Sugarbush Resort EIS, Ski Area Improvement and Development Analysis, Green Mountain National Forest; Washington County, VT

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Sugarbush Resort EIS, Ski Area Improvement and Development

Analysis, Green Mountain National Forest; Washington County, VT

AGENCY: USDA, Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service will

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose effects of

alternative decisions it may make to allow upgrading and/or development

of recreational facilities within the existing permit boundaries of the

Sugarbush Resort, on the Rochester Ranger District of the Green

Mountain National Forest.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be

received on or before September 19, 1997. The Forest Service predicts

the Draft EIS will be filed during late Winter 1998 and the Final EIS

during late Spring 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Beth LeClair, Rochester District

Ranger, Green Mountain National Forest, RR #2 Box 35, Rochester,

Vermont 05767. James W. Bartelme, Forest Supervisor, Green Mountain

National Forest, is the Responsible Official for this EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Bayer, Project Coordinator,

Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest--(802) 362-

2307.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Special Use Permittee, Sugarbush Resort

Holdings, Inc. (SRHI), is proposing that improvements to the Sugarbush

ski area be made which include upgrading existing facilities and

constructing new facilities. The scope of their proposal includes

eleven categories: (1) Development of tree skiing and snowboarding at

Lincoln Peak; (2) expanded snowmaking on seven existing trails at

Lincoln Peak; (3) the connection of Lincoln Peak and Mount Ellen

snowmaking systems with two air pipelines, (4) upgrade of two chair

lifts and installation of a tow and magic carpet at Lincoln Peak; (5)

installation of night lighting along Easy Rider Trail and the Village

Quad at Lincoln Peak to facilitate night skiing; (6) trail expansions

at Lincoln Peak and Mount Ellen; (7) construction of a seasonal

performing arts center at Lincoln Peak; (8) installation of one view

deck at Mount Ellen; (9) expansion of an existing lodge and

construction of a new lodge at Lincoln Peak; (10) exchanging

approximately 243 acres of privately owned land and/or moneys that in

total equal the appraised value of two parcels of National Forest

System land (a 57-acre parcel adjacent to their existing permit area at

the base of Lincoln Peak which would be used as a site for a new hotel,

and a 32-acre parcel surrounded by private property in Slide Brook);

and (11) increasing the current comfortable carrying capacity

stipulated in SRHI's special use permit from 8,650 skiers to 10,550

skiers.

The aforementioned categories constitute all actions proposed on

National Forest System lands and falling within the existing permit

area boundary. Most of the elements of this proposal are part of the

1996 Sugarbush Resort Master Plan Update. Because this plan also

includes ``reasonably forseeable'' development activities that could

further impact resources in the project area, this EIS will also

address the cumulative impacts of the full implementation of the plan.

The applicant's proposal also would involve development on adjacent

private lands which have land use jurisdictions outside of Forest

Service control, and therefore are not subject to NEPA analysis.

The site-specific environmental analysis provided by the EIS will

assist the Responsible Official in determinining which improvements are

needed to meet the following objectives: improve the quality and

efficiency of the services and facilities offered at the resort; allow

SRHI to provide a more complete, higher quality year-round recreational

experience; and sustain the resource uses and amenity values which

local communities depend on and enjoy.

Public participation will be incorporated into preparation of the

EIS under the provisions of NEPA. The Forest Service invites comments

and suggestions on the scope of the analysis to be included in the

draft EIS. A substantial amount of scoping has been completed under an

earlier Environmental Assessment. Information gained from that scoping

effort was used to determine that an EIS was needed. Major issues

identified include: (1) Analyzing all portions of proposed developments

at Sugarbush Resort at one time, (2) including the hotel and land

exchange in the analysis, (3) justifying the need for night lighting,

(4) analyzing impacts to wildlife habitat, (5) increasing traffic

associated with the expansion, (6) increasing air and noise pollution,

and (7) analyzing impacts of night lighting to the view of the night

sky. The Forest Service will be seeking additional scoping information,

comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, as

well as other individuals or groups who may be interested or affected

by the proposed action. This information will be used in preparing the

EIS. Public meetings will be held to assist in the public involvement

process. The exact locations and dates of these meetings will be

published in the local newspapers at least two weeks in advance.

Preliminary alternatives include the applicant's proposal

(described above) and No Action, which in this case is continuing

current administration of the ski area. Additional alternatives will be

developed based on scoping comments. The Responsible Official will be

presented with a range of feasible and practical alternatives.

Permits and licenses required to implement the proposed action

will, or may, include the following: Section 404 permit from the Army

Corps of Engineers; consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act;

compliance with the Act 250 process for the State of Vermont; as well

as cooperation from other Local, State, or Federal agencies.

The Forest Service will seek comments on the Draft EIS for a period

of at least 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. Comments

will be summarized and responded to in the Final EIS.

The Forest Service believes it is important, at this early stage,

to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public

participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of

a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

[[Page 41925]]

meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,

553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the

draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the

final EIS 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 they can meaningfully consider them and

respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues

and concerns on the proposed action and alternatives, 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 EIS. 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. Please note

that comments on the Draft EIS will be regarded as public information.

Dated: July 29, 1997.

James W. Bartelme,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97-20437 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M