Coconino National Forest Supervisor Nora Rasure selected Alternative 2, which calls for a broad set of upgrades and improvements to the ski area. The major aspect of the selected alternative is the addition of snowmaking to the resort. When the infrastructure is completed, the resort will be able to make artificial snow using reclaimed wastewater on just over 200 acres of skiing terrain. The decision also allows for improvements in the ski area's lift capacity, the addition of 74 acres of new ski runs, the construction of a managed snowplay area and improvements to the guest services (lodges) at Snowbowl. Additional improvements and upgrades to the ski area are described in the FEIS.
Expand Table of Contents with links to Documents
Hide
RECORD OF DECISION
Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements FEIS and Forest Plan Amendment #21 - USDA Forest Service - Peaks Ranger District, Coconino National Forest Coconino County, Arizona
Volume One:
- Cover Pages (4 pages 533 kb .pdf)
- Snowbowl Executive Summary (9 pages 536 kb .pdf)
- Table of Contents (12 pages 646 kb .pdf)
- Chapter One (25 pages 716 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Two (63 pages 1203 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 1 (46 pages, Contents and pages 3-1 through 3-45 - 1024 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 2 (46 pages, pages 3-46 through 3-91 - 843 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 3 (46 pages, pages 3-92 through 3-137 - 945 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 4 (46 pages, pages 3-138 through 3-183 - 1716 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 5 (46 pages, pages 3-184 through 3-229 - 1399 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 6 (46 pages, pages 3-230 through 3-275 - 1736 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 7 (46 pages, pages 3-276 through 3-321 - 842 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Three, Section 8 (50 pages , pages 3-322 through 3-372 - 529 kb .pdf)
- Chapters Four and Five, Section 1 (20 pages, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, pages 4-1 and 4-2, AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES OF THE FEIS, pages 5-1 through 5-16 - 1531 kb .pdf)
- Chapter Five, Section 2 (29 pages, pages 5-17 through 5-45 - 2068 kb .pdf)
- Chapters Six, Seven and Eight (47 pages, REFERENCES, pages 6-1 through 6-24, GLOSSARY of TERMS, 7-1 through 7-16, INDEX, pages 8-1 through 8-4 - 1040 kb .pdf)
- Appendices (18 pages, pages A-1 through A-6, B-1 through B-3, C-1 through C-7, D-1 - 1180 kb .pdf)
- Memorandum of Agreement, Section 1 (6 pages, MOA 1 through MOA 6 - 500 kb .pdf)
- Memorandum of Agreement, Section 2 (6 pages, MOA 6 through MOA 12 - 143 kb .pdf)
Volume Two:
Final EIS For The Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements Proposal, Volume 2, Response To Comments On The Draft EIS
- Section 1a (134 pages, Cover, Cover Sheet, Table of Contents, pages 1 through 131 - 1413 kb .pdf)
- Section 1b (134 pages, pages 132 through 265 - 1091 kb .pdf)
- Section 2a - Response to Comments (20 pages, pages A-1 through A-19 - 1359 kb .pdf)
- Section 2b - Response to Comments (20 pages, A-20 through A-39 - 1173 kb .pdf)
- Section 2c - Response to Comments(20 pages, A-40 through A-59 - 1163 kb .pdf)
- Section 2d - Response to Comments (20 pages, A-60 through A-79 - 1161 kb .pdf)
- Section 2e - Response to Comments and Comment Letters Received (20 pages, A-80 through A-90, B-1 through B-9 - 1167 kb .pdf)
- Section 2f - Comment Letters Received (20 pages, B-10 through B-29 - 1287 kb .pdf)
- Section 2g - Comment Letters Received (17 pages, B-30 through B-46 - 1149 kb .pdf)
- Section 2h - Comment Letters Received (21 pages, B-47 through B-67 - 1260 kb .pdf)
Three .zip files of the above
- Record of Decision
- Volume 1
- Volume 2
Hide
Comments Show Forest Service Failed to Meet its Legal and Moral Obligations
On Monday, April 12, 2004, scientists, Native Americans, conservationists, skiers and community members submitted 108 pages of comments to the Coconino National Forest opposing the proposed action to expand development and implement snowmaking at Arizona Snowbowl. The comments submitted by the Sierra Club, Save the Peaks Coalition, Southwest Forest Alliance, Dineh Bidziil Coalition, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Flagstaff Activist Network, Center for Biological Diversity and others show that the Forest Service failed to meet its legal and moral obligations for “hard look” analysis and outreach and consultation to thirteen tribes and that the DEIS contains significant omissions, errors and bias.
Comments were developed through consultation with experts in hydrology, economics, geology, environmental justice, chemistry, water quality, forest health, environmental law, Native American culture and spiritual tradition, biology and environmental science. The comments contain a comprehensive critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvement and provide the basis for the Forest Service to choose Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.