That was the question going through people’s minds after listening to a discussion entitled “Master Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act” at a two-day February conference in Denver, co-sponsored by Colorado Ski Country USA and the Forest Service. The discussion, led by Dave Ketchum, Forest Service director of environmental coordination, and Joe Prendergast, president of the American Ski Federation, was an eye opener.
The new regulations would revise the timing of NEPA analysis by segmenting the Forest Service approval process for “major resort developments” into two steps: an initial five-year planning permit, which would authorize the permittee to prepare a master development plan, and would be categorically excluded from NEPA documentation; and a subsequent term permit, which would be based on the master development plan, and would be the subject of an environmental assessment (“EA”) or an environmental impact statement (“EIS”). A similar process would be followed for ski area expansions.
Viewed most favorably, the revised timing of NEPA analysis under the new regulations could help avoid situations where a resort is the subject of a major EA or EIS, or both, when the special use permit is issued, and again when the master development plan is approved. Viewed more critically—as they were by some of the audience—the new regulations are unclear about when the Forest Service would make a public interest determination, or analyze skier demand.
The most intriguing part of the discussion was Ketchum’s suggestion that the Forest Service would review the adequacy of a ski area’s NEPA documentation every three to five years and require supplemental NEPA analysis where necessary to keep the NEPA document current—such as where environmental standards change, new data becomes available, or new concerns are raised. Ketchum also suggested that such a review would precede the reauthorization or reissuance of a Forest Service permit.
Some of the conference participants voiced particular concerns over this idea. One participant noted that continuous review of the adequacy of environmental documentation would provide a “second bite at the apple,” allowing a Master Development Plan approval to be effectively reversed. Others inquired about how the Forest Service would handle updating a ski area’s NEPA analysis where the area, as approved, may cause adverse impacts to newly protected sensitive species, and whether and when the public would be invited to participate in this process.
Ketchum viewed the updating and adequacy review as an informal process, but one already required by NEPA. At least some resort planners and operators departed the Colorado conference wary that such reviews could become a pretext for reversing or modifying prior approvals, and for exacting compliance with a moving target at an unknown price.
