[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:
Is the project consistent with the Deerfield River
Settlement?
Potential effects of increased snow deposition on stream
runoff.
Potential effects on aquatic habitat.
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