[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44635-44636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22388]


      
========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 44635]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Mount Snow Ski Area Snowmaking Water Source Alterations, Green 
Mountain National Forest, Windham County, VT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for Mount Snow's proposal to upgrade its existing 
snowmaking system to insure more reliable and consistent snow surfaces 
throughout the ski season regardless of weather conditions. Existing 
snowmaking water withdrawals, storage facilities and on-mountain 
pipelines will be modified, a new water source(s) and storage 
facility(ies) will be designed into the system. An indirect benefit 
from this proposal will be to retrofit the existing system and design 
the new facilities so as to reduce adverse impacts on fisheries, water 
quality and aquatic biota which currently exist. Based upon preliminary 
information from a snowmaking needs and alternatives study, conducted 
pursuant to Vermont Water Quality Regulations, Somerset Reservoir, 
Harriman Reservoir and the Howe Farm have been identified in addition 
to eight other possible sites as potentially viable candidates for new 
water sources and/or storage facilities. Presently, the Mount Snow 
snowmaking system utilizes three artificial ponds for water storage: 
Snow Lake, fed by the North Branch of the Deerfield River, and 
Carinthia Pond, fed by an unnamed tributary to the North Branch of the 
Deerfield River, are both in-stream impoundments. Mirror Lake at 
Haystack Ski Area, fed by Cold Brook, is an off-stream impoundment. All 
water sources are approved and operate under Vermont Act 250 permits or 
State of Vermont Water Quality Regulations, but are not consistent with 
current guidelines for winter conservation flows. The goal of the 
proposed action is to design an approach for withdrawing water from a 
new source, and/or to create new storage capacity, thereby allowing the 
current withdrawals to be brought up to present flow guidelines, and 
enabling Mount Snow to take Snow Lake and Carinthia Pond off-stream. 
This would have significant beneficial impacts to fisheries, water 
quality, and aquatic biota on the North Branch of the Deerfield River. 
The combined water available from the new source and the existing 
modified sources must enable Mount Snow to increase snowmaking 
production from the current coverage of 83% to 100% of the existing ski 
trail network.
    Mount Snow has been operating under a Special Use Permit from the 
USDA Forest Service since it opened for business in 1956. Presently, 
alpine skiing/snowboarding and other four season resort activities are 
provided to the public through a permit issued by the United States 
Forest Service and administered through the Green Mountain National 
Forest. The current forty term permit was issued on December 29, 1989. 
In 1995, Mount Snow, Ltd. acquired the nearby Haystack Ski Area and 
constructed a pipeline connecting the two snowmaking systems.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by October 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope 
of the analysis to Beth LeClair, District Ranger, Green Mountain 
National Forest, RR #2, Box 35, Rochester, Vermont 05767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions regarding the proposed action and environmental impact 
statement to Nancy Burt, Project Coordinator, Green Mountain National 
Forest, 231 N. Main Street, Rutland, Vermont 05701, phone: 802-747-
6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need

    Mount Snow/Haystack ski area has a combined ski trail network of 
635 skiable acres of which 527 acres (83% of total) are currently 
served by snowmaking. As currently configured, the combined snowmaking 
system at Mount Snow/Haystack ski area has a storage capacity of 
approximately 22 million gallons and utilizes a total seasonal water 
volume of about 300 million gallons. This existing system is not 
adequate to provide snowmaking coverage on the 527 acres of ski trails 
currently serviced. The snowmaking system cannot meet target dates for 
initial trail opening, does not provide sufficient depth of snow 
coverage and cannot recover rapidly following thaw and melt-off events. 
Natural snowfall is inconsistent and often inadequate during a typical 
Vermont winter. Predictable snow coverage is needed if Mount Snow is to 
consistently provide quality winter sports recreation opportunities, be 
attractive to skiers/snowboarders and remain competitive with other 
major ski areas in New England.
    Additionally, with significantly improved and upgraded snowmaking 
capacities at competing resorts in recent years, Mount Snow has been 
unable to compete effectively during periods of insufficient natural 
snowfall. Upgrading capacities would promote repeat visitation and 
continue the long-term viability of the ski area and Deerfield Valley 
businesses. Unless Mount Snow remains viable, the economic health of 
the region could be adversely affected. The financial success of the 
resort has a substantial bearing on the continued ability of USDA 
Forest Service and Mount Snow to provide quality winter sports 
recreation to the public as called for in the Forest Plan and Mount 
Snow's Special Use Permit.
    Development of a new water withdrawal system would be designed to 
result in current withdrawals being brought up to present flow 
guidelines. This would enable Mount Snow to take Snow Lake and 
Carinthia Pond off-stream, thereby having significant beneficial 
impacts to fisheries, water quality, and aquatic biota on the North 
branch of the Deerfield River.

The Proposed Action

    The proposed action is (1) to identify and develop new water 
sources and/or storage options and pump water for snowmaking through a 
buried pipeline to the Mount Snow system, (2) to upgrade existing water 
withdrawal and storage facilities to bring them into compliance with 
current state and

[[Page 44636]]

federal regulatory guidelines, and (3) to install air and water 
pipelines on existing ski terrain to increase snowmaking coverage from 
527 to 635 acres. No new ski terrain is proposed.

Management Direction

    The proposed action is consistent with the long-range goals for 
this area as defined in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the 
Green Mountain National Forest. That Forest Plan was approved on 
January 15, 1987. Under that Forest Plan, the area encompassed by the 
Mount Snow Ski Area is assigned to management under prescription 7.1A. 
This management prescription emphasizes highly developed recreation, 
including downhill ski areas. The purpose of prescription 7.1A is to 
provide opportunities for recreation requiring highly developed 
structures and facilities, maintain a visually appealing landscape, and 
manage for other resource uses in a compatible way. The Forest Service 
does not anticipate the need for any amendments to the Land and 
Resource Management Plan as a result of this snowmaking proposal since 
all new snowmaking will be located within the boundary of the existing 
SUP or on private land.
    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives to meet 
the objectives of this proposal. One of these will be the ``no action'' 
alternative, in which none of the proposed activities would be 
implemented. Additional alternatives will examine varying levels and 
locations for the proposed activities to achieve the proposal's 
purposes, as well as to respond to the issues and other resource 
values. Proposed alternatives have been determined by the proponent 
based on a preliminary Snowmaking Water Supply Needs and Alternatives 
Analysis, which is currently being finalized, in which twelve water 
sources have been studied. Various screening factors were analyzed 
including water availability, on-site development costs, pond volume, 
and environmental impacts.
    The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
environmental effects of the alternatives. Past, present, and projected 
activities on both private and National Forest lands will be 
considered. The EIS will disclose the analysis of site-specific 
mitigation measures and their effectiveness.
    Public participation is an important part of the analysis, 
commencing with the initial scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which will 
occur upon publication of this notification. In addition, the public is 
encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during 
the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be 
seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and 
local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be 
interested in or affected by the proposed action. The proposed project 
will be presented at an Open House in the local area, where 
representatives from the Green Mountain National Forest will be 
available to discuss the proposed project and provide additional 
information.
    Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in 
preparation of the Draft EIS. Please note that comments will be 
regarded as public information. The scoping process will be used to:
    1. Identify potential issues.
    2. Identify major issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminate minor issues or those which have been covered by a 
relevant previous environmental analysis, such as the Green Mountain 
Forest Plan EIS.
    4. Identify alternatives to the proposed action.
    5. Identify potential environmental effects of the proposed action 
and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects).
    6. Determine potential cooperating agencies and task assignments.
    Preliminary issues identified to date include:
    <bullet> Is the project consistent with the Deerfield River 
Settlement?
    <bullet> Potential effects of increased snow deposition on stream 
runoff.
    <bullet> Potential effects on aquatic habitat.
    <bullet> Potential effects on Mount Snow's ability to compete in 
the marketplace.
    Other issues commonly associated with ski area development include: 
effects on cultural resources, water quality, soils, sensitive species, 
and scenery values. This list may be verified, expanded, or modified 
based on public scoping for this proposal.
    The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in March, 1998. 
At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the 
Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft EIS 
will be 45 days from the date the EPA's notice of availability appears 
in the Federal Register. It is very important that those interested in 
management of the Mount Snow Ski Area participate at that time. To be 
most helpful, comments on the Draft EIS should be as site-specific as 
possible. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by June 1998.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft environmental impact statements must structure their 
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is 
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 US 519.553 
(1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the 
draft environmental impact stage but that are not raised until after 
completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 scoping comment period so that substantive 
comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a 
time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in 
developing issues and alternatives.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. 
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.

    Dated: August 14, 1997.
James W. Bartelme,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-22388 Filed 8-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M