Snow King RTC Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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