Forest Service Revises Directives on Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act

Paragraph 12--Sponsorships

Comment: Several respondents suggested that the policy on sponsorship in FSM 2343.03, paragraph 12, should be broadened to reflect more accurately accepted standards in the ski industry. Other respondents asserted that sponsorship is a right of the landowner, namely the United States, and that the landowner alone should benefit from sponsorship.

Response: The proposed directives did not include any revisions to the policy on sponsorship. The comments regarding this policy are beyond the scope of the proposed directives. Therefore, the Agency is not making changes in response to these comments.

FSM 2343.11, Paragraph 3--Visitor Connection to the Natural Environment

Comment: A few respondents affirmed that ski areas are a good way to introduce people who might be intimidated by the backcountry to the natural environment.

Response: The Forest Service agrees that ski areas offer some unique forms of visitor access to the natural environment.

Comment: Several respondents wanted to connect visitors to the natural environment outside a commercial context. They were concerned that increasing the size, scope, and intensity of commercial uses at ski areas would decrease the choices for experiencing natural settings and recommended that the proposed directive prohibit facilities that detract from the natural environment.

Response: SAROEA expressly provides for authorization of additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas that meet certain criteria. Among other things, these activities and associated facilities must be natural resource-based; encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature; be situated in the developed portions of the ski area; and, to the extent practicable, harmonize with the natural environment of the NFS lands on which they are located. The final directives incorporate these criteria. SAROEA does not prohibit additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that detract from the natural environment.

Comment: Some respondents believed that only human-powered winter recreation achieves the goal of connecting visitors to the natural environment.

Response: While it is true that human-powered winter recreation meets the goal of connecting people with the natural environment, SAROEA allows the Forest Service to authorize non-snow sport recreation activities at ski areas, subject to certain conditions, and does not limit these non-snow sport activities to human-powered recreation. To clarify that additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas may be non-mechanized, the Agency has revised FSM 2343.11, paragraph 3, to state that these activities may range from passive to active.

Paragraphs 4 and 5--Fees Charged by Ski Area Permit Holders

Proposed paragraph 4 would allow fees for the use of improvements and services in which ski area permit holders have invested. Proposed paragraph 5 would allow fees for facilities and services offered at ski areas, such as lifts, plowed parking lots, groomed slopes and trails, and manmade snow. In commenting on these proposed paragraphs, many respondents stated that charging fees for services at ski areas is reasonable. One respondent noted that ski areas incur expenses in grooming trails and snowmaking and that a moderate fee is appropriate for users who benefit from those services.

Some respondents commented that paragraph 5 would allow ski areas to impose an entry fee. One respondent stated that income taxes pay for the management of federal lands and that no further fees should be allowed. One respondent stated that ski areas should not be allowed to charge for parking, and that charging for parking would be tantamount to charging an entrance fee. One respondent observed that public money pays for access roads to ski areas and snow removal on those roads and that ski areas should allow use of their parking lots by the non-paying public for recreational purposes.

Response: Paragraph 4 recognizes that ski areas may charge a fee if they provide services, such as grooming and snowmaking, or improvements in areas where access is provided. Proposed paragraph 5 would not allow ski areas to impose an entry fee. Rather, like proposed paragraph 5, paragraph 5 in the final directives precludes entrance fees at ski areas. This paragraph clarifies that holders of ski area permits are authorized to charge for services and facilities they provide, rather than for general access. This direction is not intended to encourage or discourage fees. Rather, the direction simply clarifies when fees may be charged at ski areas.

Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6--Access by the Non-Paying Public

Comment: Several respondents observed that traditional snow-based recreation on NFS lands predates the establishment of ski areas and has been displaced by ski runs. These respondents stated that it is increasingly difficult to find opportunities to climb up and ski down at ski areas because they often control the only reasonable access to desirable terrain, which requires those who want to ski without using lifts to travel to increasingly remote areas. These respondents advocated allowing access to ski areas by the non-paying public to continue.

Several respondents agreed with providing guidance on recreational use at ski areas by the non-paying public to address management of the increasing number of skiers or snowshoers who climb uphill before lifts start running or while they are running. Many respondents believed that ski areas should not be able to limit the non-paying public from accessing NFS lands at ski areas and should be discouraged or prohibited from charging fees to those not using their facilities. These respondents believed that the directive should more strongly discourage ski areas from charging for uphill access by those who do not use lifts and that ski areas should not be able to preclude non-paying users from accessing NFS lands for appropriate recreation activities.

Other respondents requested free public access when ski areas are open as well as closed. These respondents observed that ski areas should not be allowed to charge when they are not incurring additional operating costs and that ski areas should be required, rather than encouraged, to provide for uphill access at ski areas, even during hours of operation. These respondents noted that there is no additional danger to uphill skiers outside of regular operating hours; that grooming machines are slow and noisy and easy to avoid; and that snowmobiles are sometimes used at ski areas while they are in operation, even though they are more dangerous than grooming machines. Some respondents stated that ski areas should not have control over the timing and location of use by the non-paying public in summer or winter. These respondents believed that the authorized officer should have discretion to make determinations regarding the safety of access by the non-paying public. One respondent suggested that restrictions on access by the non-paying public be subject to public notice and comment.

One respondent observed that parties on both sides of the access issue are sometimes unreasonable and that in some instances ski areas have tried to prohibit uphill access when there is no safety issue, while uphill skiers have unreasonably asserted that they can do as they like. This respondent noted that there should be compromise and mutual recognition of the need to balance free uphill access provided by ski areas with holder responsibility to follow safety procedures. The respondent added that access for human-powered recreation should not be denied when there is no real safety issue and improvements are not being used. One respondent observed that the authority of law enforcement officers to prevent people from hurting themselves is sufficient to address public safety concerns associated with use of ski areas by the non-paying public. Several respondents believed that uphill routes could be designated and modest uphill trail fees could be charged, just as cross-country trails are designated and cross-country trail fees are charged.

Several respondents observed that uphill access is not a right and is limited by safety, operational, and resource needs unique to each ski area. These respondents noted that a ski area's ability to manage the compatibility of uphill traffic with downhill use is important factor in meeting customer expectations and in the cost of liability insurance, and that ski areas need the ability to control use within ski area boundaries to maximize safety for the public and resort employees and to protect resources and investments. These respondents stated that there is a need to protect the health and safety of all users and ski area employees; that the goal of providing access should be subordinate to safety; and that restrictions on access by the non-paying public may need to be imposed for safety reasons. These respondents believed that access by the non-paying public cannot always be provided because of safety concerns and that access should be allowed only when it does not conflict with public safety and does not seriously disrupt ski area operations.

These respondents stated that that downhill skiing and uphill access are not compatible and that ski areas should be able to establish some limitations on when and where uphill skiing and snowshoeing can occur at ski areas to promote safety. Specifically, these respondents stated that ski areas need to be able to limit uphill access to hours when a resort is not operational and to preclude uphill access when it impedes snow management activities such as avalanche control and grooming; when the ski area is preparing for a special event; when uphill access cannot otherwise be safely accommodated, such as during construction or adverse weather conditions; and when uphill access would cause resource damage or would pose an unacceptable risk to downhill skiers. Some respondents commented that the proposed directives should generally require that all ski area users obtain a lift ticket, even if it is complimentary, during hours of operation so that all users are made aware of the skier responsibility code and sign an acknowledgment of risk and waiver of liability.

Two respondents recommended that signs be posted at ski areas regarding access by the non-paying public. One respondent stated that these signs should be easily accessible and updated regularly to increase awareness of the availability of access by the non-paying public. Other respondents recommended requiring that ski areas' policy on access by the non-paying public be posted on their Web site, rather than on site.

Response: The Agency recognizes that access opportunities for traditional use in and around ski areas, including use of public trails and mountain passes, skiing, and mountaineering, may have been displaced by ski areas. Paragraph 4 of the final directives provides that holders may not charge for the use of NFS lands in which they have made limited or no investments or for use of nonmotorized or motorized trails that are constructed and maintained by the Forest Service. Paragraph 5 of the final directives precludes entrance fees at ski areas and states that authorized officers should strive to ensure that, to the extent possible based on public safety considerations, some portions of the permit area remain open to the public without charge, so that the holder's charges do not constitute de facto entrance fees. Consistent with Forest Service regulations and the terms and conditions of the standard ski area permit, paragraph 6 of the final directives provides that ski areas must remain open to the non-paying public for all lawful uses that are not inconsistent with the holder's rights and privileges and public safety, and that in most cases it would not be appropriate for restrictions to preclude all public use during the ski season other than by those purchasing a lift ticket or paying for other services. These paragraphs encourage authorized officers to maintain access opportunities for the non-paying public.

The Agency agrees that access by the non-paying public must be balanced with safety. Therefore, paragraphs 5 and 6 have been revised in the final directives to add public safety as a consideration in direction on access by the non-paying public at ski areas.

The Agency does not believe that the final directives should require uphill users to obtain a lift ticket. Paragraph 6 of the final directives provides that authorized restrictions on use by the non-paying public must be documented in the operating plan. The mechanics of how uphill access is managed, including whether or not a pass is required so that users are aware of the skier responsibility code and sign an acknowledgment of risk and waiver, should be addressed in the operating plan. The Agency believes that it is appropriate to state that uphill access information must be posted at locations where it would be accessible to the public, but that it is not appropriate to prescribe how that information is posted. Each ski area and its visitors are unique. The authorized officer and ski area permit holders are best suited to determine how and where to make this information available. Ski area permit holders are encouraged to work with their visitors to determine the most effective way to communicate this information.

FSM 2343.14

Comment: Many respondents stated that this section includes excerpts from existing management frameworks, e.g., the Scenery Management System (SMS), Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) that do not need to be repeated.

Response: The inclusion of components of these management frameworks as initial screening criteria for proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas does not replace or diminish application of these frameworks during project planning. As stated in FSM 2343.14, paragraph 9, inclusion of these components in initial screening of these proposals assists with the determination of whether they would harmonize with the surrounding natural environment, as required by SAROEA.

Comment: One respondent stated that this section establishes a different standard for evaluating proposals for summer uses at ski areas.

Response: SAROEA establishes requirements for additional seasonal and year-around use, not snow sports.

Comment: Some respondents suggested that the Forest Service better articulate the reasons for the new policy providing for authorization of additional development at ski areas. These respondents stated that ski resorts should not be allowed to develop facilities for summer activities simply for the financial benefit; that amusement parks and other amenities have no place in mountainous areas and will ruin the mountain experience; that zip lines, roller coasters, and downhill bike parks are incompatible with these natural areas, which should be kept wild and pristine and should not be developed; and that the Agency should encourage quiet, nature-based activities at ski areas.

Response: SAROEA expressly provides for the Forest Service to authorize development at ski areas, subject to certain conditions, to accommodate additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and requires the Forest Service to promulgate regulations to implement that authority. These conditions do not include financial benefit. Rather, these additional activities and associated facilities must, for example, be natural resource-based, encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature, and, to the extent practicable, harmonize with the natural environment of the NFS lands on which they are located. Zip lines and mountain bike terrain park and trails are listed in SAROEA as activities and associated facilities that may be authorized at ski areas, subject to certain conditions. Amusement parks are prohibited at ski areas under SAROEA. The Agency has revised FSM 2343.11, paragraph 3, to state that additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas may include a range of passive to active recreation activities. Site-specific review of proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation at ski areas will be conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws and regulations to determine whether the proposed uses are appropriate at the proposed location. During that public process, the Agency will consider public and other agency input and trade-offs related to the proposed development.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 1--Additional Screening Criteria

Comment: Some respondents believed that the level of development for facilities associated with additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas should not have to be consistent with the level of development for snow sports.

Response: SAROEA requires that additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas be located in the developed portions of the ski area and not change the primary recreational purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports. Evaluation of specific proposals may result in a determination that a substantially lower level of development is required.

Comment: Several respondents believed that requiring summer facilities to be visually subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities, vegetation, and landscape holds summer facilities to a higher standard than winter facilities.

Response: Consistent with SAROEA, the final directives require that facilities for additional seasonal and year-round recreation at ski areas harmonize, to the extent practicable, with the natural environment of the site where they would be located. To assist authorized officers in applying this requirement, the final directives include two relevant factors to consider: (1) Being visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities, vegetation, and landscape; and (2) not requiring significant modifications to topography to facilitate construction or operations. The first factor does not require the proposed facilities to be visually subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities. Rather, the proposed facilities meet the harmonizing criterion if they are visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities. Moreover, Agency directives and guidelines such as SMS, BEIG, and ROS are also applied to proposals involving snow sports facilities.

Comment: Several respondents were concerned that the proposed definition of "amusement park ride" and "amusement park," which was defined as "two or more amusement park rides in close proximity," would be construed to prevent any additional development adjacent to a chairlift, which would conflict with the requirement in SAROEA that additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas be located, to the extent practicable, in the developed portions of the ski area.

Response: The Forest Service does not consider chairlifts to be amusement park rides. Furthermore, chairlifts support snow sports and would therefore not be subject to any of the prohibitions in SAROEA on authorizing specific types of additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas. In addition, the Agency has removed the definition of "amusement park ride" from the final directive and revised the definition for "amusement park" to characterize what is not appropriate on NFS lands, i.e., developed recreation areas consisting primarily of facilities or activities that are not natural resource-based; do not encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature; do not harmonize with the natural environment; and contain rides and other amusements that are not typically found in a natural resource-based environment, such as water slides and water parks, Ferris wheels, bumper cars, and miniature golf courses.

Comment: Numerous respondents commented that the criteria in paragraphs 1a through 1e seem to supplement those in SAROEA and that the Forest Service should use the criteria in SAROEA.

Response: Paragraphs 1a through 1e require that (a) additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas not change the primary purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports; (b) encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature and provide natural resource-based recreation opportunities; (c) to the extent practicable, be located within the portions of the ski area that are developed or that will be developed pursuant to the master development plan (MDP); (d) not exceed the level of development for snow sports and be consistent with the zoning established in the MDP; and (e) to the extent practicable, harmonize with the natural environment of the site where they would be located by (1) being visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities, vegetation, and landscape; and (2) not requiring significant modifications to topography to facilitate construction or operations. Most of these criteria are stated in SAROEA. The remaining criteria, locating the facilities within portions of the ski area will be developed pursuant to the MDP; being consistent with the zoning established in the applicable MDP; and the factors for applying the harmonizing requirement, are consistent with the criteria in SAROEA and assist with their application.

Comment: Several respondents suggested requiring that facilities for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas have a limited impact on viewsheds and watersheds. These respondents stated that these facilities must be visually subordinate to the natural setting and that new mountain bike trails are creating scars that take a very long time to diminish.

Response: The Agency believes that the existing criterion in paragraph 1(e) provides for consideration of potential impacts on viewsheds and watersheds. In particular, paragraph 1e provides that, to the extent practicable, facilities for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas must harmonize with the natural environment of the site where they would be located by (1) being visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities, vegetation, and landscape; and (2) not requiring significant modifications to topography to facilitate construction or operations. SAROEA requires that these facilities harmonize, to the extent practicable, with the natural environment of the NFS lands where they would be located. Therefore, the Agency believes it is appropriate to require that these facilities be either visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area's existing facilities, vegetation, and landscape. Potential resource concerns associated with proposed facilities can be addressed during environmental analysis.

Comment: Several respondents suggested that rather than base zone designations on existing natural settings, the Agency should rely on concepts in existing systems such as BEIG, ROS, and SMS and provisions of the MDP.

Response: The Agency believes that the MDP, existing natural setting, and level of development to support snow sports are all relevant to zoning designations for development of facilities to support additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas. Paragraph 1c provides that these facilities be located, to the extent practicable, within the portions of the ski area that are developed or that will be developed pursuant to the MDP. Paragraph 1d provides that these activities and associated facilities must be consistent with the zoning in the MDP. Paragraph 8 requires use of MDPs to guide the placement and design of these facilities and requires as a first step in this process the establishment of zones to guide placement and design of the facilities based on the existing natural setting and level of development to support snow sports.

Comment: One respondent requested that the Forest Service clarify that non-snow sport infrastructure is appropriate if it is consistent with the MDP.

Response: Consistency with the MDP in terms of location and level of development per paragraphs 1c and 1d is only one screening criterion for proposals for non-snow sport facilities. Forest Service regulations and directives, consistent with SAROEA, apply several other screening criteria to these proposals. In addition to meeting all the requirements in FSM 2343.14, including consistency with the MDP, proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable authorities.

Comment: Some respondents commented that ski areas should not be required to revise or develop an MDP simply to add a zip line. Small ski areas may not have and may not need an MDP.

Response: An MDP is required by the ski area permit. The Forest Service recognizes that there is a significant range in the complexity of ski areas and that not all ski areas have an MDP. For ski areas that do not have an MDP, the Agency expects the holder to prepare a site plan for proposed additional seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that illustrates how the proposed project would fit within the context of existing resources and facilities. The process need not be burdensome and can be concurrent with screening of the proposal. Upon implementation, the holder should provide an as-built site plan.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 2--List of Activities and Associated Facilities That May Be Authorized

Comment: Some respondents stated that mountain biking and disc golf should be included because they are beneficial to public health and well-being. Some respondents suggested renaming Frisbee golf as disc golf. Several respondents suggested adding activities and associated facilities to the list, including Segway rentals and tours; geocaching, and climbing walls. Others suggested removing the activities listed, since mountain settings are not essential to conduct them and since some, like Frisbee golf and zip lines, are more suited to playgrounds and city parks than ski areas and do not contribute to the enjoyment of nature. One respondent noted that wet trails should be closed to mountain bikers to prevent resource damage.

Response: The activities and associated facilities listed in paragraph 2 are specifically listed in SAROEA as activities that may be authorized at ski areas, subject to certain conditions. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to expand the list in SAROEA of additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may be authorized at ski areas, subject to certain conditions. Instead, the Agency has included the criteria in SAROEA for evaluating proposals for these activities and facilities, along with criteria that are consistent with the criteria in the statute and that assist with their application. The activities and associated facilities listed in paragraph 2 and other additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that are not listed in paragraph 3 will be evaluated case by case based on applicable regulations and directives, including FSM 2343.14. This approach provides more flexibility to address changes in activities, associated facilities, and public preferences. If a proposal is accepted, the potential for resource damage can be addressed by appropriate mitigation during environmental analysis. FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 3--List of Activities and Associated Facilities That May Not Be Authorized

Comment: Some respondents suggested that all the activities in this paragraph seem appropriate at ski areas.

Response: The activities and associated facilities listed in paragraph 3 are expressly prohibited at ski areas by SAROEA.

Comment: One respondent requested that off-road vehicle use be added to the list of activities and associated facilities that may not be authorized at ski areas.

Response: The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to expand the list in SAROEA of additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may not be authorized at ski areas. Instead, the Agency has included the criteria in SAROEA for evaluating proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and facilities, along with criteria that are consistent with the criteria in the statute and that assist with their application. Activities and associated facilities that are not listed in paragraph 3 will be evaluated case by case based on applicable regulations and directives, including FSM 2343.14. This approach provides more flexibility to address changes in activities, associated facilities, and public preferences.

Comment: Several respondents requested that a definition of "amusement park" be added to paragraph 3.

Response: The definition for "amusement park" is appropriately contained in FSM 2340.5.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 4--Factors

Comment: Several respondents stated that the proposed directive should specifically address whether mountain coasters are allowed in paragraph 4 and noted that mountain coasters emulate natural terrain, thereby allowing gravity to provide the thrill.

Response: The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to expand the list in SAROEA of additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may be authorized at ski areas, subject to certain conditions. Instead, the Agency has included the criteria in SAROEA for evaluating proposals for these activities and facilities, along with criteria that are consistent with the criteria in the statute and that assist with their application. Additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that are not listed in paragraph 3, including mountain coasters, will be evaluated case by case based on applicable regulations and directives, including FSM 2343.14. This approach provides more flexibility to address changes in activities, associated facilities, and public preferences.

Comment: Some respondents objected to including excessive use of synthetic materials as a factor in determining whether to grant proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas.

Response: The Agency agrees that the use of synthetic materials may be consistent with the requirements of the desired visual character and that synthetic materials can be used in such a way as to harmonize with the natural environment. Many synthetic materials are more sustainable and safer than natural materials. The Agency has therefore removed the reference to excessive use of synthetic materials in paragraph 4 of the final directives.

Comment: Some respondents suggested that proposals for activities and associated facilities that are not listed in paragraph 2 or 3 should be evaluated based on their similarity to the activities and associated facilities in those paragraphs.

Response: The Agency agrees and has retained that factor in paragraph 4.

Comment: Some respondents suggested including noise and light as screening criteria for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas; that the effects of noise and light should be limited to daylight hours; that lights should always be faced down to reduce impact; and that wildlife and non-ski area users should have the opportunity to experience dark and quiet in the national forests.

Response: The Forest Service does not believe that noise and light should be added in paragraph 4 as factors for evaluating proposals because they are primarily related to environmental consequences. Whether a proposed activity and associated facility will have these effects, their relative level of impact, and whether mitigation is necessary or appropriate are best determined during site-specific environmental analysis after a proposal is accepted.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 5--Nonessential Activities

Comment: Some respondents believed that the requirement in paragraph 5 that the natural forest setting be essential to the visitor experience should be changed to the requirement that the natural forest setting significantly enhance the visitor experience.

Response: The requirement in paragraph 5 tracks the requirement in SAROEA that additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas be natural resource-based. Therefore, the requirement in paragraph 5 must track the definition for NRBR in the directives. Many activities that are enhanced by the natural environment do not constitute NRBR. However, the Agency agrees that it could be difficult to determine whether attributes of the national forest setting are essential to the visitor's experience. To qualify as NRBR, the visitor's experience should be interdependent with attributes of national forest settings. The Agency has revised paragraph 5 in the final directives accordingly.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 6--Temporary Activities

Comment: Several respondents suggested that the Agency consider allowing temporary activities that rely on temporary facilities. Other respondents stated that concerts and weddings are inappropriate at ski areas.

Response: The Agency believes that it is appropriate to authorize some temporary activities at ski areas, such as weddings and concerts, that may not be natural resource-based if they utilize existing facilities. However, paragraph 6 provides that new facilities will not be authorized solely to support these types of activities. The Agency agrees that these activities may reasonably involve temporary facilities, such as stages, event tents, shelters, and fencing, if they conform to other requirements in FSM 2343.14. The intent of paragraph 6 is not to preclude these temporary facilities, but to preclude permanent facilities solely for these types of activities. Temporary facilities supporting these types of activities should not be set up for a season and should be removed promptly following the event to avoid resulting in de facto permanent facilities.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 7--Existing Facilities

Comment: Some respondents believed that the language in this paragraph, which encourages holders to utilize existing facilities for seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas, is no longer appropriate and should be removed from the directives because of SAROEA. Other respondents noted that new lifts and roads should not be authorized solely for the benefit of summer use.

Response: The Agency does not believe that paragraph 7, which encourages efficient use of existing facilities for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas, should be removed. The use of existing facilities minimizes costs and resource impacts and should be encouraged. SAROEA does not establish any limitations on the use of existing facilities for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 8--MDPs

Comment: Some respondents commented that MDPs are conceptual in nature and provide a basis for project proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas. These respondents noted that the location of these facilities and the timelines for construction should be general in nature.

Response: The Agency agrees that MDPs are conceptual. As proposals progress through evaluation, more specificity is typically required. Paragraph 8a requires establishment of zones to guide placement and design of additional seasonal or year-round recreation facilities based on the existing natural setting and level of development to support snow sports. Paragraph 8b requires depiction of the general location of proposed facilities as part of the MDP process. Paragraph 8c requires establishment of an estimated timeframe for construction as part of the MDP process.

Comment: Several respondents requested that state wildlife managers be involved in implementation of SAROEA and that wildlife values be a factor in MDPs.

Response: The Forest Service has authority under SAROEA to authorize additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas. Consistent with SAROEA and other applicable law, the Forest Service has provided an opportunity for public input, including input from state wildlife managers, in development of directives implementing SAROEA.

MDPs are conceptual documents that illustrate potential development based on known information and assumptions about future demand and visitor preferences and needs. MDPs are not decision documents that approve development. Potential impacts on wildlife and other resources and any appropriate mitigation are identified and evaluated during project-level environmental analysis. FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 9--SMS, ROS, and BEIG

Comment: The proposed policy should rely on all appropriate direction and not just excerpts from SMS, ROS, and BEIG.

Response: All three management frameworks remain valid guidance for planning, design, and analysis of project proposals and will be followed as appropriate. The citations in paragraph 9 reference each framework in its entirety.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 10--Additional Terms and Conditions

Comment: Respondents requested that this paragraph be modified to provide that the authorized officer may include terms and conditions in permits authorizing additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities at ski areas subject only to the extent they are consistent with SAROEA.

Response: SAROEA expressly provides that the Forest Service may authorize additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas subject to any terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Forest Service. Therefore, it is not appropriate to qualify the authority in paragraph 10 to impose terms and conditions in permits authorizing these activities and associated facilities. Decisions to authorize activities and associated facilities under SAROEA must be consistent with other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, as well as site-specific constraints unique to each project.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 11--Permit Area Expansions

Comment: One respondent believed that a ski area could obtain approval for an expansion based on snow sports and develop the expanded area for summer use, such as off-road vehicle use. This respondent stated that this practice could lead to mass land expansions for summer uses that undercut the requirement that snow sports remain the primary purpose of ski areas.

Response: While it is possible that a snow sports expansion might lead to additional development for summer use, SAROEA requires that summer activities and associated facilities be located, to the extent practicable, in the developed portion of the ski area. SAROEA requires that authorization of summer uses not change the primary purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports. SAROEA also precludes consideration of the acreage needed for summer activities and associated activities in determining the ski area permit boundary. Paragraph 11 of the final directives provides that permit expansions have to be based on needs related to snow sports rather than additional seasonal or year-round recreation. Approved uses must be implemented in accordance with their authorizing decision and supporting environmental analysis.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 12--Existing Non-Conforming Facilities

No comments were received on paragraph 12.

FSM 2343.14, Paragraph 13--Approval Notwithstanding Other Provisions

To conform with SAROEA, the Agency is adding a citation to FSM 2703.2, paragraph 2b, to the notwithstanding language in this paragraph. Like the other provisions cited in the notwithstanding language, FSM 2703.2, paragraph 2b, provides, in pertinent part, that a proposed use may be authorized only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on non-NFS lands. Adding the citation to FSM 2703.2, paragraph 2b, to the notwithstanding language in paragraph 13 will exempt proposals for additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities at ski areas from FSM 2703.2, paragraph 2b. Applying this paragraph to those activities and associated facilities could conflict with SAROEA.

FSM 2711.32--Ski Area Term Permit

No comments were received on this section.

Dated: April 15, 2014.

Robert Bonnie,

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.

[FR Doc. 2014-08893 Filed 4-15-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 3411-15-P

[*Federal RegisterRK 2014-04-17]

For more information about Targeted News Service products and services, please contact: Myron Struck, editor, Targeted News Service LLC, Springfield, Va., 703/304-1897; [email protected]; http://targetednews.com.

TNS 24KuanRap-140417kn-1158571