Wasatch National Forest Supervisor Susan Gianettino has approved an expansion of Brighton Ski Resort - but she says she has no jurisdiction over Brighton's expansion plans that go beyond national forest land.
The proposal approved by Gianettino is a modification of Alternative C in the environmental studies, an option that was supported by environmental groups. As far as other expansion proposals are concerned, the decision throws the ball into the courts of Salt Lake and Wasatch counties."The Great Western Lift and associated trails and terrain are approved," she wrote. "No ski trails from the Great Western Lift shall be allowed into Hidden Canyon. The access road to the top of this lift shall be located within the Great Western terrain rather than in Hidden Canyon."
Hidden Canyon is land in Salt Lake County not owned by the Forest Service. Snake Creek, another area targeted for expansion, is in Wasatch County outside Gianettino's jurisdiction.
"If Salt Lake County approves the Hidden Canyon development, I will amend this record of decision to include the Hidden Canyon facilities and terrain" as far as the forest land is concerned, she added.
"The First Time Lift and associated trails and runs are approved as proposed.
"The Great Western and First Time lower lift terminals and the new skier services/mass transit building shall be carefully designed, engineered and located to maintain separation between their two lifts and the associated terrain."
Also approved were seven acres of ski trails to be reached from the Majestic Lift and 3.5 acres of trails to be reached by the existing Snake Creek Lift.
"Brighton's request to expand their Forest Service permit area boundary to include the Twin Lakes terrain is denied," she wrote.
Gianettino told the Deseret News that the alternative chosen "provides for expansion, additional construction of lifts and development of some base facilities, generally within the existing permit boundary. They'll be a slight change" on the boundary.
According to the supervisor, the critical point is that the plan approved keeps the number of skiers at Brighton slightly below the level authorized by the Forest Service plan for the area. She believes the alternative chosen shows Wasatch National Forest's interest in enhancing the quality and the effective of the use of Forest Service land.
"We've given the indication of where we are coming from, but we don't have authority to preclude development of facilities on that other land," she said.
Other plans include relocating Brighton Lodge, with a maximum of 60 rooms allowed. The resort's permit area would be expanded by about 3.7 acres to allow the change. The lodge's present location may be used for parking spaces "to make up for parking lost due to the new skier services/mass transit building," she wrote.
Ann Wechsler, canyon issues specialist for the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Friday she was waiting for the Forest Service to send her a copy of the decision, but that Alternative C is the recommendation made by the environmentally oriented Save Our Canyons.
However, Wechsler said she is worried that Brighton's owners may push for continued growth, possibly beyond that allowed by the Wasatch Canyons Master Plan.
"The spirit and intent of the Wasatch Canyons Master Plan was to provide jurisdiction over growth on private land in the canyons," she said. "And if we don't exercise that right, then we'll never see a limit to growth in those canyons."
Still, she added, she can't complain about Alternative C "because Brighton did need some improvements."
According to the record of decision, Brighton must prepare a highway transportation plan before the 1992 construction season.