammoth Lakes, within the
boundary of the Inyo National Forest, Mono County, California. The EIS
will evaluate at least four alternatives, the expansion as proposed,
land exchange between the Forest Service and the proponent, expansion
of the golf course on private lands, and denial of the Special-Use
Application (the No Action alternative). In addition, the agency
[[Page 34503]]
gives notice of the environmental analysis and decision making process
that will occur on the proposal so that interested and affected people
are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final
decision.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by July 31, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the
proposed Snowcreek Golf Course Expansion to Dennis Martin, Forest
Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 873 North Main Street, Bishop,
California 93514, ATTN: Snowcreek.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions about this environmental impact statement to Bob
Hawkins, Winter Sports Specialist, Inyo National Forest, 873 North Main
Street, Bishop, California 93514 or telephone (619) 873-2400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An application for the expansion of the
Snowcreek Golf Course was first submitted by Dempsey Construction
Corporation in 1990. An Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice/
Finding of No Significant Impact approving the proposal were issued by
the Forest Supervisor on February 1, 1991. That decision was appealed
pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR part 217. During the appeals process
it became apparent that the Forest Supervisor did not have the
authority to approve construction of a golf course, as that authority
is reserved by the Chief of the Forest Service. The original decision
was withdrawn by the Forest Supervisor on November 3, 1992. The
application was forwarded to the Chief for review. The Chief denied the
application based on policy on August 24, 1994.
Dempsey Construction Corporation re-applied for the use on December
13, 1994. The new application contained additional information
regarding how the proposed use conformed with Forest Service Policy.
Based on this new information, the application was accepted for review
by the Chief on May 25, 1995. Acceptance of the application
acknowledges that the expansion of the golf course on National Forest
System lands is consistent with agency policy as well as statutory
mission. The Chief also delegated the authority to make a final
decision on the proposal to the Inyo National Forest Supervisor.
The proposal to expand the existing golf course includes adding an
additional 9 holes, as well as the infrastructure needed to support the
activity, such as irrigation systems, decorative water storage ponds,
driving range, parking lot, clubhouse/pro-shop building, and storage/
maintenance facilities. The golf course will be open to the public for
a four month, 120-day season from June 10 to October 10. The expected
use is estimated at 25,000 rounds of golf. Irrigation for this project
will be with a combination of reclaimed wastewater and pumped ground
water from private property. Estimated irrigation water demand is
390,000 gallons per day during the peak growing season. Turf management
will be guided by the objectives of Integrated Plant Management, which
is defined as the use of pest and environmental information and pest
control methods to help prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage. The
tools of pest management include cultural, mechanical, physical,
biological, and chemical methods of pest control.
Public participation will be especially important at several points
during the analysis. The first point is the scoping process (40 CFR
1501.7). The Forest Service has and is seeking information, comments,
assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other
individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by
the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the
draft EIS. The scoping process includes:
1. Identifying potential issues.
2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis.
4. Exploring additional alternatives.
5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects
and connected actions).
6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
Mailings to individuals and agencies that participated in the
previous planning efforts will provide them with information about the
proposed project. Public meetings, if held, will be announced locally.
Federal, State, and local agencies, user groups, and other
organizations who would be interested in the study will be invited to
participate in scoping the issues that should be considered.
The draft EIS is scheduled to be completed by August 1995. The
comment period on this draft environmental impact statement will be 45
days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of
availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that
those interested in the proposal participate at that time.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may
be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d
1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings,
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action
participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to
them in the final environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also
address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives
formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer
to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments will
be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final
environmental impact statement. The final EIS is expected to be
completed by December 1995. The final EIS is expected to be completed
by December 1995. The Forest Service is required to respond in the
final EIS to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible
official will consider the comments, responses, and environmental
consequences discussed in the final EIS and applicable laws,
regulations, and policies in making his decision on the proposal.
The decision will either be approval of the proposal as submitted,
approval of the proposal as modified, or denial of
[[Page 34504]]
the proposal (No Action). If the proposal is approved, a special use
permit would be issued for the construction and operation of a golf
course. The responsible official will document the decision and
rationale in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to
appeal under 36 CFR 215 or regulations applicable at the time of the
decision. Dennis Martin, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 873
N. Main, Bishop, California 93514 is the responsible official for
review of the proposal.
Dated: June 26, 1995.
Dan Totheroh,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-16263 Filed 6-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
