[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41924-41925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20437]


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

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