APPENDIX A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS: SNOW KING MOUNTAIN RESORT ON-MOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Prepared by USDA Forest, Bridger-Teton National Forest With the assistance of Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC

August 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 2 Processing of Comments ...... 2 Results ...... 3 Process ...... 3 Physical and Biological Environment ...... 57 Human Environment ...... 84 Out of Scope Comments ...... 100 Comments Expressing Opinions about the Proposed Action...... 102 Appendix 1 ...... 150

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

INTRODUCTION The Jackson Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addressing the Snow King Mountain Resort On-mountain Improvements Project, in accordance with agency’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures (36 CFR 220). On January 31, 2020, we published a legal notice of an opportunity to comment on the DEIS in the Casper Star-Tribune. The notice was also emailed to subscribers on the BTNF mailing list and posted on the BTNF website. It included instructions on submitting comments. Hard copies of the notice were made available by the Forest Service to those requesting a copy. A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was also published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2020, initiating a 45-day comment period, as stipulated in the agency’s notice and comment regulations (36 CFR 215). On March 13, 2020, an amended notice was published in the Federal Register extending the comment period another 2 weeks, to March 31, 2020. This comment period also met pertinent public involvement requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.6[a][4]). Comments were received from 9 agencies, 33 organizations, and 388 individuals. This report lists the comments received, provides BTNF responses to substantive comments, and identifies commenters, in accordance with agency regulations at 36 CFR 215.6. Appendix 1 identifies each comment email or letter, noting the ID code assigned to it, the affiliation of the commenter (i.e., agency, organization, or individual), and the name of the commenter, and the topic or topics raised. In the body of the report, each comment is identified by the ID code followed by a hyphen then the number of the specific comment within that letter (e.g., 136-12). PROCESSING OF COMMENTS In accordance with the following Forest Service NEPA procedures, the agency must review, analyze, evaluate, and respond to substantive comments on the DEIS (FSH 1909.15 [ 25.1]): (a) An agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below, stating its response in the final statement. Possible responses are to: (1) Modify alternatives including the proposed action. (2) Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency. (3) Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. (4) Make factual corrections. (5) Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons which support the agency's position and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances which would trigger agency reappraisal or further response. Substantive comments and responses to them are provided below. They are copied from comment letters, unedited. Note that two or more comments may be addressed by a single response. In cases where multiple comments are similar in substance, representative comments are provided as examples, and reference codes to the other similar comments are listed following the comment or the heading introducing it.

Many of the comments received address multiple components of the analysis. For example, a single comment may address the soil and water quality components. Such comments are repeated in each resource category they addressed.

2

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

RESULTS

PROCESS Comments under this heading address the steps in the EIS process and components of the EIS. Some request further information or clarification. Others express opinions about how the process has been implemented or its outcomes to date.

Pre-NEPA Several comments reflected dissatisfaction with how the DEIS reflects public discussion of Snow King development prior to initiation of this NEPA process: During the "stakeholder meetings", SKMR LLC conceded/removed multiple proposals such as the "zig-zag network of ziplines", as well as all frontside ski trails proposed for outside of the road's switchbacks(trails 1, 2, and 14 according to Alt 4). The BTNF was welcome to attend these meetings, but did not acknowledge these important public comments made by the applicant (yes, even SKMR LLC's public comment was not properly addressed). Now this process must backtrack and correct these mistakes, or else all of the time and resources spent on the community engagement process will have gone to waste. How did the BTNF manage to overlook these key results of the stakeholder process? How were they not aware that Jackson residents screamed NO ZIPLINES loud and clear, with Town Council meetings providing additional guidance? How were the numerous letters from TOJ ignored? (271-5) … upon my review of the Forest Services DEIS I was a bit stunned that the DEIS did not reflect the enormous input of the Citizens of Teton County. Further it appears to be structured in a way that does not reflect my understanding of the Forest Service protocol for this important issue… The Stakeholders produced 4 clear scenarios reflecting a comprehensive view of Snow King. This was presented to the Forest Service in an ideal format to incorporate in the DEIS. Sadly, this valuable, in-depth information seems absent from the current DEIs… (238-1) Furthermore, the DEIS has entirely ignored the public and agency input on what worthy alternatives could have been. (361-3) Massive public comment gathered over months is also completely ignored in these alternatives, which is a slap in the face of public process. (404-3) I was appalled to see that the DEIS largely discounts and /or ignores many of the detailed and thoughtful concerns expressed by many in the community during the scoping and that there was not a reasonable range alternatives for the community and stakeholders to review and consider as required by NEPA. (417-1) Response: Several points must be noted in responding to these comments. First, NEPA and our regulations for implementing it clearly establish the opportunities we provide for public input. These are scoping, comment on the DEIS, and pre-decisional objection. However, we value public involvement in development of a proposal before it is submitted to us, and the four scenarios developed by the stakeholder group will be considered in alternative formulation (see Final Environmental Iimpact Statement [FEIS] section 2.7.14). All but four elements of these scenarios were reflected in the alternatives we analyzed in depth. The four exceptions, which we determined did not meet purpose and need or were not feasible, included: a zip line adjacent to Rafferty (FEIS section 2.7.6); prohibiting skiing between switchbacks in the access road/skiway (section 2.7.2.4); no development of beginner terrain on the summit (section 2.7.7); and allowing only human-powered activities on the back side (section 2.7.4).

3

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Second, the cited stakeholder effort was in initiated by the town, specifically to try to coordinate base area planning with on-mountain planning. The BTNF was not formally involved, and the purpose was not to develop alternatives to be included in the EIS. Third, when the stakeholder effort was initiated, the town conducted a visioning exercise, polling attendees at a public meeting on opinions regarding Snow King’s proposal. The majority of respondents favored most elements of the proposal, including the boundary adjustments and summit access road/novice skiway, back- side development, summit development, and zip line. Results of this exercise are in the project record. Fourth, while Snow King’s June 5, 2018, proposal did not match any of the four scenarios generated by the stakeholder group, it did include revisions to their 2017 master plan based on that input. For example the eastern and western boundary adjustments were reduced in size, and the yurt camp was added back into the proposal. Once the EIS process was initiated, we solicited public input through scoping and comment on the DEIS and considered all input as appropriate. See also responses below under Cooperating Agencies and Extension of the Comment Period.

Scoping The DEIS did not fully address or outright disregarded many scoping comments, and this action seems to violate the spirit of “Emphasizing interagency cooperation before the environmental impact statement is prepared, rather than submission of adversary comments on a completed document” (40 CFR 1500.5) (345-15) Response: The scoping report cited in section 1.7 and included in the project record notes how every scoping comment received was considered and addressed in this NEPA process. Section 2.2 identifies cooperating agencies. Chapter 3 sections note interaction with several agencies (e.g., Wyoming Department of Game and Fish in section 3.6), and section 4 summarizes consultation and coordination efforts to date. Collectively, these efforts are consistent with the spirit and the letter of the cited regulation.

Purpose and Need Comments under this heading specifically addressed the DEIS’s purpose and need statement or questioned the need for the proposed action. Comments regarding the need for specific elements of the proposed action are included under Proposed Action – Specific Elements of the Proposed Action. A number of comments said that the purpose and need statement reflected Snow King’s perspective rather than the perspectives of the Forest Service or the public (18-1, 30-1, 45-2, 53-1, 54-2, 65-5, 71-1, 100-2, 103-2, 104-2, 107-3, 109-7, 128-4, 131-2, 173-2, 176-1, 176-3, 177- 6, 187-2, 193-2, 200-1, 222-3, 244-1, 283-3, 296-1, 357-4, 358-3, 361-1, 364-1, 372-5, 380-27, 386-1, 391-2, 397-2, 402-1, 411-2, 412-2, 421-3, L1-33). Examples: The purpose and need of a project are meant to frame the agency’s purpose for proposing the action and explain what the agency expects to achieve, rather than listing what the special use permittee desires… Fundamentally, these skewed “purposes and needs,” which in reality are a permitee’s project list, do not meet agency goals and prematurely narrow the range of alternatives. (345-1) CEQ directs that agencies draft a “Purpose and Need” statement to describe what they are trying to achieve by proposing an action… the P&N statement is supposed to describe needs from the national forest viewpoint, not a laundry list of desires of the permittee. (13- 3) This is nothing more than an attempt at making Snow King a destination resort that can be sold at a later date, period. (98-2)

4

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The purpose and need for this proposed action appears to be driven by the desire of Snow King to increase its business and user recreation, not to meet the directives of the Forest Service mission… (235-1) I suspect the only reason for boundary expansion is to increase asset value. (335-3) I disagree with their proposal. I believe that we can find a better way forward. I support a community-centered approach to development. (421-1) Response: These comments do not take into consideration the first two and a half paragraphs of the purpose and need statement (section 1.4 of the DEIS) which discuss purpose and need from the perspective of Forest Service policy and planning then summarize how the proposed action implements specific terms of the BTNF Forest Plan. This perspective is essential to understanding the evolution of the proposed action and relationship between the Forest Service and its special-use permittees, such as Snow King. Special use permits for ski areas and other recreational activities are issued to allow the Forest Service to meet our mandate to provide a range of diverse, high-quality recreational opportunities that meet the demands of the American public. Special-use permittees have the interest, expertise, and resources necessary to help us fulfill that mandate. Given this relationship, the close correlation between Snow King’s proposal and our statement of purpose and need is a positive; it indicates that the process of integrating our higher-level recreational direction and planning with specific, on-the-ground action by a special-use permittee is working. Our relationship with Snow King is well established; the Forest Service issued the ski area’s first special use permit in 1939. The relationship is also reflected in our Forest Plan; as noted in DEIS section 1.6, the permit area and the land around it are classified as Desired Future Condition 9B, Special Use Recreation Areas. In short, the purpose and need statement in DEIS section 1.4 serves its intended purpose and complies with pertinent direction provided by NEPA as well as Council on Environmental Quality and Forest Service regulations on its implementation. Comments on specific points in the purpose and need statement are addressed below. One comment questioned the purpose to “Maintain and improve the winter-sports infrastructure on National Forest System lands at Snow King: As we explained in our proposed alternatives during scoping, there are many on-mountain improvements that can be made to the existing ski runs, resort infrastructure, and terrain that would improve and maintain the winter sport infrastructure on Snow King without expanding into wildlife habitat. Many elements of the proposed actions contradict this purpose by degrading existing winter infrastructure. For example, the proposed road/“novice skiway” cuts across the best ski terrain when other (unstudied) alternatives could avoid this harm. Moreover, several project elements (and particularly facilities) are not primarily related to winter sports and instead seem to almost exclusively serve a summer resort. (345-3) Response: DEIS section 2.4.1 spells out the need for lower-ability-level terrain and the reasons why the summit is the only feasible place to develop it. Sections 2.7.2 and 2.7.7, respectively, explain why alternative road/skiway alignments and beginner terrain locations were considered but not carried into in- depth analysis. Section 2.4.1 also explains why facilities and infrastructure including the summit gondola, summit access road/novice skiway and summit building are necessary to make effective use of this key ski terrain. Impacts of the proposed access road/skiway on existing ski runs and skier safety are addressed in sections 3.10 and 3.11, respectively. Based on these considerations, the proposed action effectively addresses this need.

5

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Some comments questioned the purpose to “Provide new and innovative forms of year-round outdoor recreation for residents and visitors to Jackson Hole, using the existing resort infrastructure as the hub” (235-1, 380-1, 380-28). Examples: What is meant by innovative [forms of year-round outdoor recreation] when the proposal includes the same kinds of rides and activities that many other resorts are building? If the existing infrastructure is meant to be the hub, how does the proposed infrastructure on the back side of the mountain relate to this purpose? (13-6) Snow King could clearly provide new recreation opportunities within the existing resort footprint. Additionally, “innovative” is not an accurate term for the proposals, as many of the proposed elements are rides and amusements used at many other resorts. (345-3) Response: While mountain bike infrastructure, zip lines, and scenic lift rides are offered by other mountain resorts, these proposals are innovative in that they do not exist adjacent to Jackson, and this location provides unique opportunities due to its natural setting, complementary amenities in town, and high levels of tourist visitation. The proposed back-side infrastructure would not be feasible without the access and services provided by existing base-area and front-side development. With the exception of a few segments of front-side mountain bike and hiking trails, all of these summer recreational opportunities would be within the existing ski area permit boundary or on private land at the base area. Some comments questioned the purpose to “Capitalize on the partnership between the Bridger-Teton and Snow King to connect visitors with the natural environment and support the quality of life and the economy of the local community” (238-5, 345-3, 380-1, L1-6). Examples: Instead of citing FSM direction [2343.11], this “purpose” alters it by “connecting visitors to the environment” rather than protecting the environment; “supporting the quality of life/economy of the community” rather than enhancing community values. This wordsmithing sets up alternatives that don’t meet the intent of FSM direction. (13-7) The economy of Jackson is doing just fine and adding a Restaurant and Zip-Lines does nothing for the community. (238-5) It's notable that many of the jobs currently generated by Snow King, and likely that will be generated by the expansion, are held by foreigners with H1B and/or J1 visas. While this is a great opportunity for these (mostly) young workers, it's reasonable to ask what "support" these jobs give to the "economy of the local community." (64-12)

Response: This purpose statement in section 1.4 referenced in the first comment is not a quote from our FSM. There is no citation or other suggestion that it is. Beyond that, the comment does not address the first clause in the quoted FSM direction, “to ensure that ski areas provide a high-quality recreation experience…” Connecting visitors to the environment is part of providing a high-quality experience, and the EIS is being prepared to determine the extent to which the proposed action and alternatives would affect the environment. Again, the comment does not indicate how the alternatives are inconsistent with regulation or policy.

As to supporting quality of life and the economy, Snow King is an important factor in both, and the resort requires improvements to sustain this role, as outlined in DEIS section 1.4. As noted above under Process – Pre-NEPA, many in the community recognize this need and support Snow King in making these improvements. Providing improved recreational opportunities for the local population is a primary objective, and increased use of the ski area would have spin-off benefits to the local economy.

Finally, the foreign labor force sustains the operations of most ski areas in the U.S., and Snow King is no exception. This is simply an economic reality. While the community economic effects differ from those

6

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

that would occur if the labor force were hired locally, guest workers may add to the ski area’s economic contribution. Several comments questioned the need to “Improve and increase beginner and intermediate ski terrain, lifts, and facilities to serve as the primary ski resort in Jackson Hole and to introduce and recruit new skiers to the sport” (13-8, 103-2, 151-1, 364-3, 415-2, 417-2). Examples: We already have a primary ski resort in JH. We should not be subsidizing one private business over the needs of other local businesses. (380-29) We understand that the permittee wants to add beginner and intermediate terrain, but that doesn’t mean the agency or the public needs that, when two other larger nearby ski resorts already offer those opportunities to locals and visitors… Even if you accept this flawed “need,” the proposed boundary/footprint expansion is iunnecessary and could be achieved within the existing footprint and boundaries… (345-3) Response: This need was not well worded in the DEIS. In terms of providing skier days and attracting destination visitors, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort is and will remain the primary ski resort in the area. Snow King is not, and likely will not become, a destination resort, but it could provide expanded opportunities to Jackson residents and an option for Jackson Hole Mountain Resort skiers to stay an extra day and try the “town hill.” This need will be clarified in the FEIS. DEIS section 2.7.7 explains why the summit is the best place to develop lower-level terrain. Additional information will be added in the FEIS explaining that front-side alternatives are limited in area, too steep (e.g., the Rafferty area), and intermixed with more advanced terrain which would create safety issues. The fact that base-area infrastructure was built on potential beginner terrain in the past is really not relevant to current needs. The idea that the ski area “needs high-quality beginner and intermediate terrain to remain viable” [section 2.7.1] is pure speculation. Why should anyone, including the agency, believe that “high-quality beginner and intermediate terrain” would make Snow King “remain viable,” when ski area representatives have said for years that it is already not viable? (345-4) Response: We should first explain that financial viability is not a Forest Service concern, but provision of quality recreational opportunities is. The cited quote will be reworded in the FEIS. From that perspective, the best indicator of viability is that Snow King remains in operation. However, we believe that the current operation is marginal because, among other elements of purpose and need discussed in DEIS section 1.4, the difficult terrain limits use by lower-ability-level skiers. These skiers are not only a large share of the skier market, they are the future of downhill skiing, an activity fully supported by the Forest Service. Some comments questioned the need to “Expand the snowmaking system to enable an early November opening for ski race training, provide coverage to the upper mountain, and aid in fire suppression”: Snow King has also not demonstrated the viability of or need for additional snowmaking. (345-25) Section 3.2, Climate Change and Snow Quantity investigates that issue, noting that increased snowmaking is a recommended strategy for permitted ski areas to address a warming climate. Adding snow making for early November opening for ski race training may be futile if the temperatures increase with climate change. (380-30)

7

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Is it a FS need that the ski area be able to open in early November when air temperatures are often too high for adequate snow making? Why is coverage to the upper mountain a ‘need’? (13-9) Upper mountain coverage is also not needed for ski racing, given that racing already occurs on the Cougar Lift runs currently served by snowmaking... expanding snowmaking on the back side doesn’t help with ski racing. (345-3) Response: Section 1.4, Purpose and Need, identifies the need for additional snowmaking. Section 3.2, Climate Change and Snow Quantity, investigates that issue, noting that increased snowmaking is a recommended strategy for permitted ski areas to address a warming climate. As discussed in section 3.4.2.1.2, snowmaking typically begins in early November. While weather conditions are not always suitable, this remains a reasonable target date for opening for both race training and general public use. An early and reliable opening date would help Snow King maintain a quality race- training program and attract more participants. Beyond that, this need statement goes beyond race training. Providing upper mountain coverage would, among other benefits, allow snowmaking when temperatures lower on the mountain might not support it and support early opening of the summit ski school/teaching center. Fire suppression is an additional consideration. Several comments questioned the need to “Introduce high-quality guest service facilities to attract and retain local and destination skiers, serve as an event venue, and provide an outdoor education center for Jackson residents and visitors” (345-3, 364-4, 380-31). Examples: High quality guest services already exist in the immediate area, and are accessible for guests and emergency vehicles, in contrast to the proposed developments at the top of the mountain. (13-10) Response: As indicated in DEIS section 1.4, the purposes addressed by this proposed action focus on improving recreational opportunities and infrastructure on National Forest System land at Snow King. Sections 2.7.7 and 2.4.5.1 explain the need for the visitor services that are proposed on the summit. In addition to providing services essential to the proposed summit ski school/teaching center and back-side development, the summit building would provide a new opportunity for visitors of all types to enjoy Snow King’s unique setting. Several comments questioned the need to “Provide access to a wide range of year-round activities catering to a variety of visitors passing through the Town of Jackson” (345-3, 358-4, 380-5). Examples: We already have a wide-range of year-round activities and 3 million visitors. In fact, the proposed added attractions will alter the unique natural experiences and character of the mountain, Jackson, and surrounding Jackson Hole, attracting a different clientele not interested in nature, but rather thrills, speed, and sports-which can be found in many other venues in the country. (380-31) “Provide access to a wide range of year-round activities catering to a variety of visitors passing through the Town of Jackson.” This is stated as though the local residents aren’t to be served… It seems that the community and national forest already cater to a variety of visitors. (13-11) Response: It was an oversight not to include local residents, and it will be corrected in the FEIS. All proposed activities would be available to local residents. Regarding other activities available in the area, again, the focus of the proposed action is on improving opportunities on National Forest System land at Snow King.

8

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Several comments questioned the need for this proposed action or specific comments when skier visits at Snow King have been historically low: There is no place in the draft EIS where a NEED for new lifts is demonstrated based on current or historic user numbers. I have lived in the town of Jackson and skied Snow King for 26 years. I have NEVER seen any lift even remotely full on any day, nor ever a lift line. The BTNF and Snow King need to show that new lifts are actually necessary before approving any. (104-1) Such expansions are furthermore unnecessary, as they will not bring additional skiers to Snow King, allegedly the purpose of the expansion. (45-7) If no one is skiing Snow King now (and just look at the numbers on a powder day) why do owners believe opening the backside of the mountain to skiing will help anything? (55-3) Response: The proposed action responds to the purpose and need described in section 1.4 – in short, that low skier visits result from these limitations on Snow King’s current recreational offerings. …the permittee was well aware of the steepness of the town hill before embarking on the MDP. The broader skier market was better served near the resort’s base before multiple developments reduced the acreage there.” (13-4) Response: The proposed action reflects an effort to make the best use of the mountain’s topography in providing a broader range of ski terrain and all-season recreational opportunities. Base-area development is outside Forest Service jurisdiction and simply a factor we must accommodate in our planning for National Forest System resources at Snow King. There is nothing wrong with having less infrastructure on some parts of the mountain when the area is supposed to have zones of greater and lesser development and congestion.” (13-5) Response: The purpose and need statement and section 2.7.1 outline why we believe additional infrastructure for all-season recreation is needed at Snow King. Snow King currently holds permits to utilize the forest area with hiking and snowshoeing. They do not have a program to allow visitors to utilize this permitted activity. Therefore I do not agree with many of the proposed actions stated as filling the national need to provide healthy activities outside, when Snow King has not yet utilized the permits they already hold. Furthermore, if these permits are no to be utilized by Snow King, they could and should be handed over to local operators that would be able to utilize them, or put back on the 'fair market' for new operators to claim. (395-1) Response: Snow King has held an outfitter and guide permit for summer hiking for several years. They started this summer to offer guided hiking. Their intent is to use the proposed summit facilities and yurt camp to build the program and attract more visitors to it. If this does not prove to be the case, and the permitted allocation of visitor days is not used, our policy would be to reassess the permit and adjust or rescind and reissue it, as appropriate. No mention is made in the P&N Statement about the USFS Framework for Sustainable Recreation. Is there not a need for Snow King to help support this framework as a major USFS partner and permittee? (13-2) Response: Our 2012 Framework for Sustainable Recreation is discussed in the first paragraph of the purpose and need statement, section 1.4 of the DEIS. Snow King has said publically that the purpose of the zip line is to bring in revenue (so why isn’t this part of the Purpose and Need statement?). (13-50)

9

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Revenue generation is naturally a primary concern for our special-use permittees but not of the Forest Service. Section 1.4 spells out our reason for considering the proposed action, including the zip line. We request a new, legitimate, purpose and need statement followed by a new scoping period, a new range of alternatives, and new analysis. (345-5)

Response: As reflected in our preceding responses, we believe the statement of purpose and need presented in DEIS section 1.4, along with supporting information in the document (e.g., sections 1.6, 2.4, and 2.7.1) is consistent with NEPA and our implementing regulations and provides a sound basis for alternative development.

Proposed Action Comments under this heading deal with how the proposed action was developed, request additional information about its elements or the rationale for them, or provide suggestions for revising elements. General Several comments questioned why the proposed action differed from Snow King’s accepted 2017 master development plan: The scoping notice referred to the accepted 2017 MDP as the proposed action. However, some of the proposed facilities differ between the MDP and what is being analyzed in this DEIS… Either be consistent with the accepted MDP or ask for a new one, then commence scoping. This seems pretty basic. (13-1) …the scoping notice explicitly referred to the accepted 2017 MDP as the proposed action, but the DEIS did not analyze the 2017 MDP. Many of the proposed facilities in the DEIS differ significantly from the MDP. (345-7) The yurt camp was nixed by the BTNF and the 2017 MDP no longer includes the idea. So why are we looking at a proposal that differs from that which was accepted? Apparently a 2018 update to the MDP was presented to the town, but no change from what the USFS received and accepted has been made to my knowledge. Also, no action alternative exists that omits this facility, for which the Purpose and Need statement does not suggest a need. (13-38) The Yurt camp is NOT in the 2017 Master Plan, however it is cited in the DEIS!! (71-8) Why are some aspects of the DEIS outside the 2017 Masterplan? (372-14) One proposal for the backside of the mountain is a yurt camp which did not appear in any master plan when I attended meetings that the stakeholders conducted with community members. (427-5) Response: The August 3, 2018, scoping notice described the proposed action and invited comments regarding the scope of the DEIS. The scoping notice cited Snow King’s June 5, 2018, proposal as the source of the proposed action, not the 2017 MDP. We accepted Snow King’s proposal following internal review for consistence with our Forest Plan, with other pertinent agency direction, and with Snow King’s MDP. After accepting the proposal, we initiated this NEPA review process. Minor changes between the 2017 MDP and the current proposed action, including adding the yurt camp back into the proposal, were addressed in an amendment to the 2017 MDP that we accepted in June 2018. They are a positive and expected result of the planning and environmental review process, entirely consistent with NEPA. As discussed in the scoping notice, Snow King’s proposal was the result of a multi- year public input process that began with Snow King’s 2017 MDP and culminated with the proposed action described in the scoping notice. Inclusion of the yurt camp, which was part of the previous 2014 master

10

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

plan, stemmed from input from the community and cooperating agencies during the community engagement and stakeholder process prior to initiation of this EIS process. In terms of the function of ski area MDPs, DEIS section 1.1 notes that MDPs are dynamic, long-term plans, subject to change for a variety of reasons. These changes are reflected in amendments to MDPs, subject to agency review and acceptance. MDPs are not subject to public review and comment, and agency acceptance of an MDP does not indicate authorization of its content. While the proposed action includes some minor deviations, it remains consistent with the goals, objectives, and strategies of the accepted MDP. The MDP will be amended as necessary to reflect the responsible official’s decision regarding this proposed action. These comments addressed implementation timing: What is the time-frame for development? (372-12) Response: As indicated in DEIS section 1.1, any improvements are anticipated to be implemented within 5 years of our auithorization. This project will take multiple years (summers) to complete, and require full closures of the entire mountain for the public. (418-16) Response: Yes, full implementation would take a number of years, but full closure of the mountain for any extended period would be unlikely. Localized, short-term closures would be more common. I would prefer to see the expansion on the front of snow king and the infrastructure build up first and save the backside chairlift for revisit after the numerous amounts of other actions have been accomplished and assessed as to whether there is still a need or not for the backside to have a chairlift. (395-10) I'd request you consider a phased plan that makes "good improvements" like the higher speed chair lift, affordable housing and a nice restaurant at the top and see how that proves out before approving all parts of the proposal. (226-7) Response: Phased decisions are difficult to administer, and we are confident the EIS will provide the information necessary to make a sound decision. As discussed in section 2.6.3.1, under Alternative 4 the back-side mountain bike zone would not be authorized but could be proposed again and considered, including NEPA review, if experience with the front-side trails showed that potential impacts on recreation and other resources could be managed. One comment suggested BTNF staff bias: We have serious concerns about apparent bias of key BT staff running this DEIS. A member of the public filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the fall of 2019. This request unearthed two emails that indicate unusual communication and inappropriate project support from key agency staff… (345-6) Response: The cited communications are taken out of context, making it impossible to determine their intent. However, some key points to note are: - Forest Service administration of special-use permits involves confidential, proprietary information which is not shared with the public. - Similarly, the NEPA process can involve confidential information, expressions of staff opinion, and draft work products that the agency chooses not to make public. - During NEPA reviews, permittees often express concern that only opponents to their proposals take the time to submit comments, which can skew agency and public perceptions. - This project is controversial in the Jackson community. We have initiated and continue to implement this NEPA review in accordance with the law and our regulations, in an objective and professional manner.

11

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

- As discussed above under Process – Purpose and Need, we do support the project as it implements our recreational mandate and Forest Plan. That does not alter the need to objectively assess its environmental effects through this NEPA process. One comment suggested that the NEPA review was piecemealed: Snow King has made piecemeal alterations that obscure the magnitude of changes on the mountain, disregarding the analysis of cumulative effects and shortcutting a fair public process. For example, Snow King installed a pipe bringing culinary water to the summit, modified the Rafferty Lift, increased snowmaking efforts, and mowed on the back side of the mountain, with insufficient / inappropriate NEPA analyses or none at all. (345-8) Response: None of cited actions was a connected action (40 CFR 1508.25[a][1]) requiring that it be addressed as part of the current proposed action. With the exception of the brush mowing on the back side, each had an independent function and was reviewed and approved as appropriate by the Bridger-Teton. Section 3.1.2 of the FEIS will be expanded to include several new cumulative actions, including some or all of the cited projects. One comment suggested that key maps are missing or insufficient: Yet key maps are missing in the DEIS, including: • a map of Snow King that labels its runs and identifies the level of terrain, • a map of the current development footprint rather than just the permit boundaries, and • a map of the no action alternative that can be directly compared to maps of the other alternatives. (345-74) Even the maps describing the proposed alternatives fail to fully label the names of the runs; while the reader has a verbal interpretation of the impacts in a table, they are unable to associate it with a visual. (345-75) Response: We worked hard to develop maps that were clear and legible at 8.5x11-inch size to include in the DEIS. It would not be practical to include the large-scale maps necessary to clearly show run names and difficulty levels in the DEIS, but this information is available in the project record. The base image used in Figures 2-1 through 2-3 shows the extent of current operations, which is also the no-action scenario. Ample mapping is publicly available showing names of existing Snow King ski runs. Specific Elements of the Proposed Action Boundary Adjustments Some comments questioned the rationale for boundary adjustments in general (203-1, 271-4, 386-4). Examples: Report boundary expansions are furthermore unnecessary, as they will not bring additional skiers to Snow King, allegedly the purpose of the expansion. (176-11) The expansion of the Boundaries is wholly unnecessary and only driven by the Road which in itself is not needed. (238-12) The only reason for boundary expansion is to increase asset value so that current ownership can extract a higher sale price for the resort. (397-6) Response: DEIS section 2.4.1 explains why the proposed boundary expansions are needed. Section 2.7.1 outlines how they fit functionally into the overall proposal. Accommodating the summit access road/novice skiway is the primary purpose, but providing new ski terrain is also an important consideration. (See responses below under Terrain Development.)

12

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Terrain Development Several comments questioned whether the summit was an appropriate place to develop terrain and facilities for lower level skiers (13-12, 55-2, 102-9, 103-5, 174-2, 186-13, 364-8). Examples: The DEIS states that relocating the beginner area to the top is needed because of the warmth, sunshine and gentle slopes. The top of Snow King is only warmer on inverted days and frequently the top is windy, cold and stormy while the current beginner area is pleasant. (186-14) The proposal recommends a beginner's area at the top of Snow King. This is extremely rare in the ski industry and questionable on Snow King. The DEIS suggests that the weather is more "sunny" at the top. That may be true on limited days, but fails to recognize that the weather on top is often very severe, including much higher winds, blowing snow, colder temperatures and limited snow due to wind scouring. Is this really a "novice" environment? (272-2) Provides easy access for all abilities to terrain that SK should not want to be liable for, and is best suited to remain accessed through backcountry access gates, and as use at your own risk (418-10) Response: The DEIS addresses these concerns from several perspectives, including: section 2.4.2.1 (snow conditions are more reliable at the summit); section 2.4.4.1 (the proposed gondola would provide fast, two- way beginner access); section 2.7.7 (summit offers more appropriate topography, a longer season with good snow conditions due to elevation, more warmth and sun exposure, and better separation from more advanced skiers); section 3.11 (safety of lower ability level skiers on the summit access road/novice skiway). Safety and functionality of the summit ski school/teaching center are well addressed. A number of comments raised concerns about development of back-side terrain due to snow and weather conditions (109-22, 225-4, 225-5, 317-7, 330-5, 343-8, 372-4, 386-4, 391-11, 393-2, 409-3, 427- 6). Examples: Indeed, the defining characteristic that makes for good wildlife winter range is generally incompatible with good skiing – low snow. For this reason, it seems suspect that Snow King’s desire to develop the back side is driven by a desire to improve their skiing offerings. (109-22) Has the USFS, done, or required research to be provided, on the suitability of conditions up on the backside, such as average wind speed, wind chill, average snow depth, or anything of this nature, for beginners? Is this worth developing and infringing of wildlife habitat for? (225-5) The viability of the backside expansion terrain on the south side of Snow King is seriously concerning. Low elevation, true southern exposure, and frequent high winds lead to low snow accumulation on the backside of Snow King, which means the terrain would only be open a fraction of the ski season or only during high snow years. (375-7) Response: Snow King has conducted skiing operations from the summit since 1948. The USGS snow course on the summit has been in service since 1959, and as other comments in this document point out, backcountry skiers have used the area for many years. Collectively, this experience provides sufficient information on back-side climate and snow conditions to determine that the proposed operation is feasible. Beyond that, topography shields parts of the expansion area from prevailing winds, and grooming helps keep snow in place rather than blowing away. Also, snowmaking coverage is proposed for all developed ski terrain.

13

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The argument for the southern expansion is also flawed: “The southern addition, which involves land already within Snow King’s special use permit boundary, is necessary to provide intermediate terrain…” (2.7.1) Just one page later, we learn that: “… the proposed runs in the eastern area would provide much of the needed lower intermediate ski terrain necessary to meet purpose and need…” (2.7.2.4) If the eastern area provides much intermediate terrain, the southern area is not “necessary.” (345-52)

Response: The two quoted statements are not contradictory. As discussed in section 2.4.2.2, Alternative 2 would develop about 25.2 acres of intermediate terrain primarily on the back side but no low intermediate terrain, which is a separate classification. The three runs proposed in the eastern area would provide 4.1 acres of low intermediate terrain, which is virtually all that would be added in that category. These comments questioned the need for the new ski terrain in the east and west expansion areas: This [east and west] boundary expansion would not create additional intermediate or beginner trails for the ski area as the terrain in this area is steep and heavily wooded. It would create expert trails, which is not stated as a need in the DEIS. Snow King has abundant existing expert trails that the Resort management routinely neglects. (30-23) An expansion of more of the same ski terrain to the east and west will not bring more skiers to this local hill. (225-4) This alternative [4] includes the ski trails furthest from SK's current boundary,including "trail 15"(scott's ridge), which is in very close proximity to a winter closure area. How does spreading the users out as far as possible, and clearcutting distant runs reflect "resource protection"? (271-6) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 2.4.2.2, most of the new ski runs in the east and west boundary adjustment areas would be expert level. However, the 4.1 acres of new, low intermediate terrain in the eastern area would increase the amount of that terrain category on the front side substantially, and it would be accessible from Rafferty lift as well as novice skiway. Glading in the two boundary adjustment areas would provide 16.9 acres of a new category of terrain (section 2.4.2.3). As explained in section 2.6.1, Run 15, which would follow the western boundary adjustment line, would serve purposes beyond providing new expert terrain, e.g., a route back to the base area for skiers taking advantage of the thinned forest in the boundary adjustment area, a safe and reliable egress route for ski patrol evacuations, a fire break between the National Forest and adjacent parts of the Town of Jackson, and reduced intrusions onto private property adjacent to the ski area by skiers continuing too far down the slope. Summit Access Road/Novice Skiway A number of comments questioned the need for the summit access road/novice skiway and the functions it would serve (13-25, 30-17, 107-8, 186-6, 204-1, 211-3, 287-7, 418-5). Examples: It is not necessary to build this new, larger road to facilitate construction of the building(s) proposed at the summit. Concrete can be delivered by helicopter or by gaining access up Leeks Canyon, or in small loads in smaller truck up the existing road, with minor improvements. (343-4) The DEIS is vague regarding this route. Is it an "emergency route" if the gondola is out of service (high winds) or the normal expected route for beginning skiers to descend one of the steepest ski areas in America. (272-4)

14

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The proposed road is primarily a construction road which is being marketed as a ski way for beginners. (173-5) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 2.4.3, proposed development on the summit would require an access road for construction, operations, maintenance, and emergency services. A novice skiway from the summit to the base is necessary to get lower-level skiers from the summit to the base area in the event of a lift failure. This element of the proposal would meet both needs. In addition, it would provide an easy way down from the top of Rafferty lift, which does not currently exist. Section 2.7.12 helps put the access road/novice skiway in context, showing its essential function as part of the overall proposal. Some comments questioned the suitability of the summit access road/skiway as a novice skiway (94- 1, 173-14, 186-6, 272-3, 407-2). Examples: The DEIS states Snow Kings desire to use the road as a "novice or beginner ski way" to allow beginners to ski from the Summit to the bottom. A narrow road with steep drop offs on either side of it is no place for a beginner skier. (30-8) A narrow cat-track from the top would not only cut across these steep, expert slopes, but each turn on the descent would be quite steep for novice skiers. (391-4) Additionally, the (required) new road would be quite lengthy for a novice skier to navigate. (391-5) Response: DEIS section 3.11 addresses this specific issue, concluding that “lower ability-level skiers using skiways that cross steep terrain and advanced skiers needing to cross skiways are not unique to Snow King or this alternative, and do not present safety hazards beyond the industry norm, with standard safety practices in place” (section 3.11.3.2.2). Other comments noted that the summit access road/skiway would not provide access back to the Summit gondola (173-14, 356-1, 365-4). Examples: One major discrepancy in SK's proposed road/"beginner trail" is the fact that it does not feed back to the base of the Summit Lift… The lack of a novice ski trail leading back to the western portal defeats the entire logic of an easy way down, and beginners will be disappointed and frustrated, and a victim of false advertising. (365-2) How are beginners going to be able to do consecutive runs from the top of a new Summit Lift without braving a descent of the much steeper final pitch… Conditions are typically hard-packed and icy, which would lead to increased stopping distances needed for intermediated and experts to avoid a collision with the unpredictable maneuvers of a beginner. Beginner use of this slope is currently rare and ill-advised, but would increase substantially with their proposals. (365-3) The gondola, as proposed, would be a significant distance from the existing rental shop, and the plan does not provide an easy way to access the rental shop if novices were to take the new gondola down from the top. (391-6) These existing and permanent parking lots are typically very icy until mid March, and the proposed future base area developments leave no suitable route for skier connectivity of their two base areas. (365-5) Response: The summit access road/novice skiway would connect to the existing Slow Trail near the Rafferty mid-station, providing a continuous easy way down to the base of Rafferty, the eastern base area, rental shop, and other services. There would be no novice route back to the gondola base, but for lower ability level skiers, the purpose of the gondola would be to get them to the summit ski school/teaching center, and the purpose of the novice skiway would be to get them back down. Skiing laps on the gondola would not be practical for low-level skiers. The easy way down from the top of Rafferty provided by the

15

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

skiway would be more suitable for that use. Moving between the east and west base areas would require a two-block walk, as it does now. The proposed skiway (aka catwalk or road) has not been well analyzed. Cross-sections of the road as it crosses steeper slopes, if they have even been developed, are not shown in the DEIS. (64-6) The face road will be a significant modification of topography. In an area with steep slopes, known landslide potential and erosive soils, a road such as the one proposed cannot help but cause significant modifications to the topography. (13-27) Response: The summit access road/novice skiway would entail substantial grading and excavation of cuts and fills, as discussed in the DEIS (e.g., sections 3.1.1 and 3.4), but it would not alter topography, as that is a larger-scale landscape characteristic. Section 3.4.3.2.2 addresses its effects on erosion and slope stability. Also, the tables showing the amount of likely disturbance for the road construction show a figure only for excavation and nothing for clearing and grading. (415-8) Response: As stated in section 3.1.1, “the disturbance amounts presented in Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 indicate only the highest intensity of disturbance occurring at any given location. For example, a site would be cleared before being excavated, but reporting it as being both cleared and excavated would over- represent the area of disturbance.” It seems like [the summit access road/novice skiway] will be way too flat for snowboarders. (429-9) Response: The average 10 percent grade proposed would be sufficient for snowboarders to maintain speed. Does the proposed road really need to have an exactly steady grade and ignore the contours of the mountain, as if it was an interstate highway? (418-3) Response: In order to maintain a grade suitable for novice skiers, the alignment must follow the mountain’s contours. It would not be straight. Gondola Locating infrastructure for the gondola… in Phil Baux Park is unacceptable. The permit area provides adequate space for these uses without exploiting or compromising Phil Baux Park. (249-3) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 2.5.2.1, the gondola bottom terminal would be shifted to the site of the current Cougar terminal under Alternative 3. The same would hold for Alternative 4. …The proposed gondola has a 1000 person uphill capacity. Look it up. Yes SK says that they will only run at 600 but there are no regulations to enforce this. (195-1) Response: It is standard practice for ski areas to operate lifts below design capacity to avoid crowding on the mountain and improve riders’ experience. This is a ski area management decision, and no enforcementy is necessary. Trail capacity would be sufficient to accommodate 1,000 skiers per hour if Snow King opted to operate the lift a full capacity. Is a high-speed gondola necessary for the delivery of skiers to the top of the mountain, or is it more a function of encouraging summer visitors to be sped up to the top of the mountain? (372-8) A large gondola is not needed for the amount of skiers who use the mountain. (416-4) Response: DEIS section 2.4.4.1 outlines the rationale for the lift, and one purpose of the proposed action is to increase the number of Snow King skiers. See also responses under Alternatives - Gondola Alternatives below.

16

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The DEIS correctly notes that “In negotiations with the Town of Jackson, Snow King agreed to avoid the western base area entirely, precluding the alignment east of the gondola.” (2.7.6) Then why is this area still included in Alternative 2? It seems unhelpful to create an action alternative that includes elements that the FS already knows are off the table. (345-56) Response: Snow King's discussions with the town that resulted in alternative zip line alignments under Alternatives 3 and 4 occurred after scoping. We have tried to keep the proposed action consistent with the August 3, 2018, scoping notice. Note also that Snow King's discussions with the town are not binding in terms of the scope of our analysis. Magic Carpet I also think that the 'magic carpet' should remain where it is. (178-2) Response: Relocation of the existing carpet lift is not part of the proposed action. Cougar Lift Removal A number of comments expressed concerns over removal of Cougar lift and suggested revision of this element (207-3, 207-9, 287-1, 298-2, 290-1, 303-2, 304-2, 313-1, 313-2, 323-2, 323-3, 323-5, 327-4, 350- 2, 365-1, 388-2, 388-3, 400-2, 403-2, 406-5, 411-7). Examples: I am commenting specifically on Alternatives 3 and 4 of the DEIS which call for the removal of the Cougar lift as well as attendant issues associated with its removal. My premise is that eliminating a venue specific lift for race training places pressure on athletes and coaches and will reduce the quality of the JHSSC experience as well as that of recreational skiers, and is based on the following… Making longer runs is tiring; a larger number of shorter runs are thought to provide overall higher quality training. By eliminating a shorter segregated lift for race training the opportunity for optimal training sessions is reduced as top to bottom skiing will be required… Shorter runs provide an excellent opportunity to practice recreational skiing skills and are sometimes preferable than “ going to the top” each run. The Cougar lift provides an ability to make repetitive, high quality ski turns on groomed pistes, which many recreational skiers enjoy. Indeed, we often hear folks in town say “I’m sneaking out to The King for a few runs this afternoon”. Most of the time you find them on Cougar. Removing Cougar eliminates this well utilized option. (323-1) While supportive of the current plan, it also must provide for uphill support of the Ski Club and racing activities. Over 500 local athletes, and countless more national and regional athletes, depend on Snow King as a race and training venue for Alpine and Freeride skiing. The Cougar lift, or another solution (Surface Lift), must be in the plan to secure racing and training on Snow King. (318-2) Cougar serves intermediate and expert terrain. It is used for race training, races and recreational skiing…Cougar serves a critical function for ski race training. Cougar provides efficient and easy access to the traditional training lanes off of the lift: lanes 4,7,8,9 and 10. That access includes quick turn-around times between runs which enable the athlete to finish a run, take the lift, quickly get back up the hill and resume training…The Cougar lift also enables the general public to ski multiple “laps” without having to go to the “top”. (207-2) Should Cougar be removed, the safety issues presented by the dangerous, inevitable, and unnecessary mixing of lower-level skiers with high-end racers on the proposed summit access road/novice skiway (“summit access road”)… Recall that racers will be taking 6,000-10,000 runs per week from the new gondola via the proposed summit access road to

17

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

get to their training venues. Each of these rums presents an opportunity for a collision between a high-end racer or other skier and a lower-level recreational skier. None of these issues are addressed, let alone analyzed in the DEIS. (207-4) In order to mitigate these concerns, we have discussed a surface lift or other lift on the far skiers left of “Exhibition.”… While this surface or other lift in this location would mitigate the loss of the Cougar lift, it would not be ideal for race or training operations…. We also ask for consideration of maintaining the Cougar lift or alternate access to the primary training and racing venues that represent the majority of the winter use now, historically, and well into the future. (298-3) Response: We will consider these impacts and mitigation suggestions in preparing the FEIS. Summit Development A number of comments questioned the rationale for the proposed summit development (101-5, 103- 16, 135-3, 238-9, 410-14). Examples: It is the duty of the Forest Service to promote resource-based recreational activities- i.e. an outdoor experience in nature. I do not see how the proposed summit developments of a restaurant, bar, and wedding venue will enhance anyone's nature experience. (46-7) Does the Forest Service, with your emphasis on enjoyment of the natural environment allow significant commercial development on a similar scale that you could provide for comparison? (40-3) The BT is under no obligation to permit SKMR to offer an extensive food menu, to provide a bar, to serve beverage and provide “lounge” facilities at the summit because all those amenities are available in the immediate vicinity of the base operations. (L1-17) Response: DEIS section 1.4 identifies the need to “Introduce high-quality guest service facilities to attract and retain local and destination skiers, serve as an event venue, and provide an outdoor education center for Jackson residents and visitors.” Section 2.4.5.1 lays out how the proposed summit building would address this need. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, Sun Valley, and Snowbird provide examples of similar facilities on National Forest System lands. See also responses above under Purpose and Need and below under Alternatives - Summit Building and under Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans - SAROEA and Forest Service Manual Direction on Seasonal and Year-round Recreation. Yurt Camp and Lift A Some comments requested more information about the proposed yurt camp and Lift A: Also, the lower terminus of the chair Lift-A abuts the extreme southwestern boundary of the permit area. What will keep the users who will congregate there from spilling over onto the surrounding terrain and producing new, unauthorized “social trails?” (L1-9) I could not find information regarding how many overnight and day-use visitors the yurt camp will accommodate. (L1-10) Neither is there information as to how the site will be maintained; the type of restroom facilities, will there be water and power brought to the site, and how will it be maintained, will there be a “service road” to the site? Or, will the “1-mile ADA compliant trail” be used to access and service the camp with ATV’s and snowmobiles? Are there fire prevention/suppression plans in place? How will the BT manage the camp’s use and its support facilities? (L1-11)

18

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Only guided activities would be offered at the camp, which would provide control over where guests went. Activities would be restricted to Snow King’s ski area and guided hiking outfitter and guide permit areas. Twenty to 40 overnight guests could be accommodated. A vault toilet would be provided, and there would be no piped water or electric power. Construction and visitor access would be via the ADA trail. Section 2.4.5.4 will be updated in the FEIS to include this information. Section 1.7.2.7 explains why wildfire risk was not carried into detailed analysis in the DEIS. Snowmaking Do not allow snowmaking lines to be placed horizontally on the mountain, they will be prone to shifting soils, and guaranteed to leak, with a costly repair. (338-3) There is no way that a snowmaking line should be considered for [run 15]! Laying pipes horizontally across the topography will certainly end in failure. This was not allowed in the 2014 snowmaking upgrade. (418-12) Response: Snowmaking lines are typically installed along the upwind edge of ski runs, which generally ensures a gradient sufficient to drain the lines and avoid freezing and bursting. This would be the case with run 15, as the slope of the least-steep, lower leg would be at least 10 percent. Overall, advances in snowmaking technology have significantly reduced the risk of leaks and breaks that led to erosion issues in the past. What is the water source for the additional snowmaking? Where is the science to understand what the watershed, possible increased erosion, quality of water, and likely increased noise with snowmaking? (71-9) Response: DEIS section 3.4.2.1.2 identifies the Town of Jackson as the supplier of snowmaking water. Section 3.4 documents our analysis of impacts on the watershed, erosion, and water quality. Section 3.9 addresses snowmaking noise. Another deficiency in the DEIS is its lack of thoughtful analysis of snowmaking on steep, advanced slopes (up to 38° on portions of Bearcat). Currently snow making is proposed for Bearcat and Exhibition (map p. 87). Manmade snow creates hard, at times icy, "snow". On groomed slopes 30° or less it makes for an excellent racing surface and accommodates intermediate skiers. On slopes over 30°, hard snow quickly becomes far more challenging to ski and far more dangerous when a skier fails to arrest themselves in a fall. Furthermore, the grooming required to distribute the snow will require the gully terrain feature on Bearcat to be filled in as well as other possible slope modifications that don't appear to have been analyzed. (64-10) The majority of Snow King's proposed snowmaking expansions are not suitable due to their prolonged steepness, and I worry for the safety of both the employees and winter users who could be sliding for their lives down these long pitches. Bearcat and Belly Roll are prime examples of ski runs that will become potential deathtraps and require prolonged closures, and a firm base will exacerbate the avalanche danger when there is fresh natural snow. (338-2) Response: The purpose of snowmaking is not to replace natural snow, but rather to establish a base skiing surface early in the season and then maintain it if natural snow does not provide sufficient coverage. It is an expensive operation, so it is not employed unless necessary. Beyond that, the purpose of grooming is to maintain a quality ski surface and to preserve snow cover. It offsets some of the cited issues with manmade snow. Grooming can be managed to avoid filling desired terrain features, with safety being a prime consideration.

19

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Snowmaking for a reasonably sized beginner area can utilize the existing hydrants located on the summit ridge. (338-6) Response: The eastern extent of the Lift B and Lift C pods would require installation of additional hydrants. Bike and Hiking Trails Although, the Skyline is closed during calving season, how is the closure being enforced? Who would enforce agreement with the FS to not allow bikers to use these trails if they have used the SK lifts to get bikes to the summit. Who will enforce the current FS restriction against E-bikes? (102-5) Response: Enforcement of of any restrictions in trail use on National Forest System land is ultimately the BTNF’s responsibily. Within Snow King’s permit boundary, we would require assistance from our permittee in making restrictions known, detecting violations, and enforcement, as appropriate. Note that Forest Service policy on e-bike use has not been finalized. How will deep bike ruts be repaired? How many times will the trails have to be realigned to allow the abandoned sections to heal- particularly on this dry, steep landscape with a “moderate revegetation limit?” (L1-8) Response: Maintenance of the proposed trails will be Snow King’s responsibility. Their personnel will inspect trails on at least a daily basis, closing portions when they are wet or otherwise susceptible to erosion and completing repairs before extensive damage occurs. Good trail design and construction, followed up by ongoing inspection and maintenance, should preclude the need to realign trail segments. How will the pressure to expand recreational trails and uses be maintained and managed? (L1-12) Response: Any proposals for additional trails on National Forest System land inside or outside the Snow King permit boundary would be subject to our screening, environmental review, and approval process. I support closed bike park boundary policy where users who access the bike park from the gondola are not able to leave the permit boundary onto other trails, but only in the case that this action is required to mitigate increased user conflict on other system trails (Cache Creek, etc.). Increased user conflict would be displayed via recorded complaints and observation to the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Snow King personnel, Town of Jackson personnel. (311-4) Response: Our alternatives comprise a range of approaches to managing this potential issue, from allowing lift-served cyclers free access to the existing trail system under Alternative 2, to employing multiple means to preclude access to the existing trails under Alternative 3, to eliminating the back-side mountain bike zone under Alternative 4. The suggested approach would be most consistent with Alternative 2 (section 3.10.3.3.2). Perhaps a new trail can be constructed in order to preserve a popular loop ride connection. Construction of this new "mountain-bike specific trail" would serve to mitigate user conflict on the switchback portion of Josie's Ridge and improve the overall hiking and biking experience on the mountain. This new "detour" trail would be financed by Snow King Mountain. Construction of this "detour" could serve as a model for user- impact/conflict mitigation for the entire project. (311-5) I would also like to encourage the BTNF and Plannign Staff to strike any clause from any of the alternatives wherein mountain biking would no longer be permitted on the Josies ridge connection trail from the top of Snow King to Josies. This would be a huge loss to what is a great loop, which I ride regularly. Rather than doing this, a better solution would

20

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

be to make a dedicated mountain bike trail that avoids the crowded switchback portion of Josies Ridge and improves BOTH the biking and hiking experiences for users. (405-4) Response: We will consider inclusion of this proposal in an FEIS alternative. However, the purpose of closing upper Skyline and Josie’s Ridge trails to bike traffic would be to block lift-served cyclists’ access to the existing trail system. It appears that any new trail that maintained the “loop” route would cross proposed downhill trails and thus provide that access. Zip Line Locating infrastructure for the… zip lin in Phil Baux Park is unacceptable. The permit area provides adequate space for these uses without exploiting or compromising Phil Baux Park. (249-3) I strongly advocate for not including a zip line, but if a zip line is non-negotiable, Rafferty would be the best place for it. (410-18) There are several references throughout the draft EIS to a zipline running from the Snow King summit to the base area in Phil Baux Park, although the Jackson Town Council unanimously said no to such a landing in 2018. (415-3) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 2.5.4.1, the zip line bottom terminal would be shifted to the Rafferty lift mid-station area under Alternative 3. The same would hold for Alternative 4. Road Obliteration Some comments addressed how the proposed road and trail obliteration would be done: The web of old roads criss-crossing Snow King should be carefully reclaimed. This reclamation should include filling and replanting with new trees and native vegetation. (293-5) Please require proper rehabilitation of trails and roads slated for closure. There is a network of user-created and Snow King-created trails that need to be properly rehabilitated before new trails are constructed. This is a vital part of keeping trail users on the legal and sustainable trails and integral to the overall health of the forest. (353-7) There is no reasonable way to access narrower existing roads for reclamation: Would they need to be fully re-excavated to access them with machinery? Will soils need to be transferred to some kind of miniature dump truck? Will it be carried scoop by scoop by an mini excavator? How will these soils bond? Will every rock larger than a watermelon need to be carefully separated somehow? -Will "Jersey Barriers" be enough to contain rockfall during excavation and backfill? Will two rows of movable concrete backstops be needed, so rocks don't roll down the mountain when the uphill one is removed? -It will take many years for these soils to stabilize in the reclamation areas, as well as the road cuts. (418- 17) Response: DEIS sections 2.4.8.4 and 2.5.4.5 describe the proposed road and trail obliteration activities, noting that “All would be regraded to restore a more natural contour and revegetated” and “Other user- created trails may be identified and obliterated as part of this process.” Section 3.12.5 establishes time requirements for completing these obliteration efforts. Established Forest Service obliteration practices will be used, including use of hand tools where mechanized access would create excessive damage. Physical Disturbance First, while glading, clearing, grading, and excavating are listed and ranked as disturbance types, thinning is not, and the DEIS provides no evidence that this ranking of

21

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

disturbance types is correct (3.1.1). Once again, this analysis ignores human use as a disturbance. (345-86) Response: Section 3.1.1 describes and summarizes the extent of physical disturbance (i.e., disturbance of soil and vegetation) associated with each element of the proposed action. This section is included to ensure that all impact analyses in the rest of Chapter 3 use a consistent set of figures for physical disturbance. The ranking reflects simply the depth of the disturbance, spanning from the tree canopy down to subsoil. Thinning is classified as the same as glading. The text will be edited in the FEIS to make these clarifications. Disturbance associated with human use is discussed where appropriate throughout the analysis, but it is not a physical disturbance and thus not included in section 3.1.1. Human Use The DEIS implies that human use will be addressed as a component of “subsequent use” (1.7.1.1.5), yet nowhere does the DEIS thoroughly address the effects of human use or an increase in that use. (345-91) Response: The cited section identifies the wildlife issues analyzed in depth, and human use – increased recreational activity – is one of the disturbance types discussed as appropriate in the wildlife impact analysis (section 3.6.3). Human activity is discussed elsewhere in the DEIS, as appropriate. For example, increased use of hiking and mountain biking trails is discussed as factor in weed introduction and spread (section 3.5.3.2); increased recreational use from the summit is the main impact driver discussed in the recreation analysis (section 3.10.3) and a major factor considered in the safety analysis (section 3.11.3). In short, the impacts of human use are appropriately addressed in the DEIS. A new section was added to the FEIS to add further clarification regarding disturbance on wildlife (section 3.6.2.5). Similarly, the FS should have included separate analyses for the three areas of infrastructure expansion (south, east and west) that account for the impacts of both construction and use of infrastructure. (345-92) Response: As indicated in section 1.7.1, the impact analysis is framed by the infrastructure and activity in question. It is not clear what would be gained by restructuring the analysis to look at impacts by geographic area.

Issues Not Carried into In-depth Analysis Comments under this heading addressed either input on the scope of the analysis that respondents felt we missed or reiterated issues that we considered but decided not to carry into in-depth analysis. General Several comments said we had neglected input on the issues addressed in the DEIS: … the DEIS does not adequately address substantive comments provided during the scoping period. (345-10) In creating this DEIS, the writers seem to have disregarded a wide range of concerns from the public, our Town Council, and our County Commission. (374-2) Snow King DEIS has dismissed and has not fully considered a range of negative impacts that could result from its proposal. (312-1) I believe further study based on unaddressed scoping comments is required. (411-8) Massive public comment gathered over months is also completely ignored in these alternatives, which is a slap in the face of public process. (404-3) Response: The first thing to note is that the Town of Jackson and Teton County are cooperating agencies in this EIS process and have been actively involved since the early phases. Beyond that, DEIS section 1.7

22

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

describes our scoping process and lists the issues raised that were analyzed in the DEIS and those that were considered but not carried into in-depth analysis. Our rationales for issues in the latter category are provided. We have not disregarded any input submitted during designated comment opportunities and through established channels. Comments regarding specific issues are addressed below. Water, Soils, and Watershed The DEIS does not note or discuss that the resort currently uses drinking water for snowmaking rather than untreated water, and that using more drinking water could have significant impacts both to the municipal water supply and the environment. (345-23) Response: Section 3.4.2.1.2 states “Water used for snowmaking is supplied by the Town of Jackson from the same sources used for municipal purposes.” Section 1.7.2.1 explains why the issue of snowmaking water supply was not carried into in-depth analysis. In brief, the Town of Jackson, which supplies snowmaking water to Snow King, has indicated no shortage in supply and can curtail supply should any shortage arise. Beyond that, snowmaking system expansion does not automatically translate to increased water use, it simply provides the flexibility for the ski area to use the water available where it is needed most. Snowmaking is an expensive process, providing a strong incentive not to waste water.

In terms of environmental effects, section 3.4 does address in depth the effects of increased snowmaking on hydrology, erosion and slope stability, and water quality. … approving a dramatic expansion could very likely place a burden on town infrastructure given that the current water conveyance pipes are too small. The FS should consult with the Town, especially as a cooperating agency, before approving these changes. The same consultation is true for the needed connection for sewer. (345-24) Response: As the comment notes, the Town of Jackson is a cooperating agency and thus has been involved in developing the proposed action and determining the scope of the analysis. Vegetation …the DEIS does not properly reference impacts to vegetation in terms of watershed conditions, wildlife habitat, and scenic values. (345-27) Response: Section 1.7.2.2 explains that effects on general vegetation are addressed under other resource headings where they actually come to bear, specifically: watershed conditions (e.g., section 3.4.2.1.2, tree cover effects of hydrology, and section 3.4.3.2.2, effects of vegetation clearing on erosion and sedimentation); wildlife habitat (e.g., discussions of habitat requirements, current conditions, and effects throughout section 3.6); and scenic values (e.g., visual effects of clearing and glading in section 3.12.3). …nowhere does the DEIS consider the basic impacts on vegetation due to recreation, including how plant communities will change over time due to trampling, erosion, and other recreation impacts. (345-28) Response: See the preceding response. Beyond that, section 3.4 addresses erosion effects of all proposed recreational development and associated vegetation clearance and soil disturbance. Section 3.10.3.3.2 notes the potential for increased impact on plant communities outside the ski area due to increased bike traffic on the Cache/Game trail system. …the DEIS claims that snowmaking does not have the potential to affect vegetation. This assertion seems unlikely, especially if snowmaking is introduced in southern-exposed areas where it was not present before, and if changes are as dramatic as proposed. The FS failed to investigate or quantify how much water Snow King plans to use, which prevents any ability to determine if these changes would (or supposedly would not) create impacts. The FS also does not consider the seasonality of snowmaking and snow melt, and how this phenomenon could affect vegetation. (345-29)

23

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Section 1.7.2.2 explains why snowmaking has little impact on vegetation but goes on to clarify that the EIS does address the impacts of snowmaking on hydrology as well as the effects of snowmaking system construction on vegetation. Section 3.4.2.1.2 quantifies the projected increase in water use associated with increased snowmaking. Wildlife General wildlife habitat should be considered. (345-30) Response: Section 1.7.2.3 explains our rationale for not analyzing impacts on general wildlife habitat in depth. In brief, the analysis focuses on 36 special-status species and elk and mule deer winter range, which basically cover the range of habitat in the project area. Further analysis is not necessary to conclude that no significant impact on common wildlife species is likely. The DEIS also dismisses consideration of wildlife closures without reason. (345-31) Response: Section 1.7.2.3 also explains why we did not carry this issue into in-depth analysis–because the proposed action would not authorize any development or use in these areas, and use of them by ski area visitors during closed periods would be a violation of the closure regulations, as it is now. The DEIS also does not discuss the need for seasonal closures of trails that connect to Skyline and other trails that already have wildlife closures in place. (345-32) Response: It does. Alternatives 3 and 4 would prohibit lift-served mountain bikers from accessing the Cache/Game trail system (see sections 3 2.5.4.2 and 2.6.3.1). The impacts of these alternatives on wildlife and other resources are addressed in depth in Chapter 3. Land Use So by proposing the elimination of the snow course rather than moving the summit facilities to accommodate it, the resort seeks to place additional burden on the agencies to figure out how to locate a new snow course, which would not collect data comparable to what has been collected for decades. Since no comparison among alternatives is offered in Table S-1, it must be assumed that once again there is no difference in the action alternatives regarding the snow course. It is something that should be addressed as part of the DEIS, with at least one action alternative that keeps the snow course where it is. (13-22) There is a snow data station that has decades of information. Do NOT move or alter that station and simply destroy years of science and data collection! (71-4) As mentioned previously, all action alternatives eliminate a historic snow course, and analysis/alternative development is ducked by a statement that this is an administrative effect, not an environmental one. A DEIS is meant to consider physical, biological, social, and economic effects. (13-45) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.5 describes why effects on the snow course were not analyzed in depth, as they are an administrative rather than an environmental issue. We have discussed the matter with the NRCS, and it has not risen to the level of an alternative-driving issue. See also DEIS section 2.7.8 which explains why alternative locations for the summit building were not carried into in-depth analysis, and responses below under Alternatives. Recreation While the FS claims that lift prices are outside their scope because they are a part of Snow King’s business model, the FS fails to consider their role in approving a vast expansion in infrastructure that would logically lead to an increase in prices. (345-33) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.6 explains why this issue was not carried into in-depth analysis. Beyond that, such analysis would be speculative at best.

24

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

…the DEIS neglects to carry into analysis the full impacts of increased mountain bike usage on the Cache Creek, Snow King, Josie’s, and Game Creek trail systems. Development of new mountain bike trails could result in losing free access to currently- public trails at the resort, or in fees charged for public use. (345-34) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.6 explains why the issue of potential impacts on access to the existing Cache/Game trail system was not carried into in-depth analysis–basically because no system trail closures are proposed, and Snow King’s ability to charge for public access to the permit area when that public use involves facilities that the resort pays to build or maintain would not be affected. DEIS section 3.10 does address potential impacts on the Cache/Game trail system and its users in depth. Lastly, the DEIS does not include a bike park design or specifics, so it’s impossible for the FS or the public to evaluate bike park impacts. While some estimates are provided for the number of users to the bike park, there’s no analysis of how many more summer users there will be overall. (345-35) Response: DEIS section 3.10.3.3.2 projects the number of new riders associated with the proposed mountain bike infrastructure. The impact of this number of new riders carries through the analysis of impacts on the Cache/Game system across alternatives. Safety Expanded and improved night lighting provides more opportunities for use, which increases the potential for low-light collisions. Night skiing is also inherently more dangerous due to a reduced ability to distinguish differences in terrain. (345-36) Response: As explained in DEIS section 2.6, Snow King is in the process of upgrading existing lighting with new technology that is more efficient and provides better lighting of the snow surface. This is intended to increase the safety of night skiing. Expanding lighting coverage should also increase safety by decreasing skier density and providing terrain appropriate to more ability levels. Since the proposed road cuts through much-steeper and potentially less-stable (e.g. slide path) terrain than it does now, there are additional safety risks to novice skiers, ski area personnel, and equipment operators, counter to the DEIS claims. (345-37) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.7 explains why the issue of ski area personnel safety associated with use of the proposed road/skiway was not carried into in-depth analysis, basically because the proposed road would be wider, less steep, and have fewer turns than the existing road. Section 3.11 addresses both the effect of the summit access road/novice skiway on avalanche safety and its impact on the safety of novice skiers. The southern expansion also presents a greater threat to skier safety that needs additional consideration. The DEIS acknowledges but discounts the more remote nature of the back side and fails to acknowledge the different conditions for skier… (345-38) Response: Section 1.7.2.7 explains why the issue of skier safety on the back side was not carried into in- depth analysis from an emergency-response-time perspective. The other noted variables (i.e., man-made snow, different weather, and icy conditions are standard ski area safety management concerns and not unique to the back side of Snow King. Several comments addressed concern over zip line safety: Though the resort insists that safety is of no concern, the speeds to be attained remain a safety concern of mine. (13-50) Eliminate the zipline. This is an enormous contradiction to connecting people to the natural environment. Disclose and consider the large number of injuries and deaths that result from this crass thrill amenity. (358-12)

25

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

While the research is limited, a 2015 study found that the number of zip line injuries in the US has increased from a few hundred per year in the late 1990s to more than 3,600 in 2012, and though no database exists, a dozen deaths have been reported in the US (Borrell, 2017)… Given its proximity to town and the likely tourist demand for it, the DEIS should examine zip line safety more closely. (345-39) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.7 explains why we did not carry the issue of zip line safety into in-depth analysis. Zip lines are increasingly common features at our permitted resorts, and our engineering review process is rigorous and conducted by the same engineers who review ski lifts at permitted resorts. Town Character Several comments questioned our decision not to carry potential impacts on community character into in-depth analysis (20-2, 65-4, 81-1, 268-2, 300-1, 316-2, 342-1, 358-15, 419-1). Examples: I don’t see how community values are enhanced by greatly expanding snowmaking, lighting, and addition of noise-generating infrastructure like the snow making machines and proposed zip line, all of which would disrupt town with an increase in light pollution, noise, and an expanded “Snow King cloud” on inversion days which keeps neighborhoods cold, out of the morning sun, and the streets more icy. There would be more days during which those of us with passive or active solar heat would be affected. Community values could also be diminished by the proposal on many fronts, including increased traffic and congestion, intrusion into a city park, and reduction of opportunities to enjoy the national forest in and near the resort. I am having trouble finding in the DEIS much acknowledgement of potential negative effects to the community. (13-17) [Mountain bike development] will attract more out-of-town users, trying to make JH a mountain biking mecca like Boulder, Moab, and other places to the detriment of the unique natural resources of the valley and its community character. (380-51) Our desired community character is not an ongoing debate. The vision of “community first, resort second” was the result of a multi-year public process that resulted in our 2012 Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, assessing character is possible: our community uses the number of workers living locally as a proxy. (345-40) Response: The first thing to note is that, as discussed above under Process – Purpose and Need, the objective of this proposal is to make the incremental improvements we feel are necessary for Snow King to continue to function as the “town hill” in today’s world, not to make it a destination resort with the potential to fundamentally change the character of Jackson. The hope is to provide an attractive, local option for Jackson skiers, destination skiers visiting JHMR, and summer visitors drawn to the region for the national parks. All of these people are in the community anyway; we simply want to capitalize on the potential for Snow King to expand the quality and range of recreation opportunities available locally and on the BTNF. Beyond that, the DEIS addresses noise, light effects, the snowmaking cloud, and impacts on Phil Baux Park in sections 3.9, 3.12, 3.3, and 3.10, respectively. As noted in section 1.7.2.8.1, the desired character of the town is a topic of ongoing debate in the community. As a result, people have divergent individual opinions about the impact of the proposed action, as indicated by scoping results. In this context, objectively assessing town character is not possible, and it would not contribute to a better understanding of environmental effects or a more reasoned decision. Section 1.7.2.9 explains that traffic and parking issues are being addressed in the context of the Snow King Resort District Master Plan, and both the town and county are cooperating agencies in this EIS process. It is also appropriate to note that our national forests are managed for the benefit of all current and future US citizens. This precludes a narrow focus on the local community in this analysis. Note that the quote in the comment is not included in the Comprehensive Plan.

26

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

In short, any of the potential effects cited in these comments that can be objectively assessed have been. Their net effect on community character remains dependent on the eye of the beholder. Employee Housing and Utilities Several comments addressed concern about employee housing issues in Jackson (23-5, 182-1, 266-7, 327-6, 339-1369-1). Examples: In addition, the effects of this expansion would add pressures on existing housing and affordability problems our community already faces. (217-3) The plan should not be approved without deed restricted housing or rental housing units for the majority of new employees required to support any growth. (223-5) Providing workforce housing is another significant struggle in Teton County/Town of Jackson. Snow King will only have to mitigate workforce housing for a portion of its workers while infrastructure expansions will drive the need for more jobs and hotels, directly contributing to growth. (345-41) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.8.2 explains that addressing these concerns is an ongoing effort on the part of the Town of Jackson and Teton County, reflected in efforts to develop the Snow King Resort District Master Plan addressing this and other socioeconomic concerns. The plan establishes employee housing requirements based on projected growth at Snow King and in the community at large. Snow King will be bound by the master plan’s stipulations. In short, these issues are in the jurisdiction of the town and county, and those entities are managing them. As a result, they are outside the scope of this EIS. Traffic and Parking A number of comments noted potential traffic and parking impacts (13-14, 40-4, 166-2, 178-3, 268-2, 345-43). Examples: The proposed improvements to Snow King will be a great asset for Jackson and entice visitors to stay in downtown. Especially during the winter, this will help to cut down traffic from town to the village. (42-2) The Town of Jackson is already overrun in the summer with domestic and international visitors and we have yet to see how this, if it did build more visitor traffic, could be sustained and supported by our town. (226-6) The construction of the new road and its use by heavy equipment necessary to accommodate summit facility construction, as well as its use to maintain the proposed summit facility will cause untold numbers of heavy vehicle trips through down town. And once at the Snow King base area, the traffic will begin its long, slow and noisy ascent to the summit. I consider this intrusion to be very inappropriate. (L1-28)

Response: Again, the DEIS is the appropriate reference. DEIS sections 1.7.2.8.2 and 1.7.2.9, respectively, explain that employee housing and traffic issues are associated with land outside the National Forest boundary and are being dealt with by local government in development of the Snow King Resort District Master Plan. This planning effort involves all stakeholders and is the appropriate means of addressing these issues. Beyond that, the Town of Jackson and Teton County are cooperating agencies in this NEPA process and fully involved in our treatment of these issues in the EIS process.

Where should a visiting(or local) beginner skier park their car? If they park near the rental shop at the Hotel, they would be required to walk a long distance in ski boots towards a new Summit Lift. (365-6)

27

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: There would be equipment rental facilities for beginners in the summit building. Depending on how many visitors are at Snow King on a given day, skiers may have to walk a couple of blocks to get to the lifts. This is not unusual for ski areas.

Ticket Prices Several comments noted concerns about impacts on Snow King’s ticket prices (23-4, 266-6, 327-5, 369-1). Examples: I approve assuring affordable skiing at Snow King Mountain Resort, especially for local residents and youth. (182-1) Adding green and blue runs for families that are safe with easy access at affordable rates would be ideal… (339-1) Response: Section 1.7.2.6 explains that ticket pricing is determined by the permittee’s business model and is subject to limited Forest Service authority. As a result, this issue is outside the scope of the EIS and does not require analysis. Resort Viability A number of comments expressed concerns about Snow King’s viability and who would be responsible for restoring the area if the resort was forced to close (13-46, 80-2, 96-2, 98-5, 103-17, 212- 3, 299-3, 312-15, 317-7, 345-42, 364-23, 372-12, 380-26, 409-4, 417-6, 417-7) Examples: What happens if after all this development there is still no return to profitability? Snow king is building a bridge to nowhere. They simply cannot compete with JHMR. What kind of guarantee can they offer about profit? (7-1) Bonding should be required in case Snow King were to abandon these facilities. (30-32) Assurance of financial viability in the face of a big economic down turn is extremely important in order to avoid an orphan project without adequate oversight, maintenance, use or longevity. (188-3) Another item the DEIS should provide is a contingency plan detailing how the Bridger- Teton National Forest will deal with the entirety of expanded development on its lands if the project fails and is abandoned at some later point. The DEIS should include specifics regarding how the Bridger-Teton National Forest will coordinate contingency actions with the town and county, as they will all be affected. (177-9) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.8.3 explains why we did not carry the issues associated with Snow King’s viability into in-depth analysis. In brief, our intent in issuing this special use permit is to provide the public with diverse recreational opportunities and supporting our local community, and our permit administration will be directed toward meeting that objective. Beyond that, if special use permits are terminated, the permittee is legally responsible for removal of facilities from the permit area (FSM 2716.2[3]).

Alternatives Comments under this heading involved general concerns about alternative development or range of alternatives or thoughts and suggestions regarding specific alternatives. General Several comments suggested full alternatives framed by general concepts or by the main resource issues identified through scoping and comment on the DEIS (64-1, 83-3, 93-1, 185-2, 186-1, 238-2, 383-1, 412-6, L1-41). Examples:

28

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Alternative 5. What would an acceptable alternative look like? Proposed facilities would be scaled and located to meet legal and administrative direction that applies, and would show a strong connection between the USFS and its partners to meet the goals of sustainable recreation. It would be designed to minimize environmental and social conflicts and management of the resort would complement and assist BTNF management of the surrounding area. …[comment continues for a full page summarizing previous, more detailed comments addressed elsewhere in this document and how they would be reflected in a new alternative]. (13-51) Prepare at least one alternative that meets SAOREA and other applicable regulations, and the FSM. An example could include the Briggs road, a high-speed quad to the summit, restoration of the historic Panorama House for a snack bar, and preserving crucial wildlife habitat in Leeks Canyon. The new alternative would not include massive new development on the summit, expansion of the current boundaries, south-side development, yurt camp, mountain bike trails, a bike park, use of public lands (Phil Baux park) at the base, or a zip line. (364-25) Response: A brief discussion of NEPA’s requirement for alternative development in an EIS will help clarify our responses to these and other comments in this section. Key points are as follows:

1. Alternatives are intended to avoid or reduce potentially significant environmental impacts (36 CFR 220.5[e]). 2. In doing so, they must meet the stated purpose and need for action (36 CFR 220.5[e]). 3. They must be feasible (FSH 1909.15[14.4]). 4. No specified number of alternatives is required; the nature of the proposed action and environmental setting determine an “adequate range” (36 CFR 220.5[e]). 5. Alternatives considered but not carried into in-depth analysis are part of the range of alternatives (FSH 1909.15[14.4]). 6. Alternatives need not differ substantially from each other to constitute an adequate range; they simply need to meet the preceding requirements – achieving the purpose and need for action, in a feasible manner, while avoiding or reducing potentially significant impacts on the environment. 7. Underlying this legal direction on alternative formulation is the requirement that EISs address only real issues, are focused rather than encyclopedic, and do not duplicate work completed by other entities (40 CFR 1500.4). We incorporated these principles in developing our alternatives. Once we accepted Snow King’s proposal as consistent with our Forest Plan and other relevant law, regulation and policy (DEIS section 1.6), we initiated internal, interdisciplinary review and public scoping to identify potential environmental effects. We then reviewed effects further to determine whether or not in-depth analysis in the DEIS was necessary to determine if they were potentially significant (section 1.7). Of those requiring in-depth analysis, we assessed which might be avoided or reduced by doing things in a different way. Those were the alternative- driving issues. We used those issues, coupled with public scoping input, to identify potential alternatives to consider in the EIS. From that range, we determined which alternatives to carry into in-depth analysis based on three criteria: avoiding or reducing potentially significant impacts, meeting purpose and need, and feasibility (sections 2.2 and 2.7). In determining whether they met purpose and need, we considered the functional relationships among the key elements of the proposed action that provided the framework for its development (section 2.7.1).

29

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

In short, all alternatives identified through internal, interdisciplinary review and public scoping were reviewed and appropriately processed. We considered more than 25 alternatives, in addition to the proposed action and the required no-action alternative. We carried two of these into in-depth analysis, resulting in a range of four alternatives. This aspect of preparing the DEIS was consistent with NEPA and our agency regulations on its implementation. At this point, we will consider the results of the analysis documented in the DEIS and public comments to determine whether our range of alternatives remains adequate, whether alternatives need to be revised, or whether new alternatives should be developed. Any changes will be reflected in the FEIS. Regarding the alternatives cited above, the concepts they reflect and the specific elements they comprise are addressed under other heading in this report. The “Alternatives considered but not analyzed in depth” section (2.7) is based on the flawed purpose and need section. (345-45) Response: See responses above under Process – Purpose and Need. None of the alternatives is designed to fully avoid adverse impacts [on cultural resources], even the so-called “resource protection alternative.” (345-103) Response: As discussed above, the objective of alternative development is not to fully avoid adverse effects, as this is rarely possible in meeting a given purpose and need for action. Range of Alternatives A number of comments said the range of alternatives presented in the DEIS is insufficient (13-16, 20- 1, 30-4, 45-3, 53-2, 60-1, 65-1, 68-1, 70-1, 71-2, 71-3, 80-4, 96-4, 98-1, 100-3, 101-2, 107-4, 128-3, 173- 1, 176-4, 185-1, 185-3, 187-1, 188-2, 211-1, 216-1, 222-2, 234-1, 240-2, 242-1, 264-3, 272-1, 272-7, 278- 1, 289-5, 299-1, 328-1, 331-4, 345-44, 345-63, 345-112, 357-4, 364-1, 374-1, 377-1, 380-13, 387-3, 394- 1, 397-3, 407-5, 410-2, 411-1, 412-5, 416-1, 419-2, 429-10, L12-1). Reducing wildlife impacts was the most frequently cited concern. Examples: While I believe that Snow King must make necessary steps to insure a sustainable economic future, massive boundary expansions located within critical wildlife habitat and excessive development at the top of the resort is not the correct option. Please consider the reasonable range of alternatives and protect the profoundly important habitat that makes this valley so unique. (254-1) Failing to offer an acceptable range of alternatives violates the Forest Services' own policies and was recently challenged in a court case where the Forest Service lost (High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service, 2020). (235-5) The Forest Service did not provide a reasonable range of alternatives that address public concerns about the enormous road, boundary expansion into critical wildlife habitat, a noisy summit-to-base zipline, and overdevelopment on the summit that damages historic resources like the Panorama House. Until the DEIS addresses these concerns, I support the "No Action" alternative. (384-1) None of the proposed alternatives consider the range of opinions expressed by the public through the formal public comment process; all the alternatives, except for Alternative 1, allow for massive development on public land by private interests in one fell swoop. (420- 1)

Response: DEIS Chapter 2 describes the alternative development process and its results. The sections describing action alternatives (i.e. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) identify the alternative-driving issues. Section 2.7 discusses alternatives that were considered but not carried into in-depth analysis for the reasons

30

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

provided. In accordance with our NEPA regulations (FSH 1909.15, sec. 14.4), these alternatives are part of the range of alternatives considered in this analysis. Collectively, this range of alternatives responds to all substantive issues identified by the public. It is not clear what legal or procedural requirements the commenter feels are not met. Specific suggestions on new alternatives are addressed below.

The [Alternatives considered but not analyzed in depth] section begins with a statement that “It is important to note that, in accordance with our NEPA regulations (FSH 1909.15, sec. 14.4), these alternatives are part of the range of alternatives considered in this analysis.” However, these alternatives were improperly not analyzed in depth, so it doesn’t count. (345-46) Response: DEIS section 2.7 identifies the large number of alternatives we considered but did not carry into in-depth analysis for the reasons presented. This is consistent with CEQ direction (40 CFR 1502.14 [a]). We believe the reasons are sound. And for alternatives dismissed without a full analysis, it is important to note that a “‘post- hoc rationalization’ for eliminating an alternative from consideration in an EIS” is inappropriate. (345-47) Response: Our reasons for not carrying alternatives into in-depth analysis are stated in DEIS section 2.7. Therefore, they are not post hoc. Other comments specified that the alternatives considered in the DEIS are too similar to constitute an adequate range (8-1, 18-2, 40-1, 71-2, 72-2, 103-3, 109-2, 135-1, 155-1, 177-5, 198-1, 212-1, 223-1, 244-2, 256-1, 271-3, 317-1, 330-1, 343-1, 359-5, 361-2, 379-1, 380-18, 404-1, 411-1, 411-3, 412-3, 415-1, 427-1, L1-37). Examples: I personally do not feel there are significant differences in alternatives 2, 3 and 4 that give a decent option other than approving essentially all of what Snow King is requesting. It does not appear that the Forest Service has taken into account the concerns of the community of Jackson as well as other organizations involved such as Wyoming Game and Fish. Simply put, the alternatives presented by the Forest Service do not provide a reasonable range of alternatives and are simply a rubber stamp of the company's plans. (46-1) All of the proposals are similar or almost exactly alike, especially with regards to the new road, the summit facilities, the backside development and the east/west boundary expansion. These proposals are extremely similar in each alternative, other than the required "No Action Alternative". NEPA requires that a range of alternatives be presented (186-1) Given any real lack of range of options, I can only support the no-action alternative as proposed in the DEIS. Aside from this alternative, all other options are largely the same and favor maximum development for Snow King which frankly gives me no choice but to support the no-action alternative. (199-1) In the DEIS, the FS provided a table that compared the four alternatives being considered. 1 An analysis of the alternatives in this table (except for the no action alternative) indicates that the FS evaluated 8 categories of improvements with 28 elements. Twenty-five of the elements are exactly or essentially the same… (142-1) Response: As noted above under Alternatives – General, there is no requirement regarding the degree of difference among alternatives, only that they be responsive to the alternative-driving issues. DEIS sections 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6 spell out the specific issues that drove the changes reflected in Alternatives 3 and 4. Note

31

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

also that, as discussed in DEIS section 1.5, the responsible official may authorize any alternative entirely or in part, including the no-action alternative. This provides for more leeway in the decision. Some comments said that the range of alternatives was appropriate: I appreciate the variety of the four different scenarios presented, and am deeply disappointed in the direction opponents to Snow King's growth are taking by implying that the "public process" was insufficient. (61-1) Response: Your comment is noted. Some comments said that alternatives suggested by the public, organizations, and agencies had not been considered (271-1, 337-3, 426-1). Examples: Local people who know the mountain well and have suggested alternatives to be considered have been ignored. (417-8) The DEIS ignores the many reasonable proposals the Forest Service received from community members as well as the Jackson Town Council, Teton County Commission, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, American Avalanche Institute, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. And the DEIS includes proposals that the public strongly opposes. (109- 1) Response: We are not aware of any alternatives suggested through scoping, input from our cooperating agencies, or any other designated opportunity for public input that we did not consider. As noted above, we considered at least 25 alternatives in addition to the proposed action and no-action alternative. See DEIS sections 2.2 and 2.7. One cemment questioned the lack of a preferred alternative: …without a preferred alternative, the agency is keeping their intentions opaque and not allowing the public to focus comments on the likely action. (345-16) Response: The CEQ NEPA guidelines require that a DEIS identify a preferred alternative only if the agency has identified one (40 CFR 1502.14[e]). We have not identified a preferred alternative at this point, as noted in section 2.10, but will do so based on this ongoing NEPA review. In accordance with the cited regulation, we will identify our preferred alternative in the FEIS. Expansion Alternatives No-Expansion A number of comments expressed support for an alternative that involved no expansion of the ski area, including both of the alternatives suggested by the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance (30-18, 33-1, 80-1, 96-1, 142-3, 169-2, 177-7, 277-2, 309-1, 317-2, 327-3, 330-4, 335-7, 345-48, 364-6, 386-2, 394-2, 399-1, 404-2, 406-4, 414-1, ). Examples: I want to add my support for the alternative to the Snow King Mountain Resort On- mountain Improvements #54201 that were submitted by the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance's Executive Director Skye Schell. It is most important that any new development on Snow King be confined to the original footprint and not expanded to the east or west to protect wildlife habitat. I am in complete agreement with all of the recommendations and objections made by the JH Conservation Alliance. ( 215-1) That there is no action alternative without expansion is a fundamental flaw in the draft EIS that needs to be addressed by the Forest Service. We can have improvements of Snow King and allow it to be economically viable without expanding into important wildlife habitat (393-1)

32

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The most obvious missing Alternative is one in which SK remains inside the boundaries, but is allowed to further develop and maximize within the current footprint, similar to JHMR, where no first time skiers should ever "need" to go to the summit of a steep and dangerous mountain for the "purpose" of learning how to ski. (271-2) Response: DEIS section 2.7.1 explains our rationale for not analyzing the no-expansion alternatives we considered in depth. In brief, the east and west boundary adjustments are necessary to accommodate the summit access road/novice skiway that is an essential element of the proposed action, and the south expansion area provides the only terrain of appropriate difficulty level and extent to support the summit ski school/teaching center, the central element of the proposed action. Our stated purpose and need cannot be met without expansion. No South Expansion Other comments requested and alternative that did not include the back-side expansion (103-13, 105- 1, 224-1, 257-1, 380-21). Examples: An additional alternative that does not include expanded boundaries and development on the south side of the ridge needs to be included, and could instead protect further the wildlife and promote appropriate nature-oriented interpretative activities. (380-41) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS as it pertains to the development of the south side of Snow King. The DEIS offers no reasonable alternatives. Although in the existing SUP, any development of the south side has been criticized for numerous reasons. (102-1) I see no alternatives provided for the proposed backside use, which will cause major disturbance to multiple species, especially raptors and ungulates. (211-8) The alternative-driving issue is the impact on many wildlife species, including great gray owls, bears, lions, mule deer and elk—especially if elk feeding decreases and elk need to utilize other winter habitat that they don’t inhabit currently. (345-50)

Response: See preceding response. The south expansion area provides the only terrain of appropriate difficulty level and extent to support the summit ski school/teaching center, the central element of the proposed action. The DEIS analysis of wildlife impacts, documented in section 3.6, confirm our original view that an alternative that eliminated the southern expansion to protect wildlife was not warranted. Note also that the southern development area is already within Snow King’s special use permit boundary. Access Road/Skiway Alternatives Lack of an Alternative Alignment Several comments called out the lack of an alternative alignment without identifying a specific alternative (30-2, 71-4, 107-8, 187-5, 225-3, 261-1, 343-2, 358-7, 386-5, 418-1, L5-1). Examples: At the outset of this process the town requested a range of alternatives for the proposed road and skiway across the face of Snow King Mountain to and from the summit. Alternatives three and four contain the exact same alignment as alternative two, which is the proposed action by the resort. This comes after the town and the Bridger-Teton received substantial public comment about the road and the need for a range of alternatives. (246-1) …there is no alternative to the new road offered, yet the road will serve to destroy the current fall line skiing entirely with interruptions and unnavigable drops from steep slopes

33

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

to a flat, while not providing an acceptable descent route for novice skiers from the summit. (225-3) Response: DEIS section 2.7.2 explains why the six summit access road/novice skiway alternatives we considered were not carried into in-depth analysis. That explanation will be expanded in the FEIS. Given the multiple functions this element would have to provide and the terrain it would traverse, there simply were not any feasible alternatives. Specific alternatives are discussed below. Use of Existing Summit Road Alignment Several comments suggested use of the existing summit road alignment (128-1, 151-2, 171-3, 176-3, 272-5, 371-4, 375-5, 379-4). Examples: I would also like to suggest the best alternative for the proposed road: improving the existing road. (418-2) The current route contains historical significance, as it is one of the only places in the USA where townsfolk and visitors have casually climbed up a mountain repeatedly throughout Jackson's existence, and has significantly contributed to this local culture. (418-6) With moderate realignment and reconfiguration of the existing summit road, it should be able to accommodate the reduced maintenance- particularly if larger, wide track ATV vehicles are utilized. (L1-24) Response: Per section 2.7.2.1, “the existing road does not meet the need for an “easy way down” from the summit or from the top of Rafferty lift and is too steep for construction traffic. In addition, the erosion potential and maintenance costs of the existing road are high.” Use of Leeks Canyon Road Other comments viewed Leeks Canyon Road as a viable alternative (70-3, 107-9, 173-4, 289-1, 401- 1). Examples: Ask that they access via Leeks canyon like all other industry at the top of the mountain. (407-4) A very well maintained summit access road already exists in the south side permit area. I am unaware of any serious efforts having been made by SKMR to acquire access and use of this road. …If a new north side road is constructed, as proposed, Snow King summit will have two accesses. This seems redundant if not excessive. (L1-31) I believe any DEIS for this project must give full consideration to an Access Road up the valley south of SnowKing. Any cost of acquiring the access across a very short distance across private property adjacent to the south highway should be estimated. Use of this route would eliminate the need for improvement of the existing access up the north side of Snow King. It would seem appropriate to hold up on approval on the DEIS until this can be considered. (82-1) Response: As explained in section 2.7.2.2, the Leeks Canyon road does need meet the need for an “easy way down” from the summit to the base area, and it crosses private land not owned by Snow King, so use could not be ensured. Briggs Road Alternative A number of comments supported the “Briggs Road” alternative (45-5, 64-9, 100-6, 103-9, 128-6, 176- 6, 198-2, 246-2, 272-5, 330-3, 335-7, 345-49, 379-4, 397-4, 410-7, 418-4, L5-1, L8-5). Examples: What's expected and wanted is for the Gondola to provide more and better skiing for everyone, which is possible by way of extending Slow Trail from the old midway get off

34

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

station over to Scott's Ridge and back to the summit. Extending Slow Trail at its same grade would cross expert terrain to the bottom of an intermediate run I call Sun Slope. Then continue across more expert terrain to an intermediate run called Scott's Ridge, just before the ridge steepens into an expert pitch. A proper switchback there is an engineering challenge but obviously possible no matter how far into the mountain engineers may have to dig. Then recross expert terrain to the intermediate Sun Slope and on up to the Summit, either directly or as your proposal has it. This is possible and provides desirable skiing from the summit for everyone down the frontside of Snow King: Beginners with a satisfactory road back down, Intermediates with two new runs down to the road taking them directly back to all our current intermediate runs, and Experts with all their old runs which can be improved by taking out the old service road. This might then become a viable ski area. (119-3) A group of citizens, led by prominent avalanche forecaster and former Snow King ski patrolman Rod Newcomb, presented a viable alternative layout for the road to Jackson District Ranger Mary Moore. Former county engineer and state legislative Rep. Pete Jorgensen was part of this group. Yet there is no mention of this or any other alternative road configuration at all. (415-5) Two advantages to the Briggs alignment are that no road cut intersects the middle of Elk Run, allowing the quality of this run to remain intact, and the road traverses the west proposed expansion lower in the avalanche tracks, reducing the probability of avalanches encountering the road. (L8-4) Response: As explained in section 2.7.2.3, the alternative alignment extending Slow Trail up to Scott’s Ridge and hence the summit was not carried into in-depth analysis because due to the topography an alignment at 1ess than 10 percent grade, required for a novice skiway, could not be achieved. Based on comments received on this alternative we will reconsider that initial conclusion, and the FEIS will document our findings. Other Alignments Several comments questioned why alternative alignments considered in Snow Kings MDP were not considered in the DEIS: Why is SK's own engineering firm's plan for improving the road within boundaries not part of the Alternatives? (317-10) Materials reviewed during the Stakeholder Process included alternative roads that did not require boundary expansion to the east and west, which, in addition to human safety concerns will significantly impact critical wildlife habitat (as also noted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department). (404-1) On page 46, it states, "The ski area has comprehensively identified and assessed options for the necessary access road/novice skiway, and the proposed alignment was identified as the only viable option." This is perhaps the central flaw of the draft EIS, as it appears the consultant relied only on information provided by Snow King management. (415-4) The DEIS should have carried all three SE Group road options into in-depth analysis as action alternatives. (345-49) Response: The BTNF requested that the consultants who assisted Snow King in developing their 2017 master planning include an assessment of alternative alignments for the summit access road/novice skiway. The map circulated during the stakeholder process resulted from this review, which included options within the existing permit boundary as well as outside. The conclusion was that none of these alignments, other than the one currently proposed, offered the 10 percent grade required for the skiway except an alignment

35

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

that would “switchback continuously up the front side, within current permit and historic landscape boundaries, causing significant impacts in terms of soil disturbance, habitat fragmentation, skier safety, and visual quality. Beyond that, as a result of the continuous switchbacks it would not function well as either an access road or a novice skiway” (DEIS section 2.7.1). These alternatives were considered, as noted in section 2.7.2.3. If summit development is scaled down then a road of the proposed size would not be needed. A road on the already permitted area would be sufficient. No new road should be constructed into wildlife habitat. (235-9) Response: That is not the case. As discussed in DEIS section 2.4.3, the proposed summit access road/novice skiway would serve purposes unrelated to the scale of summit development, particularly a way down for lower-ability-level skiers if the gondola could not operate. Gondola Alternatives Several comments supported the new gondola in an alignment that would not affect Phil Beaux Park (222-6, 266-3, 335-6, 388-7). Examples: I do support the installation of a gondola to the summit… I think it should be placed in the footprint of the current Cougar lift in order to reduce the footprint in Phil Baux park, one of Jackson's most popular public parks. (45-10) The skier gondola should be placed in footprint of current "Cougar" lift. (70-4) I support a gondola to the summit, which would be an enormous revenue generator for the mountain, especially in summer. I think it should be placed in the footprint of the current Cougar lift in order to reduce the footprint in Phil Baux park, which is the sight of so many of our community's events-concerts, farmers markets, etc. (107-11) I support a gondola to the summit. It should be placed in the footprint of the current summit lift in order to reduce the footprint in Phil Baux park. (128-11) The Gondola should be placed in the footprint of the current summit lift in order to reduce the footprint in Phil Baux Park, which is one of our town's best assets. (386-8) Response: As discussed in section 2.5.2.1, the gondola bottom terminal was shifted to the site of the current Cougar lift bottom terminal to avoid impacting the park. Impacts on the park are addressed in section 3.10. The original lift had a mid-station at the exhibition road for the simple reason of making more of the mountain accessible to beginning and intermediate skiers which is why I would like to see a mid-station for the gondola considered. If the gondola had a similar place to offload it would make the proposed new summit road unnecessary. (304-3) Response: As explained in section 2.7.3, given the steepness of the slope, the amount of earthmoving necessary to construct a mid-station for the gondola would be prohibitive. Some comments requested consideration of alternative types of lifts: I was also disappointed to see that there were no Alternatives for a new Summit Lift, besides an excessive 8 person gondola. (307-2) I think it makes sense to have a hybrid lift - one that is both a gondola and a chair to service skiers and tourists a like. (266-3) …replacing the existing summit chair with a -tram- would be a really bad idea. It would not be user-friendly for skiers or summer activities, which should be the focus of this project. A modern high-speed chairlift to the summit would serve well with the upgrades. (62-1)

36

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Perhaps a gondola accommodates “non-skiing riders” better than a high-speed quad, but it also could increase summit visitation to problematic levels that are not necessary for winter recreation. (345-53) Response: Section 2.7.3 explains why other types of lifts would not meet the needs for the new gondola. Serving both skiers and non-skiing visitors is one of the main reasons for proposing a gondola. A gondola is proposed, not a tram. One reason for this lift type is ease of loading and unloading for skiers and other riders. Beyond that, the analysis does not suggest that the number of summer summit visitors would be problematic. Please consider supporting an alternative (i.e. a Gondola with a mid-station) for development that will have minimal disturbance to the visual esthetic from the development and preserve easy access to the lower mountain for beginning, intermediate and racing members of the community. (304-4) Also an 16 ft. road is not enough to get beginners down the steeps of Snow King.(I coached the alpine team there ) A midway is needed. (84-2) Response: As explained in DEIS section 2.7.3, a mid-station on the gondola was considered but not analyzed in depth because the steepness of the slope and the amount of earthmoving necessary to construct a mid-station would be prohibitive. Beginner Area Alternatives A number of comments requested an alternative that included development of beginner terrain on the lower slopes of the front side rather than on the summit and the back side (13-13, 13-34, 345-57, 364-8, 380-16). Examples: The Rafferty area could be improved for beginner and intermediate skiers by installing a new Magic Carpet and T-Bar to the west of the Rafferty Lift… There are suitable grades to expand the terrain park near Rafferty and at the current Old Man’s Flats location… (109-25) The Rafferty Area has always been SK's most ideal and convenient location for beginners, and could still be vastly improved. Since a large portion of this area lies on private land, I am concerned that the BTNF may be overlooking this solution as a "preferred alternative" to the ski areas "needs". (365-7) Response: DEIS section 2.7.7 explains why the summit area is best suited for development of the proposed ski school/teaching center and why alterative locations for beginner terrain development would not be feasible. Appropriate topography on the wide, gently sloped area west of the summit, length of season with good snow conditions due to elevation, more warmth and sun exposure, and better separation from more advanced skiers were the primary considerations. Summit Building Alternatives A number of comments questioned the size and/or range of functions of the proposed building and the lack of alternatives (93-3, 187-6, 188-7, 198-3, 211-7, 317-11, 345-58, 386-7, 394-3, 397-8, L1-23, L1-16). Examples: At the top of the mountain, the proposals include 20,000 - 25,000 square feet of buildings. Is it really appropriate to add a summit structure that has a footprint roughly the size of the new One Town Hill building at the base of Snow King? Again, where are the range of alternatives? (272-6) A top of the mountain restaurant event center is what will make them money. Weddings etc are big money. The something between the Panorama and the proposed 25,000 sf size would be better. (409-2)

37

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: DEIS section 2.4.5.1 details the multiple functions the proposed summit building would serve, and section 2.7.1 puts these functions in the context of the overall proposed action. Summit development is the central element of the proposal. Section 2.7.8 explains that the suggested alternatives were not carried into in-depth analysis because they were not consistent with these functions. Other comments suggested renovation of the Panorama House as an alternative (23-2, 30-25, 30-30, 50-2, 61-8, 103-15, 184-2, 266-4, 284-9, 317-11, 327-2, 330-6, 331-8, 345-59, 372-6, 380-20, 381-2, 406- 3, ). Examples: Improving the existing Panorama House, which could qualify for Historic Preservation, would successfully serve as a quick lunch restaurant and warming house. (101-3) A new high-speed gondola and a refurbished restaurant at the top of the mountain, using the existing footprint of the historic Panorama house, would be nice additions. (360-3) Reasonable development at the top, such as retrofitting the historic Panorama House to serve as a modest restaurant/bar. It could also be a simple venue for weddings. Stargazing can occur in the same area if lights are reduced. (380-19) I see no alternatives provided for the proposed summit development, which seems way over the top - smaller scale services would be a more appropriate use for such a wild area. (211-7) Response: See preceding response. The Panorama house is not nearly large enough to provide the needed functions of a summit facility. Observatory Alternatives Why must the observatory be part of every action alternative? Is it also essential to the “purpose and need”? Why not have more variety among the action alternatives? (345-60) Response: Again, the purpose of alternatives is not variety but impact avoidance or reduction in meeting purpose and need. The analysis does not indicate any notable impact associated with the observatory. Bike Park/Trail Alternatives FOP supports lift-served mountain bike trails at Snow King, and believes that adding trail density within the resort boundaries will be beneficial and help minimize user conflicts on multi-use trails, as long as mountain bikers using lift access are not allowed to leave the resort boundaries. We suggest the best way to prevent this is to allow lift accessed mountain bike trails off of the Rafferty Chairlift only. If this is not feasible, then there needs to be a clear plan for preventing lift-served bikers from encroaching onto forest lands outside of the Snow King permit area… (353-4) From where do the Forest Service’s “belie[fs]” about mountain bike viability come? And where is the analysis to show why ride time (to the mid-station or to the top) would “preclude” mountain bike use? The Teewinot lift at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort is also short and slow and yet supports a thriving mountain bike attraction. (345-54) Response: Using Rafferty for mountain bike access would not resolve this potential issue, as riders could access all existing front-side trails from that lift. Beyond that, section 2.7.5 explains that we considered a trail system served by the Rafferty lift but concluded that the mid-station area is already highly developed and heavily used due to the siting of the ropes course, alpine slide, and mountain coaster. The lift is often operating at capacity during the summer. As a result of those summer activities at the mid-station area, most Rafferty lift riders unload there, requiring the lift to slow or stop. Accordingly, lift capacity and ride time would both preclude the lift being able to support an added mountain bike trail system.

38

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

As to managing impacts on the existing trail system outside the ski area boundary, Alternative 2 would allow free access. Alternatives 3 and 4 include provisions specifically addressing this issue, and section 3.10 addresses impacts on the Cache/Game trail system in depth to identify differences among these alternatives. Zip Line Alternatives Some comments noted the lack of an alternative with no zip line (397-4, 71-16, 222-5, 331-5). Examples: A summertime zipline will mean more noise and more people in summer which could cause abandonment of habitat by wildlife. We would like to see an alternative in the DEIS that includes an option with no zipline installation. (235-10) I see no alternatives provided for ziplines, which I believe are an inappropriate use of National Forest lands. Any adventure rides should be confined to property owned by the applicant. (211-6) No alternatives were proposed to the zipline, which by itself should require a No Action as this is not even a snow-related activity and, similar to summit ski school, is a dangerous and erroneous activity for this area. (331-5) Response: As discussed below under Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans - SAROEA and Forest Service Manual Direction on Seasonal and Year-round Recreation, zip lines are to be authorized at permitted ski areas if certain criteria (discussed below) are met. Our analysis indicates that those criteria would be met. Accordingly, an alternative without a zipline would not be appropriate. See response above under Alternatives – General. Yurt Camp Alternatives TBCA might consider supporting the installation of one yurt near the lower forks of Leeks Canyon as an enhancement to backcountry skiing on Snow King's back side, as an improvement to the USFS's service to backcountry skiers in Jackson Hole overall, and as a provision for a much-lacking commercial opportunity in BTNF for backcountry ski guiding based from a yurt. (357-3) Response: The proposed yurt camp is described in section 2.4.5.4. It would provide a wide range of all- season recreational opportunities to a range of user groups, consistent with our stated purpose and need. A single yurt supporting unguided backcountry skiers would not meet purpose and need. Alternative Funding for the Ski Area A number of comments provided the following comment (160-1, 266-8, 327-7, 360-5, 406-1, 410-17, L12-2): Legally binding system so commercial development at the base financially supports the ski area. (23-6) Response: Ski area funding arrangements are not an environmental concern, so such suggestions are outside the scope of this EIS. These and other comments suggest public ownership, co-op shares, SPET funds, and other options to fund ski area improvements (182-1, 260-1, 266-8, 327-7, 406-1, 410-19, 425-3). Examples: …Snow King (winter activities in particular) is best suited to be a town resource, administered by the local Parks & Recs department, which can most directly address the two greatest uses of the mountain in winter (kids recreational/race programs, and uphill access). (391-12)

39

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Our community could step up with co-op shares or SPET funds to build a new chair lift or gondola without all the harmful expansions. Or a small fee on commercial activity and real estate development at the base of Snow King (as is common in other resort areas) could fill the financial gap and make the ski area profitable year-in, year-out". (317-16) I believe there are other ways to generate enough income to maintain the beauty of this small "Town Hill" including local fundraisers and season access passes that would help provide funding to keep the charm of Snow King alive. (305-4) Nowhere in the DEIS is there any discussion of the fact that SKRMA received extremely valuable base development entitlements from the Town of Jackson( TOJ ) in return for which there was to be an income stream that was specifically intended to support the operation of the "Town Hill" . (417-3) Response: As per the preceding response, alternative funding sources for the ski area are outside the scope of this EIS. If they could follow the lead of some small ski areas that are developing as bike areas I think they could increase their business sustainability without major environmental impacts. (108-1) Response: The proposed action and action alternatives all include mountain bike infrastructure. However, as discussed in more detail below under Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans - SAROEA and Forest Service Manual Direction on Seasonal and Year-round Recreation, snow sports must remain the primary focus of permitted ski areas. Miscellaneous It appears that the DEIS simply ignored the USFWS comments regarding lynx habitat. (345-62) Response: Section 2.7.11 explains our rationale for not carrying a "lynx alternative" into in depth analysis. The analysis documented in section 3.6 concludes that the proposed action and all action alternatives may impact suitable lynx habitat but would be consistent with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and its amendment to the Forest Plan. This conclusion supports our initial determination that impacts on lynx are not an alternative-driving issue. DEIS Table 3-11 notes that lynx have not been observed at the ski area. Snow King should seek to use this backside area for lift assisted touring similar to how JHMR uses the Rock Springs area. (30-36) Response: As discussed in sections 1.4 and 2.4.2.1, development of lower-level ski terrain to provide a smooth progression for developing skiers is the primary reason for back-side development. Lift-served touring would not meet that need. To turn Snow King into an uphill mountain would be a much better approach and would better suit the very active Jackson Hole community… (154-2) Response: This alternative would not address the demands of the skier market and thus would not meet purpose and need. Another alternative that was failed to be introduced is to use the existing underutilized trails/roads on Upper Exhibition to reroute uphill ski traffic. (418-8) Response: We are not aware of any need to reroute uphill ski traffic. As discussed in section 2.4.8.3, the improved uphill summer trail would also serve as the designated direct boot-pack ascent route.

40

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Cumulative Effects General comments regarding cumulative effects are addressed in this section. Comments regarding the specific issues analyzed in depth in the DEIS are dealt with under the appropriate resource headings below. General Some comments expressed the view that cumulative effects were not addressed in the DEIS: The effects analysis, cumulative effects analysis and mitigation presented are also not in compliance with NEPA. Most of the effects are dismissed, there is no discussion of cumulative effects... There are very real, negative effects to the town of Jackson and the Forest from this proposal and these are required to be fully analyzed and mitigated by NEPA. (186-2) Cumulative effects certainly are not considered. (30-5) NEPA requires a thorough review of the Range of Alternatives and an equally thorough summary of the Cumulative Effects ("Direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected....."). The Snow King DEIS is clearly lacking in this regard which should (a) invalidate its proposals and (b) simultaneously mandate the "No Action" alternative at this time. (200-2) Response: DEIS section 3.1.2 identifies and describes the cumulative actions considered in the analysis. They are all actions in the BTNF Schedule of Proposed Actions with the potential to generate effects that overlap the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action in space and time. Each resource section in Chapter 3 then considers those cumulative actions in resource-specific analysis of cumulative effects (see DEIS sections 3.2.4, 3.3.4, 3.4.4, etc.). Other comments reflected a common misunderstanding of what cumulative effects mean in the context of NEPA (18-5, 177-14, 186-3, 345-95, 345-98, 345-100, 345-101, L1-38). Examples: These [cumulative actions] must have been put in as a joke. If we are reaching for distant effects to compare what might be added by this project, where is climate change and air quality? (13-23) What any of the projects listed as cumulative actions, except the last one, has to do with Snow King is unclear, but what is missing is of more interest: why not include all that has been happening at and around the resort and Jackson? Recent, ongoing, and planned changes on the mountain itself and the immediate area of town, local traffic, population growth, increasing visitation, noise, light pollution, congestion, and intrusions on wildlife habitat within the adjacent national forest are all relevant to cumulative effects; a reroute of a trail on Munger Mountain seems not to be. (13-24) Significant cumulative impacts of additional noise, light, development, and motion in all three alternatives negatively affect the quality of life of the residents in town and potentially alters property values. They are also counter to the natural values of silence, stillness, and darkness that so many residents and visitors seek in the valley and the proposals are incompatible with the extensive wildlands of Jackson Hole. (380-49) The cumulative impact of new trails with existing trails in terms of soil erosion, other trail users such as hikers, equestrians, pet walkers, illegal trail expansion and hillside degradation should be evaluated. (364-17) Response: In common language, cumulative effects on a resource would likely be taken to mean the full spectrum of natural and human-generated forces influencing that resource. Without practical sideboards, an analysis of cumulative effects, as required by NEPA, would dwarf the analysis of the direct and indirect impacts of a proposed action. Accordingly, NEPA provides those sideboards, as follows: “…impact on the

41

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). This narrows the focus of cumulative effects analysis to a practical scope. Climate change and air quality are not actions. They are addressed as appropriate in DEIS sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. Climate change is also discussed where appropriate in the assessment of direct and indirect effects on specific resources (e.g., section 3.11, Safety). Beyond that, many of the resource conditions noted in these comments are incorporated into the DEIS’ discussion of existing conditions for each resource, which is the appropriate place to discuss them (e.g.: section 3.4.4, Water, Soils, and Watershed; section 3.9.2, Noise; section 3.12.2.2, Lighting; and section 3.6.2, Wildlife). Other cited issues – including traffic, population, and congestion – are not addressed in the DEIS for reasons discussed in section 1.7.2, Issues Considered but Not Carried into In-depth Analysis. …the CE analysis does not reference activities within or next to the permit area that were “evaluated” under a categorical exclusion (such as the installation of a pipe to bring culinary water to the top, the roller coaster, the ropes course, the “horse trail,” the new condominium project, the King’s Grill building, or the extended Rafferty Lift). (345-97) Response: The effects of these ongoing activities at Snow King are reflected in current conditions as described as appropriate in the affected environment sections in Chapter 3. Community Effects A number of comments cited specific cumulative effects on the community (164-1, 173-7, 183-1, 394- 4, 429-2). Examples: The cumulative effects on the community, i.e., the surrounding area, which the DEIS does not address, includes all the issues this community has been trying to address since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2012. (example: population growth, housing issues, traffic, noise, maintaining habitat for wildlife.) (101-7) Basically, how does a large expansion affect the town in combination with any other factors happening in the town and surrounding areas? (372-7) What about the cumulative impacts that the proposed expansion of Snow King will have on the existing effects of increased tourism in Jackson Hole, which creates a burden on our roads and infrastructure, on water and sewer, traffic congestion, worker housing, light pollution, noise, soil erosion, vegetation disturbance, water availability and quality, and wildlife habitat destruction and infringement? (364-21) Response: See responses above under Issues Not Carried into In-Depth Analysis – Town Character, Employee Housing and Utilities, and Traffic and Parking. Those responses cite DEIS section 1.7.2.8 which explains why these issues were not carried into in-depth analysis. Briefly, town character is too subjective to validly assess, and the other cited issues are being addressed by the town and county through ongoing planning and policy development, including specific planning for the Snow King resort district. For these reasons, cumulative effects on the community, like direct and indirect effects, are outside the scope of this EIS. The analysis process is occurring with no reference to or analysis of the historic setting… it demonstrates how important it is to understand conditions that existed not so long ago, and how that might be used in making future decisions. This element is completely missing in this DEIS process. (L1-40)

42

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: NEPA and our agency direction on its implementation call for EISs to provide the background information necessary to set the stage for assessment of environmental effects. This information is in the affected environment discussion for each resource addressed in Ch. 3 of the DEIS. For some resources, such as cultural resources, the affected environment discussion (section 3.7.2) goes back decades or even centuries. For other resources, such as noise (section 3.9.2), only current conditions are relevant. Beyond that, this comment seems to suggest an approach to analysis that is beyond the scope of this EIS.

Mitigation General comments regarding mitigation are addressed in this section. Comments regarding mitigation of specific effects identified in the DEIS are dealt with under the appropriate resource headings below. Several comments addressed a lack of mitigation in the DEIS: Also, one finds nothing in the way of mitigation meant to become part of each alternative. (13-21) The DEIS… offers very little in the way of mitigation of effects that are meant to become a part of each alternative. (71-3) Response: In this EIS process, we are using the term design criteria rather than mitigation (DEIS section 2.8). Each resource section in DEIS Chapter 3 concludes with a discussion of design criteria to address identified impacts on that particular resource. The responsible official has the authority to add additional design criteria or mitigation requirements in the Record of Decision. Some comments suggested that the DEIS presented the proposed Big Munger trail re-route as a mitigation measure: … and the only mitigation mentioned is a trail re-route on Munger Mountain which has nothing to do with the proposals outlined in the DEIS. (186-3) A re-route of a trail on Munger Mountain is mentioned as a mitigation, which will not mitigate the negative effects on the forest and town from this proposal… (30-6) Response: The Big Munger trail re-route is not noted in the DEIS as a mitigation measure but as a cumulative action (section 3.1.2).

Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans SAROEA and Forest Service Manual Direction on Seasonal and Year-round Recreation A number of comments questioned whether elements of the proposed action complied with Forest Service direction on development of summer or year-round recreation opportuniuties at permitted ski areas, particularly the direction documented in the Ski Area Recreational Opportunities Enhancement Act (SAROEA) and subsequently incorporated into our Forest Service Manual (FSM; 13-25, 13-26, 13-39, 13-41, 13-42, 18-6, 18-7, 30-15, 30-20, 30-26, 30-27, 30-28, 30-29, 30-25, 30-31, 70- 2, 71-6, 71-7, 72-5, 72-6, 101-4, 101-6, 102-7, 103-1, 103-7, 103-11, 109-11, 109-12, 109-17, 109-18, 131- 1, 173-16, 177-1, 186-4, 186-5, 186-10, 187-8, 187-9, 188-8, 198-4, 211-2, 211-4, 225-2, 225-4, 312-3, 312-4, 312-6, 312-7, 312-8, 312-9, 312-10, 312-11, 312-13, 312-14, 312-16, 331-6, 364-4, 364-10, 364-16, 373-2, 380-9, 380-17, 411-5, 417-4, 417-5, 427-2, L1-20, L1-21, L1-27, L1-34). Response: Some background information on the cited management direction is useful in setting the stage for responding to specific comments. As originally enacted, the 1986 Skier Area Special Use Permit Act authorized Nordic and Alpine skiing at ski areas on National Forest System lands. In November 2011, Congress enacted SAROEA, which amended the 1986 Act to, among other things, clarify the authority of the Forest Service to authorize a ski area permittees to provide other seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreational activities and associated facilities (in addition to skiing and other snow-sports)

43

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

on National Forest System land subject to a ski area permit. The Act went on to provide more detailed direction on what activities and facilities were appropriate. On April 17, 2014, the Forest Service published a Notice of Final Directives for Additional Seasonal and Year-Round Recreation Activities at Ski Areas. The final directives established criteria to help determine whether proposals for these activities are consistent with SAROEA. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2340 – Privately Provided Recreation Opportunities – includes our final policy on additional season and year-round recreation activities at ski areas. FSM 2343.14(1) includes criteria for evaluating additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may be authorized at ski areas. These activities and associated facilities must: a. Not change the primary purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports; b. Encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature and provide natural resource-based recreation opportunities; c. To the extent practicable, be located within the portions of the ski area that are developed or that will be developed pursuant to the master development plan; d. Not exceed the level of development for snow sports and be consistent with the zoning established in the applicable master development plan; e. To the extent practicable, harmonize with the natural environment of the site where they would be located by: (1) Being visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area’s existing facilities, vegetation and landscape and (2) Not requiring significant modifications to topography to facilitate construction or operations; f. Not compromise snow sports operations or functions; and g. Increase utilization of snow sports facilities and not require extensive new support facilities, such as parking lots, restaurants, and lifts. FSM 2343.14(2) identifies seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may meet these criteria. FSM 2343.14(3) identifies seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may not be authorized. Additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that are not specifically precluded in FSM 2343.14(3) will be evaluated case-by-case based on applicable regulations and directives. Finally, per FSM 2343.14(4), factors that may affect whether seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities not specifically addressed in the preceding direction meet the criteria included in FSM 2343.14(1) include, but are not limited to, the degree to which visitors are able to engage with the natural setting, the extent to which the activities and facilities could be expected to lead to exploration and enjoyment of other National Forest System lands, and the similarity of the activities and associated facilities to those enumerated in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of that section. Comments directed at compliance with these specific FSM provisions (2343.14[1][a. – g.]) are as follows. a. Not change the primary purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports. Example: For example, one of the purposes, “Provide new and innovative forms of year-round outdoor recreation...” ignores the Forest Service Manual, which states, “Do not approve additional seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreation activities and associated facilities if they would change the primary purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports”. (364-2) Response: The purpose of SAROEA and its expression in our FSM was to expand the range of recreational activities authorized at permitted ski area, specifically including seasonal and year-round activities. The

44

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

purpose and need statement (section 1.4) and the proposed action (section 1.3) reflect that direction. While seasonal and year-round activities are an important part of the proposed action, they would not alter Snow King’s primary purpose in providing snow sports. As a result, the proposed action complies with this direction. b. Encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature. Examples: Creating a major new commercial hub for the Snow King resort on top of Snow King mountain is not and should not be the business of the Forest Service. SAOREA provides that the Forest Service may authorize a ski area to provide natural resource-based recreational activities and associated facilities on National Forest System land. A dedicated wedding venue and a meeting venue do not meet these clear limitations… (379- 5) The more people are encouraged to visit the mountain for thrills and entertainment, the greater the reduction the appreciation and enjoyment of the natural experience. The lift carrying 1500 pph and the "comfortable capacity" of over 2600 people is not conducive to a natural experience. (380-1) Response: The proposed facilities provide services to recreationists and other visitors on the National Forest. They provide venues from which to enjoy scenic views of National Forest System resources as well as starting points from which visitors can expand their experience of the National Forest. Even getting to these facilities entails crossing over National Forest resources with a bird’s eye view. The summit wedding venue is a good example; the only reason it would be sought out would be its natural setting. The proposed action is consistent with this direction. c. To the extent practicable, be located within the portions of the ski area that are developed or that will be developed pursuant to the master development plan. Examples: The Ski Area Outdoor Recreation Enhancement Act (SAOREA) which governs the review and action on this proposal requires that each activity/facility shall harmonize with the natural environment of the affected National Forest land and be located within the developed portions of the ski area. The proposed new road meets neither of these legal requirements. (379-2) None of the action alternatives considered in this DEIS comply with SAOREA, as the proposed road that is common to all alternatives does not meet these legal requirements… (109-8) Response: The east and west permit boundary adjustments and the southern operating boundary expansion are included in Snow King’s accepted 2017 master development plan. As a result, all proposed development is consistent with this direction. See response under point e. below regarding harmonizing with the natural environment. d. Not exceed the level of development for snow sports and be consistent with the zoning established in the applicable master development plan. Examples: However, the level of development that Snow King seeks in this proposal – and which is analyzed under all action alternatives – exceeds the level of development necessary for snow sports at the resort. Backcountry yurt camps, restaurants, wedding venues, zip lines, new roads, and new summer trails are not necessary, or beneficial, for snow sports. (109- 15) The lift-served mountain biking operation which includes an extensive new system of mountain bike trails, along with the new 25,000 sq' restaurant, wedding venue etc. are designed to promote activity for over six months of the year. These activities and facilities

45

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

and the numbers they are designed to attract are much greater than for snow sports over approximately 3-4 months of the year. (380-7) The backside development as proposed would turn this zone into a highly developed area similar to the front and is likely to increase activity levels throughout adjacent forest areas. Snow King should pursue a less intensive proposal for the backside in order to be in compliance with FSM guidance of zoning of use. (186-15) Inconsistent with the accepted MDP and FSM which states activities and associated facilities be consistent with the zoning established in the applicable master development plan. (13-35) Response: While the proposed action includes infrastructure solely for summer recreation (e.g., mountain bike trails and zone, hiking trails, and zip line), the majority of proposed development would support snow sports, with some elements also providing year-round opportunities (e.g., the summit building, gondola, and yurt camp). Given that most existing development is also dedicated to snow sports, these changes would not shift the balance of infrastructural development away from snow sports. The requirement for zoning in ski area master plans is incorporated into our FSM (2343.14[8][a]) to help ensure that seasonal and year-round recreational infrastructure is appropriately collocated with snow sports infrastructure. Snow King’s accepted master plan includes zoning based on the natural setting and current or proposed snow sports infrastructure, and it cites proposed seasonal and year-round development accordingly. DEIS section 2.4.5.1 describes the functions that would be served by the summit building, which center on skier services such ski school facilities, ski patrol headquarters, equipment rental, gondola storage, restrooms, and food service. Without these services, the summit ski school/teaching center (section 2.4.2.1) would not be feasible. Section 2.4.5.2 notes that the observatory would function year-round. The wedding venue would be primarily a summer amenity, but it would have little impact. Based on these considerations, the proposed action is consistent with this direction. e. To the extent practicable, harmonize with the natural environment of the site where they would be located. Examples: SAOREA and FSM both require that facilities harmonize with the natural environment by being subordinate to the ski areas vegetation and landscape. The FSM also states that new facilities shall not require significant modifications to topography to facilitate construction or operations. I am a landscape architect licensed in the state of Wyoming and this road will be a large scar across the mountain side requiring significant tree removal and modification to topography. It will become a dominant feature on the ski areas landscape and will remove much of the existing topography. (30-16) …a 16’-wide road is certainly a significant modification… the road would irreparably scar and dominate the visual landscape of Snow King (103-8) Many of the new proposed facilities and activities such as the zip line, mountain bike park and 25,000 sf ridgetop complex would overshadow and interfere with the existing facilities and landscape and require significant modifications given Snow King’s terrain. (345-68) The many additional features-roads, zipline, buildings, glading, extensive new mountain biking trails, new lifts B, C, D on the south side do not individually or cumulatively "harmonize" with the natural environment. They add an unsightly scramble of altered topography, potential for erosion and exotic species invasions; reduction, fragmentation, and degradation of wildlife habitat and movement; noise by users and for maintenance; light pollution; and constant busy motion throughout the seasons. The proposals both

46

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

north and south are an industrialization of the mountain beyond the current developed area. (380-8) Response: The visual impact of the summit access road/novice skiway, as well as the other infrastructure cited in these comments, are addressed in DEIS section 3.12.3.1.2 and illustrated in Figure 3-23. The indicator for scenic impacts is compliance with the Visual Quality Indicators (VQOs) assigned to the permit area in our Forest Plan. Those VQOs are Modification around the base area and Partial Retention higher on the slope (section 3.12.2.1.1). They reflect the authorized degree of divergence from the natural landscape in the permit area. Using the methodology established in the Forest Service’s Visual Management System, the analysis concludes that the proposed development, including the summit access road/novice skiway, would be consistent with assigned VQOs. Based on these considerations, the proposed action complies with this direction. See responses below under Human Environment – Scenery. f. Not compromise snow sports operations or functions. Examples: The proposed summit access road cuts across the fall line and cross ski runs 15 separate times, thus compromising snow sports operations by posing a public safety hazard for skiers. (109-13) The Forest Service Manual states: construction… shall not compromise snow sports operations or functions The proposed road with cuts and fill will be a significant topographical modification. As the runs exist today, they are well known and highly regarded for racing and race training. It is likely that the road will negatively impact one of the greatest assets of the ski area. (417-10) Response: The first point to remember is that this direction applies to seasonal and all-season recreational development, not to snow sports development, and as discussed in DEIS sections 2.4.3 and 2.7.1, the summit access road/novice skiway would serve primarily snow-sport-related functions. While this direction does not apply to the access road/skiway, the DEIS does address the impacts of its crossing existing runs on recreation and safety (sections 3.10 and 3.11). Section 3.10.3.2.2 concludes “All in all, this would be a marginal adverse effect on skier flow on existing runs, slightly increasing the impacts discussed above [under no-action alternative]... The situation would not be ideal but, again, skiway crossings are a common and manageable issue at ski areas.” Based on these considerations, the proposed action is consistent with this direction. g. Increase utilization of snow sports facilities and not require extensive new support facilities, such as parking lots, restaurants, and lifts. Examples: This directive shows that there is a basis for replacing the aging lifts at Snow King, but little legal precedent for constructing new lifts on a previously unused area on the back side. (103-10) A 25,000 f2 building on the summit, as opposed to the modest development there now surely qualifies as an “extensive new support facilit[y].” (103-14) FSM 2343.14(1), part g further directs that activities and associated facilities at ski resorts increase utilization of snow sports facilities and not require extensive new support facilities… The ski school, new chairlift, T bar and carpet lifts on the back side of Snow King in this proposal comprise considerable new development, conflict with FSM direction, and should not be permitted. (109-16) Response: Again, keep in mind that the cited direction applies to seasonal and all-season recreational development, not to snow sports development. The new lift on the back side is proposed primarily to access the lower-ability-level ski terrain that is Snow King’s most pressing need (sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.7.1). Section 2.4.5.1 describes the functions that would be served by the summit building, which center on skier services such ski school facilities, ski patrol headquarters, equipment rental, gondola storage, restrooms, and food service. Without these services, the summit ski school/teaching center (section 2.4.2.1) would not

47

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

be feasible. While these facilities would also support seasonal and year-round recreation, the need for them stems from snow sports. As a result, the proposed action is consistent with this direction. Other points of FSM direction cited by commenters include the following: Base expansions solely on needs related to winter sports (2343.11[2]). Examples: …the 67-acre eastern boundary expansion on the front side sought by Snow King in this proposal – and included in all 3 action alternatives – is primarily intended to accommodate construction of a summit access road. This road would be used to construct and service summit facilities, such as the “wedding venue”, which will primarily be utilized during the non-snow season. Thus, this expansion is not solely for needs related to snow sports. (109- 10) Expanding the ski area permit boundary is not based on snow sport need, as most days there are very few skiers at the resort, and most of this expansion would be to service new summit facilities, as well as for mountain bike trails and a yurt camp that would be located right in essential wildlife corridors. (46-5) In reality, the road is necessary to serve the many new buildings proposed for the summit, the vast majority of which cater to summer visitors. The wedding venue, zip line, and mountain bike park together would change the primary purpose of the ski area to providing summer activities. (345-66) The Forest Service Manual makes it clear that any boundary expansion must be based on needs directly related to snow sports. As determined from the proposal, this road will function primarily to service the summit facilities and to a much lesser degree to support snow sports. (L1-26) Response: The FSM includes the cited direction under the heading of Ski Areas, Policy. Under a subsequent heading, Additional Seasonal and Year-round Recreation at Ski Areas, the manual provides this less restrictive guidance, “Permit area expansions must be based on needs related to snow sports rather than additional seasonal or year-round recreation” (2343.14[11]). The term “solely” is not included. DEIS sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.3 outline the rationales for the east and west boundary adjustments, which center on accommodating the summit access road/novice skiway and providing additional ski terrain. Section 2.7.1 explains the function of these elements in the larger context of the proposed action. This information shows that while boundary adjustments would support summer and year-round activities, their primary functions are related to snow sports, specifically providing construction and maintenance access to the summit ski school/teaching center and associated infrastructure (i.e., skier services and winter operations functions provided at the summit building, and lower-difficulty-level summit and backside terrain) and providing an emergency route down for skiers in the event of a lift failure. Based on this strong relationship to snow sports, the permit boundary adjustments comply with FSM direction. See also response under point d. above. Authorization of additional seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities is subject to terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Authorized Officer (2343.14[10]). Example: There is nothing in the DEIS to meet SAOREA direction that states the FS may authorize a ski area permittee to provide seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreational activities, subject to such terms and conditions as the FS determines appropriate. (13-32) Response: A function of the DEIS is to identify potential terms and conditions that the responsible official may require as conditions of any authorization granted in the ROD. To provide the responsible official the

48

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

necessary information, each resource section in Chapter 3 identifies design criteria intended to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects identified through the analysis for that resource. Do not approve additional seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities when the visitor’s experience is not interdependent with attributes common in National Forest settings. (2343.14[5]) The zip line, wedding venue, and massive summit building do not provide a visitor experience inherently based on forest settings. (345-69) Response: We believe that the National Forest setting, coupled with views of Grand Teton National Park and the region's wilderness areas, would be an important aspect of visitor enjoyment of these facilities. [FSM21343.14(5)].

Allow temporary activities that rely on existing facilities, such as concerts or weddings, even if they are not necessarily interdependent with a National Forest setting, provided they are enhanced by it. Do not authorize new permanent facilities solely for these activities (2343.14[6]). Examples: The FSM does not allow permanent facilities to be constructed for weddings or concerts and it also states that if facilities are found nearby they should not be constructed on FS land. The town of Jackson is immediately adjacent to Snow King and contains ample dining, wedding and meeting facilities so these should not be permitted at the top. (186- 12) In spite of the whitewashing found in the response to comments on scoping, the in-ground wedding venue structure is not temporary and runs counter to [FSM direction] direction, and it appears in every action alternative. (13-43) The proposed wedding venue would clearly constitute a new permanent facility solely for the activity of weddings. (345-70) Response: As stated in the scoping report, “The proposed wedding venue would be enhanced by the National Forest setting and would be supported by the gondola and summit infrastructure. In itself, the venue would be more a site than a facility, entailing minimal development, as described in the scoping notice.” While the venue would provide an attractive, natural setting for the ceremony itself, a wedding would involve the summit building food, bar, and restroom facilities, as well as the gondola to get to the summit. Given its essential, functional connection to snow-sport-related facilities, the wedding venue complies with this direction. Authorize concessioners to provide food services at dining rooms, coffee shops, lunch counters, and temporary, quick-lunch counters that are a part of a resort operation (2343.4). Example: A 25,000 square foot complex clearly surpasses what this direction intends to allow. This level of development is inappropriate considering Snow King already provides many services itself at the base, and the resort is located next to a concentration of numerous services: the Town of Jackson. (345-72) A full-service restaurant and bar with convention/meeting space doesn’t meet this direction… A smaller-scale structure consistent with FSM direction cited above would be appropriate. (13-43) Response: As described in DEIS section 2.4.5.1, the summit building would provide a broad range of visitor services and operational functions beyond food service. Sections 2.4.5.1 and 2.7.1 also explain why these services and functions are necessary on the summit.

49

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

This direction does not preclude a full-service restaurant and bar. Though the DEIS (section 2.4.5.1) does not include convention/meeting space among the functions provided by the proposed summit building, these activities may be authorized in accordance with FSM 2343.14(6). As discussed under Purpose and Need (section 1.4), there is a need to upgrade Snow King’s facilities to meet current demands placed on mountain resorts. In this context, the cited services are consistent with this FSM direction. DEIS section 2.7.8 explains that a smaller structure would not meet purpose and need. Deny proposals by the private sector to construct or provide outdoor recreation facilities and services on National Forest System lands if these facilities and services are reasonably available or could be provided elsewhere in the general vicinity (2340.3[2]). Examples: Restaurants, bars, and wedding venues are readily available in Jackson (312-12) Outdoor recreation related facilities are already provided at the base and nearby, as are services and amenities for visitors. (345-67) The town of Jackson has ample restaurants. The existing Panorama House on the summit is under used and its use could be expanded to provide snacks and lunches catering to skiers. (364-14) One way to resolve inconsistencies with FSM 2340.3 as noted above would be for the Bridger-Teton National Forest to provide a table showing all of its commercial and individual recreational permits and permit opportunities, as well as all recreational permits and opportunities on Grand Teton National Park lands, and advertisements and/or commercial listings indicating recreational opportunities on private lands, using the Jackson’s Hole valley as the “vicinity” to be served… The agency should do the same regarding the non-recreational site development proposal with respect to weddings and meetings. (177-4) Response: It is true that there are ample restaurants, bars, meeting spaces, and wedding venues on private land in and around Jackson. Our decision to include these elements in the proposed action was based on providing these services where they would be most accessible to people recreating at Snow King and where they would provide visitors the opportunity to experience BTNF resources, particularly the scenic vistas available from the summit. Accordingly, the proposed summit development complies with this direction. Work with holders to ensure that ski areas provide a high-quality recreation experience and that recreation activities at ski areas are conducted in a manner that protects the natural environment and cultural resources and enhances community values. (2343.11[1]) Many action alternative elements, especially the boundary expansions, the removal of historic features, and the construction of a road into new territory and across historic features, clearly contradict this statement. (345-65) Response: Our purpose in preparing this EIS is to assess such potential effects and to help us balance the objectives of providing high-quality recreation experience and resource protection. Additional seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may meet the criteria in FSM 2343.14, paragraph 1, include but are not limited to: a. Zip lines… (2343.14[2]). Examples: SAOREA specifically includes such activities as zip lines, mountain bike terrain parks and trails, disc golf courses and rope courses, because such activities are natural resource- based and encourage further exploration of Forest Service lands in contrast to theme or amusement parks. However, a high-speed zip line as proposed is not like the zip lines already in place at the ropes course. It is more of a thrill ride than anything that would encourage the enjoyment of nature. (13-47)

50

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The proposed zip line is an amusement park attraction and similar in nature to the mountain coaster, which is why the FS prohibited its installment on forest land (the Cowboy Coaster is located on private land). (345-64) My final concern focuses on the proposed zip line, another amusement type ride that… is very similair to their mountain coaster which the Forest Service did not allow on Foresr Service land. I wonder why you are now considering a similar ride, also inconsistent with the Ski Area Outdoor Recreation Enhancement Act and not offering users enjoyment of nature, when you did not consider the coaster years ago? (427-7) Response: As this comment acknowledges, zip lines are specifically among the summer activities allowed under SAROEA, which does not set parameters for allowed types of zip lines beyond meeting the requirements of paragraph 1, points a.–g., discussed above. Our review concluded that all zip line options considered in the analysis met these requirements. Mountain coasters are not included 2343.1[(2) nor precluded under 2343.14(3). Instead, proposals for mountain coasters are reviewed individually in accordance with 2343.14(4). Based on that review, we decided not to approve the mountain coaster previously proposed by Snow King. The following miscellaneous comments also fall under this compliance heading: The same SAOREA directs that new facilities be within the permit area. The BT must require the SKMR to site the gondola’s base within the lease area or at least on private property. Its proposed location, Phil Baux Park would eliminate land that is actually used to “connect visitors with the natural world.” This project should not impact existing activities that achieve that goal. (L1-35) Response: SAROEA’s focus is National Forest System land. It provides no direction regarding facilities outside the permit area. If Snow King is intent on improving the skiing quality as is required by the FSM and SAOREA, they should focus on improving ski runs within their existing boundary and removing hazards. (30-24) Response: Neither the FSM nor SAROEA require ski area permittees to improve skiing quality. That is a logical objective shared by the Forest Service and our permittees. The FS winter sports handbook requires "wildlife security won't be disturbed." (173-12) Response: FSM 2340 – Privately Provided Recreation Opportunities is our current source of management direction for ski areas. It does not include this stipulation. The DEIS addresses wildlife effects, including impacts on security habitat, in detail in section 3.6. Forest Service Handbook

…exclude lands that: (1) Will not be occupied by the facilities authorized; (2) Are not necessary for constructing, operating, maintaining, and fully utilizing the authorized facilities and conducting the authorized activities; and (3) Are not necessary to address concerns of public health and safety and to protect the environment. (FSH 2709.14 Ch 61.1) Snow King has many opportunities for improving the use of in-bound and existing terrain without expansion of either the development footprint or the Special Use Permit boundary. … The expansion into territory unsuitable for beginner terrain and a road criss-crossing expert terrain does not address public health and is counter to safety. (345-71)

51

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: DEIS section 2.4.3 describes and provides the rationale for the summit access road/novice skiway, and sections 2.4.1 and 2.7.1 explain how it fits functionally into the overall proposal. Note also that while the current summit access road does indeed "criss-cross" expert terrain, the proposed route crosses a single time, resulting in recreational and safety benefits relative to current conditions (sections 3.10 and 3.11). Forest Plan Several comments addressed Forest Plan compliance at a general level: Development plans as presented are in conflict with the very first sentence of the 2015 Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Chapter 1, at page 8. It states, “The Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan attempts to solve or prevent serious problems associated with existing natural resources and people's continuing use of them.” (177-2) The Effects Analysis and Cumulative Effects of this project according to the report would, if approved, force the Bridger Teton National Forest to compromise it's vision… The effects of this project as stated in the DEIS markedly damage the healthy forests, compromise the air, the water, and most importantly the habitat of the premier national forest of the lower 48. … I ask that the Forest act in alignment with it's vision statement, and in the most responsible manner for the forest itself and choose the "No Action" alternative for any Snow King "improvements". (244-3) Please remember that Snow King is already currently meeting the Forest's goals and objectives for winter and summer recreation. Pursuing any of the three proposed alternatives would come at a cost to other resource areas that you are also mandated to manage and protect. (426-2) Response: DEIS section 1.4 defines the resource use issues we are trying to resolve with this proposed action. Any conflicts with our Forest Plan direction will be identified in the EIS The proposals as written violate a forest-wide standard for wildlife habitat effectiveness as stated in the 1990 forest plan. (13-36) Response: The comment does not suggest what the violation is, and our analysis identifies none. Violates the 1990 Forest Plan standard for DFC 9A, which prescribes a scenic quality objective of partial retention/modification. (13-45) Response: Snow King is in the 9B classification, not 9A, but the cited VQOs are correct. Analysis demonstrating compliance is provided in DEIS section 3.12. [The proposed summit access road/novice skiway] violates the 1990 Forest Plan standard for DFC 9A, which prescribes a scenic quality objective of partial retention/modification. (13-32) Response: Our Forest Plan assigns DFC 9B, Special Use Recreation Areas, to the project area, not 9A (see DEIS section 1.6). Section 3.12.3.1.2 discusses scenic impacts relative to assigned visual quality objectives. The forest-wide habitat security area standard states that “security areas will be maintained adjacent to concentrated human activity areas.” Adjusting the resort boundary and introducing a high level of human activity into these areas violates this standard. (13- 31) Response: This standard applies most directly to designated seasonal wildlife closure areas. DEIS section 3.6 addresses effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

52

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Past Decision on Lift-served Mountain Bike Access to Summit “The FS ruled that no bikes would be allowed off of the Summit lift in the Cache-Game Trail Projects decision memo”; “We implore the BTNF to uphold this decision and not allow lift-served mountain bike trails off of the summit lift…” (345-11) All mountain bike action alternatives put mountain bikes on the summit. Again, the Cache- Game Trail Projects decision memo prohibited this for a good reason. There is no practical way to keep many mountain bikers from taking their bikes up the front-side lift and then accessing the currently stellar trails off the backside. (345-55) The proposed new bike trails in this area are inconsistent with how the BTNF has managed other proposals in this area (Skyline Trail)… (30-20) Using the Skyline Trail as precedent, this expanded ski boundary is inconsistent with the BTNF's land management procedures. (30-22) The building of the Skyline trail was agreed to with a stipulation that there would be no lift-served bike access to the trail from Snow King. It seems to me that at least one of the alternatives (the developer’s preferred alternative) would have the FS reverse this condition. (364-18) Response: The cited stipulation in our Cache Creek/Game Creek trail decision was not based on actual analysis of the effects of lift-served mountain bike access to the summit. We were erring of the side of caution until sufficient analysis could be completed. This DEIS provides that analysis, and our decision will supersede the Cache Creek/Game Creek decision in this regard. Section 3.10 of the EIS analyzes potential impacts on the Cache/Game trail system and its users in depth, and Alternatives 2 through 4 reflect varying levels of restrictions and design changes to manage these impacts. Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan Some comments questioned the proposed action’s compliance with the general concepts of the Comprehensive Plan: Does the Teton County comprehensive plan and years of public debate count for nothing? (187-3) This is due to my strong belief that the DEIS is inadequate as written and biased to commercial development issues rather than long standing community values expressed in the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Land Use Plan first instituted in 1978 and subsequently reviewed and updated in 1994 and 2012. (188-1) The impact of planning decisions on use by the local community is one of the most significant factors in the planning process and one that is only marginally addressed in the draft EIS. (375-1) None of the action alternatives address… the goals of the Jackson-Teton County Comprehensive Plan (2012): "Preserve and protect the area's ecosystem in order to ensure a healthy environment, community and economy for current and future generations." (394- 4) Response: The Comprehensive Plan does not apply to National Forest System lands. Nevertheless, the BTNF strives to be a good neighbor, and Teton County is a cooperating agency in preparation of this EIS, so their concerns and expertise are central to the process. They have been involved in this EIS process since its early stages and will remain so until the process is complete. This role helps us incorporate the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate while maintaining our obligation to manage National Forest System resources in accordance with our agency’s own regulations, policies, and plans. In terms of natural resource management, our objectives generally align well with those of the town and county.

53

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Others specifically cited the Comprehensive Plan’s direction on resort expansion: The 2012 Teton County Comprehensive Plan states that “…existing planned resorts should be limited to their existing footprint.” The permit boundary expansions on either side of the Snow King face violates this direction. (13-24) The Teton County Comprehensive plan, adopted by the community, specifically prohibits expansion of the existing footprint of any resort area. (173-11) It is very disappointing to see the USFS take such an aggressively pro-development stance disregarding the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan, which states that "existing resorts should be limited to their existing footprint". (358-1) Response: As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan does not apply to National Forest System lands. We have our own agency direction regarding ski area expansion and are legally bound to abide by it. See responses above under SAROEA and Forest Service Manual Direction on Seasonal and Year-round Recreation. It should be noted that the DEIS looks at the impact of climate change on the proposed development, but not how the proposed development may contribute to climate change issues such as greenhouse gas emissions and energy use locally. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan indicators for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions show that that the town and county are not meeting targets and therefore need to find ways to decrease both. Since the town and county asked that the proposal incorporate goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the DEIS should contain a section specifically addressing how the proposed development will affect the town’s and county’s abilities to meet their goals. (177-8) Response: While the DEIS climate change analysis (section 3.1) focuses on potential impacts on the ski area, our air quality analysis (section 3.2) addresses potential effects of proposed development on local airsheds. That requires characterizing existing conditions as a point of comparison then projecting emissions, primarily particulates that are the primary local concern as well as main contaminant produced by ski area activities. Going beyond that would be outside the scope of the EIS, but we are happy to maintain coordination with the town and county on air quality and climate-change issues. Snow King should not receive an exemption to the county sky lining requirements. (107- 12) Response: As noted above, the BTNF is obligated to follow our internal agency direction in assessing and managing scenic effects on National Forest System lands. DEIS section 3.12 discusses how we integrated county requirements into our analysis of scenic effects. See sections 3.12.2.1.1 and 3.12.3.1.2 that discuss compliance with the skyline construction stipulations.

Cooperating Agencies Several comments suggested that we ignored letters submitted by our cooperating agencies, the Town of Jackson and Teton County (13-48, 18-8, 247-2, 238-1, 248-2, 312-5, 345-12, 345-13, 345-14, 364-5). Examples: The set of alternatives… do not integrate the concerns and requests of the Jackson Town Council and Teton County Commissioners to incorporate community development goals represented by the 2012 Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan. (177-3) The DEIS writers committed an additional serious misstep: they did not address concerns from the elected officials from the Town of Jackson and Teton County, both cooperating agencies that penned letters on 10/1/18 and 9/24/19 respectively. (103-19)

54

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Ignores cooperating agency letters: Town of Jackson (10/1/18) and County Commission (9/24/19) (312-5) Response: We have engaged in ongoing formal and informal communications and meetings with our cooperating agencies, the Town of Jackson and Teton County, since the start of this EIS process, in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1501.6). All communications have been appropriately considered. DEIS section 2.2 discusses the involvement of our cooperating agencies, the Town of Jackson and Teton County, in alternative development. See response above under Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans – Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan.

Extension of Comment Period/Public Comment A number of comments addressed extension of the DEIS comment period, either the one extension we approved or a second extension (35-1, 41-1, 101-1, 156-2, 190-2, 212-2, 240-1, 331-9, 369-4, 417- 12, 420-2, 420-4, L1-1, L2-1, L11-1). Examples: I'm writing to ask for an extension of the comment period for the Snow King Mountain Improvements. A project of this magnitude, with such a huge effect on the people living in the Town of Jackson due to its proximity and to those of us in the county with roots in Jackson, deserves adequate comment time for all aspects of the expansion to be scrutinized. (27-1) I oppose the town of Jackson's request to extend the public comment period for the DEIS. 45 days is plenty of time for public comment on a project which has seen immense amounts of public debate for years. (26-3) We understand that this is in no way a situation that the U.S. Forest Service could have foreseen, but now that we are all caught in it, we respectfully ask that you pause this public process until the worst of the COVIC pandemic has passed, so that the general public may have a better chance to fully participate. (412-7) Because of the Coronavirus pandemic, the stay-at-home order and recommendation, and the cancellation of the March 18 public meeting, I request that the USFS indefinitely extend the public comment period until such time as the USFS can hold a public meeting. Then close the comment period 15 days after the public meeting. (364-26) Response: Our NEPA regulations call for a 45-day comment period on a DEIS. We responded to requests for an extension by offering another 2 weeks. No public meeting is required. While we intended to offer one, the COVID pandemic simply precludes it. While the pandemic may affect peoples’ time to participate in the process in various ways, we feel that we have provided ample opportunity for review and comment on the DEIS. Particularly because, as one commenter noted, this proposal has been discussed in the community for years. We have a responsibility to permittees as well as the public to complete NEPA reviews in a timely manner.

Need for a New EIS Several comments requested that we prepare a new DEIS (30-1, 345-73, 345-102, 3345-111, 361-4, 364-1, 364-24, 411-8). Examples: I urge the BTNF and Snow King to re-do the DEIS to comply with NEPA and present alternatives to the public that include an appropriately scaled new summit facility, appropriate intensity of backside development, no new road and no east/west boundary expansion. (186-1)

55

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

A revision of this Draft EIS with an array of different ideas for the road, backside, and future trails would be beneficial to all, especially if one can feature maximized inbounds terrain that should have been a priority for Snow King, decades ago. (307-1) I would also like to see the Forest Service collect the research and data as suggested by the Town of Jackson, The Teton County Commissioners, The Wyoming Game and Fish, US Fish and Wildlife Service and The United Stated Environmental Protection Agency, to name a few, which have all formulated careful recommendations of what needs to be in this EIS based on their understanding of Jackson Hole and its residents, wild and domestic. (399-2) The Alliance firmly believes that the numerous process concerns we outlined are grounds to warrant abandoning this DEIS and starting a new NEPA process – or at the very least, issuing a Supplemental DEIS that solves these problems. (345-22) Response: See responses above under Purpose and Need, Proposed Action, Issues Not Carried into In-depth Analysis, Alternatives, Cumulative Effects, Mitigation, and Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans. Based on these considerations, we believe the DEIS serves its intended purpose and complies with NEPA and our regulations on its implementation. The FEIS will include revisions based on comments on the DEIS, as appropriate.

Integration with National Historic Preservation Act …36 C.F.R. 800.8(a)(3) states that agency officials “should ensure that preparation of an . . . EIS . . . includes appropriate scoping, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects upon them, and consultation leading to resolution of any adverse impacts,” and the DEIS claims that “consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is an ongoing, parallel process” (p. 155), yet the scoping notice did not call out effects on historic resources. … the FS did not publicize impacts to historic resources prior to the DEIS on the BT website (with the exception of some documentation posted without a press release or public notice of any kind)…. the FS did not include historic resources as points of discussion in public meetings with cooperating agencies. (345-17) Response: All of these cited requirements have been met. Scoping was initiated in August 2019. Comments regarding impacts on historic resources were received from five commenters. DEIS section 2.2 states that protection of Snow King's historic landscape was an alternative-driving issue reflected in development of Alternatives 3 and 4. DEIS section 3.7 identifies potentially affected historic properties, analyzes those potential effects, and notes that consultation under NHPA Section 106 is an on-going, parallel process. Note also that the purpose of scoping is to solicit input on issues to be addressed in an EIS, not to "call out" potential effects. It is unclear which, if any, mechanisms for public involvement were established, let alone at a level commensurate with the nature of historic impacts that will result from all alternatives in this process. Even consulting parties on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) currently being drafted have failed to advertise to their constituencies or solicit public engagement. (345-18) Response: We noted in our notice of the opportunity to comment on the DEIS that the comment period also met the requirements for comment under NHPA section 106. This notice went out 1/31/20 to 736 subscribers on the Snow King EIS mailing list. On the same date, we issued a press release providing this information to 2,095 media contacts, organizations, and individuals on our planning mailing list. Of the 430 commenters, 59 expressed concern over some element of Jackson or Snow King history.

56

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

In short, our outreach to make the public aware of the potential for impacts on Snow King's historic landscape, the NHPA section 106 consultation process, and the opportunity to comment met all process requirements. The FS and SHPO … also failed to include the Alliance as a consulting party even after we explicitly requested to be included in our letter dated October 24, 2019. FS and SHPO did not notify the Alliance of our lack of inclusion until after the first MOA meeting had ended, and FS staff then only provided that information verbally. (345-19) Response: The regulations regarding section 106 consultation state that we may include other consulting parties (36 CFR 800.2 [c][5]), but that participants are identified through discussions between the lead federal agency and the SHPO. We submitted our report and request to initiate consultation to the Wyoming SHPO and then discussed consulting parties with them. In addition to the parties identified by regulation (36 CFR 800.2[c]), we included the most pertinent local organizations, the Teton County Historic Preservation Board and the Jackson Hole Historical Society and Museum, as well as the contractors assisting us in this consultation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation subsequently agreed to participate. A total of 23 people was invited to the first MOA meeting, held March 5, 2020. We believe this group comprises sufficient representation of interests without becoming too large to function effectively. We regret any inconvenience our slow response to this request to participate may have caused, but there is no legal direction regarding the timing or means of responding to this request. Per 36 CFR 800.8(a)(1), agencies should consider their section 106 responsibilities “as early as possible in the NEPA process”; however, the FS did not complete their historic impact documentation until November 2019, after the alternatives had already been drafted and pre-released in October. Clearly there was no consideration for generating alternatives that had no adverse impacts or at least diminishing adverse impacts. (345-20) Response: As noted previously, we considered potential effects on Snow King's historic landscape from the onset, and DEIS section 2.2 identifies this concern as an alternative-driving issue reflected in Alternatives 3 and 4. The DEIS does not provide any mitigation measures for adverse impacts, instead stating, "Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is an ongoing, parallel process,” with no mention of if or when the public may have an opportunity to comment. (345-21) Response: DEIS section 3.7.5 lists design criteria to protect cultural resources, but the MOA currently being prepared by the team of consulting parties identified above will include stipulations specifically to mitigate adverse impacts on the historic landscape. There is no requirement for public comment on these stipulations.

PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Comments included in this section address questions or opinions about the physical and biological resource effects carried into in-depth analysis in the EIS. Some request new information or clarification. Some suggest additional data sources or analysis. Others question our findings.

Climate Change I oppose ANY development on the south side of Snow King. Especially the misguided attempt to expand skiing to a SOUTH facing slope that rarely holds enough snow to ski on. With the prospect of diminished snowfall and warming temperatures with climate change, this does not make economic sense. (262-2)

57

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: DEIS section 3.2 addresses this issue, citing studies that identify snowmaking as one of the most common adaptations to climate change, with approximately 89 percent of ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains currently utilizing snowmaking (section 3.2.2). See also response under Proposed Action - Specific Elements of the Proposed Action – Terrain Development. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan indicators for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions show that that the town and county are not meeting targets and therefore need to find ways to decrease both. Since the town and county asked that the proposal incorporate goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the DEIS should contain a section specifically addressing how the proposed development will affect the town’s and county’s abilities to meet their goals. (177-8) Response: See response above under Compliance with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans – Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan. While the town and county are cooperating agencies in this EIS process, we cannot apply the Comprehensive Plan’s goals to National Forest System resources, nor can we assess impacts outside the scope established for this EIS. Section 3.3 of the DEIS addresses air quality effects, particularly visibility impacts due to particulates from slash burning and construction vehicle operation. Note also that Snow King has converted all lifts to electric drive.

Air Quality Class I Airshed The Draft EIS indicates that the conclusions regarding visibility were based on the review of 5 -years of data (p.73, section 3.3.2.1 "Protected Airsheds"). To better understand the basis for these conclusions, we recommend that the Final EIS identifies the National Park Service (NPS) monitor that was relied on for these data. We also recommend including a table that displays the 5 -years of data that were used to derive a trend. Finally, we recommend including the relative distance (in miles) of this monitor from the project location. (L13-1) In section 3.3.2.1. "Protected Airsheds," there appears overall minimal PM2.5 and PMio ambient air quality data (DEIS p.73). The EPA recommends that the Final EIS identifies the NPS monitor used to collect these data and its location relative to the project, along with a table displaying 5 -years of ambient data that establishes a trend. (L13-2) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 3.3.2.1, the National Parks Service maintains a website that provides air quality data for each national park (Air Resources Division website Air Quality Conditions and Trends. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/park-conditions-trends.htm?tabName=summary&parkCode= GRTE¶mCode=Overall%20Air%20Quality&startYr=2008&endYr=2017&monitoringSite=YELL2 %20(IMPROVE)&timePeriod=10-year). For Grand Teton National Park, this data includes current values and 5-year trends for parameters including visibility, ozone, PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen, and sulfur. Since this information met our needs for existing conditions in terms of visibility (i.e., visibility and particulates), we used it rather than securing and processing raw monitoring data. See section 3.3.2.1. The website does not identify monitoring sites but notes that their confidence in the data is high because it comes from stations within or near the park. The park is approximately 8 miles from Snow King, which will be noted in the FEIS. Pertinent data from the website will be included in the project record. In addition, we note that data are not presented in section 3.3.2.1 with relationship to the Town of Jackson. The State of Wyoming operates a State Local Air Monitoring Site (SLAMS) in Jackson. This monitor (ID 56-039-1006) gathers data relevant to the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the PM2.5 annual standard, the PM2.5 24-hour standard, and the PMio 24-hour standard. As this air monitoring site is located in Jackson, which is directly adjacent to the Snow King ski resort, it is important to provide data (5-years for a trend) in the Final EIS to understand the current levels of

58

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

the monitored pollutants and establish background values for Jackson. These data could then be used in the Final EIS to discuss future levels of pollutants, potentially affecting Jackson, based on the increased visitation in the winter from the proposed ski resort expansion. (L13-3) Response: As stated in DEIS section 1.7.1.1.2, the air quality issues addressed in this analysis are the impact on visibility in protected airsheds (i.e., Grand Teton National Park and wildernesses in the region) and the impact on the cloud created by snowmaking. As Jackson is not in a protected airshed, we opted to use data from the park, as discussed above. We note that section 1.7.2.9 "Traffic and Parking" indicates that no specific traffic analysis was developed for the project. We recommend that the current level of resort visitations be compared to future predicted increased visitations from the expanded resort. Based on the ratio of increased resort visits from the proposed project, a correlation on the impact to current monitored values for PM2.5 and PM10 in Jackson could then be assumed. (L13- 4) Response: This project is different from most ski area NEPA reviews because Snow King is not a destination resort seeking to draw visitors to Jackson. Instead, the intent of the proposed action is to: 1) increase local use of the ski area by offering an attractive option to Jackson Hole Mountain Resort that requires less travel; 2) encourage skiers visiting Jackson Hole to spend a day skiing Snow King; and 3) induce summer travelers that otherwise pass through on their way to the parks to stay a night in Jackson. As a result, increased traffic through Jackson is not anticipated, and the standard type of traffic-based air quality analysis is not warranted. While local traffic patterns may be affected, the town and county are actively managing traffic and parking in town (DEIS section 1.7.2.9), so the issues of traffic congestion and parking were not carried into in-depth analysis. For completeness, we also recommend providing summer 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS values (5-year trend) for Teton National Park in the Final EIS. These data are available from the NPS monitoring site (ID 56-039-0008). (L13-5) Response: Again, the issue addressed in this particular EIS is visibility in protected airsheds, and ozone is a colorless gas that does not affect visibility. Note that this data is also available at the NPS website discussed above, and that the monitoring site identified in the comment is not the source of the reported visibility and particulate data, as those parameters are not monitored at that site. In section 3.3.2.1 "Protected Airsheds," paragraph 2 references EPA PM2.5 vehicle emission factors of 0.0041 and 0.0045 grams/mile for PM2.5 emissions from cars and light trucks. As stated in the Draft EIS, it is not clear what EPA information was specifically referenced and if these emission factors are only tailpipe emissions or if re-entrained road dust was included. We recommend that the Final EIS provides the EPA reference from where these emission factors were extracted… We also recommend that this paragraph includes PMio vehicle emissions for the Final EIS. Although PM10 tailpipe emissions are minimal, re-entrained road dust emissions are typically higher. The reentrained road dust emissions would be correctly calculated using the VMT and the EPA's AP-42 factors found in Chapter 13 (see: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnlchief/ap42/chl3/.) (L13-6) Response: The citation for these emission factors was inadvertently omitted in the DEIS text but included in the references section. It is: EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA420-F-08-024. The text citation will be added to the FEIS. These emission factors do not include re-entrained road dust. We recognize that re-entrained dust can contribute an added increment to vehicular particulate emissions. We decided to estimate just tail-pipe emissions for the following reasons: 1) these factors were readily available, while calculating re-entrained

59

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

road dust as suggested in this comment is a complex process requiring input that is not readily available, and 2) excluding re-entrained dust resulted in an underestimation of current vehicle emissions, providing a conservative baseline for assessment of project effects. This brief analysis established that existing highway traffic is the major contributor to the particulates that impact visibility in the area’s Class 1 airsheds. This approach is consistent with NEPA direction to make use of existing information to the extent possible and to pursue analysis only to the extent necessary to make a reasoned determination as to the significance of a given impact. Road dust emissions from maintenance vehicles in terms of PM2.5 are referenced in section 3.3.2.1 in the last paragraph on page 74. The Draft EIS references a Pacific Northwest study (Roberts 1973) as the basis for the selection of an emission factor. The EPA recommends that un-paved road dust emission factors, for both PM2.5 and PM10, would be more appropriately based on EPA's AP-42, Chapter 13 (noted above) and included in the Final EIS. (L13-7) Response: We did project current dust emissions for maintenance and construction vehicles at Snow King because, in contrast to the highway vehicle traffic discussed in the preceding response, dust would be the main source of particulate pollution from this source. Our objective was to generate a sufficiently accurate estimate to assess the magnitude of this particulate source relative to the high volume of highway traffic through the area. The cited study from the Pacific Northwest provided a ready, existing source of emission factors, while the method suggested in the comment would have required data on vehicle speed, soil particle size, moisture content, timing, and other variables that would require either substantial data collection or questionable assumptions about unknown variables. In accordance with the NEPA direction noted above, we opted to use the existing emission factor that provided a sufficient level of accuracy for our purposes. Note also that section 3.3.5 lists control measures for management of fugitive dust that would be in place under any action alternative authorized. Snowmaking Cloud Several comments noted general concerns about analysis of the snowmaking cloud (64-5, 71-9, 71-10, 71-11, 71-13, 343-9, 364-11, 391-10). Examples: The wind doesn’t blow during inversions when the snow making cloud is most dense and extensive; the increased snowmaking that has already taken place has made an obvious difference. Yet—the already-changed snowmaking environment is not even mentioned in this section or under cumulative effects. (13-19) Snowmaking: to dismiss and downplay the noise of the equipment, the ice cloud and creation of a winter microclimate under temperature inversion conditions (no wind to blow it away as suggested in the DEIS) is to minimize an impact which is significant to everyone who has to live within /under the cloud and constant rain of ice crystals. (417-11) Response: This issue is addressed in detail in DEIS section 3.3, and section 3.3.2.2 describes the effect of current snowmaking on “cloud” formation. These effects are analyzed and disclosed, not dismissed. That section also notes that this phenomenon is worst during inversion conditions. Winds do blow at higher elevations, above valley inversions, to dissipate suspended ice crystals, as the analysis indicates. The effects of snowmaking noise are addressed in DEIS section 3.9. Also, currently no cloud exists on the back side of Snow King. Where would this cloud go? How big would it be? Would it affect South Park? None of this was studied or analyzed. (30-14) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 3.3.2.2, the snowmaking cloud is primarily associated with inversions, which are not a factor on the back side of Snow King due primarily to topography. Suspended ice particles would dissipate due to natural airflow and winds.

60

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The proposed backside area historically does not have enough snow and the amount of water required to make enough snow to provide coverage would be a significant drain on the region's already scarce water. (46-6) A long time ago, there was a rope tow on the south side to encourage skiing. It was a total failure because the snowpack, scoured by wind and the intensity of the sun, kept it marginal for skiing. The proposal for extensive snowmaking requires an enormous amount of water from the Town of Jackson water supply, which would be pumped from town to the summit. Snowmaking is not the best use of town water resources or power resources. (102-2) There is insufficient information on how the proposed plan would draw water for snowmaking without disrupting the main priority of Jackson’s water source, which is for the individuals who live there. (331-7) Response: As discussed in DEIS section 1.7.2.1 explains why the issue of snowmaking water use affecting water availability was not carried into in-depth analysis. In brief, Jackson has not experienced a water shortage; if there were a shortage, the town would be under no obligation to meet Snow King’s demand; and expansion of the snowmaking system does not equate to a proportional increase in water use. Note also that most water used in snowmaking returns to the watershed during runoff. See also the response under Proposed Action – Specific Elements of the Proposed Action – Terrain Development.

Water, Soils, and Watershed Water Quality These proposals all have very real and measureable adverse effects on… water quality. (30-4) Any increased development on the south side of Snow King poses a potential risk of contamination of both Game Creek and our aquifer… (346-1) Response: DEIS section 3.4 addresses water quality impacts, and section 3.10 addresses impacts on the Cache/Game trail system, including erosion and associated watershed effects. The proposed expansion of the operating boundary is in Leeks Canyon watershed, not Game Creek, and there is nothing proposed that would affect the aquifer. The DEIS should also consider impacts to non-federal waters nearby, as they are still public resources. Because of the proposed trail system changes that would add more users into Cache Creek, the FS should consider impacts to that system as well, along with the Flat Creek watershed. (345-26) Response: Section 3.10.3.3.2 notes the potential for increased impact on plant communities and water bodies outside the ski area due to increased bike traffic on the Cache/Game trail system, and section 3.4 addresses water quality impacts on Cache Creek and Flat Creek, specifically, in depth. Erosion and Soil Stability Several comments expressed general concern about erosion: Being especially interested in watershed conservation, I am particularly concerned with the developmental impacts of erosion and sediment transport that may degrade surrounding aquatic ecosystems. (65-3) The DEIS dismisses the impacts of soil erosion, impacts on native plants, and impacts on wildlife. (102-10) Constructing trails and the chair lift on these surfaces will create opportunities for increased runoff both from snow melt and summer rains. And mountain bike trails cut into these soils will be easily eroded with use. How will this be controlled? (L1-7)

61

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: DEIS section 3.4 addresses erosion and soil stability impacts in detail. Sections 3.4.5 and 3.5.5 list the design criteria that would be in place to avoid or reduce the potential impacts identified. Most comments in this category addressed the proposed mountain bike trails and zone (358- 11, 380-51, ). Examples: The plans do not take into account the increased erosion and soil stability of the ridgeline and south slopes exposed to increased trail and off-trail mountain biking activity. (380-32) Bridges and Underpasses? Have these increased construction, topographical, and soil disturbances been accounted for? (380-54) In summertime, the addition of mountain bikes (lift access to the top) would put undue erosion and deterioration on existing trails (currently accessed by human power)… (391- 13) Response: DEIS section 3.4, under the headings of Erosion and Soil Stability, addresses the impacts of construction and use of proposed mountain bike infrastructure. The noted bridges and underpasses would be small, likely hand-built wood and stone structures. The associated disturbance is accounted for in the buffer zones reflected in our disturbance calculations (section 3.1.1). Section 3.10, under the headings of Existing Trail System, addresses the indirect effects on the existing Cache Creek/Game Creek trail system. Comments expressed conflicting views about the effects of the proposed summit access road/novice skiway: A well designed road will also reduce the heavy erosion that occurs every spring along the horribly designed road that carves across the face of Snow King now. (66-3) It is likely that a new road would be subject to significant erosion, due to the steepness of the slopes that it is proposed to intersect. (391-7) Response: DEIS section 3.4.3.2.2 classifies the pre-mitigation erosion hazard of the proposed summit access road/novice skiway as high then goes on to discuss the effectiveness of proposed design criteria (section 3.4.5) in reducing that risk. Section 3.4.3.2.1 in the FEIS will be edited to note the ongoing erosion problem posed by the existing summit access road. These comments addressed the effects of summit development on erosion: The facilities will require significant and permanent grading, underground excavations, pipes, and significant surrounding soil disturbance. (380-12) Also, viewpoints and building surroundings will also be subject to erosion and compaction by visitors coming up the tram. (380-32) Response: The soil disturbance associated with summit development is described in section 3.1.1, and effects on erosion are discussed in section 3.4.3.2.2. Some comments addressed aspects of the analysis: The majority of the soils and project components have a high rating for erosion risk, yet the DEIS claims that utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) will make risks negligible. We find this hard to believe given much of the new terrain will have high maximum slopes (as high as 67 degrees) … (345-88) Response: DEIS section 3.4.3.2 discussed the results of the analysis, specifically the CDA method that was employed. That section cites the mitigation measures/BMPs and discusses their efficacy. The discounting of the soil and erosion risk also then reduces the perceived impacts of greater water runoff due to increased snowmaking. (345-89)

62

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Section 3.4.2.1.2 states “…the snowmelt runoff scenario in the permit area would remain similar to existing conditions (section 3.4.2.1.3). This is because snowmaking is expensive and therefore used as little as possible. When natural snow is sufficient to meet a ski area’s needs, snowmaking does not occur. On the other hand, during dry years, or years when natural snow comes late, snowmaking offsets shortages of natural snow. As a result, similar amounts of snow accumulate naturally or as a result of snowmaking over the course of a season, and the amount of runoff remains comparable.” The analysis also notes that most runoff quickly percolates into the soil on Snow King Mountain, resulting in virtually nonexistent flows leaving the ski area boundary. In short, increased snowmaking poses little risk of increased erosion. Landslide and Rockslide Several comments noted concerns over landslide potential (372-9, 391-7, 429-8). Examples: The upper western slopes of Snow King Mountain are simply too steep, and contain the most significant terrain features such as scattered cliffs and deep ravines, which all pose avalanche, landslide, and rockfall risks. These ravines/gulleys also funnel the groundwater underneath, and any disruption will spread out the groundwater and liquify the soils, and increase the risk for failure. (418-11) If a fire destroys the eastern or western forests after this road is cut, it will be guaranteed to result in severe erosion, and possibly a catastrophic landslide. If the slightest slip on the slope or road is detected(likely occurrence for many Spring's after a fire), the whole mountain would need to be off limits to the public, and possible evacuations of hundreds of private properties. (418-13) Response: DEIS section 3.4 addresses this issue in detail under the headings of Slope Stability. Sections 3.4.5 and 3.5.5 list design criteria to avoid or reduce the risk of instability. A major fire on the north face of Snow King Mountain would create a substantial erosion hazard and threat to structure near the base with or without the proposed summit access road/novice skiway. Regarding the erosion hazard of that element of the proposed action, see responses above under Erosion and Soil Stability. Beyond that, several elements of the proposed action are intended to reduce wildfire risk or would have that benefit as a side effect. Most important of these are the proposed forest stand thinning (section 2.5.4.4) to reduce fuel loads and continuity and snowmaking system expansion (section 2.4.7) which would make water available for fire suppression throughout the ski area. Mitigation The proposed road should require financial bonding of at least $10M to mitigate and repair any issues, and would require monitoring by independent geologists, because we should not blindly trust any ownership group of these public lands to properly disclose any issues. (338-4) Snow King hasn’t mitigated properly in the past and needs to be held to a “higher standard of compliance,” which would seem to imply that the BMPs for these impacts and others would not be successfully applied. (345-90) As stated before, the road should require significant financial bonding, but perhaps should be far in excess of $10M. (418-14) Response: Snow King is obligated under the terms of their permit to repair any resource damage caused by their permitted operation. Our engineering review, which follows NEPA analysis for projects authorized in the ROD, would establish any monitoring requirements appropriate for the proposed summit access road/novice skiway.

63

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Vegetation These comments questioned the scope of the vegetation analysis (102-10, 380-36, 380-51). Examples: Furthermore, there changes in vegetation other than listed invasive species that are not addressed… These changes alter the natural integrity of the landscape and diminish the visitor experience of being in a wild place. (380-35) The DEIS does not mention other impacts of the increased access to and expansion of the mountain bike system… The concentration on the upper part of the mountain increases the impacts on wildlife, shallow soils, and natural vegetation. (380-51) Response: DEIS section 1.7.2.2 explains why vegetation issues other than noxious weeds were considered but not carried into in-depth analysis. In brief, effects on general and forest vegetation were addressed as appropriate to assess impacts on other resources such as wildlife (section 3.6) and scenery (section 3.12), but no further analysis was necessary to determine that there would be no significant impact on general or forest vegetation. In regard to special-status plant species, none have been found at the ski area in the past or during surveys conducted for this EIS, and no critical habitat would be affected. By the process of elimination, noxious weeds were the only issue carried into in-depth analysis (section 3.5.1). Noxious Weeds Some comments suggested that noxious weeds were not sufficiently addressed: Invasive weeds: Alternative 2 trivializes prevention and control of invasive species. (317- 15) Alt. 2 understates the impacts by saying the increase in recreational use would "potentially" expand" the vector of weeds -- in my experience there is no doubt it will expand the spread of weeds, as well as alter native vegetation composition. Furthermore, integrated weed management efforts, while commendable and necessary, usually fall short of control… Nearby buttes are covered in non-native yellow sweet clover and cheatgrass- to mention just two likely exotic invasive species. Both these species crowd out the native plants which in turn alters natural diversity and food chains including invertebrate populations, small mammals, and bird life. They change the forage for ungulates. These shifts and invasions are very difficult and expensive to prevent and control and I don't see a plan to do so. (380-33) The DEIS claims that they would analyze impacts to vegetation by identifying the weed species that may occur at Snow King based on past observations and reconnaissance completed for this analysis and then assess the risk of spreading those species and introducing new ones based on characteristics of each proposed element (3.5.1). To the contrary, the DEIS only analyzed broad impacts without consideration for how different project elements would produce different effects. The DEIS did not quantify or differentiate impacts of new proposed ski runs versus impacts of the new mountain bike zone (other than to say they would be different). The DEIS also did not consider seasonality of uses, which is insufficient given that recreation use under the proposed alternative would increase dramatically during the summer months. As a tourist destination, the increase for the spread of noxious weeds is much greater. (345-87) The DEIS dismisses the concern of the spread of cheat grass - Bromus tectorum… A full plan and budget needs to be clearly specified. (380-34) Response: We fully recognize the the threat posed by the invasion and spread of noxious weeds (see section 3.5.2.1), which is the primary reason this issue was analyzed in depth in the DEIS. Section 3.5 devotes 11 pages to the issue. To focus the analysis, elements generating a similar type of disturbance are lumped. The FEIS will be revised to note this. Seasonality is not really an issue as virtually no weed spread and

64

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

propagation occurs in the winter. Note that we address cheatgrass as it is on the list of noxious weeds potentially occurring in Teton County. Yellow sweetclover is not. We do not think our conclusions are trivial or understated, but that they reflect how widespread this concern is and how difficult it is to manage effectively. We note that integrated weed management efforts are difficult but believe they are essential. We describe them in section 3.5.2.2 and build on them in our design criteria (section 3.5.5). The Department supports the Design Criteria included in this section requiring the implementation of a weed management strategy that addresses surface disturbance, preventing and minimizing the spread of noxious weeds, restoration, and monitoring. (110- 18) Response: We appreciate the Department’s input and support of this analysis. Snow King does not manage their weeds as they exist within their current boundaries right now so why should we expect that they will do so with a larger boundary? (30-11) Response: Section 3.5.2.2 summarizes Snow King’s expanding efforts over the past 5 years to tackle this issue, and section 3.5.5 details further steps to be taken based on this analysis.

Wildlife Special-status Species Canada Lynx What is the impact to lynx habitat from the proposed alternatives? (331-3, 364-20) Response: The analysis describing the impacts of Alternatives 1 through 4 on lynx is found in sections 3.6.3.1.1, 3.6.3.2.1, 3.6.3.3.1, and 3.6.3.4.1. The analysis in these sections is focused on impacts of the alternatives on lynx habitat. Both the DEIS (p. 50) and the Scoping Report of June 14, 2019, indicate that the NRLMD applies to all alternatives; however, the DEIS did not describe how each of the alternatives implements the full suite of the Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives provided on pages 122 and 123 of the DEIS. Instead, the DEIS focuses its analysis on HU Objective 4 (HU O4), but the DEIS then states each of the action alternatives do not comply with the NRLMD. We recommend the final EIS and the biological assessment clearly describe how the preferred alternative adheres to the NRLMD. (57- 1) Response: The analysis of project compliance with the NRLMD in section 3.6.3.2.1 is organized into two headings, Habitat Linkage and Movement and Habitat Quality and Effectiveness. These headings correspond to those on p. 122 where NRLMD Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives are listed. While the analysis in section 3.6.3.2.1 does not list the NRLMD Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives again, this analysis discusses how the project complies with the content of this direction. The analysis then goes on to conclude that each alternative “is consistent with the objectives, standards, and guidelines found in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction” (pp. 137, 150, and 152). In the DEIS, the Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives that each alternative does comply with are not explicitly listed in the analysis. They will be listed in the FEIS and biological assessment to avoid any further misunderstanding. In the case of HU O4, the analysis (p. 136 para. 2) states that Alternative 2, as described in Chapter 2, would not comply with that particular objective. The analysis then goes on to state that in order to rectify the non- compliance, a design criterion was added that brings the project into compliance. This discussion of the initial non-compliance and subsequent rectification by means of a design criterion is repeated for Alternatives 3 and 4.

65

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The DEIS states that compliance with the HU O4 is achieved by the addition of design criteria, but the only design criterion is to not add additional glading between runs 4, 5, and 7 (p. 155). In order to be consistent with the Standards, Guidelines, and Objectives for Human Use activities, we recommend minimizing the number of new ski runs in areas that are currently maintaining inter-trail islands (HU G1, HU G3, and HU G10), or ensuring inter-trail islands are incorporated into the design of the new ski runs. Further actions are to provide for lynx nocturnal foraging opportunities (HU G2) by minimizing the areas for night lighting. In addition, the Service recommends either reducing the number of new graded and cleared areas (e.g., ski runs, bike trails, hiking trails, and buildings) within currently contiguous lynx foraging and denning habitats to reduce the fragmentation of lynx habitats, or moving these Project-related activities to areas that do not contain lynx habitat. (57-2) The proposed increase in night skiing is especially concerning, as it reduces the habitat available for lynx in time (dark) in addition to the habitat that will be lost if Snow King’s development proposals are advanced. (109-24) US Fish and Wildlife have raised concerns re: lynx, and the overly extensive development on all sides, night lighting interfering with hunting, and fragmentation of habitat. (317-8) The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also provided comments on the potential of development to disturb and fragment existing lynx habitat… (177-11) Response: The number of new ski runs has been minimized to the smallest number required to meet purpose and need and inter-trail islands have been incorporated by design. Specifically, there is no single alternative that includes all proposed ski runs in potential lynx habitat. Also, runs in existing inter-trail islands vary greatly between alternatives 3 and 4. In alternatives 2 and 3, where the most runs are placed in existing inter-trail islands, the runs are still designed such that there are inter-trail islands that could be utilized by lynx. Section 3.6.3.2.1 of the DEIS includes discussion of inter-trail islands, fragmentation, and impacts of night lighting. There are alternatives available to the responsible official that move some of the ski runs away from lynx habitat. Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the responsible official to exclude specific project elements of an alternative from authorization if they conclude that they cause unacceptable impacts. The Service recommends that the preferred alternative in the FEIS identify areas where lynx habitat conservation will occur (e.g., understories are not gladed, inter-trail islands are promoted, and nocturnal foraging opportunities are promoted). (57-3) Response: This information will be included in the FEIS. Alternatives 3 (page 150) and 4 (page 152) include thinning treatments within the wildland urban interface (WUI) defined by the Teton County Wildfire Protection Plan. The DEIS states that thinning projects in the WUI are exempt from the NRLMD. While the NRLMD and the associated biological opinion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Montana Field Office, March 19, 2007, MT-2017-F-0198) identified a limited number of exceptions or exemptions from the vegetation standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 for fuel or timber management projects conducted within the WUI, it did not provide a wholesale exemption from section 7 consultation. Please be aware that the programmatic biological opinion requires the Forest initiate a second tier consultation with the Service. (57-4)

66

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: We are aware that exemptions from vegetation standards in the NRLMD does not preclude section 7 consultation. Our biological assessment will include analysis of the WUI thinning element of the project. Raptors, Including Northern Goshawk and Owls Raptors, particularly northern goshawks, were a concern mentioned in a number of comments (8-2, 30-12, 40-6, 45-6, 53-3, 65-2, 107-6, 109-5, 176-8, 271-8, 317-3, 345-79, 358-6, 364-20, 372-3, 397-5, 412-4, 414-3, L4-1). Examples: TRC field biologists first located recent fledgling goshawks in the proposed expansion area in 2013. TRC was commissioned by Snow King to conduct raptor surveys in this area in 2015. In a TRC report provided to Snow King and BTNF in March of 2015 stated that a breeding pair of Northern Goshawks were detected within this area. We subsequently found the nest in 2015 and have monitored it every year since (coincidentally except for 2018). These data were also provided to BTNF biologists prior to the release of this DEIS but the data were not included. The pair has had active nests in both nests identified in Figures 1-2 within this document and have successfully produced young in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019 (Table 1). (221-13) Northern Goshawk: The amount of nesting habitat and hunting territory is very specific to different regions and locales of this difficult to monitor species. What is known is that large expanses of intact older growth forest is their prime habitat, and this habitat is being affected by development in mid-elevation forested zones around the valley. All the development alternatives propose boundary expansions and the road into goshawk habitat. The forest thinning plan throughout the project area is also a significant detriment to the older growth forest. The Teton Raptor Center's recent research indicates birds within the proposed project area. Indeed, alternative 4 directly impacts a known nesting site and territory. (380-38) Expansion to the east, towards Cache Creek, impinges on critical nesting habitat for the most productive pair of goshawks in Teton County. (410-4) Response: The FEIS will be revised to provide additional background data and analysis on northern goshawks based on new data from the Teton Raptor Center. The DEIS does not follow BTNF’s goals outlined in the 2019 revisions of the Species Conservation Assessments (SCA) for Northern Goshawks, Great Gray Owls, Boreal Owls, or Flammulated Owls… The finding that two of the four Northern Goshawk conservation goals would be met are incorrect. This DEIS fails to incorporate movement data for the nesting adult male Northern Goshawk from the nest described within the DEIS that was provided by TRC to BTNF biologists before the release of the DEIS. (221-3) Within the SCA, the conservation actions identified to achieve Goal 1 include small, dispersed forest openings consistent with historic forest patterns at the core area and post- fledging area (PFA). Goal 2 calls for the conservation of existing conditions within the core nest area. Adding new runs and/or glading within the core nesting area and PFA directly contradict these conservation measures defined by BTNF… The DEIS directly contradicts the SCA by adding trails and a road within the core nesting area (Figure 1). (221-6) …the direct and indirect effects on northern goshawks are directly in conflict with Bridger- Teton National Forest Sensitive Species Conservation Assessment for northern goshawks goals as listed in DEIS (p. 127). The key to whether or not these actions are in conflict with

67

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

these goals is the need to establish a buffer around all alternative nests and combine these buffers rather than around the one nest which was used in 2019. (345-80) Response: The conservation goals outlined in the SCAs for northern goshawks, great gray owls, boreal owls, and flammulated owls provide direction for developing alternatives and potential mitigation measures. According to the SCAs, “Potential conservation actions identified in these documents are not intended to be mandatory but may be recommended as design features of alternatives or mitigation measures during project analysis.” Accordingly, these goals were considered in the development of the alternatives but were incorporated with flexibility to ensure the alternatives met the purpose and need of the proposed project. Additional design criteria from the SCA documents may be required by the responsible official in the ROD. Based on the location data of the male northern goshawk referenced in the comment, its home range extends beyond the project area in all directions. While habitat within the proposed project area would be modified, suitable nesting, post-fledgling, and foraging habitat would remain unaltered in a large portion of the assumed male northern goshawk’s home range. Thus, the proposed action is compliant with Goals 1 and 3. As stated in section 3.6.3.2.2 of the DEIS, Goals 2 and 4 would not be met. Core nesting habitat would be modified, including the construction of roads and trails. A discussion of the habitat usage by the male northern goshawk will be incorporated into the FEIS. We find that the expansion of the boundary to the east and associated increase of human use during the breeding season (March 15 – August 1) would significantly impact Northern Goshawks and potentially lead to negative population-level impacts to the species on BTNF. The “protective measure” of not removing a nest tree is insufficient to reduce the significant impacts to Northern Goshawks. (221-4) We also find the DEIS lacking in the analysis regarding increased human presence across and directly adjacent to the project area in the spring and summer when sensitive raptors are breeding. (221-9) The citation of the species account here is misleading and does not include the many other studies showing the sensitivity of nesting Northern Goshawks to disturbance. But even as stated: “sporadic activities generally do not produce nest desertion or failure…”, the DEIS finding is incorrect. The proposed action will certainly be more than sporadic within the expanded area, with multiple visitors per day for the entire year, including courtship, nesting, and post-fledging periods. (221-22) The finding that “Given the importance of quality nesting habitat for nest success, Alternative 2 may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability” is incorrect. The pair of Northern Goshawks in the project area are consistently producing the most young in the valley and on BTNF lands (Table 1). Loss of this pair, nesting area, or reduced fecundity may have significant impacts on our local- area population and the population of goshawks on BTNF. (221-24) Response: The FEIS will be revised to include additional analysis of the potential for impacts of increased disturbance around the known active goshawk nests to cause reduced productivity by the pair nesting in that area. The Department supports Alternative 2 with respect to potential impacts on Northern Goshawk and forest owls (i.e., Great gray, flammulated, and boreal). However, we recommend incorporating project design criteria in the preferred alternative that meets all four goals of the Bridger-Teton National Forest Sensitive Species Conservation Assessment for Northern Goshawks. (110-15)

68

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: The conservation goals outlined in the SCA for northern goshawks provide direction for developing alternatives and potential mitigation measures. According to the SCA, “Potential conservation actions identified in these documents are not intended to be mandatory but may be recommended as design features of alternatives or mitigation measures during project analysis”. Therefore, these goals were considered in the development of the alternatives but were incorporated with flexibility to ensure the alternatives met the purpose and need of the proposed project. While habitat within the proposed project area would be modified, suitable nesting, post-fledgling, and foraging habitat would remain unaltered in a large portion of the assumed male northern goshawk’s home range. Thus, the proposed action is compliant with Goals 1 and 3. As stated in section 3.6.3.2.2 of the DEIS, Goals 2 and 4 would not be met. Core nesting habitat would be modified, including the construction of roads and trails. We also recommend surveys for Northern Goshawks and Great Gray Owls be continued. (110-16) Response: The Forest Service has been cooperating with the Teton Raptor Center to conduct surveys for these species for many years, and this arrangement is expected to continue in the future. Is it the position of the Forest Service that as long as a Sensitive Species is not likely to be federally listed, or about to loose its viability, can be treated as any other abundant species? If so, why bother with Sensitive Species designation? (L1-30) Response: The objectives of the sensitive species designation are threefold: to prevent species from becoming listed under the Endangered Species Act, to maintain viable populations, and to develop and implement management objectives for species designated as sensitive (FSM 2670.22). This direction does allow for some impacts on sensitive species, as long as these objectives are met. Owls were another raptor category of concern (45-6, 53-3, 100-5, 176-9, 221-1, 221-25,221-26, 271-8, 364-20, 380-37, 397-5, 410-8, 412-4). Examples: The Western Wyoming habitat and success report (TRC 2015) resource selection model indicates a high probability of use for breeding in the project area. Like the northern goshawk, great gray owls’ courtship period begins in mid-February when the ski season is in full swing, increasing the likelihood of impacts of human disturbance on great gray owls. Furthermore, chicks will hatch in mid-May during mountain biking and hiking season. (345-84) The DEIS cites our data but omits key information [on great gray owl]. First, the call- response data referenced in the DEIS do not just indicate presence, they indicate nesting. We documented multiple responses on different survey nights from both male and female Great Gray Owls in the forest patch directly adjacent to the project footprint. This is indicative of a nesting pair and nesting habitat. As outlined in annual reports dating to 2013 provided to BTNF, Great Gray Owls do not breed every year, with some years having nearly 100% nesting success and other years when virtually all territories did not initiate nests. It is incorrect to infer that owls are not nesting within the project area based on one year of spring acoustic surveys. (221-12) The DEIS does not include conservation actions as defined by the BTNF Species Conservation Assessment for Great Gray Owls (6/10/2019 revision). The SCA calls for a 300m buffer around known nest sites. While a nest site has not been recorded, the presence of nesting habitat directly adjacent to the project area has recorded and no protections are assessed or provided within the DEIS. Goal 5 of the SCA clearly states that “recreation and project-based activities do not reduce the reproductive success, foraging ability, or winter survival of great gray owls.” While data exist and have been provided to BTNF on

69

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

the nesting and winter habitat within the project area, they were not adequately assessed (Figure 3). (221-17) There is no credible justification for the statement that creating openings will increase forage availability. (221-19) “Should a great gray owl choose to locate its nest in an area within the adjusted permit area boundary, it is not likely that summer hiking and biking activities would negatively impact it since the period of high use (June through September) would not coincide with the nesting period (March through May; Duncan and Franklin 1993).” This excerpt from the DEIS is incorrect. First, March – April in Teton County corresponds to the courtship period. May – July is the nesting period, and July – September is the post-fledging period. These dates have been well established for this population and are readily available in the annual reports provided to BTNF and Wyoming Game and Fish Department from 2014– 2019. (221-20) Raptors cannot always readily adapt to or use adjacent forest patches. The statements “Given the large amount of forested habitat that would remain outside of, but adjacent to, the adjusted permit boundary, great gray owls would likely be able to utilize the surrounding habitat for nesting and the habitat within the permit boundary for foraging.” This over simplification of raptor ecology does not account for habitat selection, preferences, territoriality of neighboring nesting pairs, or presence of intra-specific raptors that likely preclude use of adjacent forest patches. (221-21) Response: Based on new data, the FEIS will be revised to include additional analysis of potential impacts of the project on great gray owl habitat. Boreal Owl – There is no justification given for the statement that creating forest openings would “likely increase forage availability.” There is no analysis within the DEIS regarding the effects that use and increase of nighttime lighting will have to owls or other roosting raptor species. Increasing lighting will most certainly affect owl habitat use within and adjacent to the project area. (221-15) Response: The wording in the FEIS will be revised and additional justification will be provided. TRC has been the only organization surveying for [flammulated owl]. We have not surveyed within 1.75 miles of the DEIS project area. The statement that “there is one record within 2 miles of the project area…” is misleading since the areas within 1.75 miles have never been surveyed. One year of survey used in this DEIS for a raptor species is insufficient to determine the species is not present within the project area. (221-11) …the DEIS contradicts whether or not flammulated owls, a sensitive species, are present in the project area. Table 3-11 indicates that there are known occurrences in the project area and thus that flammulated owls will be impacted, but then on pg. 125 they indicate there are no known occurrences but that a record exists near the project area. (345-81) Response: The statement regarding records for flammulated owls within 2 miles of the project area is simply a statement of fact that has no implication regarding the level of survey effort associated with it. It is not used to eliminate flammulated owls from further consideration, rather it is used as evidence that flammulated owls may occur in the project area. The analysis then proceeds to assess potential impacts on flammulated owls assuming they may occur in the project area. Glading will not improve foraging opportunities for Flammulated Owls... Therefore, the finding that impacting individuals is not likely to cause a trend towards listing or loss of viability cannot be stated. (221-16)

70

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

…the DEIS describes flammulated owl habitat as “dry upland ponderosa pine; sometimes Douglas fir or aspen forests with brushy understory” (p. 119) but later states that they prefer “open grass and shrub understories for foraging” (p. 140). Then, in discussing the impacts to the species, the DEIS claims that “glading would maintain a forested structure, but with limited understory and structural diversity” and that it “may improve foraging opportunities for flammulated owls” (p. 139-40). These statements are contradictory and the idea that glading will increase foraging opportunities is incorrect. (345-82) Response: The wording in the FEIS will be revised and additional justification will be provided. No assessment has been made within this EIS to BTNF sensitive raptor species regarding the increased lighting of the existing and proposed project areas. Increasing lighting would preclude owls from using these areas. (221-18) Finally, the DEIS fails to address potential impacts of increased lighting to sensitive owl species or roosting diurnal species. (221-10) Response: This oversight will be corrected in the FEIS with the addition of analysis regarding the potential impacts of proposed night lighting on owls and roosting diurnal raptors. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep The addition of a chairlift, snowmaking, and grooming on the backside of Snow King would… degrade and possibility eliminate the area's bighorn sheep habitat… (357-1) The bighorn sheep population has diminished significantly over the years due to various diseases and other factors. (380-37) We mentioned that bighorn sheep have been observed in the upper reaches of Leeks Canyon and the DEIS reports no known observations in the project area. (345-10)

Response: The DEIS states that habitat for bighorn sheep occurs in the project area and accordingly assesses potential effects on this species (see sections 3.6.2.2.1 and 3.6.3.2.2). In brief, the back side of Snow King has not been identified as crucial habitat for bighorn sheep. The area is designated as potential spring, summer, and fall habitat. The patch of designated spring, summer, and fall habitat on the backside of Snow King is part of an extensive polygon (i.e., greater than 4,100 square miles), and the project area comprises only a fraction of a percent of the available habitat comprised by that polygon. Therefore, we conclude that the determination made in the DEIS that the project “may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a measurable impact on bighorn sheep population numbers” is accurate. Migratory Birds Migratory songbirds are easily flushed by all sorts of trail use. The increased intensity and types of active use on more trails fragments both the north and south sides and increased trail and off-trail use will disturb, perhaps even prevent, use of nesting and foraging habitat. This is a great loss to birds and birdwatchers. (380-39) None of the analysis includes the impact of noise on mating and nesting birds… (380-46) On the east side, this community has preserved large, intact coniferous forests that provide critical habitat for many notable birds, including… western tanagers, and many others. (414-3) Response: The FEIS will provide additional analysis regarding the potential for impacts on migratory birds related to disturbrance and noise caused by use of the proposed infrastructure.

71

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Miscellaneous The Department does not consider Fisher to be a native Wyoming species. Its habitat is not considered to be expansive enough to maintain a breeding population. As such, impacts to this species do not need to be considered in the analysis. (110-14) Response: Fisher are considered in the DEIS since they are identified as being present/suspected on the BTNF by the Intermountain Region Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Known/Suspected Distribution by Forest document (Forest Service 2016), and there is suitable habitat for the species in the project area. Your input on this matter is noted and will be considered. None of the analysis includes the impact of noise on…wildlife movements in the evenings and night. (380-46) Response: The DEIS contains analysis of potential disturbance caused by use of the proposed infrastructure throughout section 3.6.3. One of the mechanisms for disturbance of wildlife through use of the proposed infrastructure is the noise caused by that use. Beyond these impacts that are already discussed in the DEIS, the analysis in section 3.9 indicates that the level of noise at the ski area would not change substantially from what it is now on most portions of the ski area. One exception would be the southern portion of the existing permit area, where noise from snowmaking would be a new condition. Analysis of the impacts of this increased noise on wildlife will be added to the FEIS. General Wildlife Numerous comments addressed general concerns about effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including fragmentation (10-1, 16-1, 19-1, 23-7, 46-3, 60-2, 63-2, 69-1, 71-5, 81-1, 84-1, 95-1, 100-4, 102-10, 128-5, 134-1, 169-1, 176-7, 179-1, 183-4, 206-2, 217-1, 226-3, 235-4, 240-3, 267-1, 268-2, 274-2, 274-3, 300-1, 327-87, 342-1, 345-10, 347-3, 358-6, 369-3, 380-51, 394-5, 411-3, 412-4, 419-1, 427-4). Examples: The alterations to Snow King Mountain resort will have a great impact on local flora and fauna in the region. The increased development will further fragment habitat and decrease connectivity for our already imperiled wildlife. Snow King Mountain is currently either home to or an important wildlife corridor for many native wildlife, which would be negatively impacted by construction and new development. (68-2) With this in mind, and knowing that Snow King provides excellent habitat and natural prey opportunity for mountain lions, we suggest that the scale of expansion proposed is incompatible with the needs of native wildlife and their limited winter range. We also understand and acknowledge that habitat integrity cannot be viewed through a single lens, such as a mountain lions and our concern for wildlife extends to many other species. Snow King provides valuable access to winter range for large ungulates, who also utilize the top and back as a secure area for calving in the spring. (372-1) Elk and Mule Deer habitat and corridors. According to research by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, proposed activities on the ridge line and south slope directly and indirectly affect important winter range and spring calving habitat and interrupt seasonal corridors for elk, mule deer, bear, and other species. While these impacts may at first appear to have "no measurable impact" due to "abundant surrounding habitat, relatively low levels of habitat loss, and low level of current use," it does not take into the account the intensification of use proposed within the project area and also increased activity in adjacent areas. Also, as the town densifies, the area around South Park and Munger Mountain School develops, and the highways and traffic increases, the current movement corridors will be severely constrained. The analysis is too narrow. (380-40)

72

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Section 3.6 addresses potential effects on special-status wildlife species and on specialized habitats for deer, elk, and other big game species. This section in the FEIS will be modified to include a discussion of known migration routes for these species. Habitat fragmentation is addressed as appropriate on a species-specific basis. See also response below to comments on deer and elk winter and calving/fawning range, particularly the effects of back-side development. Snow King has been very careful in developing its proposal to protect wildlife habitat. (208-5) I believe that the proposed amendments to Snow King master plan are sensitive to the surrounding neighbors and wildlife. (269-3) Wyoming Fish and Game have commented that there are no wildlife concerns on the front side of the mountain or within the existing permit area where mountain biking is proposed, which is fantastic news both for the proposed new park and for the beloved wildlife of Jackson. (405-2) Response: The Wyoming Department of Game and Fish has been involved at various point throughout this process. We appreciate their input and believe we have considered and appropriately addressed it. Has any consideration been given to potential impact on permeability for wildlife of these [carpet lifts on summit]. Carpets will be effectively like fences and a barrier to movement. (430-5) Response: The two carpets on the ridge would be in a high activity area, year-round, limiting the wildlife in the area to begin with. Small wildlife, for which a 363-foot or 506-foot conveyor lift would be a substantial barrier, would be able to easily go over the lift in the winter or under it in the summer. For larger species, even a 506-foot barrier would be easily navigated around without any lasting impact. Having observed the "Glading "done at JHMR it is important to note that while some trees remain, the lower level vegetation: bushes and shrubs are obliterated on a fairly regular basis. This removes cover and forage for birds and wildlife and must be considered in the DEIS analysis. These glades in summer are vegetation deserts strewn with the branches of the shrubs and bushes that have been mown down. (430-7) Response: Glading is described in section 2.4.2.3 of the DEIS. This description includes the removal of brush and low limbs. The impacts of this action on wildlife are subsequently discussed in section 3.6 (e.g., section 3.6.3.2.1 for lynx, section 3.6.3.2.2 for sensitive species, and section 3.6.3.2.4 for deer and elk specialized habitats). There is no mention of bears and lions (other than grizzly bears), nor the potential for negative encounters with bears and lions to increase due to additional mountain bike use… (345-10) Response: DEIS section 3.10.3.3.2 discusses this issue, specifically increased encounters between mountain bikers and bears and mountain lions. Some of these general wildlife comments focused specifically on the summit access road/novice skiway (20-2, 46-3, 50-4, 173-11, 328-3, 359-3, 359-6, 375-4, 417-9, L6-3). Examples: And, this road will present constant intrusions into the precarious wildlife routine. (48-4) Building this road will result in critical habitat loss for our northern goshawk not to mention interruption for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear and moose who are regular residents of this landscape. (337-1) Boundary expansion and the construction of a massive, new road across the face of Snow King Mountain will destroy wildlife habitat… (404-4)

73

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: The impacts of the summit access road/novice skiway are analyzed throughout DEIS section 3.6. Table 3-2 notes that the access road would require excavation of 15.6 acres, and this is part of the wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation is discussed throughout section 3.6.3 for a number of species including lynx (section 3.6.3.2.1) and northern goshawk (section 3.6.3.2.2). Other comments addressed the wildlife effects of the eastern and western boundary adjustments (8- 2, 72-1, 93-2, 96-5, 107-7, 109-5, 109-21, 109-23, 160-2, 182-2, 184-3, 188-6, 203-2, 210-2, 256-3, 260-3, 288-1, 328-3, 335-2, 359-6, 360-2, 364-20, 395-7, 414-4, L1-29). Examples: Expansion in any direction will impact the wildlife that is so prized by our community. Species like mule deer, goshawk, elk, and great grey owls will all be impacted by boundary expansion. (386-3) Please do not expand the boundaries of Snow King Resort. It will negatively impact winter range for wildlife. …Encroaching into this habitat even a little will have force already stressed wildlife to move from the area and into more conflicts with humans. (14-1) …the boundary expansions as analyzed are said to minimally impact lynx and deer habitat because expanses of adjacent habitat will accommodate displaced animals… But deer most certainly spend the early winter season foraging and bedding down on the north-facing wooded slopes of the greater Snow King Ridge. Boundary expansions with associated expanded early-season snow-making will certainly displace those deer. (64-4) Opening up more terrain that borders existing terrain and that has experienced significant human/wildlife interaction for many years does not seem like it could have a negative effect on habitat or wildlife. (66-1) Response: Impacts on wildlife species due to the development and use of the proposed infrastructure in the boundary adjustment areas are discussed throughout section 3.6.3. Much of the habitat that would be lost or impacted, as described in section 3.6.3, is within the boundary adjustment areas. The boundary adjustment areas do not extend into known crucial winter range for mule deer. Some of the eastern boundary adjustment is noted as an area used by mule deer in the winter in DEIS Figure 3-16; however, it is depicted in this dataset as having the same or lesser level of use than downtown Jackson. For elk, a portion of the eastern boundary adjustment area is designated as crucial winter habitat, but similar to mule deer, so is much of the Town of Jackson. As described in section 3.6.2.4, Leeks Canyon and the areas west of the permit boundary area have higher quality winter habitat for ungulates compared to the north slopes. As shown in the viewshed analysis in section 3.6.3.2.4, ungulates using this winter habitat may be disturbed by recreation on the backside of the mountain, but the distance between the winter habitat and boundary area may allow for habituation and continued use of the area. Furthermore, much of the proposed boundary adjustment area is frequently skied under current conditions, as it is easily reachable from the existing ski area boundary. The existing human disturbance in the area likely limits the use of the proposed boundary adjustment area as winter range. A number comments focused on impacts on deer and elk winter and calving/fawning range, particularly the effects of back-side development (13-33, 13-37, 13-38, 30-12, 30-19, 30-33, 40-6, 45-6, 49-1, 50-3, 55-4, 72-3, 96-6, 102-4, 103-12, 109-5, 109-21, 110-2, 131-3, 134-3, 142-2, 152-3, 174-1, 176- 10, 210-1, 210-2, 211-8, 223-2, 235-8, 264-1, 276-1, 293-2, 305-3, 317-6, 332-1, 335-2, 357-1, 364-20, 371-2, 371-3, 387-1, 395-9, 397-5, 410-8, 410-10, 411-4, 412-4, 414-4, 425-1, 430-1, L7-3). Examples: Another impact to wildlife is the critical mule deer range on the backside of the mountain. While the proposed boundary extension lies outside of critical mule deer habitat, if a lift exists on the backside skiers will definitely use the existing road to extend their ski runs down Leeks Canyon. (375-6)

74

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

To ignore potential effects of human-induced disturbance of elk during calving season is to risk declining reproductive success in elk populations. If elk are left inadequate calving- season habitat and can no longer escape disturbance, either from over development of back- country access corridors or from high levels of off-trail activity, then populations may decline… While it is true that it not likely to have a measurable impact on Wyoming elk population numbers in general, it will likely have an impact on local elk. (430-2) …we remain concerned about increasing human activity levels within the project area influencing big game winter ranges and parturition areas located primarily outside of the project area. This concern applies to expanded winter use by skiers affecting winter ranges, as well as the impact of increased mountain biking activities during the big game parturition period. (110-1) Even though Leeks Canyon is not designated crucial elk winter range in the upper reaches of the watershed, current investigations involving collared elk reveal substantial use of the south facing slopes immediately to the west of the project/permit area (Figure 1). Our concerns are not specifically related with impacts to resources within the project area, but the impact that activities within the project area may have on elk wintering nearby, and their continued use of those areas. Similar concerns exist with respect to the potential for increased mountain biking activity to affect elk during the calving period. As with potential winter impacts, this concern is not restricted to the project area, but rather the entire network of trails associated with Cache Creek and Game Creek. (110-3) This is not critical habitat and would be OK if this specific area had more people using it. (1-2) Response: The current status of potentially affected big game winter and parturition habitat is described under the heading of Specialized Habitat in section 3.6.2.4 and impacts on these habitats are thoroughly assessed in sections 3.6.3.2.4, 3.6.3.3.3, and 3.6.3.4.3. It is highly unlikely that downhill skiers using lift A would venture down Leeks Canyon road as it traverses a steep, narrow canyon with egress blocked by private property at the bottom. Other key points to note regarding disturbance of the adjacent winter habitat cited in the comment are that: elk use of habitat within the ski area boundary is low relative to other winter range in the area; and much of the high use winter habitat is visually blocked from the proposed back-side ski terrain and infrastructure by intervening terrain (section 3.6.3.2.4). Beyond that, under Alternatives 3 and 4, the southern boundary of the western boundary-adjustment area would be shifted up to the actual ridgeline to reduce the amount of potential human activity visible to deer and elk wintering on the south-facing slopes of Leeks Canyon (section 2.5.1). In terms of mountain bike disturbance of parturition habitat in the Cache Creek and Game Creek watersheds, design criterion 4 (section 3.6.5), would close Upper Skyline trail, which links the ski area to Cache and Game creeks, to use by lift-served bikers under all action alternatives until July 1 to protect calving/fawning. Leeks Canyon Road below the permit boundary would also be closed. Alternative 3 would go further, closing Upper Skyline and Josie’s Ridge trails to bicycle use to block lift- served bikers’ access to trails outside the permit area, precluding disturbance of the cited parturition habitat (section 2.5.4.2). Alternative 4 would not authorize the back-side mountain bike zone and would employ the same measures as Alternative 3 (section 2.5.4.2), with the exception of the trail closures, to keep lift- served bikers in bounds. In short, this issue has been thoroughly assessed and addressed through alternative development and design criteria. See also response to comments 110-4–12 below.

75

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The effects of snow-making have not been adequately addressed in the DEIS. This includes a man-changed climate in critical winter habit and on south-facing slopes. (188-4) Response: The reason for this is because no snowmaking would take place in crucial big game winter habitat on south-facing slopes. As discussed in section 3.6.2.4, crucial south-facing big game winter habitat is all to the west of the proposed back-side operating area expansion where snowmaking would occur. Throughout the impact analysis, the DEIS describes impacts to “big game” when it is really referring to impacts to several different species, primarily elk and mule deer. This is inappropriate, given they are different species that react differently to human use. Please re-do this analysis for each species. (345-85) Response: Big game is an acceptable shorthand for the large, wild ungulate species addressed in the DEIS. It used by the WDGF and other wildlife management agencies. When addressing a single species, the DEIS uses the species name, throughout section 3.6. A number of comments expressed the opinion that we had ignored the comments of the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish and other wildlife agencies regarding impacts on ungulate wintering habitat in Leeks Canyon (77-1, 177-13, 187-4, 331-3, 358-2, 364-9). Examples: The proposed development on the back (south) side of the mountain is also in contravention of the feedback supplied by USFWS, WG&F and other wildlife managers. (40-7) In addition to dismissing local government wildlife resources stewardship issues and concerns, the alternatives ignore comments from the Wyoming Game & Fish Department with respect to significant development of Leeks Canyon, which is critical to wintering ungulate populations including mule deer, elk and moose. (177-10) Response: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Wyoming Department of Game and Fish (WDGF) have been involved at various points throughout this process. Comments from the FWS were received during scoping and were addressed in the scoping report and the DEIS. Additional comments have been received on the DEIS and will be addressed in the FEIS and biological assessment. The WDGF’s initial comments were based on a misunderstanding of what the proposed action was and where it would occur. A subsequent site visit was arranged where WDGF personnel could see where new infrastructure was proposed relative to the areas of winter and partruition habitat they were concerned over. Following this site visit, WDGF sent a letter to the Forest Service that stated: “After looking at the proposed expansion site on 8/19/2019, it was apparent that the proposed new lift location and skiing areas served by this lift are visually screened from currently used elk and mule deer winter ranges in Leeks Canyon, and further separated by an additional basin not proposed for expansion. No alterations to this proposed location are recommended.” The WDGF letter went on to suggest mitigation measures to address lingering concerns over other aspects of the project. All of these suggested mitigation measures were reviewed and relevant changes were made to the design criteria included in the DEIS as a result. The WDGF also submitted comments on the DEIS, and their comments are included in this Response to Comments document. These comments included additional recommended mitigation measures (see comment 110-4–12 below) that may prompt further revision of the design criteria section of the FEIS. These recommended mitigation measures will also be availible for review by the responsible official for inclusion in the Record of Decision. We appreciate the input these agencies have provided and believe we have considered and appropriately addressed it.

76

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Some comments called out the yurt camp specifically (53-5, 102-4, 235-6, 345-94). Examples: A yurt and handicap-accessible path (i.e. road) to the yurt for tourists in Leeks Canyon will displace wildlife in the long-term. In the short-term it invites conflicts between wildlife in their natural habitat and unaware tourists. (410-9) Yurt Park Group use overnight is introducing 24hr/day use into an area that at present is relatively minimally impacted by human activity and recreational use. This is not consistent with the proposal to minimize potential impact to elk by limiting active skiing hours The Yurt Park is a completely inappropriate use in this area. (430-3) The Vail research indicates that night trail use has markedly increased. The DEIS does not address the potential impact of this possibility either from the ease of access via the evening use of the gondola or from the overnight group use of the proposed Yurt development.(430- 4) Response: The habitat impacts of yurt camp construction are analyzed in section 3.6. Specifically, Table 3- 2 notes that the yurt camp and access route would require grading of 1 acre. This acre is part of the wildlife habitat loss discussed throughout section 3.6.3. Impacts of the use of the yurt camp, specifically the increased presence of people overnight, will be added to the FEIS. Several comments expressed concern over impacts on wildlife migration corridors (30-12, 65-2, 398- 5, L4-1). Examples: The bike trails and other non-snow season activities would reduce habitat effectiveness by expanding the area of disturbance to elk during migration and calving periods. (13-37) Our last objection is to any expansion that will disrupt wildlife migration. We are well aware that elk, deer, and moose use Cache Creek, Game Creek, and the canyons around there for their habitat and their food as they move along. (15-3) Expansion of the resort's boundaries to the west, towards Scotty's Ridge, would cut into critical migration habitat for elk and deer. (410-5) Response: The Specialized Habitat sections of the FEIS will include a discussion of migration routes in the area and how the project could impact them. Some comments raised concerns about impacts on existing winter wildlife closure areas in the vicinity of the ski area (8-2, 13-33, 30-12, 109-5, 173-11, 173-13, 279-2, 337-2, 339-2). Examples: The east permit area expansion will intrude on wildlife habitat year around, which will greatly increase activity in an area critical to wildlife with almost no winter activity. The west permit area expansion will also greatly increase activity by expanding against a sensitive wildlife closure. The BTNF currently requires both Josie's Ridge and the Skyline Trail to be open only seasonally to avoid disturbing wildlife. Expanding a ski area to butt against these sensitive zones is inconsistent with these management precedents. (186-8) Land to west of current boundary: The addition of a ski run on Scotty's Ridge, inside the boundary, is too close to the wildlife winter closure area, let alone any expansion of boundary to the west. (317-5) Response: Much of the terrain in the proposed boundary adjustment areas is frequently skied under current conditions, as it is easily reachable from the existing permit boundary. Regarding winter closure areas, the proposed boundary adjustments are not contiguous with the existing winter closure areas, and a buffer between the ski area and the closure areas would remain. The responsible official will consider whether additional boundary enforcement practices, beyond those currently in place, are needed to keep winter recreationists out of the winter closure areas.

77

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

See response above to comments regarding potential effects on deer and elk winter and fawning/calving habitat for a detailed discussion of how our alternatives and design criteria address management of Skyline and Josie’s Ridge trails. Some comments questioned the impact of snowmaking noise on wildlife: The noise of snowmaking machines will disturb any wildlife and birds that inhabits the area. (152-4) Additionally, snow-making guns are quite loud, which would clearly disturb wildlife in the daytime and evening hours. (391-9) Do not allow new snowmaking lines anywhere on the backside, it is a huge disruption to wildlife and their hearing abilities, well beyond the areas in which the machines operate. (338-5) A maintained ski slope on the south side of Snow King necessitates a massive snow making operation at night with noisy machines running through the night. Grooming machines will also be required to operate through the night producing excessive noise and light pollution. All of this is unacceptable and will be detrimental for all of the wildlife in the Leeks/Game Creek canyons. (346-2) Response: The analysis in section 3.9 indicates that the level of noise at the ski area would not change substantially from what it is now on most portions of the ski area. The exceptions would be the southern portion of the existing permit area and boundary adjustment areas, where noise from snowmaking would be a new condition. Analysis of the impacts of this increased noise on wildlife will be added to the FEIS. The noise of the Zip-Line and other attractions would have significant negative impacts on the surrounding wildlife. (60-3) Response: The FEIS will include analysis of the impacts of noise from use of the proposed infrastructure on wildlife. Mitigation We recommend all of the following measures are included in the analysis and are carried forward into the preferred alternative as Design Criteria to minimize impacts to wildlife: - Monitoring - Together with Snow King Mountain Resort and the U.S. Forest Service, we would also like to coordinate monitoring of these mitigation measures through the use of trail cameras in specific locations to determine effectiveness. As additional recreation use is being encouraged, and is expected, we would welcome the opportunity to partner with Snow King Mountain Resort on ongoing monitoring efforts. (110-4) Response: We would be happy to discuss coordination of monitoring efforts with the WDGF. The responsible official may include such efforts in the Record of Decision. - Night Skiing – We support the prohibition of night-time skiing as described in the DEIS because minimizing human presence in Leeks Canyon would promote wildlife use of the surrounding areas, especially along the south and southwest exposures to the west of the project area and lower in the canyon. - Skiing Hours – We support the limitation of Leeks Canyon Skiing Hours from 9:00AM – 4:00PM as described in the DEIS. A 9:00AM start would allow any wildlife in the area to move to areas away from the ski lift and into areas of suitable security cover or foraging areas west of the project area, lower in the canyon, and/or below the ski lift. Terminating skiing at 4:00PM would promote wildlife use of the slopes in close proximity to the ski lift

78

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

during hours of darkness when humans were not actively using the area in upper Leeks Canyon. (110-5&6) Response: The operating-hour limitations for skiing on the back side identified in the DEIS will be carried into the FEIS and considered by the responsible official in formulating the Record of Decision. - Leeks Canyon Illegal Egress – Recognizing obliteration of portions of the Leeks Canyon Road is not feasible, additional efforts to post signs and close public access immediately below the ski lift would assist in preventing unauthorized use on crucial wildlife winter ranges by precluding an egress route out of Leeks Canyon. This signage may be temporary and present only during the ski season. Once the ski season has terminated, the signs and the temporary fence posts could be removed. We believe adequate signing should accompany any road closure and describe the need to protect big game winter ranges and parturition areas. (110-7) Response: As noted previously, it is highly unlikely that downhill skiers using lift A would venture down Leeks Canyon road as it traverses a steep, narrow canyon with egress blocked by private property at the bottom. We will monitor the situation, and if skier use of the Leeks Canyon road below the permit area is noted, we will consider the suggested measures to discourage it. - Perimeter Enforcement – Understanding that permanent barriers/fencing is not likely to occur as part of this development, we concur with the DEIS that rope lines, signage, and enforcement efforts could effectively be used to prohibit skiers from accessing the Leeks Canyon ridge line west of the project area during the winter period. We recommend these efforts be employed. Such efforts would prohibit skiers from dropping into areas where elk and deer are known to spend the winter. Recent relocation data from radio-collared elk depict the importance of this ridgeline and the area below it as important winter range (see attached map). We believe it is essential that the integrity of Leeks Canyon winter ranges be preserved, and closing the ridge line in Leeks Canyon in winter to all human presence would help assure that this winter range is not compromised by human disturbance. (110- 8) Response: As noted in DEIS section 3.10.2.3, Josie’s Ridge trail which follows the ridgeline west of the ski area is closed December 1 – April 30 to protect wintering wildlife. That closure would apply to skier traffic as well, implemented through rope lines, signage, and enforcement as noted in the comment. - Realignment of the Special Use Permit Boundary – To help address concerns specified above, slight boundary adjustments as proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4 would be beneficial, especially if moving the permit boundary to the actual ridgeline would help facilitate perimeter enforcement... (110-9) Response: The boundary alignment identified in the DEIS will be carried into the FEIS and considered by the responsible official in formulating the Record of Decision. - Evaluate Expansion of Current Winter Range Closure – The Department continually collects information to evaluate and update seasonal range maps. Telemetry data from radio collared elk indicate the south-facing slopes in Leeks Canyon provide important winter range for the Fall Creek elk herd. In conjunction with a slight realignment of the project area boundary on the southwest, we recommend the U.S. Forest Service consider realigning the current winter range closure area to extend up the bottom of Leeks Canyon to tie in with the southwestern corner of the project area below the proposed lift, and up to the ridgeline of Snow King Mountain. This realignment would also facilitate perimeter enforcement of the Leeks Canyon ridgeline west and south of the project area. (110-10)

79

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Furthermore, even if all action alternatives include development in Leeks Canyon, some of those alternatives should include significant mitigation measures, i.e. extending the current winter closure from near Josie’s Ridge all the way to the permit area boundary and following the measures recommended by WGFD. (345-51) Response: Realignment of winter range closure area boundaries is beyond the scope of this analysis, but we would be happy to discuss it with the WDGF independently of this project. - Mountain Bike Access Restrictions – As our concerns pertain to specific times (big game winter range use and late spring-early summer elk calving), we believe timing stipulations can be used to address these concerns while allowing mountain bike activities to occur. We suggest restricting bicycle access from leaving the proposed mountain bike park through Leeks Canyon and connecting with the Game Creek-Cache Creek trail system until July 1 to minimize disturbance to any elk calving in the area. Lift-assisted mountain bike access to and within the bike park could occur prior to July 1, but no earlier than June 1. Although beyond the scope of this analysis, we also suggest consideration of how this development relates to current recreational activity and the possible need to cumulatively address mountain bike use in the area as a whole. (110-11) Response: Design criterion 4, section 3.6.5 of the DEIS, would prohibit bikers using the lift from traveling down Leeks Canyon beyond the permit boundary or on the Upper Skyline trail until July 1 to protect potential elk parturition areas. While we have not set a start date for proposed mountain bike operations on the back side, snow cover or runoff would preclude operations before June 1. - Noise Mitigation Associated with Lift and Snow-making Machinery – It is understood that the proposed lift would be electric and top-driven, thereby minimizing noise at the bottom of the lift. We also recommend all measures that can be taken to minimize noise produced by snow-making machinery such as only operating equipment during daylight hours when possible, avoiding sunrise and after sunset hours when big game animals tend to be more active, or placing equipment in specific locations to minimize the directional sound impact of operations. (110-12) Response: Snowmaking and grooming operations typically occur at night, when skiers are not present and temperatures allow snowmaking, and topography dictates where snowmaking guns are located. There is little flexibility in either timing or location of these activities. As noted above, we will include analysis of noise effects on wildlife on the back side in the FEIS and address any adverse impacts as appropriate. The alternatives proposed within this DEIS fail to provide a suite of options to minimize and/or mitigate the significant impacts this project would have on US Forest Service sensitive raptor species. (221-2) There is no mitigation plan for maintaining security of the breeding [goshawk] pair for the new roadway or trail system within the DEIS. (221-23) The design criteria for nesting birds is not consistent with other BTNF design criteria for nesting raptors (see Teton-to-Snake as an example) or the Species Conservation Assessments. These design criteria do not adequately address nesting raptors that initiate nests earlier than May 15 and protect the Northern Goshawk PFA. (221-27) Response: The analysis documented in the DEIS did not identify any notable adverse impacts on raptors, so no mitigation was warranted. If the FEIS reaches different conclusions, we will identify responsive design criteria as appropriate. This project and the Teton-to-Snake fuels project are not comparable due to vast differences in management direction, scope, and purpose and need. The Teton-to-Snake fuels project takes place in a remote area where goshawks are not accustomed to disturbance near their nests. Additionally, the Teton-to-Snake fuels project covers more than 100,000 acres, and thus has the potential

80

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

to disturb several nesting northern goshawk pairs. Finally, Snow King has a permit to operate in this area, which has been set aside as a ski area, and thus has different goals and expectations compared to other areas of the Forest. Cumulative Effects Several comments addressed cumulative effects on wildlife: There is no reference to the cumulative effects of the expansion on wildlife and as far as we know this has not been reviewed or studied. (372-2) So while it may be easy to state that the proposed Snow King expansion will "increase slightly" the impact to wildlife, what is the larger impact considering that the overall impacts are increasing on wildlife around the valley (235-7) More Snow King development will further the adverse impacts already experienced by wildlife in the area. (342-1) Response: First off, it is important to understand just what cumulative effects analysis means in the NEPA context – see responses above under Process – Cumulative Effects – General. A key point in that discussion is that by definition only resources that would be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed action or alternatives, as indentified in the NEPA analysis, are subject to cumulative effects. Reflecting this perspective, DEIS section 3.6.4 addresses cumulative impacts on the wildlife species for which our analysis (section 3.6.3) identifies notable direct or indirect impacts. Table 3-20 - Cumulative effects on wildlife species affected by Alternatives 2–4. There was no assessment of Snow King Lower Elk Lighting, increased human presence, or increased noise to breeding owls in the DEIS. Therefore, the finding of no impact to Boreal Owls, Flammulated Owls, or Great Gray Owls cannot be made. (221-26) Response: The DEIS does not conclude that there would be no impact on these species. Section 3.6.3.2.2 reaches the same conclusion for each of the three owls: that individuals may be affected but that would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Accordingly, these species were addressed in the cumulative effects analysis (section 3.6.4) which did include the impact of proposed Lower Elk lighting. Increased human presence and noise would be direct rather than cumulative effects. Effects of human presence (i.e., disturbance) are analyzed throughout section 3.6.4. As discussed in responses above, the FEIS will include analysis of the direct effects of noise related to increased human presence on these species. What is the cumulative impact of proposed activities on elk who use the adjacent crucial winter range in Leeks canyon? What about the effect of increased mountain biking on adjacent elk parturition (calving) areas in Leeks canyon, particularly in May and June? (364-22) Response: Section 3.6.4 in the DEIS addresses cumulative impacts on the wildlife species for which our analysis (section 3.6.3) identifies notable direct or indirect impacts with the inclusion of design criteria (section 3.6.5). Since the analysis did not identify any notable direct or indirect effects on elk parturition habitat, no cumulative effects analysis for this habitat was needed. See also the response to comments regarding impacts on deer and elk winter and calving/fawning range, above. Some comments noted that potential reduction in elk feeding programs should be considered in the analysis of cumulative effects: Elk winter range in Leeks Canyon will become more important if/when the Elk Refuge and WGFD reduce feeding. Elk calving range in Leeks Canyon, Skyline Trail, etc is important until July 1 - no mountain biking should be allowed during calving. (53-4)

81

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

As elk are weaned off of feed at the National Elk Refuge and could be increasingly weaned off of feeding at the state run feedgrounds, we could expect to see additional habitat on Snow King Mountain becoming more important to elk. (235-8) Seasonal closures to protect critical wildlife habitat such as natal areas and critical wintering areas should be analyzed and included in alternatives. Forward thinking analyses must include potential changes in critical winter habitats as elk winter feedgrounds are phased out. (412-5) Response: The current status of potentially affected big game winter and parturition habitat is described under the heading of Specialized Habitat in section 3.6.2.4, and effects are analyzed in sections 3.6.3.2.4, 3.6.3.3.3, and 3.6.3.4.3. The conclusion is that individuals may be affected but there would be no impact on elk population numbers. With no notable direct or indirect effect identified, assessment of the cumulative effect of feeding program phase-out would not be consistent with the direction on cumulative effects analysis outlined above. Analysis Methods Evidence regarding the impact of recreation development on wildlife in a similar Rocky Mountain resort community is well documented (e.g., Boyd, 2018 https://www.vaildaily.com/news/where-has-all-the-wildlife-gone-cpw-officials-cite- 50-percent-drop-in-eagle-valleys-elk-population/; Peterson, 2019 https://www.hcn.org/articles/wildlife-hiking-trails-are-a-path-to-destruction-for- colorado-elk-vail;). The documentation confirms peer reviewed findings and recommendations of Phillips and Alldredge, 2000* and suggests the same displacement will likely occur in Leeks Canyon consistent with the Wyoming Game & Fish Department’s September 13, 2018 letter. (177-12) Response: We agree that some low-level displacement of individual big game animals is likely to occur due to the proposed action. However, given the low level of use in the area, we expect this effect to be small, as described in sections 3.6.3.2.4, 3.6.3.3.3, and 3.6.3.4.3. It is our understanding that additional goshawk and owl data exists from the Teton Raptor Center. These data should be incorporated into the impacts analysis. (110-17) After reviewing the DEIS in detail, it is our professional finding that this DEIS failed to incorporate data and recent scientific literature on sensitive raptor species that were readily available and/or previously provided to BTNF. Several analyses provided within the DEIS are inaccurate and/or incorrect regarding sensitive raptor species within and surrounding the project area. Thus, several conclusions based on these analyses and findings within the DEIS are inaccurate and/or incorrect. We request that these factual errors be corrected in the DEIS, and that a revised DEIS include another alternative that specifically includes stronger protections for sensitive raptors and other wildlife within and adjacent to the project area. (221-1) The DEIS should employ the Teton Raptor Center’s data since there is a strong possibility that flammulated owl habitat is present in the project area and/or vicinity… (345-83) The DEIS does not calculate the core nesting area for Northern Goshawks correctly, as defined by both the SCA and recent scientific literature. (221-7) The DEIS fails to assess impacts at all within the PFA scale, as directed by the SCA. (221- 8) Section 3.6.2.2.9 also lacks recent publications and data regarding Northern Goshawk territory sizes, nesting stand areas, post-fledging areas (PFA), and habitat needs. For example, it has been documented that the habitat within PFAs consist of mature forests

82

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

with dense canopies and small openings (Squires and Kennedy 2006). The BTNF SCA also set conservation goals designed to protect both the core nesting area and the PFA. Neither of these spatial scales are accurately described or assessed within this DEIS. (221-14) …territories are true indicators of habitat, rather than data points for individual nests, and should be used to analyze impacts in this DEIS. Also, the DEIS does not indicate where the alternative nest locations data are from. (345-78) Response: Based on new data, the FEIS will be revised to include additional analysis of potential impacts of the project on northern goshawk and forest owls (great gray, boreal, and flammulated). Regarding the SCA, according to the SCA, “Potential conservation actions identified in these documents are not intended to be mandatory but may be recommended as design features of alternatives or mitigation measures during project analysis.” Accordingly, these goals were considered in the development of the alternatives but were incorporated with flexibility to ensure the alternatives met the purpose and need of the proposed project. Additional design criteria from the SCA documents may be required by the responsible official in the ROD …the DEIS did not make use of the best available data, and cherry-picked data sources – which provides an insufficient basis for analysis. For example, this DEIS incorporates wildlife data from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) Wildlife Observation System (WOS), concluding that Snow King is not important bighorn and elk habitat because data points indicate low-use habitats. (345-9) There are several ways Fig. 3-12 can be interpreted. First, it could be concluded that collared elk used the south-side permit area infrequently. However, nowhere could I find the number of collared elk that contributed to this data set, making the jump from the data to the conclusion up for debate. This, along with the single, 6-month data collection period also diminishes the credibility of the conclusion. (L1-4) Is the apparent absence of elk use within in this area of high recreation use a coincidence, or a cause and effect situation? Further data collection and analysis in conjunction with the trail use data presented in Section 3.10.2.3, p. 173-175 would be very helpful...The statement that there is abundant surrounding habitat is misleading if not unsupportable by fact. First, without knowing how many collared elk were in the study, and absent data for half a year makes it difficult to accept the conclusion that elk use in the project area was minimal. Second, relating back to above mentioned recreational use of the area, it would be very helpful to have the location points depicted in Figure 3-12 superimposed over current recreational trails along with the data regarding human use patterns on the various trail segments (Sec. 3.10.2.3, p.173-176)… I have the same concerns with the DEIS conclusion regarding mule deer use of the area. (L1-5) Response: NEPA requires that we use the best available science in reaching our conclusions. The elk data was provided by the WDGF and represents the best available science. If additional data regarding elk or mule deer are available prior to the drafting of the FEIS, they will be incorporated as well. Clarification regarding the number of elk that contributed to the dataset will be added to the FEIS. This DEIS reviews potential wildlife impacts in isolation. It analyses potential impacts separate from what is going on in the vicinity and it appears to use only one criteria: will the proposed action push a species closer to federal listing or impact it long-term viability? (L1-39) Response: Two aspects of NEPA analysis help put the assessment of impacts into context. First is the required description of the affected environment, which for wildlife is in DEIS section 3.6.2. It describes the current setting in which direct or indirect impacts could occur.

83

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The second aspect is the cumulative effects analysis, which for wildlife is in section 3.6.4. The first response above under Cumulative Effects explains cumulative effects analysis from a NEPA perspective. In short, if the analysis identifies adverse direct or indirect impacts on a resource, we must determine whether other actions might affect those same resources in an additive way and generate a significant, cumulative impact. These two aspects of NEPA ensure that our wildlife analysis does not look at impacts in isolation but in the full past, present, and foreseeable future context. Having specific criteria to guage the severity of resource impacts helps us to interpret them consistently. For special status species, our criteria are whether the impact would contribute to a trend toward federal listing or threaten a species’ viability. For other species, the effects analysis notes whether individuals or populations would be affected, noting scale as appropriate. The DEIS also does not address conflicts with other species due to additional use. With an increase in human presence, incidents will increase with all species until a species abandons its habitat. (345-10) Response: This is a puzzling comment, as section 3.6.1 notes that disturbance of individuals or habitat is a primary indicator used in our analysis of wildlife effects, and disturbance due to increased recreational use is discussed for most species included in section 3.6's analysis. …the “Neighbors to Nature: Cache Creek Study,” initiated in 2018, which includes a Snow King study area inclusive of the entirety of this DEIS’s project area. This FS collaborative study is germane to this EIS. (345-93) The Teton County Focal Species Habitat Mapping Project (Alder Environmental LLC, 2017) indicates habitat within the project area and vicinity for several sensitive and important species, yet this data was not used to evaluate CE: (345-99) Response: We will consider this information and incorporate it as appropriate in the FEIS.

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Comments included in this section address questions or opinions about the issues associated with the human environment carried into in-depth analysis in the EIS. Some request new information or clarification. Some suggest additional data sources or analysis. Others question our findings.

Cultural Historic Landscape Several comments expressed general concern over impacts on Snow Kings historic landscape, which is classified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (359-1, 381-2, L4-1). Examples: Cultural resources: Snow King is eligible for the national register of historic places. Most of the buildings and the minimum scale of the operations that contribute to this status will be removed under the proposal. The view of the area from town and beyond will be greatly altered. It will no longer be part of the community character and historical values. (380- 42) The historic and iconic view of Snow King, the Elk Refuge and Jackson enjoyed annually by millions of visitors coming south from GTNP from the top of the hill above the Fish Hatchery will be irreparably altered and damaged. This sensitive viewshed can also be seen from the Teton Wilderness area. The iconic landscape, valley, the Tetons, including GTNP and Bridger-Teton National Forests have been protected and influenced by visionaries like the Rockefellers, Steven Mather, Isaac Walton League, Muries and

84

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Craigheads to name just a few. What do they have to do with the DEIS? The flawed DEIS Alternatives should consider the history and cumulative effects of the proposed road instead of dismissing the issue. If the view is not changed drastically, it may be eligible for Historic Preservation designation since it is the first ski area in Wyoming. (173-15) Response: DEIS section 3.7 discusses Snow King’s historic landscape and effects on it in detail. Section 3.7.5 notes that in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Bridger- Teton will consult with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office as part of this environmental review process, and that consultation may identify mitigation measures to protect this resource. Any such measures may be included in the Bridger-Teton’s decision regarding this project as conditions of approval for any authorized actions. The FEIS will reflect pertinent recommendations resulting from this consultation. Other comments noted concerns about the impact of the proposed summit access road/novice skiway: The proposed road is too disruptive and intrusive and damages the historic skiing experience. (330-2) Why is the proposed road included in this alternative [4]? It obviously compromises the eligibility for historic designation. If Snow King cannot retain its eligibility with this proposed road, then this alternative has failed to properly address the requirements. (271- 7) The DEIS fails to identify the change in road alignment as an adverse effect. (345-104) Response: Section 3.7.2.1.3 describes the features at Snow King identified through previous assessments as contributing to the eligibility of the historic landscape for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The impact analysis in section 3.7.3 focuses on impacts on those features. The proposed summit access road/novice skiway is not cited as an impact. This finding may change as a result of the ongoing consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, and relevant changes will be incorporated in the FEIS. Some comments addresses impacts on the historic ski runs at Snow King: Development should… preserve the historic runs and landscape. Thinning of gladed areas and other runs is acceptable, but the outlines of the historic ski landscape should be preserved. (330-4) Existing run names should be kept to preserve the area history. (293-3) Response: Section 3.7.2.3 describes the ski runs identified as contributing resources in the determination of eligibility for Snow King’s historic landscape, and section 3.7.3 notes the anticipated impacts on them. As stated in section 3.7.5, mitigation of these impacts will be identified through the ongoing Section 106 consultation process. Additionally, the expansion of the permit boundary should constitute an adverse effect because it would weaken the integrity of the historic resource under feeling; the scale of the resort, especially in relation to the town, would drastically change. (345-105) We also believe that the addition of new runs, even if thinned or gladed, would ruin the dominance and core visual of Snow King, making the historic district much less recognizable over time. The DEIS should also consider the proposed runs in Leeks Canyon as an adverse impact because they greatly increase the scale of the resort as well as ruin the historic viewshed on the summit ridge. (345-106) The number and scale of proposed tourist attractions including the zip line, yurt camp, new summit restaurant, wedding venue, ropes course or mountain coaster, and other facilities, should all be considered as adverse impacts that deteriorate the setting, feeling, and association of Snow King. (345-107)

85

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Lighting and snowmaking should also be considered adverse impacts. (345-108) Response: Again, section 3.7.2.1.3 describes the features at Snow King identified through previous assessments as contributing to the eligibility of the historic landscape for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The impact analysis in section 3.7.3 focuses on impacts on those features. These criteria of setting, feeling, association, and scale are being considered in the ongoing consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, and relevant changes will be incorporated in the FEIS. The DEIS should also consider historic impacts alongside the impacts to wildlife and other environmental resources in the evaluation of alternatives. (345-109) Response: Impacts on cultural resources will be considered by the responsible official along with other resource effects in formulating a decision. The analysis of impacts to the historic landscape were largely described in another report and summarized only briefly in the DEIS, leaving the public with little ability to comment on the impacts to historic resources or respond to potential mitigation measures prior to the decision. (345-110) Response: The purpose of an EIS is to summarize more detailed analysis and make it easily accessible to the public and the decision maker. The report noted in the comment has been available online at the project website since early in this EIS process. Mitigation Mitigation of impacts to the historic landscape is insufficient. It should be accompanied by an appropriate historic preservation plan. For example, no alternatives were submitted for the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Panorama House, other than wholesale removal. (330-6) Response: As stated in section 3.7.5, mitigation of impacts on the historic landscape will be identified through the ongoing Section 106 consultation process.

Noise A number of comments expressed general concern over noise (30-4, 64-5, 176-2, 183-2, 217-1, L1-25). Examples: I am also worried about noise pollution from more development and recreational activities. (16-2) As a local resident living close to Snow King, I am already significantly impacted by current SK activities. Hill Climb is the absolute worst. The Cowboy coaster produces constant screaming on a a daily basis during the summer. (99-1) As noted there will be increased noise in avalanche control, mechanical noise from gondola, zipline and riders. However, the analysis underplays how this noise carries throughout the valley on still winter nights and summer days and detracts from the natural setting of Jackson and enjoyment of quiet neighborhoods. (380-43) Response: DEIS section 3.9.1 notes that while current snowmaking, explosive avalanche control, and summer activities such as the mountain coaster generate noise that is audible to visitors and residents in areas adjacent to the resort, the noise associated with the proposed snowmaking expansion, zip line, and increased avalanche control activities may be an annoyance to some. Section 3.9 goes on to assess those impacts in detail.

86

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Many noted specific concern over zip line noise (14-2, 19-2, 34-1, 46-9, 76-2, 206-3, 289-4). Examples: Our greatest objection, therefore, is to the zipline and any other development that will turn the hill to a place for yelling and destruction of the forest. (15-1) That is in addition to noise from concerts and the Hill Climb. I am not in favor of the zip line for that reason as well. (19-2) …Zip lines are located and they are incredibly loud (the metal grating against metal and screaming voices) and this is not compatible with residential development in Jackson. The Forest Service did not adequately consider noise pollution from the constant screaming people when they allowed the current roller coaster. It is a very distracting and unsettling impact to town residential areas. I urge you to measure and monitor this existing noise and its cumulative impacts. (76-1) Any new zip lines at Snow King should be limited to the Rafferty Lift area where there is already considerable activity, including the Cowboy Coaster. Zip lines stretching down the entire mountain, or across, will create nuisance noise that will disrupt both town residents and local wildlife. Confining zip lines to the Rafferty area will also reduce noise impacts to the current public trail system, where people enjoy skinning, hiking, and biking in a natural setting conveniently close to town. (109-9) Response: Zip line noise is specifically addressed in DEIS section 3.9. Section 3.9.3.3 describes the noise reduction effect of moving the zip line bottom terminal to the Rafferty mid-station. Some commments addressed the noise of snowmaking and avalanche control: Snow making, which is already disrupts the tranquility of town neighborhoods, would now be at higher elevations and the DEIS states will "generally not lead to increased noise". However, Under Alt. 4, snow making within 200 feet of homes should be unacceptable and cannot be sufficiently remedied by vegetation screening. (380-44) Snowmaking: to dismiss and downplay the noise of the equipment, the ice cloud and creation of a winter microclimate under temperature inversion conditions (no wind to blow it away as suggested in the DEIS) is to minimize an impact which is significant to everyone who has to live within /under the cloud and constant rain of ice crystals. (417-11) Avalanche control, which will increase also is startling to both residents and wildlife. (380- 45) Response: These impacts are analyzed and disclosed in section 3.9 of the DEIS. The noise effects of snowmaking and avalanche control are both included in this section.

Recreation Existing Ski Runs A number of comments expressed concern over the impact of the proposed summit access road/novice skiway crossing front-side ski runs (30-10, 30-4, 40-5, 46-2, 64-7, 96-7, 100-7, 109-13, 119- 2, 135-2, 160-2, 173-8, 211-5, 262-6, 266-2, 286-1, 306-2, 317-4, 328-3, 386-5, 391-4, 398-3, 404-4, 407- 3, 411-3, L6-3). Examples: The new road cut across the entire slope is a terrible idea! Why ruin some of the steepest slopes in north america that have trained olympic athletes? (322-1) Under the proposal the number of skiway crossings would increase to 15. The effect is dismissed: “However, skiway crossings are a common and manageable issue at ski areas. The impact on skier flow would vary by run.” This doesn’t recognize that the kind of

87

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

crossings we’re looking at for Snow King, with a wide road on very steep erosive slopes, would have a much greater effect than what’s found at most ski areas. (13-18) …there is no alternative to the new road offered, yet the road will serve to destroy the current fall line skiing entirely with interruptions and unnavigable drops from steep slopes to a flat, while not providing an acceptable descent route for novice skiers from the summit. (225-3) The impact to ski runs would be a net-zero effect if not positive improvement to the long runs, as well as the important scenic look of the mountain. (284-6) In effect the location of this road would cut Elk in half and lowers the QUALITY OF SKIING for the advanced to intermediate skier by forcing the skier to stop, negotiate the road, and continue his or her descent. (L8-1) Response: DEIS sections 3.10 addresses the recreational effects of skiway crossings in detail. The overall conclusion is that the net number of skiway crossings would increase under Alternative 2 but decrease under Alternatives 3 and 4, relative to current conditions. Some of the new crossings would be on the higher, steeper part of the mountain. While skiway crossings do adversely affect skier flow on more advanced runs, they are a common, often necessary, and generally manageable issue at most ski areas, as the DEIS concludes. Existing Trail System Numerous comments also addressed the impacts of lift-served mountain biking on existing trails and trail users, particularly on the Cache/Game trail system (13-15, 13-33, 30-21, 30-34, 46-2, 55-5, 58-2, 102-6, 109-20, 186-9, 195-1, 286-2, 322-3, 353-4, 380-51, 395-4, 410-10, 423-2, 423-3, L1-13). Examples: Allowing for mtn bike lift access would completely ruin the beautiful trails that we locals enjoy everyday. I ride the trains in and around snow king on a daily basis, and downhill riders would render them un-usable for uphill/cross country riding/running, hiking, etc. (321-2) As a mountain biking, hiking, skiing user of snow king, I am most enthusiastic about the proposed backside expansion that will alleviate traffic from the front of the mountain and create more space and variety for a better network of trails in the Town of Jackson. (253- 2) We are concerned that lift-serviced riders accessing the Cache-Game trail system will put excessive pressure on our capacity to keep up with trail maintenance and education along this very popular and well-used portion of the BTNF system. (353-6) As a hiker, botanist, and wildlife observer and regular user of Cache Creek and Game Creek trails, the increased access and increased number of mountain bike trails will greatly reduce my enjoyment of the area. They will drive me away due to their speed and constant interruption of my walking and wildlife observation, and will spread weeds and run over native plants. Other people will be displaced due to the dominance of mountain biking. (380-50) The draft EIS notes that downhill mountain biking in the proposed action could put significantly more users into the Cache Creek/Game Creek trail system, causing potential user conflicts and resource degradation. The solutions proposed in alternatives three and four to prohibit users from leaving any biking areas into the surrounding trails are preferable to alternative two. The Town requests that these concerns be addressed in order to achieve significant levels of protection for this resource. (246-4)

88

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Effects of proposed mountain bike infrastructure on existing trails and their users are addressed in DEIS section 3.10. Note that this was an alternative-driving issue, so alternatives 3 and 4 incorporate changes to the proposed action to address it. Phil Baux Park Some comments noted concern about impacts of the gondola bottom terminal on Phil Baux Park: Building a summit gondola would destroy the base area of Snow King and take away a locally-appreciated space for summer activities including summer camps, kickball & softball leagues, live music and a space for the Slow Food in the Tetons People's Market. (305-2) The new summit gondola and zip line would be located where the outdoor farmers market takes place in the summer. Supplanting a true community space with a profit-driven amusement park ride is the epitome of capitalist destruction of grass-roots culture, and the Forest Service should avoid these deleterious impacts. (375-3) I am opposed to alternative 2 because the zipline and gondola presence at the base of the hill would shift the entire dynamic of a very largely used community space. (395-8) Phil Baux is a well-used important community gathering place, and serves not only locals- -including those who don't ski--and visitors. Encroaching development would negatively impact this area. (317-14) Alternative 3 and 4 are much preferred to Alt. 2. Phil Beaux Park is an invaluable local park used by the surrounding community. Snow King should not intrude on our scarce town open spaces. (380-53) Response: DEIS section 3.10 analyzes this issue in depth. Note also that this was an alternative-driving issue, and the gondola and zip line bottom terminals would not be in the park under Alternatives 3 and 4. Some comments cited adverse effects on backcountry skiing due to the back-side expansion: With regard to the Snow King DEIS, we are particularly interested in the effects of development on the wild qualities on the back side of the mountain, and how that development would impact the long tradition of backcountry skiing there… (357-1) A ski lift, snowmaking, grooming operations, and a yurt base here will greatly impact the quality of the backcountry experience… The DEIS does not address how development on the back side will impact the long history and tradition of backcountry skiing there. (293- 2) Response: Backcountry skiers have access to ample terrain in the Jackson area, and the back-side expansion would involve only small fraction of it. Beyond that, difficult egress due to private property at the bottom of Leeks Canyon makes the back side less attractive to backcountry skiers. Mitigation Several comments addressed mitigation of project-related impacts on existing mountain bike trail use: As far as I am aware, Snow King is open to a closed bike park boundary policy wherein users who access the bike park from the gondola are not able to leave the permit boundary onto other trials. I am also in support of this option if this is required to mitigate increased use on other system trails. (405-3) Response: Under Alternative 2, lift-served bikers would have free access to the existing trail system (section 2.4.8.2) but Alternatives 3 and 4 would restrict them to the permit area (sections 2.5.4.2 and 2.6.3.1).

89

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I strenuously object to any further closure of the Skyline Trail; mountain bikers fundraised, planned, and helped construct this trail, and any closure violates the spirit in which it was created. (311-6) Response: Alternative 3 calls for closure to bicycles of Upper Skyline trail from Ferrin’s Saddle to the ski area boundary as an option for restricting lift-served mountain bikers to the permit boundary (section 2.5.4.2). We will consider this adverse effect on users of the existing trail system as well as the other costs benefits of restricting access to the Cache/Game trail system. Alternative 3, Section 2.5.4.2 (p.43) notes that “Upper Skyline trail between Ferrin’s saddle and Snow King and Josie’s Ridge trail would be closed to bike use in order to provide a clear separation between the intensive bike activity within the ski area and the desired less-intensive, more nature-based experience outside of the ski area. Barriers would be installed to clearly establish this closure.” MBT suggests that a new trail be constructed in order to preserve a popular loop ride connection (shown below in RED). Construction of this new “mountain-bike specific trail” would serve to mitigate user conflict on the switchback portion of Josie’s Ridge and improve the overall hiking and biking experience on the mountain. This new “detour” trail would be financed by Snow King Mountain. Construction of this “detour” could serve as a model for user- impact/conflict mitigation for the entire project. (196-5, 295-5)

Response: We will consider this mitigation option and address it accordingly in the FEIS. Analysis Methods These comments question the number of laps projected in our analysis for lift served mountain bikers leaving the ski area to use the Cache/Game trail system: BTNF assumptions are based on two figures which FOP believes are underestimated or need further evaluation: (1) the daily average number of people using the Snow King lift- service trails; and (2) the average number of laps or rides that a person will make on those trails. To get the best estimate for how many daily riders will use Snow King facilities, it would be prudent to get data from Jackson Hole Mountain Resort before assuming a daily average of 109 riders. Arguably, Snow King could have superior downhill trails, with more vertical loss than JHMR, so daily riders may be equal to or greater than JHMR. To get the best estimate for how many lift-access riders will leave the downhill system, it is critical to have a more precise daily average figure and to assume that each rider is capable of making multiple laps per day. Rather than assuming that one rider equates to one ride, the analysis should assume that one rider could equate to 1-5 rides. This will change the

90

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

potential impacts to the adjacent trail system significantly. Based on the stated time that a ride on the new Summit lift would take and the average downhill times on Strava for Ferrin's and Josie's Ridge, a conservative estimate for a Snow King/Ferrin's or Snow King/Josie's lap would be 30 minutes. This would allow for numerous laps per rider during a typical day in the summer and more than double, conceivably, triple, the number of downhill trips on these trails. Currently the Ferrin's trail sees an average of 68 people/day and Josie's Ridge an average of 158 people/day. If an additional 22 riders per day each make 5 extra laps on the Ferrin's trail, it will overwhelm the trail and pose a significant threat to uphill traffic. While the Cache-Game trail system could absorb a limited number of new riders a day, the Bridger-Teton analysis fails to consider that each rider could take multiple laps via the chairlift. (353-5) I feel the estimates for the use of the new bike park are low… Snow King is talking about individual users and JHMR has counts for how many laps on the lift those individual users took. This number is more of what I am concerned about though as each use of the lift equates to a use of the trail and therefore has maintenance and user interactions associated with it… They were unable to get those numbers for me but I am hoping the BTNF has access to them as it would let me look at the average number of laps that an individual ticket holder took on Teewinot and maybe give a better idea of how many laps those estimated 109 riders and more importantly those estimated 22 riders may take on the surrounding multi-use trails at Snow King. (L10-1) Response: Section 3.10.3.3.2 describes how we developed our projection of additional use of Cache/Game trail system, and we generally hold to that method for reasons explained in that section. However, a factor that we did not consider was multiple laps that lift-served riders might take. We will consider that and revise the analysis in the FEIS accordingly. Note also that the number of laps ridden by riders using Snow King’s dedicated mountain bike trail system is not relevant to the analysis. We are estimating the number of downhill system riders likely to leave the ski area to ride the Cache/Game trail system. Our question is impact on those existing trails. Accordingly, the number of laps ridden by JHMR visitors would not be relevant, as they are also riding in a dedicated downhill trail system, not accessing cross-country trails. However, as some cross-country bikers may take more than single laps on the Cache/Game system, we will note that potential in the analysis.

Safety General Some comments expressed general concerns over the impact of the proposed action on safety (30-4, 268-2, 322-5, 419-1). Examples: Our Search and Rescue will be utilized more in the summertime to locate lost tourists on the backside of Snow King, as opposed to rescuing injured visitors and locals in the Tetons. A drain on our volunteer resources is my main concern as well as the visitor experience. (130-3) A new safe access road that can get beginners down the mountain is critical for the long term success of the mountain. - A new gondola will improve safety on the mountain and ensure that kids and instructors can ride together and experience the entire mountain without putting kids alone on the lift. (24-2) Expansion of infrastructure to provide this access is necessary and critical. Support items like roads to and from the summit should be approved as a safety measure for operation, fire crews, EMTs. (129-2)

91

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: We will consider these comments in assessing the overall safety implications of the proposed action. Safety of Summer Visitors In summertime, the addition of mountain bikes (lift access to the top) would… very likely add an expectation of an increase in significant injuries. (391-13) Allow few or no bikes on the ski lift. A vast increase in downhill biking is a disaster for… safety of humans and wildlife.(358-11) It would not be the same if we had to worry about getting run over by people on mountain bikes. (319-1) Response: Section 3.11 assesses this issue. In short, while trail intersections could increase the risk of collisions involving mountain bikers and users of existing trails, a combination of trail design ensuring adequate sight lines and slowing zones, coupled with signage, would minimize this risk. Skier Safety A number of comments noted safety effects of the summit access road/novice skiway (20-3, 30-7, 48- 3, 103-4, 109-13, 109-14, 160-2, 173-8, 184-3, 246-3, 318-12, 327-11, 328-3, 343-5, 349-2, 358-14, 364- 12, 380-14, 410-11, 415-6, 419-1). Examples: The face road will create hazards where it crosses ski runs, creating a sudden topographic break. It would interrupt the fall line of existing runs and create a significant safety hazard for skiers using the runs and beginners on the skiway. (13-30) Having an easy way down from the summit via the novice skiway makes sense for so many reasons, including provision of an alternative route down if the gondola can't operate; easy emergency egress from the summit for guests, staff, and emergency personal; and skier access to the discrete areas of less difficult front side terrain without having to negotiate expert terrain. (42-9, 52-4, 284-8) A gondola can download skiers/riders that are not comfortable with the front side runs. (289-2) The road cut across the steep terrain of Elk Run (proposed in Alternative 2, 3, and 4) would be very hazardous for expert skiers. Unless it had a guardrail or fence, it would be equally hazardous for novice skiers. (249-2) The proposed new road will affect uphill travel as well, by changing the uphill route. In much the same way that the new road poses a safety risk for novice skiers potentially colliding with other downhill skiers on the resort’s steepest runs, this new uphill route poses an increased risk of skier collision between uphill and downhill skiers. (109-19) Response: Effects of the summit access road/novice skiway on skier safety, including lower-level skiers on the skiway, are addressed in DEIS section 3.11.3.2.2. As noted in EIS section 2.4.8.3, the new hiking trail west of the Stairway trail will be the designated uphill ski route in the winter, not the summit access road/novice skiway. Avalanche A number of comments cited concern that the proposed action would increase avalanche hazard (16- 3, 206-3, 276-5, 338-2, 358-13, 415-7, 418-9). Examples: The proposed road would extend east into the Cache Creek drainage crossing the Ferrin's slide path. A major safety factor which would require careful and experienced avalanche control. (173-9)

92

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

…the new wider road will make the road cuts even steeper and more prone to avalanches in wet spring time conditions. (322-2) Artificial snow would carry over the ridgeline and be prone to loading on the steep leeward slopes, compounding the avalanche mitigation efforts with a problem layer that will not disappear all season long. (338-7) Herein lies a problem as a road cut in avalanche terrain is a terrain trap for any moving snow… The proposed road west of Bear Cat traverses slope angles of 35 degrees which will have a 11 foot cut bank, providing a perfect terrain trap for any moving snow. (L8-2) At present Snow King does not have a map delineating avalanche paths in proposed expansion areas. (L8-3) Response: Section 3.11.3.3.2 assesses the avalanche safety issue specifically addressing the summit access road/novice skiway and the Ferrin’s slide path. We will consider these comments and determine any needs to revise the analysis in the FEIS. Mitigation I also believe that the lifts towers would be best situated for the HillClimb event by being placed as far west on Exhibition as possible, and will otherwise compromise the safety of the event, and lift itself, due to the topography. (388-8) Response: Given the options available for the bottom terminal of the proposed gondola, it would not be feasible to align it on the west side of exhibition. We will have to consider other measures to improve the safety of the hill climb event. What is the plan for fire mitigation? (372-10) Bigger buildings at the summit and increasing human presence on the summit require detailed analysis of fire risk and response. (372-11) Response: As noted in DEIS Table 1-1, the BTNF requires an Electrical and Life Safety Review to be completed by the Teton County Fire Marshal before any construction authorization is issued. Note also that emergency access and egress are among the functions that would be served by the summit access road/novice skiway.

Scenery General Many comments under this heading questioned the overall scope and objectives of our scenery analysis (380-36). Examples: The visual… impacts extend far beyond the physical boundaries of Snow King Resort. (176- 2) The viewshed looking toward Snow King should be consistent with both the character of Jackson, and SK's location as the gateway into the Gros Ventre Wilderness. (317-13) Visual impacts are ignored: The constant motion of lifts-including the large, fast moving bubbles of the gondola, rapid zipline, speeding bicyclists, and maintenance vehicles on the road or grooming trails adds intrusive commotion to the setting of the town. The scrambled lines of trails is unnatural and dense. The added industrial infrastructure of linear wires, towers, and pipes also reduces the visual integrity of the National Forest, as well as the changes in vegetation patterns, including but not exclusively by invasive exotics. (380-48)

93

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The historic and iconic view of Snow King, the Elk Refuge and Jackson enjoyed annually by millions of visitors coming south from GTNP from the top of the hill above the Fish Hatchery will be irreparably altered and damaged. This sensitive viewshed can also be seen from the Teton Wilderness area. The iconic landscape, valley, the Tetons, including GTNP and Bridger-Teton National Forests have been protected and influenced by visionaries like the Rockefellers, Steven Mather, Isaac Walton League, Muries and Craigheads to name just a few. What do they have to do with the DEIS? The flawed DEIS Alternatives should consider the history and cumulative effects of the proposed road instead of dismissing the issue. If the view is not changed drastically, it may be eligible for Historic Preservation designation since it is the first ski area in Wyoming. (173-15) Response: Some background on Forest Service scenery management direction and means of implementing it is necessary to respond to these general comments and set the stage for the more specific comments and responses that follow. As stated in DEIS section 3.12.2.1.1, the goal of landscape management on all National Forest System lands is to maintain the highest possible scenic quality, commensurate with other appropriate public uses, costs, and benefits. In accordance with our Forest Plan, scenery management on the BTNF is guided by the Forest Service’s Visual Management System. In brief, this system provides a means of assessing the inherent scenic quality of a forest landscape and then establishing the allowable degree of deviation from it to accommodate management actions and permitted uses. Existing Visual Condition (EVC) is used to describe the baseline scenic condition, using six levels. As viewed from Jackson, Snow King is classed as Level 5, where changes tend to stand out, dominating the view of the landscape, but are shaped to resemble natural patterns. In terms of context, Snow King is an all-season mountain resort associated closely with, and adjacent to, a thriving community of more than 10,000 residents and high levels of tourist visitation. The allowable degree of deviation is established in the Forest Plan by the Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) assigned to all areas within the Forest. For Snow King and its surroundings National Forest System lands, the assigned VQOs are Modification for lower portions adjacent to the base area and Partial Retention for upper portions and the back side. These VQOs are consistent with our designation of the area as Desired Future Condition 9B, Special Use Recreation Area. The Modification VQO allows for activities to visually dominate the original characteristic landscape as long as other requirements are met, while under Partial Retention activities must remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. See section 34.12.2.1.1 for detailed discussion of these designations. A final note regarding scenic impacts is that they are assessed from viewpoints where numbers of people would experience them. We manage viewsheds for people. Based on this background, the analysis documented in DEIS section 3.12 concludes that the visual effects of the proposed action and use would be consistent with assigned VQOs. This assessment is based on views from in and around the Town of Jackson, where viewers congregate, not from within the ski area or from distant, remote viewpoints or at distances beyond the range of human visual acuity. The baseline is current conditions at Snow King, not the landscape character or Jackson or the Gros Ventre Wilderness. More specific comments on our scenery analysis methods are addressed under that heading below. Scenic Quality This section addresses comments on the scenic quality impacts of specific elements of the proposed action.

94

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Access Road/Skiway A number of comments addressed the scenic effect of the proposed summit access road/novice skiway (37-7, 46-4, 55-1, 93-2, 96-8, 188-6, 211-4, 289-3, 306-2, 380-10, 386-5, 398-2, 410-6, 429-8, L7-2). Examples: The proposed road will result in a huge, ugly scar, that will be there forever and require significant modifications to topography, which is contrary to directions given in the Forest Service Manual. The Briggs road should be considered. (364-13) Regarding road and expansion of the terrain East and West of the existing ski area boundary: 1) This would create an irreparable scar on the landscape. In clear view of everyone driving into town from the north. (343-3) The DEIS also minimizes the visual effects of the road, given that the proposed road is presented as having the same visual impact on the top slopes as it does at the bottom, despite estimates that the roadcuts on the top could be 30 feet, or as high as a three story building. (345-77) Visually, the new road will dominant the landscape by being a large permanent scar across the mountain side visible from many points in town and the Forest.(186-7) We are concerned about the road, which will not only cut across ski runs, but gouge the moutainside, front and back. The design of this road should be seriously reconsidered because it runs counterproductive to any other plans for developing the hill into an attractive ski resort . . . If you destroy the beauty of the hill with an ill-conceived road and obnoxious amusements, you will destroy the aesthetics of the mountain and the need for a restaurant. (15-2) Eliminating all or most of these [existing roads and trails] and replacing them with a single, properly graded and constructed access road would be a win, especially when the new road would blend in, as indicated in the EIS's scenic analysis. (52-3) The construction and maintenance of nearly 2 miles of new road as proposed will be permanently, visually intrusive and acoustically impactful, particularly during construction. (L1-25) Response: Section 3.12.3.1.2 describes the scenic impact of the upper summit access road/novice skiway, noting that following rehabilitation (sections 3.4.5 and 3.5.5) it would be an unnatural, nearly horizontal line, more visible in summer than winter, crossing graded ski runs and creating a break in the canopy of forested patches. As the existing summit access road and other graded roads and trails on the front side would be obliterated, there would be a net decrease in the number of such features. The access road/skiway would be part of the overall quantitative rather than qualitative change to the existing ski-area landscape, conforming to the assigned VQOs. Figures 3-22–3-25 indicate that the access road/skiway would not be visually striking from the viewpoint on the highway entering Jackson from the north. This due primarily to the rehabilitation efforts that would be required, resulting in cut and fill slopes resembling the revegetated ski runs crossed by the alignment. Given the screening by trees on the steep slope, the alignment would appear as a slight break in the canopy of the forested patches it crossed. Summit Development A number of comments expressed concern regarding the scenic impact of the proposed summit building (18-4, 30-31, 37-5, 50-4, 71-15, 380-11, 380-12, 398-1). Examples: The proposal calls for massive developments here that could potentially be seen from wilderness areas in the Gros Ventre. The square foot allotment for this area is too large to

95

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

support the claims that they "won't be visible". There needs to be further study and renderings of these structures readily available for the public to see. (411-6) The massive 25,000 sf complex on the ridgeline should not be allowed. This will destroy views from town and does not align with our community character of preserving views, open space and limiting dense growth to the center of town. (223-4) Scenic analysis presented was inadequate as one illustrated viewpoint on the north end of Cache Street which does not show the 20,000 SF building at the top. Multiple views should be presented from south of town, West Jackson, East Jackson and various points within the Gros Ventre Wilderness in order to be compliant with the Forest Service Scenic Management System and a full NEPA analysis. Lighting at night also needs to be included. (186-11) Finally, there is no mention of the impact that the proposed 25,000 f2 building would have on viewpoints other than town. What about the view from the Gros Ventre mountains? (103-6) Response: DEIS section 3.12.3.1.2 describes the scenic impact of the proposed summit building. In brief, based on the existing setting on the summit (i.e., several communications towers visible from town), proposed basic design (i.e., , single story set back from the skyline), compliance with our Built Environment Image Guide (i.e., design direction including maintaining a Rocky Mountain Province character theme and “make[ing] the scale, color, and texture of materials correspond to the setting”), and voluntary compliance with the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan direction to break up the roof line of sky-lined structures, the proposed building would comply with the assigned VQO. As indicated in Figures 3-22–3-25, the structure would be difficult to discern from the viewpoint on the highway entering Jackson from the north. This is due to distance (roughly 2 miles from that viewpoint) as well as the factors noted above. The questions of lighting impact and multiple viewpoints are addressed below under Scenery – Lighting and Scenery – Analysis Methods. Zipline Noisy and unsightly ziplines will debase the peaceful outdoor experience we flock to Jackson for… (206-3) Response: DEIS section 3.12.3.1.2 describes the scenic impact of the proposed zip line options. In brief, the zip line would have no intervening towers, and the cable diameter would be too small to be visible from Jackson. Accordingly, this element would comply with the assigned VQO. As indicated in Figures 3-22– 3-25, it would not be visible from the viewpoint on the highway entering Jackson from the north. Noise impacts are addressed above under Noise. Bike Trails As for mountain bike trails, it's unclear that the bike trails proposed for the front side won't have a greater visual impact and surface alteration than suggested. Even the relatively tight switchbacks on Shade Monkey on the lower, low-angled slopes require substantial cuts. As shown, the mountain bike trails in alternatives 2 and 3 switchback down steep, upper-mountain slopes and apparently go straight down 30° fall lines (see the upper "switchbacks" on the green and blue trails). Either these trails are hypothetical, indicating there's been no careful analysis of their placement and feasibility, or they are poorly planned or drawn. (64-11) Response: As indicated in DEIS section 2.4.8.2, the illustrated trail alignments are conceptual, subject to final design and layout that would occur after authorization in our Record of Decision followed by our required engineering review. Some substantial cuts would likely be required, but required rehabilitation

96

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

efforts (section 3.4.5 and 3.5.5) would reduce the scenic impact substantially. Note that existing hiking and mountain biking trails are difficult to discern in Figure 3-22. Glading The proposed glading (16'-18') between the switchbacks is on very steep terrain and presents another visual impact. (173-10) Response: As stated in DEIS section 3.12.3.1.3, “thinning and glading have been going on at Snow King for a number of years, with the objective of reducing fuel loads at the wildland/urban interface and improving skiing. However, given the variability in cover and texture of the forest canopy on Snow King Mountain, the thinned areas are not visually discernible. As a result, the impact of this activity on scenic quality is projected to be negligible.” Lighting Some comments cited the general effects of lighting associated with the proposed action: Lights: The role of light pollution is dismissed. Even now lights are easily visible from Wilson, the Laurence S. Rockefeller Visitor Center, as well as those driving south into Jackson. Increasing the extent and duration of the lights will add to the light pollution for additional months. The idea that there will be a star gazing platform on the summit is absolutely contrary to the addition of such lights. Furthermore, light pollution will affect star gazing from other vantage points. (380-47) Light pollution will be severe from a new road, and summit beginner area; and should be eliminated from the proposal. (388-5) Light pollution from ridgetop development and/or additional on-slope lighting would be disruptive to Snow King's neighbors. (410-15) Reduce the light pollution emanating from Snow King. (358-15) Response: DEIS section 3.12 addresses the impacts of added lighting associated with the proposed action Section 3.12.3.2.2 provides the most focused discussion of impacts. The overall conclusion is that the changes in lighting associated with night skiing, grooming, and snowmaking would be quantitative rather than qualitative, commensurate with growth and development in the community. The summit building would be a new light source, but the stated design and operating parameters would minimize its visual impact. The analysis concludes that “the changes in lighting associated with night skiing, grooming, and snowmaking would be quantitative rather than qualitative, commensurate with growth and development in the community. The summit building would be a new light source, but the stated design and operating parameters would minimize its visual impact. All in all, this alternative would comply with the Comprehensive Plan direction to limit lighting to what is required for public safety, especially along pedestrian corridors, limiting non-essential lighting, and designing lighting to meet dark skies best practices.” Comments dealing with specific light sources are addressed below. A number of comments addressed the effects lighting of proposed summit facilities (30-4, 30-13, 101- 4, 274-3, and 427-3). Examples: The construction of a large gathering spot on top of the Hill will also adversely affect animals, create air and light pollution. (274-3) The visibility of the Restaurant both night and day has been mis-characterized in the DEIS analysis. The view corridors have been limited in the report. The light from that restaurant will be seen throughout Bridger-Teton forest. Does the Forest Service want to support that garish light Pollution seen while camping and hiking in other parts of our Public Lands? (238-10)

97

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response: Section 2.4.5.1 notes that the proposed summit building would employ dark sky designs and operating practices such as minimal exterior lighting, appropriate bulbs and downcast reflectors, no exterior lights on after operating hours, and non-reflective glass. Black-out curtains and downcast red lighting of walkways between building and the gondola have also been proposed by Snow King for any activities at the facility after 10 PM. As noted above under Scenery – General, this analysis focuses on Jackson, where more people are concentrated in closer visual proximity to Snow King. In order to provide a sufficient amount of quality snow to accommodate beginners at the top, the resort would be making snow, which would require a tremendous amount of lighting, which would clearly obviate the possibility of an observatory, but more importantly would contribute to overall light pollution in Jackson proper. (391-8) Response: The amount of lighting associated with snowmaking cannot really be described as tremendous. As discussed in section 3.12.2.2.2, each snowmaking gun has a single light, downcast to illuminate the work area. Section 3.12.3.2.2 says that the current 30 to 40 snowmaking guns at Snow King would increase by 20 under the proposed action including those operating at the summit teaching center. This would be an incremental, quantitative increase over current conditions, generally lasting 2 months, from November through January. This would be a negligible addition to the light pollution generated by Jackson. Several comments specifically noted the impact of additional lighting on the proposed summit observatory (45-12, 183-3, 380-47, 391-8). Examples: In addition, if the owners are serious about creating an observatory, then they will create a facility that doesn't produce much light pollution. (397-9) I also think Snow King's plan of building an observatory at the top while also wanting to allow night skiing contradicts itself. (46-8) Response: As discussed above in response to comments on summit building lighting, there would be a number of design and operational factors in place to minimize that facility’s light impact. Section 3.12.3.2.2 says that the proposed night-skiing lighting would employ new technology designed specifically to provide sufficient, uniform light to the snow surface while minimizing glare and sky glow, and night skiing would extend no later than 9 PM. Observatory sessions would not begin until 10 PM. Based on these considerations, proposed summit facilities and operations would not adversely affect the observatory. Mitigation Improvements for meetings, workshops or weddings may be acceptable if lighting and noise mitigation occur and those functions do not impact the town or its surroundings. Clear and enforced mitigation is the only way to allow such uses so they do not disturb the night sky or community peace and quiet. (188-9) Response: Responses above to comments regarding the scenic impact of summit development and the associated lighting identify a number of design and operational factors to limit scenic impact. DEIS section 3.12.5 also lists design criteria that would limit scenic effects of the summit building. See also responses to the following comments. Several comments noted the importance of setting the summit building back from the skyline: I do support an expanded facility of some sort that could be used for weddings, etc. but it should be of reasonable size and set back from the rim. A set-back location is critical to reduce visual impacts from town below.(397-8) But a 15,000 sq foot summit building seems too big for such a small hill. Set it back from the ridge top so it's not a visual blemish. (335-5) A 15,000 sq ft summit building is too large, should be set back from rim. (70-5)

98

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

A 20,000-square foot summit facility is a fair size for a good commercial hospitality facility, please consider sub grade square footage to limit the buildings visual bulk and scale. A set-back location is critical to reduce visual impacts from town below. (107-12) Response: As stated in DEIS section 2.4.5.1, the summit building would be set back from the skyline to reduce its scenic impact. Other comments suggested limitations on operating hours: At minimum, if the installation of new lighting is to go forward, there must be clear restriction placed on their time of use. I suggest that a mandatory 9:00 or 9:30 “lights out” condition be placed on the permit. (L1-36) All summit operations, except access to restrooms should be restricted to daylight hours. (L1-19) Response: Limitations on operating hours for some facilities and activities are practical and included in the proposed action description (e.g., night skiing operations would end by 9 PM). As noted above, Snow King has proposed using black-out curtains and only downcast red lighting at the summit building if activities continue after 10 PM. However, other activities, particularly snowmaking and grooming must be done at night and may continue all night, as they do now. "Dark skies" lighting specifications on all lighting. (380-25) Response: As stated in DEIS section 2.4.5.1, the summit building would employ dark sky designs and operating practices such as minimal exterior lighting, appropriate bulbs and downcast reflectors, no exterior lights on after operating hours, and non-reflective glass. Analysis Methods Some comments suggested developing visual simulations from more than one viewpoint in Jackson and not simulating lighting effects: The “simulation” which shows none of the proposed summit structures from the north end of town fails to include the night-time view to determine whether lights would be visible. And it only shows one location when there are many others from which lights and the structures themselves would likely be visible. (13-20) For example, the scenic analysis (pages 196-199) only provides an evaluation of one viewpoint during one season, at one time of day, without considering night lighting. (345- 76) The DEIS does not consider visual impacts cumulatively. The simulation does not show a night- time view with lighting going to the top of the mountain or how far this light pollution will affect either drainage or interact with light pollution from the Town of Jackson. (345- 96) Response: The summit building as presented conceptually in the MDP is included in the visual simulations presented in DEIS section 3.12.3.1, it simply is not visible to the human eye from that viewpoint. It is not necessary or feasible to create simulations from all possible viewpoints, and the viewpoint used for simulations was selected because it provides a good view of the entire project area and because everyone entering Jackson from the north experiences this view. Viewpoints closer to the base of Snow King are discussed in the analysis (see section 3.12.3.1), which notes that much of the mountain becomes obscured by intervening buildings and topography as you move closer to the mountain. The impacts of lighting on the summit are discussed in DEIS section 3.12.3.2. An accurate visual simulation of undesigned facilities and mobile sources such as groomers and snowmaking guns would be speculative

99

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

at best, so we opted to describe lighting impacts in text. See also responses above under Process – Cumulative Effects.

OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS A number of comments expressed concern about proposed commercial development on private land (161-3, 419-5, 424-2), many citing the term “unsavory commercial development at the base” (218-1, 236-1, 237-1, 280-1). Examples: Building 500,000 more square feet of already-allowed commercial development at the base crowding out special events and the ball field. (23-12) Please limit the development of bad ideas to our beloved town hill. Namely… and unsavory commercial development at the base of the mountain. (219-1) I do not welcome other ideas that would harm the Town Hill and our local landscape:… building hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial development at the base. (328-3) Response: The commercial development cited in these comments is associated with the Snow King Resort District Master Plan currently being developed by the town, landowners in and around the base area, and other stakeholders. It involves only private land and is unrelated to the proposed action addressed in this EIS. Some comments addressed the condition of a base-area service road: This most heavily used portion of their access road [below Rafferty mid station] MUST be addressed properly before any future projects take place. By doing so, this will solve plenty of SK's safety issues, reduce the risk of accidents and liability, and drastically improve the mountain for beginners. (365-8) Do not allow SKMR LLC to avoid addressing this issue(their access road on private lands), which would cause further problems by encouraging increased vehicle/ATV/machinery use, and dispersing their beginner skier traffic throughout the steep ski area that doesn't even have a clear plan or well-defined route to descend the final pitch to either Base Area. (365-9)] Response: Management of Snow King’s service road on private land at the base area is outside BTNF jurisdiction and the scope of this EIS. Some comments requested a half pipe at Snow King: I also support the creation of a half pipe and other terrain park features. (45-9) I also support the creation of a halfpipe. The Town Hill should have great freestyle facilities for the kids. (128-10) Response: No terrain park is included in this proposed action, so these comments are out of scope. Some comments requested a backcountry skiing special use permit: The DEIS makes no mention of corresponding opportunities for backcountry commercial ski guiding being offered near the resort or anywhere else. (293-7) The DEIS does not answer the question why Snow King development fits with the BTNF master plan, while increasing backcountry ski guiding opportunities does not. The USFS is allowing Snow King to develop, with colossal associated impacts, but has refused countless worthy proposals over the past 25 years from low-impact backcountry ski

100

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

guiding start-ups and existing operators. The DEIS must explain this unfair double standard. (293-8) Response: This EIS addressed proposed improvements at Snow King. The issue of guided backcountry skiing operations on the BTNF is outside that scope. Some comments noted pandemic concerns: I believe it is crucial for the USFS to put ALL ski area development proposals and ALL pending permits for our public land on hold, nationwide, due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. (156-1) I would strongly suggest for the USFS/BTNF to stop all ski area analysis nationwide at this time, and focus on safeguarding and management of public lands during this COVID- 19 global pandemic. (271-9) Response: This decision is beyond the scope of this analysis. What if the next pandemic is worse and development started is frozen in incompletion for a decade or more. (183-5) Response: This concern is too speculative to consider in this EIS. Some comments addressed support or opposition to an assortment of elements, including out-of- scope elements: GOOD IDEAS New safe high-speed summit lift or gondola Nice restaurant on top - renovate the historic Panorama House Better skiing within the existing ski area footprint: glading, terrain parks, etc. Full support for the Ski Club and Coombs Outdoors teaching and racing programs Guaranteed affordable rates for local skiers, whether skinning or riding lifts Housing that local workers can afford Legally binding system so commercial development at the base financially supports the ski area forever Community investment through SPET, co-op shares, or philanthropy (160-1) Things I am for include a renovation of the restaurant on top, a new lift to the top, housing that locals can afford, and better skiing (of course)! (422-4) Good ideas: • Development considered through the lens of protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat • Protection of Leeks Canyon from any future development • Renovation of the historic Panorama House • A legally binding system that ensures commercial development at the base supports the ski area • Development of affordable housing for local workers at the base • Community investment through SPET, co-op shares or philanthropy • Affordable uphill access for local residents, whether skinning or riding lifts. (L12-2) Good ideas that should be entertained instead: -Better skiing within the existing ski area footprint: glading, terrain parks, etc. -Full support for the Ski Club and Coombs Outdoors teaching and racing programs -Guaranteed affordable rates for local skiers, whether skinning or riding lifts -Housing that local workers can afford -Legally binding system so commercial development at the base financially supports the ski area forever - Community investment through SPET, co-op shares, or philanthropy. (360-5)

101

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I hope that you consider the value to the community by respecting wildlife habitat and building in an eco-centric way, with high access to public transportation, facilities for community members (specifically ice rink and town ski hill), and buildings that complement the natural environment rather than large, expensive condos It is time that we put our community first. (251-1) Response: These comments include elements that are outside the scope of the analysis and others that are addressed elsewhere in this document. Comments raised a number of other, miscellaneous out-of-scope concerns: What are the financials of Snow King, and what are the prior commitments made to the community? (317-17) Response: Financial information like this is outside the scope of this EIS. Dogs would probably be banned anyway due to the mountain biking. (429-5) Response: There is no proposal to ban dogs from multiple-use trails. There is no fact based visual or resource analysis of the impact of the radically expanded road layout on the natural environment of Snow King outside of the current permit boundaries. (198-5, 379-3) Response: The only road proposed outside the current boundary is the summit access road/novice skiway, and its impacts on scenery and other resources are documented in DEIS Chapter 3. Have you accounted for user conflict if Josie's Ridge opened up to biking? If numbers were to increase? (395-4) Response: There is no proposal to open the hiking-only portion of Josie’s Ridge trail to mountain bikes. Would it be possible to move the rink over by the rodeo or rec center? (178-4) Response: This matter is outside BTNF jurisdiction and outside the scope of this analysis. Why not provide an alternative in which the communications equipment operator uses the proposed new road on the front of Snow King? If this new road is so much safer, shouldn’t the FS require that all travel be done on the safer road? (345-61) Response: This is an interesting suggestion that we will consider, but access to the communication sites is outside the scope of this analysis.

COMMENTS EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION

Pro General Snow King is a great amenity to the community and all the improvements will help keep it that way. (1-1) I am in favor of Snow King being able to replace the summit lift with a gondola, being able to cut a new road/traverse to the summit, glading new ski runs, and building a lift on the backside of the mountain. I believe it is imperative they be able to do these things to become financially viable. (2-1) The best way to preserve historic Snow King is to insure that it can stay in business. Thus I am in favor of all the proposed improvements that can help its cashflow. In addition, the improvements will contribute to our enjoyment of the "Town Hill". (3-1)

102

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I think we can help keep an affordable, community business in Jackson with the changes requested by the Snow King team. They should be able to expand to become self-sustaining while ensuring appropriate steps are taken to protect the environment. (L3-1) Snow king needs to change with the times,small ski areas all over the country are closing all the time, even in are very back yard like sleeping giant, snow king needs to become more viable and so the changes they are proposing I support… I Support all the infrastructure Improvements on snow king it will be key to there viable,sustainable,successful ski area. (12-1) I would like to see a gondola and that be complemented with a full service facility with restaurant.any ski terrain that can be added to snow king I feel should be done as well as zip lines and down hill mountain biking,these are all things that would help snow king become more viable and appealing to Jackson hole visitors to come and experience the history of one of the oldest ski areas in Wyoming! (12-7) I believe the proposed enhancements on Snow King mountain are essential for the ski area and community. (17-1) I think snowking deserves to be allowed to develop the mountain to its fullest. (21-1) Expansions to skiable terrain, new lifts (I am not opposed to a Gondola or restaurant facility atop the mountain). A down hill Bike park should absolutely be built! Down hill riders can easily be kept on down hill trails with minimal risks to up hill traffic. (21-2) I would like to extend my full support of the Snow King On-Mountain Improvements initiative. (22-1) By investing in their proposed on-mountain improvements, Snow King Mountain will continue to be a place for all to explore, connect with nature and provide opportunities to recreate year-round. (22-2) Full support for the Ski Club and Coombs Outdoors teaching and racing programs. (23-3) Snow King needs to upgrade their infrastructure and add some new beginner and intermediate ski terrain in order to become a viable winter destination. - Adding activities like mountain biking and zip-line are a great idea to diversify the mountain offerings in summer that I would love to bring my family to enjoy. (24-1) I am in full support of all the proposed enhancements on Snow King Mountain. (25-1) Diverse summer activities such as mountain biking and zip-lines are what will bring my family to Snow King to have some fun on the mountain. I am in full support of the proposed boundary expansion to make the ski area viable in winter, and think that the trail enhancements on the front side of the mountain will be widely appreciated. (25-2) Please allow Snowking to modernize their operation. This will keep recreation in an area that is already environmentaly impacted and out of winter wildlife areas and wilderness. This will keep people from driving to the village and increase local use of recreation that they can walk and bus too. (28-1) This business needs the ability to grow and thrive, as Jackson Hole Mountain Resort has been allowed to. I live in town, and would utilize Snow King, but currently their outdated main lift makes it very undesirable, especially in the cold months of Jan and Feb. Please allow Snow King room to grow as is appropriate for the area it is in. (29-1) Further, my family of five (three teens) support the improvements, all of them proposed and designed by SKM. It's time our government leaders to stand up for our community who

103

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

always strives to work to find solutions to balance the natural environment with the human environment. (31-1) I believe that all the improvements that you have in the future is a amazing idea and I fully support it. It's a great way on how to advance that beautiful space and increase the revenue for the mountain. (32-1) The National Ski Areas Association supports Snow King's project and urges the US Forest Service to move forward in a timely fashion. We recognize that the Snow King has historic value, but its higher value is an operating mountain resort that must change with the times to remain viable. (42-1) Snow King Mountain is an important community resource and a vital resource for the kids of this tow. In order for it to thrive, it needs support in infrastructure improvements. (42- 3) A full-service restaurant and event facility at the Panorama House, an expanded area for beginner skiers to ski in the summit sun, new access to lift-serviced mountain bike terrain and building a zip line are all essential to the plan. (42-11) I would like to voice support to allow Snow King Mountain to expand to allow for economic viability. (47-1) It does not seem logical that Snow Kings small expansion would have significant impact on the ability of wildlife in Teton County to survive. (47-2) It makes complete sense that providing more terrain suitable for lower-level skiers, providing more summer recreational opportunities, and updating guest service facilities are essential to the resort's survival. (52-1) Zip lines, a gondola ride, mountain biking and other activities can introduce first-timers to public lands. Some will take the next steps and hike or get into mountaineering, possibly seek out a better understanding of the ecosystem and environment - a love of our national forests starts with an experience and these activities can be the beginning. (61-3) Providing more terrain suitable for lower-level skiers, providing more summer recreational opportunities, and updating guest service facilities are essential to the resort's survival. (61-4) Supporting infrastructure improvements at Snow King is critical to the success of Wyoming's oldest ski hill. (61-9) We as a community can accept and see the benefits of a moderately sized restaurant at the top of the mountain, and a new lift/gondola to increase access and allow Snow King to thrive. (63-1) Improvements such as a gondola to the summit and expanded resort services at the summit, including the proposed observatory, are reasonable and should be pursued in order to fulfill the resort's objectives and the stated BTNF policies regarding use of forest lands in Management Area 41. (64-2) Wilderness advocates should be supporting the Phase 2 plan because it concentrates human influence in a small, urban interface zone away from true Wilderness habitat areas. The Phase 2 development plan ensures an improved winter experience for a wide range of people from small children to beginner skiers to experts. (66-2) Reducing traffic to Teton Village is and should be a major goal and this plan helps us meet that goal. (66-5)

104

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I do support moderate new development at the base of the Ski hill. (67-6) The proposed improvements are all very reasonable, necessary to keep the mountain safe, make the Mountain more desirable as an all-year-round recreational center and can be achieved within the character of the current landscape. The Grand View Condominiums are the top buildings that boarder Snow King Mountain. These units were purchased with the understanding they were part of the Snow King Recreational Area and the majority of the owners rent their units to the public. (78-1) Snow King would become not only an enhanced recreational experience in and of itself, it could also provide a viable alternative to Jackson Hole Mountain Resort for residents and visitors alike. (78-2) I believe that the proposed upgrades and additions to Snow King Mountain are very thoughtful and will make the Mountain an important community and visitor attraction while at the same time maintaining and improving its breathtaking environmental attributes. (79-1) I believe that the proposed improvements will increase the overall activities of the Recreational Area and provide Jackson residents, Grand View Condominiums owners and out of town visitors with very convenient access to year-round outdoor activities on Snow King Mountain. (79-2) If the improvements that are proposed were to be denied, I suspect the chances are very high that the "Town Hill" will cease to exist, and that would be a great loss to our community residents and visitors alike. (79-4) I'm in full support of their development plan because it will keep Snow King alive and give back to the community in more ways than one. It makes sense that providing more runs for lower-level skiers, more summer recreational opportunities such as the zipline and observatory, and updating guest service facilities are all crucial to the resort's survival. (86-1) I strongly encourage you to support ALL the proposed on-site improvements for Snow King Mountain Resort - especially mountain biking on the backside and Summit Road…. Snow King has proposed thoughtful updates that reflect input from local stakeholders and respect the environment around them. (88-1) Snow King is a critical part of not only our local economy, but our stat and regional economy. Small ski resorts like Snow King need to be able to stay current and provide year-round activities to guests to stay relevant and sustainable for the longterm. (88-4) I encourage you to please move forward and approve the Snow King Mountain Resort On- mountain Improvements. As a local business owner of 20 plus years here in Jackson, I can tell you that Snow King is critical to not only our local economy but our families. …Snow King is at the heart of winter culture for visitors and locals alike. (89-1) I ask you to please approve the proposed updates Snow King is requesting. These are critical updates and improvements for safety, recreation and helping the local economy in Jackson. (90-1) I am sure that locals would join with the town of Jackson and Teton County to back Snow King as a community resource. I have no idea about the financial details of the land lease and the current ownership's options. (96-9) I support all of Snowkings plans to expand. (111-1) I feel this plan will ensure the longevity of the ski hill. (111-2)

105

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

we would like to take this opportunity to express strong support for the proposed upgrades and additions to Snow King Mountain. (112-1) The proposed improvements will increase the overall activities of the Recreational Area and provide not only the residents of Jackson but all of Grand View Condominiums out of town visitors with very convenient access to year round outdoor activities on Snow King Mountain. (112-2) I believe these investments are necessary to make Snow King Mountain economically viable. As one of the oldest ski areas in the country and the first in Wyoming, Snow King Mountain is one of the crown jewels of Jackson and it is imperative that it is allowed to continue. If the improvements that are proposed were to be denied, I suspect the chances are very high that the "Town Hill" will cease to exist and it would be a great loss to our community. (112-4) I support the snow king expansion plan. As Jackson Hole Moutain Resort becomes more and more unaffordable for local residents, it would be great to have a decent place to recreate in Teton County. This area is already developed, so I see the additions as adding a pretty minimal impact. (113-1) I am very much in support of the Snow King Mountain Resort On-mountain improvements. The Town of Jackson has lost much business to Teton Village and the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort which has been allowed to significantly develop its on-mountain activities. Snow King should be provided the same opportunities. . . . I support a sustainable Snow King Mountain Resort. Make Snow King sustainable. Snow King Mountain needs to improve in order for it to continue for another 80 years (114-1) I am very much in support of the Snow King Mountain Resort On-mountain improvements. (115-1) Snow King Mtn is in a unique position with investors who want to make sure that this hill remains a vital part of the community, of Wyoming and for all visitors. (115-4) Please make Snow King sustainable, it is an important part of our community socially and econoically.(116-1) The proposal creates an environment that will allow a significant enhancement to the public benefit of the mountain as it will create a safer and warmer environment for youth and guests alike (enclosed gondola to the top and south facing skiing). The summit road will also add to the safety for both operations and skiers and should be approved. (117-1) It is critically all of us do whatever we can to make The King financially sustainable. (118- 1) It is important that they can expand more beginner and intermediate terrain for clients. The road addition will assist in emergencies which is key. Of course you know how mountain biking is exploding for locals and visitors. expanding this aspect of the plan is essential. (118-2) Without improvements to lifts, buildings, amenities and the corresponding expanded revenue channels, Snow King won't be sustainable in the long run. (120-2) I support the Snow King recreation plan. (121-1) A newly designed road, downhill mountain biking access on the backside, a summit restaurant, and zip line are all amenities that will continue to keep Snow King modern and current with changing features at ski resorts on USFS land. (123-1)

106

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Snow King Mountain is a resource the kids of this town need and in order for it to thrive, it needs support in infrastructure improvements. Snow King Mountain is at the heart of winter culture, especially for local kids and their families, and these decisions will impact their programs and abilities to interact with the outdoors. (126-1) Supporting infrastructure improvements at Snow King is critical to the success of Wyoming's oldest ski hill. We support these on-mountain improvements and look forward to a sustainable, thriving Snow King Mountain. (126-4) I fully support Snow King's new plans to include a summit road, mountain biking on the backside, and make Snow King sustainable. . . The times have changed and we all need to look to the future. Please allow Snow King to make these changes. The locals will all benefit!. (127-1) To be able to have lift access in town would be awesome. We live south of town and the village is a haul for us. I would love to be able to take a couple laps on the bike during the lunch hour. (127-2) I support the creation of beginner-friendly terrain on the flats halfway up the mountain. (128-9) I support this project as proposed. (129-1) I would really like to see improvements and increased recreational opportunities. (133-1) Let's make it a much nicer resort with better infrastructure! Like better lifts and more trails and a restaurant. (133-2) I believe Snow King can be viable with more moderate expansion and improvements. (134- 5) Snow King's expansion would provide me and others in the community access to such beautiful forest area while doing a great physical activity. I support Snow King Mountain Resort and its current plans for summer recreational improvement. (136-3) The proposed amendments will allow the resort to modernize its infrastructure and compete on a national scale with ski resorts across the U.S. As Wyoming's oldest ski area, Snow King must make investments to continue its legacy by continuing to provide a source of recreation for Teton County's children, locals, and tourist alike. (137-1) Snow King Mountain Resort and its current plans for recreational improvement have my full support. (137-4) I support Snow King's plans and look forward to seeing this small ski resort improve…. Snow King represents small town resorts that are struggling to stay alive, and these investments are a great opportunity for Jackson, Wyoming, and its visitors. (138-1) I am in favor of Snow King's development plan for new terrain, adding and replacing lifts, and adding new summer activities to overall improve the resort and make it sustainable for another 80 years. (139-1) Amenities such as a zip line, back-side mountain bike trails, a better road, a restaurant and more will keep locals and visitors recreating at Snow King. (140-2) Our family strongly supports Snow King's plans and we look forward to a Snow King that has a viable, strong future. (140-3) Snow King needs investment in order to succeed in the future. I have ridden the Summit lift many times and it needs to be replaced. (141-1)

107

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I fully support their plans and their future. (141-2) Investing in the future of this resort is a community benefit that will last generations. Modernizing the summer activities - like the zipline and downhill mountain biking - will ensure that our local hill thrives. (143-5) These expansions would only serve to better the atmosphere and enrich the experience of all who come to SK. (144-1) The programs that operate on this hill are too important to hundreds of kids in our community. Snow King's plans for expansion will not only help it stay alive in the winter but will also sustain it throughout Jackson's equally busy summer. . . . . Supporting infrastructure improvements at Snow King is critical to the success of Wyoming's oldest ski hill. I support these on - mountain improvements and look forward to a sustainable, thriving Snow King Mountain.(146-1) More mountain bike trails, a zipline, a gondola, and a wedding venue are all viable ways to keep Snow King profitable and engaged with the local community. (146-2) The programs that operate on this hill are too important to hundreds of kids in our community. (JHSSC - over 500 athletes, Coombs Outdoors - 250 low income children). Investing in the future is a community benefit. Modernizing and updating Snow King Mountain will ensure that this local hill thrives and continues to be the beat of our community for the next 80 years. Replacing aging infrastructure is required for the ski area to continue operating in the future. (147-1) I'm all for making snow king a viable option for gatherings and events at the top of the mountain in the future. (148-2) I support the Snow King Mountain Resort application including the newly designed summit road (for safety and operations) with the necessary expanded boundaries. I support skiing and mountain biking on the backside with lift service I support a restaurant and other services that allow them to be financially viable. (149-1) The Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce supports the entire Snow King Master Plan application based on the importance of keeping a strong resort experience in downtown Jackson. We believe the desire to have a locally owned and operated "community centric" hill can be balanced with a resort operation that provides outdoor recreational summer activities that meet our summer local and visitor demand. (150-1) Snow King's improvements will benefit not only Snow King, but also downtown restaurants, lodging and retail uses who will see more visitors stay and enjoy a complete Jackson experience The zipline, wedding venue, gondola, and more biking terrain are all means to achieve this and give Snow King the boost it needs to keep thriving. (153-1) Many of the proposed on-mountain improvements have merit and I can support things like a gondola, an appropriately sized replacement for the Panorama house, sensible glading and an interpretive historical center among other things. (155-2) I am in full support of the new developments for Snow King. (157-2) Snow King's plans for expansion will not only help it stay alive in the winter but will also sustain it throughout Jacks on's equally busy summer. More mountain bike trails, a zipline, a gondola, and a wedding venue are all viable ways to keep Snow King profitable and engaged with the local community.… I support these on - mountain improvements and look forward to a sustainable, thriving Snow King Mountain. (158-1)

108

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I am fully in favor of all the improvements that Snow King has proposed. I want to see our mountain be here for all of us in the future. (162-1) I think these proposed improvements to Snow King will be a great asset for Jackson and will encourage visitors to stay downtown. (165-1) I support the expansion plans for Snow King Mountain Resort as I believe they will expand recreation opportunities and help bolster the long-term, year-round financial viability of the resort. (165-4) The plan the mountain has put forth will help keep the mountain viable for generations to come. (170-1) I support the plan set forth and think it is in the best interest of the community and will offer the Resort the opportunity to be viable for many years to come. (172-1) I support Snow Kings expansion plans. . . . I think these improvements will be vital to continue the legacy of Snow King for years to come. (175-1) Thinning and clearing of land within the current boundaries are reasonable. I also support the creation of a half-pipe and other terrain park features, as these features will be valuable for the JH Ski Club. I also support the installation of a gondola to the summit. I think it would provide good revenue to support sustainable operations for ski racers and local skiers. I think it should be placed in the footprint of the current Cougar lift in order to reduce the footprint in Phil Baux Park, one of Jackson's most popular public parks. (176-12) Integral part of Snow King becoming financially sustainable -Allows more people to experience forest and public lands. . . . Snow King Mountain needs to improve in order for it to continue for another 80 years -Small town ski resorts are having difficulties staying open across the country. Snow King Mtn is in a unique position with investors who want to make sure that this hill remains a vital part of the community, of Wyoming and for all visitors.(181-5) I strongly want to see Snow King have the right for expansion for them and the community. (189-1) On behalf of AMPL's recreation community, I write to voice our support for the Snow King Resort On-Mountain Improvements. As a non-profit representing recreational users of all types, we believe it is important to support thoughtful recreational expansion in our community. This project falls under that category. We believe it has been well-vetted by people who care for both the recreational opportunities brought by the expansion as well as the care and conservation of our public lands. (191-1) MBT believes that Snow King Mountain has thoughtfully prepared a master-plan that addresses the long-term needs of community members, visitors and the Snow King entity itself. (196-1, 295-1) We are writing in strong support for the improvements under the master plan that Snow King Mountain Resort has proposed. My wife and I have lived in Jackson for 14 years and think that the proposed improvements will significantly increase the opportunity for outdoor recreation and education for the residents of the Town of Jackson and visitors. (208-1) The improvements include ADA accessibility, a wider road to the top of the mountain which will be used as a catwalk, permitting beginner and novice skiers to descend from the top to the base and additional beginner/intermediate ski terrain, thereby significantly expanding

109

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

the number of people who will be able to enjoy outdoor activities on Forrest Service land. (208-2) The proposal would permit residents of Jackson to enjoy outdoor activities near where we live thereby causing less congestion and pollution than driving to more distant areas. (208- 3) The Snow King proposal is also appealing because it includes facilities that would promote many summer/year around outdoor activities for people of all ages…The proposal would make Snow King financially viable and sustainable in the future for the community's use and enjoyment and would preserve the the cultural and historic nature of the ski area. (208-4) The SK expansion plan, I believe, constrains recreation to zones already impacted, and helps further establish a transition between the heavy development of town and the greater forest. … I see the improved trail system as a boon for my family, including young children. (213-1) Snow King's development plan balances two worthy priorities: first, ensuring that the town hill can continue to be a thriving ski destination that provides a great experience both for the local community and for visitors to Jackson from all over the world; and second, respecting and preserving the spectacular scenery of this part of the Gros Ventre range and the crucial wild spaces that brought both the locals and tourists to Jackson in the first place. (224-1) I am writing to express my support for creating a sustainable future for Snow King Mountain and support the efforts to make improvements to the mountain to accomplish that. . . . My point of view is that the plan for Snow King Mountain that has been proposed by the applicants is acceptable to me. (228-1) I support the opportunity for the mountain to provide increased recreation opportunities for locals and tourists alike. (231-1) As follows are three key improvements that I would like to see occur: 1) Developing a new and safer road to the top of the mountain. 2) Backside mountain biking access through new lifts. 3) Making the mountain financially sustainable. (231-2) If the mountain was to close, that would be a tremendous loss for our town and loss of history as Wyoming first ski resort. (231-3) It makes complete sense that providing more terrain suitable for lower-level skiers, providing more summer recreational opportunities, and updating guest service facilities are essential to the resort's survival. (241-1) Please take this letter as my support for Snow King's plans to develop and update the resort. (241-3) I support Snow King's proposed improvement plans, which are crucial to keeping Snow King thriving and sustainable. (250-1) Snow King's changes will ensure access to future skiers and snowboarders. An abundance of new recreation opportunities ensures that a wide variety of people, all ages and abilities, can explore what makes this landscape so extraordinary. I look forward to seeing these developments and their successful impact on the Jackson community. (250- 4) I support infrastructure improvements at Snow King as it is critical to the success of Wyoming's oldest ski hill. Snow King needs many lift improvements to accommodate

110

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

more people, events, and general wear and tear. Many small ski resorts have trouble staying open for a full season, let alone at all, and I'd hate to see Snow King disappear due to lack of support for basic improvements necessary for the future. (252-1) As the manager of an in-town business that relies on the visitors Snow King attracts, I strongly support their proposed enhancements. (252-2) Snow King in its current state will not be able to sustain the impact of the enjoyment this town expects and loves in the future. With crowded skin tracks in the winter, crowded hiking and biking trails in the summer, we need to put the work into the town hill that we all love recreating on to keep it a pleasant sanctuary for years to come. (253-1) Snow King Mountain's investments represent what many small ski areas across the country need - modern amenities and infrastructure that will provide users with more opportunities to recreate in their public lands. (255-1) Investing in the future will ensure that Snow King Mountain remains vital and sustainable for generations of outdoor recreationists to come. (255-2) Some of the proposals are clear improvements, such as new safer, faster lifts, possibly a gondola; a nice restaurant at the top; and the assurance that commercial development at the base will completely support the ski area financially. (260-1) These proposed improvements to Snow King will be a great asset for Jackson and entice visitors to stay in downtown. Especially during the winter, this will help to cut down traffic from town to the village. (261-1) Snow King's preposed improvements would be a great benefit to our community. They provide great entry level jobs for the young people in our community. (261-2) I am writing to express my support for Snow King's proposed improvement and expansion plan. A full-service restaurant and event facility at the top of the mountain, an expanded area for beginner skiers to ski in the summit sun, new access to lift-serviced mountain bike terrain, and building a zip line are all essential to the plan. (263-3) I'm writing this letter to lend my strong support for the Snow King amended development plan.... This is a win for the employees of Snow King, the town which will enjoy increased tax revenue, and the locals who will benefit from updated amenities and attractions. (269- 1) Although Snow King is a tremendous town asset as it is,it is imperative that updates and additions are made to the mountain to sustain it's operations. (269-2) I believe that the proposed amendments to Snow King master plan are sensitive to the surrounding neighbors and wildlife. (269-3) These improvements are critical for Snow King's long-term survival. (284-1) Providing more terrain suitable for lower-level skiers, providing more summer recreational opportunities, and updating guest service facilities are essential to the resort's survival. (284-2) Moving ahead with their expansion plans is a positive for all stakeholders. (285-1) I hope the community can support SKM's efforts to make the mountain a profiting business so all community members can continue for many years to enjoy its offerings. (287-2) I strongly support the improvements to Snow King Mountain. Please also either keep the Cougar lift or replace it! (291-1)

111

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

As the mother of a 10-year old, I would love to have the opportunity for lift accessed mountain biking on the backside of Snow King with beginner and intermediate terrain our whole family can ride together. (292-2) We are fortunate Snow King has investors who want to make sure that this hill remains a vital part of this community and state. (292-3) It is imperative (and it is time) that clear decisions and agreements get executed so that Snow King can move forward with proposed plans. There is no doubt that the status quo is unsustainable economically (and has been for much of Snow King’s history especially in winter) and that investment and development is necessary to keep these activities vibrant and feasible for this community…. In order to sustain our efforts as a Ski and Snowboard Club and Jackson’s oldest nonprofit we need to continue partnering with an economically viable, safe, modern, and improved Snow King. (298-4) I am writing to you to voice my strongest support for Snow King and moving the plans forward. (303-1) I am writing in general support of the SKRMA master plan improvement process in order to better serve the needs of the mountain and the community. (304-1) What has always struck me about the Snow King issue is that it is a fraction -- a tiny fraction -- of the Bridger Teton National Forest overall. Be it the needed summit road, the lift, the new runs, the summer biking/hiking access and more -- as an adjacent property owner, we support the proposed improvements. (310-1) One of the benefits will be generations of the public who get a chance to be outside, to learn to love the area for exercise, inspiration and the expansive views that broaden people's understanding of public lands overall. . . . It is a clean recreational use the public needs and wants. Please consider approving the plans that Snow King offers -- it is an opportunity for enhancements that we need. (310-2) Enable future families to be able to recreate safely, to be able to literally grow children on their public lands with the kinds of public-private partnerships that are the heart and soul of these kinds of permits. (310-3) I strongly believe that Snow King Mountain has thoughtfully prepared a master-plan that addresses the long-term needs of community members, visitors and the Snow King entity itself. (311-1) I am writing in support of all proposed improvements to Snow King Mountain, including the summit gondola, expansion of mountain bike and ski terrain, improved summit road, et al. (314-1) Snow King is a private business that should have the opportunity to improve their business and sustain operations well into the future. (314-2) The only way the improvements will work for Snow King and our community is to approve the entire project. Allowing Snow King to implement the proposed improvements will solidify their future as our beloved Town Hill for generations to come. (314-3) I'm writing to encourage you to approve Snow King's development plan. (315-1) Its continued success - which depends on approval of the proposed developments - is vital to preserving the character of Jackson Hole, the area's economy and a much-utilized source of recreation…. The proposal is necessary to ensure Snow King's long-term financial stability. (315-2)

112

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The plan is an important step to ensure that Snow King remains viable. (318-1) Zip lines, a gondola ride, mountain biking and other activities can introduce first-timers to public lands. (320-1) The proposal would expand opportunities for novice skiers and also accommodate a teaching center and some expert level areas….The proposed changes to improve summertime opportunities would present similar potential improvement and increase the number of skiers and recreationists that could use the area. (325-1) Additionally, replacement of the existing life, a new chairlift, and additional lighting for nighttime skiing would help improve safety of the resort and opportunities for use. (325-2) Overall, the potential changes to Snow King could be beneficial to multiple user groups and present opportunities to improve safety, carrying capacity of the mountain, and user days while balancing concerns with changes to on-mountain infrastructure and design (325-3). Please accept this as my letter of support for Snow King in their bid to improve on mountain infrastructure through the USFS EIS process. . . . We have an opportunity to support a sustainable year round business environment for Snow King, through thoughtful infrastructure improvements, and in doing so, Snow King will become more accessible to all ages and abilities. (326-1) Full support for the Ski Club and Coombs Outdoors teaching and racing programs (327- 4) It makes complete sense that providing more terrain suitable for lower-level skiers, providing more summer recreational opportunities, and updating guest service facilities are essential to the resort's survival. Investing in the future of this over 80 years old ski resort is needed in order for it to survive and thrive. A restaurant, zip line, gondola, back- side mountain biking and more will be beneficial to our tourism economy and allow Snow King to be sustainable for generations to come. (329-1) Please enable Snow King to make the much needed improvements and expansions they are requesting. (333-1) It is my and my company's contention that these improvements will make Snow King a sustainable entity, make it a safer mountain for our community to recreate upon, and provide the financial and operational backbone to allow it to continue to be one of the Jackson community's greatest public resources. (334-1) The proposed improvements are welcome additions as I believe they will make skiing and mountain biking on Snow King more accessible and approachable through the summit access road, and mountain biking on the backside. (336-1) Expanded and improved terrain for all ages benefits local families, our downtown community and keeping town as the heart of Jackson. (340-3) Just please move this forward. (341-3) I would like to extend my support for Snow King Mountain improvements. (344-1) Investing in the future is a community benefit. Modernizing and updating Snow King Mountain will ensure that this local hill thrives and continues to be the beat of our community for the next 80 years. Replacing aging infrastructure is required for the ski area to continue operating in the future. (344-2)

113

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I believe Snow King's proposed improvements are vital to ensure its economic viability and therefore its survival. (350-1) I support Snow King Mountain's On-Mountain Improvements. (351-1) Investing in the future is a community benefit. Modernizing and updating Snow King Mountain will ensure that this local hill thrives and continues to be the beat of our community for the next 80 years. Replacing aging infrastructure is required for the ski area to continue operating in the future. . . . A gondola, new summit road, additional beginner and intermediate ski terrain and more will allow Snow King to stay modern in an era where resorts are changing or closing. (351-2) We believe that Snow King Resort is an appropriate place to add new trails and improve existing trails to provide close-to-home access to the national forest. We support the following improvements proposed by Snow King Resort as they are in keeping with the BTNF's desired future conditions and align with a key component of FOP's mission to promote healthy recreation in Jackson Hole. 1. Vertical Staircase FOP supports the staircase trail as a way to consolidate the multiple eroded vertical hiking trails into one sustainable option that can be used in summer and winter (uphill bootpack). Trail users continue to create vertical fall-line trails while looking for a more challenging athletic endeavor. Properly built steps, utilizing rocks or railroad ties, will serve as check dams for runoff and erosion and give trail users a sustainable option to hike straight up hill. (353-1) If the new Front Access Road is improved, FOP supports the creation of a new summit trail to keep trail users off of the road where there will be increased construction traffic. (353-2) If the new Front Access Road is improved, FOP supports rerouting sections of the Sink or Swim trail to avoid sharing space with a road that will have construction traffic on it. This is not expressly asked for in the Snow King proposal but we believe it is important for trail user safety. (353-3) Snow King Mountain is a resource Jackson's children and families need and in order for it to succeed, it needs infrastructure improvements. (354-1) Our community has been waiting on investors who are willing to make Snow King the best small-town ski resort it can be - we have those investors and the time is now. Improving Snow King will have lasting impacts on our local downtown Jackson economy and will be essential in continuing Snow King Mountain's legacy of skiing, ski racing and bringing people together to recreate and explore our USFS lands. (367-1) I wil list here the desirable elements of the proposed plan. New lift or gondola; rsaurent on top;improved skiing;support of Ski Club and other programs; affordable rates;commercial development that helps support the ski area at base; community investment. (368-1) Guaranteed continued support for the Ski Club and Coombs Outdoor teaching program so our youth have opportunities to develop healthy, lifelong recreational activities is one of the proposal's strengths. (369-1) As a small business owner, I support the need for Snow King Mountain to invest in improvements in order to succeed. (370-1) Investments in Snow King Mountain will serve not only Teton County, but Wyoming for generations to come. (370-2)

114

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I would like to see them stay in the business of providing uphill travel for skiing. (371-1) I am writing in support of Snow King's expansion. (376-1) Snow King needs to be allowed to be a successful and viable year round resort, and while I don't agree with everything in their plan, they know best what they need to achieve success and need the support of our community and the Forest Service to see that plan through. Please allow Snow King to move forward with their expansion plans. (376-2) Zip lines, a gondola ride, mountain biking and other activities can introduce first-timers to public lands. (382-2) Respect for our historic ski hill through documentation of its history, events and the exceptional athletes who have trained on this mountain is necessary. However, the idea that Snow King should not be able to modify and improve in order to maintain its history is a damaging idea. (382-3) I am in favor of these changes to Snow King, because I see these as enhancements for the community: - high speed lift to the summit, replacing the current summit lift - small restaurant on the summit - small observatory - ski patrol shack at the top of the Cougar Lift (389-1) I strongly support the improvements to Snow King. I feel many of these improvements are vital to both the community and the JH Ski Club community. (400-1) I am in favor of the following: A high speed lift to the summit, replacing the current summit lift; A small restaurant on the summit set back from the view-shed; A small observatory if it takes into account limiting view-shed and light pollution; A ski patrol shack at the top of the Cougar Lift; (402-2) I strongly support the improvements to Snow King. I feel many of these improvements are vital to both the community and the JH Ski Club community. (403-1) Snow King is a offering our community the opportunity to have a family friendly downhill bike park with beginner and intermediate flow trails in the heart of Jackson. This will provide an overwhelming benefit to our community, in particularly to the young people / youth cyclists in our local community. (405-1) Specific Alternative 2 I support Alternative 2, the proposed action for Snow King improvements. (26-1) Alternative 3 Please approve the Snow King Resort plan EIS Alternative 3. I believe this balances the Proposed Action (Alt. 2) and environmental mitigation efforts (43-1) We are writing to encourage you to support Alternative 3. (106-2) I've reviewed the document, and Option #3 appears promising for the future of Snow King and activities in Jackson. A full-service restaurant and event facility at the Panorama House, an expanded area for beginner skiers to ski in the summit sun, new access to lift- serviced mountain bike terrain, and building a zip line are all essential to the plan. These activities will provide fun for skiers and non-skiers alike and will help Snow King have a sustainable business plan that helps pay for its significant private investments. (159-1) I fully support Snow King On-Mountian Improvements and encourage you to move forward with Option #3. (320-2)

115

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Now is the time to move forward for a sustainable Snow King Mountain and I fully support Option #3 for Snow King. (340-4) I fully support Snow King On-Mountain Improvements. These investments are a long, long time coming. Option #3 represents the best possible outcome for a sustainable, thriving Snow King. (356-1) I fully support Snow King Mountain Improvements and ask the USFS to move forward with Option #3. (362-1) I fully support Snow King Mountain's plans and support Option #3. Now is the time to support Snow King improvements and investments to ensure a future for our local ski hill. (378-1) I fully support a thriving, sustainable Snow King Mountain and ask you to proceed with Option #3. (382-1) Alternative 4 Alternative 4 is the much better option. We don't need more mountain biking options at Snow King. (380-52) …If the Bridger-Teton chooses to move forward with any commercial biking on Snow King, it should do so as delineated in Alternative 4, with additional measures to keep commercial riders off the existing trail network as much as possible. (415-9) Permit Boundary Adjustment The ability to expand the Snow King Property would further expand and elevate the recreational potential of this area--in a manner not detrimental to the land area, rather an expansion would be a great enhancement.(4-1) I believe the boundary expansion is critical to make the ski area more attractive to a wider audience and financially sustainable. (17-3) I support the expansion plans, especially the new lift, clearings and glades. (227-1) I'm always of fan of more diverse ski terrain on the the front side of the mountain! This includes cut runs, glades, and tree skiing. Improving the ski-ability of the west side terrain with glading and a collector run back to the base would be wonderful. The terrain is currently limited and challenging for many skiers. (230-3) Redesigning the road and expanding the boundaries will allow for additional beginner and intermediate terrain. (250-3) Terrain Development More ski terrain would be more inviting and excite visitors to come ski. (12-2) It makes complete sense that providing more terrain suitable for lower-level skiers, providing more summer recreational opportunities, and updating guest service facilities are essential to the resort's survival. (42-5) Additional, diverse front-side ski terrain, including cut runs, glades, and tree skiing would add to Snow King's skiing opportunities. Improving the ski-ability of the west side terrain with glading and a collector run back to the base would be wonderful. (42-7) I wish to express my support for Snow King's development plan, particularly for that of increased novice ski terrain. (145-1)

116

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Adding green and blue runs for families that are safe with easy access… would be ideal… (339-1) As someone who isn't the best skier, the thought of having more beginner runs is exciting. (341-1) Back-side Development Development on the south-facing "back side" of Snow King within its existing boundaries, established through previous planning processes, is reasonable and appropriate and adds significant amounts of beginner and beginner-intermediate terrain, meeting the stated purpose and needs. (64-3) The planned lift improvements and opening the back side of the Mountain with many intermediate ski run alternatives will greatly enhance the Mountain's attractiveness to seniors. (78-3) The planned lift improvements and opening the back side of the Mountain with many intermediate ski run alternatives will greatly enhance the Mountain's attractiveness to older citizens. (79-3) Snow King Mountain's current skiing terrain is mostly difficult and not very attractive to intermediate or beginner skiers. The planned lift improvements and opening the back side of the Mountain with many intermediate ski run alternatives will greatly enhance the Mountain's attractiveness. (112-3) I support Snow King's plan for new terrain on the backside and new lifts for summer access. (136-1) And opening up the backside of the mountain, for skiing and mountain biking will provide easier access to beautiful territory that most would not be able to enjoy without these proposed services and expansions. (144-3) Expansion to the backside of the resort provides not only more terrain but a refresh for those of us that have frequently rode Sink or Swim and Ferrin's. Backside downhill biking will also ideally take off some trail pressure from the front of the mountain, making it overall safer and more enjoyable. More trails means more access to the beauty of nature around us and more people eager to keep Jackson alive in the summer. (157-1) Summit Access Road/Novice Skiway Snow king,the new road is a must, the existing is out off date and dangerous for hikers and employees to drive on and needs to be updated. (12-3) The existing summit access road does not work very well, as evidenced by its poor condition and the number of alternatives, user created routes cluttering the front side of Snow King. Eliminating all or most of these and replacing them with a single, properly graded and constructed access road would be a win, especially when the new road would blend in, as indicated in the EIS's scenic analysis. (42-8) I can personally attest that the existing Summit access road is extremely dangerous, as evidenced by its poor condition and the number of alternatives, user created routes cluttering the front side of Snow King. Eliminating all or most of these and replacing them with a single, properly graded and constructed access road would be a win, especially when the new road would blend in, as indicated in the EIS's scenic analysis… Having an easy way down from the summit via the novice skiway makes sense for so many reasons, including provision of an alternative route down if the gondola can't operate; easy emergency egress from the summit for guests, staff, and emergency personal; and skier

117

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

access to the discrete areas of less difficult front side terrain without having to negotiate expert terrain. (61-6) Roads design to blend with the topography will reduce the "impact" on good skiers while allowing less skilled skiers a route down that doesn't have to be scary. (66-3) I strongly encourage you to support ALL the proposed on-site improvements for Snow King Mountain Resort - especially mountain biking on the backside and Summit Road. (88-3) Please support all the infrastructure improvements proposed by Snow King, including Summit Road and Mountain Biking on the backside - so we can make certain that Snow King is viable for the long term. (89-2) Mountain biking on the backside and the Summit road are particularly critical to making Snow King sustainable so they can continue serving our community for the next 80 years. (90-3) The observatory and planetarium cannot happen without the approval of the expanded boundaries of the Resort, allowing for an improved access road as outlined in Alternatives 3 and 4. This road will not only provide improved access to the summit, but will also provide a safe way down off the summit for beginners and quick access for fire and emergency crews if another fire like Horse Creek Canyon were to threaten the Town of Jackson. (106-3) Regarding the Summit Road I support this because It is very important to allow a newly design road to the summit. There is a dire need for More intermediate and beginner ski and snowboard terrain. This will benefit Local children learning, and visitors who are beginner skiers. This Will make it Safer for emergency personnel (114-2) Regarding the Summit Road I support this because: It is very important to allow a newly design road to the summit . There is a dire need for More intermediate and beginner ski and snowboard terrain. This will benefit Local children learning, and visitors who are beginner skiers. This Will make it Safer for emergency personnel . Expanded boundaries on the east and west to accommodate this newly designed road. (115-2) Summit road to the top helps provide that. (116-2) Building a better road to the summit is logical and necessary….a better road will provide a wider and safer easy way up and down for hikers, bikers and skiers year round. (120-1) I fully support Snow King's new plans to include a summit road, mountain biking on the backside, and make Snow King sustainable. (127-1) I am support in improving the current road to the summit of Snow King. (130-1) I support the construction of a new access road to the summit. It will provide more intermediate and beginner terrain as well as expanded boundaries for more experienced skiers. (137-2) A new road will also be safer for emergency or maintenance personal to keep the resort running at an optimal state. (137-3) A newly designed road, downhill mountain biking access on the backside, a summit restaurant, and zip line are all amenities that will continue to keep Snow King modern and current with changing features at ski resorts on USFS land. (143-2) The gondola is such a necessity. So much safer and efficient... AND eco-friendly. (144-2)

118

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Having an easy way down from the summit via the newly designed road allows for more users to experience and ski Snow King Mountain. (145-2) Support for the Summit Road: -Importance of a newly design road to the summit -More intermediate and beginner ski and snowboard terrain -Local children learning, visitors who are beginner skiers (181-1) Support for the Summit Road: -Safer for emergency personnel. (181-2) A properly grated road would alleviate uphill travel in both winter and summer. I support new road that may proposed by the EIS. (230-4) Redesigning the road and expanding the boundaries will allow for additional beginner and intermediate terrain. (250-2) A better road is critical for continued access to communications infrastructure as well as fire and EMS needs and, of course, Snow King operations. Creating a single, properly graded and constructed access road would be a win, especially when the new road would blend in, as indicated in the EIS's scenic analysis. (284-5) I support the proposed newly routed road to the summit that will be safer for emergency personnel and the expanded boundaries on the east and west to accommodate this newly designed road. (292-1) The summit road will provide more immediate access for emergency personnel and open terrain for beginner and intermediate skiers and snowboarders. (315-3) The discussion around the Summit Road for me should focus on safety for emergency personnel. (341-2) I have no objections for a less steep road/cattrack coming down from the top on the E side. (396-2) Gondola Construction of a Summit Gondola port and a public warming area with restrooms and snack bar seems reasonable. (L1-18)

that summit lift is so old! I would like to see a gondola. (12-4) I would like to see a gondola and that be complemented with a full service facility with restaurant.any ski terrain that can be added to snow king I feel should be done as well as zip lines and down hill mountain biking,these are all things that would help snow king become more viable and appealing to Jackson hole visitors to come and experience the history of one of the oldest ski areas in Wyoming! (12-6) I agree with the following;New safe high-speed summit lift or gondola (23-1) The gondola will drastically improved the recreation experience… (26-2) I support the replacement of the existing summit lift with a new high speed chair lift or gondola. (37-2) Reliable lift access to the summit allows skiers to get to the mountain's best terrain and gives Snow King the opportunity to continue to host training and ski racing that require more vertical feet, such as the Super-G and Town Downhill. As it is clear that local skiers and ski racing alone will not pay for the cost of this lift, it makes sense that Snow King be allowed to cover costs with additional amenities and activities. (42-10)

119

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Reliable lift access to the summit allows skiers to get to the mountain's best terrain and gives Snow King the opportunity to continue to host training and ski racing that require more vertical feet, such as the Super-G and Town Downhill. (52-6) I also support a gondola or high speed lift. (67-3) Reliable lift access to the summit allows skiers to get to the mountain's best terrain and gives Snow King the opportunity to continue to host training and ski racing that require more vertical feet, such as the Super-G and Town Downhill. As it is clear that local skiers and ski racing alone will not pay for the cost of this lift, it makes sense that Snow King be allowed to cover costs with additional amenities and activities. (126-3) Snow King's On-Mountain Improvements provide safe travel through a gondola that accesses new beginner and intermediate terrain. (140-1) Snow King needs investment in order to succeed in the future. I have ridden the Summit lift many times and it needs to be replaced. (141-1) In my opinion a gondola is a great idea for snow king mountain and the town of Jackson. …The ability for people that have Pre existing conditions or aren't able to ride the chair lift to see the best view in Jackson would be amazing. (148-1) The summit chair is at or beyond it's life expectancy. It needs to be be replaced for safety reasons. (178-1) New modern lifts should be encouraged, but the character of a local ski race training mountain should be maintained. (223-3) This, of course, could accompany a new lift that is safer. This development improves safety and traffic/revenue stream on the mountain automatically. (276-3) That said, the removal of the summit lift and the installation of a gondola is a necessary improvement for how the base area functions in the winter. It also has the potential to actually change the economic forecast for Snow King Mountain above and beyond a chairlift. This will “open up” the base area and the possibly of expanding the Club’s facilities. (298-1) I do think that a gondola would benefit the King, and I don't think a restaurant is a bad idea, the view of town and the Teton Range from up top is incredible and would be a good way to help the struggling resort bring in more income. (322-4) GOOD IDEAS * New safe high-speed summit lift or gondola. (327-1) I think a new gondola and structure at the summit would be great for use with weddings and events. (335-4) With aging infrastructure, particularly the Summit lift, now is a great time for Snow King to provide safe, all-weather access for kids, adults, the elderly - all people - to reach the top of the hill. A gondola will provide safe access to the summit, allowing Snow King to develop additional beginner and intermediate terrain that is needed for growing families, locals and visitors to learn to ski, snowboard and enjoy winter recreation while staying in downtown. (340-1) Building a reliable lift to the summit allows skiers enjoyment of the mountain's best terrain and gives Snow King the opportunity to continue to host training and ski racing that require more vertical feet, including the Super-G and Town Downhill. (354-2)

120

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

In particular, installing a gondola to replace the Summit lift and thinning existing dense tree cover would both improve the attraction of Snow King as a ski destination while avoiding the most negative impacts to wildlife and the local community. (375-8) Promoting the natural resource values for accessible passive recreation and outdoor education including cross-country skiing, hiking, botanizing, bird watching, and wildlife photography. The gondola and proximity to town and visitors offers wonderful summer and shoulder-season access for many wonderful experiences that are unavailable at other resorts. (380-24) I do support the installation of a gondola to the summit. I think it would provide good revenue to support sustainable operations for ski racers and local skiers. (397-7) Upgrade or new lift to summit. (406-2) Replacing the old chair with a gondola is a given. (409-1) Lift A …the backside lift would provide much-needed intermediate terrain in the sun. (26-2) Summit Buildings/Development I would like to see a gondola and that be complemented with a full service facility with restaurant.any ski terrain that can be added to snow king I feel should be done as well as zip lines and down hill mountain biking,these are all things that would help snow king become more viable and appealing to Jackson hole visitors to come and experience the history of one of the oldest ski areas in Wyoming! (12-5) I support a new restaurant in the location of the Panorama House. (37-3) I am in favor of the observatory. (51-1) A full-service facility on the summit would create a whole range of year-round activities for public enjoyment of Snow King. (52-5) A full-service restaurant and event facility at the Panorama House, an expanded area for beginner skiers to ski in the summit sun, new access to lift-serviced mountain bike terrain and building a zip line are all essential to the plan. (52-7) A restaurant and associated facilities at the top of Snow King has the potential to be the pride of the Valley. (66-4) We are thrilled about the inclusion of an observatory and planetarium as part of the Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvement Project…. A planetarium and observatory in Jackson Hole would greatly enhance the ability of Wyoming Stargazing, K- 12 schools, community colleges, and universities to offer science, technology, engineering and math education. (106-1) A newly designed road, downhill mountain biking access on the backside, a summit restaurant, and zip line are all amenities that will continue to keep Snow King modern and current with changing features at ski resorts on USFS land. (143-4) I think a renovated restaurant at the top could set a standard for dining that is not touched in the valley. (276-2) A gondola and restaurant on the summit will go a long way to keep Snow King alive into the future. (284-3)

121

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Some of these idea are good and will not harm the surrounding wildlife and effect our fragile ecosystems. New, safe lift! Restaurant! (286-3) Easy access to the summit will allow for the development of community amenities such as a warming hut, ski school facilities, and sunny beginner and intermediate runs where kids and adults can learn to ski and snowboard. (340-2) I particularly like the idea of creating a beginners' area on the top in the SUN for a good part of the winter. (396-1) A gondola and a restaurant seem reasonable, albeit substantial change. (407-1) Zip line Amenities such as zip lines are essential to attracting visitors to ski resorts and providing opportunities to connect to the wilderness for the contemporary traveler. (42-4) Amenities such as zip lines are essential to attracting visitors to ski resorts in the summer and providing opportunities to connect to the wilderness for the contemporary traveler. (143-1) And the huge zip line just sounds like such a good time. (144-4) A single zipline would be fun (although a whole series of them crisscrossing the terrain sounds dangerous to me). (260-2)

Mountain Bike Trails/Zone Alternative 3 which includes mountain biking on the back side is the preferred alternative in my opinion because it will not disrupt the existing trail users on the front side of the mountain... In summer it would be nice for kids to have terrain to learn to mountain bike on. (17-2) A modern mountain bike park on the back side of the mountain would be a great addition to our community, particularly the youth. It will provide in town summer recreation for kids in a controlled environment in a similar way the ski school and ski club serve the youth in winter. The back side of Snow King would be the ideal location that does not disrupt other activities. (42-6) The improvements will fill an important gap for mountain bikers who choose lift service- inbound opportunities, especially younger children and families who can't make the grunt up Ferrins. (43-3) A modern, high-quality mountain bike park would be a great addition to our community, particularly the youth. (52-2) A modern, high-quality mountain bike park would be a great addition to our community, particularly the youth. It will provide in town summer recreation for kids in a controlled environment in a similar way the ski school and ski club serve the youth in winter. The backside of Snow King would be the ideal location that does not disrupt other activities. (61-5) I strongly encourage you to support ALL the proposed on-site improvements for Snow King Mountain Resort - especially mountain biking on the backside and Summit Road. (88-2) Please support all the infrastructure improvements proposed by Snow King, including Summit Road and Mountain Biking on the backside - so we can make certain that Snow King is viable for the long term. (89-3)

122

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Mountain biking on the backside and the Summit road are particularly critical to making Snow King sustainable so they can continue serving our community for the next 80 years. (90-2) I hope that snowking considers developing mountain biking on the front side and backside areas of their permit areas. (108-4) I support Mountain Biking on Backside because there will be Mountain bike access through lift service Beginner and intermediate terrain will allow children and families an opportunity to ride bikes together. Backside downhill biking will take traffic off the front of the mountain & creates more space & variety for better trail network. Integral part of Snow King becoming financially sustainable. Allows more people to experience forest and public lands. Snow King Mtn will maintain trails and keep people from entering Cache Game Creek drainage(s)(114-3) I support Mountain Biking on Backside because There will be Mountain bike access through lift service. Beginner and intermediate terrain will allow children and families an opportunity to ride bikes together. Backside downhill biking will take traffic off the front of the mountain & creates more space & variety for better trail network . Integral part of Snow King becoming financially sustainable. Allows more people to experience forest and public lands Snow King Mtn will maintain trails and keep people from entering Cache Game Creek drainage(s). (115-3) Mountain biking down back side is also important. (116-3) A modern, high-quality mountain bike park on the back side of the mountain would be a great addition to our community, particularly the youth. It will provide in town summer recreation for kids in a controlled environment in a similar way the ski school and ski club serve the youth in winter. The back side of Snow King would be the ideal location that does not disrupt other activities. (126-2) I fully support Snow King's new plans to include a summit road, mountain biking on the backside, and make Snow King sustainable. (127-1) More beginner and intermediate terrain will also allow children and families in Teton County the opportunity to ride together and experience the gorgeous views we come to visit. (136-2) Our oldest grandchild is getting into mountain biking and a lift service with trails on the back would be a great place for the whole family to ride and enjoy summer and fall days. (138-2) Expansion to the backside of the resort provides not only more terrain but a refresh for those of us that have frequently rode Sink or Swim and Ferrin's. Backside downhill biking will also ideally take off some trail pressure from the front of the mountain, making it overall safer and more enjoyable. More trails means more access to the beauty of nature around us and more people eager to keep Jac kson alive in the summer. (157-1) A modern, high-quality mountain bike park would be a great addition to the community, particularly for the youth. It will provide in-town summer recreation for kids in a controlled environment in a similar way the ski school and ski club serve the youth in winter. (165-2) The back side of Snow King is also an ideal location that does not disrupt other activities such as the People's Markets or the Jackson Hole Live concerts. (165-3)

123

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Support for Mountain Biking on Backside: -Backside downhill biking will take traffic off the front of the mountain and creates more space / variety for a better network of trails. (181-4) MBT firmly believes that a downhill-specific mountain bike park, consisting of beginner, intermediate and advanced terrain, located in the heart of the Jackson community will provide a significant benefit to local community members. (196-2, 295-2) MBT believes that thoughtful development and management of mountain bike trails on the back side of Snow King Mountain, within proposed boundaries, will concentrate use and thus not disrupt existing uses on the front side of the mountain. (196-3, 295-3) MBT supports closed bike park boundary policy where users who access the bike park from the gondola are not able to leave the permit boundary onto other trails, but only in the case that this action is required to mitigate increased user conflict on other system trails. (196- 4, 295-4) I also wouldn't mind more mountain bike and hiking trails on the north face of the mountain. Lift-served mountain biking could be a good source of revenue and an amenity for locals and tourists alike. (222-7) I'd like to express my support for Snow King and the many improvements in question. specifically as it pertains downhill biking. (230-1) A modern, high-quality mountain bike park would be a great addition to the community, particularly the youth. It will provide in town summer recreation for kids in a controlled environment in a similar way the ski school and ski club serve the youth in winter. The backside of Snow King would be the ideal location that does not disrupt other activities. (230-2) I'm most excited about the additional mountain bike access and trails. (241-2) A modern, high-quality mountain bike park would be a great addition to our community, particularly the youth. (284-4) As the mother of a 10-year old, I would love to have the opportunity for lift accessed mountain biking on the backside of Snow King with beginner and intermediate terrain our whole family can ride together. (292-2) I believe the backside access to mountain biking will also help spread out trail users and reduce numbers on crowded multi-use trails. (336-2) Since local skiers and ski racing alone can't fund the cost of this lift, I support that Snow King should be allowed to cover costs with additional amenities and activities all year. Therefore, the new mountain bike zone and a zipline make sense as income boosters for both local and non-local clients. (354-3) I believe that a downhill-specific mountain bike park, consisting of beginner, intermediate and advanced terrain, located in the heart of the Jackson community will provide a significant benefit to local community members. This includes youth, as this park will provide an excellent teaching space for mountain bike riding skills. (311-2) Thoughtful development and management of mountain bike trails on the back side of Snow King Mountain, within proposed boundaries, will concentrate use and thus not disrupt existing uses on the front side of the mountain. (311-3)

124

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Fuel Reduction Forest thinning through glading and new runs is desperately needed to mitigate fire danger and improve wildlife habitat. (43-2) I do, however, support the thinning and clearing of land within the current boundaries. (45-8) I support the thinning and clearing of land within the current boundaries, especially to create better beginner terrain. I support the installation of a gondola to the summit. I do support a summit facility that could be used for weddings, etc. but it should be of reasonable size and set back from the rim to reduce visual impacts from town below. (100- 10) I support the thinning and clearing of land within the current boundaries. I support the creation of beginner-friendly terrain on the flats halfway up the mountain. (107-10) I do support the thinning and clearing of land within the current boundaries. (128-8) I do support limited thinning and clearing of land as necessary within the current boundaries. (222-8)

Con General Of the current options, the only suitable choice would be alternative No 1 or no action. (L4-4) PROTECT SNOW KING FROM GREEDY AND MANIPULATIVE OVERDEVELOPMENT!! NO NEW ROAD!!! NO ZIPLINE!!! (6-1) I guess if you have enough money, not only can you poach the powder, you can permanently destroy wildlife habitat. (7-2) YOU, The Forest Service who is charged with protecting public lands have the duty to deny this project. (L7-4) A new summit road is not needed. New ski runs with harmful glading is a bad idea which chops up the best runs on the hill. I read down Alternative 2, and see serious issues being trivialized, like spread of invasive weeds; impact on migratory bird species (but they have large alternative habitats it says…): same suggestion of alternative habitat for elk on back side. The list goes on of why this is bad for wildlife, and mostly good as economic development. (8-3) Snow king proposal shows no real need for this drastic enlargement. just to make more room for the small number of visitors that come here when this land is being ruined for 330,000,000 americans who own the land shows that you are capitulating to rich visitors when the ordinary american wants the land preserved instead of developmetns all over for rich skiers (11-1) Bad ideas: Expansion of Snow King Resort’s existing boundaries east or west Development of any sort on the backside of Snow King in LeeksCanyon A beginner ski area at the ridge top Zip lines, particularly from top to bottom Large development on the ridge line Development of base area condos or second homes for non-residents. (L12-3)

125

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The Snow King DEIS attempts to dismiss any significant negative effect. (18-3) Please reject the 'all or nothing' proposal by the resort developers at Snow King. (36-1) Acceptable ideas: [ONLY] new lift or gondola, restaurant at the Panorama House, affordable rates for locals. (36-2) No expansion into wildlife habitat. No top to bottom zip lines. Living near Snow King for 45 years has given my family a wonderfrul "backyard" to explore, play and ski on. We need to keep the values that make it such a user friendly area and not a circus. . . . No roads that cut through the good terrain that is now there. No bike trails. It would make hiking on Snow King too congested. No massive building at base of Snow King. (38-1) I am concerned that the current owners are sacrificing Snow King's character in order to merely maximize it as a real estate asset. That maximization will impact the daily lives of residents and erode the skiing and summer experiences of recreation on our public lands. (45-1) I am not supporting most development ideas for this project.(50-1) In essence, by permitting the "privatizing"of public land, the USFS is contributing to: more traffic congestion, increased cost for worker housing, more noise, loss of the night sky, greater air pollution, etc.. Capitalism on steroids benefits the few at the cost of the many. (54-1) Adding more equipment, zipline, more ski runs/lifts, infrastructure, a summit restaurant, and other amenities are not what the people of Jackson voted for in the Comprehensive Plan, which stated resorts should remain in their existing footprint. (55-6) The economic threats to Snow King Mountain remaining open for winter operations are absolutely certain, and I do believe that growth to remain viable is 1) essential; 2) appropriate in this area close to the center of town; 3) can be managed in a way that protects the character, history, and wildlife so important to our community. (61-2) Expansion into critical wildlife habitat, a massive structure and zip lines are not in line with Jackson's values, and are simply an unnecessary infringement on not only the National Forest and wildlife, but an already choked and valuable natural recreation area. (63-2) If no action in this direction is taken, my ranking of proposed alternatives goes from alternative 4 as the top choice, then to 3, then to 2. (64-13) I support limited development on Snow King. (67-1) Specifically, we oppose: - The new ski school/teaching center on the ridgeline west of the Snow King summit. - Development of skiing in the natural bowl on the back side, south of the Snow King summit. - A 67-acre permit boundary adjustment on the front side, east of the existing permit area - An 89-acre permit boundary adjustment on the front side west of the existing permit area - New On-mountain facilities - the summit restaurant/guest services building and ski patrol facility, - an observatory and planetarium at the summit - a wedding venue west of the summit building, - Front-side mountain bike trails and a back-side mountain bike zone - Hiking trails between the summit and the west base, west of Exhibition run. -A zip line from the summit to the west base area, paralleling the Summit lift. (69-2) Please limit the development into critical wildlife habitat. NO top-bottom zip line, NO 25,000 sf building on the ridge. NOTHING on the backside. (77-2)

126

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Is the expansion cost, environmental destruction, and the aesthetic resource destruction worth the return on investment? (80-3) Approval will create several years of construction with a lack of Housing for the Workers and in the end expansion will CREATE ADDITIONAL LACK OF HOUSING FOR PERMANENT WORKERS, TRAFFIC, LACK OF PARKING AND OF COURSE DISRUPTION TO THE EXISTING WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. (81-2) Extending the boundaries of Snow King will forever change the character of our "Town Hill". (87-2) The profit of private companies should not alter public lands. Period. If the town hill does not work as it does now, then it too, like many other things, will have to fade into the past. But disrupting habitat and forest takes a long, long, long time to heal. (91-1) Expansion cost, environmental destruction, and the aesthetic resource destruction worth the return on investment? (96-3) We all know that when it comes to Snow King Ski area this current expansion is far from the answer. (96-10) As a member of the workforce who will most likely be pushed out of this town by the high cost of living soon anyway, I feel like I represent the people who would be most harmed by the proposed major developments on Snow King. (97-1) Turning it into an amusement park, expanding structures by hundreds of thousands of square feet, is unconscionable both in terms of environmental destruction and the damage it will do to the character of our town. (97-2) What they have planned will need numbers of people using the resort that are unsupported and therefore unrealistic. (98-3) There aren't enough people here to support it. …, that is taking a huge gamble with the health and well being of our community. Don't forget, the flora and fauna, the open vitas and the small town atmosphere of our town is the life's blood of our economy. (98-4) Let those who need to go to a resort such as SK wants to become, go to an established one that is already built and not help to destroy the wild any further. (99-2) Which is why it is so disheartening to me to see the current ownership's plans to sacrifice the mountain's character in order to maximize its potential. (100-1) Large growth will only increase the resort's almost exclusive reliance on foreign workers, which further exacerbate our community's overcrowding. (100-9) I don't want to see the mountain's character, and therefore the character of our town, ruined by excessive development as the current owners try to maximize their asset. (107- 1) I believe many of the plans will fail to accomplish what Snow King's owners hope they will, and the Town Hill will have been ruined in vain. (107-2) I am opposed to: Back side winter development. It is not feasible, there is not enough snowfall there. The historical data that we have is showing of that. And it would impact winter wildlife habitat. The gondoal, too much impact to the base area, can't fit on FS land. Too much impact on town land and limited green space town has. Summit building too big, too much impact. (108-2)

127

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

ADA yurts would also be valuable, but I am concerned that snowking is looking to become a resort rather than a recreation area. (108-5) Of the many similarities across the action alternatives, the six most concerning elements are: 1. Significant boundary expansions, a new road, and unnecessary ski runs with significant wildlife impacts. 2. Unsafe trail design that will send beginner skiers down a road that traverses steep icy slopes. 3. Building a chairlift on the backside of Snow King and expanding into important wildlife winter range in Leeks Canyon. 4. Bulldozing the historic Panorama House and building a new, much larger building on the ridgeline. 5. Ziplines from the summit to the base. 6. A ridgetop “wedding venue”. (109-3) We support the alternative previously submitted by the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, and ask that it be considered in a revised EIS. (109-6) Snow king mountain is a community ski area and should be kept as such, that does decrease its realestate and business value, then perhaps it makes it more affordable for a community based group to purchase the physical capital for what it is worth and run snowking mountain like many other co-operative ski areas. (108-6) Of the 4 alternatives presented by the Forest Service the only one allowable right now is no action. (119-4) Adding new and more equipment, zip line, more ski runs/lifts, infrastructure, restaurant and more importantly an understated 16 foot service road for 2.5 miles causing a 75 to 90 foot scar/back cut which would be seen for miles is not what the people of Jackson voted for in the comprehensive plan (stay in existing foot print), nor did they vote for the disruption of wild life in Jackson or those living and breeding on Snow King Mountain. (122-1) We as a community need snow king to be opened up to the public for recreation. It's public land and a private Corp especially the management @ snow king doesn't deserve to make money off the community that fuels it. (124-1) My vision is for snow king to remain a place that serves its historical purpose of being an accessible democratic place of recreation for all - including those of lesser means who are boxed out of corporate resorts like JHMR which are very expensive. (125-1) The proposed changes won't attract additional skiers, but will only mar the face of the mountain . . . Such expansions furthermore will not bring additional skiers to Snow King. Snow King will never be tourist ski destination-it's too steep and too icy. The backside would also be icy because of constant wind and freeze/melt cycles. (128-2) We already have a world class ski area at Teton Village and the town hill should stay just that a Town Hill. (131-4) Bigger and better will change the character and destroy the local use, burden the tax payer and pad the acquisitions of its investors through loopholes manipulation. (151-3)

128

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The new investors plan seems over the top and would be very disruptive to the mountain and the community of Jackson. (154-1) I support the no action alternative. (161-1) While I do not object to developments carried out in unobtrusive areas (such as a new safe high-speed summit lift/gondola, or a restaurant at the summit), I believe many of the proposed ideas to be destructive to the national forest and not in the communities best interest. (161-4) No affordable housing yet let's have all this development so a few can make more dollars. Do not let it happen! (163-1) I do not support any additions to Snow King. They can upgrade existing structures and lifts. No additional trails. No zip lines. No summit building. (166-1) Due to the state of housing here in Jackson where rooms are so expensive and theres far from an abundant supply, this proposal is troubling. Ultimately, the threat upon public lands surrounding town, which the people here hold in high regard, is why I stand in opposition. (167-1) Ultimately, the threat upon public lands surrounding town, which the people here hold in high regard, is why I stand in opposition. (167-1) I want these investors to hike up and see what they are destroying. (168-1) I support the NO ACTION alternative for Snow King. (171-1) It is not possible for me to accept or support any of the resort managers desires for the mountain, as I have never seen any effort to improve on existing projects. (174-3) I do not agree with the "all-or-nothing" development plan proposed for the resort, but do believe that some improvements are responsible. (184-1) It’s very discouraging that the Forest Service is so amenable to the requests of a developer to commercialize and redefine the character of such an iconic part of our identity as a community. (187-7) I oppose any expansion of the Snow King ski resort. (193-1) A project of this magnitude would significantly affect traffic, scar the mountainside forever and alter the Snow King neighborhood dramatically. (197-1) I want to see Snow King succeed but not in favor of rampant overdevelopment. (199-2) The proposed plan would turn it into am unsustainable carnival of humanity, trashing the environment and the history, and would make Jackson unrecognizable. I support the No- Action alternative. (202-1) Please do not let Snow King Resort expand it's boundaries. Please do not let roads be cut and major infrastructure be added at the top. Please do not let a few business men take away Snow King's historical significance. (203-3) Getting right to the point, "no action" is the only decision that should be made at this time concerning the public subsidizing of this private business proposal. (205-1) As a 30-year resident who regularly enjoys Snow King's trails as is, my family's enjoyment of this community treasure would not be enhanced at all with the addition of a zipline, gondola, restaurant, additional in-bounds skiing nor the construction of more roads or managed ski runs. In fact, it would be diminished. (205-2)

129

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I am writing in support of the No-Action Alternative. (206-1) I support the No-Action alternative. (209-1) It is wrong on many levels to put things on our National Forest lands that are inconsistent with the principles of "caring for the land." Amusement parks should be built on private property. (214-1) Let's keep the Town Hill safe and any new development mitigated so as not to increase already stretched infrastructure, parking, and traffic into this area. (215-2) Wildlife and our environment's preservation should be our top priority to maintain an economy that is largely based on sustaining our wildlife habitat and the small town western character of our community. (215-3) Please limit the development of bad ideas to our beloved town hill. Namely, the boundary expansion, the zipline, putting mountain bikes on lifts that will greatly increase dangerous downhill traffic to the serene wilderness that surrounds SK, and unsavory commercial development at the base of the mountain. (218-1, 219-1, 236-1, 237-1, 280-1) Please keep our local hill a local treasure and not a tourist attraction. (218-2, 219-2) Now corporate wants to take and create an amusement park. Leave it alone. Stop trying to cut out the joy we locals experience from a walk on the cat track, hike, or a ski. It nothing less than greed. (220-1) I'm concerned those plans will ruin the resort's character. I don't think that Snow King should be turned into a carnival, with no-skill attractions like zip lines super-ceding opportunities for people to get some actual exercise and build physical skill. (222-1) We also have a tourism economy because many of these visitors also come for the wildlife and the rarity of our majority intact ecosystem, they come for the forests and pristine nature, they come for the historic character of this place, they come to exercise. The proposals, including amusements like ziplines, a 25k sf indoor entertainment and eatery complexes, and senseless expansions for 'improvements' to snow sports at Snow King do much more to jeopardize these experiences than enhance them for both residents and our visitors. (225-7) Our town does not need ziplines, mountain bikes on lifts that will endanger wildlife and pedestrians enjoying the quiet trails, as well as excessive development of the commercial area at the base. (226-4) Our town does not need ziplines, mountain bikes on lifts that will endanger wildlife and pedestrians enjoying the quiet trails, as well as excessive development of the commercial area at the base. (226-5) For many locals like myself Snow King is the crown jewel of public access in our valley…IF WE DO NOT STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT, OUR HERITAGE WILL BE LOST. (229-1) My biggest worry regarding the over-development of Snow King is that it will once again set the precedent that this community is one that values economic gain over preservation of an ecosystem. I support The financial gap being filled by development and real estate fees collected from the base of Snow King. (233-1) The road, the wildlife habitat destruction, and the over development on the summit are not acceptable. (234-2)

130

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Improvements at Snow King Mountain that serve to greatly increase user days in both the winter and summer months are in direct opposition to sustaining forests for present and future generations. (235-2) We are specifically opposed to the following actions [lists all elements of the proposed action]:… (235-3) Please keep our local hill a local treasure and not a tourist attraction. (236-2, 237-2) In fact, adding those features will greatly tax the Town. The Cumulative effects will be damaging growth, traffic, parking, noise, light pollution and intrusion on wild life. This review is required in the CEQ analysis. (238-6) I do not support additional development to Snow KIng. I oppose adding any new roads to the top, expansion of building facilities at the top of the mountain, or addition of a zip line or gondola from the bottom. Snow King is our local outdoor backyard and the addition of these new developments to the forest land will change the natural habitat and nature experience that so many of us love Snow King for. (239-1) Snow King has significant historical and cultural value to the town of Jackson and the local community. Only Alternative 1 would preserve these historic resources and landscape. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, which propose significant and inappropriate development (a large restaurant and observatory) on the summit, are unacceptable. (249- 1) Please fight to prevent the development of bad ideas to our local gem, Snow King. Most concerning are the boundary expansion, the zipline, putting mountain bikes on lifts that will increase dangerous downhill traffic. … We need to preserve the pristine beauty and nature that is magically located in the center of our home. (259-1) The alternatives presented by the DEIS do not provide an option I can endorse. Given the lack of choice, I support "no action", Alternative 1. (262-1) The Leeks Canyon area is valuable wildlife habitat, that is currently very lightly used. Once you open this area to Mountain biking and skiing and a yurt camp, it will change the character of Leeks Canyon forever. (262-4) I could support a new gondola, an expanded summit restaurant, expanded East and west boundaries, and possibly a zip line (but not at the expense of the parking lot). However, this limited development was not presented as an official "alternative". (262-7) Recreational human users will be conditioned to go elsewhere being displaced by non- historical and over industrialized uses. This will have a significant impact on adjacent national forest access points, placing a significantly larger load of users to already overused areas increasing user conflict. (264-2) I agree with the comments of the Jackson Hole Alliance and oppose the proposals as listed below. . . . 1. Massive boundary expansions, a new road, and unnecessary ski runs bulldozing wildlife habitat to the east (crossing Ferrin's slide in key northern goshawk habitat) and to the west (up to the existing winter wildlife closure on Josie's) 2. The misguided and unsafe idea to send beginners (ski school would be on summit) down a road that traverses steep icy slopes like Bearcat and Elk (imagine an out-of-control skier sliding down Bearcat into a group of kids on the road). The 16' road between 2 and 2 ½ miles long will have major cuts into the steep mountain above cutting across Elk run 3. Building a chairlift (move Cougar) on the backside and expanding into important wildlife winter range in Leeks Canyon, for the dubious plan of skiing on icy windblown southern slopes 4. Bulldozing the historic Panorama House and building a 20,000-

131

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

25,000 sf building on the ridgeline 5. Zipline from the summit to the base (or to another zipline from Rafferty to the base) 6. An ill-defined "wedding venue" on the ridge. (268-1) I would like to see Snow King be successful with the infrastructure they have already purchased. I strongly disagree with approval of plan #54201. (270-1) I am personally very much against the proposals for increased development and exploitation of Snow King. (273-1) I want the folks trying to make it work as a business to be able to make it work, but not at the cost of the town hill's character and charm. We do not need another Teton Village. We don't need parking problems, overcrowding, or another organization that values tourists over the local population. We don't need a gondola in town. We don't need to increase the impact on wildlife in their sanctuary. We don't need a high class restaurant on top. We don't need more road cuts for folks to get hurt while skiing down. (273-2) Please do not make Snow King a commercial zoo. It has plenty of fun activities there, and with a few minor tweaks, will continue to serve the multitudes with varied activities without losing the last of the small town feel that makes Jackson memorable. (275-2) The proposed constructions of #54201 would not be a bandaid to protect Snow King and Jackson, but a slashing sword to the beauty and relatively sensitive use with which the lovely Mountain and town is now subjected. (275-3) We absolutely do not need anymore condo developments, of course unless it is low-income housing that can support the current overwhelmed and underhoused blue collar community of Jackson. (276-4) I could see myself, along with a number of people I know, moving if we lose our most authentic mountain resort experience in Snow King. (276-6) Without the closure [winter wildlife closure], I would support Snowking's expansion. However, to expand Snowking while keeping the closure in place is something I will NEVER support. (279-3) Please keep our local hill a local treasure and not a tourist attraction. (280-2) By drawing in more tourists to Snowking by way of zip lines and more huge buildings like 1 Town Hill, we're making decisions that we can never take back. Please, keep Jackson the quiet, community and nature-focused town we love. (281-1) I support the 'No Action' alternative to expansion on Snow King. (288-1) I don't support a full-scale road traversing the base of the mountain. I don't support extensive development on the summit ridge. A small lodge/restaurant is OK, but not 25,000 square feet!! (293-6) With little information on alternative options, I see it as overdeveloped and vote no. (294- 1) To invest millions of dollars in a gondola, high speed lifts, new road infrastructure, backside development, a summit structure half the size of a football field, the list goes on, is out of proportion with the size and character of the mountain and seems to completely ignore the fact that Snow King simply does not have the usership to support such infrastructure in any season… The alternatives provided by this DEIS seem to ignore that historic and community value offered by Snow King, and place development at any cost above all other concerns.. (299-2)

132

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I support the "No Action" alternative. (299-4) Snow King is used daily by many locals in the community and it provides an outlet for quick-access activities that aren't swarmed by tourists and visitors alike. It makes me quite sad to think about that land being developed in order to generate more "tourism-focused" business. (305-1) I am against the proposed development plans on Snow King and am disappointed in the proposals with which we have been presented. (308-1) I object to the proposed project. (312-2) Building 500,000 more square feet of already-allowed commercial development at the base (the equivalent of 10 more of the new condo buildings by the ballfield) (327-14) Please take "NO ACTION" for these proposals. (338-9) We shudder at proposed ridgetop development and the proposed road wh would change the nature of the "town hill" leading to an industrialized mega resort. (339-3) Reduce or eliminate the huge commercial expansion at the base. Jackson cannot handle this much new development. (358-10) I am concerned by multiple aspects of what the developers of Snow King are proposing: massive development at the top of the mountain and consequent historical degradation, expansion of the boundaries in multiple directions, a huge road cut into well-documented wildlife habitat, and a noisy summit-to-base zipline in an area that will greatly affect wildlife and local residents. (359-2) I am concerned by multiple aspects of what the developers of Snow King are proposing: massive development at the top of the mountain and consequent historical degradation, expansion of the boundaries in multiple directions, a huge road cut into well-documented wildlife habitat, and a noisy summit-to-base zipline in an area that will greatly affect wildlife and local residents. (359-4) Despite their investment in the project, the developers are proposing changes on public land, so this absolutely must be a public process that considers public input. Until the Draft Environmental Impact Statement addresses the community's (aka public landowners') concerns, I support the "No Action" alternative. (359-7) I support the position of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance as it pertains to development on Snow King. (360-1) Other bad ideas that should not be allowed: -Multiple ziplines criss-crossing the mountain -Huge new road outside the current boundaries, from Ferrin's slide to Josie's meadows, that ruins the best ski runs -Putting kids and beginners at risk, under steep ski runs and slide paths on the road -Putting mountain bikes on lifts up to the top and flooding nearby trails with downhill riders -Building 500,000 more square feet of already-allowed commercial development at the base (the equivalent of 10 more of the new condo buildings by the ballfield) (360-4) I am opposed to the "improvement" plans that are being proposed for Snow King Mountain. The environmental impact to the wide variety wildlife and vegetation alone is reason enough to object to the plans. The infrastructure plans for road building and zip lines,etc., would do irreparable damage. (363-1)

133

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I do not support; huge expansion of area that affect wildlife; many ziplines; new road that ruins skiing;25,000 sf of development on ridgeline; mountain bikes of lifts; more commercial development at base. (368-2) Because the various “alternatives” in the Snow King DEIS, with the exception of the “No Action” alternative, are essentially identical with regard to the major proposals of the Snow King owners – e.g., a major road extending beyond the resort’s current boundaries, expansion into valuable wildlife habitat to the east and on the backside of Snow King, turning trails into downhill biker routes, multiple ziplines, and massive development at the summit – the DEIS fails to meet the most fundamental requirements of NEPA to consider and assess a range of alternatives. (373-1) Components of the plan that would compromise the local "Town Hill" character of the mountain include: creation of a zip line terminal in Phil Baux park, construction of a restaurant and lodge on the summit, and the removal of the Cougar lift. (375-2) Snow King's a full-scale development with the aspiration of becoming a national destination ski resort and summer recreation hub is not needed and would be contrary to the scale and ambiance of a "town hill." (380-2) Jackson Hole and the Town of Jackson are already one of most prosperous regions in the U.S. While the owners of Snow King and adjacent property owners may wish to be more prosperous, the expansion of this resort will contribute relatively little to the overall prosperity to the region, and may in fact negatively affect the property values in adjacent neighborhoods and profits of existing businesses. (380-4) I am writing to object to this devastating project proposal by investors for the mountain called Snow King. (381-1) Please do not approve of this Snow King mountain travesty of the massive road, zip lines, huge summit development, biking trails, impacting wildlife, hikers and quiet. (381-3) I support the No-Action alternative (385-1) I don't think the town of Jackson will benefit long term from large scale tourism development and planners and decision makers ought to plan carefully before allowing such development. (387-2) I and against these changes because they either impact wildlife, or are simply unnecessary: - lifts on the southern side of Snow King (will be hard to keep snow!) - Huge development on the summit - ziplines - new road - downhill biking trails - snow making on the south side (waste of energy and water) (389-2) Keep this historic place and it's surrounding habitat as it is! (390-1) Please do not proceed with the destruction of snow king. Please do not allow greed to prevail over the community preserve the environment for the wildlife and the people. (392- 1) Although the resort has accommodated and participated in this designation as "Town Hill", the proposed actions will encroach on the beloved uses of our town hill to be replaced by the use of visitors and novice nature lovers… Would the proposed expansion be taking use away from locals who are seeking "sideline" hiking to avoid the crowds, and replacing it with use by visitors, thereby reducing the "Town Hill" status Snow King claims? (395-2) My biggest fear is that it will be heavily developed only to be sold to new owners. (397-1)

134

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The beautiful landscape and feeling of being in nature in the mountains will be lost. (398- 4) We don't need to bring MORE people to town or offer MORE Disneyland experiences. People need education in preserving our National Forests for the animals and the people of Jackson Hole. Thank you for not allowing this expansion for the primary purpose of one greedy business.(398-6) I am against these changes because they either impact wildlife, or are simply unnecessary: Boundary expansion due to wildlife considerations and limited current use; Large development on the summit; ziplines; new road; Expanded downhill biking trails; snow making on the south side (402-3) I DO NOT SUPPORT any of the following: 3. Lift accessed mountain biking 4. Horseback trail rides on SK 5. More commercial development at the base area. (406-7) I support a no-action alternative and hope you'll seriously consider that route. (410-1) Development of base area condos or second homes for non-residents. (410-16) I would like to see alternatives that include the following ideas: *Development is considered through the lens of protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat. …Protection of Leeks Canyon from any future development. * A bike park, as designed by Friends of Pathways, on the front of Snow King that does not feed into the community's trail system. * Cougar lift remains in place, providing access to mid-mountain.... Renovation of the historic Panorama House to provide skiers and hikers with a place to have a bite and take in the view. * A legally binding system that ensures commercial development at the base supports the ski area. * Development of affordable housing for local workers at the base. * Affordable uphill access for local residents, whether skinning or riding lifts. (410-17) While we acknowledge the important cultural and economic role that the Snow King Resort has played in Jackson for decades, we do not believe the Snow King Corporation should be allowed to dictate the terms of their use of our public lands. (412-1) The current plans all remove too many trees. (416-2) I also am against developing the back side of the mountain and building a large event venue on the mountain. (416-3) Plans for SKMR LLC's new uphill route in the woods are laughable, especially the alternative where this path criss-cosses a DEEP DITCH(bearcat gully slide path)!... There will be no views while in the forest. Many people ascending Snow King do not even reach the top, so this route will provide no visual rewards for them. It also will use terrain that intrudes the wildlife buffer zone, where Mule Deer can be found all winter. (418-7) I support the "No Action" alternative. (419-3) I will close by saying that the only logical alternative, especially in this time of COVID- 19, is Alternaative 1: No Action. (420-3) New additions like uphill vehicle travel, new buildings on the summit, zip lines, mountain bikes on the lifts are contrary to what I believe belongs at Snow King. (421-2) I am very strongly against 2 aspects of the development. Let's start with the addition of 500,000 more square feet of commercial development. Why? Locals don't want or need that. (422-1)

135

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I am writing to say that I disagree with the Snow King developers proposal for the following ideas: zip lines, road expansion, further summit development, and boundary expansion. (423-1) Please limit development of Snow King Mountain Resort and move back toward a more balanced vision of the ski area. The value of this town treasure is far reaching, and cannot be measured in dollars alone. There are other, creative, more balanced "alternatives" outlined in recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would better reflect the long- term vision of our community as stated in the Jackson Teton County Comprehensive Plan. (424-1) I am specifically concerned about the negative impacts of the boundary expansion, zip line and commercial development at the base area. (424-2) I ask you to please consider solutions that would limit the negative impact that the current proposal would have on wildlife. (424-3) … our community character. Our ecosystem and mountain town culture should not be put in jeopardy by the need for Snow King Mountain Resort to generate revenue through high impact tourist-based activities. (424-4) Our locals enjoy the hill for so much recreation and I believe putting zip lines, massive developments at the base and the ridge would ruin its enjoyment for many. (425-2) Please do not allow the stakeholders in Snow King Mountain to turn it into an amusement park for the benefit of tourists (and ultimately their own wallets) while robbing recreating locals and wildlife of one of the greatest areas in our Town and Valley. (427-8) I do want to see Snow King succeed, and I think there is a good middle ground between all the action alternatives and the no-action alternative that would allow Snow King to succeed and alleviate many of the community concerns that the proposed actions create. As such, I am respectfully stating my objection to the project as stated in the DEIS. (428- 1) The DEIS is seriously flawed and does not comport to the standards of the Forest Service Manual. It should be rewritten to include the numerous concerns of the many comments that the USFS has received. (430-8) Specific Alternative 2 Given the unique natural values of the area, including wildlife, it is particularly important to mitigate the impacts on plant wildlife, water and soil conditions. Alternative 1 and 3 appear significantly better than alternative 2. (380-3) Alternative 4 The “Resource Protection” alternative (#4) is little different from the other action alternatives and does not protect natural resources. (364-7) Permit Boundary Adjustment I oppose any north Side Permit Area expansion. (L1-22) Please do not allow development that further negatively impacts the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods. It is not in keeping with the small town character to crowd more amusement park activities onto this perch above the town. (14-3)

136

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Do not enlarge Snowking ski area boundaries. The demonstrated needs of our community is for public land. It is not for enlarged, pay to play, ski areas. Keep the east side of Snow King Mountain public. (34-1) Ideas to reject: any expansion into wildlife habitat, top to bottom zip lines, 25000 sf building on the ridge. (36-3) I have lived near the east side of Snow King resort for 25 years and have concerns about the increased size of the owner's proposal. I believe the resort should not be expanded to the east west and south but all improvements should be contained in the existing boundaries. (37-1) The resort should have the right to utilize the lands they have been using but not extend into new public lands, especially those south of the Snow King ridge line. The current leased lands are ample to house new zip lines, a new gondola and a mountain top restaurant. Year round activities at Snow King is a good thing and the success of Snow King outdoor operations should be encouraged. (39-1) I disagree with any expansion of the footprint of Snowking. All improvements should be limited to the current agreements. (44-1) We write today to express our dismay at the prospect of the possible huge footprint of proposed development at Snow King. (48-1) I am okay with a new lift in the same locations and a restaurant on top of Snow King. I also like affordable local rates for locals. I do not support the massive 25,000 square foot building on the ridge. That pushes National Forest too far. I also don't support expanding the ski area or recreation further into wildlife habitat areas nor top to bottom zip lines. All that turns it from recreation into excessive use of our National Forest. Thanks for your serious consideration. (56-2) The new intermediate and advanced ski runs resulting from the east and west expansion are short and inferior and do not make up for the loss of this historic terrain. (64-8) I DO NOT support expanding the skiing terrain by a large amount or a new road to the top. (67-4) I do not want Snow King to expand into wildlife habitat. I feel strongly about limiting the commercial offerings on this beautiful community resource. No zip lines, no further building.(75-1) Please do not extend the boundaries of Snow King into the beautiful surrounding animal habitat. This is home to many of our fascinating creatures and the habitat cannot be regained once it is destroyed. (87-1) Public lands are not intended to bail out a failing ski area. (102-11) I think there should be alternatives that do not include boundary expansion. (107-5) Snow King's proposed expansion is definitely not needed and harmful to the wildlife that resides in Leeks Canyon. (152-1) Snow King should work within their current boundary. (152-5) Developing better skiing opportunities within the existing ski area footprint would be much more responsible to rational development. (184-4)

137

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Snow King mountain/hill area should not expand/change beyond the current development that has occurred. The area should be left as is for the community and wildlife to enjoy as is. (194-1) The existing footprint should be diligently improved before any expansion, east, west, or south should ever be considered. (225-6) Please restrict the development of snow king that would increase it's boundaries and impinge on wildlife, our forest and open space. (226-1) I ask that the expansions that take place benefit of the local community of Teton County and our wildlife, rather than catering to tourists. Things I oppose are large boundary expansions, ridgeline complex and mountain bike on lifts, to name a few. (243-1) Expansion into Leeks Canyon for additional ski runs is wishful thinking. It is windblown, south facing, and rarely has adequate snow cover for skiing. Consequently it is prime habitat for animals. Adding infrastructure, lifts, and yurts is inappropriate. (249-4) I would like to see better skiing within the existing ski area footprint: glading, terrain parks, etc. (266-5) I believe that the proposed redevelopment plan for Snow King goes well beyond what is appropriate for that location and its historic value in our community. . . The scale of the entire redevelopment will turn a special historic Hill into another Cookie Cutter resort. (274-1) The scale of the project proposed for the Snow King development is obscenely large and impactful. (277-1) I am oposed to any and all expansion of Snowking (279-1) I want to state my objection to the proposed Snow King expansion. (297-1) I support smart development of Snow King. I don't think Snow King should expand its boundaries, or go overboard on development. A nice high-speed chair/Gondi to the top, and a viable bar/restaurant with affordable housing would be great. … I fully support the recommendations given by JHAlliance at https://jhalliance.org/snowking/ - a very reasonable compromise between development and conservation and community. (282-1) I'm asking you to rule against Snow King's expansion request (301-4) I fully support the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance's position on this proposal, and oppose this expansion. I am particularly opposed to the expansion of the ski area boundaries, and the new service road on the front side of the resort. (306-1) I would endorse other improvements that do not increase the resort's footprint, such as a new gondola, and new recreational amenities, but resort expansion is ill-advised. (306-3) I welcome some new developments and ideas, including: a new lift or gondola, renovating the panorama house, improving ski terrain in the existing footprint, supporting Ski Club and Coombs Outdoors programs, affordable rates for locals, affordable housing at the base, a legally binding system for commercial development to fund the ski area into the future, and a community investment in the ski area. (328-2) Public land should not be captured to bring relief to a struggling ski operation. Expanding an operation does not fix its underlying problems and it most likely will irreparably damage the environment and surrounding wildlife. (331-1)

138

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I support the following: 1. Switchbacking a new road up inside the current boundaries - an option Snow King's own engineering firm vetted and presented (see below) - instead of massive boundary expansions into important wildlife habitat. SK could the use the existing Leeks Canyon road during construction (need to negotiate crossing narrow strip of private land) 2. Protecting - not developing - important wildlife habitat in Leeks Canyon 3. No ziplines 4. Reasonable development at the top, such as retrofitting the historic Panorama House to serve as a restaurant/bar. (337-4) Expanding terrain to the East and the West of the existing boundaries will intrude on existing neighborhoods in both directions. (343-6) …I am adamantly opposed to any additional development on the south side of Snow King. (346-1) P lease DO NOT continue to try to expand the human footprint on Snow King. It is already big enough. . . . . Let Jackson Hole stand for the Environment, for getting back to nature, for instilling people with a desire to live WITH nature, not as a community trying to overcome nature. (347-1) We do NOT need to bring more silly human games and "Thrill seeker type tourists" here. (347-2) It would not, in my opinion, be good to build out to the max the area around and on Snow King and create, in the pure interest of commerce, what will be a year round and permanent circus. For the same reasons I do not support many of the so called "improvements" proposed for Snow King. (352-1) The footprint of the ski area seems adequate, the trails and the lifts do need improvement for both summer and winter use. I would support the creation of a restaurant at the top of the hill. (352-2) Limit development to existing boundaries. (358-5) We support a successful, solvent Snow King but are VERY much AGAINST the eastern boundary expansion and road as currently proposed. (366-1) I am strongly opposed to the boundary expansion and encourage you to deny the expansion. (369-2) For better beginner-friendly terrain, I support the thinning and clearing of land within the current boundaries. Slopes near the middle of the mountain are gentle and perfect for beginners. I also support the creation of a halfpipe. The Town Hill should have great freestyle facilities for the kids. (386-6) Almost the entirety of the Snow King Mountain Resort expansion plan is detrimental to all of the local population and Jackson visitors, and only potentially advantageous to the speculators proposing the expansion. (391-1) Expansion to the west, would take away the peacefulness that people seek to hike/bike/run along trails that are not on the front of the "Town Hill". (395-3) I oppose the following developments and would like to see alternatives that do not include these items: * Expansion of Snow King Resort's existing boundaries. (410-3) Many of the proposed business-centric additions within the existing footprint could be completed conscientiously, and we believe that Snow King itself had proposed alternatives that would better reflect that goal. (414-2)

139

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I support the addition of a high speed summit lift, ski terrain development within the existing footprint, workforce housing development (snow king employees have a large footprint on the local housing market), affordable skiing rates, small restaurant ar the summit, access for the ski club and Coombs foundation, and community investment. (419- 4) Another terrible aspect of the plan is to expand the "park" into more wild habitat. (422-2) Please do not allow Snow King to expand their boundaries onto the adjacent valued public land.(429-1) I agree with the JH Conservation Alliance's stance, and would like to see them remain inbounds, respect wildlife, and not be any more of an amusement park than it already is.(429-7) Terrain Development If beginner terrain is so critical for the resort, they can take out the coaster that that they built on ideal beginner terrain. (Apparently beginner terrain wasn't so important when that decision was made.) (410-12) Back-side Development I opposed any development within the South Side Permit Area. (L1-2) Development of this upper portion of Leek’s Canyon will cause much of this experience to be lost, thus impacting the opportunity of many to experience nature in its natural condition. (L1-3) To develop the 142-acre south permit area into a summer mountain biking theme park/zone will seriously impact the current sense of wild wonder and replace it with a half-mile plus chair lift and the hoots and hollers of thrill-riding mountain bikers. This would appear to be completely contrary to one of the goals expressed by the Bridger-Teton National Forest (B-T) – Snow King Mountain Resort (SKMR) “partnership”- “to connect visitors with the natural environment.” (L1-6) Placing an adventure theme park with overnight accommodations on the south side permit area is so inappropriate it defies logic. How can this ever be mitigated? (L1-14) I also am against developing the back side of the mountain and building a large event venue on the mountain. (L4-2) I am opposed to any backside development. New ski runs on south-facing slopes with potential climate change makes little sense to me. Snow-making equipment will use significant amounts of water. Further, the campground, roads, and new ski runs will affect wildlife to an unacceptable degree. (72-3) Snow King is perfect in the winter for the youth skiing programs but development and expanding the backside of the mountain will not make the racing program any better. (134- 2) The Backside Development: In order to make money Snow King Resort has built a massive, useless rollercoaster on top of their beginner terrain and is now using that as an excuse to make a land grab on the summit of the mountain, to further develop their Resort and shut the public and wildlife out of this area. Please don't let them! (204-2) I also oppose the "yurt park" and mountain bike terrain expansion on the south side of the mountain. This is wildlife habitat, and I believe the south side should have NO development at all. (262-3)

140

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I generally support Snow King expansion to make the resort viable. However, I do not support expansion of the resort onto the back side of the mountain. (293-1) It is a huge mistake to expand to the backside of the ski hill. This area is ever more critical for wildlife given the increase in the local population, tourists, and development. (358-8) Please don't develop the back side of snow king! (408-1) Summit Access Road/Novice Skiway No to new road. (L6-1) I do not want to see MY land desecrated with a road winding up beautiful Snow King Mountain and all the attending buildlings and infrastructure planned for the summit. ( L7- 1) New road outside the current boundaries, from Ferrin's slide to Josie's meadows, that ruins the best ski runs putting kids and beginners at risk, under steep ski runs and slide paths on the road. (23-9) The access route and gondola location they propose seems very invasive, I like the access route proposed by Rod Newcomb or a similar access road and a new lift starting near the existing exhibition or cougar lift. (49-2) A new road and 50000 square feet of base area development seems an excessive amount of development. (58-3) I absolutely do not support a road up the backside for construction and access. (61-7) I DO NOT support expanding the skiing terrain by a large amount or a new road to the top. (67-5) I am opposed to road expansion from the base to the summit and beyond. Such expansion is environmentally unsound and potentially unsafe for skiers. (72-4) Please do not allow Snow King, to bulldoze a new extravagant road across the face of the mountain destroying the quality of the skiing and disrupting the landscape. (73-1) The proposed location for the Service Road remains a terrible mistake. I see no benefit whatsoever for skiers or the ski area. (119-1) A massive new road cutting across the legendary ski terrain mustn't be allowed. (125-2) As currently outlined in the DEIS, It will ruin the skiing. As currently outlined, the road will furthermore create unwanted boundary expansion, and will be a tremendous eyesore. (128-7) The proposed road is the most pressing issue in the Snow King development proposal because of its effects and unintended consequences. There is NO NEED to Construct a massive road across the face of SK. (173-3) Additionally, it is a false premise that the Road is for beginner skiers. (238-8) The building of roads and much larger structures will cause damage to the mountain that can never be recovered. (257-2) Having a new and improved summit road would allow for all levels of skiing. As most know, Snow King is not the easiest terrain to ski. Opening up more runs would allow the opportunity for tourists and new skiers more room to learn and explore. Hopefully drawing a larger tourist basis to the local hill. (258-1)

141

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I absolutely do not support a road up the backside for construction and access. In the end a road on the backside is subject to right-of-way issues with landowners as well as transportation issues for the town of Jackson. (284-7) Cutting swaths across the natural ski runs of the "Town Hill" (301-2) Huge new road outside the current boundaries, from Ferrin's slide to Josie's meadows, that ruins the best ski runs. (327-10) As much as I want Snow King to be successful and be able to operate as a "ski area" for generations to come, I believe the new proposed road would be the biggest, ugliest and most detrimental mistake you could ever make by approving it. It would be a scar slicing across the entire landscape of the face of that mountain. A huge scar that would provide very little actual benefit to skiers. (343-10) We support a high speed chair or gondola and a restaurant at the top but don't believe that a new road is required to construct these new amenities.(366-2) The widening of the proposed road would breach into National Forest land, this is not be taken lightly. Entertaining such options for applicants appears as a precedent for the Forest Service to consider, possibly paving the way for the betterment of Ski Resorts as opposed to the natural resources the agency should be managing. (377-2) It seems idiotic to place beginner skiers, mostly whom are young children, high on a windy icy mountain where they first have to stand in line for a long ride in a gondola and are far from their parent's eye. And they may perhaps have to ski down the 2-2.5 mile access road. (380-15) Do NOT allow the toe of the steep eastern faces of the King to be excavated, and do NOT allow this road to bisect the western zones either. (418-15) I do not support a new road, massive complex on top of snow king, large scale development at the base (particularly for vacation or short term rentals), or significant development outside the current footprint. (419-5) Gondola A large gondola is not needed for the amount of skiers who use the mountain. (L4-3) I am opposed to replacing the double chair with a gondola, especially if it were to take over the multi-purpose field at the base. (308-2) Infrastructure, too grandiose Gondola requires too big a footprint on top and at bottom. High speed chairlifts, covered or not, are adequate, and more in tune with the short vertical distance. (317-9) Cougar Lift Removal I write to comment on and object to the potential removal of the Cougar lift as provided for by Alternatives 3 and 4 of the DEIS. (207-1) According to the DEIS, placing the gondola and zip line bottom terminals on Town land “would result in the loss of the Phil Baux parking lot and the recreational opportunities it currently provides.” DEIS at S-16. This assertion does not withstand scrutiny… At the outset, it must be noted that the actual ball-field and rock-climbing space should be unaffected. The parking lot alone would be subject to modification…Second, there should be most, minimal disruption to the “recreational opportunities” now provided by the parking lot. Different opportunities are available in the winter vs. the summer…

142

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

First, the entire parking lot need not be lost. If the gondola bottom lands on left-hand side of the parking lot, then the other half of the lot can stay in place. There is no need to remove it. And there would be no need to remove all of the parking on ther left-hand side – some parking could remain near Snow King Avenue… I respectfully request that the Service use that influence to cause the Town and County to have a realistic discussion about the retention of the Cougar lift…The Cougar lift can remain in place and a new gondola installed. (207-5—8) I am writing to: 1. Express general and strong support for Snow King's current proposals for on Snow King mountain on-hill improvements. 2. Express our concern for the loss of the Cougar lift or alternate access to primary training and race venues, thus propose that some form of access to the primary training and ski race venues be part of the master plan. (302-1) The retention of Cougar Lift or other uphill alternative is critical to the future of ski racing and further public enjoyment of Snow King Mountain. (323-6) I fully support for the Cougar Lift to remain in place, and agree with all comments submitted regarding its importance. (388-1) Finally, keeping Cougar in place should encourage the alignment of a new Summit Lift to be as far west as possible, for obvious reasons. Two lifts crammed next to a playground will not meet the requests of Jackson's citizens, and will not appear professional either. Lift towers will crowd the base, hindering grooming and snowmaking, race training and events, and potential terrain features. (388-6) Summit Buildings/Development Improving the existing summit facilities is appropriate, but not to the degree proposed by SKMR and analyzed in the DEIS. (L1-15) The size of the structure at the top of the mountain at 20,000 to 25,000 quare feet is absolutely ridiculous. It will never pay for itself and eventually be nothing but an eyesore and useless, much like the existing buildling, only a much bigger albatross. (L5-2) No to New Buildling – There is a buildling. (L6-4) Massive 25,000 sf complex on the ridgeline (23-10) Encouraging beginners to go to the top via the new gondola and ski down is irresponsible. It will greatly increase the danger of a beginner skier either losing control on the road or colliding with another skier on this road or on the run that it crosses. (30-9) The location of the lift on the base should be on private land, not in public lands. (37-4) It's simply too much building - with too much impervious surface area, light emitting windows at night, and too much development at the top of a mountain in a natural area. (40-2) I do support an expanded facility of some sort that could be used for weddings, etc. but it should be of reasonable size and set back from the rim. A set-back location is critical to reduce visual impacts from town below. (45-11) We also believe the huge new buildings on top are a problem. YOu could have a nice restaurant and access to it, and that would be an attractive addition.Going all-out for a commercial mecca on top is way out of place. (48-5)

143

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The summit facility seem excessive (I'm not sure if they propose a 25K or 15K sq ft building). I think a smaller facility with adequate set backs should be considered. (49-3) I am okay with a new lift in the same locations and a restaurant on top of Snow King. I also like affordable local rates for locals. I do not support the massive 25,000 square foot building on the ridge. (56-1) I support a reasonable sized restaurant at the top. (67-2) Also please do not allow large building projects on top of the mountain sky lining the slopes. (73-2) As proposed, a 20,000-square foot facility is too large. (100-11) The ski school on the summit is ludicrous. (102-8) It would be great if you update your existing buildings instead of the contruction of the new buildings on the top. Please don't build wedding venue at the top. (105-2) A small visitor center at the top is fine, but 25k sq is not. (125-3) The proposed beginner area and lift into Leeks Canyon should not be allowed under any circumstance. (152-2) While I support an expanded summit facility of some sort that could be used as a restaurant or for events, 15,000-square foot facility is excessive. It should be of reasonable size and set back from the rim in order to reduce visual impacts from the town below. (176-13) Any Wedding Venues and Full Size Restaurant/Bars Snow King Resort wants to own and operate should be built on Snow King Resort's significant surrounding private/commercial land holdings. It is not an appropriate use of Forest Service land. (204-3) Forcing a beginner’s area at the top creates a cascade of damaging decisions throughout the entire Mountain. Many of the damaging proposals on Snow King are centered on this one ill conceived concept. (238-4) The idea that the top of Snow King is appropriate "beginner and novice" ski terrain, is absurd. (262-5) Please do NOT allow the monsterous building at the top of Snow King to go ahead. (275- 1) I oppose the zipline and summit expansion due to concerns over over-crowding… Advertising Snow King as a new tourist destination and expanding infrastructure would degrade the natural habitat and add unnecessary use to a location that is already popular with locals. (288-2) The idea of a massive 25000 ft2 building ontop is snow king is nauseating. (321-1) Massive 25,000 sf complex on the ridgeline (327-12) A ski school on the summit is a ridiculous notion. The average experienced skier could barely handle those conditions. (331-2) The alternative of proposing to run the ski school off the summit in the sunshine is a great idea; when it's sunny, when it's not too windy, and when there is temperature inversion (warmer up top than at the base). Otherwise, weather conditions at the summit can be much harsher than at the base on any given day. (343-7)

144

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Do not allow construction and servicing of more facilities on the mountaintop, which are likely to become the center of activity during the non-snow season. The massive construction proposed on the ridge is completely inappropriate. (358-9) Proposing to move the beginner's area to the top of a mountain which experiences high wind conditions, highly mixed precipitation, low-hanging clouds, and has expert ("double- black") terrain on its main face is a poorly thought out idea. (391-3) The King has shown what a great asset it is to the town by allowing uphill travel, even when open, and especially now.... even grooming with the community help. Let's help them stay in business. (396-3) More roads and a 25000 sq foot complex on top are not appealing either. (422-3) I also am against the idea of hiking up a mountain to be greeted by a restaurant, that is lame, and will force me to go elsewhere. (429-4) Yurt Camp Given the proximity of in-bounds ski terrain and resulting scarcity of non-lift-serviced terrain should back-side improvements be approved, these yurts would ultimately be used and perhaps valued merely as a party spot where groups would aggregate, which would debase the area's backcountry skiing tradition and is unsuitable for this remote location…., TBCA does not support the installation of a yurt if the ski area expands onto Snow King's back side. (357-2) Night Skiing I do not support expanded night lighting of ski runs. This would add to light pollution and the existing lit trails have very little use. (37-6) I also believe that night skiing is most appropriate being served from the Cougar Lift, and have the foresight that lift serviced skiing from the Summit should only be accessible during daylight hours. (388-4) Snowmaking Increased activity, lights, noise and snow-making, including water use, are not acceptable as local professionals, agencies and non-profits work to preserve the natural resources on which we depend. (188-5) First, in Table S-1, regarding Climate Change and Snow Quality, the DEIS reports, "Snowmaking system coverage would increase by nearly 60%...These changes would effectively offset the impact of reduced snowfall due to climate change on Snow King's winter recreational use and long-term viability." Simply stated, this is backwards and hubristic logic. What does resilience for a community look like amidst a changing climate, something this report readily recognizes? Does it mean increasing water use, energy needs, and greater infrastructure so that we can make more snow? … But choosing to increase our resource use, to hold on to an activity like skiing, is not in favor of this community. … Skiing will be a relic of the past. Let's plan for that now. (316-1) Please do not allow SKMR LLC to waste their financial resources on most of these costly snowmaking expenditures, especially in steep areas, as well as areas that are currently prime habitat for wildlife. (338-1) More snowmaking infrastructure will be a costly undertaking with costly annual operations, which will also be reflected in rising ticket prices, affecting the future

145

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

affordability. More importantly, it will increase the likelihood of accidents for all future users and personnel. (338-8) SKMR LLC still does not even operate their current publicly subsidized and improved snowmaking system to its potential. (338-10) The south side of the mountain holds snow very poorly, and would also require significant snow-making with all the caveats in the above paragraph. The massive increase in snow- making would also be a drain on town resources (both on the draw from Flat Creek, and the subsequent treatment required when the snow melts). (391-11) Zip line Simply stated, a 3,900 foot Zip line is a pure action attraction that does little to “connect visitors with the natural environment.” (L1-32) Also the zip line is not needed with the existing alternative summer and winter activities. (L5-3) No to zip line. (L6-2) Any and all ziplines criss-crossing the mountain (23-8) I'd like to see alternatives that do not include a zip line. (45-4) HI, Regarding the snow king master plan: No zip line and please minimize expanse into wildlife habitat. I think a zip line is to loud for this location and it will impact both wildlife and neighbors. The access route and gondola location they propose seems very invasive, I like the access route proposed by Rod Newcomb or a similar access road and a new lift starting near the existing exhibition or cougar lift. The summit facility seem excessive (I'm not sure if they propose a 25K or 15K sq ft building). I think a smaller facility with adequate set backs should be considered. (49-1) I am not in favor of a zip line. (51-2) I am okay with a new lift in the same locations and a restaurant on top of Snow King. I also like affordable local rates for locals. I do not support the massive 25,000 square foot building on the ridge. That pushes National Forest too far. I also don't support expanding the ski area or recreation further into wildlife habitat areas nor top to bottom zip lines. All that turns it from recreation into excessive use of our National Forest. Thanks for your serious consideration. (56-2) Zip lines will put an amusement park feel right in the center of town. (58-1) A zip-line should be placed on the eastern side along with the other amusement park like rides and activities. (62-2) You can probably guess that I'm opposed to any zip line of any length. Such "attractions" smack of Disneyland or Dollywood, not Jackson Hole, and they violate your own Forest Service Manual 2343.14.B. (72-6) There is no reason for a top to bottom zip line. (73-3) I'd like to see alternatives that do not include a zip line. (100-8) A summit-to-base zip line provides a comparable experience to the Cowboy Coaster, and therefore the USFS should prohibit its development on public lands. (103-18) No zip-line from the summit. (108-3) I'd much rather see faster lifts and more amenities at The King over a zipline (167-2)

146

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

I do not want to see more inauthentic recreation like zip lines, slides, etc. installed at the King. (171-2) Firstly, please include an alternative that does not include a zip line. (176-5) The Zipline: This is not a nature based activity, it a loud, ugly, thrill ride for tourists. It will negatively impact wildlife and will in fact make it more difficult or impossible for people to enjoy nature based activities in this area. (204-4) Our town does not need ziplines, mountain bikes on lifts that will endanger wildlife and pedestrians enjoying the quiet trails, as well as excessive development of the commercial area at the base. (226-2) This expansion and the stated improvements (zip lines and restaurant complex) would greatly affect our community character. Like many other mountain towns, Jackson would become an amusement park in the summer rather than a place to enjoy and connect with nature. (217-2) Its only value is additional profit for a private Investment Group. The Towns feedback was overwhelmingly opposed to any zip-lines —they add nothing to anyone’s nature experience. (238-11) I am against the network of proposed zip lines, mostly citing that amusement-park-style rides do not complement the adventurous spirit of Jackson Hole… Having the town hill be crowded with machinery will take away the magic of our hill that overlooks our town. (247- 1) I am against the network of proposed zip lines, mostly citing that amusement-park-style rides do not complement the adventurous spirit of Jackson Hole. … Having the town hill be crowded with machinery will take away the magic of our hill that overlooks our town. (248-1) Ziplines are loud and ugly... just got look at the one on top of Vail. To destroy the entire experience of Snow King for all other users (hikers, bikers, etc)for such a a cheap carnival ride is ludicrous. Plus, we already have zip lines in the Treetop Adventure Course. (256- 2) I also oppose stringing extensive ziplines on the front side of the mountain. Short ones hidden in trees are ok. (293-4) The expansion points I strongly oppose are as follows; zip lines(ridiculous I even have to state my objection-it is a mountain use at such), the proposed size of the building to replace the Panorama House (there should be an upgrade, but be very thoughtful to sky lining and size-larger is not always better), the thought that expansion is required of the skiing to the south and west into obviously critical game areas and mostly poor quality ski conditions are absurd, lastly the proposal of the new road is again not evaluating common sense relative to use and application. (297-2) Stringing cables across the skyline to allow visitors the adrenaline rush of sliding down a mechanical zip line will forever alter the face of the mountain and surrounding forest.(301- 3) No ziplines. (317-12) Multiple ziplines criss-crossing the mountain (327-9) The economy of Jackson is doing just fine and adding a Restaurant and Zip-Lines does nothing for the community. (328-5)

147

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

It seems to me that some common-sense improvements are needed and can be accommodated. But a zip-line? I'd like to see some alternative plans that do not include that tacky addition. (335-1) Zip Line: The public spoke out overwhelmingly against the proposed zip line. Snow King built the Cowboy coaster on private land because it was not allowed on USFS land. The zip line should also not be allowed on USFS land. It is not a snow-sport related use and it is not a “need”. (364-15) The high-speed zipline is a thrill ride and does not further the enjoyment of nature, but rather diminishes one of nature's key values: quiet contemplation, so rare in this world. While zip lines are permitted, such an extensive operation is not necessary. (380-6) No zipline. (380-22) I also would prefer an alternative that does not include zip lines. (386-9) I DO NOT SUPPORT any of the following: Any Zip Lines or other man-made amusement projects (406-6) Zip lines are not an appropriate use of Forest land. (410-13) I would much rather continue to use the trail system and walk in the woods, and I am positive that it is much healthier for people's well being than activities like zip lining or whatever else is the next fad to be allowed. (429-3) Mountain Bike Trails/Zone Putting mountain bikes on lifts up to the top and flooding nearby trails with downhill riders. (23-11) I am opposed to the idea of having a mountain bike park on the back side of Snow King. I fear that Snow King will have an issue akin to Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's backside. Bikers will end up Cache Creek and Game Creek drainages, without knowing where they are. No matter how much signage and messaging there is, visitors mountain biking probably won't slow down to read the signs. (130-2) Allowing mountain bikes on lifts to the summit to then race downhill is not in the best interest of conservation. (134-4) We strongly object to the elimination of existing mountain bike access on Josie’s Ridge as it is a popular loop for many riders and improves circulation within the greater Snow King trail network. (196-6, 295-6) We strenuously object to any further closure of the Skyline Trail; the mountain bike community fundraised, planned, and helped construct this trail, and we believe that any closure violates the spirit in which it was created. (196-7, 295-7) Opening up biking on the backside of the hill would take off some of the overuse on the North Facing ski slopes in the summer. (258-2) Cutting down forest trees to enable expansion of bike parks,(301-1) Putting mountain bikes on lifts up to the top and flooding nearby trails with downhill riders (327-13) Re biking: take a trip to Targhee to understand how that sport has ruined terrain and made hiking dangerous if not impossible. (339-4)

148

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

The thought of creating uphill mountain bike transportation and insanely steep mountain bike trails terrifies me. (352-3) Please don’t allow lift-served bike access, building of mountain bike trails or a bike park. These are not snow-sport related activities and have unacceptable adverse impacts on wildlife. (364-19) Reduced mountain biking network and omission of lift-carry on the gondola. (380-23) Please do not allow uphill lift access to mountain bikes The DEIS acknowledges that such use would have considerable impact but asserts that Snow King will police the use and prevent access to the trails. Given the abysmal track record that Snow King has regarding honoring use commitments for example hours of operation and noise abatement with the Cowboy Coaster, how can we reasonably expect that any commitment to effectively police mountain bike access to Cache Creek and Game Creek trail system will or even can be maintained. Is it realistic too think that staffing will be at a level that will ensure effective monitoring and policing? (430-6)

149

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

APPENDIX 1

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 1 I Hammond, Bob Wildlife, Opinion 2 I Johnston, Ian Opinion 3 I Morley, Morley Opinion 4 I Carpender, Julian Opinion 5 I Anon 6 I Miller, Darrell Opinion 7 I Anon Process, Opinion 8 I Boynton, Beverly Process, Wildlife, Opinion 9 I Smith, Mike 10 I Kohlhardt, Jennifer Wildlife 11 I Publiee, Jean Opinion Wood, Brandon 12 O Opinion Snow King Mountain Resort Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Recreation, Safety, 13 I Marsh, Susan Scenery 14 I McKinney, Holly Wildlife, Noise, Opinion 15 I Dornan, Reade and David Wildlife, Noise, Scenery 16 I Collins, Bailey Wildlife, Noise, Safety 17 I Montana, Zach Opinion 18 I Daly, Margaret Process, Scenery, Opinion 19 I Sanville, Laurel Wildlife, Noise 20 I Thomas, Shirley Process, Wildlife 21 I Hunger, Caleb Opinion Diane Shober, Executive Director 22 O Opinion Wyoming Office of Tourism 23 I Brooks, Herb Process, Wildlife, Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 24 I Bierman, Scott Safety, Opinion 25 I Michie, Jessica Opinion 26 I Landsman, Peter Process, Opinion 27 I Butts, Pat Process 28 I Heisinger, Justin Opinion

150

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 29 I Heisinger, Rebecca Opinion Process, Air Quality, Water, Soils, and Watershed, 30 I Flinch, Hans Vegetation, Wildlife, Noise, Recreation, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 31 I Kudar, Serese Opinion 32 I Kudar, Anton Opinion 33 I Hansen, Paul Process 34 I Beaton, Barbara Noise, Opinion 35 I McCance, Kathryn Process 36 I Shea, Nancy Opinion 37 I Detwyler, Carl Scenery, Opinion 38 I Becker, Lynne and Art Opinion 39 I Offutt, Tucker Opinion 40 I Sollitt, David Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion 41 I Ewing, Patty Process Link, Geraldine 42 O Process, Safety, Opinion National Ski Areas Association 43 I Remlinger, Brian Opinion 44 I Roberts, William Opinion Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Out of Scope Comments, 45 I Reimers, Frederick Opinion Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Noise, Recreation, 46 I Barnett, Eve Scenery 47 I Kjorstad, Randy Opinion 48 I Carson, Andrew Wildlife, Safety, Opinion 49 I Tatosian, Justin Wildlife, Opinion 50 I Nevius, Aude Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 51 I Minczeski, Harriet and Ed Opinion 52 I McCartney, Ryan Safety, Scenery, Opinion 53 I Pubilee, Jean Process, Wildlife 54 I Brown, Gordon Process, Opinion Nichols, Jake 55 O Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery, Opinion Save Historic Jackson Hole 56 I Spence, Kent Opinion 57 A Courtney Hoover Wildlife

151

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised Regional Environmental Officer USFWS 58 I Polo, Arty Recreation, Opinion 59 I Sawdy, Kip 60 I Kelly, Lucy Process, Wildlife 61 I Mancaster, Susan Process, Opinion 62 I Nevius, Alan Process, Opinion 63 I Droppert, Tristan Wildlife, Opinion Newcomb, Mark Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Noise, Recreation, 64 A Teton County Scenery, Opinion 65 I Smith, Joseph Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife 66 I Kyle, Ted Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife, Opinion 67 I Vogel, Douglas Opinion 68 I Allen, E. August Process, Wildlife Shaul, Robert 69 O Wildlife, Opinion Mountain Pursuit 70 I Reimers, Fred A. Process, Scenery 71 I Ewing, Heather Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Scenery 72 I Mills, David Process, Wildlife, Opinion 73 I Lundquist, David Opinion 74 I Wadsworth, Don and Gwenn 75 I Buhler, Tina Opinion 76 I Abendroth, Diane Noise 77 I Robles, Rhonda Wildlife, Opinion Lurie, Richard 78 O Grand View Home Owners Opinion Association 79 I Warren, Robert Opinion 80 I Young, Kim Process 81 I Thompson, Jim Process, Wildlife, Opinion 82 I Kaufman, David Process 83 I Pratt, Holly Process 84 I Sievers, Rick Process, Wildlife 85 I

152

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 86 I Smith, Taylor-Ann Opinion 87 I Bauknight, Lee Opinion 88 I Walker, Kristin Opinion 89 I Walker, Mark Opinion 90 I Walker, Karen Opinion 91 I Kosharek, Todd Opinion 92 I Ewing, Patty 93 I Grossman, Judd Process, Wildlife 94 I Bradley, Mark Process 95 I Albrect, Bubba Wildlife 96 I Young, Kin Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery, Opinion 97 I Manny, Eleanor Opinion 98 I Hagen, Martin Process, Opinion 99 I McDonald, Heather Noise, Opinion 100 I Reimers, Margie Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion 101 I Ewing, Patty Process, Scenery Process, Air Quality, Water, Soils, and Watershed, 102 I Ewing, Patty Vegetation, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion 103 I Stumpf, Clare Process, Wildlife, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 104 I Widie, Jon Process, Cultural 105 I Komin, Tatyana Process, Cultural, Opinion Singer, Samuel 106 O Process, Cultural, Opinion Wyoming Stargazing 107 I Stover, Jesse Process, Wildlife, Cultural, Scenery, Opinion 108 I Duggan, Thomas Process, Cultural, Opinion Hilary Eisen, Policy Director Process, Wildlife, Cultural, Noise, Recreation, 109 O Winder Wildlands Alliance Safety, Opinion Withroder, Amanda 110 A Vegetation, Wildlife, Cultural Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 111 I Ruzicka, Don Process, Opinion 112 I Wente, Deborah Process, Opinion 113 I Gardner, Riley Opinion 114 I Cohen-David, Aubrey Opinion 115 I Davis, Marvin Opinion

153

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised Anon, Jim 116 O Silver Dollar Inc. – Opinion Wort Hotel/Cowboy Bar 117 I Faupel, Matt Opinion Price, Stephen 118 O Opinion Spring Creek Ranch 119 I Briggs, Bill Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion 120 I Meyer, Adam Opinion 121 I Barnes, Cliff Opinion 122 I Brown, Timothy Opinion 123 I Madera, Joe Wildlife, Opinion 124 I Article, Malachi Opinion 125 I Billimoria, Zahan Wildlife, Opinion 126 I Warden, Todd Opinion 127 I Anon, Cynthia Wildlife, Opinion 128 I Agnello, David Process, Wildlife, Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 129 I Mandenhall, Mack Safety, Opinion 130 I Anonymous Safety, Opinion 131 I Huff, Frannie Process, Wildlife, Opinion 132 I Danford, Susan 133 I Moody, Chris Opinion 134 I Wallace, Linore Process, Wildlife, Opinion 135 I Muromcew, Alexander Process, Recreation 136 I Lones, Deborah Process, Wildlife, Opinion 137 I Weiner, Ronald Wildlife, Opinion 138 I Van Vracken, Charles Opinion 139 I Helmuth, Douglas Wildlife, Opinion 140 I Heller, Gillian Wildlife, Opinion 141 I Reid, Hannah Opinion Dan Smitherman, Wyoming State 142 O Manager Process, Wildlife, Opinion The Wilderness Society 143 I Wu, Jeanne Opinion 144 I Sharp, Matthew Opinion

154

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 145 I Glinsky, Jamie Opinion 146 I Allen, Megan Opinion 147 I Ballard, Emilee Opinion 148 I Howard, Carl Opinion 149 I Olson, Anna Opinion Olson, Anna 150 A Jackson Hole Chamber of Process, Wildlife, Opinion Commerce 151 I Rahme, Richard Process, Opinion 152 I McClellan, Terry Wildlife, Opinion 153 I Kemp, Laura Opinion 154 I Weber, Bob Process, Opinion 155 I May, Michael Process, Wildlife, Opinion 156 I Rothman, Shane Process, Out of Scope Comments 157 I Spitzer, Len and Katy Opinion 158 I Fisher, Mary Recreation, Opinion 159 I Triantos, Michael Opinion Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Safety, Out of Scope 160 I Stumpf, Elizabeth Comments 161 I Gibbs, Frank Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 162 I Terra, Karen Opinion 163 I Winston, Mark Opinion 164 I Wallace, James Process 165 I Browning, Matt Opinion 166 I Spiner, Wade Process, Opinion 167 I Tauskey, Andrew Opinion 168 I Tuthill, Jantina Opinion 169 I Jordan, Thomas Process, Wildlife 170 I McConnell, John Opinion 171 I Monson, Bart Process, Opinion 172 I Goldstein, John Opinion Process, Wildlife, Cultural, Recreation, Safety, 173 I Ewing, Patty and Frank Scenery, Opinion 174 I Hass, Julien Process, Wildlife, Opinion

155

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 175 I Anderson, Davis Wildlife, Opinion 176 I Reimers, Rebecca Process, Wildlife, Noise, Scenery, Opinion 177 I Lurie, Susan Process, Climate Change, Wildlife 178 I Hale, Scott Process, Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 179 I Cummings, Angus Wildlife 180 I Brule, Chris 181 I Barker, Tyler Opinion 182 I Unfried, Stephen Process, Wildlife Process, Wildlife, Noise, Scenery, Out of Scope 183 I Symonds, Allen Comments 184 I Tsuruda-Dobell, Denise Process, Wildlife, Safety, Opinion 185 I Reed, John Process 186 I Baiotto, Theresa Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery 187 I Petersen, Leslie Process, Wildlife, Opinion 188 I Shuptrine, Sandy Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 189 I Mielke, Mike Opinion Representative Mike Yin 190 A Process Wyoming House District 16 Edmonds, Amy 191 O Advocates for the Multi-Use of Opinion Public Lands 192 I Golightly, Amy 193 I Halling, Gary Process, Opinion 194 I Salava, Kevin Process, Wildlife, Opinion 195 I Fagan, Matthew Process, Recreation Tony Ferlisi, Executive Director 196 O Recreation, Scenery, Opinion Mountain Bike the Tetons 197 I Halling, Susan Process, Air Quality, Opinion 198 I Phibbs, Hank Process, Wildlife, Out of Scope Comments 199 I Vito, Jim Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 200 I Hardie, David Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Noise Smitherman, Daniel 201 O Duplicate of 142. Sent twice. The Wilderness Society 202 I Mander, Maura Process, Wildlife, Opinion

156

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 203 I Troyan, Jeana Process, Wildlife, Opinion 204 I Grant, Dana Process, Opinion Siegfried, Brian 205 O Opinion Teton Realty Today 206 I Sarychev, Elizabeth Wildlife, Noise, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 207 I Jackowski, Mark Process, Opinion 208 I Kuechle, Gerrit and Peg Wildlife, Opinion 209 I Barker, Amon Opinion 210 I Momchilovich, Jan Wildlife 211 I Gardner, Warren (Wes) Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery 212 I Ewing, Frank and Patty Process 213 I Repinski, Chad Process, Opinion 214 I Schwender, Carol Opinion 215 I Carruth, Vance Process, Opinion 216 I Heyer, Travis Process 217 I Moneet, Perrine Process, Wildlife, Noise, Opinion 218 I Milburn, Alison Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 219 I Cassat, Ashley Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 220 I Auman, Mari Process, Opinion Bryan Bedrosian, Research 221 O Director Wildlife Teton Raptor Center 222 I Japel, Aaron Process, Opinion 223 I Krugh, Bradley Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 224 I Rigby, Graham Process, Opinion 225 I Mander, Brigid Process, Recreation, Opinion 226 I Burrough, Beth Process, Wildlife, Opinion 227 I Murray, James Opinion 228 I Anderson, Scott Opinion 229 I Milburn, Max Opinion 230 I Duggan, Samuel Opinion 231 I Stennis, John Opinion 232 I Quinn, Joe 233 I Hatch, Orion Opinion

157

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 234 I Strawser, David Process, Opinion Kristin Combs, Executive Director 235 O Process, Wildlife, Opinion Wyoming Wildlife Advocates 236 I Peltz, Elizabeth Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 237 I Cooley, Hannah Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 238 I LaRoe, James Process, Scenery, Opinion 239 I Paulsen, Caroline Opinion 240 I Weston, Julia Process, Wildlife 241 I Griffin, Marlaine Opinion 242 I Ledwell, Luke Process 243 I Dery, Julie Opinion 244 I Sollitt, Henry Process Tyler Sinclair Submitted attachment was not a comment on the 245 A Town of Jackson DEIS. Pete Muldoon, Mayor 246 A Process, Recreation, Safety Jackson Town Council 247 I Osborne, Kaitlyn Process, Opinion 248 I Osborne, Kaitlyn Process, Opinion 249 I Fuller, Zaidee Process, Safety, Opinion 250 I Vascik, Brittany Wildlife, Opinion 251 I Babcock, Ashley Out of Scope Comments 252 I Walker, Mark Opinion 253 I Beebe, Drayton Recreation, Opinion 254 I Collins, Teddy Process 255 I Epstein, Gregory Opinion 256 I O’Mara, Deirdre Process, Wildlife, Opinion 257 I Anon, Linda Process, Opinion 258 I Anon Opinion 259 I Lent, Lisa Opinion 260 I Unfried, Amy Process, Wildlife, Opinion 261 I Gelber, Sean Process 262 I Reeber, Lisa Climate Change, Recreation, Opinion 263 I Kuipers, Kim Opinion 264 I Jakovac, Andrew Process, Wildlife, Opinion

158

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 265 I Rothman, Shane 266 I Petri, Samuel Process, Recreation, Opinion 267 I Selinger, Elana Wildlife 268 I Daily, Carolyn Process, Wildlife, Safety, Opinion 269 I Kyle, Gina Wildlife, Opinion 270 I Hand, Jim Process, Opinion 271 I Rothman, Shane Process, Wildlife, Cultural, Out of Scope Comments 272 I Cochary, Kevin Process 273 I Copeland, William Opinion 274 I Barash, Jean Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 275 I Garwood, Linda Opinion 276 I Munford, Will Wildlife, Safety, Opinion 277 I Bell, Jeromey Process, Opinion 278 I Sloven, Jonah Process 279 I Bennett, Tom Wildlife, Opinion 280 I Faicco, Denise Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 281 I Huck, Kahlynn Opinion 282 I Huck, Evan Opinion 283 I Huck, Kahlynn Process 284 I Santelices, Christian Process, Recreation, Safety, Opinion 285 I Stiegler, Seppi Opinion 286 I McIntosh, Sara Recreation, Opinion 287 I Ziebell, Brittney Process, Opinion 288 I Leaman, Daniel Wildlife, Opinion 289 I Everts, Derek Process, Noise, Safety, Scenery 290 I Fleck, Annaliese Process 291 I Rankin, Emily Opinion 292 I Turley, Melissa Opinion Process, Wildlife, Cultural, Recreation, Out of Scope 293 I Turiano, Thomas Comments, Opinion 294 I Anon Opinion 295 I Kirschner, Nathan Duplicate letter to 196. 296 I Nugent, Lucas Process, Wildlife

159

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 297 I Icenogle, Sarah Opinion Brian Krill, Executive Director 298 O Jackson Hole Ski & Snowboard Process, Opinion Club 299 I Williams, Sam Process, Opinion 300 I Matthews-Pennanen, Daley Process, Wildlife 301 I Butts, Pat Opinion 302 I Leon, Nancy Opinion 303 I Tozzi, John Process, Opinion 304 I Owens, Shannon Process, Opinion 305 I Getsinger, Emma Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion 306 I Sullivan, Mark Recreation, Scenery, Opinion 307 I Rothman, Shane Process 308 I Merriam, Stefan Opinion 309 I McIntosh, John Process 310 I Brimmer, Elizabeth Opinion 311 I Wolfe, Lynne Process, Recreation, Opinion 312 I Ewert, Daniel Process, Opinion John R. Giese, Fern Comeau, Tony 313 O Brooks, Branko Zagar Process Snow King Masters Racing 314 I Moran, Jeff Opinion 315 I Long, Peter Opinion Ben Williamson, Northern Rockies 316 O Process, Opinion Conservation Cooperative Process, Vegetation, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery, 317 I Boynton, Beverly Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 318 I Fleck, Daniel Process, Safety, Opinion 319 I Creely, Lorena Safety 320 I Jaubert, James Opinion 322 I Hutton, Jake Recreation, Safety, Opinion 323 I Hancock, Bud Process, Opinion 324 I Collins, Gregory Mark Gordan, Governor 325 A Opinion State of Wyoming

160

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 326 I Coooper, Kari Opinion 327 I Blankenship, Cynthia Process, Wildlife, Safety, Opinion Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Safety, Out of Scope 328 I Watters, Molly Comments, Opinion 329 I Staryk, Ted Opinion 330 I Stern, Michael Process, Cultural, Opinion Leigh Taylor and Marilyn Woodbury Hess 331 O Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Opinion American Fidelity Life Insurance Company 332 I Maher, Jeanne Wildlife 333 I Free, Shad Opinion 334 I Sullivan, Stephen Process, Opinion 335 I Walker, Bruce Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 336 I Holcomb, Bryce Opinion 337 I Ottman, Jayne Process, Wildlife, Opinion Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife, 338 I Rothman, Shane Safety, Opinion 339 I Woody/Glidden, John and Roberta Process, Wildlife, Opinion 340 I Gieck, Mary Process, Opinion 341 I Murphy, Maureen Opinion 342 I Esquivel, Walt Process, Wildlife 343 I Woodmencey, Jim Process, Air Quality, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 344 I Davis, Tyler Opinion Skye Schell and Brooke Sausser Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Vegetation, 345 O Jackson Hole Conservation Wildlife, Cultural, Scenery, Out of Scope Comments Alliance Dick Shuptrine 346 A Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife, Opinion Squaw Creek Water District 347 I Barker, Leith Wildlife, Opinion 348 I Rothman, Shane 349 I Dillon, Reilly Safety 350 I Coleman, Jim Process, Opinion 351 I Darwiche, Sadek Opinion 352 I Neth, Nan Opinion

161

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised Katherine Dowson 353 O Process, Recreation, Opinion Friends of Pathways 354 I Fiddler, Daniel Opinion John Giese, Fern Coneau, Tony Brooks, Branko Zagar, Ernie 355 O Anderson, Chris Sacca Snow King Masters Racing Group 356 I Van Vrancken, Tara Process, Opinion Gary Kofinas 357 O Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion Teton Backcountry Alliance Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife, 358 I Patla, Debra Safety, Scenery, Opinion 359 I Webster, Dawn Process, Wildlife, Cultural, Opinion 360 I Shapiro, Danielle Process, Wildlife, Out of Scope Comments, Opinion Peggie DePasquale 361 O Process Wyoming Wilderness Association 362 I McConnaughey, Ryan Opinion 363 I Rothman, LaVonda Opinion Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Safety, Scenery, 364 I Cahn, Lorie Opinion 365 I Hammer, Michael Process, Out of Scope Comments 366 I Ripps, Carolyn Opinion Joe Rice 367 O Opinion Jackson Hole Working Berthe Ladd 368 O Opinion JH Conservation Alliance 369 I Miller, Terry Process, Wildlife, Opinion Mike Gierau 370 A Minority Caucas Chairman Opinion Wyoming Senate District 17 371 I Acri, Armond Process, Wildlife, Opinion Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife, 372 I Maldonado, Penelope Safety 373 I Anderson, M. Jean Process, Opinion 374 I Kaufman, Nikki Process 375 I Wicherski, Will Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion

162

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 376 I Pruzan, Aaron Opinion 377 I Nourai, Ryan Process, Opinion 378 I Drew, Kati Opinion 379 I Memmer, Vickie Process, Out of Scope Comments Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Vegetation, 380 I Clark, Frances Wildlife, Cultural, Noise, Recreation, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 381 I Gillette, Claudia Process, Cultural, Opinion 382 I Jaubert, Jessica Opinion 383 I Greenwood, Karyn Process 384 I Hermanowski, Ashley Process 385 I Gieck, Kailey Opinion 386 I Kimmel, Nadia Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery, Opinion 387 I Dykema, Stephanie Process, Wildlife, Opinion 388 I Rothman, Shane Process, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 389 I Shlachter, Leah Opinion 390 I Krank, Jacob Opinion Process, Air Quality, Water, Soils, and Watershed, 391 I Osnos, Noah Wildlife, Recreation, Safety, Scenery, Opinion 392 I Markovits, Thomas Opinion 393 I Gersh, Kate Process 394 I Holding, Julie Process, Wildlife Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Out of Scope 395 I Winters, Kate Comments, Opinion 396 I Birkett, Martha Opinion 397 I Dukart, Michael Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 398 I Arundale, Vicki Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery, Opinion 399 I Gilbert, Miriam Process 400 I Strand, Rose Process, Opinion 401 I Jorgensen, Peter Process 402 I Nemec, Stephanie Process, Opinion 403 I Strand, Chad Process, Opinion 404 I Chong, Geneva Process, Wildlife, Recreation 405 I Nobman, Derrick Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion

163

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised 406 I Cargill, AJ Process, Opinion 407 I Barnett, David Process, Recreation, Opinion 408 I Norman, Deidre Opinion 409 I Sanchez, Scott Process, Opinion Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Safety, Scenery, 410 I Unfried, Juliet Opinion 411 I Djahangiri, Tisa Process, Wildlife, Recreation, Scenery Connie Wilbert 412 O Process, Wildlife, Opinion Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter 413 I Unfried, Juliet Jon Mobeck 414 O Process, Wildlife, Opinion Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation 415 I Stanford, James Process, Safety, Opinion 416 I Garrard, Laura Process, Opinion 417 I Miller, Lorna Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Noise Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Safety, 418 I Rothman, Shane Opinion Process, Wildlife, Safety, Out of Scope Comments, 419 I Hutchings, Elizabeth Opinion 420 I Luciano, Kathy Process, Air Quality, Wildlife, Opinion 421 I Koinis, Nicholas Process, Opinion 422 I Musser, Ben Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 423 I Koinis, Alyssa Recreation, Opinion 424 I Anon Out of Scope Comments, Opinion 425 I Gibbs, Molly Process, Wildlife, Opinion 426 I Steen, Leslie Process 427 I Minor, Jeremy Process, Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion 428 O Representatives Mike Yin Opinion Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Scenery, Out 429 I Ballard, Whitney of Scope Comments, Opinion 430 I Miller, Lorna Process, Wildlife, Opinion Process, Water, Soils, and Watershed, Wildlife, L1 I Camenzind, Franz Noise, Recreation, Scenery, Opinion L2 O DePasquale, Peggie Process, Air Quality L3 O Ford, Jennifer Air Quality, Opinion

164

Appendix A: Response to Comments on the DEIS Snow King Mountain Resort On-Mountain Improvements Project

Response to Comments comment log. ID# A/O/I Name Topic(s) Raised L4 I Garrard, Laura Wildlife, Cultural, Opinion L5 I Genzer, Jim and Laurie Process, Opinion L6 I Hultz, M. Wildlife, Recreation, Opinion L7 I Jansen, Rick Wildlife, Scenery, Opinion L8 I Newcomb, Rod Process, Recreation, Safety L9 I Newcomb, Rod Chris Owen, Trails Program L10 O Manager Recreation Friends of Pathways Kimberley Goodman Trotter, US Program Director L11 O Process Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative L12 I Unfried, Juliet Process, Out of Scope Comments, Opinion Melanie Wasco, NEPA Branch L13 A Air Quality EPA Connie Wilbert, Director L14 O Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter

165