,/ Jt!J-o/

STATE OF VERMONT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #5

Re: Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc. Application 5L1338 dba Stowe Mountain Resort Environmental Board Rule 21 (A) 5781 Mountain Road Master Plan Review Stowe Vermont 05672 Partial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of and Law and Order State of Vermont · 10 V.S.A. Chapter 151 Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation 103 South Main Street Waterbury Vermont 05641

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 16, 1999, Mt Mansfield Company, Inc., d/b/a/ Stowe Mountain Resort (S:MR) and the State of Vermont Department ofForests, Parks & Recreation (individually and collectively referred to herein as the "Applicant" as the context may require) filed application #5L1338 described as the review of a master plan for development to be bmlt-out over a ten to fifteen year period at the Stowe Mountain Resort located along Vermont Route 108 in the Town of Stowe, Vermont. The total involved project land will be· approximately 3,690 acres owned or leased by the Stowe Mountain Resort following a land exchange with the State of Vennont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. (See acreage analy~is in Applicant Exhibit 148). The Applicant's legal interest iii the land is either as lessee or owner in fee simple as descn"bed in deeds recorded in the Town of Stowe, Vermont.

With this application, the Applicant is requesting a decision under the Environmental Board's Master Permit Policy and Procedure for Partial Findings ofFact originally adopted by Board pursuant to 10 V.S.A. 6086(b) and Environmental Board Rule 21 on February 25, 1998, and amended on March 29, 2000. The Applicant is seeking partial findings of fact and conclusions oflawwithrespectto itsmasterplan under 10 V.S.A. §6086(b). TheApplicantdoesnotseek a land use permit for construction at this time.

II. JURISDICTION

J~diction applies to this proposal pursuant to th~ provisions of 10 V.S.A §6001(3), 6081(a) and 6086(b) as well as Environmental Board Rules 2(A)(2) and (3), 2(G) and 21. •, ~ ... :

Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page2 / I m. PROJECT OVERVIEW

On Schedule A of the application, SNIR. estimated the total construction cost of the master plan buildout would be approXllllately $150 million. [Applicant Exhibit 4]. Following an economic analysis of the.project undertaken by an independent consultant retained by the District Commissio~ who employed updated information provided by SMR, it was determined that revised estimated. construction costs will be closer. to $220 million. (District Environmental Commission Exhibit 1)*

The project is premised in part on a planned land exchange with the State Q{ Vermont. Based on: representations made to thls Commission by the Applicant in this proceeding and in a related proceeding (Application #5Ll347: construction of a replacement state campground) S:MR will convey 1138 acres to the state, including 46 +/- acres along Vermont Route 108 in Stowe, Vermont and, in return, the state will convey a total of 140 acres to S~ including the existing state campground presently located on Route 108 adjacent to the parking lot at the base of Spruce Peak. In short, under the plann~d exchange, S:MR will convey 998 net acres to the State of Vennont. [Applicant Exhibits 81 & 115]

Orfainal Master Plan Proposal t) The Applicant's m~erplan consists of five (5) 9ompon~nts. The original application included a mixed use development at the base of Spruce Peak (the "Spruce Hamlet"}, an 18-hole golf course, 36 residential lots adjacent to the golf course, a snowmaking pipeline to Waterbury Reservoir:, a new water storage resenroir (the "Tom Lot Pond") multiple on-mountain improvements, and a 30 lot residential subdivision and Inn expansion located near the start of the Toll Road off Vermont Route 108.

Modified Master Plan Proposal

Follo~ing the commencement ofDistrict Commission hearings in August 1999 on the master plan, the Applicant filed a Settlement Agreement dated June 13, 2000 {"Settlement Agreement"), by aIJ.d among the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Vermont Naturalllesources Co~cil (VN.RC), the Vermont Public Interest ResearctGroup (VPIRG), and the Regional Impact Pure Water Protective League (RIPPLE) (collectively, "Intervenors") and Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc., d.b.a. Stowe Mountain Resort (SMR). [Applicant Exhibit No. 150] The Settlement Agreement describes in detail a "Modified Project"

* The Applicant pai4 a fee oUIS,000 with its master plan application filing, according to the provisions of io V.S .. A. 6083a(5) [Applicant Exhl"bit 4 and See Applicant Exhibit 37] Given the clarified estimate of anticipated construction costs, the fee paid at the time of the master plan application filing is not the :full amount which would have been otherwise calculated. As the build-out of the master plan proceeds, it will be important for the· Applica· • and District Commission staff to devise ·a process and recordkeeping system ensuring that appropriate fees are p~ .I) consistent with statutory requirements and the analysis provided at pages 4-5 ofDEC Exhibit 1 Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page3

The ''Modifi~d Project" represents a 26% reduction in the number of proposed lodging units (dropping from 575 to 423 dwelling units*) from the original plan and cancellation of the 36 lot residential subdivision adjacent to the golf course and the 30 lot residential subdivision along the Toll Road. Other significant changes include reconfiguration of the golf course, addition of a golf course pond for use as a snowmaking reservoir, a potential new snowmaking water withdrawal location on the West Branch of the Little River at the confluence with Ranch Brook (an area called Stowe Forks), upgrade of the ~xisting West Branch intake, and an increase in the acreage to be·placed in conservation from 1,092 to 1,938.7 acres. Finally, SMRhas indefinitely postponed the.proposal to construct a.pipeline to the Waterbury Reservoir. [See Applicant Exhibits 115,145150 and 157].

-Project Phasing

In accordance with the Environmental Board's Master Permit Policy and Procedure for Partial Findings of Fact, the Applicant seeks partial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to the c'Modified Project''. In order for 'ili:e District Commission to issue land use permits authorizing construction approval for specific phases of the ''Modified Project", final positive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law must be made under all criteria for that particular phase at such time as amendment applications are reviewed.

The District Commission understands the Appliqant intends to apply for a land use pennit covering Phase I of the Modified Project that will at a minimum seek authorization t9 construct the following components and related improvements:

a Upgrade of the existing West Branch water withdrawal facility. b. Construction of the proposed Tom Lot Pond. c. Construction of the proposed Golf Course, including the Golf Course Pond. d. Construction of at least 100 units in the Spruce Ham.let. e. Excavation of the proposed gravel pit, construction ofa proposed access road, use of an old gravel pit as a processing area, and subsequent restoration. f. Construction of proposed trails, lifts and snowmaking facilities at Spruce Peak, including a transfer lift between the Mansfield and Spruce base areas and crossing over Vermont Route 108.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED PROJECT'S COMPONENTS

The "Modified Project" consists of .five project components as follows: (I) the Spruce Hamlet, (2) the Spruce Golf Course, (3) Storage Reservoirs, (4}Mountain Improvements, and (S) Toll House Area Improvements. The Applicant seeks Master Plan review for each of these components, and each of the components will be described here.

* For a discussion of the use of the· terms "llilits" and "dwelling units", see the Applicant's footnote contained in the body of general finding #1 below in the body of this decision. Findings ofFact 5Ll338 Page4

Spmce Hamlet

The Spruce Hamlet will consist of retail establishments and up to 400 dwelling units in a mix of hotel and condominium structures at the base of Spruce Peak and on the former State campground site. The 400 dwelling units will be divided between two areas identified and depicted in the Settlement Agreement documents as Area H and Area S. Area H is the largest of the two proposed development areas at the b~ ofSpruce Peak, and includes the existing Spruce Lodge and parking lot Area S is situated on the east side of the lower ski trails of Spruce Peak, and shares a common boundary with the northeast comer of Area H. Of the 400 dwelling units ·proposed for these two development areas, no more than 50 units will be located in Area S. The units will be situated so that guests will have direct access to the ski area without using their vehicles.

A new Spruce Base Lodge is planned to include 38,000 square feet of day skier services. Retail uses (not to exceed 1,500 square feet) will be allowed in and ancillary to the proposed Mt. Mansfield Club building. Overall, there will. be a total of approximately 70,000 square feet of retail space throughout the Spruce Hamlet area (See general finding #1 below).

The Spruce Hamlet also encompasses related improvements such as a village green and pedestrian plaza, tennis co·urt, landscaping features, parking lots, underground parking facilitie ·. ·· , .• and roadways. [See Applicant Exhibit 28]

The Applicant is seeking posittvefindings offact and conclusions oflawfar the Sprnce Hamlet with respect to the following Act 250 criteria: 1(.A iT Pollution), 1(C) (Water Conservation), l(D) (Floodways), l{E) (Streams), l(F) (Shorelines), l(G) (Wetlands), 4 (Soil Erosion), 5 (Transportation), 8 (Natural Areas only), 8(A) (Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species), 9(B) (Primary Agricultural Soils), 9(C) (Forest and Secon~ Agricultural Soils), 9 (D) (Earth Resources), 9(E) (Extraction of Earth Resources), 9(F) (Energy Conservation), 9(G) (Private . Utility Services), 9(J) (Public Utility Services), 9(K) (Development Affecting Public Investments), 9(L) (Rural Growth .Areas), and 10 (Local and Regional Plans). [See Applicant Exhibit 175, Revised Matrix (October 18, 2000)for Requested Findings of Fact Under 8-!>~.~-~~~-~:~~~ria (3 Pa~~) (tl!-~ O~to~er 2~,.2~~-~l ~d App~~~t ~xhibit 192] Spruce Golf Course

An 18-hole Golf Course is proposed on approximately 112 acres of land located east of Spruce Hamlet and north of Vermont Route 108. The limits of development are described and depicted as Area G in the Settlement Agreement. Near the middle of the golf course> a 24-acre reservoir for sno,vmaking and golf course inigation is proposed. [See Applicant Exhibits 150 and 157].

The application identifies a gravel extraction area, access road, and processing area as activitie· ) related principally with golf course construction. The limits of proposed gravel extraction and ) Findings of Fact 5L1338 Pages

processing are described and sho'YJl in Area C in the Settlement Agreement, and are further described in additional Applicant exhibits. [See Applicant Exhibits 150,153,162, 163, 164 and 165; See, also, ANR Exhibit 23].

Th.e Applicant is seeking positive findings offact and conclusions oflaw for the Golf Course with respect to the following Act 250 criteria: l(Air Pollution), l(C) (Water Conservation), l(D) (Floodways), l(E) (Streams), l(F) (Shorelin~), l(G}(Wetlands), 2&3 (Water Supply), 5 (Transportation), 8 (Natlll"al Areas only), 8(A) (Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species), 9(B) (Primary Agricultural Soils), 9(C) (Forest and Secondary Agricultural Soils), 9(D) (Earth Resources), 9(E) (Extraction of Earth Resources), 9(F) (Energy Conservation), 9(G) (Private Utility Services), 9(J) (Public Utility Services), 9(K) (Development Affecting Public Investments), 9(L) (Rural Growth Areas), and 10 (Local and Regional Plans). [See Applicant Exhibit 175;Revised Matrix (October 18, 2000) for Requested Findings ofFactUnder Specified Criteria (3 Pages) (filed October 20, 2000); and Exhibit 192]

Storage Reservoirs/Snowmaking Water Withdrawals

The Applicant proposes an expansion and conservation flow implementation schedule that is tied to the issuance of state and federal permits authorizing improvements to the existing snowmaking water withdrawal and storage infrastructure. The :first phase will involve construction of two storage reservoirs (Tom Lot !1Ild Golf Course), with a total planned storage volume of 175 million gallons, and modification of the existing intake to increase the withdrawal rate to 10,000 gpm. Within two years of the receipt ofpermits for construction of these improvements, the conservation flow at the existing West Branch withdrawal will be increased to 0.50 csm. Within five years of the completion ofpermitting, the conservation flow will be increased to February Median Flow. The settlement agreement established a target date of December 31, 2001 for completion of permitting.

Regarding the volumetric cap, S:MR proposes that it be maintained while the conservation flow is below 0.50 csm., but that water withdrawn when flows are at or above 0.80 csm will not be included against the 178.2 million gallon total. Further, SMR proposes that the cap be discontinued when the conservation flow of 0.50 is achieved. ·

SMRproposes to withdraw water from the West Branch during the non-snowmaking season (April through September), both to replenish storage deficit and to provide wat~r for golf course irrigation. !tis proposed that the February median flow of 0.80 csm will be maintained during April and May md the August median flow of 0.50 csm would be maintained from June through September..- During April and May, SlvIR. commits to makirig an effort to approximate natural ~treamflow to the "extent feasible", consistent with the need to replenish storage.

Another element of. the snowmaking system is collection of stormwater in the existing snowmaking reservoir. This water would be used for both snowmak.ing and golf course Findings of Pact 5L1338 Page6 ) irrigation. The contributj.on of this source toward meeting total water demand has not been quantified by SMR nor have potential Vermont Water Quality Standards issues been addressed.

To address future snowmaking water demand <1:t build out, SJv.CR. indicates that it has under consideration implementation of 3: new withdrawal on 'either the West Branch at "Stowe Forks" (below the confluence of Ranch Brook), or at Waterbury Reservoir. S1Y.IR acknowledges that it must file an updated alternatives analysis 1rn.$ the Agency of Natural Resources prior to · implementing either of these withdrawals. [See Exhibit ANR-19, See also Applicant Exhibits 58, 150, 154, 143, 170, and ANR Exhibit 22]

Witli regard to the storage ponds, the proposed Toni Lot Pond would be located on l~ds ovmed by Siv.lR adjacent to Route 108 and would provide an approximate storage volume of 73 million gallons. The Golf Course Pond would be located on latids owned byS:MR in the area identified as Area G, and would provide an approx.ii:nate storage volume of 100 million gallons. [Applicant Exhibit 150]

There is no proposal to draw water directly from the Waterbury Reseryoir. The availability of water from the Waterbury Reservoir is uncertain at this time due to planned reconstruction of the impoundment. [Testimony of Nelson atEvidentiary Hearing on 12/6/99] ,l The Applicant ~ seeking posi'tive findings offact.and conclusions oflaw for the Storage Reservoirs and snowmaking water withdrawals with respect to the following Act 25 0 criteria: l(Air Pollution), l(C) (Water Conservation); i(F) (Shorelines), l(G) (Wetlands), 2&3 (Water Supply), 5 (Transportation): 8 (Natural Areas only), 8(A) (Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species), 9(B) (Primary Agricultural Soils), 9(C) (Forest ·and Secondary Agricultural Soils), 9(D) (Earth Resources), 9(E) (Extraction of Earth Resources), 9(F) (Energy Conservation), 9(G) (Private Utility Services), 9(J) (Public Utility Services), 9(K) (Development Affecting Public Investments), 9tL) (Rural Growth Areas), and 10 (Local and Regional Plans). [See Applicant Exhibit 175, Re~sed Matrix (October 18, 2000) for Requested Findings of Fact Under Specified Criteria (3 Pages) (filed October 20, 2000); Amended by Exhibit 192, Letter from Applicant's Counsel dated January 16, 2001]

Mountain Imorovements

This project consists of multiple on-mountain improvements including 10 neyv and/or replacement lifts (including a previously approved transfer lift between the·Mans:field and Spruce base areas), approximately 135 acres ofnew and expanded trails and 100% coverage 'of snowmaking infrastructure for Mt Mansfield and Spruce Peak. This component of the master plan includes a 200 seat expansion of the Cliff House and a 100 seat expansion of the Octagon, both of which are existing structures situated above 2,500 feet in elevation on Mt. Mansfield and house food service and related facilities. Findings of Pact 5Ll338 Page7

In an area designated in the Settlement Agreement as Area M, the existing Mt Mansfield Base Lodge will be expanded by approximately 12,000 square feet to almost double its. existing capacity. The original Lodge structure was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) will be used by both S~ and the Vermont Chapter of CCC alumni as a working museum. A covered escalator will be installed between the Mansfield base parking area and the start of the Forerunner Quad Lift. At the top of the escalator, there will be an additional day skier service area. This new area combined with the expanded Mt Mansfield Base Lodge will create approximately 35,000 square feet of day skier services in Area M. A new maintenance building and compressor pads will be constructed north of the new parking lots across Route 108 from Barnes Camp. [See Applicant Exhibit 150] ·

Finally, to accommodate overflow parking during peak periods of skier visits, the Applicant proposes satellite parking for 761 vehicles (681 new) to be located in fields on both sides of Vermont Route 108 in designated parking areas at Harlow Hill and at the existing Cross Country Center. [Applicant Exhibits 63, 103 and 111].

The Applicant is seeking positive .findings offact and conclusions oflaw for the Ma1JSfield Base Lodge and On-Mountain Improvements with respect to the following Act 250 criteria: l(Air Pollution), l(C) (Water Conservation), l(D) (Floodways), l(F) (Shorelines), 5 (Transportation), 8 (Natural Areas only), 8(A) (Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species), 9(B) (Primary Agricultural Soils), 9(C) (Forest and Secondary Agricultural Soils), 9(D) (Earth Resources), 9(E) (Extraction of Earth Resources), 9(F) (Energy Conservation), 9(G) (Private Utility Services), 9(1) (Public Utility Services), 9(K) (Development Affecting Public Investments),'9(L) (Rural Growth Areas), and 10 (Local and Regional Plans). {See Applicant Exhibit 175, Revised Matrix (October 18, 2000) for Requested Findings of Fact Under Specified Criteria (3 Pages) (filed October 20, 2000))

Toll House~ Improvements

This project involves the addition of 115 hotel units (the equivalent of23 dwelling units under Town zoning) to be constructed at the Inn at the Mountain which is located at the Toll House complex off Vermont Route 108.

The Applicant is seeking positive findings offact and conclusions oflaw for the Inn at the Mountain Expansion and related improvements with respect to the following Act 250 criteria: l(Air Pollution), l(C) (Water Conservation), l(D) (Floodways), l(F) (Shorelines), l(G) {Wetlands), 5 (Transportation), 8 (Natural Areas only), 8(A) (Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species), 9(B) (Primary Agricultural Soils), 9(C) (Forest and Secondary Agricultural Soils), 9(0) (Earth Resources), 9(E) (Extraction of Earth Resources), 9(F) (Energy Conservation), 9(0) (Private Utility Services}, 9(J) (Public Utility Services), 9(K) (Development Affecting Public Investments), 9(L) (Rural Growth Areas), and 10 (Local and Regional Plans). [See Applicant Exhibit 175, Revised Matrix (October 18, 2000) for Requested Findings of Fact Under Specified Criteria (3 Pages) (filed October 20, 2000)] Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 8

V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The- following chronology represents key aspects of the procedural history of this case.

Application materials (Exhibits 1.. 36) are filed at District 5 Environmental Commission office.

Following·the receipt of supplemental materi~ (Exhibits 37-68) in response to review letters issued by the District Commission ~ the application is determined administratively complete under Environmental Board Rule lO{D). Notice of the application is circulated on July 20, 1999.

Aumist 26, 1222 The three member District Commission conducts a pre-hearing conference pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 16. A status memorandum is issued on September 1, 1999 setting deadlines for subm.ittals prior to issuance of a pre-hearing conference report. Extensions of time are subsequently granted by the District Commission in response to requests by parties with the Applicant's concurrence. Revised plans and other ) substantive materials are filed during this period (Exhibits 69 - 84). I

October 14. 1999 The District Commission conducts a site visit to the project areas in the company of the Applicant and parties.

November 2. 1999 Applicant files request (Exhibit 85) to expand the scope of master plan review to include water withdrawal/stream flow issues under criterion l(E).

November 3. 1999 The District Commission issues a pre-hearing conference report in which rulings are made on party status and other issues. .An initial evidentiary hearing is scheduled for December 6, 1999.

December~ 1999 The District Commission convenes a hearinfori--compliarice· issues u:qder condition 6 in Land Use Permit 5L1125-10(A) (Revised) regarding conformance by the Applicant with deadlines to increase minimum stream flow consistent with earlier permitted .expansions of the snowmaking system. The Commission also receives evidence under criterion 9(J) relative to the master plan application.

December JL 1999 The District Co~ission circulates notice that the master plan review will include water withdrawal/stream flow issues under criterion 1 (E). ,,) Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page9

December ~ 1999 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive evidence under criterion 10 (local and regional plans) as well as under criteria 9(B), 9(C) and9(D).

Januazy .2.,, 2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive evidence under criteria 1 (Air Pollution) and 5.

Januazy 20. 2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive additional evidence under criterion 9(]) as well as criteria 1 (Air Pollution), 5, 9(C), 9(K) (highways) and 10 (local and regional plans). This hearing had been scheduled for the review of criteria 6, 7, 9(A), 9(H) and 9(L) but the presentation of evidence under these criteria matter is postponed at the Applicant's request (See January 13, 2000 District Commission Memorandum of Decision).

February~ 2000 The District Commiss~on convenes a hearing to receive evidence under

criteria l(B) (sewage disposal, golf course pesticides/herbicides1 stormwaterrunoff), l(E), l(F), l(G) and 4. In a Recess Order dated February 25, 2000*, the Commission schedules additional hearings for · March 8 and 23rd and April 6, 2000. .

March~2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive testimony on stonnwater and other water quality issues ( excluding snowmaking and stream flow issues) under criteria l(A), l{B), l(E), 1(F) and 4. The March 23rd hearing is postponed at the request of the Ag~ncy of Natural Resources with the concurrence of the applicant. The Commission indicates that it will go fonvard with the April 6th hearing.

March 22. 2000 The District Commission conducts a supplemental site visit at the Cliff House area of Mt. Mansfield in the company ofthe Applicant and interested parties.

April/June, 2000 The District Commission suspends hearings at the request of the Agency of Natural Resources and several other parties with the concurrence of the Applicant so that negotiations could proceed with respect to the scope of the master plan. .

Toe District Commission conducts a status conference about the progress of the application following receipt of a copy of the June 13th Settlement Agreement In a Report and Order dated July 14, 2000 the Commission

* Recess Orders were issued after all hearings detailing outstanding issues identified at the hearing and scheduling subsequent hearings. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 10

stated conclusions on pending issues, reiterated the standards for . evidentiary burdens under the criteria and scheduled three hearings for August 10 and 23 and September 7th in order to complete review of the application. On August 1st the Applicant requested that the September 7th hearing, scheduled for the presentation of evidence under criteria 6, 7, · 9(A), 9(H) and 9(L), be rescheduled.

Ausru.st 10, 2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive evidence under criterion l(E) with respect to water withdrawal/minimum stream flow and under criteria 9(C) and 9(E).

Awrost 23. 2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive evidence under criteria l(E), 8(A), 9(E) and '9(K).

S~tember 21. 2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive evidence under criteria 8, 9(E) an~ 9(K). In a Recess Order dated October 4, 2000, a hearing is scheduled for October 24th to receive evidence under criteria 6, 7, 9(A), 9(H) and 9(L) contingent upon pre-filing deadlines being met. An additional hearing is scheduled for November 14th either ~o hear evidencp on the economic criteria or other remaining criteria A Recess Order d, , , October 25th then details ~everal items relative to the postponement of the October 24th hearing in response to the Applicant's motion that the economic criteria be withdrawn from the master plan review.

November 14. 2000 The District Commission convenes a hearing to receive into the record a report addressing economic criteria prepared by an analyst retained by the Commission pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 20. The Commission also took testimony on other matters. A Recess Order and Memorandum of Decision dated November 30th contained a ruling on the Applicant's motion to withdraw the economic criteria and established a course of action toward closure of the record. Deadlines were set for the filing of proposed findings of fact.

December 2000 = Memoranda of Decision dated December 22 and 29 and a final Recess January 2001 Order dated January 5, 2001 are issued summarizing steps to complete the record on water quality issues without necessity of a reconven~d hearing.

January~ 2001 The applicant files its final revised proposed :findings of fact and a letter summarizing a stipulation with parties CLF et al on water quality issues and stating final positions on other remaining issues.

The Commission held deliberative meetings on January 16, February 6, March 12, 14 and 20, April 20, and May 3 and 25, 2001. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 11

VI DISTRICT COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RULE 20(C): THE KA VET COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The District Commission provided notice in its July 14, 2000 Status Conference Report that it would request the Environmental Board to provide financial resources to enable the Commission to retain the services of a suitable profession~ for the analysis ofthe applicant's submittals under criteria 6, 7, 9(A), 9(H) and 9(L) [Applicant Exhibits 14 and 119]. The Commission relied upon the provisions of Environmental Board Rule 20(C) noting that it would not have benefit. of actively participating parties under these criteria in the evaluation of potential impacts under the criteria. In its September I, 2000 Recess Order, the Commission advised that the Environmental Board bad secured the services of consulting economist Thomas E. Kavet to assist the Commission. The Commission indicated that the economist would perform an analysis of the Applicant's two submittals by means of a cooperative exchange of data and other information about the project with the Applicant's economic consultant. The Commission further indicated its intent to provide the Applicant and parties with copies of Mr. Kavet's analysis by no later than September 29th.

By motion dated October 18, 2000 [Applicant Exhibit 174] the Applicant sought to withdraw criteria 6, .7, 9(A) and 9(H) from the master plan review. In a Recess Order, dated October 25th, the District Commission provided the parties an ppportunity to file responses to the motion by November 1st. The Agency of Natural Resources was the sole party to file a response to the Applicant's motion. ·

The District Commission ruled on the Applicant's motion at the November 14th. hearing. The Commission then provided a detailed rulin.g on the motion in a Memorandum ofDecisiot1. dated . November 30th. In sum, the Commission granted the motion in part observing that Board Rule 21 and the Board's "Master Permit Policy'' extend significant latitude to an applicant in determining the scope of a master plan brought before the District Commission for review. The Commission denied the motion in part observing that approximately $6,000 ofpublic funds had been expended for the preparation of an analysis for the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission admitted the Kavet commentary and analysis into the record as District Environmental Commission Exhl"bit #1 and reserved the right to state limited :findings based on the report. Mr. Kavet was present at the November 14th hearing for the admission of~s report and was available for examination by the Applicant and parties. The Applicant formally withdrew its exhibits 14 and 119 at the hearing.

VTI. PARTY STATUS

The District Commission, with the three-member panel in attendance, convened a pre-hearing conference on this application on August 26, 1999 pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 16. In making the party status determinations, the District Commission relied upon the petitions filed prior to the pre-hearing conference, oral presentations at the pre-hearing conference and :filings made subsequent to the pre-hearing conference. Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 12 ))

As stated in the Pre-Hearing Conference Report and Order dated November 3, 1999, under the provisions of 10 VSA § 6085( c)(2) and Environmental Board Rule 14(F)(l ), all party status determinations were granted provisionally and would be re-examined at the close of the­ evidentiacy proceedings consistent with Environmental Board Rule l 4(F)(3).

Statutory Parties

The -statutory parties to this applicatio.q. are:

1. . The Applicant, Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc., by Hank Lunde and Rob Apple and Dale Rocheleau, Esq., as well as other witnesses. 2. Town of Stowe Selectboard by Richard Marron. The Stowe Electric Department was represented by B~d Machia. 3. The Town of Stowe Planning Commission by Pat Sullivan. 4. The Lamoille County Planning Commission by Bill Rossmassler. 5. The Agency of Natural Resources by Jon Groveman, Esq. and Andy Raubvogel, Esq. 6. The Agency of Commerce and Community Development by John Kessler, Esq.

Provisional· Parties 1) Under the November 3, 1999 Order, provisional party status was granted to the following parties:

7. Myron R. Sopher is an adjoining property o\VD.er to the propo_sed satellite parking area was granted party status under Criteria 4, 5 and 8 pursuant to Enviro!ll!lental Board Rule 14(A)(5). · 8. Philip M. and J. Crea Lintilhac are adjoining property owners to the proposed satellite parking area and were granted party status under Criteria 4, 5 anq 8 pursuant to· · Environmental Board Rule I4(A)(5). . . 9. The McSweeney and McMahon families (E. Douglas_ McSweeµey:l John Mcsweeney, Debby McMahon, Beth McMahon, and Sally McMahon) are ~djoining property owners and were granted pa..Tty status under Criteria l (water pollution), 1(A), l(D), 1(E), 1{F), 4, 5, 8 and 10 pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(A)(5)~ The paI"ti.es -we.re representeifby AifHogan. . ·-· .. ···--·· .--· . . -··· -· ...... 10. Fred and Maureen Lavilette reside on lot 7 of the Notchbrook subdivision which is adjacent to a portion of the project tract and were granted party status under Criterion 9(E) pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(B)(l). 11. Trapp Family Lodge, Inc. by Averill Laundon, Esq. The Trapp Family Lodge is an adjoining property owner on the proposed Waterbury Reservoir pipeline route and was granted party .status under Criteria l(E), 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(A)(5). 12. The University of Vermont is an adjoining land owner on the summit of Mt. Mans:fielc:1 \ ,I/ and was granted party status under Criteria 5., 8, 8(A) atld 9(K) pursuant to Environmerr.... Board Rule 14(A)(5). It was represented by John Collins, Esq. 13. Green Mountain Power, Inc. owns water rights at the Waterbury Reservoir which the Findings of Fact SL 1338 Page 13

Applicant proposed to eventually utilize as a source ofwater for snowmaking purposes. It was granted party status under criteria 1 (Water Pollution), l(C), l(D), l(F), l(G), and 4 pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(B)(l) and was represented by Harriet King, Esq. 14. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Regional Impact Pure Water Protective League, Inc. (RIPPLE), Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIR.G) and Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) were repi:esented by Chris Kilian, Esq. This group of organizations filed for party status as an association under the name ''Defenders of Mt. Mansfield." The District Commission concluded that the entity 'Toe Defenders of Mt. Mansfield" did not qualify as a party under either Rule 14(B)(l) or (2) because it is not an established organization with members and articulated purposes or expertise. However, the District Commission concluded that each of the four constituent groups qualified for admission as a party under Criteria 1 (Water Pollution), l(A), l(B), l(E), l(F), 2, 5, 8, 8(A), 9(A), 9(H), 9(J), 9(K) and 9(L) pursuant to Environmental Board Rules 14(B)(l) and (2). · 15. Stowe Area Association (SAA) was granted party status under Criteria 6, 7, 9(A), and 9(H) pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(B)(l). It was initially represented by David Wolfgang and then by Valerie T. Rochon. 16. Green Mountain Club was granted party status under Criteria 8 and 9(K) pursuant to

Environmental Board Rule l4(B)(1 ). It was represented by Ben Rose. I ,,; 17. Mt. Mansfield Ski Club was granted party status under Criteria 6, 8, 9(H) and 9(K.) pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(B)(2). It was represented by Thomas M. Oddy. 18. State Senator Susan Bartlett and Representative Richard Marron requested party status under all ten criteria pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(B)(2). While the District Commission aclmowledged the potential role the petitioners might play under Environmental Board Rule 16 with respect to non-adversarial resolution of issues and that Ms. Bartlett and Mr. Marron would be available as District Commission witnesses pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 20, the District Commission denied party status under all ten criteria pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 14(B)(2).

Provisional party status was also granted by Hearing Recess Order, dated February 25, 2000, to the following additional party:· ·

19. Notchbrook Condominium Owners Association was granted party status as an Rule 14(B){l) party under criteria l(B) and 3. The Association filed a letter dated February 3, 2000 outlining potential impacts on its water system which is served by a surface · withdrawal from the West Branch of the Little River. Provisional party status was granted by Hearing Recess Order, dated February 25, 2000. The Association was · represented by Dan Wesson and Joel Bebrsing. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 14 ))

Final Partv Status Determinations

The provisions of 10 V .S.A. 6085( c)(2) and Environmental Board Rule l 4(F)( 1) specify that a District Commission shall re-examine determinations of provisional party status at the close of proceedings in order to ensure that persons remain qualified. as parties. In determining whether a person remains qualified~ a party, the District Commission relies upon the tests of Rules 14(A)(5) and R.ule 14(B)(l) iJ;l that the record. should reflect that the person's interest will be affected. Under Rule 14(B)(2), the District Commission has an obligation to verify that the person did indeed materially assist in the proceedings. Finally, the District Commission believes that actual participation by a person in the proceedings - by presen~tion of direct evidence and/or .by cross· examination of-other-witnesses - is a fundamentai requirement for confumation of final party status. The Applicant stated no positions in its proposed findings and conclusions on grants of final party status for any persons. Having evaluated the recQrd in this matter, the District Commission grants final party status as stated provisionally above except as follows:

1. Myron R. Sopher is denied party status under all criteria. Mr. Sopher did not provide direct evidence or cross examine any witnesses. ~ ..

2. Philip M. and J. Crea Lintilhac are denied party status under all criteria. The Lintilhacr di9- not provide direct evidence or cross examine any witness~s. :.J

3. The Mcsweeney and McMahon families ·are denied party status under all criteria During the proceedings the District Commission became aware that the families bad conveyed title to their lands to another entity. Party status under Rule 14{A}(5) presumes that one is, indeed, an adjoining property owner. The representative _of the families was advised of the Commission's concerns as to the families' party status at the later hearings. The representative filed no supplemental position or an entry of appearance for the new title holder.

4. Trapp Family Lodge, Inc. is denied party status under all criteria. The pipeline was \vithdrawn from the master plan review and thus the case presented no potential impacts on the putative !)arty. Addition~}j_ the)~~9~~r.4Jd.. D:Qtggrn9.jP.~~9 at the hearings in I ariy manner. The company may apply for party status without prejudice in any subsequent amendment application filing. I I 5. Green Mountain Power Inc. is denied party status under all criteria. The pipeline was withdrawn from the master plan review and thus the case presented no potential impacts on the interests of the company. Additionally, the company did not participate a~ the hearing~ in any manner. Should the pipeline proposal be part of a subsequent amendment application filing, the company may apply for party status without prejudice. :) 6. CLF, RIPPLE, VPIRG and VNRCare denied party status under criteria 9(A) and 9(H) ; because these criteria were withdrawn from the master plan review by the Applicant. The groups are also denied status under criterion 9(L) for lack of presentation of direct Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 15

evidence or cross examination. The groups may apply for party status without prejudice under criteria 9(A) and 9(H) in subsequent proceedings.

7. SAA is denied party status under all criteria because they were withdrawn from the master plan review by the Applicant. It may apply for party status without prejudice under ~ese criteria in subsequent proceedings.

8. Mt. Mansfield Ski Club is denied party status under all criteria because they were withdrawn from the master plan review by the Applicant and because the Club failed to participate under criteria 8 and 9(K). It may apply for party status without prejudice under criteria 6 and 9(H) in subsequent proceedings.

VIlI. STATUS OF APPLICANT'S 1993 MASTER PLAN

At the pre-hearing conference on August 26, 1999, the District Commission requested the Applicant's position on the .status of several decisions issued by the District Commission with respect to the Company's 1993 master plan proposal. These decisions are: Findings of Fact 5L1125-10 (partial findings for a base lodge and related developments); Findings ofFact · SLl 125-11 (which resulted in a Land Use Permit for gravel extraction); and Findings of Fact 5Ll 125-13 (partial findings for a "pod" of ski trails and a lift on Mt. Mansfield). The Commission asked how thel 993 master plan proposals would interact with the proposed 1999 master plan and whether elements ofthel993 plan had been integrated with the 1999 plan. The Applicant filed a position letter dated September 17, 1999 [Applicant Exhibit 75], and a · supplemental position statement dated November 18, 1999 [Applicant Exhibit 86]. No other party filed a position.

During the course of these proceedings, the. Applicant withdrew applications SL 1125-10 and 5Ll 125-13. The applicant aclmowledged that Land Use Permit 511125-11 had expired due to non-use, as provided under Environmental Board Rule 38(B) [Applicant Exhibits 75 and 86]. The District Com.mission will issue an independent '.tviemorandum of Decision formally disposing of applications SL 1125-10, 511125-12 and 511125-13 and Land Use Permit 5Ll 125- 11.

IX. COI\'IPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 6 OF LAND USE PERMIT 5Lll25- l0(A)(REV1SED)

At the pre-hearing conference the Applicant agreed that the hearing required to be held by December 31, 1999 in Condition 1 ("Condition 6") of Land Use Permit SLl 125-lOA (Revised), dated October 18, 1994, should be conducted within the context of the docketed proceeding for application 5L1338. [November 3, 1999 Prehearing Conference Report and Order, at page 7]As a result, the District Com.mission convened a hearing to receive t~stimony consistent wifu­

the terms of the permit condition. This evidentiary hearing was held on December 61 1999 and Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 16 )) was continued on August 10, August 23, September 21, and November 14, 2000. The Commission will issue an independent Memorandum of Decision regarding S1v.[R1 s compliance with Condition 6.

X. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Proposed findings of fact were filed by the Applicant (Exhibits 189 and 193). Parties ANR and CLF et al participated in the preparation of the Applicant's :findings. (Exhibit 191). No other parties filed proposed findings or final positions.

To the extent that proposed .findings of fact are included within, they are granted; otherwise, they are denied. See Secretary. Agencv of Natural Resources L Upoer V allev Reeional Landfill Corp .. Docket No. 96-369, slip op. at 13 (Vt. Nov. 7, 1997); Petition of Village of Hardwick Electric Department, 143 Vt. 437,445 (1983).

XI. FINDINGS OF FACT

In making the following findings, the. Commission has summarized the statutory language- of the 10 criteria of 10 V.S.A. Section 6086(a). The District Commission relied upon..testimon~--- 1 recetved at the above-referenced hearings and the documents cited on the Exhibit List attacheu ) this decision.

Burdens of Proof, Production and Persuasion

The Applicants and parties were reminded in the Pre-Hearing and Status Conference Reports of the evidentiary burdens of proof for each of the criteria as set out in 10 V.S.A 6088. Additionally, the District Commission noted the Environmental Board has stated that it is the responsibility of the Board and the District Commissions to make positive findings with respect to the ten Act 250 criteria, irrespective of the placement of the burdens of proof. Applicants have the burden of producing sufficient evidence in order to allow the District Commissions to make affirmative findings under all ten criteria. If an applicant puts forward sufficient evidence to permit the trier of fact to find in.-the applicant's favor, then the issue remains whether the applicant or a party has the burden of persuasion. Th~ burden of persuasion is upon the applicant for critcma I through 4, 9 and I 0. The burden of persuasion is upon the party in opposition under criteria 5 through 8. [See Herndon and Deborah Foster 5R0891-8B-EB (June 2, 1997)].

GENERAL.FINDINGS

I. The project under review is the "Modified Project" described as follows in the Applicant's final revised proposed Findings of Fact (Applicant Exhibit 193).

.Jj ~ Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 17

~ Number Number Stowe Proiecr Component Feet ofUnits* ofBedrooms "Dwelling Unit"

1. Spruce Hamlet Spruce Hotel 171,130 80 80 16 Spruce Hotel Condominium 138,870 79 277 79 Retail Buildings 19~800 0 0 .o Health Club 10,150 0 0 0 Mt Mansfield Club 193,124 61 230 61 Hamlet Building A 190,000 86 301 86 Hamlet Building B 66~900 33 116 33 West Condominiums 84,631 45 158 45 East Condominiums 46,560 24 84 24 Big Spruce 56,000 24 96 24 Easy Street 56,000 24 96 24 f""... Spruce Base Lodge-Residence 26,240 8 40 8 Spruce Base Lodge-Retail 50:160 0 0 0 l• Golf Course Clubhouse 8,000 0 0 0 2. Spruce Golf Course Golf Course 0 0 0 0 3. Storage Reservoir 0 0 0 0 4. Mountain Improvements Mansfield Base Lodge Expansion 12,000 0 0 0 Mountain .Improvements-Trailwork 0 0 0 0 Mountain Improvements-Lifts 0 0 0 0 Mountain Improvements-Snowmaking 0 0 0 0 Mountain Improvements-Octagon 6,000 0 0 0 Mountain Improvements-Cliff House 6,000 0 0 0 s. Toll House Area Improvements Inn At the Mountain Expansion 66,413 115 115 23 6. Other Non Buildmg Skating Rink, Garden Area, Pedestrian II Plaza, Roads, Parking Lot, ~ i Underground Utilities, etc. 0 0 0 0

Totals 1,207,978 579 1,593 423 Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 18 ))

* The Applicant's traffic analysis assumed that one 'imit'' is one hotel key or one condominium unit with a kitchen. [Applicant E:thibit 186]. In contrast, according to the Town of Stowe's analysis of the development densities permitted in the ski PUD (Planned Use Development) as established in the Town of Stowe Zoning Regulations, the current ski PUD dwelling units authorized by the Town of Stowe is 574 units while the proposed SMR Settlement

Agreement proposal is for 423 tmit.s. This unit count is in addition to the houses7 toWllhouses, condominiums md hotel rooms that have already been built and ba'le already been subtracted from the POD densities authorized under the town zoning ordinance. For example, the existing 34 rooms at the Inn at the Mountain would equal 6.8 dwellin~ units and have been previously subtracted from the PUD densities. The Town of Stowe authorized development density is a reflection of the total acreage owned by the Mt Mansfield Company and the provisions estaolished in the municipal zoning ordinance. In the RR-5 District, in which the Mt. Mansfield Company's property is located, one dwelling unit will debit five acres and one hotel will debit one acre. [Applicant Exhibit 172}. In order words. one hotel unit is essentially.equivalent to one-fifth of a "dwelling unit!\ [T:estimony of Apple at hearing on September 21, 2000) (This footnote is included in the Applicant's final revised proposed findings of fact. The District Commission observes that its upert witness concluded that the master plan could result in an additional 2,738 lodging beds in Stowe, representing a 73% increase in total available lodging beds in the town. This estimate is consistent ~ith the Appiicant:,,s own estimates of increases in ski area visitation (71 %) and ski area capacity expansion (76%) (~ DEC Exhibit l at page 7)~

2. The layout of the components of the Spruce Hamlet is depicted on the final revised site plans which are Applicant Exhibit 179. These plans were prepared primarily to reflect details regarding grading, drainage> soil erosion controls and utilities.

1 3. There are no site plans depicting the revised golf course layout. The original golf cours" ) layout is shown on several sheets in Applicant Exhibit 134. The plans which are included with Applicant Exhibit 150 show the conceptual golf course location on Exhibit A. The proposed gravel extraction operation is depicted on the revised site plans identified as Applicant Exhibits 134, 162 and 163.

4. The site plan depicting the Tom Lot 73 million gallon capacity water storage reservoir is Sheet S7.0 cf Applicant Exhibit 134. There are no detailed site plans for the 100 million gallon water storage reservoir proposed within the area of the golf course. That reservoir site is shown on the above-referenced conceptual plan for the golf course. There are no plans providing details for the modified water intake infrastructure.

5. The locations ofthe proposed on-mountain improvements, ·consisting oflifts and trails are drawn on the conceptual S:rvfR 2000 Plan identified as Applicant Exhibit 45. There are no plans for the proposed improvements at the Octagon and Cliff House facilities. Applicant Exhibits 134 (Sheets C4.l, 4.2, 6.6 and 6.7) depicts the Mt. M~s:field Base expansion site. The proposed mainteQ.aI1ce facility and compressor pads site is shown on the plans identified as Applicant Exhibit 134 (Sheets A2 and FD 1) and Sheet C6.6 of Exhibit 179. The locations of the satellite parking lots ate provided on Applicant Exhibit 111.

6. There are no site plans for the Inn at the Mountain expansion. This area of the master . i} plan is shown on the conceptual S:MR 2000 Plan identified as Applicant Exln"bit 45. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 19

7. The modified project involves expansion of parking at Stowe Mountain Resort from 2,357 spaces to 4,040 spaces. Parking will be distributed in accordance with the parking needs analysis and site plans provided by the Applicant [Applicant Exhibits l 03, 104, 111 and 134]

SPECIFIC FINDINGS

SECTION 6086(a)(l) AlR POLLUTION

For All Components

8. The Applicant prepared an indirect source analysis and permit ·application under the Vermont Air Pollution Control regulations. This included dispersion modeling at critical highway intersections (level of service "D" or worse) receiving 15% or more of the site­ generated traffic. Currently the Resort has 2,357 parking spaces. With the proposed development complete, the project will have 4,040 spaces, an increase of 1,683 spaces. The total numbe:r of trips allocated to each of the Resort's driveways is assumed to be proportional to the number of parking spaces it serves. [App~cant Exhibit 65]

9. On July 9, 1999, the Applicant submitted an application to the Departm.ent of Environmental Conservation requesting ~pproval to add 1,683 new spaces to . accommodate growth expected over the next ten years. [Applicant Exhibit 65] On July 16, 1999, the application was fonvarded to the Vermont Agency ofTransportation to review the traffic portion of the analysis. V AOT accepted the traffic report on August 18, 1999. [See Applicant Exhibit 87 at page 2 of 5]

10. Of the intersections evaluated by the Applicant, VT lOONT 108. was the only one that has an o'verall level-of-service "D" or worse during the existing or future design-hour. This intersection was modeled to determine the ground-level carbon monoxide impacts of the project. The modeling was done following Agency ofNatural Resources and US EPA guidelines. The results of the modeling show that the worst-case ambient levels of carbon monoxide would not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). (Applicant Exhibit 65)

11. The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the Department of Environmental Conservation issued an Indirect Source Air Pollution Control Permit #AP-99-010, dated October 5, 1999, to Mt. Mansfield Company, Inc. This permit increases the permitted parking capacity for site-wide parking from 2,357 to 4,040 spaces to accommodate all parking spaces needed in conjunction with the project. [Applicant Exhibit 87]

12. One condition in Permit AP-99-010 requires NIMC to take reasonable precautions to reduce the emission of dust during and after construction of new parking facilities and Findings of Pact 511338 Page 20 1)

other projects at the site. Reasonable precautions shall include, but shall not be limited to, sweeping paved areas, paving areas with asphalt, applying wet suppression or other equivalent measures whenever necessary and applicable. [Applicant Exhibit 87]

13. Issuance of Permit# AP-99-010 does not relieve the Applicant from the duty to comply with those portions of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations requiring approval before the construction and-operation ~f any stationary source of air pollution. For example, the Applicant must notify the Agency of Natural Resources in writing of the installation of any new fuel burning equipment with a rated heat input of greater than 3 (million) british thermal units (BTUs) per hour. [Applicant Exhibit 87]

14. According to Per;mit No. AP-99-010, the Applicant mUS.tcons.truct its parking facilities to accommodate the proposed projects in accordance with the plans submitted to the Agency ofNatural Resources in July 1999. [Applicant Exhibit 87]

15. According to Permit# AP-99-010:total parking on the SNIR. involved lands as descn'bed in the application shall not exceed 4,040 spaces. [Applicant Exhibit 87)

16. Withhl 90 days after completing construction of fifty percent (50%) of the proposed ne,-.· parking spaces (841 spaces), and again upon completion of the entire project (1,683 ne: ,, parking spaces), as described in the plans. for parking referenced above, the Applicant must submit to the Agency of Natural Resources as-built drawings that describe all new parking construction, approximate square footage areas of the lots, total parking capacity of each lot, access points, and a statement that SMR1s parking facilities comply with the 4,040 space limit. Also, according to Perm.it No. AP-99-010, condition (6), SMR must notify the Agency of Natural Resources in writing of any proposed physical or operational change in the design of the project. If the Agency .finds that a permit amendment is required, a new application, and the appropriate application fee must be submitted. The permit amendment must be issued befor~ commencing any such change. [Applicant Exhibit 87]

I· 17. -The-total. of 41040 ..parlcing .. spaces .authorized-includes -761 spaces for the satellite/overflow parking at the Cross Country Ski Area (585 spaces) and at Harlow Hill I· (176 spaces). [-:i.\.pplicant Exhibit 103] The Indirect Source Permit application for the project [Applicant Exhibit 65]. proposes 725 spaces for the Cross Country Center and 36 11 spaces for Harlow Hill. Following discussions with property owners abutting the proposed Cross Country Ski Center parldng lot, the Applicant agreed to move 140 spaces from the Cross Country satellite parking area to the Harlow Hill parking area across Vermont Route 108. The Applicant submitted a revised satellite-parking plan for the Cross Country Center shov,ing the change. [Applicant Exhibits 104 and 111]

1) Findings of Fact 5L 1338 Page 21

18. The air pollution dispersion modeling on c.ritical intersections assumes no mitigation of traffic conditions. [Testilnony of Adler, J annary. ·6, 2000)

· 19. SMR currently has diesel air compressors that are the subject of the pending application for an operating permit at the APCD. SN!R' s Master Plan calls for an increase in the capacity of air compressors. If additiqnal diesel air compressors are added, S:MR will apply for any necessary air pollution control pennit from the Agency of Natural Resources. SN!R plans to rely on any resulting permit to create a presumption under Environmental Board Rule 19 that no undue air pollution will occur as a result of implementing the S:MR Master Plan. [Testimony of Apple, January 6~ 2000] Specifically; SMR will propose to add S new compressors for additional .snowmaking -on Spruce Peak. S1Y.IR intends to utilize electric compressors if sufficient ele~tricity is available. If diesel compressors will be utilized, SlYfR will apply for the permit under air pollution control regulations governing diesel air compressors. ffestimony of Apple, January 6_, 2000]

20. It is anticipated that the new buildings will be heated by oil and none will be over 3 million BTU' s per hour rated heat input, so they would not requ~ a stationary source air pollution control permit frQm the APCD. [Testimony of Apple, January 6, 2000] (

21. Fireplaces in all new dwelling units will be fueled by propane. [Applicant Exhibit 5 and Testimony of Apple, January 6, 2000] The application subm.ittals do not propose wood stoves in any residential unit or wood burni:Q;g :fireplaces in·any structures.

22. All new lifts will be electric-powered. [Applicant Exhibit 22] The Applicant is proposing backup generators for the lifts, but emergency backup generato.ts operating less than 100 hours per year are not-regulated under the Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations.

23. There are no known sources of noxious odors contained within the S1v.lR 2000 Master Plan presented to the Commission. [Testimony of Apple, January 6, 20001

· Spruce Hamlet

1 24. It is anticipated that all new Spmce Hamlet builclings will be heated by oil fired boilers. [ApplicantExhibit 5]

' 25. Vermont's Air Pollution Control Regulations classify fossil fuel burning eqµipment with a heat input of IO million BTUs per hour or more as a stationary source of air contaminants. In order to detennine whether or not proposed projects will require a permit, the APCD must determine whether a project will be classified as a 11ew stationa.J Fin

Page 22 .• ))

source. In doing so, the APC~ considers the rated heat input and fuel type of each fuel­ burning unit located on contiguous property and under the common control of the Applicant. In addition to furnaces and boilers, the APCD must consider diesel-fired engine compressors used for snowmaking and diesel-fired engines used as ba~kup for ski lifts [Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations at Section 5-401 (6) and Section 5- 501(1)]

26. In order to control dust, the following procedures will be implemented: (i) paved surfaces will be cleaned during construction on a regular basis to limit the potential for dust; (ii) .. during any extended _dzy_periods, all work areas will be water saturated to limit dust dispersion; (iii) "Slow" and ''Construction in Progress" signs will be placed in the work area; and (iv) exposed soil will be seeded and mulched to assist in keeping dust to a minimum. [Applicant Exhibits 5 and 179, Sheets C6.0 through C6.8 and C6.9; Testimony of Apple, January 6, 2000]

27. Of the existing twenty homes in the immediate area, only one is occupied year round. Construction activity is expected to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Applicant suggests these hours of operation as a guideline but reserves the right to alter the hours of operation when it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impacts on the abu~g properties. [Applicant Exhibit 5, Testimony of Apple, January 6, 2000] 1)

28. Any blasting or drilling will be done by a certified personnel and will utilize standard blasting barriers and shielding devices for shielding debris and noise. [Applicant Exhibit 5 and Testimony oi Apple, January 6, 2000]

Spr_uce Golf Course

29. Potential air pollution impacts may result from dust during construction and the possible burning ofbrusb/slash. The applicant prepared erosion control plans for the original golf course proposal including dust control methodology. [Applicant Exhibits 6, 30 (including sheets G4.0 and G4.l) and 134 (including sheets G3.0 - G3.2)]

Storage Reservoirs

30. Air pollution impacts may occur from dust during the construction of the two reservoirs. The applicant proposes to manage these potential impacts by adherence to dust and erosion control plans prepared by the project engineer. [Applicant Exhibits 7 and 33 (including sheets S8.0 and S8.1)]

1l1ountain Improvements

!I 31. See findings above relating to the app~cation for an Indirect Source Permit to address the Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 23

increase in parking capacity. Lilcewi.se, see findings above regarding additional diesel air compressors and the· Applicant's need to applyfor any necessary air pollution control pennit(s) from the Agency·ofNatural Resources . ... .J-., Dust control during trail work will be managed through adherence to erosion control plans and procedures. {Applicant Exhibits 8 and 35]

Toll House Area Improvements

33. The pot~tial for air pollution impacts is dust during construction. The applicant> s consultant will prepare erosion control plans that include. dust control management during all phases of construction. Techniques will be used similar to those discussed above for dust control in the Spruce Hamlet area (Applicant Exhibit 9]

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the provisions of Environmental Board Rule 19, and absent any evidence in opposition, the District Commission .accepts Indirect Source Air Pollution Control Perm.it AP 9'" 010 as adequate proof that the indirect source co~pon~ts• of the master plan build~out will not result in undue air pollution. The Agency's Permit will be incotpo_rated as a condition in the initial bmd use permit which will be issued for the first phase of master plan construction. The Applicant will be required to provide copies to the District Commission of all compliance submittals referred to in finding #16 above and any proposed physical or operational changes in the design of the project over time will need to be evaluated under Environmental Board.Rules 2(G) and 2(P) to determine if an amendment application(s) must be filedJor the substantive review of the Distri9t Commission. At a minimum, any amended Agency pennit will be incorporated administratively pursuant to Board Rule 34(D).

The Applicant must inform the District Con:nnission of any proposed construction and use of stationary sources of air pollution sojurisdictional analyses may be made under Board Rules 2{G) and 2(P), specifically including additional diesel air compressors. ·

Spruce Hamlet

The District Com.mission is not able to reach positive conclusions at this time on stationary sources of air p~llution pending the Applicant's submittal of details with respect to the proposed fuel-burning furnaces l:!D.d boilers. Appropriate submittals will need to be included in the filings for the amendment applications for the build-out of the Hamlet. ·Should wood .stoves and/or wood fireplaces be incorporated in final project plans, appropriate evidence will need to pe included iil future amendment application filings. Findings. of Fact 5Ll338 Page24 ))

The Applicant's proposed plan to control dust during construction is a generalized approach typically deemed ad~quate undertbis criterio;n. Given the scale of the overall project, it will be important for the Applicant to restate these provisions on the plans and specifications for each phase. The District Commission will retainjurisdictionto ensure the adequate and timely implementation of dust cqntrols during the construction phases.

Toe District Commission, consistent with Enyi.ronmental Board precedents~ bas, a usual practice of requiring Applicants to file blasting plans detailing items such as the frequency and strength of blasts. In the present matter, no parties have expressed concerns for potential impacts on interests such as water supp.lies. However, the. Cp~sion believes it is only prudent to obtain threshold blasting plans foreach phase, recognizing that the.Applicant cannot do so.at this.time because final site testing~ borings)have apparently 11ot y:et b~enperformeo. B13$tingplans will be required as an element of each.amendment application for the buildout of the Hamlet_

Golf Course

The Applicant has yet to prepare site plans and related details for the construction of the golf course. The District Commission has had past ,experience ,;vith golf course projects and observes that they represent the potential .for air poUutton from actions such as the.on-site burning of brush/slash as well as significant dust if large areas of the site are exposed at any given time p:a. , i to final grading; and revegetation. The Commissjon is therefore unable to reach positive conclusions at this time under this criterion. The amendment application submittals for the permitting ofthe golf course will need to include a site specific air pollution control plan that includes elements such as phased clearing and grading of the site. The Commission encourages · the Applicant to ·propose techniques for the disposal of brush/slash other than on-site burning.

Storage Reservoirs

The present subm.ittals include no site plan and details for'the reservoir proposed on.the golf course. As 'ltvith our conclusions above for the golf course, the District Commission is unable to reach conclusions at this time under this criterion and review will take place as part of an .. - .. amendment.application .proceeding.

Toe App.li~-it provided a site plan for the Tom t.ot reservoir (Sh!~t 87.0 of Applicant Exhibit ! 134). That plan reflects the scale of the reservoir construction site and its proximity to the · ·, Vermont Route 108 corridor as well as its relationship to the proposed replacement campground . site which will be located directly across the highway (See ~o Exhibit A of Applicant Exhibit 150 for depiction of reservoir and proposed campground). The dust controlsprovided on Sheet S8.1 of Exhibit 33 are generic .in content and provide no infonnation on dust controls specific to the site, duration of construction and related issues. Given the proximity of Vemiont Route 10~ t1: and the proposed campground, the District Commission will require additional details u;nder ,.1 criterion at such time as an amendment application is filed for phase one of the master plan buildout. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page25

Mountain Imnrovements

This component of the master plan includes not only on-mountain improvements such as new ski trails and lifts but, also, the proposed Mansfield parking lots. As noted above, there are not yet site plans for the on-mountain improvements. As with the conclusions stated above for the golf course, the District Commission will need details for the clearing and disposal of trees, brush and slash. The District Commission concl~des, sµnilar to conclusions above for the Hamlet, that the · dust controls for the Mansfield parking lots are adequate and that the Commission will retain ongoing jurisdiction to ensure timely and adequate implem..entation. The Commission could not find a specific timetable for the proposed paving of the existing Mansfield base parking lot and the- Applicant should provide this information .as part of the subm.ittals for permitting of phase one of the master plan.

Toll House Area Imnrovemertts

The District Commission concludes that this aspect of the master plan represents no potential for undue air pollution.

SECTION 6086(a)(l) WATER POLLUTION .... ' ( For All Components

34. The elevations o(the involved lands are generally at or above· l,500 feetin elevation. Some. of the involved land proposed for ski trail expansion is above 2,500 feet in elevation. [Testimony of Marshall, February 8, 2000)

35. The majority of waters affected by the resort are classified under the Vermont Water Quality standards as Class B waters. There are also, waters above elevai."jon 2,500 feet on Mt. Mansfield and Spruc·e. ,All waters above ,elevation 2,500 feet are designated Class A. The Class A watersheds support existingresort development and are proposed for buildoutunder the :master plan. On the Spruce side, this would include the headwaters of · both Big Spruce Brook and Pim:iacle Brook, and the upper watershed of the West Branch. On the Mt. Mansfield side, expansion in Class A watersheds .is planned for watersheds~ B, D, F1 H, Mand N, as the watersheds are identified in the Applicant1s hydrologic study. [ANR Exhibit 12]

36. The Vermont Water Quality Standards ·are promulgated by the Vermont Water Resources Board pursuant to 10 V.S.A .., Chapter 47, Water Pollution ControL S~ction 1252 of that chapter provides for the· classification of State waters as either Class A Qr Class B and authorizes the Board to adopt ;standards of water quality to achieve the putpose <;>f classification. Findings ofFact 5Ll338 Page26 ))

Class A waters are managed to achieve and maintain water quality of a l!Pifonnly excellent character and significant ecological value; for use. as sources of public water supply (with disinfection when necessary); and enjoyment of water in its natural condition (Vermont Water Quality Standards, Section 3-02(A).

Class B waters are managed to achieve and maintain a high level of quality that is suitable for bathing; consistently exp.fbit good aesthetic value; provide high quality habitat for acquatic biota,. fish and wildlife; is ... suitable.for;pnblic w.atersupply \vith--:filtration~and disinfection; and is suitable for irrigation and other agricultural uses .(Vermont Water Quality Standards, Section 3-03(A). [.A.NR Exhibit 12J

37. Under the Water Quality Standards which became effective in July 2000, Class B waters · can be further distinguished as one of three water management types v.vith duferent .levels of protection. The reclassification into water management types will not occur until basin planningis undertaken for individual watersheds. Until that time, the management objectives and criteria for current Class B waters. will remain unchanged. [ANR Exhibit 12j . }J 38. A legislative goal of the Vermont Water Quality Standards is to ''protect from risk and preserve in their natural state certain high quality waters including fragile high-altitude waters~ and the ecosystems they sustain." (10 V.S.A. ·§1250) [ANRExhibit 12]

39. · The involved lands bordering Vermont Route 108 generally do not lie in a flood plain. [Testimony of Marshall, February 8, 2000]

40. Toe composition and types of the soils and subsoils throughout the involved lands have been provided by the Applicant. {See Applicant Exhibits 92, 95, 99,139 and 161]

41. The Applicant is proposing to coDI1.ect to the publicly owned wastewater treatment ., .syjtemthat.has.. been.appro:ved.in~a ..pem:m. .. issuea:te-the-'I'ew.a·of--Stowe~ ·{Land Use Permit 100035-9]

42. The Applicant has not applied for water supply and waste water disposal permits pending build outs of municipal water supply and waste water systems that would become available for the Applicant to make connections. [Testimony of Marshall, February 8; 2000]

43. The Applicanfs consultant prepared a Water Quality Managem~nt Plan at the request o"" the Agency of Natural Resources {ANR). An addendum was prepared in March 2000. .JJ [Applicant Exhibits 84 and 132] The objectives of these evaluations were to: Findings of Fact 511338 Page27

a provide a detailed field assessment of current activities at the resort that have the potential to result in water quality impacts, b. analyze and describe water quality improyements and management measures associated with proposed components of the SMR 2000 plan, and c. provide a monitoring schedule to assess actual water quality conditions in the West Branch over time as phased project implementation occurs.

44. To meet the objectives identified in the Water Quality Management Plan, additional evaluation of on-site existing conditions is needed with respect to the on-mountain improvements. [Applicant Exhibit 150]

45. Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify and establish a priority ranking for waters for which existing pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain and maintain State water quality standards, to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads ("TMDLs") for those waters, ~nd to submit, from time to time, the list of waters and TMDLs to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. Th~ first list of TMDL priority waters (the "'Part A list") was submitted to EPA in December 1998 and subsequently approved. Remediation strategies are being developed by A.'NR for these waters. When ANR constructed the Part A list, it only included those waters for whic~· · data was available documenting impaire4 uses. Waters that were listed previouslybasea on qualitative assessments were not included. For example, flow-regulated waters were generally removed from the priority waters list and placed on a separate Part F list for which TivIDLs are not being developed. [A.t'fR Exhibit 12]

46. Based on observations made during a site survey by ANR representatives on March 27, 2000 there may be some impaired tnbutaries. Those streams include hm Brook and Little Spruce Brook. The West Branch adjacent to the Mt. Mansfield base area may also be impaired. The Agency will not, however; be listing these streams as impaired unless or until it has hard data to support such a listing. Monitoring proposed by S!v1R or done by ANR staff will be used to determine the current status of the West Branch and its tributaries at the resort. The existing database is very limited and cannot be-reliably used to characterize attainment status. [ANR Exhibit 12]

47. The entire Stowe Mountain Resort (SN.CR) project area is within the watershed of the West Branch of the Little River. The lower 5.8 miles of the main stem of the Wes.t Branch is listed as impaired. This segment begins at Ranch Brook and extends to the mouth. The Ranch Brook confluence, an area known~ Stowe Forks, is about 2.2 miles below the Big Spruce Brook confluence. Toe- West Branch is listed as impaired for secondary contact recreation based on non-support of angling. Physical habitat changes in the form of the loss of riparian vegetation and channel scour due to increased peak flows from urbanization are listed as the cause. The upstream 2.2 miles, while listed in 1996 as an impaired water, were removed from the priority waters list and were instead placed in the Part F list of flow-regulation problem waters. [ANR Exhibit 12] Findings of Fact SL 1338 Page 28 ))

48. It is the Applicant's intention to construct the two water storage reservoirs with 170 million gallons in combined water storage c~pacity and to io.:tplementother snowmaking infrastructure changes in order to reach winter flows of 0.8csm in the West Branch. [Applicant Exhibit 150] This goal is to be a attam~d in five-years. [ApplicantExhibits 59 and 150 and See ANR Exhibits 17 and 19)

49. Neither microinvertebrate nor total :fisp. community·data collection and analyses have been done in the vicinity of the resort by the A.NR to. determine whether aquatic life suppo~ criteria are being met Fish community metrics cannot be done in the upper basin as there is. only a. single species,. brook trout. A determination of support of aquatic-biota would have to rely on sampling of the microinvertebrate community and comparison of the data to statistics based on statewide sampling by the Department ofwadeable streams. [ANR Exhibit 12]

50. The pollutant assigned to the non-support of angling is physical habitat changes, and these changes· are attributed to cumulative hydro logic effects and a Joss of riparian vegetation along the WestBranch corridor. Lost ofriparian vegetation is caused by direct encroachment by humans and by lateral movement of the riverbanks. Watershed urbanization is beJieved to be causing an inrease in the volume of flood flows and the magnitude, of the flood peaks .. [ANR Exhibit 12) .i i

51. Stream surveys a,nd substrate sampling was performed in 1999 by the Applicant 1 s cqnsultant on the segment of the West Branch immediately below S1v1R. Otherwise, there is limited water quality data available at thi~ time from the Applicant for.the West Branch and tnoutaries at the-resort. [Applicant Exhibits 84.and 132j

52. The results of field observations du_Ting StLmnier 1999 generally indicated vegetated ski trails with appropriately designed and spaced water bars, designed and managed work roads, and other facilities. However,·therewere observations of substrate imbeddedness and sedimentation in some of the mountain tributaries above the proposed project, but not above the Spruce Trail network. The Applicant's consultant believes that some ofthis is attributable to naturaJ...faetofS-.· l~A.tpplieant-Exhlbits-84 and.. 132·]

, 53. Some areas of concern. were identified. These areas include locations at which erosion or sediment export is occurring, and locations of iron seeps. Some liniited stormwater management problem areas were also identified. [Applicant Exhibits 84 and 132]

54. Improvement of maintenance practices or minor trail .work can be performed to address most ofthe identified.sediment export concerns. A plan for addressing specific iron seep areas is proposed. [ApplicantExhibits 84 and 132] JJ Findings of Fact 511338 Page 29

5 5. ANR had suggested to Siv!R that pre-development, forested watershed peak flow hydrology be modeled as a baseline condition in order to determine the extent of hydro logic change which has already occurred for the West Branch and its tn'butaries at the resort. SNIR elected instead not to model the individual watersheds ·under a forested condition, but to instead compare the peak flows in those watersheds to the almost fully forested Ranch Brook watershed. When using the Ranch Brook compariso~ the true unitized peak flows for the West Bran.ch ~der a fully forested condition may differ significantly from that exhibited by Ranch Brook. Each watershed has unique hydrologic characteristics, including soils, topography, and shape, that influence peak flow rates for equivalent storm conditions. Regardless, the substantial difference between the West Branch and Ranch Brook is. probably explained at least in part by.the development of the West Branch watershed. fANRExhibitJ2)

56. The ANR hydrologist concluded from the Ranch Brook comp_arison, as well as an analysis related to .a geomorphological study performed by A.'NR, that development at the resort is at least in part responsible for the existing unstable channel conditions found in the impaired reach of the West Branch. ANR recommended that S11R participate in future remediation measures as an offset for the continuing impacts of hydro logic change caused by the resort. fANR Exhibit 12] .,··. I f. 57. Components of the S~ 2000 plan will ipclude:

a. The management and treatment of stonnwater runoff from proposed development areas b. Restoration of winter conservation flows at the existing snowrnaking intake c. Decommissioning of existing large leach fields d. Collection of storm.water runoff and the piping of it to the snowmaki.ng pond for retention. [Applicant Exhibits 84 and 132]

58. ANR believes that s:MR development has increased the volume and magnitude of peak flows mthe West Branch and the local small tributaries at the resort; it has also increased the sediment yields to tb,ese streams. The stormwater collection and detention system will help assure that the peak .flows in the West Branch do not increase; however, the peak flows have ab:eady increased substantially, and the buildout under the master plan,

including the Hm1let1 expanded pa-king; tr~ils and re5identfal development, would increase the volume of storm runoff. ANR suggested that the Applicant resort should:

1. participate in remediation measures to be undertaken to address the impaired habitat below the West Branch (the TMDL reach); 2. complete a geomorphological assessment of the reach of the West Branch between the Big Spruce Brook and Ranch Brook to~ determine wheth~r the strear is susceptible to enlargement and resulting habitat·degradation and, ifso, what Findings of Fact 5Ll338 }) Page30

remediation measures would be necessazy, including possible rescaling of the buildout; and 3. complete a geomorphological assessment of Inn Brook and the tributaries that draiµ the trail system for the same purpose as #2. [ANR Exhibit 12]

59. A monitoring plan is proposed to continuously track water quality conditions in the vicinity of the resort as development P.roceeds. The monitoring data will help define existing water quality conditions and may result in changes to plans regarding the design and location of proposed ski trail expansions. [Applicant Exhibits 84, 132 and 150; ~-E~fbitlZ]]. . . . . -- ..... - . -·

60. Monitoring will be conduct_eci by~~ or by AN:R in. o;rd_erto identify any waters that do not meet the Vermont Water Quality Standards (VWQS) because of development on S11:R lands. If VWQS are found to not be met, action must be taken to ensure the VWQS are met. [Applicant Exhibit 150]

61. To ensure that appropriate action is taken in response to water quality problems. identified as a result of SMR' s existing development as demonstrated by water quality monitoring, ~ SwIR has agreed to.the fotlo~g steps: ,. a. SN!R shall immediately report any failure to meet the VWQS to the Agency and the Intervenors; b. Within ten days of reporting any failure to meet the VWQS, SMR shall schedule a meeting with the Agency and the Intervenors to evaluate the failure to meet the VWQS. Such evaluation shall include but not be limited to determining to what extent, if any, S:tvfR has caused or contributed to the failure to meet tfie VWQS or has failed to implement remedial actions identified as necessary to address the adverse water quality condition. c. If based on monitoring data, the Agency determines that S:M:R.' s new development is causing or contributing to a failure to meet the VWQS,.S:MR.shall corr.ectthe .. water.quality-pr-Qblem, prior to completing or commencing new development-that may exacerbate

I the problem. [Applicant Exhibit 150] I I 62. S:MR's consulting hydrologist presented a hydrologic analysis on behalf of S11R during a 11 hearing on March 8, 2000. [See Applicant Exhibits 66, 129, and 137]

63. This report presents the results of a hydrologic analysis of the West Branch of the Little River in the vicinity of the proposed project and provides projected runoff rates. The !""I analysis was completed to accompany the storm.water discharge permit application for 1) proposed construction ofthe Big Spruce Hotel and associated parking, residential and Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 31

commercial high density development, an 18 hole golf course and associated sports center. In addition, the analysis considers proposed on-mountain improvements, including construction of new ski lift lines and ski trails, as well as widening of existing trails. [Applicant Exhibits 66 and 129]

64. The study area for the hydro logic analysis .encompasses the .upper West Branch upstream from the confluence of Pinnacle Brook. The total watershed area at this pointis 7.07 square miles. For existing conditions, a total of eighteen subwatersheds have been designated. An additional sixteen subwatersheds were detennined based on proposed drainage structures for post-development conditions. Modeling considered storm events of 24 hour duration, with frequencies ranging from 2 year through 50 year. The 2 year storm is of particular significance since it is used as a regulatory basis for design in the . ANR S tortnwater Manageme'f.\t Procedures, and is also typically associated with bankfull conditions. [Applicant Exhibits 66 and 129]

65. The Applicant plans to address stonnwater treatment and control through the use of bioretention and infiltration structures and the installation of piping to enable the use of the existing off stream snowmaking water storage reservoir for storrnwater retention. In addition, a total of seven new stonnwater retention basins are proposed. [Applicant Exhibits 66 and 129]

66. There is conflicting evidence in the record regarding the impact of the stormwater created by this project upon the West Branch. The Applicant's hydro·geologist maintains that bis hydrologic analysis demonstrates the project will not result in increased peak stormwater flow rates to the West Branch. In contrast, an analysis by an ANR hydrologist dated March 27, 2000 points out that, of the streams located in the drainage basin for the west branch, the lower reach of the West Branch is the only reach listed as impaired on the state's list ofimpaired waters under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act begins downstream from the resort. The ANR hydrologist contends existing development at the resort "is at least in part responsible for the existing unstable channel conditions found in the impaired reach of the West Branch and that the discharge of larger volumes of water resulting from project development, even with peak controls, is a concern. [ANR Exhibit 12] [Applicant Exhibit No. 129, Hydrologic Modeling Addendum (i\'Iarch 2, 2000) at page 3.]

67. A Stormwater Discharge Permit was issued by the Agency of Natural Resources on July 21, 2000 [Applicant Exhibit 151]. The permit creates a presumption that undue water· pollution will not result

68. The, stonnwater pennit provides that if information is obtained during the term of the permit which indicates that discharges authorized by the permit cause or contnoute to violations of the VWQS, then the permit may be amended to require implementation 01 additional stormwater treatment and control measures. [Applicant Exhibit 151] Findings ofFact 5Ll338 Page 32 ))

69. S:tv!R has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Town of Stowe's restoration activities on the West Branch, including the impaired reach. SJY.IR' s contribution is purely voluntary. Until there is evidence proving otherwise, S:MR. does not believe it is responsible for any part of the downstream impairment The amount of contribution is $2,500 per year for a ten year period following receipt of "acceptable" permits. (See Applicant Exhibit 79.]

CONCLUSIONS

The Applicant does not.s~ekp.ositiv.e.findings and.. conclusions for any component of the master plan as to water pollution under criteria 1, l(A) or l(B) at this time..

The Environmental Board has held that there is no clear definition of what constitutes "undue water pollution" and that review under this criterion is dependent upon the context of the specific facts of each case under consideration. RevieVv"S are not limited to an analysis of the subcriteria of criterion 1 (water pollution). [Mark and Pauline Kiesel 5W1270-EB (June 2, 1998)].

The District Commission must be appraised of the res~ts of the ongoing water quality monitoring by means of periodic updates ~hen prepared by the Applicant> s consultants and A 1- · . · participa.t1;ts. Similarly, the District Com.mission must be advised of~eports and corrective ,; actions taken in response to the plan of action SU!l1II1arized in finding (61) above. At a minimum, a comprehensive submittal on all outstanding water quality issues must be forthcoming at such time as the Applicant may seek a permitto construct phase one of the master plan. It will be important that positive master plan findings and conclusions be stated on all outstanding water quality issues before any phase of the master plan proceeds. Such an outcome is not only necessary in the context of the puzpose of the Environmental-Board's master plan policy and procedure for the assessment of impacts on natural re.sources but it is desirable in order to provide the Applicant with certainty before it proceeds to final engineering and architectural designs for the buildout of the phases of the master plan. The District Commission anticipates that the results of the water quality monitoring undertaking will result in specific enough evidence so that the Applicant, parties a.J;ld Pis1rict Commission will nQt face the ~hallenge of . avoiding "conditions.subseq~nt'? ip.-leiu.-Of-an evidentiazy recerd suffieient to meet· applicable evidentiary burdens of proof under these three criteria. 1 I SECTION 6086(a)(l)(A) HEADWATERS

For All Components

70. The West Branch of the Little River and a number of tributarie~, including the Big Spruce Brook, Little Spruce Brook, Pinnacle Brook, and Inn Brook, run through portions· of the project area. The West Branch has a drainage area of less than 20 square miles (14.4 !) square miles). Additionally, the on-mountain areas and the Spruce Hamlet area are l""''\, Findings of Fact 511338 Page 33

situated at elevations above 1,500 feel Consequently, the project lands fall within a headwaters area. The Applicant has identified what strearµs are involved and their current status in order that any impact can be evaluated. However, not all small tnbutaries for ski trails have been mapped. Furthemiore, an enhanced monitoring program will further characterize the condition of the streams prior to construction. [Applicant Exhibits 84 and 132]

71. The Applicant has established a minimum setback of 25 feet in width for proposed development on or adjacent to the banks of the streams and wetlands. [Testimony of Marshall, February 8, 2000 and Applicant Exhibit 179]

72. Constpiction on steep slopes will be mitigated through enhanced erosion control on those slopes. [Testimony ofl\llarshall, February 8, 2000 and Applicant Exhibit 179]

73. The project is designed to avoid removal of forest canopy and other vegetation whenever possible. [Testimony of Marshall, February 8, 2000]

74. The Applicant's Water Quality Management Plan is intended to minimize impacts on ,_ existing streams. Ongoing monitoring will help determine whether those efforts are successful. [Applicant Exhibits 84 and 132]

S.pruce Hamlet

75. The erosion control plan for all construction at this site was designed to comply with standards appropriate for development in a headwaters area. Appropriate erosion control plans have been prepared for the Spruce Hamlet construction project. (See Erosion Control Drawings, C6.0-6.5) [Applicant Exhibits 5 and 179]

76. The New England District Corps of Engineers issued a letter, dated July 12, 1999, authorizing proposed work to fill-in 0.98 acres of headwater wetlands and Little Spruce Brook in conjunction with the construction of the Spruce Hamlet and a new campground offVermont Route 108 in Stowe, Vermont [Applicant Exhibit 122]

Spruce fl12l[ Course

77. There are no site-specific erosion control plans, for the golf course, as the golf course has not yet been finally designed. [Applicant Exhibits 6 and 150]

78. Although the project engineer ventured an opinion that a stonnwater discharge permit should not be necessary for the Spruce Golf Course p,roject, absent the submission of final plans and details the District Commission is unable to find whether a permit is required. [Applicant Exhibit 55] Findings of.Fact 5L1338 . }) Page 34

Stora11e Reservoirs

79. The construction of the storage reservoirs will be managed as if the reservoirs are located in the headwaters area Careful attention will be paid to the development of detailed erosion control plans. [Testimony of Marshall on February 8, 2000]

Mountain Improvements

80. The Applicant is not requesting findings of fact for the mountain improvements compon~nt_of fu~ Pt9jec~ [Applicant Exhibit 1.75] __ . .. __

81. All mountain improvements will be treated ~ if they ar~ ma headwaters ~ea.. ANR' s "Guidelines for Design and ConsJruction ofSid Lifts and Trails in Class A Watersheds in Vermontn will be followed for all trail construction above 2,500 feet elevation. [ANR Exhibit 27] In addition, the Applicant will use the planning and assessment process outlined in Section 2 of the Trail Development Guidelines in developing and designing all trails, irrespective of elevation. While the Applicant win follow the process set forth in Section 2, the applicable VWQS is "Class B" for trails under 2,500 feet elevation. [Applicant Exhibit 150] ·- ,; Toll Hous_e Area Improveme,its

82. The Applicant is not requesting findings of fact for the Inn at the Mountain Expansion project at this time. [Applicant Exhibit] ;.,

83. These projects will. be treated as if they are in a headwaters area. Consequently all erosion control plans will be prepared with this sensitive environment in mind. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

CONCLUSIONS

ne Appli_q_ap.J i§.Jt9t ~qg~sting,po_sitive.Eindings.ofFactandConclusions ofLaw under Ctj.terion l(A). Under 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(l)(A), the Commission before granting apennit must find that the proposed project meets any applicable health and environmental.conservation departm.~nt regulations regarding reduction of the quality of the ground or surface waters flowing through or upon lands.which are not devoted to intensive development, and which lands include, inter alia:

(i) headwaters·orwatershed characterized by steep slopes and shallow soils; or (ii) drainage areas of 20 square miles or less; or (iii) above 1,500 feet in elevation. ,J

The Commission is unable to conclude at this time that all components of the master plan will meet all applicable health and environmental conservation department regulations. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 35

Snruce Hamlet

The record supports a conclusion that the Spruce Hamlet will meet applicable department of environmental conservation regulations as evidenced by the issuance of a Stormwater Discharge Permit which creates a presumption of compliance pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 19:

The Applicant must obtain public water supp1y and wastewater disposal permits from the department of environmental conservation for the Spruce Hamlet projects before positive conclusions are stated under criterion l(A). ·

Spruce Go If Course

The Applicant must provide site plans and a site specific erosion control plan for the Spruce Golf Course before positive conclusions are stated under criterion l(A). In addition, the District Com.mission will need to have an adequate record in order to conclude with certainty that a Stormwater Discharge Permit will not be required.

Storage Reservoirs

The Applicant must provide site plans and a site specific erosion control plan for the reservo~ before positive conclusions are stated under critepon 1(A).

Mountain Imnrovements

The Applicant must provide site plans and site specific erosion control plans for the proposed lifts and ski trails before positive conclusions are stated under criterion 1(A). The Mansfield Base Lodge, its parking lot and the Barnes Camp parking lots will meet applicable department of environmental cons~rvation regulations as evidenced by the issuance of the Stonnwater Discharge Permit, consistent with Environmental Board Rule 19. Indirect Discharge Permit ID- 9-0115 must be voided or revoked prior to the commencement of construction on the Barnes Camp parking lots, consistent with the terms of condition 7 (e) in the Stormwater Discharge Permit. The Applicant must obtain a wastewater disposal permit from the department of environmental conservation for the lodge before positive conclusions are stated under criteria~ l(A).

The District Commission notes the continuing pumping and hauling of sewage from the Cliff House Facility. As a condition of any land use permit which may be issued for the first phase of the master plan, the District Commission will terminate this method of waste disposal and require connection to the municipal sewer extension, after allnecessary permits are obtained by ·I the Applicant from the department of environmental conservation. Toll House Area Imorovements

The Applicant must provide site plans and site specific erosion control plans for the Toll House Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page36 ))

Area before positive conclusions are stated under criterion l(A). Likewise, the Applicant must obtain a wastewater disposal pennit from the department of environmental conservation.

SECTION 6086(a)(l)(B) WASTE DISPOSAL

Spruce Hamlet

84. As fotmd above, the'.DepartmentofEnvironmental Conservation has issued a Stormwater Discharge Pemtlt which encompasses the area of the Spruce Hamlet.

85. The Spruce Hamlet will be serv·ed by an expansion of the Town of Stowe municipal wastewater system when it is completed. The Applicant obtained a letter from the Town of Stowe confuming its ability to serve the sewer needs of the project. Using the standard of 80% of the State's flow utilization tables, the Town of Stowe has calculated the project's total design flow to be approximately 300,000 gallons per day \.vith an anticipated c'actual use0 flow of approximately 175,000 gallons per day. [Applicant Exhibit 11]

86. The Spruce Hamlet seeks to minimize impacts oµtside of the physical limits of disturbance by employing a dedicated drainage system to intercept uncontaminated run\ J, from the building roof tops and trea~d w~ter from paved surfaces. These flows will be reintroduced into the groundwater environment through underground recharge facilities along the downgradient edge of the proposed project. By reintroducing precipitation back into the environment through underground recharge facilities, the area immediately

downgradient of the Hamlet limits1 including the golf course, can rely on groundwater flows. [See Applicant Exhibit 64]

87. Stormwater run0ff .from the blµ}dings and immediate non-paved areas around the buildings will be collected through a series of drainage inlets. Each of the buildings will be constructed with perimeter foundation drains to intercept and remove groundwater from the foundations of the buil~gs. The flow from these inlets and foundation drains will be sent ,to a -series of groundwater recharge facilities designed to: provide infiltration and storage capacity sufficient to attenuate a ten-year design storm. [Applicant Exhibit SJ

88. The Spruce Hamlet will create approximately 400,000 square feet (9.2 acres) of impervious area associated with the proposed buildings and 520,000 square feet (12.0 acres) ofimpenious area connected with the proposedroad~ays, parking lots and village green area Based on the amount of impervious surface area for the proposed roadways and parking lots, this application is considered a Group 3 development (major stormwatr discharge). [See Applicant Exhibit 64] )J Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 37

89. Stormwater from the roadway and par.king lot areas will sheet flow over 25 foot mde vegetated buffers or will be collected in a series of grass and stone lined swales which will flow to a series of stonnwater retention facilities,. [Applicant Exhibit 5]

90. Within the main parking lot the stonnwater will be collected within grass lined swales located within the landscaped islands. These flows will be directed to bio-retention facilities located within the confines ~f the parking lot. These facilities are designed to retain and allow infiltration of the stormwater through a specially designed root zone prior to reaching the groundwater. [Applicant Exhibit 5) Four bioretention areas will be sited in the main 450 space parking lot. Five other bioretention areas will be scattered through the Hamlet area. [ApplicantExhibit 12 and map therein]

91. The details of the bioretention areas are shown on Application Exhibit 127 and Sheet C8.0 of Applicant Exhibit 134. These basins will be grassed saucer shaped areas to accomodate flows from no more than one.acre of impervious surfaces.

92. The bioretention basins, which are intended to "renovate" stormwater, will not function well under frozen conditions and the Applicant does not consider them as integral elements of the stormwater treatment plan. The Applicant is examining methods to . minimize frost in the basin areas. [Testimony ofMarhsall at February 8, 2000 Hearf · and See Applicant Exhibit 127].

93. Peak runoff flows from the Hamlet will be reduced by: (i) four detention systems designed to utilize fore bay areas for entrapment of the larger particles associated with roadway sanding and periodic erosion events; (ii) subsurface groundwater recharge systems; (iii) bioretention systems; and (iv) the existing snowmakingpond as a final detention system. [See Applicant Exhibit 64]

94. The stormwater system will function properly after the overall Hamlet site has been stabilized after construction phases. Nevertheless, the stormwater system will require ongoing maintenance in order to meet performance standards. [Testimony of Marshall at February 8, 2000 Hearing].

Spruce Golf Course

95. The golf course maintenance building will contain a chemical storage facility. A description of the spill and leak protection and methods of disposal is included in the Pest Management Plan submitted as part of the Department of Agriculture Pesticide Use Permit Application. [Applicant Exhibits 6 and 57]

96. The Applicant has obtained a Permit to Apply Pesticides to a Golf Course for the Sprue­ Golf Course from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets. This permit authorizes the use of specified pesticides for the maintenance of turf at the Spruce Golf Course. This permit is valid for S years from the date of issue. [Applicant Exhibit 123] Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 38 ))

97. The Applicant does not expect that the golf course will require a Stonnwater Discharge Permit. [Applicant Exhibits 150 and 175]

98. The Applicant prepared an Integrated Turfgrass Management Program to minimize the application of pesticides. [Applicant Exhibit 19]

99. The Applicant has proposed a set of ~vironmental principles and performance standards to address potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed 18-hole golf course, including but not limited to _ imp.acts associated.with the application of.pestieides. These documents include a commitment by the Applicant to utilize chemical pest control strategies only when other strategies are inadequate. [Applicapt Exhibits 17, 18 and 19}

100. The Applicant and several parties have agreed to form a Least-Toxic Design and Management Collaborative Committee (Committee) to serve as a forum for discussing and agreeing on appropriate design and management of the proposed golf course to be located in Area G in order to facilitate the least-toxic construction and management practicable. The Committee will study and make recommendations on least-toxic design and management of the golf course. The Committee's work will include an assessmen" of an appropriate biological soil management program:, including standards of soil qua ') taking into consideration existing soil ecqlogy and microbiology and post construction · soil ecology and microbiology. Revisions to construction and management of the golf course may be proposed as a result of the Committee's work. [Applicant Exhibit 150J

101. After construction of the golf course and "grow-in" is completed, the Committee will continue to meet at least once annually for a period not to exceed 10 years to review management reports in order to discuss ongoing opportuniti~s in least-toxic management of the golf cqurse. The form and content of such management reports will be developed during the committee process. At each such annual meeting, the Committee will discuss non-chemical alternatives utilized during the previous 12 months. The Applicant shall make available to the Committee records that the Applicant is required by law to keep on file in connection with its pesticide-use-permit-from the Vermont Department of Agriculture. [Applicant Exhibit 150] ·

102. In connection with construction activities on other components of the project, the Applicant agrees to utilize chemical pest control strategies only when other strategies are inadequate. Furthermore, the Committee will serve as a forum for discuss of alternatives for least-toxic management of such other components of the project. [Applicant Exhibit 150]

I. Findings offact 511338 Page 39

Storage Reservoirs

l 03. The Applicant anticipates that the excavated materials will be integrated into the construction demands of other elements of the master plan andthat minimal excess.soils will be generated during the excavation of the storage reservoirs. [Testimony of Marshall at February 8, 2000 Ji.earing]

Mountain Improvements

104. The Mountain Improvements at the Mansfield base parking lot and the Barnes Camp parking lot have received a Storm.water Discharge Perm.it as found above.

105. The Town of Stowe's expanded municipal wastewater system will service the mountain improvements. The Applicant obtained a letter from the Town of Stowe :confirming its ability to serve the water and sewer needs of the project (Applicant Exhibit 11]

I 06. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new storm.water collection.system at the Mansfield area. The e:fficje~cy of the detention pond constructed several years ago at the south end of the main lot will be improved through the redirection of slope side storm.water away from this facility into a collection system diverting this water to the :·· existing snowmaking pond. (Applicant ixhibit 37] The new maintenance facility will be constructed adjacent to the Barnes Camp parking lot. This facility will be connected to the municipal sewer system as will the existing compressor pad. Fueling facilities will be consolidated at the site of the maintenance facility. [Testimony ofl\tlarshall at March 8, 2000 hearing and See Sheets A-2, FD-1 and P-1 of Exhibit 134].

Toll House Area Improvements

107. The hm expansion will be served by the expanded Stowe municipal wastewater collection system. The Town of Stowe municipal wastewater system will service the mountain improvements. The Applicant has obtained a letter from the Town of Stowe confirming its ability to serve the water and sewer needs of the project. [Applicant Exhibit 37]

108. The Applicant will prepare storm.water management plans as part of the preparation of the final design plans. [Applicant Exhibit 12]

CONCLUSIONS

Soruce Hamlet

The Applicant has not sought positive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under criterior l(B). This is partially due to the fact that the Town of Stowe has not yet constructed its Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page40

municipal wastewater system expansion for connection to the project. The Commission will require that construction first be completed on the municipal infrastructure and that the Applicant obtain a water supply and wastewater disposal permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation for each phase of the project. As concluded above for criterion 1(A), the issuance of the Stormwater Discharge Permit creates an evidentia:ry presu1llption pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 19.

The District Commission believes that the Applicant should develop a comprehensive solid waste management plan, both for the construction and post-construction phases of the Hamlet. A comparable m~agement plan. h~ been-implemented-at the··adjacent'Smuggler's Notch Resort for several years. The Applicant will be expected to provide such a management plan for District Com.mission review and approval as an element of the application for pennitting ofphase 1 of the Hamlet

As the Applicant is aware (Project Review Sheet attachment to Applicant Exhibit 150), there are several aspects of the project yet to be finalized and these aspects may require penn:its from other state agencies: floor drains, underground fuel storage tanks, hazardous waste handler notification, and the disposal of used septic stone and tanks. The District Commission will require threshold facts on all of these aspects.

While the District Commission is acb:rrinistrative}y aware of a proposed snow management plan for the Hamlet which was provided to .ANR during Fall 2000 in compliance with condition 14 in the Stormwater Discharge Permit, that plan has not been offered oi: admitted into the record for the master plan review. It is unclear whether that plan coincides with Applicant Exb.lbit 128. (Similarly, the title sheet to Applicant Exhibit 134 references snow management plans but those sheets are not included in the exhibit). The District Commission will require that this management plan be included as a component of the application for phase one of the Hamlet build-out. The Commission notes that the Applicant should prepare this plan so that snow plowing and storage does not conflict with the landscaping plan and undisturbed buffer zones for the Hamlet.

Finally, the ongoing effectiveness of the stmmwater management and treatment system will be dependent upon timely and adequate maintenance of the system. While the Stonnwater Discharge Permit requires quarterly inspections and annual reports, the record _for the master plan j review does not include the details of such a management plan. These details must be included 11 in the application for phase one of the Hamlet 1, \I Spruce Golf Course

The Applicant does not seek positive :findings and the record does not support positive conclusions beyond a recognition of the Department of Agriculture Penn.it under Environment, J) Board Rule 19 and the tempering of this presumption by the material representation that the Applicant will pursue collaborative efforts with the parties over a 10 year period as ·stated in finding # 100. Findings of Fact 511338 Page 41

At such time as an amendment application is filed for the permitting of the golf course, the District Commission will expect definitive resolution ·of stonnwater permitting. The Applicant must also address the method of disposal for the substantial amount of tree stumps which will result from site clearing.

Stora2e Reservoirs

The Applicant d9es not seek positive conclusions at this time. At such time as the Applicant files for permitting of the reservoirs, the District Commission requests that the Applicant and ANR verify whether the introduction of stonnwater into the snowmaking system will require any modification to storm.water permitting in that runoff will be co-mingled with surface water for discharges into high elevation settings. In addition, the Applicant should also. provide the Commission with a quantified analysis of material to be excavated from both reservoir sites and details regarding the disposal of this material (it appears that 50,000 cubic yards of material ,vill be excavated at the Tom Lot reservoir site alone, the smaller of the two reservoir sites).

Mountain Improvements

The Applicant does not seek positive conclusions at this time. The District Commission's conclusions parallel those for the Hamlet as stated above with regard to future ANR pennittin.{:· · . for the Base Lodge expansion and the presumptism created by the StormwaterDischarge Pemtlt. : However, the record is not clear as to when the Mansfield Base lot will be paved in order to reduce discharge of sediments and when the enlarged detention basin will be constructed. These matters must be clarified in the phase one application for the Hamlet and related components of the master plan. The District Commission takes particular note of the maintenance facility which has several design aspects which will require future details and review under this criterion ~ floor drains, fuel tanks, and stormwater runoff)

Toll House~ Improvements

The Applicant seeks no positive conclusions at this time. The District Commission's conclusions parallel those stated above for the Hamlet relative to construction of the mwricipal sewer line extension as well as appropriate ANR permitting:

SECTION 6086(a)(l)(C) WATER CONSERVATION

General Findings

109. Components of the project that will require a significant use of water are the food preparation and bath facilities of the Spruce Hamlet buildings and the expanded lnnat the Mountain and the Mt. Mansfield Base Lodge. The Spruce Golf Course will require a non-potable water irrigation system. Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 42 ))

110. The Applicant has represented that it will use the best available technology for water conservation in its facilities ( e.g., low flow plumbing :fixtures ~d reuse of stormwater).

Spruce Hamlet

111. All :fixtures in the Spruce Hamlet buildings will be equipped with low :flow :fixtures and will be designed to make use of the b~st available technology to conserve water. [Applicant Exhibit 5]

Spruce Golf Course ..

112. . . TI;le irrigation system will be desigQ.ecj. to maximize the efficient distribution of water through the use of a double row of irrigation heads. Irrigation will be limited to tees, fairways and greens. The system will us.e weather stations to monitor precipitation and soil moisture content. [Applicant Exhibit 6]

Storave Reservoirs

· 113. This project is designed to enable the Applicant to comply with the requirements of La.. Use Permit SLl 125-lO(A)(Revised) by restoring minimal stream flows in the West J J Branch of the Little River while enabling. the Applicant to expand its snowmaking capacity. [Applicant Exlnoit 7].

iYiountain Improvements

114. The Applica..Tlt will proceed with the implementation of snowmaking efficiencies originally described in its 1993 Master plan (application 5Ll 125-10). These measures include continued use of fan guns, elimination of double fall lines and the smoothing out · of terrain. [Applicant Exhibit 8]

115. The expanded Mansfield Base Lodge will make use of high efficiency water conservation fixtures ... [Applicant-Ex.bioit 8)

Toll House Area Improvements

116: All new units at the Inn will also be equipped. with water conservation :fixtures. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

J)

.I Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 43

CONCLUSIONS

Criterion l(C) of Act 250 states:

A pennit will be granted whenever it is demonstrated by the applicant that, in addition to all other applicable criteria, the design has considered water conservation, incorporates multiple u~e or recyling where technically and economically practical, utilizes the best available technology for such applications, and provides for continued efficient operation ofthese systems.

Soruce Hamlet

Typically the District Commission does not pursue specifications of plumbing fixtures for residential projects. However, the scale of this project is such that it is reasonable to require the Applicant to provide fixture details for all components (ie residential and commercial) of the Hamlet buildout as part of the amendment application filings to ensure that the test of Uris criterion is adequately addressed.

Soruce Golf Course

The ability to meet the inigation needs of the golf course (See Criteria 2/3 findings below) woula appear to be integrally linked to the implementation of best available water conservation practices. The golf course and its infrastructure have yet to be designed. The District Commission believes it will be prudent to wait final design details prior to stating positive conclusions under criterion l(C).

Storage Reservoirs

The District Commission concludes positively that criterion 1(C) has been adequately adddressed.

Motmtain Imnrovements

The District Commission considers water conservation aspects ofsnowmaking practices under this component of the master plan. While the Applicant's representa~ons are sufficient in concept, the Commission beli~ves it is reasonable to expect an update on best available snowmaking efficiencies as a component of the first application for on-mountain improvements.

Toll House Area Imorovements

The District Conunission reaches positive conclusions for thls component of the master plan. Findings ofFact 5Ll338 Page44 · :) )

SECTION 6086(a)(l)(D)FLOODWAYS

Spruce Hamlet

117. The site of the Spruce Hamlet is outside of any designated ~oodway. [Applicant Exhibit 5}

Spruce Golf Course

118. The ~jte of the Sprqce Golf Course is outside of any designated-floodway; [Applicant Exhibit 6]

Storage Reservoirs

119. The pipeline, associated pump stations and new storage ponds will not be located within any designated floodways. The existing storage pond and its appurtenant are located within the l 00-year flood way. ANR must review construction plans for the reservoirs to assess flooding issues, and make regulatory determinations under the dam safety statute. [Testimony of David Marshall at February 8, 2000 hearing] i I 120. The project proposes to upgrade the in~e capacity at the existing West Branch withdrawal point from 3,000 gpm to 10,000 gpm. [Applicant Exhibit 150] Because the intake is located within the West Branch stream channel, it lies within a floodway, as that term is definedunc;ier 10 V.S.A. §60Q1(6).

1Wountain Improvements

121. No mountain improvements are located within a floodway. [Applicant Exhibit 8)

Toll House Area Improvements

I 122. 1)ie Inn is not located in a flood way. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

11 CONCLUSIONS

I Spruce Hamlet . .

This component of the master plan is not within a floodway or floodway fringe as defined in l 0 V.S.A. 6001(6 and 7).

Soruce Golf Course ~ .. ·)) This component of the master plan is not within a floodway or floodway fringe as defined in 10 V.S.A. 6001(6 and 7). Findings of Fact 511338 Page 45

Stora2e Reservoirs

Toe Applicant withdrew its request for conclusions under this component of the master plan because the design for the intake impro.vements proposed in the West Branch has not yet been designed. The District Commission will also await the final determination of ANR under the dam safety statute for both reservoirs.

Mountain Imnrovements

This component of the master plan is not within a floodway or floodway fringe as defined in 10 V.S.A. 6001(6 and 7).

Toll House Area Improvements

This component of the maste~ plan is not within a floodway or floodway fringe as defined in 10 V.S.A. 6001(6 and 7). .

SECTION 6086(a)(l)(E) STREAJ.VIS

Spruce Hamlet

123. . Little Spruce Brook runs through the Hamlet site. It will be protected by undisturbed vegetative buffers not less than 50 feet wide. Existing walking paths will be retained to allow pedestrian access throughout this corridor. A portion of the stream currently runs through a culvert under the existing Spruce parking lot. Most of the stream will remain in a culvert under the Hamlet. [Applicant Exhibit 179, Sheets C6.0, 6.2 and 6.3 and Testimony of Marshall at February 8, 2000 Hearing]

124. The primary vehicular crossing of Little Spruce Brqok will be accomplished through the construction of a bridge with a 60 foot span across the stream corridor. The abutments of the bridge will be protected with appropriately sized stone fill and native material and will be located outside of the normal high water limits to protect the integrity of the existing streams. [Applicant Exhibits 5, 134.and 179 and Testimony of Marshall at February 8, 2000 Hearing]

125. A profile of the proposed bridge structure and superstructure is depicted on Sheets C3.0 and C7.0 of Applicant Exhibit 134.

126. The existing conditions of streams and the surrounding Mansfield Base and Hamlet areas are shown on Sheet Cl.2 of Applicant Exhibit 179.

127. Proposed limits of construction and riparian protection zones are depicted on the Applicant Exhibit 179 plans. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 46

128. The condition of Pi:pnacle Brook is "close to pristine,,. Direct discharges ofstormwater runoff from up gradient components of the master plan will flow into this stream when rnnoff volumes exceed the capacity of the stormwater treatment. infrastructure. [Testimony of Marshall a~ Febry.ary 8, 2000 Hearing].

Spruce Golf Course

129. There are several unnamed streams in the golf course area for which buffers cannot be established until the golf course design is completed. (Applicant Exhibit 150 and See Exhibit 134]

130. The primary vehicular crossing of Big Spruce Brook will utilize an existing culvert. [Applicant Exhibit 6]

131. The golf course will contain several small pedestrian and carts type bridges- crossing smaller streams, and the existing wetlands. The abutments ofthese bridges will be protected with appropriately sized stone and native materials. [Applicant Exhibit 6] Details are not available for these aspects of the project because the revised golf course has not yet proceeded to final design.

132. No stream alteration permits will berequµ-ed for this project. [Applicant Exhibit 6J

Storage Reservoirs

133. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate will likely be required for the water intakes, stream crossings, and other stream work in lieu of a stream alteration permit. [Applicant Exhibit 150]

134. The ANR issued a snowmakingwaterwithdrawal determination for this project. [Applic~t Exhibit 150]

135. The ~plicant's proposal for 1:>oogjp.g the.. r~ort into. compliance with the conservation flow standard has b_een found to be consistent with the Agency ofNanual Resources Environmental Protection Rules: Chapter 16-Water Withdrawals for Snowmaking. [ANRExhibit 19]

136. The Applicant's alternatives analysis indicates that the proposed system (175 million gallons of storage and 0.50 csm conservation flow) Vlill meet its projected demand, but there -vvill be a significant shortfall in water for snowmaking once the conservation flow is increased to 0.80 csm. [ANR Exhibit 19] Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 47

137. In the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant commits to evaluating the possibility of implementing a 50 percent step-down limitation at'the West Branch withdrawal once the intake has been modified and reservoirs constructed. An alternative standard between F11F and a 50 percent step-down may prove operationally feasible .. {ANRExhibit 191

13 8. The Applicant proposes to 'Withdraw water during the spring (April and May) and summer (June through September), w~e maintaining a minimum flow of 0.80 csm during the spring and 0.50 csm during the summer. This conforms to the Agency Procedure for DetenniningMinimum Stream Flows (Julyl4, 1993). The Applicant will only withdraw water during the months of April through September when needed to replenish the reservoirs following use for snovnnaking or golf course irrigation. Otherwise, the natural condition of the stream will be maintained. SMR will avoid reducing the flow in the West Branch to EMF during April and May by either "skimming" the hydrograph pr maximizing the withdrawal during the extreme high-flow days. [ANR Exhibit 19]

139. It will be appropriate to remove the volumetric cap once the Applicant achieves a flow standard of 0.50 csm. However, it would not be appropriate to alter the existing cap while the conservation flow remains at 0.15 csm. [ANR Exhibit 19]

140. The Applicant's proposal to exclude wat~r withdrawn when streamflows equal or exceeCJ. 0.80 csm from the total allocation of 178.2 million gallons would have the effect of raising the volumetric cap. The purpose of the cap is to provide additional protection to the stream's ecological integrity by ~stablishing a water use "~udget,, that promotes water 1 conservation. The need to operate within this budget reduces the periods when water 1 withdrawals reduce the downstream flows to the O.15 csm limit, providing protection not afforded by the current conservation flow standard. Accordingly, the District Commission will require Siv.lR to comply with the existing volumetric cap requirement until the conservation flow for S:MR's water withdrawal reaches 0.50 csm. [ANR Exhibit 19]

141. SN.IR 's proposed stormwater management system will direct water to the existing . snowmaking reservoir. One component of the system would partially divert Little Spruce Brook, which flows through the site of the proposed Hamlet, into the sno-wmaking reservoir. Low and moderate flows would remain in the stream channel, but peak flows would be diverted to the stonnwater system. Maintenance of the natural hydrograph to the extent possible while accomplishing the storm.water management objectives of the system will be important if the ecological integrity of the stream is to be maintained. [ANR Exhibit 19]

142. Detailed designs for the sno"WID.aking reservoirs have not been submitted for Agency I review. It will be important to design these facilities so that riparian areas and other I I I. Findings of Fact 51133 8 )) Page 48

surface water resources are adequately protected. In addition, safety issues will be a major consideration during the Agency's review for a dam order under Title 10, Chapter 43. If the final sto~ge volume differs significantly from the design volume of 175 million gallons as a result of the review of S1v.Ill' s application for construction of these reservoirs, the Agency may request updated modeling to assess system performance. [ANR Exhibit 19]

143. The design of the modified West Branch withdrawal has not been submitted to the Agency. The fact that this withdrawal will operate outside of the snowmaking season will result in design challenges that ~e no~-typ~c~y eg~q~t~r~d with snQwmaking intakes. For example;accumulation of sedimen.t during the summer could be a problem if the system creates an impoundm.ent on the West Branch: The system should be designed so that routine desilting is not required. This and other issues will have to be addressed during the design phase. [ANR Exhibit 19]

144. Toe District Conunission will includ~ the following terms from the ANR snowmak.ing determination as conditions in any land use permit which may be issued for the snowmaking component of the master plan:

a. The permittee shall establish a conservation flow of0.50 csm at the West Bram Ji intake within two years ofissuan~e of all state and Federal permits authorizing improvements at the existing water intake location and for construction of the Tom Lot and Golf Course reservoirs. The conservation flow shall be increased to 0.80 csm 'r.rithin five years of completion of reservoir permitting for the intake impr~vements and reservoirs. These flow standards shall apply during the period from October I through May 31. The permittee shall provide a step down limitation based on sub$equent alternatives analyses, as provided for in Condition 5 of the Agency's :flow detennination letter (restated below). The requirements of this permit condition shall be in effect, unless, during the period when the applicable state and federal permits referenced above are still subject to appeal, SI\lfR. explicitly states in writing that it will abandon the projects permitted,. under I ~e ~~!.~J?.!~.!P.ErQYal .. LANR Exhibit 19 .as. amended hy..ANR Exhibit 22] b. The permittee shall maintain a conservation flow of 0.50 csm at the West Branch intake during the period from June 1 through September 30. {ANR Exhibit 19)

c: There shall be a seasonal volumetric cap of 178.2 million gallons on water used for snoV1ID.aking while conservation flows at the West Branch intake remain below 0.50 csm. [ANR Exhibit 19]

d. After ten years of flow data at the West Branch intake are available, the pennittf .,i shall detennine the site-specific February median flow, subject to Agency

-~.-:.- Findings of Fact 511338 Page 49

approval, and.that value, if higher than 0.80 csm, shall become the minimum conservation flow for the period from October 1 through May 31 beginning with the next season of operation. If the revised February median flow is less than 0.80 csm, then the permittee may request a pennit amendment to reduce the flow standard, subject to a demonstration of water need in accordance with Section 1.6- 05 {Alternatives Analysis) of the rules for snowmaking water withdrawals, or any applicable regulations in place at the time. [ANR Exhibit 19)

e. The permittee shall update the snowmaking alternatives analysis and file the updated analysis with the Agency at intervals of 10 years or less, with the first updated analysis being due by July 31, 2010. The analysis shall quantify-the total seasonal demands on the system (including golf course irrigation), quantify the contribution of the stonnwatermanagement system to the total demand, and assess the feasibility of a step-down limitation between O and 50 percent for operation between October 1 and March 31. Based on this review, the Agency may request that this permit be reopened to consider an increase in the conservation flow requirement. [ANR Exhibit 19]

f. · The permittee shall submit a.revised snowmaking alternatives analysis prior to submitting any proposal to develop new intakes at Stqwe Forks or: Waterbury r · Reservoir, or ifthere are other m3:terial changes to the system design. [ANR Exhibit 19]

g. As part of its annual filing required by Condition 15 of the Agency's flow determination letter (restated below), the permittee shall report on measures that have been implemented to minimize the. deviation from natural flows while refilling the sno\VID.aking reservoirs during the period April I tbroughMay 31. [.ANR Exhibit 19]

h. The pennittee shall design and install gaging and metering systems'adequate to meet the following compliance record keeping requirements. For each day that the diversion of water occurs, the hourly rate of diversion, daily maximum diversion rate, and total daily volume with daily average rate; minimum instantaneous below-diversion flows and corresponding natural stream flows; hourly reservoir levels; and hourly and daily average natural flows shall be recorded .. For days when no diversion occurs during the period between October 1 and May 31, only daily average flow data must be recorded. [Al'ffi Exhibit 19)

1. All flow monitoring and diversion civil and hydraulic works designs and instrumentation specifications shall be reviewed and certified by a registered professional engineer as consistent with the approved conservation ·flow standards. A copy of the certification along with the basis of design and Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 50 })

equipment specifications shall be provided to the District Commission and the Agency at least 30 days prior to construction. The final design shall be subject to Agency approval prior to initial operation. [A.NR Exhibit 19)

J. Technicians who collect and maintain records shall be trained by a registered professional engineer. Calibration of the gage and measurement devices shall be done under the supervision of~ registered professional engineer or approved by the same. The gage shall be rated prior to the first season ofuse, and the rating measurements analysis filed with the District Commission and the Agency. Rating.measurements..shalLbe.repeatedas. necessary in subsequent years to account for any changes in the gage control characteristics due to scour, se~e1-1tatjq~_ or other catJses. A second set of rating measurements shall be taken before the second season to determine general stability of the rating; the rating information and a brief comparison report shall be filed with the District Commission and the Agency before the start of that season. [ANR Exhibit 19]

k. If the gage station or flow devices are malfunctioning, or are not functioning because of lack ofpower or for any other reason, diversion of flow shall be discontinued until the malfunctions or non-functioning has been corrected. Tor Agency shall be notified within 24 hours of any malfunctioning or non­ :functioning. [ANR Exhibit 19] .

l. Flow diversion devices shall be checked and cleared of ice and debris on. each day that diversion of water occurs. Additional monitoring and maintenance shall be conducted as needed to maintain the flow diversion devices free of debris and ice. If the system has been dormant for more than 24 hours, the diversion shall be checked for obstructions before activating the withdrawal. A daily log shall be main~ained noting work that is performed to keep the systems functioning as . designed. Chronic problems shall be brought to the attention of the District Commission and the Agen~y, and alternatives to correct the problems proposed for approval and implementation. [ANR Exhibit 19]

m. Each fall before the diversion of water from the West Branch for snowmaking, the intake system shall be surveyed by a registered land surveyor or registered professional engineer tp confirm that the elevations have not· shifted due to soil movement, high water damage, or any other cause. The results of the survey shall be filed with the District Commission and ~e Agency before snowmaking recommences. The survey requirement may be suspended by the District Commission it: after three years of measurement, the stnictures are found to be stable. Ifa structure is damaged due to flood or other causes, the structure shall

be resurveyed and the results :filed with the District Commission and the Agenc: ,I• J prior to recommencing withdrawal of water. [ANR Exhibit 19]

.I Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 51

n. Stream flow data shall be provided to the Agency in tabular form and in whatever digital format the Agency requires. For each month water is withdrawn from the West Branch, within 21 days of the end of the month, a report shall be filed with the Agency including the data specified above and a narrative description of flow and water use conditions throughout the tnonth, as well as any operational problems encountered or corrective actions taken. [ANR Exhibit 19]

o. The permittee shall file annually with the District Commission and the Agency a report which includes the daily pumping rates and volumes; seasonal water withdrawal; trail coverage; compliance with existing conservation flow requirement; available data on stream flow, temperature, and snowfall; known expansion plans; and projections on future water use. The report shall cover the period from June 1 through May 31, and shall be filed by July I following the end of the reporting period. [ANR Exhibit 19]

p. The design of the stormwater diversion device on Little Spruce Brook as related to maintenance of conservation flow shall be certified by a registered professional engineer. A copy of the certification along with the basis of design shall be provided to the District Commission and the Agency at least 30 days prior to construction. The final design shall be subject to Agency approval prior to initfr operation. [ANR Exhibit 19]

q. All instream work shall be undertaken and completed between June I and October I, unless an extension is granted by the District Commission following a written request. [ANR Exhibit 19}

r. Final construction plans for the West Branch intake and Little Spruce Brook stormwater diversion shall be submitted to the Agency at least 30 days prior to construction and are subject to Agency approval before start of work. Plans shall show the limits of disturbance at the site. [ANR Exhibit 19] I I s. Before the initial diversion of water at the modified West Branch in take, the permittee shall file as-built plans for the diversion structure and intake with the I Agency. [ANR.Exhibit 19]

t. Any proposal to desilt the intake-shall be subject to prior review and written approval by the Agency. [ANR Exhibit 19]

145. No v.,ntten comments were received by the Agency from the public or any party to the District Commission proceedings during the public notice period for the Agency determination. Comments made at the inform.al flow conference were addressed at that time. [ANR Exhibit 19] Findings of.Fact 5Ll338 Page 52

Mountain Improvements

146. The Trail Development Guidelines will be followed for: all trail construction above 2,500 feet elevation. The planning and assessment process outlined in Section 2 of the Trail Development Guidelines will be employed in developing and designing trails alall elevations. While the Applicant will follow the process set forth in Section 2, the applicable VWQS shall be "Class B" for trails under 2,500 feet elevation. [Applicant Exhibit 150 and ANR Exhibit 14]

147. .Jh~ 11~w Cliffs.lift will be.located inorderto avoid any con.flfot with major high altitude streams. Improvements to the Mansfield parking lot are designed to reduce the stonnwater runoff from this .ar~a~ [App~ic~~ E.xhibit 8]

148. Undisturbed buffers will be maintained between the Mansfield Base parking lots and the West Branch of the Little River and its tributary. [Exhibit 179 Sheets C6.1, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 noting that there are sheets with the same numbers but for later phases; also See Applicant Exhibit 140].

Toll House Area lmproveme11ts

149. The Inn Brook stream will be part of the ,A.pplicant's water quality monitoring program. {Applicant Exhibit 150]

CONCLUSIONS

Spruce Hamlet

The District Commission concludes that the Applicant has conceptually designed this component of the master plan so that, to the extent feasible, the natural conditions of streams will be maintained. The Commission concludes that more details will be required for the following aspects of the Hamlet prior to issuance of positive·conclusions:

I. A site specific plan for the restoration of the segment of the stream which will not be within the culvert.

2. Site plans and other details for the construction of the vehicular bridge over Little Sproce Brook.

In addition, site plans for each phase of the Hamlet build-out must clearly delineate the undisturbed buffers along the streams as well as specifying measures which will ensure the )} integrity of the streams during the construction phases. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 53

Spruce Golf Course

The District Commission is unable to reach positive conclusions under criterion l(E) until detailed site plans are submitted for evaluation.

Storage Reservoirs

· The Applicant does not request positive conclusions at this time under criterion l(E). As found above, details have yet to be designed for the modified West Branch withdrawal infrastructure, stream crossings and other related work.. A section 401 Water Quality Certificate must be obtaineQ Similarly, the Applicant recognizes that detailed designs nee4 to be completed for the two reservoirs prior to any final evaluation under this criterion.

The core of the Applicant's case rests upon the Agency of Natural Resources snowmaking determination. The determination demonstrates that the Agency's snowmaking rules will be adequately met and that, to the extent feasibl~, the natural conditions of the West Branch of the Little River and associated streams will be restored and then maintained. The dete~tion sets up a complex web of filing and performance standards and deadlines all of which are contingent upon the Applicant's filing of the phase one master plan application including the two reservoirs and related infrastructure. · The terms of the Agency of Natural Resources detennination will bt( ·.. conditions in any land use permit issued in respoµse to the phase one application. The District ·· Commission believes that a process must be put in place ensuring the timely and appropriate implementation of all elements of the determination because the determination is a material element of positive conclusions under criterion l(E). Continuing compliance Vlith the terms of the determination over time will be by means of the land use permit and the continuing jurisdiction of the District Commission. The Commission concludes that it is necessary to create a mechanism by which the terms of the. determination can be verified and supervised over time. Under·criterion 4, the District Commission requires pre and post construction conferences .for large or complex projects. The Commission is inclined to rely on that model by requiring annual status conferences by the District Commission following receipt of the annual report specified in the Agency of Natural Resources determination. The purposes ofthe annual District Commission status conferences will be to provide a forum at which the District Commission, Applicant and parties may be able to ascertain ongoing compli~ce with the proposal to restore and maintain appropriate stream flow. The Commission envisions that the annual -status conferences will take place by October 15th of each year and that memoranda of decision will issue after each conference in order to provide an ongoing record of consistent implementation, cognizant that over time changes can be anticipated in the composition of the membership of the District Commission and representatives for the Applicant and parties. The Commission is concerned that without such a compliance mechanism, the ability to verify compliance in a methodical fashion will be minimal. The Commission welcomes the input of the Applicant and · parties on such conferences when the phase one application is reviewed and a goal will be to have the requireme;t for status conferences memorialized as a condition in the land use permit which may be issued for phase one. Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 54 ))

The District Commission had indicated that its compliance proceedmg for Land Use Permit SL 1125-1 O(A) (Revised) would track concurrently with the master plan proceeding with regard to snowmaking/minimum flow issues. The Commission will issue a memorandum. of decision for the SL 1125-1 O(A)(Revised) proceeding which will state conclusions regarding whether the implementation plan and schedule under the Agency of Natural Resources snowmaking determination is also appropriate and adequate for purposes of addressing the terms of the outstanding condition in the land use permit.

Mountain Improvements

Because Iio detailed designs-or construction plans have been prepared and filed for the proposed ski trails and lifts, the District Commission is unable to state final positive conclusions at this time. However, the Commission ~ould be inclined to reach favorable conclusions if the plans and exhibits reflect the design standards set out in the findings stated above.

The District Commission reaches positive conclusions ~der this criterion with respect to the riparian buffers which will be maintained along the Mansfield parking lots.

Toll House Area Imnrovements

j j The Applicant does not seek positive conclusio~ at this time pending the submittal of plans ana the results of the water quality monitoring plan.

SECTION 6086(a)(I){F) SHORELINES

Spruce Hamlet

150. Tnere are no shorelines located on or adjacent to the Spruce Hamlet project. [Applicant Exhibit SJ .

Son1ce Golf Course

1'51. Tiiefe are·no shorelines focatedon or'adjicentto the Spruce Gdl.fC.oUX"Seproject. [Applicant Exhibit 6)

Storage Reservoirs

I It 152. There are no shorelines located on or adjacent to the Storage Reservoirs project. I',I [Applicant Exhibit 7] I Findings of Fact 511338 Page 55

Mountain Improvements

153. There are no shorelines located on or adjacent to the Mountain Improvements project. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

Toll House Area lmproveme,zts

154. There are no shorelines located on or adjacent to the Toll House .Area Improvements project. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

CONCLUSIONS

The Commission concludes positively that the projectwill not be located on any shoreline.

SECTION 6086(a)(l){G) WETLANDS

Ge,ieral Findings

~.\ 155. All wetlands within'the project have been identified and mapped. There are Class II and qass m wetlands on the project site. The only Class Ilwetl~d is Wetland WA1 (1.4?' acres). [Applicant Exhibit 38) Class II ~etlands are subject to the Vermont Wetland Rules promulgated by the Vermont Water Resources Board. Class ID wetlands are not regulated under the Vermont Wetland Rules but are evaluated under Act 250 criteria dependent upn the :function(s) and values of the particular wetland. The cqrrect locations of all wetlands are on the map attached to Applicant Exhibit 125. [Testimony of Brodie at February 8, 2000 hearing]

156. The Applicant filed a summary memorandum regarding the 22 wetlands present on the sites of the proposed Hamlet and golf course. The memorandum. provides the wetlands' designations, sizes, classes, and principal valuable functions. Wetland :functions and values assessments were based on professional judgment. [Applicant Exhibit 38] ·

I 157. I In general, the wetlands at the site are a result of either groundwater discharge or an I impervious substrate that prevents percolation. Most of the wetlands are forested, and I I wetland boundaries were most often determined by vegetation. Soils for most of the I.II wetlands were mineral and appeared fairly shallow to either bedrock or hardpan. [See :1 Applicant Exhibit 38] I 158. Wetland A-2 (WA2.) is predominately an emergent wetland with little or no slope and has both scrub/shrub and forested wetland types occuning around the perimeter. Several ~ small runoff channels· empty into the wetland; there is only one outlet channel associate.-1 with this wetland. The outlet is constricted and eventually discharges into Pinnacle Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 56

Brook to the west. The old gravel pit access road is approximately 80 feet upslope from this wetland and could potentially be a source of silt and toxicants. Based on slope, size, location and configuration, this wetland would have the opportunity, and would be effective in performing the following wetland functions: a. Water storage for :floodwater and storm nm.off; b. Surface and groundwater protection; c. Wildlife habitat; and . d. Hydrophytic vegetation habitat.

No deyelop~ent is prqposed to occw:. ..witb.in 50. foet of this Class A-2 wetland. Therefore, the project does not implicate the need to obtain a conditional use determination under the Vermont Wetland Rules. [Testimony of Brodi~ on February 8, 2000)

159. The ANR filed comments dated April 3, 2000 from a wetlands ecologist [ANRExhibit 16] but A.J.'ffi. subsequently withdrew this document from the record in this matter.

Spruce Hamlet

160. The locations of wetlands within the footprints of the proposed Hamlet development areas are d~picted on Exhibit A of Appli~ant Exhibit 150.

161. The federal Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the proposed introduction of fill in 0.98 acres of a headwater wetland and Little Spruce Brook within the Hamlet portion of the project. The Corps issued a General P~rmit for this work. [Applicant Exhibit 122)

Spnzce Golf Cou1·se

162. The Corps only reviews udirect impacts" on wetlands and found that the golf course, as originally designed, would have no such impacts. [Testimony of Brodie at February 8, 2000 Hearing]

163. The Corps determined that no pennitwould be required for the original golf course design. [Testimony of Apple at February 8, 2000 Hearing]

Storage Reservoirs

I I 164. Approximately 1.0 acres of Class m wetlands on the "Tom Lot" site of the storage· pond will be impacted by the construction of the pond. (See Sheet S7.0 of Exhibit 134)

1 165. Class 3 wetlands will be affected by the proposed golf course storage reservoir. {See 1 Exhibit A of Applicant Exhibit 150] Impacts, if any, to other Class 3 wetlands may only be determined when detailed golf course plans are submitted. [Testimony of Apple I at February 8, 2000 Hearing] I Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 57

WIountai11 Improvements

166. The Applicant has not perfonned a wetland survey for the areas of the proposed trails and therefore is not seeking findings for the Mountain Improvement component under this criterion at this time. Before any trail improvements are undertaken, the Applicant will identify any wetlands and prepare construction plans that minimize impacts on these areas. [Applicant Exhibits 175 and '1_89]

Toll House Area Improvements

167. There are no wetland areas that would be impacted by the Toll House Area Improvements [Testimony of Charlotte Brody on February 8, 2000]

CONCLUSIONS

Spruce Hamlet

No Class II wetlands will be affected and therefore this aspect of the master plan will not violate the Vermont Wetland Rules. Consistent with Environmental Board precedents, the review of impacts on the affected Class ill wetlands is made elsewhere in this decision under other criteii ·· · dependent upon the functions of the wetlands.

Soruce Golf Course

No Class II wetlands will be affected and therefore this aspect of the master plan will not violate the Vertnont Wetland Rules. Consistent with Environmental Board precedents, the review of impacts on the affected Class m wetlands is made elsewhere in this decision, such as under criterion 8(A), dependent upon the .functions of the wetlands. Because there are not yet final site plans for the revised golf course, the District Commission refrains from final positive conclusions under this and other criteria pending the filing of plans and confinnation of undisturbed buffer zones and related details.

Storasze Reservoirs

No Class II wetlands will be affected and therefore this aspect of the master plan will not violate I the Vermont Wetland Rules. The District Com.mission concludes under other criteria that the ! direct impacts on Class m wetlands will not be undue or unreasonable . •1 ! Mountain Imorovements

Consistent with our finding above, review of wetlands will take place at such time as a wetland survey and project site plans have been filed for the review and approval of the District Commission. Findings ofFact 5Ll338 Page 58 .,,I)

Toll House Improvements

No wetlands are present at the Inn site and therefore the District Commission reaches final positive conclusions tmder this and all related criteria.

SECTION 6086(a)(2&3) WATER AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON EXISTING 'WATER SUPPLY

Spruce Hamlet

168. Domestic water supply will be provid~d through an extension of the Stowe municipal water system. The Applicant has obtained a letter of service from the Stowe Town Administrator establishing capacity to serve the project upon completion of the water · supply expansion project The Town Administrator represented that the Town could meet an overall calculated ''flow rating" of apprmdmately 300,000 gallons per day (80% of the state's (ANR's) flow utilization tables) for the Applicant's needs. The Town anticipates "actual use" of around 175,000 gpd. [Applicant Exhibit 11]

169. The Applicant estimated in April 1999 that the water demand for the "468 units,,, averaging 2 bedrooms per unit, at 145,800 gpd. [AppUcan.tExhibit 37] !i

170. All Hamlet buildings will be sprinkled. The Applicant will rely on the municipal water system for fire protection purposes, as supplemented by the existing 120,000 gallon fire reservoir at Spruce. [Applicant Exhibit 37]

171. The Applicant provided an engineering opinion that the 1201000 gallon Spruce reservoir will meet the code requirements for an automatic sprinkler system at a standard of 500 to 750 gpm for a duration of30 to 60 minutes. A combined "inside/outside hose" flow of 100 gpm for 30 minutes is also required. [Applicant Exhibit 51]

Spruce fifll.[ Course

172. Water for the irrigation of the golf course will be provided from the 2 acre golf course storage pond which will have a storage volume of approximately 1.3 million gallons in its I top two feet of depth. [Applicant Exhibits 54 and 150]

The anticipated demand for golf course irrigation will be seven to ten million gallons per 173. I' season with a projected daily peak demand of 160,000 gallons. [Applicant Exlnoits 6 I and 54] I Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 59

174. The Applicant submitted an analysis of water demands for the original golf course design and likely sources of water. The golf course storage pond will be the primary source of water and it will be partially replenished by stormwater runoff from the golf course itself. This drainage area will involve 70 acres of golf course area as well as 40 acres of undeveloped watershed to the north and east of originally proposed holes 15-18. [Applicant Exhibit 54] ·

175. The balance of water to meet irrigation demands will be pmnped from the existing snowmaking pond which will be replenished by overflows from the Hamlet stormwater system, overflow from the golf course pond itself during significant storm events and partially diverted small streams and runoffflows from the vicinity of the Mansfield Base Lodge. The Applicant also represented the potential for additional water to be draw-n from the proposed Tom Lot reservoir. [Applicant Exhibit 54]

Storage Reservoirs

176. As found above, the Applicant submitted a Needs and Alternatives Analysis as well as a subsequent update in which water demands for snowmaking pmposes were evaluated. [Applicant Exhibits 58 and 154]

177. The reservoirs are designed for use in coajunction with the water withdrawals that will occur from the West Branch of the Little River after the minimum winter conservation flows are re-established to State standards. The total available annual volumes will be approximately 345 million gallons. [Applicant Exhibit 154 at Table 6]

178. The updated Needs and Alternative Analysis [Applicant Exhibit 154] includes the following summary of trail areas and snowmaking areas:

Phase Total Trail Area Snowmakimr Area Percent Coverage

Existing 420.9 acres 227.2 acres 54% Interim Expansion 556.1 acres 382.3 acres 58.7% Buildout 556.1 acres 556.1 acres 100%

179. The updated analysis cataloged historic water usage volumes for snowmaking purposes during operating seaso~ 1992/1993 through 1999/2000. During this period, the lowest volume used was 126.1 Mgal ~ 1993/1994 and the peak volume was 191.6Mgal in 1996/1997. Average demand over the 8 seasons was 160.9 Mgal. [Applicant Exhibit 154]. Findings of Fact 5LI338 . )' Page 60 J

180.. The Applicant projected a total seasonal water demand of 353 Mgal in order to meet coverage needs at the completion of the interim expansion period. The total seasonal demand at complete buildout of the snowmaking system is projected as being 583 Mgal. [Applic~t Exhibit 154].

181. The update analysis concluded that with a conservatio_n flow of 0.80 csm at the West Branch outtake and with the use of th~ two proposed reservoirs, the water withdrawals from the West B~ch - at full buildout of the sno\.Vlnaking coverage system - will range from 228 .3 Mgal in a 5 year low flow conditioz;i to 344.9 Mgal in an average year. The satisfaction of the remainde~ of the buildout water_d.emand.will likely be metby either .. future vnthdrawals at Sto~e Fork or at the Waterbury Reservoir. [Applicant Exhibit 154].

182. The update analysis for the interim and buildout scenario did not factor in the volumetric contributions from the stormwater runoff collection systems which will discharge to the existing snowmaking reservoir. Sine~ the runoff volumes will vary: the Applicant will monitor these volumes over time in order to assess the significance of this source in planning future improvements. [Applicant Exhibit 154].

Mou1itain I1nproveme1tts

183. The Mansfield Base Lodge will be served by the expanded;municipal domestic system. {Applicant Exhibit 8)

Toll House Area Improvements

184. The Toll House improvements will be served by the expanded municipal domestic system. [Applicant Exhibit 9)

CONCLUSIONS

The District Commission will require that construction first be completed on the municipal infrastructure and that the Applicant obtain a water supply and wastewater disposal permit from · the Department of Environmental Conservation for each phase of the project. Because of the scale of the project, the Applicant will be required to verify adequate fire protection capacity for each phase of the Hamlet.

Somce Golf Course . The District Commission concludes that the Applicant has demonstrated that a sufficient suppl)' il Findings ofFact 5Ll338 Page 61

of water will be available for the needs of golf course irrigation. The record shows that the supply will be met from surface runoff sources. No wells, springs or other sources will be utilized. .If other water sources are to be relied upon, timely amendment applications must first be filed for the review and approval of the District Commission~ Therefore, the District Commission reaches positive conclusions for this component of the master plan.

Stora2e Reservoirs

As found above, the reservoirs will serve the mutiple purposes of meeting projected sno\Vlllaking needs as well as golf course irrigation requirements. The District Commission's .findingsand conclusions above for criterion l(E) have considered minimum stream flow issues. Similarly, the use of the reservoirs for golf course irrigation has been affirmatively·evaluated above under these criteria. Therefore, the District Commission reaches positive conclusions for this component of the master plan. ·

Mountain.·Improvements

The District Commission relies upon its conclusions stated above for the Hamlet with respect to the Mansfield Lodge expansion and the maintenance facility, both ofwhich will require ... connections to the municipal water supply. The needs of the expanded sno'Wlllaking system ha:<: been addressed under other criteria

Toll House Imnrovements

The District Commission relies upon its conclusions stated above for the Hamlet with respect to the Inn expansion which will be served by comtection to the municipal water supply.

SECTION 6086(a)(4) SOIL EROSION AND THE CAPACITY OF THE LAND TO HOLD WATER

Spruce Hamlet

I· 1ss. The Applicant prepared final revised erosion control plans for the phased construction of the Hamlet. These revisions followed significant input from ANR staff. [Applicant Exhibit 179 and See ANR Exhhibit 13]. I 186. The Applicant's erosion control measures will include the following: (i) hay bale check dams and silt fences will be installed within drainage paths and before storm d{ain inlets to reduce the velocity of storm.water runoff and intercept siltation; (ii) silt fences will be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes to filter runoff; (iii) an averaged 50 foot vegetated buffer strip will be maintained between the top of the bank and the new parking areas, and (iv) seeding and mulching will be completed at all areas as soon as possible but no

11 Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 62 ))

later than 48 hours after final grading. Prior to the commencement of any construction, silt. fence will be installed at the toe of slopes based on finish grade contours in order to delineate construction limits. [Applicant Exhibit 5]

187. Roadways and parking lots will be paved, with the exception· of the gravel [Applicant Exhibit 185).

188. All erosion control measures will be in place prior to the ground freezing. [Applicant Exhibit 5 and ANR Exhibit 28]

189. Erosion control measures will be inspected daily by the project manager. [Applicant Exhibit 5]

190. The project engineer will identify suitable soil stockpile locations. [Applicant Exhibit 43)

191. ANR requested that the following conditions be included in any land use permit(s) eventually issued for the Hamlet projects: [Al'lR Exhibit 28]

a. The Pennittee shall implement the site-specific erosion control measures outlin... i l depicted on Exhibit 179.

b. The Permittee shall maintainadequate isolation distances between stockpiled soil and waters of the state so as to prevent discharges to waters of the state and degradation of water quality (whether temporary or otherwise).

c. The Pennittee shall maximize all opportunities to stabilize ar~_s of earthwork with a good vegetative cover as soon as feasible. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized and coyer achieved sequentially through the construction season.

d. Prior to the start of construction at any site, stream buffer limits and disturbance limits shall be Jenced.orotherwise delineated-to -the- satisfacti0n·ofthe-W-ater··- ·· Quality Division of the Agency in order to prevent construction on, or disruption of, these areas.

e. Starting at the commencement of construction, the Pennittee shall fund, through the creation of an escrow account, the services ofVermont registered professional engineer (the ''Independent Engineer") to undertake inspections and ensure that the erosion control plans are being complied with and adapted as necessary. The Independent Engineer shall be hired by and serve under the sole direction of the District Commission. . .J) II II II Findings of Fact 511338 Page 63

f. The Independent Engineer shall, as directed by the District Commission after consultation vvith the Water Quality Division of the Agency, inspect.areas di~turbed by construction at critical times until all earthwork is fully stabilized to ensure that an adequate isolation distance is maintained between stockpiled soils and waters ofthe state and that erosion protections are in place and properly maintained. Such inspections shall occur no less frequently than once a week from April 1 to November 30 ~or less frequently than once a month from December 1 to March 30. Inspections may occur more frequently during critical times such as during earthmoving and major storm and runoff events. The Independent Engineer shall certify to the District Commission by weekly report from April 1 to November 30 and by monthly report from December 1 to March 30 that all needed erosion controls are in place and are properly maintained and that earthwork is talcing place in conformance with the conditions of this pennit. The reports shall be filed within one week of the reporting period and a copy shall be sent to the Water Quality Division of the Agency. The Independent Engineer shall promptly report any instances of noncompliance or significant erosion problems.

g. Except as provided in paragraph (h) below: 1) September 15th shall be the cutoff date for earthwork and the deadline for completion of all .stabilization activities : each year. 2) No grubbing of stwµps, site grading and construction of drainage structures shall be pennitted between September 15th a;nd Aprii 15th. 3) All disturbed areas of the site shall be stabilized, seeded and mulched from September 15th to April 15th each year during construction.

h. The Permittee may request that construction resulting in earthwork in the.Spruce Hamlet area continue until October 1st in any given year. Such requests shall be made no later than August 30th, and shall be supject to the review and approval of the District Commission, after consultation with the Independent Engineer and the Water Quality Division of the Agency, based upon the particular construction work to be accomplished, the nature and extent of earth disturbance, weather conditions, slope of the land to be disturbed, and any other r~levant factors. Minor earth disturbances of limited duration and area may be allowed in the Spruce Hamlet area between October 1st and April 15th by the District Commission, if it determines, after consultation with the Independent Engineer and the Water Quality Division of the Agency, that such work can be undertaken without significant risk to water quality. The Commission reserves the right to impose special winter-based erosion control requirements. ·

A pre-construction meeting shall be held each spring with the Pennittee, the Pennittee's contractor, the Independent Engineer, a representative of the Water Quality Division of the Agency, a representative of the District Commission and, Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 64 - ))

if state lands are involved, a representative of the Agency's Forest, Parks and Recreation Departm.e~t Among the issues to be discussed is the location of stockpiled soils. Constnlction may commence after April 15th if it is determined that site conditions are such that commencement of construction by this early spring date does not pose an undue risk to water quality.

J. With respect to the other comP.onent projects covered under the master plan, the Applicant will need to prepare detailed erosion control plans for each component to ensure compliance with the requirement to avoid unreasonable soil erosion or .reduction in the.capacity of.the land-to hold-water.· The Permittee·shall provide, in~ the applications for individual components covered under the master plan, dt;tajJ~d. plans concerning the management of stockpiled soils in order to protect water qualit:y.

192. An stormwater collection system has been designed that will significantly reduce both existing and future volumes and velocities of stormwater leaving the project site. [See chart of pre and post development flows on page 3 of Applicant Exhibit 121

I~ 193. Four bioretention areas will be sited in the main 450 space parking lot. Five other bioretention areas will be scattered through the Hamlet area. [Applicant Exhibit 12 ah 'l map therein.I There will be a total ofthh:teen retention structures in Hamlet and Mansfield base areas [Testimony ofNelson at March 8, 2000 Hearing].

Spruce Golf Course

194. No detailed erosion control plans have been prepared for· the Spruce Golf Course since the golf course design has yet to be finalized.

Storaee Reservoirs

195. No erosion control measures for this component are sho'\'v-n or detailed. Sheet S7.0 of -Applicant·-E-xln"bit-134:-is the-sole·site pfan·(scale· I u= 100') for the Tom:t:otreservoir and­ it does not include erosion controls or related details, such as for the proposed pipeline. No site plans have yet been prepared for the golf course reservoir.

Mountain lmproveme1tts

196. No detailed erosion control plans for this component have been submitted. [Applicant Exhibit 8]

JJ Findings of Fact SL1338 Page 65

Toll House Area Improvements

197. No detailed erosion control plans for the Toll House Area Improvements have been submitted. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

CONCLUSIONS

Spruce Hamlet

With respect to the Spruce Hamlet only the Commission reaches positive conclusions that the project will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to bold water. The Commission will attach the conditions requested by ANR in all land use permits issued for the phased construction of the Hamlet. ·

Golf Course, Storage Reservoirs. Mountain Improvements- and Inn Expansion

With respect to the other components, the Applicant will need to prepare detailed erosion control specifications and site plans for each component to ensure compliance with the requirements of criterion 4 to avoid unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of the land to hold water. · t·

SECTION 6086(a)(5) TRANSPORTATION

Findinrs fg_r All Compone,zts gJthe Jl.,faster Pla11.

198. The Applicant filed a traffic impact analysis dated June 1999 which evaluated the master p Ian as initially proposed. In sum, the traffic study recommended the following:

a. hnplement a traffic-monitoring program at Stowe. As part of this program, delay studies should be conducted during a Saturday peak hour once each season at the Hamlet/Motmt Mansfield driveway, Luce Hill, and Weeks Hill intersections along VT 108 during peak periods; b. If monitoring shows unacceptable peak period congestion on minor legs of these intersection, then traffic control officers should be posted during peak periods; c. Increase S:MR's contribution to the Stowe Trolley. These additional :funds can be used to increase winter headways, service summer events, and/or to service the VT 108 corridor during peak summer weekends; d. Post advisory speed signs at low-speed curves along VT 108, and/or improve sight distance along curves; and e. Consider the construction of tum lanes along H.A.L sections as needed. [Applicant Exhibit 62] Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 66 ))

199. The analysis assumed the project consisted of a total of 579 units - 522 units at the Hamlet and 53 at the Toll House complex. It also considered traffic effects from the golf course as well as 116 additional day skier parking spaces at the Mansfield and Spruce base areas. It premised thatthe 35,000 square feet of retail space would not compete with retail in Stowe Village. The traffic impact analysis focused primarily on winter traffic conditions. [Applicant Exhibit 62)

200. The traffic analysis was updated (June 15, 1999 Addendum) in order to evaluate impacts from proposed 681 spaces of increased overflow parking for extra day skiers during peak · l ski.periQ.ds .al ~e.-~xis:ting cross. co.:untry skiing.facilities located .. south ofthe Toll.House complex. [Applicant Exhibit 63]

201. The Applicant introduced an analysis of projected parking needs for the proposed master plan buildout. This analysis concluded that the total needs of S:MR over a 10 year period for all uses will be 4,040 spaces, an increase of 1,683 spaces over the existing 2,357 spaces. [Applicant Exhibit l 03]. However, the demand for anticipated parking needs at buildout could reach 4,291 spac~s [Testimony of Apple at January 6, 2000 hearing relative to Applicant.Exhibit 103]. ·

202. The 761 new day skier spaces for peak days/weekends discussed in Applicant Exhibit 'J 103 (revised December 28, 1999) were b~yond the scope of the June 1999 traffic addendum which evaluated impacts from 116 added day skiers during the design hour. [Testimony ofKaliski at January 20, 2000 hearing]

203. The Applicant also introduced a comprehensive study of the Vermont Route 100-108 intersection which was prepared for the Town of Stowe and others in 1995. That study contains information on related traffic in.frastri.lctµre issues. [Applicant Exhibit 117]

204. The Applicant's consultant provided a supplemental letter discussing conceputal construction traffic impacts following the submittal of the aforementioned Kavet analysis. [Applicant Exhibit 182]

205. A final submittal by the Applicant's traffic consultant in December 2000con:finned the premises upon which tlie original traffic analysis was based; that the buildout of the master plan would result in 579 units/1,593 bedrooms although the Kavet analysis estimated 2,115 bedrooms. [Applicant Exhibit 186]

206. The June 1999 traffic study estimated that at full occupancy this project will generate approximately 165 trips per hour (27 enter, 138 exit) during afternoon peak hour on a design winter weekend. 115 of these trips will be generated by new residential development. [Applicant Exhibit 62] . ).) Findings of Fact 511338 Page 67

207. The June 1999 traffic analyses (June 10 and June 15 Addendum) calculate trip generation from the proposed development. The Applicant's traffic consultant evaluated traffic counts from a condominium project at the Mount Snow resort in Dover and the Topnotch resort in Stowe. In addition, the consultant evaluated counts at t}le Grand Summit Hotel resort at Sunday River, Maine. The consultant concluded that the three. traffic surveys provided very simiiartrip generation rates. [Applicant Exhibit 62].

208. The Applicant's traffic consultant applied the higher trip rate observed at the Topnotch Resort C'T opnotch") situated south of the project on Vermont Route 108. The consultant adjusted the Topnotch trip rate to reflect the siopeside features at the Hamlet(~ trips to and from the ski area will not be car trips). The resulting adjusted trip generation rate from the new units at the Stowe Mountain Resort will equal 0.2 trips per unit during the peak hour. The consultant also assumed that all visitors to the retail component of the Hamlet would either be guests at the units or already visitors to the ski resort [Applicant Exhibits 62 and 117 and Testimony of Ken Kaliski at the bearing on January 22, 200~ .

209. The trip generation calculations in the June 1999 traffic study are based on counts at the Top Notch resort, which consists of a mix ofcondominiums and hotel bedrooms. The Top Notch condominiwns average 3.0 bedrooms per unit, slightly lower than that proposed at Slv.1R. Since the number ofb.edrooms per unit at Top Notch is lower than that proposed at S1v1R, it is likely the overall trip generation rate will be slightly higher at SMR because these units may be rented by multiple groups with multiple cars. [Applicant Exhibit 186].

210. Top Notch has approximately3_0% condominium units while Sh1:R is proposing 70% condominium units. Based on a trip generation study of planned uses at the Killington Ski Resort area, prepared by the SN!R traffic .eonsultant in May of 1988, the PM peak hour trip generation rates for condominiums and hotel bedrooms are similar. Therefore, any change in the mix of hotel and condominium units should not significantly affect estimates of trip generation. [Applicant Exhibit 186]

211. Some of S1v!R's proposed 384 condominium units ·may be "lock offs" bringing the total number of''k.eysu to 689. Given the fact that only a portion of the condominiums are lock off extra units at any one time, it is unlikely that the lock offs will generate a substantial number of extra trips. For example, if 50% of the lock offs were used, an I additional 11 PM peak hour trips would be generated (55 added units x 0.2 trips per unit). i I!I [Applicant Exhibit 186]

212. The existing 482 space Spruce base area parking lot will be relocated and will have a capacity of 440 cars. 886 ne~ underground parking spaces wi1i be built. Excavated material from the underground facilities will be used either on site or be stockpiled on l~d owned by the Applicant [Applicants Exhibit 5 and 103) Findings.of Fact 5L1338 Page 68 ))

213. The traffic addendum evaluates the proj'ected traffic impacts from the proposed overflow parking at the existing Cross Country lot at Stowe Resort. The purpose of overflow parking is to accommodate extra day skiers during peak skiperiods. The addendum focuses on winter condition.$ when the overflow lots would be utilized. [Applicant Exhibit 63]

214. The Cross Country and Harlow Hill satellite lots are proposed to be expanded from 80 to 761 spaces to provide overflow. During the summer, when the ski area isn't operating the units will likely be less than fully occupied. According to the addendum, relief ,parking is notexpectecl-to ha:ve any..,additional impacts .. inthe summer. The summer conditions outlined in the June l 0, 1999 ·revised traffic study remain unchanged. [Appl.i~~;t1t E:d1.ibit 63.]

215. The addendum concluded that traffic.generated from the relief parking does not change the recommendations in the June 10, 1999 revised traffic study. [Applicant Exhibit 63]

216. Based oil the traffic analyses, the proposed project will generate. 50 day skier trips north of the Toll House, 115 trips .from the H8llllet and293 day skier trips at or south ofthe Toll House when those satellite lots are full -during peak holidays and weekends. [Applicant Exhibit 117] - ·· JJ

217. Toe distribution of new trips was based o~ the distribution, of parking in and around the

various lodges and the shortest distances to exits and entrances. As a result1 the traffic analysis distributes trips as shown in the reports. For example, the .analysis forecasts 3 ·· additional turning movements out of the Mt. Mansfield Base Lodge during the winter p.m. peak hour~ This is due to a small change in the parking around the Mans~eld Base Lodge from lt203 to 1~12 spaces. Four hundred thirty three spaces are added at Barnes Camp, but :o;.iost of these spaces will access a new driveway on to Vermont 108 near the existing Smugglers Notch Gateway. [Applicant Exhibit 117]

218. The distribution of trips along Vermont 108.and Vermont l_()O w~ based on a license plate survey condueted on January 14, 1995~ During:this survey, the Applicant'·s consultant placed license plate recprding stations near Station L57 on West Hill Road, on Moscow Road, and on Vermont 100 north and south of town. By matching the license ii plates at each location, they were able to determine the distribution of vehicles generated at the existing resort· .and along Vermont 100. The consultqnt then adjusted this data to II account for increased use of the Mayo Road, connector after it was paved. To distribute I the non-tbru traffic within the study area, the consultant obtained from the tow'Il the square footage of retail and commercial uses along Vermont 108 and 100. The consultant I then distributed these internal trips proportional to where the retail ~d commercial development in Stowe is. Based on the methodology the consultant found that .'J approximately29% of existing S:MR generated traffic passes through the Vermont Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 69

1OON ermont 108 intersection. The consultant used the same distribution in its June reports to distribute new traffic from the Applicant's project. The June 10 traffic analysis forecasts 39 new outgoing and 8 new incoming trips will go through the Vennont lOONermont 108 during the design hour.· [Applicant Exhibit 117 and Testimony of Adler at January 6, 2-000 Hearing]

219. Overall, the master plan will result in an increase of 17% over existing SMR traffic volumes. The master plan. will contribute approximately 40 vehicles in the peak hour at the Vermont Route 100-108 intersection. [Testimony of Alder at January 6, 2000 Hearing]

220. During the summer, SMR expectsto operate at an average sum.mer occupancy of30% with conditions peaking at 40% of the units during the month of August. The Applicant plans to attract guests during the summer period by operation of the golf course and other amenities provided by the applicant, such as the alpine slide and the proximity of the . project to the state park. [Applicant Exhibit 62).

22 l. The Applicant's traffic consultant assumed a summer design occupancy of 53% for the units and calculated a summer design hour traffic volume of 60 trips per hour. [Applic~~ Exhibit 62]. { · ..

222. The Applicant's traffic consultant assum~d that the golf course would draw some outside­ client traffic and calculated a volume of 12 trips during the peak hour. The Applicant's analysis did not consider any special events such as tournaments. [Applicant Exhibit 62].

223. Combined summer design hour trip generation rates from f:he Hamlet, at buildout, and the golf course, is expected to be 72 trips. This volume is approximately 16% of the estimated winter design hour volume. [Applicant Exhibit 62].

224. No conference facilities are proposed for the Spruce Hamlet. However, both the Hamlet and Spruce Base Lodge will have space that can be utilized for conference activity. The Applicant's consultant does not predict any different impacts on traffic as a result of · conference activities.

225. Level-of-service (LOS) analyses show that the study intersections will operate at

adequate levels through the year 2004 with the new development volumes1 with the exception of the VT 1CONT I 08 intersection which is currently over capacity tmder design hour conditions. [Applicant Exhibits 62 and 63]. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 70 ))

226. The Vermont Route 100 and 108 intersection operates at LOS F during peak periods, even with police directing trai."iic. Congestion occurs at this intersection during both summer and winter seasons. [Applicant Exhibits 62 and 109 and· Testimony of Adler at January 6, 2000 Hearing].

I 221. The Vermont Route 100 and 108 intersection is a High Accident Location (HAL) according to AOT records. [Applicant Exhibits 62 and 109]. In 1995 two alternatives were recommended for this intersection: 1) traffic calming/village enhancements and 2) a new direct connection (by pass) for the two state highways.

228. The volume of traffic on Vermont Route 100 is growing at twice the rate of internal town

traffic. [Testimony of Federspiel at January 61 2000 Hearing] .. Vermont Route 100 is a recognized regional corridor. While the Town may find LOS F acceptable at the Vermont Route 100 and 108 intersection, the District Commission is not obligated to. [Testimony of Adler at January 6, 2000 Hearing].

229. Overall delays at the intersection of Weeks Hill and Luce Hill bring these intersections to Level-of-Service B or better. However, the minor street left turns are modeled as dropping to Level-or-Service E or F by 2005. At the Spruce Hamlet driveway ~tersection, southbound left-tu.ms experience Level-of-Service D and overall Level-01 ·· 'j Service A under all scenarios. The Wee~ Hill, Luce Hill and the Hamlet driveway intersections have adequate overall capacity to handle the projected traffic. Additionally, improvements to Weeks Hill Road to reduce side-street delays are scheduled to be constructed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. [Applicant Exhibits 62 and 63]

230. The AOT records indicate that a second HAL is present on Vermont Route 108 near the existing McDonald's restaurant. (Applicant Exhibit 109].

231. The AOT believes that the high accident location on Route 108 near the McDonalds Restaurant can be improved through execution of the following:

a. Better signing.to-and along. the.Luce.Hill-Read.-B;!ll"~s-Road-Moscow R-ead alternative route between Vermont 108 and Vermont I 00, in order to divert southbound traffic. b. Brush clearing in the vicinity of ledge near McDonalds to improve sight distance. c. Maintenance of good pavement markings with edge lines in this same area. d. Installation of raised pavement markers on the center line in this area if such are available which are appropriate for the pavement and climate conditions. e. Installation of warning signs. f. Installation of street lighting in this area.

) Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 71

g. Monitoring of ridership on the trolley by the Applicant to detennine its effectiveness in reducing passenger car equivalents in this high accident location and in the Vermont 100 and Vennont 108 intersection area [Applicant Exhibit 118] ·

232. AOT represented that it is working with the Town of Stowe to remove a ledge to attain better sight distance at the bigh.accide:nt location on Route 108 near :McDonalds. This will require acquisition of right-of-way, which the town has represented it will pursue. The AOT is prepared to pursue these mitigation efforts as part of its overall program to reduce high accident locations. Since Luce Hill Road, Barrows Road and Moscow Road are town highways, the AOT will work with the Town of Stowe with regard to improved signage called for in the finding above. The AOT believes that with these mitigations the Applicant's project will not cause undue safety concerns. [Applicant Exhibit 118]

233. The AOT provided an update on the status of its efforts regarding the implementation of the mitigation steps for the high acciqent location on Route I 08 at McDonalds. [Applicant Exhibit 146]

234. AOT represented that brush clearing in the vicinity of the ledge near McDonalds has been completed. [Applicant Exhibit 146 and AOT Exhibit 2]

235. AOT is of the view that existing street lighting in the area of the McDonald,s HAL is adequate. [Applicant Exhibit 146 and AOT Exhibit 2)

236. AOT has completed swvey work for the removal of the ledge at the McDonald's HAL and determined that approximately 275 cubic yards ofrock would ne·ed to be removed. AOT attached the preliminary plots indicating the areas where the ledge would be removed. AOT is still in the process of dete~cing the· right-of-way limits for this portion of highway and therefore, is uncertain if additioruµ right-of-way will be needed. (Applicant Exhibit 146] [See also AOT Exhibits 1 (includes attached plans) and 2}

23 7. AOT reported that pavement markings have been properly maintained through the area using painted lines. [Exhibit AOT2]

238. Raised pavement markers for the centerline may be installed by AOT. [Exhibit AOT2]

239. Additional warning signs (large arrow board) have been installed at the high accident location curve. [Exhibit AOT2]

240. The Town of Stowe Selectboard indicated its willingness to work with the Applicant on various traffic issues and improvements identified by the SMR traffic consultant The town specifically notes that an area on Route 108 in front of McDonalds and the Rusty Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 72 . ) ·'

Nail has the highest rate of accidents on Route 108. The state believes that these accidents are primarily due to limited sight distances caused by outcroppings ofledge rock along the road across from the two restaurants. The Town of Stowe Selectboard committed to work with S:MR and the Vermont Agency of Transportation to acquire easements and/or rights of way to permit the removal of the rock ledge to increase the sight distances to more acceptable levels. Th€ Town of Stowe Selectboard indicated that it may already own some of the neede~ property. (Applicant Exhibit 105]

241. The Stowe Municipal Plan strongly recommends public and alternative modes of tr.ansp_ortation.as means.. to..lessen.traffic congestien:--The ctll'rent public transportation system in Stowe can be expanded, and SMR has agreed to make a contribution to the Trolley Service. [Applica;n,.t i~iblt 62]

242. The Town of Stowe Selectboard represented that empioyees of Stowe Mountain Resort and the Stowe Area Association may use Stowe's trolley service at no cost. [Applicant Exhibit 106] However, few S::MR employees can be expected to use the Trolley. [Testimony ofFederspiel at January 6, 2000 Hearing]

~ 243. The Applicant provided tables to su.nimarize trolley ridership totals between t!ie years 1993 and 1998. The tables indicate that trolley ridership has increased from 28,929 l} riders in 1993 to 63,287 in 1998. [Applicant Exhibit 107] The trolley has operated over capacity during peak weekends for the last 2 to 3 years. Some potential riders cannot board during peak periods. The Town is committed to an expansion of the trolley service. (Testimony of Federspiel at January 6, 2000 Hearing]

244. The Applicant has committed to subsidize the trolley service to enable the trolley to run on 10-minute headways to the Resort. This frequency will enable the service to carry over 100 passengers per hour during peak periods ( 40 car equivalents). [Testimony of Adler at January 6, 2000 HeruiIJg; Applicant Exhibit 112) I 245. The Town of Stowe's position is that the additional traffic that the proposed :development II - at·the-ski area is expected to generate· can be addressed and·handled-by ·an:-exp&r<:ieci' I trolley operation. Because the Applicant proposes traffic monitoring fo1I6wing approval of the master plan, the Town will be expected to verifythe doubling of trolley service during peak times. [Applicant Exhibit 113]

I 246. Little or no construction related truck activity will occur off site since the Applicant intends a balance of cut and fill at its project sites. [Applicant Exhibit 182)

I 247. In response to a request from the District Commission for supplemental evidence, the Applicant's traffic consultant indicated that SN.CR construction traffic will have no imp, .)I· on the initial traffic analysis performed by the Applicant's consultant noting that Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 73

construction impacts are typically not considered in its analyses of cut and fill are included in the project design. [Applicant Exhibit 182]

248. The Kavet analysis found that the master plan construction·phases may result in as many as 330 construction-related jobs annually. [DEC Exhibit 1 at page 5].

249. Because the project is phased, the co~ultant recommended monitoring traffic after each phase. This monitoring mil help to improve the accuracy of the trip generation estimates for future phases and will serve as an early warning if trip making by the development and/or congestion at local interse~tions is worse than anticipated by the traffic study. [Applicant Exhibit 186]

250. The Applicant has agreed to evaluate traffic impacts from the Modified Project build-out as skier days increase from the current baseline of 365,000 to 475,000 then 525,000, and then 575,000. When each of these benchmarks is first reached, SMR has asked to conduct and submit to the Commission a monitoring study and traffic impact analysis to assure that traffic conditions caused by build-out of the Modified Project are mitigated with respect to additional day-skier visits by non-resort guests. [Applicant Exhibits 189 and 193]. ..:· ·. CONCLUSIONS

The Applicant's unrebutted traffic analysis conclup.es that the anticipated increases in traffic from the buildout of the master plan will not result in unreasonable congestion with respect to the use of highways. The record reflects that the intersection of Vermont Routes 100 and 108 already experiences significant congestion at peak periods with LOS F. The residents of Stowe are .willing to accept such periodic congestion (See :findings below under criterion 10) rather than undertake substanti~l physical improvements which could jeopardize the aesthetic and "human scale" qualities of Stowe Village. The District Commission respects this viewpoint. At the same time, the District Commission is charged with safeguarding the larger public interest and must be cognizant that V ennont Route 100 is a regional highway conidor passing through the village.

The evidence indicates that volumes on Vermont Route 100 are increasing at a rate higher than that resulting from traffic generation in Stowe itself. The record also shows that presently 29% of existing S:MR generated traffic passes through the intersection and that the master plan will cause an increase of 17% in overall S1YIR. traffic volumes resulting in approximately 40 . additional vehicles through the Vermont Routes 100 and 108 intersection at the peak hour. The Commission has some concern about the validity of these traffic generation rates because the traffic consultant relied heavily upon information provided by the Applicant relative to the proposed land uses included in the master plan as well as overall projected gro'Nth rates. As the

Commission's witness Kavet bas observed [See findings below for criteria 61 7, 9(A) and 9(H)J :. seems that the Applicant's growth projection studies could have substantially underestimated ~. F~dings ofFact 5L1338 ')) Page 74

certain data and conclusions thus having a resultant effect on "downstream" analyses such as traffic reports. (See Kavet report - DEC Exhibit 1 - at "primary finding #4"].

The Applicant proposes to implement a traffic-monitoring program as summarized above in our findings. The frequency of the filing of reports with the District Commission and specific steps to be taken to address any unanticipated impacts is unclear to the District Commission. The Applicant suggests a linkage to increases in "~kier days" which may address winter peaks but does not propose a benchmark for summer peaks. Monitoring will take place after each pha$e of the master plan is constructed and in operation. But subsequent phases may already have been . -· ~efo~e the District Commission fo:c. a..dditional permitting before mitigation-measures, if necessary, could be determined for earlier phases. However, it seems reasonable to approach the issue in 5 year increments since the District Commission understands that the general validity of traffic studies extends out over S year terms.

Other factors support a prudent approach in setting 5 year re-evaluation windows of traffic impacts. For example, the Applicant represented an intent to pursue conferences in the 5Ll 125- 10 proceedings in order to fill in non-winter "economic valleys". The District Commission received no comparable evidence on any proposed conference uses or any special event uses in the present master plan proceedings. .!. Aware that "conditions subsequent" are not pemµssible under Act 250 but mindful that permit conditions are the means to address any unreasonable impacts under criterion 5 [See 10 V.S.A. 6087(b)], the District Commissjon determines that by maintaining continuing jurisdiction over traffic congestion issues and by requiring status conferences at least every 5 years {amendment application proceedings for permitting oflater phases of the master plan may be suitable vehicles for the review of impacts in less than 5 year increments), positive conclusions under criterion 5 are possible at this time for the initial master plan review of all components.

The record in this case shows that traffic generated by the Applicant's master plan will move through two recognized existing high accident locations. Criterion 5 requires an assessment .of unsafe conditions. The Environmental Board and Vermont Supreme C::ourt ;b.ave held tp._at exacerbating an existing tr~~ .hazard by--allowing additional traffic would·be'detrimentalto the public interest [Eilf!rim Partnership 5W0894-1-EB (January 28, 1999); 153 Vt. 594 (1990)]. As noted above, problematic impacts identified under criterion 5 are to be addressed bymeans of permit conditions. The record before the District Commission shows that the Town has plans to "calmu and enhance traffic movements in Stowe village and that the Town and Agency of Transportation have plans to address the Vermont Route 108 HAL. The :first opportunity to · attach conditions will be in any land use permit which may be issued for the phase one component of the master plan. The District Commission will use that amendment application proceeding to assess progress in the implementation of remedies at each HAL. Dependent upo.. that assessment, a condition will be formulated to address any magnification of the hazardous . )) circumstances attributable to increased traffic from the Applicant's master plan. Findings of Fact 511338 Page 75

SECTION 6086(a)(6) EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

SE.CTION 6086(a)(7) l\fUNICIPAL SERVICES

SECTION 6086(a)(9)(A) 11\tIPACT OF GROWTH

SECTION 6086(a)(9)(H) SCATTERED D~VELOPMENT

Limited Combined Findings

'I'he Applicant sought full positive findings and conclusions under criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and 9(H) in its original application filings and throughoitt the majority ofthe District Commission proceedings. [Applicant Exhibits 2, 60 and 142]. The Applicant subsequently filed a motion on October 18, 2000 to withdraw criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and 9(H) from the master plan review. [Applicant Exhibit 174]. As explained elsewhere in this decision, the District Commission niled on the Applicant's .motion ·at a hearing on November 14, 2000, denying and granting the motion in part. This n.tling was then stated in a Memorandum ofDecision issued on November 30, 2000. 1'he Commission indicated in its decision that it would admit the Kavet analysis [District Environmental Commission Ex!,ibit l] into the record ofthis case and reserved the right to state limited findings based on the Ka.vet analysis in its final decision. The Kavet analysis was.: filed on November 1, 2000* with the District Co1Jlmission and was distributed to the Applicant and relevant parties. },tfr. Kavet was present as a witness at the Commission 's November 14th hearing and was available for examination by the Applicant and parties. The District Commission makes the following.findings and conclusions. ·

251. The Kavet analysis was prepared in collaboration with the Applicant's representatives. The District Commission instructed its witness to prepare an independent evaluation of potential impacts premised upon a free exchange of information and data with the Applicant's consultant. [DEC Exhibit 1].

252. 1vfr. Kavet secured use of the Vermont State economic model from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (RE~, a sophisticated model for measuring economic and demographic impacts from developments. (Descriptions of REM! models are attachments to DEC Exhibit 1 as is the curriculum vitae of witness Kavet). The Commission witness developed project specifications with RE:MI senior economists. [DEC Exhibit 1].

253. The Kavet analysis concluded in general that the Applicant's two analyses under these criteria (Applicant Exhibits 14 and 19: the Applicant withdrew these exhibits from the record on November 14, 2000) "failed to meet minimum standards necessary to consider it a re3$onable assessment of either th~ likely or potential economic, demographic and fiscal impacts of this project ... the S~ analysis substantially underestimated the potential impacts of the proposed project." [DEC Exhibit IJ.

* As noted on page 2 of the Xavet analysis, a copy of :the preliminary analysis of project impacts had peen shared 'With the Applicant on October 13, 2000. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 76

254. Nine primary findings articulated the significant shortcoming of the Applicant's projections and analyses of impacts from the master plan buildout [DEC Exhibit 1 at pages 3 and 4].

CONCLUSIONS

As previously explained in the District Commission's memoranda of decision in this case, the Commission decided to retain a witness undet the provisions of Environmental Board Rule 20 to

assist it in evaluating the master plan under criteria 6, 71 9(A) and 9(H). The Com:mission proceeded under Rule 20 noting that it would not have the benefit of actively participating parties in the evaluation of potential impacts under these criteria.* The Environmental Board retain~d 11?.q~a_s E. Kavet oµ behaJfof.theDistrict Commission and a substantial expenditure of public funds was made for his services in reliance that the Applicant would seek full positive findings and conclusions under the four criteria

The Environmental Board's "Master Perm.it Policy" and Rule 21 extend significant latitude to an Applicant in determining the scope of master plans brought before the District Com:mission for review. At the same time, a fundamental objective of Act 250 proceedmgs has-been to conduct comprehensive examinations of projects in order to ensure that incremental development will · result in unreasonable or undue impacts under the criteria of the Act and thus cause detriments ) · the public interest. Over the decades, the Envirorµnental Board has issued precedents directing Applicants to prepare effective master plans in order to address such concerns.

ANR was the sole party to file a position in response to the Applicant's motion to withdraw the four "economic criteria" from the master plan review. The Agency did not object to the motion but observed that the Applicant's anticipated phase one application for a land use permit would encompass a significant portion of the master pl~ covering at least a five year planning horizon. (ANR Exbib1t 24). Because the Applicant would of necessity need to submit evidence under · criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and 9(H) as aspects of that amendment application in order to obtain a land use permit, the Agency believed the Commission and parties will then have an ample opportunity to evaluate foreseeable economic impacts witbJn a 5 year period.

•I The District Commission agrees with the Agency's position and will expect that the Applicant - cognizant of the applicable evidentiaryburdens ofproduction,persuasion and proof~ will provide appropriate information under criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and 9(H). To ensure an orderly and efficient review at that time, the Commission provides the following direction:

* Several parties were admitted under criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and/or 9(H). In addition to the municipal and regional statutory parties, two State agencies were represented at the District Commission hearings. By June 2000, none 1 the parties bad pre .. filed positions under the subject criteria or indicated that they would seek to cross e~amine the )) Applicant's witnesses.

I I Ii Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 77

1. The Kavet analysis will serve as a platform from which the.review under criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and 9(H) will proceed. The Commission particularly ·takes note of the nine primary findings in the K.avet analysis.

2. The REM! model is a credible and suitable methodology for the review of economic and demographic impacts and the Applicant shall prepare its studies and conclusions by utilizing the model. ·

3. The Applicant must anticipate that the review under criteria 6, 7, 9(A) and 9(H) of phase one will establish a framework for the continuing evaluation of cumulative impacts as the master plan buildout continues over the projected 8 to 15 year timeframe. As evidence accumulates on impacts, permit conditions may need to be formulated which will mitigate impacts to the extent feasible. Impacts which may be adjudged unreasonable or undue cannot result in positive conclusions of law and the District Commission must be vigilant of '~conditions subsequent."

4. The District Commission takes particular note of the portions of the Kavet analysis which considered naffordable housing"(at pages 12-16). The Applicant would be well-advised to address the issues in a substantive manner comparable with other permitted ski resort projects .. The Applicant should also consider secondary impacts which may result fromt t··. an in-migration of construction workers t9 the region. (See DEC Exluoit 1 at page 10). ·

5. At this time the District Commission specifically concludes that the S:N.!R. involved lands are not. contiguous to an "existing settlement". This conclusion is made as a matter of law based upon the conclusions of the Environmental Board in its Town of Stowe supra decision wherein the Board defined the two existing settlements within the Town limits.

The District Commission will reserve the right to call Mr. Kavetas its witness during the 6. I amendment application(s) proceedings, to the extent he is available. Alternatively, the Commission reserves the right, if necessary, to retain a replacement witness under Board Rule 20.

SECTION 6086(a)(8) SCENIC/NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE AREA, AESTHETICS, IDSTORlC SITES AND RARE AND IRREPLACEABLE NATURAL AREAS

All Components

255. The record in this case does not include a site plan on which are depicted all components of the master plan in its final revised design. However, Exhibits A and B of Applicant Exhibit 150 are reasonable representations of the locations of the proposed development ~- within its overall setting.* ·

* The District Commission specifically finds that Exhloit A of Applicant Exhibit 150 does not depict the revised golf course, yet to be designed. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 .. \ .• ,, .. Page 78 1)

256. The master plan development will be constructed on lands owned by the Applicant and the State of Vermont Prior to the commencement of construction, a significant land exchange will be made between the Applicant and the State [Applicant Exhl"bits 148 and 150 and Map Attachment C therein]. Following the exchange, the Applicant will own or control 3,690 acres of land. Approximately 998 net acres of corporate property will have been conveyed to the State.

257. The master plan will be built on lands contiguous to, and within, the Mt. Mansfield State Forest. Commercial recreational uses within the Forest date back to the 1930s and have _. _ ...... 5_0:1~~~~ expanded ~y~~ f!t~~~~_?.des br_means Qf lease ~yements with the ·sta1e.

258. The master plan site encompasses the valley floor at the foot of Mt. Mansfield. Smugglers' Notch is situated to the north.ofthe project involved lands.

259. The area of the master plan is heavily forested and consists of mountain terrain and the headwater tributaries of the West Branch of the Little River. Tree cover is primarily deciduous species with some scattered conifers. Mountain slopes are pie dominant feature of the landscape and existing ski area development is visible on the slopes.

260. The southern approach to the master plan involved lands begins at Harlow Hill on , , Vermont Route 108. .As one travels up ~ hill there is a transition from the commercial . development along the highway to a more rural context. [District Commission October 14, 1999 Site Visit Obs~rvations].

26i. The satellite parking areas will be situated in existing open areas at the top of Harlow Hill, currently the site of the Applicant's cross cotmtry ski center to the west and a Slllall maintenance facility to the east. Both facilities are, relatively low key in appearance and are set hack from the highway. [District Commis$ion O~ober 14, 1999 Site Visit Observations].

262. The area between the Harlow Hill facilities and the Toll House/Inn at the Mountain COD!P.J~x l:!as Jo~.

263. As reflected on Exhibit B of Applicant Exhibit 150, the Toll House/Inn at the Mountain complex is a relatively densely developed area of residential condominiums, commercial lodging facilities, fu.e conference facility and the Applicant's administration building.

264. After leaving the Toil House/Inn at the Mountain complex, Vermont Route 108 passes through an undeveloped forested corridor until one reaches the existing snowmaking w~ter storage pond :'hich is si~ed to the east across the West Bran~h of the Littl~ . ,;) River. The State ski <;lorm, a rustic structure constructed by the CCC mthe 1930s, 1s alsv · located to the east of the highway. This is also the vicinity of the entrance into the Mt Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 79

Mansfield State Forest. [District Com.mission October 14, 1999 Site Visit Observations and See Applicant Exhibit 150, E:xhibitA].

265. Vermont Route 108 continues within an undeveloped forested corridor until one approaches the entrance to the existing state campground - also constructed by the CCC in the 1930s. The campground proper is setback in the forest; the small ranger residence is visible from the highway. [District Commission October 14, 1999 Site Visit Observations).

266. Across from the campground is the original entrance, now an exit only, to the Mansfield Base area. Because this road 'is on a diagonal, the traveler has very limited views into the base area. [District Commission October 14, 1999 Site Visit Observations and See Applicant Exhibit 150, Exhibit A].

267. Approximately 800 feet north of the state campground entrance is the entrance to the Spruce Base area, located on the east side of the highway. The approach along Vem1ont Route 108 to this entrance is a forested corridor; a utility line crosses the highway. The Spruce Base facilities are substantially setback from the highway and, except for the parking lot, are not visible. [District Commission October 14, 1999 Site Visit Observations and See Applicant Exhibit 150, Exhibit A].

268. Just past the entrance to the Spruce Base area, Vermont Route 108 becomes a designated scenic highway under Vennont law. Trave!mg along the highway one comes to the relatively new entrance to the Mansfield Base area to the west. The gondola terminal is visible in the distance. Also situated along this stretch of Vermont Route 108 are the Applicant's subsurface sewage disposal fields to the west; a vegetated buffer is located along the highway. To the east is the Barnes Camp, another rustic structure dating back several decades. Beyond this point, the Vermont Route 108 corridor is a very sylvan context leading up into Smugglers' Notch. [District Commission October 14, 1999 Site Visit Observations and Applicant Exhibit 1s·o, Exhibit A].

269. Vermont Route 108 is usually closed tbxough Smugglers' Notch annually from November until April. During this 6 month period, Route 108 functions primarily as an access road for those traveling to the ski area, as through traffic is prohibited. [Applicant Exhibit 18].

I 210. The Applicant provided a series of twenty-four 2" x 3" photographs to establish a inventory of the existing visual characteristics of the masterpla:ri area. (Applicant Exhibit 29].

271. The District Commission made a supplemental site visit on March 22, 2000 to the vicinity of the Cliff House (elevation 3,665') on Mt Mansfield in order to observe the Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 80 ))

sites of the proposed master plan. The following are the Commission's observations which were previously stated in its Memorandum of Decision dated July 14, 2000.

A. The District Commission observed the sites of the proposed Mt. Mansfield Company mastetplan only from the area in the vicinity of the Cliff House (elevation 3,665') on March 22, 2000.

B. Besides ski trails, the gondola lift and the gondola base area, the dommaIIt existing visible physical developments were the larg_e pylcingJots at bgth_fJ1,e Mt. M~:field .ana ·s-piuce·oas"ii"areas. Other visible physical development included utilit;y improvements and related structures such as the snowmaking building at the Mt. Mansfield base area and nnamtenance building attlie Spruce base area.

C. The·existing snowmaking water storage pond and the Spruce base area ·sewage disposal field were the most vistole cleared areas on the project tract

D. During non-winter months, the ski trails, existing water storage pond and Spruce base area sewage disposal fields will cease to be dominant landscape features because of foliage. ,. E. Approximately five single family residences were visible in the vicinity of the Spruce base area. ·

F. Two or three residences Were visible in the distance at the Notchbrook residential development which adjoins the project tract. Residences also were viSI1>le in the Rob~on Springs residential developn;ient

G. The ridge which forms the background for the proposed development is undeveloped high elevation forest land.

H. The Toll House Complex, and the proposed residential subdivision site, were not visible.

272. A prominent feature of the view from the CliffHouse is the midground and background­ the panoramic view toward Stowe Village and the mountains in the distance. Views at this "eye level" also include Smugglers' Notch as well as the ski lift terminus on I Madonna Mountain. [Applicant Exhibit 149]. I 273. In response to a request from the District Commission, the Applicant provided a census I of existing residential/lodging units at the Toll House area: 96 condominium units, 58 lodging rooms and 12 single family residences. [Applicant Exhibit 155]. 11 i) Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 81

274. The "footprints" of the combined areas of the proposed master plan development will total approximately 798 acres [Applicant Exhibit 148]. The 798 acres were broken down as:

Spruce Hamlet 65 acres (43 existing and 22 proposed) Golf Course 110 acres Tom Lot Reservoir 10 acres Mansfield Base Area 39 acres (32 existing and 7 proposed) Ski Trails and Lifts 574 acres ( 423 existing and 151 proposed)

Spruce Hamlet

275. The layout of the proposed Hamlet structures and related development is best depicted on the multiple sheets which are the Exhibit 179 site plans. These plans, prepared for purposes of erosion control measures, reflect the proposed phased buildout of the Hamlet. Sheet Cl.2 shows existing physical conditions within the Hamlet site.

276. As found above in this decision, as many as 400 dwelling units, 70,000 square feet of ·''"!' retail space, and other improvements will constitute the development proposed at the t Hamlet area.

277. When traveling north along Vermont Route 108 from the direction of Stowe Village toward Smugglers' Notch, the first aspect of the Hamlet which will be observed is the entry road to the parking area, golf course and other facilities. The road will be at the approximate location of the existing state campground entrance and the entry will be approximately 100 feet in width. [SheetC6.0 of Exhibit 179}.

278. Approximately 800 feet north of this road will be the entrance to the Spruce Hotel and Day/Base Lodge [See Sheet Cl.O of Exhibit 134]. An undisturbed buffer, ranging in width from 200 feet to 50 feet, will be maintained along approximately 600 feet of this length of the State highway. [Sheet C6.0 of Exhibit 179].

279. Running for a distance of approxnnately 200 feet after the end of the undisturbed buffer along Vermont Route l 08 and contiguous to the entrance to the hotel and lodge will be an open area within which will be constructed a bioretention basin adjacent to the highway [Sheet C6.0 of Exhibit 179]. Immediately adjacent to the basin will be an internal access road and a wing of the 5 story Spruce Hotel structure, which will be setback from the public thoroughfare by a distance of about 1s·o feet.

280. The entrance driveway to the Hamlet Hotel and Lodge will have a width of approximately 125 feet [Sheets C6.0- and 6.1 of Exhibit 179] .. Findings of Fact SL1338 Page 82

281. At the request of the District Commission the Applicant prepared sectional drawings to illustrate the extent of visual line-of-sight impacts along this length of Vermont Route 108 contiguous to the hotel. [Applicant Exhibit 176].

282. One drawing depicts the relationship of the highway to the hotel structure along the undisturbed buffer. It reflects a setb~k of about 225 feet within which trees with heights of50' are shown in the aforementioned undisturbed buffer zone. On this drawing, the hotel has a height of about 100 feet. There is an incre8$e in elevation of approximately 25 ~eet ~o~ ~~ lJ!gl?.~~y to th~ grpund.l~Y-~.1.Qf.the .. ho.tel.. ___ _

283. A second drawing depicts the relationship of the highway to the hotel structure through the bioretention basin area. It reflects a setback of about 150 feet with trees of 50 foot heights in the construction area for the proposed basin and internal access road. The wing of the hotel has a height of 50 feet. There is an elevation change of less than 25 feet from the highway to the ground level of the hotel building.

284. The Applicant's consultant observed that since Vermont Route 108 is characterized by continuous variations in topography and alignment, views of the development will be limited. During seasons with vegetation, views of the Ham.19t will be further limited. [Applicant Exhibit 181].

285. The West Condominum structure will be constructed on the north side of the Hamlet Hotel entrance during phase three. This 4 story structure will be setback approximately 60 feet from the highway. No undisturbed buffer will be maintained along the highway for a length of some 200. feet due to the construction of drainage infr~tructure and an entrance road to serve these condominiums. [Sheet C6.1 of Exhibit 179}.

286. Applicant Exhibit 26 consists of 82 reduced size sheets of conceptual floor plans and . architectural sketches of the exteriors of the proposed Hamlet structures. No direGt testimony was provided by the Applicant's architects at the District Commission's he~_on .criterion~~ Qil th~~ific.atiQDS.Jor..the building.exteriors ...

287, The Applicant prepared two 9" x 15" computer simulated photographic representations in an ~ffort to convey the visual impacts of the Hamlet area at full buildout from the gondola terminus at the Cliff House and from the Chin on Mt. Mansfield. [Applicant Exhibit 29] 11 ! 288. In its 1999 narrative entitled "A Community Plan for the Future of the Mountain" [Applicant Exhibit 25 at pages 48-50] conceptual statements are provided on principles for the architectural styles for the Hamlet structures: " ... replicate the vitality and diversiti'" of the mountain,s history... ".

11 Findings of Fact 511338 Page 83

289. Applicant Exhibit 15 is the Applicant's analysis under the Environmental Board's Ouechee Lakes protocol. With respect to proposed architectural details, colors and materials, cross references are made to the content of the aforementioned Applicant Exhibits 25 and 26.

290. The Applicant provided conceptual l~dscaping plans for the Hamlet area on the eleven reduced sized plans which constitute Applicant Exhibit 28. These plans have not yet been detailed or :finalized in a manner comparable with the final revised site plans for erosion control pw:poses which are Applicant Exhibit 179. An overall conceptual landscaping strategy is discussed in Applicant Exhibit 25 at pages 51-55.

291. A detailed exterior lighting program and related site plans have not yet been prepared. The first sheet of Applicant Exhibit 28 provides a conceptual rendering for the Hamlet

292. The Applicant has not yet devised a cpmprehensive sigziage program nor have the locations of solid waste facilities been identified. [See Applicant Exhibit 5].

·. Spruce Golf·Course

293. The Applicant has not yet prepared site p~ans depicting the layout of the golf course as revised by Applicant and parties in the Settlement Agreement.

294. The Applicant will conduct a ·gra-vel extraction, processing and stock.pile operation at a site which is related to the golf course component of the master plan. Applicant Exhibits .162 and 163 best depict the gravel. operation sites. *

295. Applicant Exhibit 31 is an artist's rendering of the proposed golf course building. The footprint of this building is depicted on the Applicant Exhibit 179 site plans. However, the ~pplicant has not yet com:pleted final architectural building elevations and detai~s.

Storage Reservoirs

296. Sheet S7. 0 of Applicant Exhibit 134 depicts the Tom Lot reservoir site at a scale ofl" = 100'. An undisturbed buffer of 100' to 200' in width will be maintained between the site and Vermont Route 108 for significant a length of the highway ~orridor. The buffer I narrows considerably at the western portion of the site to a width of perhaps 50' for a linear distance of approxhnately 500'. No details were provided about the characteristics I of the 50' wide buffer area. It is unclear how this site will be accessed during its I construction phase.

* Criterion 9(E) focuses specifically on the extraction of earth resources. In the interests of efficiency and a comprehensive evaluation of impacts, the gravel operation will be evaluated in findings and conclusions under criterion 9{E) rather than~ as is customarily under done, under criterion 8 and other related criteria such as 1 (Air), l(B), l(E), 4 and 5. However, separate findings and conclusions will be stated under criterion 8(A) below. Findings of Fact 511338 Page 84

297. No site plans have yet been prepared for the reservoir to be constructed on the golf course.

Mountain Improvements

298. No site plans or details were provided in this proceeding for the transfer lift between the :tv!ansfield and Spruce ·base areas. The lift will pass over Vermont Route 108 near the Spruce base area entrance. This transfer lift was previously granted affirmative findings . _ and conclusions by.the EnviroQJ.P.~ B.o.ard.in its.. .5Ll 125.el.O and l OR-EB-decision-in 1996.

299. No site plans have yet been pr~pared for the proposed on-mountain improvements which are conceptually depicted on Applicant Exhibit 45.

300. A new maintenance facility complex, including a fuel depot and snowmaking compressor pads, is proposed adjacent to Vermont Route 108 north ot: and adjacent to, the existing subsurface disposal fields and the proposed expanded Mansfield parking lots. The location of the maintenance facility complex is best depicted on Sheet C6.6 of Applic;,· Exhibit 179. It will be situated approximately 900 fe~t beyond the Barnes Camp and 1~ along the scenic highway portion of the ~ghway.

301. Thesiting'ofthis maintenance facility complex was originally dictated by proximity to a now abandoned plan by the applicant to build a sewage treatment plant upgradient of the existing disposal fields. [See Findings of Fact SL1125-10).

302. As shown on Sheet C6.6 of Applicant Exhibit 179 little, if any, undisturbed buffer will be maintained between the maintenance facility and 250 linear feet of highway corridor.

303. The 150' x 75' maintenance facilitybuiding will be approximately 30' in height. It will be setback about 75' from Vennont Route 108. A parking/equipment storage area will be situated in the setback area The building \l/illbe-pr~-fabricated metal censtruction of unspecified color. [Applicant Exhibit 134, Sheet A-2].

304. No exterior lighting details were provided for the maintenance facility complex.

305. The proposed expanded Mansfield parking lots are also shown on Sheet C6.6 of Exhibit 179, as well as on other related sheets. Buffers of approx.imat~ly 50 feet in width will be maintained along Vermont Route 108.

306. The location of the Mansfield Base Lodge expansion and related improvements includ. ) • J the escalator, is best shown on Sheet C6.7 of Applicant Exlnbit 179. Applicant Exhibit 34 are artist renderings of the expanded structure. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 85

307. The lo.cations of the satellite parking areas at Harlow Hill and the Cross Country Center are shown on Applicant Exhibit 111. No construction is- required for these lots which will make use of existing open areas.

308. No site plans or other details were provided for the proposed expansions of the Cliff House and Octagon.

Toll House Area Improvements

309. No site plans or other details were provided for the Inn at the Mountain expansion.

Historic Sites (All Components)

310. A Phase IA archaeological sensitivity assessment was performed to evaluate potential construction impacts. Findings from the Phase IA evaluation indicate that no archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed development plan. [Applicant Exhibit 16]

311. The Vermont Division for Historic Preservation provided comments on the Phase IA assessment and requested further docume~tation in support of the conclusion of "low archeological sensitivity". [ANR Exhibit 7]

312. The Applicant has not yet responded to the Division's request for further documentation. [See Applicant Exhibit 189 at proposed finding 265j.

313. The original Mansfield Base lodge was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and will be used by both the StQwe Motmtain Resort and the Vermont Chapter of the CCC Alumni as a working museum. The expansion of the Mansfield Base Lodge -will be designed to reflect the historical character of the original lodge which will remain an operating component of the new building. [AppUcant Exhibit 8)

314. The plans for the Mansfield Base Lodge addition were submitted to the Historic Preservation Division for their review. {Applicant Exhibit 37]

315. The Division revi~wed the proposed new Mt. Mansfield Base Lodge at the Stowe Mountain Resort. The Division determined that the new lodge will not have an undue adverse effect on the CCC structure if an exhibit is installed in the Base Lodge interpreting its history and association with the CCC and the ski industry in Stowe, and if final plans for the Base Lodge are reviewed by the Applicant's historic preservation consultant prior to construction. [ANR Exhibit 5] Findings of Fact 5Ll338 -)) Page 86

Rare and Irrm,laceable Natural Areas (All Components)

316. Finding4inFindings ofFact 5Ll125-10 and IOR-EB reads:

The "nose,, on Mt Mansfield (the Toll Road terminus) is approximately 1.2 miles from the '~chin". Many sensitive natural ar~as occur along that part of the Long Trail which connects these two features.

317. Finding 5. in Findings.offact 5L1125-10 and lOR-EB reads:

Approximately 382 acres along the ridgeline of Mt. Mansfield are included \vi.thin the UV'Nf Mt. Mansfield natural area UVM intends to: preserve this area in its nat1:Jral state to the greatest extent possible and use it for educational and scientific pmposes insofar as such uses are compatible \.vith the preservation of its natural character.

318. Finding 6 in Findings of Fact SLI 125-10 and lOR-EB reads:

The UVM Mt. M~field natural area_ harbors a unique and fragile arctic-alpine tundra environment - the largest in Vermont and one of only a few in the Northeast. Many oi · l J. the plants and animals which utilize it haye evolved strategies to cope with the extremes ofhigh elevation and are thus not found elsewhere.

319. Finding 7 in Findings of Fact 5Ll 125-10 and IOR-EB reads:

The greatest concentration of rare, threatened and endangered plant species and natural communities in the State occur on or near the Mt. Mansfield ridgeline. In addition to pbuit species, there are several known and suspected animal species that are dependent on habitat. found on the ridgeline.

320. Smugglers' Notch is one of the most significant geologic, natural and scenic landmarks in Vermont Smugglers' Notch draws thousands of visitors year round for tourism and recreation, with great economic implications for the region. Smugglers' Notch is also an important transportation route through the Gree~ Mountains, linking communities on either side. The Vermont Agency ofTransportation, the Agency of Natural Resources, the Green Mountain Club, the Lamoille County Planning Commission, the Mt. Mansfield Company, the Smugglers' Notch Resort and the University ofVermont have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to endorse the concept of a new state park and to work together both formally and informally, on a number ofissues and projects related to the new state park. [Applicant Exhibit 114]. .J) 321. In recognition of its ecological importance, Smugglers' Notch has been included in the 3,858 acre Mt. Mansfield State Natural Area. Route 108 through Smugglers1 Notch has been designated one of only two ofiical scenic highways in Vermont. In 1995, a

I, Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 87

"Corridor Management Plan,, was drafted to protect and enhance the three mile long Vermont Route 108 scenic corridor. [Applicant Exhibit 114].

322. Under the new state park concept, Smugglers' Notch would be regarded as a "state park" within the larger 39,765 acre Mt. Mansfield State Forest, with a full time staff employed by the Vermont Department of Fores~, Parks & Recreation· for managing the property and people, interpreting the natural environment, and maintaining facilities within the area. Barnes Camp could serve as a southern gateway for all visitors entering the Smugglers' Notch Park from the south. [Applicant Exhibit 114].

323. The Applicant and several parties have·stipulated to eight other findings from Findings of Fact 511125-10 and lOR-EB with respect to a Cooperative Agreement executed on November 7, 1995 governing the management and stewardship of the summit area ofMt. Mansfield [See Applicant Exhibit 168]. While the Cooperative Agreement was filed with the Environmental Board, it has not been filed with the District Commission and was not included as an exhibit in these master plan proceedings.

324. According to representations made inApplicant Exhibit 168, the terms of the Cooperative Agreement expire in the year 2001. The District Commission was not provided with a : proposed extension qf the Cooperative Agreement beyond 2001.

CONCLUSIONS

In evaluating the potential impacts of projects on the values set out in criterion 8, the Environmental Board and District Colillllissions apply the _protocol established by the Environmental Board in its 1985 Quechee Lakes decision (Findings of Fact 3W0411-EB and 3W0439-EB).

In Quechee, the Board framed a fundamental question to answer in determining if a project's impacts will be adverse: Will the project be in "harmony" with its surroundings and ''fit" the context within which it will be located? Several specific features must be evaluated1 according to Quechee, in answering this question.

]. fVhat is the nature ofthe project's surroundings? Is the project to be located in an urban, suburban, village, roral or recreational resort area? What land uses presently exist? What is the topography like? What structures exist in the area? What vegetation is prevalent? Does the area have particular scenic values? Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 88

2. Is the project's design compatible with its surroundings? Is the architectural style ofthe buildings compatible with other buildings in the area? Is the .scale ofthe project appropriate to its surroundings? Is the mass ofstructures proposed for the site consistent with land use and density patterns in the vicinity?

3. Are the colors and materials selectedfor the project suitable for the context within which the project will be located? . . 4. Where can the project be seen from? Will the project be in the viewer's foreground, middleground or background? Is the viewer likely to be stationary so that the view is oflong duraction, or will the viewer be moving quickly by the site so that the length ofview is short?

5. What is the project's impact on open space in the area? Will it maintain existing open ~reas, or will it contribute to a loss ofopen space?

All ofthese factors must be weighed collectively in deciding whether the proposed pr,oject is in harmony with-i.e., ''fits"-its sun-oundings. The. land ttses which )..). surround a project are crucial to the analysis...

The Board cited particular categories ofland forms which are espeically sensitive to change "because these land forms tend to be visible from a wide area or they are seen by large numbers

ofpeople." These land forms include open space, ridgelines1 steep slopes shorelines, flood plains, wetlands and natural areas.

All of the above factors must be applied in a collective analysis to see if the project impacts will be "adverse".

Spruce Hamlet

The Applicant has not yet prepared architectural plans and specifications typically necessary before projects proceed to bids and construction. Similarly, site specific landscaping plans are unavailable for each phase of the Hamlet and a comprehensive exterior lighting plan is lacking. · All of these details are standard requirements prior to affirmative conclusions by a District Commission under criterion 8.

The Applicant seeks guidance from the District Commission under the master plan policy of the Environmental Board. The District Commission has considered the record as a whole and concludes that the Hamlet will constitute an adverse impact under criterion 8. This conclusio: . JI not based upon the visual and aesthetic effects of the Hamlet site when viewed from the higher .I· Findings of Fact SL 133 8 Page 89

elevations of Mt. Mansfield- the Commission believes thatthese impacts will notbe·adverse. 1bis conclusion is based upon a comparison of the scale of the proposed project with the existing level ofdevelopmentin the surrounding area, the :piass ofthe:structures proposed along Vermont Route 108, and issues associated with the. apparent la.ck of adequate buffers in the areas: adjacent to the proposed SpI1.l.ce Hotel entrance and the West condominiums. Thus, weighed collectively, these factors lead to a conclusion of adverse impacts. The District Commission would have reached this conclusion even with adequate evidence on architectural, landscaping and lighting details because the initial evaluation under criterion 8 is one of fundamental siting and "fit". As the Applicant is aware, a conclusion of adverse impacts does not forestall issuance of land use permits; rather, the District Commission proceeds to consideration of the three additfonal tests to assess any potential "undue" impacts.

Spruce Go If Course

The District Com.mission conclud~s that absent final site plans for the revised golf course, it cannot reach conclusions at this time on whether impacts will be adverse. However, in an effort to provide guidanc~ under the master plan policy, the District Commission observes that the scale of clearing. required for the construction of the golf course will result in a·change to the existing forested setting which will likely result in a conclusion thattheimpacts will be advers~· under criterion 8. ·

Storage Reservoir'

The record reflects that the site plan for the Tom Lotreservoids not a.final plan. While th~ siting·ofthe reserovirdoes not appear to constitute adverse impacts> the District Commission will reserve judgement pending review ofthe final plans so that consideration can be given to the specific undisturbed buffers that will be maintained along Vermont Route 10'8. In additioA, the current submittals do not address how the site will be accessed durmg construction and such issues (ie temporary intrusions into buffers and subsequent remediation efforts) will need to be addressed in subsequent filings by the Applicant.

While the conceptual footprint of the 100 million gallon reservoir has been defined, construction site plans are not yet available. ·As with conclusions stated above for the golf course, it would appear that impacts will be adverse under this criterion.

The Applicant should provide evidence on two other aspects of'the reservoir in its later applications. First, details are sparse about the clearing and disturbances which will be required for the construction of the pipelines and related infrastructure. Secondly, the Applicant premised that there may be a net balance between the earth materials excavated at the two reservoir sites and the needs for fill throughout the master plan ·site. The balance ne~ds to be quantified in mor,., detail so that adequate review can be made of impacts at other sites which may be required for the disposal of excess soil. Findings GfFact 5LI338 l ) Page 90 I

Mountain Improvements

The District Commission refrains from conclusions on the proposed ski trails and lifts pending receipt of site plans and related details. Similarly, conclusions on the proposed Cliff House and Octagon expansions will require the submittal of sufficient plans and specifications.

The satellite parking areas will not constitute adverse impacts. No substantial construction of improvements "1ill be required. The land use will be consistent with the overall winter land use .at .the ski resort and_ d~g_ JJQ.!k:W.:W..t~r...m.o.nths..no.Jmpacts_will result......

The Commission concludes below that the M~fieJd J3~e \Qgg~ ~xpansion will not adversely affect a historic site. However, the Com.mission will await the submittal of architectural drawings, and exterior lighting and landscaping plans before rendering final conclusions on the visual and aesthetic effects.

The Applicant provided little evidence on the transfer lift and relied upon the past approval by the Environmental Board in the 5Ll 125-10-EB proceedings. In the interests of efficient I""\ decisionmaking, the District Commission sees no reason to, not rely upon the Board's astute

analysis. It must be noted however1 that the Board placed emphasis in its .findings of fact ·on t ; ) forested mid-ground and b·ackground into which the transfer lift, or tramway, would blend. The Commission notes its concerns expressed above ~th respect to the siting and visual effects of the West condominiums. The proposed presence of this structure would seem at odds vv"ith the Board's findings on the context for the lift. The transfer lift will apparently be an aspect of the phase one amendment application filing. As a result, the Applicant will need to provide the Commission with some level of response on the visual and aesthetic issues surrounding the West condominiums _(not proposed for construction until at least phase three according to Applicant Exhibit 179) so that the lift may proceed to final permitting.

The proposed Mansfield expanded parking areas along the VennoQ.t Route 108 ·scenic corridor will be land uses compatible with both the winter ski resort operation as wen as the non-winter use§ of the area (biking, siteseeing.and the eventualSmugglers' Notch-Park gateway). However, the Commission has concerns about the effectiveness of the vegetated buffer along the highway. It is uncle.ar how much of the existing buffer is within the highway right-of-way·and on the Applicant's lands. It will be vezy important that an effective visual screen be in place along the scenic corridor. The site plans suggest that the proposed changes in elevations at some of the I proposed parking areas may result in pronounced views from the highway. The Applicant will , j. need to provide supplemental details on the buffer - possible site specific enhancement plantings 1 should be considered - to support an eventual :final conclusion that the adverse impacts will not be lllldue. ;) Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 91

The maintenance facility is the only structure proposed along the scenic highway corridor. The site is also contiguous to state forest lands. The site plans indicate that this development, with raised elevations on the site, will be -directly contiguous to the corridor and that no buffer will be maintained. The structure \\ill have an industrial appearance; a vehicle and equipment storage area will be situated between the building and the highway. The maintenance facility will not fit with its surroundings and will result in advers_e visual and aesthetic impacts.

Toll House Improvements

No plans or details have yet been prepared. The District Commission reaches no conclusions at this tjme but observes· that the site is withln an already developed area and, thus, the iip.provements are likely to be compatible with the surroundings.

Historic Sites (All Components)

·The District Com.mission must await the Applicant's :further documentation, as was requested by the Division forHistoric·Preservation, in support of its contention that the master plan involved .~I lands demonstrate "low archeological sensitivity". ,·. ! :. The record reflects that the Applicant should be able to obtain :final affumative conclusions unde,.1.· this criterion once final plans for the Mansfield Base lodge have been prepared and filed for review by the Applicant's· consultant who must then signify to the Division and the District Commission that the design will be appropriate. The eventual permit for the lodge will be conditioned to require that the Applicant provide the CCC exhibit as· has been materially represented.

Rare and Irreplaceable Natural Areas (All Components)

The record demonstrates that the Mt Mansfield Natural Area harbors a unique and fragile artic­ alpine tundra environment. The District Commission concludes that it qualifies as a rare and irreplaceable natural area consistent with the Environmental Board's holdings in Barre Granite Qua.tries. LLC 7Cl 079 (Revised) EB (December 8, 2000) and Leo and Theresa Gauthier 4C0842-EB (June 26, 1991). As indicated, the District Commission was not provided with the 1995 Cooperative Agreemeiit, or a draft extension of the Agreement, as exhibits in the record in this case. While findings were made based upon the Environmental Board's earlier findings, the District Commission is reluctant to reach conclusions based upon a stipulated agreement which is not part of the record and has not been made available for review and consideration. The Applicant and the parties acknowledge that the rare and irreplaceable natural areas present on the summit of Mt. Mansfield and within the Mt. M&JSfield State Natural Area must be safeguarded. Indeed, this goal must be pursued diligently in light of the anticipated increase of visitors to the . Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 92 ))

area [See finding 220 above]. Accordingly, the District Commission is unable to reach positive conclusions at this time on the present record. The issue may be revisited in later proceedings and appropriate conclusions reached at such time as the evidentiary record is supplemented.

The Board created three additional tests in Quechee to determine if a project's adverse impacts will be "undue" under criterion 8. If a positive conclusion is reached with regard to any one of the following, an adverse impact is "undue": .

1. Does the project viola..te a t;lear, writt_en community standard intended to - preserve the aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty ofthe area? Such standards may, for example, be .set forth in the local or r~giqnal plan, or be adopted in the cr,eation ofan historic design district, or be incorporated into a municipal or State scenic ro~d designation.

The record contains no evidence of an applicable community standard in the municipal or regional plans. The state has not cited the District Commission to any standards relevant to the Mansfield State Forest. Toe District C~mmission concludes that the sole applicable community standard is the scenic highway corridor designation for Vennont Route 108. At this time, the Commission refrains from final conclusions on the Mansfield parking lots pending later ,J submittals responsive to concerns about an adeq'l!ate and enhanced vegetative buffer. The Commission's concerns about the siting· and design of the maintenance facility are more substantive. Th~ scenic 1:µghway begins near the Spruce Base entrance and its special visual qualities are obvious once reaching the Barnes Camp area. The Applicant is advised that a significant issue is present under this test for Quechee ~ and the presently pr9posed maintenance facility will have undue effects on the purpose of the scenic highway corridor.

2. Does the project offend the sensibilities ofthe average person? The Legislature has directed the Commissions and this Board, composed.oflay people from many different communities within Vermont, to deten11ine what is acceptable in terms ofnew developments' impact on aesthetics and I -· . -~(;.ei:zic. q.nd. natural bea.uty~ Ifour sensibilities .are, collectively,. offended by a project, its impact under Criterion 8 is undue. It is not enough that we might prefer to see a different design or style ofbuilding, or that we I might prefer a differerit type ofland use, but that the project, when viewed as a whole, is offensive or shocking, because it is out ofcharacter with its I I, surroundings, or significantly diminishes the .scenic qualities ofthe area. I The District Commission is of the general view that most of the master plan components will not result in undue impacts under this prong of the Quechee Lakes protocol but a few aspects of the master plan warrant more detailed analysis. As explained above, the District Commission prefers to await more detailed submittals in order to fully understand and evaluate the potential Findings of Fact 511338 Page 93

visual and aesthetic effects of the Spruce Hotel and West condominiums from perspectives along Vermont Route .108. If the final architectural and site plans do not reflect adequate and effective buffers, landscaping and/or resiting, impacts could prove offensive to an average person who travels the otherwise largely undisturbed forested highway corridor. Similarly, the need for final details about the buffer for the Mansfield parking lots along Route 108 prevents final conclusions at this time. The location, design and siting of the maintenance facility are problematic under this part of the Quechee Lakes analysis. ·

3. Has the applicant failed to take g~nerally available mitigtating steps which a reasonable person would take to improve the harmony ofthe proposed project with !ts surroundings? Such steps may include selection of less obtrusive colors and buiding materials, implementation ofa landscaping plan, selection ofa less obtn.esive building site within the project area, or reduction· ofthe mass or densiry ofa project. Ifthere are reasonable alternatives available.to the applicant that would mitigate the adverse impact ofthe project, failure to take advantage ofthose alternatives may, in some circumstances, render undue an otherwise acceptable aesthetic impact.

Positive conclusions under this final aspect of the Quechee Lakes analysis for projects undergoing Act 250 reviews depend heavily on the detailed site and architectural plans depicting : details such as buffers, clearing limits, building elevations, exterior lighting and landscaping. The Applicant recognizes this insofar as it does not request final full conclusions under eriterion 8. Reviews will take place for each phase of the master plan to determine if available mitigating steps will be employed to support conclusions that impacts adjudged adverse will not be undue under criterion 8.

SECTION 6086(a)(8)(A) NECESSARY WILDLIFE HABITAT AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

All Components

325. There are three significant black bear habitat elements associated with S~'s holdings that relate to the proposed expansion of the resort. These include spring and summer feeding areas (wetlands), fall feeding areas (bear-scarred beech stands) and a significant black bear travel corridor. [ANR Exhibit 20)

326. The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has been examining black bear habitat · location and distribution throughout the Mount Mansfield range for several years. The focus of concern is.the pressure of development from the.Stowe· side ofthe range and its potential threat to bear habitat availability and the restriction of bear movement. The Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 94

general growth of the adjacent ski resorts (SJMR and Smugglers' Notch Re~ort), increased recreational use of state lands, and increased residential development are likely to result in changes to the population of black bears in this area Increased traffic and development along Route 108, a primary obstacle to bear movement, is a significant threat to maintaining a viable bear population witlrin the Mount Mansfield range. There is a risk that traffic vol~es and devel~pment _pressures could create a physical barrier to bear movement within the forest which could restrict access to important feeding areas, reduce the available home range capacity for bears, reduce the dispersal of sub-adult ·-- --~~z..!~ftu~~--~~~~~g_ ~P1!2r.tunities, and reduce genetic exchange within_the popul_ation. - Ultimately;this results-in isolated populations with reduced fitness. [ANRExhibit 20]

32 7. The primary and most critical component of S!vIR.' s bear habitat protection strategy is the conservation of approximately 847 acres of bear habitat, which has been identified as Area C, through conveyance of a conservation easement to the Department. [Applicant Exhibit 150 and A.l'ffi. 20] The location of these 847 acres is depicted on Exhibits A and C of Applicant Exhibit 150. Area C-1 is also essential to the protection of the use of the Fall feeding area critical habitat functions and will be included in the conservation easement to the.Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Testimony of Austin at August 23. 2000 Hearing and Applicant Exhibit 150] · Ji

328. The provisions of Section Il(c){3) ofApplicant Exhibit 150 reflect the terms of the transfer of the proposed conservation easement for Area C:

The Parties agree that a 'transfer ofa conservation easement or full fee simple interest to implement this section shall be completed no later than 6 months after the date of issuance ofan Act 250 blaster Pennit* by the Commission provided the p"ennit is acceptable t9 SMR. and no longer subject to appeal. The Parties further acknowledge that the permanent protection ofthe Conservation Lands {s specifically intended to ensure that the Modified Project complies with Criterion 8(A) ofAct 250.

3?9.- Sec.tion Il(c)(4) of Applicant Exhibit 150 states.terms specificr~-the conserv~tion.of.Area C-1:

SlvfR. agrees to add Acre C-1 to the conservation lands depicted as Area C upon the sooner of"

a. receipt ofall permits necessary for construction of I 00% completion ofthe Modified Project acceptable to SMR ancl no longer subject to appeal, or

* The tenn "Master Permit" as used in Applicant Exlu"bit 150 means the issuance of a land.use permit for all the • ;J components of Phase 1 [See Section Il(A)(3) of Applicant Exhi'bit 150]. ~. Findings of Fact 511338 Page 95

b. 15 years after the date oftransfer pursuant to Section ll. C.3 ofthis Agreement if such pennits were not obtained because SlvfR has not attempted to obtain such permits with due diligence and in good faith.

In the event that SJ.llR receives all necessary permtts in accordance with subdivision a. ofthis subsection II. C. 4, S.MR. shall provide notification to the lntervenors within sixty (60) days. Provided the conditions setforth above are satisfied, such addition ofArea C-1 to the Area C conservation land shall occur by transfer ofan easement or full fee simple interst in a mannerthat is the same as the transfer ofthe Area C lands by SMR. In the event that the conditions triggering SJ\!R 's obligation to transfer Area C-1 are not satisfied, any proposed alternative use ofA1~ea C-1 is not within the scope ofthis Agreement and the Parties reserve all rights.

330. Sl\1R's Modified Project as presented in the Settlement Agreement establishes "defined land areas" that identify conserved lands, lands proposed for exchange, and construc~on limits of areas where residential, commercial, golfcourse and snowmaking pond development are to take place. Toe modified project effectively reduces the area of S:M:R' s land holdings that will be affected by the expansion. [ANR Exhibit· 20]

Spring Feeding Areas (Wetlands):

331. The construction and use of the golf course and 100 million gallon snowmaking pond will result .in the loss ofbear spring feeding functions within 3 to 4 wetlands comprising approximately 4 to 5 acres of habitat. [See Exhibit A of Applicant Exhibit 150] The Department believes these wetlands are necessary wildlife habitat as they have all the · requisite characteristics· for bear spring feeding habitat, and the Department has observed evidence of use in some of the wetlands by bears during 1998 and 1999. Bear functions and values aside, these are valuable wetlands that likely serve a variety of wildlife functions ranging from amphibian breeding habitat to feeding sites for moose, although

no claim has been made that the wetlands constitute necessary wildlife habitat for wildlife 1 other than bear. [ANRExhibit 20)

332. The lands proposed for conservation contain numerous wetlands, seeps1 and drainage areas that likely serve. similar functions for black bears based on the content of the applicant's habitat analysis [Applicant Exhibit 20 and 61] and the personal observations of the Department's biologist during field reviews. Although the loss of the bear spring feeding functions of these wetlands is significant, the Department has concluded S1v.fR' s ~· conservation proposal provides acceptable mitigation. [ANR Exhibit 20] Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 96 ))

Fall Feeding Habitat (Bear-scarred beech stands):

333. Base~ on habitat surveys conducted by the Department and S:rv!R's consultant there are 11 known bear-scarred beech stands located on S1Y.IR' s owned and leased lands. [Applicant Exhibit 20] The modified project will present no significant impacts to these habitats. All of the bear-scarred beech stands on the Pinnacle and within the Pinnacle Brook basin will be protected through ·the conservation easement contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. [ANR Exhibit 20]

334. The hard mast habitat (beechnuts and acorns are considered "hard mast'') in the Mount Mansfield range appearf;> to be variable in ~jz~ an~l.distribution. For instance, the 2 large beech stands in Ranch Valley are not the standard beech stand in this part of the Mansfield range. Rather, there are some lmown beech stands within the central and northern part of this range that are fairly large (>50 acres). However, most of the known beech stands in this area are smaller patches that are scattered across the landscape. [Applicant Exhibit 20] The availability of these small feeding areas is critical to the region's black bear population. A reliance on a greater abundance of small, scattered beech stands may be significant for the nutritional requirements of the region's bear population. All of the beech ·stands proposed for consenration are critical to the , .' continued sun'ival of black bears in the Mount Mansfield range. [ANR Exhibit 20]

Black Bear Travel Conidor:

335. The Department has identified a significanttravel corridor for black bears that allows safe crossing ofVennont Route 108 and access to important spring and fall feediµg habitats as well as access to north and south portions of the Mount Ma.11Sfi.eld range. This corridor is approximately 1,600 feet in width and was initially identified by accounts of bears crossing Route 108 from east to west near Bingham Falls. The corridor has since been defined by interpretation of aerial photography and topographic maps, and analysis of topography, vegetation and existing development Subsequently, information from SivfR's consulting-biGl~gist.confirmed bear-use of this corridor-along PinnacleBrook on S:tvffi.'s lands near the so-called gravel pit. [Applicant Exhibit 20 and Exhibit A of '1 Applicant Exhibit 150 and ANR Exhibit 20]

I 336. The Department's biologist testified to the location of the corridor at the August 23, 2000 District Commission hearing and r~lied upon Exhibit A in Exhibit 150 with the use of a transparent overlay to depict the corridor. Generally, half of the corridor on the east side of the highway is situated on the Applicant's land. All of the coni.dor on the west side of the highway is on the applicant's land. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 97

337. As depicted on Exhibit A of Exhibit 150, the east side of the corridor along Vermont Route 108 will be developed and altered by the construction of the Tom Lot reservoir as well as the gravel extraction and operation/storage areas.

338. The Ranch Valley beech stands are located in the area of State-owned lands to the south of the toll road at the Toll House complex. The relationship of the travel corridor to these stands can be viewed on Exhibit A and B of Applicant Exhibit 150.

3 39. Route 108 is the primary impediment to bear movements within the Mount Mansfield range and there are only 5 lmown bear crossing points used by bears between Stowe and Jeffersonville. These crossings range in their relative value to bears based on development characteristics, topography c;Ild vegetation. Only 2 of these known crossings are located on the Stowe side ofthe range, likely due to a greater level of development and traffic on the south side of Route 108. [ANR Exhibit 20]

340. S:MR's propose.d conservation lands for wildlife habitat (Area C and Cl) accurately reflect the extent of the travel corridor on SNCR' s lands. Area Cl is helpful to the protection of this critical habitat feature and will be included in the conservation _easement to the Department, as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement. [ANR Exhibit 20) .

341. After the Tom Lot reservoir is constructed, the corridor crossing of Vennont Route 10~ will be reduced to a "pinch point" approximately 500 feet in width, although bears will not "squeeze" only through the shaded areas on Exhibit A of Exhibit 150. [Testimony of Austin at August 23, 2000 Hearing].

342. The replacement campground will close annually after Labor Day, thus providing less human presence on that side of the Vermont Route 108 corridor crossing. (Testimony of Apple at August3, 2000 Hearing]

343. The Department believes that peak use of the travel corridor occurs during late Spring and Fall feeding_periods. Although not established with empirical data, the Department is concerned that increased traffic volumes on Vermont Route 108 could adversely affect corridor :functions~ [Testimony of Austin at August 23, 2000 Hearing]

Management Plan for Wildlife Habitat:

344. The lands proposed for conservation of wildlife habitat are the cornerstone of the Applicant,s plan to avoid and address impacts related to important black bear habitat. These lands provide valuable habitat for a myriad of wildlife species including other wide-ranging carnivores such as bobcats and fisher. In order to effectuate the · Findings of fact 5L1338 Page 98

conservation easement, S:tvfR will need to have in place a management plan for the future stewardship of these habitat resources. A habitat management plan is necessary to protect, and in some instances enhance, the existing bear habitat. In addition, it should address any future use of these lands such as recreation. Revisions to the Applicant's Use Value Appraisal forest management plan [Applicant Exhibit 116] may be the appropriate vehicle for the management of these lands and their respective habitats. [ANR Exhibit 20) .

. . J~5: ___ .Th~_,A.p_plicmf s.. .understanding.is .. that.the.easement-holdei:--v.-ill be responsible for the implementation of the habitat management plan within the conserved lands. [Testimony of Appl~ at August 23, 2000 H~~mg]

346. The Department prefers that the fee title of the conserved lands be conveyed to it rather than easement rights. However, if the Applicant intends to accomplish mitigation by granting an easement, the Departrnen~ urged the District Commission to rese{Ve the right to review and approve the terms of the easement, including allocation of mana~ement responsibilities. [Testimony of Austin at August 23, 2000 Hearing].

347. Applicant Exhibit i47 is a letter dated July 24, 2000 frotn the Applicant's consulting , JJ forester in which he discusses an updated forest management plan for other pwposes. A copy of that revised plan was not e:p.tered into the record-in this matter and, given its date, it would not appear to have addressed issues raised by the Department, s biologist at the August 23, 2000 hearing.

348. The Applicant proposed the following pemrit conditions: The Permittee shall not conduct, condone, encourage, or grant the right to conduct a..lJ.y organized or commercial recreational activjties on the conserved lands. In addition, the Permittee shall not develop trails or other infrastructure related to the access or recreational use of the conserved lands except as may be required to ca:rry out the management and stewardship of the habitat or as otherwise agreed in the conservation easement documents. [Applicant t -··· - Exhibit -189J.-· 1 1 Spruce Hamlet

1 349. The site of the Spruce Hamlet is currently primarily a paved parking lot and a State :! campground. No impacts were identified under this criterion. [ApplicantExhibits 15 I and 20] I Spruce QgJ[ Course . }J 350. The Applicant's consulting biologist opined that several wetlands throughout the site mc:1J · receive black bear use in the Spring,, particularly by females and nursing cubs recently Findings of Fact SL1338 Page 99

emerged from denning sites. In general, wetlands with adequate shrub or forest cover (swamps) are used more readily than open wetlands (marshes). [Applicant Exhibit 20]

351. As found above, the final layout of the revised golf course has not been accomplished. However, Exhibit A of Applicant Exhtoit 150 is a reasonable conceputal representation of the proposed golf course overlaid on tJ?.e wetlands existent on the site.

352. As also found above, the characteristics of the wetlands on the golf course site are provided in Applicant Exhibit 38 and their correct locations are mapped on Applicant Exhibit 125. All have shrub or forest cover traits.

353. The gravel extraction operation in Area C will result in impacts to the use of significant black bear habitat by bears. Specifically, the noise and activities associated with this operation as currently proposed will affect the ability of bears to utilize a significant travel corridor along Pinnacle Brook and bear-scarred beech stands within Pinnacle Brook basin. (ANR Exhibit 23]

354. SMR represented that the extraction portion of the operation will be completed within a 4-month period beginning in May and ending in September. This is consistent with the { need to avoid impacts to the significant b~ar habitat features. The preferred operation strategy for avoiding impacts, to bear habitat is to do the work as quickly as possible, in one event, and then reclaim the site and discontinue operations. Provided SlY.IR adheres to its proposed schedule of conducting all extraction activities within a single 4 month event, and all subsequent earth material use and transportation activities can occur within 1 year following this 4 month extraction event, the Department biologist concluded this element of the project will not destroy necessary wildlife habitat. [ANR Exhibit 23)

355. The Department biologist stated that the originally proposed reclamation plan [Exhibit Application 152] for the extraction site was inadequate. As this area is within the critical travel conidor, it must be properly reclaimed in keeping with the future conservation purposes. [ANR Exhibit 23]

356. S:tv!R prepared ·a revised reclamation plan [Applicant Exhibit 162] The plan also includes the existing gravel extraction area. [Applicant Exhibit 163) The revised reclamation plan does not include any references or details incorporating the recommendations of the Department biologist for a site specific reclamation plan which would be consistent with the travel corridor. The Department indicated that an appropriate reclamation plan should restore the site to native herbaceous vegetation - not an open grassed field - and that reclamation should be completed with 6 months of I termination of extraction activities. [ANR Exhibit 23] I I Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 100 '))

Storage Reservoirs

357. As found above, the final design of the 100 million gallon reservoir has not been accomplished. However, Exhibit A of Applicant Exhibit 150 is a reasonable conceptual representation of the reservoir overlaid on the wetlands existent on the.site.

358. As a]so found above, the characteristics of the two wetlands on the reservoir site are provided in Applicant Exluoit 38 and their correct locations are mapped on Applicant ...... _ ..Exhibit_l25 .. Both have.shrub. or. forest cover.-. --

Atlountai.n Improvements

359. Bick:nell's Thrush habitat is spruce-fir dominated habitat that occurs largely above 3,000 feet bµt can occur lower in elevation. The habitat areas of greatest concern are areas where there is probable or confinned nesting of Bicknell's Thrush. [ANR Exhibit 26]

360. The Applicant has agreed to file amendment applications which will include site plans and details for the proposed on-mountain improvements.

361. To minimize overall impacts of future Mountain hnprovements on Biclmell's Thrush habitat on Mt. Mansfield and Spruce Peak: SN!R will follow the guidelines in the Bicknell' s Thrush Vegetation Plan (prepared by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, ~aft June 2000) ski trails and lifts occurring in Bicknell's Thrush nesting habitat. ·The Plan facilitates the maximum amount of trail-side spruce-fir growth without impacting skier use. This plan will require review annually by the Agency of Natural Resources and amended as necessary. [ANR Exhibit 26]

362. The Applicant submitted a letter ofagreement with The Vermont Institute of Natural Science (YINS). In the agreement, the Applicant commits to cooperate with VlNS in the construction of new or expanded ski J;nills on Mt. Mansfi.el4 that are above 2,500 feet in elevation. The Applicant-willprovideV:ms withthe opp·ortunity to field check trail locations and suggest modifications, if necessary, prior to construction in order to reduce potential impacts on the habitat of the Bicknell' s Thrush. In addition, VINS plans to make use of the data collected from its annual research on the mountain to suggest trail design mo.difications. [Applicant Exhibit 56]

363. The Applicant will review potential impacts to endangered and threatened species . potentially caused by new trail and lift developments at each phase of proposed construction. [Applicant Exhibit 189]. ·

.. I Findings of Fact 511338 Page101

Toll House Area Imr,rovements I 364. The Inn at the Mountain is not located in an area with wildlife habitat .functions. [Applicant Exhibit 9]

CONCLUSIONS

Criterion 8(A) of Act 250 states:

A permit will not be granted ifit is demonstrated by any party opposing the applicant that a development or subdivision will des-troy or significantly imperil necessary wildlife or.. any endangered species, and (i) the economic, social, cultural, recreational, or other benefit to the public from the development or subdivision will not outweight the economic environmental, or recreational loss to the public from the destmction or imperilment ofthe habitat or species, or (ii} all feasible and reasonable means ofpreventing or lessening the destruction, diminution, or imperilment ofthe habitat or species have not been or will not continue to be applied, or (iiO a reasonably acceptable altentative site is owned or controlled by the applicant which would allow the deveioprrJ.ent or subdivision to fulfill its intended purpose.

As defined in V.S.A 6001(12) and interpreted in Environmental Board and court precedents, "necessary wildlife habitat'' applies to areas which are decisive to survival during part of the year even if the area is not decisive during the whole of the year. The area need not be decisive to the survival of a species' entire population but must be critical only to the survival of a portion of that population which is dependent on the identified habitat [Northeast Land Investment Inc., 2W0036-4EB(June 20,1991; Southern Associates 2W0634EB(June 30, 1987); and White Sand Realtv 3W0360EB(February 25, 198i]. In the present matter, the Applicant and Department of Fish and Wildlife are in agreement that the.spring and fall feeding areas and the travel corridor qualify as necessary wildlife habitat.

Criterion 8{A) involves a three stage inquiry. Once necessary wildlife habitat has been identified,. evaluation must be made to determine if the project will destroy or significantly

, 1, imperil the habitat and, if so, review must then take place under the three subcriteria [Mark and Pauline Kiesel 5Wl270EB(August 7J 1998)]. The applicant bears the burden ofproduction under the three stage inquiry while the party in opposition bears the burden of persuasion (Grav Savoie d/b/a/ WLPL 2W0991EB(October 11, 1995)]. The Board has held that it is unclear who has the burden of proof under the subcriteria of'criterion 8(A). (Okemo Mountain2W0351-I2A· EB(July 23, 1992)] No evidence was provided in the present matter by the Applicant or any party under the three subcriteria of criterion S(A). Findings of Fact 511338 . I .. ) : Page 102

Stipulations and settlement agreements are encouraged in Act 250 proceedings as means toward the non-adversarial resolution of issues. District Commissions m.ay rely on stipulations provided that doing so is not contrary to the requirements or purpose of Act 250 [Pike Industries. 1R0807EB(June 25, 1998)]. Similarly, settlement agreements must be reviewed to ensure that their provisions do not contravene any of the Act 250 criteria~ Peak Ski Resort. Inc. 1R0265-12EB(November 22, 1995)]

Sp1•uce Hamlet

The District Commission concludes that this component of the master plan will not destroy or signi~cantly imperil any necessary wildlife habitat or any endang~red species.

Spruce Golf Course

The record reveals that 4 to 5 acres of spring feeding wetlands will be destroyed by the construction of the golf course and/or snowmaking water storage ponds. It is unclear to what extent other such wetlands may be destroyed or significantly imperiled by the construction of the golf course because final site plans are not yet available. Without such plans, conclusions can .. yet be reached with specificity on the possible direct impacts on the wetlands and their buffer& ; \ It appears that at least 5 acres of the habitat will be destroyed. ·An unlmown amount of additional feeding habitat could be destroyed or significantly imperiled. The record contains no proof quantifying the spring feeding wetland area which will be presenred in the proposed conservatioil lands. Perhaps this information may become available at such ~e ~ the management plan is prepared. This information, in conjunction with the conservaton of areas C and C-1, will likely satisfy subcriterion (ii). However, the Department and District Commission will need to await the proposed conservation easement language to be prepared by the Applica.11t.

The Applicant included the proposed gravel extraction area as an element of the golf course component of the master plan.' As found above, the proposed extration area will be situated withln the defined travel corridor area The extraction operation will not destroy or significantly imperil the.functions ofth~ comdor.if.the:A:ppliGant·performs .. in-accordance with the standards stated in finding 354. Those standards wili 1::,e conditions in any land use permit which may issue for the golf course. and gravel extraction operation and would satisfy subcriterion (ii). The record is incomplete at this time regarding the reclamation of the existing gravel pit site as well as the proposed extraction site. The content of the reclamation plan is a material and critical factor if affirmative conclusions are to be reached under subcriterion (ii).

Stora,:e Reservoirs

The Tom Lot resevoir will be situated within the path of the existing travel corridor. The ., } constuction phase of this reservoir will significantly imperil this portion of the habitat function. Findings ofFact 5L1338- Page 103

However, this impact will be temporary and limited to a single construction season. The Department of Fish and Wildlife did not identify any particular concerns for seasonal impacts, particularly during Fall conditions when bear will move to the Ranch Valley beech stands. No seasonal mitigation measures were sought to restrict the construction period or activities at the reservoir site.

Once construction has been completed on the reservoir, the record supports a conclusion that the reservoir will not destroy or significantly imperil the corridor function. The best available evidence·- agreed to by both the Applicant and Department's biologists - is that the bear travel primarily within the Pinnacle Brook corridor and then across Route 108. While the presence of the reservoir will be within the wider interpretation of the travel corridor's limits, the reservoir will have a passive effect on this habitat function: the bears will be able to proceed around this body of water. Nevertheless, the Applicant has materially represented, and the District Commission concludes, that the proposed conservation easement is an integral element of the master plan and it must be executed prior to the commencement of construction on this reservoir.

The 100 million gallon reservoir has been addressed above under the District Commission's golf course conclusions.

Mountain Improvements

The District Commission will evaluate impacts on the Bicknell' s Thrush necessary wildlife habitat areas at such time as amendment applications are filed and these evaluations will be in the context of the representations set out in :findings 361 and 362. Consistent with finding 363, other aspects of criterion 8(A) will be considered during subsequent proceedings.

· . Toll House Improvements

This component of the master plan will not destroy or imperil any necessary wildlife habitats because the constuction of improvements will be immediately contiguous to the existing Inn.

Endangered Species (All Components)

The development of the Spruce Hamlet, Golf Course, Storage Reservoirs and Inn will not destroy or imperil any endangered species.

SECTION 6086{a)(9)(B) PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL SOILS

A11 Components

365. Applicant Exhibit 95 is a soil legend prepared by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Attached to the legend are two maps which delineate the location~ of the various soil types present on the project's involved lands. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 104 ))

366. None of the soils present on the involved lands qualify as primary or secondary agricultural soils. [Applicant Exhibits 5-9 and 96].

The Commission concludes that this project will not result in a reduction of the agricultural potential of any prime agricultural soils.

SECTION 6086(a)(9)(C) FOREST AND SECONDARY AGIUClJLTURAL SOILS

367. As found above, Applicant Exhibit 95 describes and depicts the soil types present on the involved lands.

368. Applicant Exhibit 116 is a forest management plan which was prepared by the Applicant's consulting fo~ester*. Thip plan was prepared before the proposed land exchanges between the Applicant and the State of Vermont.**

369. The forest management plan evaluated 2,431 of the 2,979 acres owned by the Applicari+ and enrolled hi the ·use Value Appraisal Program. (The balance of 548 acres includes i.1 developed areas). Tlie land was defined as generally steep:, ledgy and sometimes wet. Most of the Applicant's fee lands are "high in elevation, mi:ich of it over 2,500 feet ... A great portion of the land holding over 2,500 feet is extremely inaccessible and exhibits low site productivity... severe climatic conditions posed at these high elevations take their toll on exposed tree tops cansing degrade and retarded tre.e growth. These upper elevations ate dominated by the spruce/white birch forest type.'' [Applicant Exhibit 116].

370. Forest productivity was found to improve on the lower slopes of the Applicant's lands where northern hardwoods and mixed stands are encountered. [Applicant Exhibit 116].

* The District Commission notes that a .further revised forest management plan was prepared for the Applicant dwing the master plan proceedings and reference is made to the revised plan in Applicant Exhibit 147. However, that revised management plan was not entered into the record in this matter. ** The various exhibits in this case refer to proposed land exchanges between the Applicant and the State of Vermont which were prelude to the filing of the master plan application. The Applicant will convey 1,138 acres to the state; the State will convey 140 acres to ~e Applicant. In practical effect, these exchanges were intended to provide the Applicant with con~ol of, and eventual title to, the lands comprising the existing state campground which will become part of the Spruce Hamlet area. The District Commission views these as private land exchanges between the parties and independent of the master plan. The lands exchanged by the Applicant ~onstituted consideration tendered in order to receive other lands from the State c1;11d the conveyance has no independent pw:pose or value under criterion 9(C) or any other criteria. Findings of Fact 511338 Page 105

3 71. A comparison of the map depicting the forest stands in Applicant Exhibit 116 with the map depicting the lands to be conveyed to the State reveals the elevations, characteristics and forestry values of the lands that will cqme under public ownership. A comparison of those two maps with the map which is Exhibit A in Applicant Exhibit 150 reflects the lands that will be owned by the Applicant and used in the master plan development.

372. Following the land exchanges, the Applicant vvill have land holdings of 3,690 acres of which 581 acres will be at elevations above 2,500 feet. The Applicant represented that 2,944 acres of its holdings will qualify as forestry soils. [Exhibits Applicant 148 and 161]. .

373. Approximately 107 acres of the Applicant's holdings have been impacted by existing development. Initially, theApplicant's consulting forester estimated that 149 acres of forestry soils would be impacted by the master plan development. The modified master plan proposal will impact 115 acres of foresty soils, not including lands to be cleared for the golf course fairways, ski trails and lifts' corridors and rights of way. [Exhibits Applicant 120 and 161].

374. The Applicant's existing development and master plan develqpmentwill affect a total or·. 222 acres of forestry soils or 7 .5% of the :post-land exchange forestry soils holdings. \ [Applicant Exhibit 161].

CONCLUSIONS

The Commission concludes positively that the project will not significantly reduce the potential of forestry or secondary agricultural soils for commercial forestry or adjacent primary agricultural soils for commercial agriculture. The Comn1ission believes that the revised forest management plan, not currently in the record, is a material component of this proposal not only for criterion 9(C) but, also, under criteria 8 and 8(A). Therefore, the plan must be a component of the phase 1 application for a land use permit. The Commission does not intend to regulate the Applicant's forestzypractices; however, the content and implCillentation of the forestry management plan are relevant considerations in order to ensure ongoing affinnative findings under the criteria.

SECTION 6086(a)(9)(D&E) EARTH RESOURCES AND EXTRACTION OF EARTH RESOURCES

All Components

375. The Applicant has identified earth resources within the confines of the Spruce Golf Course and the Tom Lot reservoir components of the master plan.

I' Findings of Fact SLI338 )) Page 106

Spruce .GQJ1' Course

376. Toe location of the proposed gravel extraction area is situated on a ridgeline between Pinnacle Brook and the West Branch of the Little River ("extraction site"). {Exhibit A of Applicant Exhibit 150].

377. Parties Lavilette reside on lot 7 of the Notchbrook subdivision to the east/southeast of the propose extraction site and at a distanc~ of approximately 400 feet from the proposed --~ts-o~ ex~action~ ~~yilett.~ Exhibit 3]. ______... ····--

378. The gravel deposit contains an estimated 40,000 to 45,000 cubic yards of extractable material. The.limits of the extraction area are depicted on Applicant Exhibit 162. Extractions at the southern limits of the site will not extend beyond contour elevation 1,350'. [Applicant Exhibit 153].

379. The limits of extraction will be approximately 80 feet from the West Branch and 150 feet from Pinnacle Brook. [Applicant Exhibit 162]. ·

380. The gravel extractions will proceed during the first stage of golf course construction aL Ji will ex.tend over approximately 4 months. No blasting i$ propos.ed. [Applicant Exhibits 6 and 153].

381. Gravel will behauled to the "old gravel pit" area for processing ("processing sitet'). A temporary haul road will be constructed between the two sites. [Applicant Exhibit 163].

382. The Applicant consulted with two area gravel extraction and processing contractors in order to devjse an operational plan. Gravel will be extracted and moved to the processing site at a daily rate of 1,000 cubic yards. After two to four weeks of material has been stockpiled, crushing will commence. The crush~r will operate 5 .days per week and a production rate of 5,000 cubic yards per week is anticipated. [Applicant Exhibit 165]. ,--·---· ---·-4 --·· .... ,----·· -----·------· -- _,.,. .. """'' ...... _ 383. The "old gra;el pit~' ~t~ will be modified by the in~tallation of a 12 foot high berm on the southwest side of the crusher location. [Applicant Exhibit 163].

384. The crusher and screen at the processing site will be operated May through September, Nfonday through Friday between 7 am. and 5 p.m. Operation of the pit will not take place on legal State holidays. [Applicant Exhibits 153 and 163].

385. .The crusher will not be present on the site after the initial construction season. [Applicant Exhibit 153]. Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 107

386. Following the initial construction season, activities at the extraction site and processing site will be limited to the loading and hauling of material and reclamation work, including the eventual reclamation of the temporary haul road. [Applicant Exhibit 153].

387. As found above, the extraction site is in proximity to· necessary wildlife habitat for black bears. The Applicant acknowledged the necessity to complete extraction activities as soon as possible within the aforementjoned 4 month period and all hauling from stockpiles will be concluded within I year following this 4 month extraction period. [Applicant Exhibit 189 and ANR Exhibit 23].

388. Topsoil and overburden will be stockpiled at the extraction site and will be-surrounded with silt fence and temporarily seeded. Excavated areas will be reclaimed in one acre increments. [Exhibits Applicant 153 and 162].

389. As found above under criterion 8(A), the reclamation ofthe extraction site will differ from typi

390. In order to determine potential noise impacts from the gravel operation, the Applicant placed a Muskeg on the ridgeline of the proposed extraction area. A Muskeg is a 1950s version of a snow grooming machine. Sound testing of this piece of equipment in an open setting resulted in a reading of 90dB at 25 feet. [Applicant Exhibit 153).

391. Sound readings from the Muskeg at the ridgeline setting were: 88dB at 25 feet 82 dB at 50 feet and 76.5 dB at 100 feet. [Applicant Exhibit 153].

392. Sound readings were taken at other locations in the area around the site. The readings at lot 7 ("150 feet west ofroad") were 48.75 dB (background) and 49 dB (with equipment). [Applicant Exhibit 153].

393. As found above, the crushing operations will be conducted at the "old gravel pit" site ~ch is approximately·l,500 feetto the north of the Lavilette residence. [Applicant Exhibit 153 and Testimony of Marshall at August 10, 2000 Hearing]. As also found above, a 12 foot high berm will be placed ne~ to the crusher equipment in order to deflect noise away from residential properties.

394. The Applicant proposed the following permit conditions:

a. The gravel pit is to be operated during the first full construction season, as a source for the proposed improvements associated with the SMR 2000 project No commercial sale of the material is proposed as part of this operation. Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 108

b. During the :first full construction season, beginning in May and running through September, a portable crusher and screen will be operated on site to process gravel material. Any portable crusher brought on site will be compliant with the Afr Pollution permit requirements of the State of Vermont

C. The operation of the crusher equipment will be limited to Monday through Friday of any week_ and between the hours of 7:00 am. and 5:00 p.m.. on any day. The gravel extraction and processing operation will not be.operated on legal holidays observed by the State of Vermont .. ...

d. All of the material to be processed will be extracted during the first construction season, processed through the crusher and stockpiled. The crusher will not be brought back to .the site after the first full construction year without prior approval of the Town and Act 250. The only activity after the first full construction season will be removal of material from the processing site. No activity will be permitted after the second construction season without prior approval from the District Commission.

e. S:MR will provide written notice to the District Environmental Commission an . J the adjo~g parties within 30 days of the date when a crusher will be b~ught 011 site. The notice will include the approximate duration of the crushing operation.

f. Weather permitting, the intent of the gravel extraction process is to reclaim the site within the second construction season. This will be accomplished through the replacement and grading of the overburden material and topsoil. The site will be restored in accordance with the Reclamation Plan approved by the Agency on December 22, 2000.

g. By October 1 of each year, S:MR will submit a report to the Commission describing and depicting the extent of the site reclamation.

h. All overburden stockpile areas will be surrounded with silt fence and will be temporarily seeded to minimize the movement ofthe material. As soon as one acre of excavated area becomes inactive in its use for the operation of the pit, it will be reclaimed in accordanc~ with the grading in the proposed reclamation plan.

1. There will be no washing of material during gravel processing operations.

~ J. Construction warning signs shall be placed in accordance with Manual of ) Uniform Traffic Control Devices along Route 108 (the Mountain Road) to warn motorists of the truck traffic traveling along the stretch of roadway from Spruce Peak Entrance to the new Mansfield Entrance and the existing entrance. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 109

k The temporary gravel access road from the processing area to the extraction area will be sited with representatives of the Agency ofNatural Resources and will not be located within any existing wetland areas. [Applicant Exhibit 185]

Storage Reservoir

395. Earth materials from the excavation of the Tom Lot reservoir will be used in the construction of the reservoir embankment. [Testimony of Marshall at December 22, 1999 Hearing]. The Applicant has not yet finalized the design- of the reservoir or quantified the amount of material needed for the embankment.

396. Sand and gravel is located on the site of the Tom Lot reservoir. The Applicant did not quantify amounts. These materials will be utilized in the construction of the Sprace Hamlet and related improvements. [Exhibits Applicant 7 and 189].

CONCLUSIONS'

Criterion 9(E) of Act 250 requites an applicant to demonstrate that the extraction of earth resrouces will not have an· unduly harmful impact on the environment or surrounding land uses and a site rehabilitation plan will ensure that the ~ite will be left in a· condition suited for an approved alternative use.

The record contains adequate proof that operation of the extraction and processing sites will not have unduly harmful impacts on the interests ofthe Lavilettes. The operations will be completed in a relatively brief period of time. The Applicant has proposed significant mitigation by situating the processing site at a distance considerably removed from the Lavilette residence. The parties did not rebut the Applicant's noise impact analyses and conclusions either by cross examination or through the presentation of testimony. Similarly, bear habitat functions will not be impacted if operations proceed and are completed within the time frames recited in the .findings.

The record does not reflect a final detailed reclamation plan specific to the site which will involve plantings compatible with the bear travel conidor. While the District Commission concludes that the Applicant has in concept proposed a sufficient plan., absent an actual site plan, planting specifications and a schedule, the Commission is unable to reach positive conclusions at this time. Moreover, the fate of the "old gravel pit" site is unclear and should be clarified at such time as reclamation details are provided. for the extraction site itself.

At such time as positive conclusions are reached for the golf course extraction area thereby justifying issuance of a permit, the conditions recited in. finding394 will be included. Additionally, the use of this extraction area will be conditioned so that it may only be utilized in conjunction with the overall master plan as represented to the District Commission. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 110 ,•))

The District Commission acknowledges the prudence of the Applicant's plan to use the earth materials present on the site of the proposed Tom Lot reservoir in the construction of the Spruce Hamlet and :related improvements. Such use will not only be economic for the Applicant, it will conserye regional earth resour.ces for use by others. However, as with any extraction site, the District Com.mission needs to adequately assess impacts from extraction, transport and final disposition. The record in this case is incomplete. For example, no information was provided about access onto V erm.ont Route 108 for trucking to the Hamlet area. Will a temporary processing plant need to be installed on· the Tom Lot? Ifthe quantity of extracted material exceeds the site development needs of the ph~ed Haiµlet, where will the excess be stoc~il~? The D"istricf Coriiinission wiU also -expect evidence on how impacts upon the new state campground may be mitigated - can extraction and hauling periods be coordinated to lessen effects between the May-September period?

The District Commission also observes that it appears significant amounts of earth materials will be excavated during construction of the underground parking facilities at the Spruce Hamlet. The record is devoid of details regarding the quantity of this material or final disposition. Because the District Commission has reached positive conclusions aboye under criterion 4 for the Ham.let 3:11d·the earth materials to be excavated may be viewed as "earth resources" under .. criterion 9(D/E), review of the amencµnent application seeking a pennit for the underground · i) facilities, the District Commission will expect evj.dence to establish the final disposition of the. excavated materials.

SECTION 6086{a)(9)(F) ENERGY CONSERVATION

All Components

397. All buildings will be designed to meet or exceed the Vermont Consolidated Act 250 Energy Guidelines for Typical Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Buildings. [Applicant Exhibit 5 and Testimony of Pearson at August 23, 2000 Hearing].

398. To_e Applicant agre~d t9. {lj~qll$.S. QptioP§.fQr the u.se.oflocalized.el~c.trical generation with . the Stowe Electric Department. The Applicant also agreed with the Department's request to evaluate energy efficiency potential and to commit to a schedule for energy efficiency improvements. [Applicant Exhibit 50 and Testimony of Pearson at August 23, 2000 Hearing].

399. The Department of Public Service commented that the level of energy efficiency of existing and future facilities should be of critical importance to S:MR for at least two reasons. The electric transmission and distnoution system serving the Stowe communitv is at or near capacity, meaning efficiency measures might defer·or diminish the expem- · of upgrading this infrastructure. Also, much of the applicant's electrical equipment am: · ,) facilities are relatively old, meaning efficiency upgrades may reduce S:MR' s operating costs and create more capacity on the local distribution system. [ANR Exhibit 9]. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 111

400. The Department of Public Service provided a comprehensive position on the energy conservation and use aspects of the master plan. The Department requested supplemental submittals from the Applicant on such matters as electric infrastrocture maps, an update to the Applicant's 1993 energy audit and workplan - including a conµnitment to interim energy efficiency retrofits and other items. [ANR Exhibit i8]

401. The Applicant made the followingmaterial representations [Applicant Exhibit 169) in response to the Department of Public Service position.

A) Electrical infrastructure maps will be prepared for the future electrical distrfbution systems prior to the submittal of amendment applications for land use permits for specific phases of the master plan. These maps will identify electrical loads and the distribution system that will serve them.

B) An updated energy audit and workplan was filed with the Department of Public Service in August 2000 .. *

C) The Applicant agreed that reviews will be made for each individual project at the time of the filing of amendment applications for construction permits and that this will provide the opportunity for v~rification of compliance with energy efficiency guidelines prepared by the Applicant's consul~t and deemed acceptable by the Department of Public Service.

D) The Applicant expressed interest in the continuance of the annual interruptible load agreement with _the Stowe Electric Deparbnent.

E) The Applicant will participate in annual reviews with the Department of Public Service and Stowe Electric Department of chang~s ~ energy retrofits) accomplished in the prior year and those proposed for future implementation.

F) The Applicant will continue to work with the Stowe El~tric Department to consider "distributed utility plapning" options. [See ANR Exhibit 18 for articulation of "distributed utility planning" options].

402. The Applicant represented that it will obtain input from Efficiency Vermont prior to filing amendment applications with the District Commission for the build-out of all phased components of the master plan. [Applicant Exhibits 167 and 169).

* The Applicant did not file these materials with the District Commission. Consequently, they are not in the record in this case. Findings of Fact SL 1338 Page 112

Spruce Hamlet

403. The District Commission incorporates by reference all energy conservation specifications relative to motors, lighting systems, HVAC systems and related components as set out in Applicant Exhibit 5.

Spruce Golf Course

404. J:be ~PP~~ant zp.ad~ I!_~.r~.i;~~n~!!Qns Fi~ r~~_gt to energy_cons~rv~tion measures or designs for the proposed clubhouse and maintenance building. No specifications were provided for the pump system associated with the inig~tion system. [Applicant Exhibits 6 and 189].

Storage Reservoir

405. The Applicant provided no specifications for the pump system associated with the operation of the snowmaking system. [Applicant Exhibits 6 and 189).

Mountain Improvements

406. The Applicant provided no specifications for the new and replacement equipment for the snowmaking pumps and compressors as well as for the ski lifts. This infras~cture will be subject to life-cycle costs analyses. [Applicant Exhibits 8 and 189 and Testimony of Pearson at August 23, 2000 Hearing].

CONCLUSIONS

Criterion 9(F) ofAct 250 states:

A permit will be granted when it has been demonstrated by the applicant that, in addition.to al.I other applicable. criteria,-the.planning.and-design ofthe subdivision or development reflect the principles ofenergy conservation and inco,porate the best available technology for efficient use or recovery ofenergy.

The District Commission concludes that the Applicant has outlined an adequate conceptual approach which should ensure affirmative :findings and conclusions wider criterion 9(F) at such time as am.endment applications are filed for the review and approval of each phase of the master plan. The District Commission notes that the updated energy audit and workplan cited in the above-referenqed findings, while shared '\vith the Department of Public Service and Stowe Electric Department, have not been filed with the Commission. The Commission notes that a energy audit had been performed by the Applicant as a result of the proceedings for an earlier . ) Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 113 master plan proposal [See condition 15 in Land Use Permit SLl125 and subsequent compliance submittals referenced iD District Commission Order dated October 29, 1993). The Applicant must implement a course of action by which to keep the District Commission advised of the Applicant's efforts to implement its updated energy audit and the Com.mission retains jurisdiction for this purpose. The District Commission notes the close interrelationship of criteria 9(F) and 9(J) for a project of such a l~ge undertaking as is the Applicant's master plan. In this context, the District Commission expects that the Applicant will ensure that relevant amendment applications will include submittals that verify and confirm the Applicant's material representations regarding continuance of the annual interruptible load agreement, energy retrofits and efforts toward "distributed utility planning" options.

SECTION 6086(a){9)(G) PRIVATE UTILITY SERVICES

407. The Applicant represented that no component of the master plan will involve any private utility services. [Applicant Exhibits 5-9 and 189].

CONCLUSIONS

The District Commission observes that criterion 9(G) encompasses "privately-owned utility services or facilities, including sewage or water {acilities and roads." The Commission is aware that the Applicant intends to rely upon extensions of Stowe's municipal sewage disposal and water supply systems. The Commission presumes that the municipality will assume maintenance of all sewage collection and water distribution lines and infrastructure to be constructed by the Applicant on its tract. The Com.mission is of the view that the master plan will involve other utility infrastructure which are pertinent for review under this criterion: 1) the stonnwater collection and treatment systems and 2) the network ofroadways and parking areas. It appears that the master plan will requite the creation of owners' associations for the proposed condominium units. The Applicant will need to assure the District Commission in future proceedings that these utility systems will be properly maintained by means of a clear assignment of such responsibilities and duties which will include both reporting obligations ~ stormwater system permitting) as well as actual implementation.

SECTION 6086(a)(9)(J) PUBLIC UTil,ITIES

FOR'ALL COMPONENTS:

408. This project will require additional water, sewer, phone and electrical service. [Applicant Exhibits 5, 7 and 9] Findings ofFact SL1338 Page 114 ')

409. The Town of Stowe anticipates expansions of its water and sewer infrastructure. Town voters have approved the necessary funding to expand both services. The Town has committed to serve the aqditional water and sewer needs required by the Sfy.[R master plan. (Applicant Exhibit 11) The District Commission talces administrative notice that final approval was issued on September 23, 1999 in Land Use Permit 100035-9 (Reconsideration) for the expansion of the municipal sewerage system. The District Commission also talces notice that Land Use Permit #5L1353-2 was issued on April 20, 2001 for the expansion ofthe municipal water distribution syste~.

410. Toetown-or'sto~e "ca1cu1ateci sMR,~--tot~i ~at;-~d se~; ~d r~r e~sting and proposed improvements to be approximately 30_0,000 gallons per day with an anticipated actual use of approximately 175,000 gpd. (Applicandtxhibitlll

411. Bell Atlantic has the ability to service the additional phone demand which vYill be placed on it pursuant to the S.MR2000 Master Plan. [Ability to senre letter from Bell Atlantic what exhibit?]

412. The Sl\1R 2000 master plan anticipates an increased demand for electricity of as much r

13.808 megawatts (MW). [Applica;nt Exhibit 22) 'IJ.

413. A major portion of the increased p.ower demand relates to Slv.lR's. goal to convert all air compressors from diesel to electricity over a ten-year period. This would be a phased project designed to coincide with the ability of the electric system to provide additional services. [Testimo~y of Lunde, December 6, 1999]

414. The Town of Stowe Electric Department serves the current electrical needs ofSivlR. (Testimony of Machia, December 6, 1999 hearing]

4 i 5. The Stowe Electric Department relies primarily on power supplied by a transmission system known as the Northem Loop. The N9~em_Loop $0 prQ_yides service to the MorrisYill~_W3~.x:..&_Ljgb.tD_ep._artrne.n~the..Iown..ofHm:dwick·mec6:ic.b.epartm~.and the Washington Electric Cooperative. Most of the Northern Loop is owned by Green Mountain Power (GMP), but there are portions owned by the Morrisville Water & Light Department and the Town of Hardwick Electric Department. [ANR Exhibit 4 Se~ also, Applicant Exhibit 91].

416. In 1994, the Johnson to Morrisville portion of the Northern Locm, lm.ovm as the B22, was upgraded to alleviate long-standing reliability concerns by providing an additional finn supply point ofpower from the Johnson substation, owned by Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS). [ANR Exhibit 4]. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 Page 115

417. A study was performed in 1999 by Central Vennont Public Service (CVPS) for the Stowe Electric Department to evaluate the SMR2000 master plan's effect on the Stowe Electric Department and the Northern Loop. The study assumed that the S1YIR plan would add 13.SMW of demand over the ten-year period of 1999-2008. Attachment 1 of the study provides a detailed year-by-year breakdown of the projected load additions and changes for the resort. [Applicant Exhibit 89J.

418. The CVPS study found:

If the entire load was at Spruce, the existing system could handle [nearly] .6 MW additional load during peak .... In summary, the existing Stowe Electric system and Northern Loop configuration cannot cany the additional load proposed for [SN.IR.] without some type of system upgrades. [Applicant Exhibit 89 at page 13).

419. At least one option was identified that could supply 10 MW ofload toward SMR's projected need. lbis option would require a number of incremental investments over a period of 10 years with a total investment by S1v.lR of approximately $737,000. [ANR Exhibit 4]

420. The Stowe Electric Department committf:d in June 1999 to. meet the increased demand for electricity anticipated in the proposed SN.t:R2000 master plan application. However, the Stowe Electric Department indicated it was able to serve the resort with only an additional 512KW of power. The Department's ability to serve letter was premised on 10 conditions [Applicant Exhibit ·50]

421. S1v.1R. and the Stowe Electric Department agree that additional electric loads will require electric system upgrades and that SMR would provide funding for upgrades if they are required to meet Mt. Mansfield Company's specific needs. [Applicant Exhibit 90].

422. The District Commission takes notice of projects in Stowe issued land use permits during the year 2000*. Based upon ability to serve letters in those files, between October ·s, 1999 and July 28, 2000, the Stowe Electric Department committed additional capacity of 1,025 KW or l 'MW.

423. The GYPS study recommended specific system upgrades to serve the load requirements of the Sl\tfR. master plan and accommodate projected growth in demand in the surrounding area through the year 2002. In year 20.02, the study recommended that the load requirements for SMR be updated and reviewed. [Applicant Exhibit 89].

~ .

* These projects are: Stowe.flake application 5L0662-3, WVNY application 5L0494-5, Town of Stowe (water treatment plant) application 5L1353-1 and Ampersand Properties SL1066-12. · Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 116

424. The CVPS study projections of load growth are based on reasonable projections of population increase and economic growth in the- service area. [Testimony of Dunn, December 6, 1999]

425. The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) made a series of recommendations to add.res& current electric system limitations. In general, the DPS recommends that the Commission set forth the steps that must be taken to increase the available transmission capacity to serve the master plan project, and memorialize any financial commitments SMR is willing to ma.lee to ens.~~ fl!~~~ p.eq~§cl!Y ..11P.m-ad~J9 the ufility_infras.truc.tu:re occur. The Depa.rfuient dted the Public Service Board policy: "growth pays for growth". [ANR Exhibit 4]

426. Consistent with one of the DPS recommendations, S~ has made a commitment to pay for the total costs of transmission upgrades to the extent transmission upgrades are required to serve the project. [Appli~ant Exhibit 90)

427. SlvfR has agreed to provide information on future phases to the Stowe Electric Department in a ~ely manner ( at least one year in advance) to allow an orderly evaluation process. [See Applicant Exhibit SO] })

428. The Department ofPublic Service took the poisition that the option described in the prior finding was demonstrated to be feasible. [ANR Exhibit 4)

429. The ability of the option cited in finding #418 to meet S1VIR's load requirements is dependent on all ofthe assumptions in CVPS's study holding true. If higher than expected load growth occurs in Stowe or one of the other Northern Loop utilities, then this option would not be adequate. Under these circumstances, other more extensive · modifications (eg a second 34.5 KV line from Bolton Falls to Stowe) will probably be necessary. [Alm Exhibit4]

. 430._ Consistent with one oftheD:eS.r.e.conunendalions,.S1Y.1RaruHheSto".'7e Electric Department have committed to pursue incremental transmission investments over a period of years which would involve agreements with affected parties along the North.em Loop. Transmission upgrades may also require the approval of the Vermont Public Service Board, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248. [ANR Exhibit 4; Applicant Exhibits 50 and 90]

431. The Stowe Electric Department provided the District Commission with a supplemental position on its ability to serve the master plan buildout on December 22, 2000 and after

the final evidentiary bearing. [Applicant Exhibit 187] The position included an 1) attaclnnent which was a request from the Applicant's corporate president seeking affirmation of the Departmenfs ability to serve. [Applicant Exhibit 188] Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 117

432. The District Commission notified the Applicant and parties of its receipt of these two exluoits and its intention to admit both exhibits under Environmental Board Rule l 7(B}, absent any objecti?ns. Neither the Applicant nor any party voiced objections.

433. The Applicant sought Stowe Electric Department's position on its ability to provide an additional 12.SMW for use in the Fall.of years specified. [Applicant Exhibit 188]

434. The Stowe Electric Department responded in its supplemental position that several improvements need to be made to its electrical facilities, and electrical facilities owned by others, in order to serve the Applicant's additional load. The Department indicated that the improvements would include both short and long term improvements. [Applicant Exhibit 187)

435. The Stowe Electric Department estimated that short term. improvements through 2008 to meet the Applicant's needs have an estimated cost of at least $750,000. [Applicant Exhibit 187]

436. The Stowe Electric Department stated that several long term options are under consideration to meet SMR' s load requirements beyond 2008. However, cost estimates will not be available until others complet~ studies in 2001. Unknown at this time are the contnlmtions others - besides SED and S1v.fR - will make to the long term improvements. [Applicant Exhibit 187) '

437. The Stowe Electric Departm.ent committed to serving the additional 10.8MW of connected load subject to eight conditions [Applicant Exhibit 187] The eight condition.s are:

1. 81.v.[R will add load in increments from 2001 through 2010per attached September 26, 2000 letter of S1VJR .. to Steve Riley from Hemy Lunde (see Attachment C). This will allow SED time to complete the necessacy system improvements while

continuing its 5-year distribution system improvement plans (voltage. conversions) = currently undeiway. ·

2. SMR will provide SED with the amount ofload additions to be served for the following winter by January 15 of each year, in order to allow SED the time required to engineer, procure equipment' and construct the necessary improvements required to serve the load additions.

· 3. S1YIR. agrees to reimburse SED for the short-term and long-term cost of system improvements required to serve their load additions. The exact amount is dependent on ·a number of factors and is unknown at this time. The final actual amount will be determined in accordance with a formula, approved by the Public Service Board and SED. Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 118 ·)

4. S:MR will continue to examine ways to improve the efficiency of the equipment used in its operations to minimize energy consumption. SivIR will periodically evaluate energy efficiency potential and commit to a schedule for energy

efficiency improvements. This may :reduce the need for additional MW beyon4 the initial I 0.8 "MW guarante~ by this agreement.

5. S11R agrees to continue to participate in the Load Management Contract with SED for all snowmaking loads and several lifts to achieve the peak target . ·· established ror the.year:fiie-ta:rget riitJie'.wfu.ter-or 200012001 ·i~ 1s:-O MW. This target will be reviewed and adjusted annually based upon load additions.

6. Transmission and Distribution system improvements will require the. approval of the Vermont Public Service Board, pursuant to 30 VSA, section 248. No improvements will be constructed prior to receiving the necessary permits. SED will not be responsible for any permitting delays that are beyond SED 's control. Such delays that impact improvement implementation may result in load restrictions for S1YfR.

! ) 7. Transmission charges from Cen~ Vezmont Public Service (CVPS) and Green Mountain Power (GivIP) are based upon a rolling 12 to 15 month peaks. Sl\tIR shall reimburse SEO for the incremental transmission cost incurred by SED related to the increased electric demand by S:MR. The existing wheeling rate for CVPS is $1.28/kw-mo. GMPs existing wheeling rate is $0.90/kw-mo.

8. SED must procure additional power to meet SMRs load growth. ·There are several options under consideration ranging from daily power purchases to long term power contracts. There are risks associated with each type of power contract Short-term power purchases carry less risk for SED but are typically more I volatile. Long term contracts have higher risk but more favorable cost. SED will ..... req!,lire SJY.W..to _bear the risks of the pJ>wer puxchas.e contract through a I· performance bond equal tothe value 9:f the purchased power contract. The bond value will decrease over the term of the power contract as S:MR meets its oblications. Under normal operating conditions SN.IR will not be required to include any of the power it guarantees payment for by the subject performance bond in the load management control referred to in the paragraph above. Where there are weather conditions or other factors beyond the control of SED, then.SED will credit Slv.1R for the guaranteed power that it may use elsewhere on its sytem. 9. S:MR must sign a contract with SED that commits SN.IR. to the terms that are ,, generally described in this letter of intent. Findings ofPact 5L1338 Page 119

438. The Stowe Electric Department stated that it cannot guarantee level of service relilability for 2000 through 2010 because it does not control the three transmission supply lines for the ''Northern Loop". [Applicant Exhibit 187]

439. The Stowe Electric Department stated that that a significant portion of SMR's project 2001-2010 load will be interruptible apd controlled under the special use contract. [Applicant Exhibit 187)

CONCLUSIONS

Under Criterion 9(1), a District Commission must find that (1) the necessary supportive governmental and public utility facilities and services are available, or will be ~vailable when the development is completed under a duly adopted capital program or plan; (2) an excessive or uneconomic demand will not be placed on such facilities and services; and (3) the provision of such facilities and services has been planned on the basis of a projection ofreasonable population increase and economic growth.

With respect to the provision of water and sewer services, the Commission finds that the Town of Stowe has made a commitment to serve, and there is a plan in place for the Town of Stowe to pay for the necessary upgrades. The Commissio!} therefore concludes that, ifthe Town of Stowe obtains all necessary permits as planned, then: (I) water and sewer service will be available to the proposed SMR 2000 project upon completion; (2) an excessive or uneconomic demand will not be placed on w~ter and sewer facilities or services; and (3) the provision of the water and sewer services will have been planned oh the basis of a projection ofreasonable population increase and economic ~owth.

To the extent that the Town of Stowe is unableto.extend water and sewer facilities to the Stowe Mountain Resort for any reason, such as permitting or :financial impediments, the SMR 2000 master plan will not comply with this criterion. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Commission reserves the right to reopen the record on Criterion 9(J).

The record has identified substantive issues with respect to electrical service for the master plan. It is clear that existing infrastructure is incapable of supporting the projected demands for build out of the SMR master plan. It is unclear to the District Commission whether the Stowe Electric Department retains the ability to serve S:MR with the 512kw represented in Applicant Exhibit 50 because it has allocated approximately 1 "MW to other developments subject to Act 250 jurisdiction during the pendency of this master plan review. Conceptually, long term solutions and actions were outlined during the District Com.mission proceedings,. including significant financial contributions by the A,pplicant. However, even reading the eight conditions in tp.e Stowe Electric Department final position (Applicant Exhibit 187) in a light most favorable to the Applicant, many. contingencies must fall into place, including proceedings not yet initiated Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 120 )) before the Verm.ont Public Service Board. The District Commission recognizes the diligent efforts made by the Applicant toward a cohesive position which would support positive master plan conclusions under criterion 9(J) but the record to date does not establish that sufficient service capacity exists for the master plan project.

The Gommission concludes that the CVPS study and the Department of Public Service have identified infrastructure shortcomings in the Northern. Loop which impede the ability of the Stowe Electric Department to deliver adequate electrical supply for the entire S:MR modified m~~-P.!an_p:r;oj~~~- Thf? _G.Qpmrl~io!! concludes that. the agr_eements bet\veen Slv.IR. and .the . Stowe Electric Department suggest that methodologies exist which may ·result in sufficient electrical service for the master plan.

The Commission recognizes that the Applicant will need to proceed under criteria on 9(J) on a phase-by-pl1.ase basis. The findings stated above will serve as the context for the review- of each phase so that the Applicant, parties and District Commission will be able to have ready referral to analyses already undertaken and, thus, ensure that the phased approach will not thwart comprehensive consideration of increasing incremental demand on the public utilities.

To the ~xtent the projection of additional load demand exceeds the annual load growth assumt i .l by the CVPS study, the natur~ and cost of upgrades over the ten-year period envisioned by the study may change. The Commission therefore reserves the· right to reopen the record on Criterion 9(J).

SECTION 6086(a)(9)(K) PUBLIC INVESTMENTS

All Components

440. The areas adjacent lands involved in the master plan include lands and facilities which qualify as pub~c investments: the Mt. Mansfield State Forest, the University of Vermont Natural Area, the Long Trail - including the Haselton Trail segment, and other associated side trails, the. existing. historic Mansfield base lodge, V ennontR-0ute-l 08 -~cl-the Vermont Route 108 scenic highway corridor. Additionally, Smugglers' Notch is a significant geologic, natural and scenic landmarks in Vermont

441. Neither the Applicant nor the parties provided factual details descriptive of the above­ referenced public investments. [See Exhibit UVM 2 for an overview statement]. The District Commission stated such facts in Findings ofPact SLl 125-10 and now takes notice of relevant excerpts from that decision.

I) Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 121

442. Finding 2~1 in Findings of Fact SLl 125-10 reads:

The Department ofForests, Parks and Recreation acts as a steward of state owned forest lands on behalf of the people of Vennont. The Mt Mansfield State Forest covers approximately 40,000 acres ofland. About 8,000 acres of the Forest are within the Town of Stowe. (Testimony of Leary).

443. Finding 223 in Findings of Fact 511125-10 reads:

In 1993, the Agency ofNatural Resources adopted a planning document consistent with the provisions of Act 200. This plan applies to the :functions .of all Departments within the Agency. A section of the Plan deals with the administration of public lands. Recognition is made that these lands ''serve a great variety ofpurposes, including public recreation, critical species, protection, wildlife habitat, and forest resources protection. Pressures on these lands and waters ~e increasing, so their management must reflect the highest standards and models for resources, protection, public use, and manag~ent." (Exlnoit 8 - State).

444. Finding 224 in Findings of Fact 511125-10 reads:

The Agency of Natural Resources Act 200 Plan articulates strategies relative to the administration of state lands. One is to coordinate non"".state use ofpublic lands through leases, licenses and special use pennits. Another strategy is to oversee the long-range management planning process for state lands. (Ex1noit s· - State).

445. Finding 225 in Findings of Fact 511125-10 reads:

A land management plan for the Smugglers' Notch Block of the Mt Mansfield State Forest was prepared by the Deparbnent in 1984. The 1,400± acres leased to the Mt. Mansfield Company lies within this 1,779 acre Block The Block plan summarizes the long history of recreational activities in this area noting that skiing has had the greatest impact on the recreational activities in the block and that the applicant's ski area impact on the regional economy has been "phenomenal." The Department receives significant revenues because of its lease agreement with the applicant. (Exhibit 14 - State and Testimony of Leary).

446. Finding 226 in Findings of Fact 5Ll 125-10 reads:

The first commercial development related to recreational uses following land acquisitions by the state was in 1939 when the Mt Mansfield Lift Company built a chair lift on a 100' x 6,500' strip ofleased land. Other lifts, trails and snowrnaking infrastructure followed to enhance winter recreational pursuits. (Exhibit 14- State). Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 122

447. Finding 227 in Findings of Fact SLl 125-10 reads:

The Toll Road, the Long Trail and its many side trails are cited as non-winter recreational pursuits within the Block. In addition to the state campground- one of the State's more popular parks - the Bfock includes the state ski dorm ( operated as a youth hotel during summermonths). (Exhibit 14-State):

448. Finding 230 in Findings of Fact 5L1125-10 reads:

The Department adopted a ''M~gement Pl~ Overview'' for the Mt. Mansfield State Forest in 1992. nie Overview covers the period from 1990 to 2005. In the course of developing the Overview, the Department lea:med that the public had three common interests about this state forest: outdoor recreation, protection of high elevation fragile areas, and maintenance of scenic values. (Exhibit 13 - State).

449. Finding 218 in Findings of Fact 5Lll25-10 reads:

The University's investments at Mt. Mansfield date back to 1859 when it acquired the , I 400 acres of land along the ridgeline, designated as the University's Natural Area in E I· and a state designated Fragile Area since.1977. (Exhibit 2-UVM).

450. Finding 140 in Findings of Fact 5Ll 125-10 reads:

Mt. Mansfield's summit ridge contains the largest .alpine zone in V ennont and provides habitat for several rare and endangered plant species. The summit ranges from roughly 3,900 to 4,300 feet in elevation along the one mile ridgeline. It is an area whose unique features have received state, national and international recognition. (Exhbit 1 - UVM and Testimony of Paradis).

451. Finding 142 in Findings ofFact 5L1125-10 reads:

'' The mountain is a registered Vermont State Fragile Area. The National Park Service has designated it as a National Natural Landmark. UNESCO has identified Mt. Mansfield as a core area in the designated Champlain Adirondack Biosphere Reserve. (Exhibit 2 - UVM).

452. Finding 143 in Findings of Fact 5L1125-10 reads:

There are a number of high quality scientific research studies ongoing on the mountain under the ditection of the Vermont Monitoring Cooperative. The Cooperative is a join . _. ) effort involving the University ofVermont, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, J Finclings of Fact 5L1338 Page 123

the U.S. Forest Service, and other organizations, with the pUl])ose of pooling monitoring and research activities of forest and alpine ecosystems at one specific location. Mt Mansfield is one of the premier scientific research field sites in the Northeast. (Exhibit 4 -UVM). .

453. Finding 144 in Findings of Fact 5111~5-10 reads:

The Ranger-Naturalist Program, initiated over 20 years ago, is the primary means of controlling visitor use on the mountain. Ranger naturalists are stationed on the summit ridgeline during the summer months esking visitors to stay on designated trails and dispensing other important safety and environmental infonnation. However, due to funding inadequades, the number of Rangers for many past summers has not been sufficient to provide optimum monitoring of the summit's natural resources. (ie 4 Rangers in 1991, 2 Rangers in 1992 and 3 Rangers in 1993). (Exbibif4 - UVM and Testimony of Wrighton and Keefe).

454. Finding 145.in Firi~gs of~act 511125-10 reads:

Upwards of 50,000 people a year frequent the ridgeline of Mt. Mansfield for educational and recreational pursuits. The Toll Road.and Gondola lift are the two means of easiest access to the highest elevations of the mountain. The Long Trail and related spur trails also lead to the summit. (Testimony of Schaeffer and ·Exh.t"bit 17 - GMC).

455.. Finding 152 in Findings of Fact SLl 125-10 reads:

The applicant provided the following car counts for the Toll Road:

1991 11,056 vehicles 1992 9,325 vehicles 1993 9,768 vehicles (Exlu'bit 89)

456. Finding 219 in Findings of Fact 5Ll 125-10 reads:

The state's investments in the Long Trail network dates to at least 1913, the earliest segment of the Long Trail having been completed from Sterling Pond to Camel's Hump via Mt. Mansfield in 1912. Vermont legislative aclmowledgem.ents of the value of the Long Trail System were made in resolutions in 1960, 1971 and again in 1985. (Exhibit 10-GMC).

457. The Applicant and the Green Mountain Club reached an agreement on the establishment of_an easement for the Long Trail where it crosses land owned by the Mt. Mansfield Findings ofFact5Ll338 j) Page 124 /

Company. The Applicant has also agreed to permanently prohibit new ski trials or other development in the leasehold area just north of the Chin Clip ski trail in order to not infringe upon the Long Trail [Applicant Exhibit 189).

458. Furthermore, the Applicant and the Green Mountain Club have agreed to locate the new Cliffs lift and trails so that the hiking experience on the Haselton hiking trail will remain acceptable to the Green Mountain Club. (See the Slv.lR 2000 Plan Map for aforementioned locati_ons). [Applicant Exhibit 189].

439 .. -A perpetual protectiveeasement has been established for the Long Trail over company lands along the summit ridge. [GMC Exhibit2]

460. A p~anent protective easement has been established over Mt. Mansfield Company lands for the Lakeview and Canyon Side Trails. [GMCExhibit2 (Attachment 1)]

461. Development restrictions have been placed on undeveloped lands leased to Mt. Mansfield Company north of the Chin Cliff Ski Tr~l providing future protection from development for·the Long ·rran, Profanity Trail, Hell Brook Cutoff Trail, and Taft Lodge~ [GMC Exhibit2 (Attachment 2)) i 1

462. Other presently developed areas, such as the area proposed for lift and trail development near the Haselton Trail, have been reexamined and master planned to further minimize any impacts on the Haselton Trail hiking experience by reducing previously agreed upon proposals that have not yet been constructed. [GMC Exhibit2]

463. S:MR has agreed to allow GMC to relocate the Long Trail onto Mt. Mansfield Company land at EleP.hant' s Head to create a safer and more pleasant hiking experience by moving the Long Trail off a portion of Route 108. [GMC Exhibit2J

464. Proposed parking for hikers on Mt. Mansfield Company land will reduce or eliminate the nee4 for v~hi~le p,arking .a.long Route 108. [GMC. Exhibit2l

465. The District Commission incorporates by reference findings stated under criterion 8 above with respect to the Cooperative Agre~ment among the Applic~t and parties.

466. The District Commission incorporates by reference the findings stated under criterion 8 above with respect to the Memorandum of Understanding [Applicant Exhibit 114] among the Applicant and parties endorsing the concept of a new state park in Smugglers' Notch and coincident with the scenic highway corridor. Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 125

467. The District Commission incorporates by reference the :findings stated under criterion 5 above with respect to the traffic congestion and safety aspects of Vermont Route 108.

CONCLUSIONS

Criterion 9(K) of Act 250 states:

A permit will be granted for the development or subdivision oflands adjacent to governmental and public utility fadlities, services, and lands, including, but not limited to, highways, airports, waste disposal facilities, office and maintenance buildings, fire and police stations, universities, schools, hospitals, prisons, jails, electric generating and transmission facilities, oil and gas pipe lines, parks, hiking trails and forest and game lands, when it is demonstrated that, in addition to all other applicable criteria, the development or subdivision will not unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the public or qi,asi~ublic investment in the facility, service, or lands, or materially jeopardize or interfere with the function, efficiency, or safety of, or the public ,s use or enjoyment ofor access to the facilities, service or lands.

The District Commission incorporates by refer~ce :findings stated above under criteria 5 and 8 because they are integrally linked to the values and functions of public investments recognized under criterion 9(K.).

The Environmental Board has explained the higher threshold for review of impacts on highways under criterion 9(I{) as compared with review under criterion 5 [See Swain Development Corp. and Philip Mans 3W0445-2-EB {August 10, 1990)]. The record in tlus master plan does not demonstrate that the increased traffic generation from the master plan will materially jeopardize or interfere with the function, safety or efficiency of Vermont Route 108.

The District Commission has identified issues under criterion 8 which require resolution relative to the potential impacts on the Vermont Route 108 scenic corridor by the ·construction of the Mansfield parking lots and the maintenance facility. Until final resolution is. attained for those two components of the master plan, positive conclusions are not possible under criterion 9(K) for these aspects of the master plan.

The Applicant and parties placed reliance upon the Cooperative Agreement which, as the District Commission has found above under criterion 8, is not in the record for this master plan review. Nevertheless, the Applicant and parties represent it as material to the long term mitigation of possible impacts on the Natural Area and the Long Trail. The District Commission must refrain from positive conclusions until the Cooperative Agreement.proposal is filed and, if need be, supplemented by testimony. Findings of Fact 5LI338 Page 126

Two state agencies are parties to this master plan but neither presented direct evidence with respect to impacts under criterion 9(K) on the public investments present in the Mt. Mansfield State F crest, incuding Smugglers, Notch. Given the agencies' roles as stewards and representatives on behalf of the people of Vermont, the District Commission can only assume that proper consideration was made and that these public investments will not be unnecessarily or unreasonably endangered or materially jeopai:dized. Indeed, most aspects of the master plan will be physically removed from direct association with the public lands.

SECTION 6086(!}(9}@ RURAL_ GROVvTHAREAS ______

468. As found above under criteria 1(A) through 1(F)~ 8(A), 9(C), 9(E) and 9(K.), several c~tegories of natural resources have been identified within the master plan involved lands.

CONCLUSIONS

A criterion 9(L) analysis requires a threshold conclusion that the project tract includes lands which meet the definition of"rural growth areas" in 10 V.S.A. 6001(16). The District Commisl?ion has had benefit of guidance provided by the Environm~ntal Board in its Stratton , J Corporation decision (2W0519-10EB: May 8, 2Q0I), issued after the last hearing in the present matter but prior to final deliberations. We have applied the ~oard's three step analysis to the facts of the SN!R master plan proposal. The record reflects that, vii.th the possible exception of the Toll House Area, all areas within the proposed master plan are characterized by the presence ~ often overlapping presences - of the several natural resources specified in the statutory definition of"rural growth area". Therefore, the majority of the master plan proposal is not situated within a "rural growth area" and further analysis under criterion 9(L) is unwarranted It appears that the Toll House Area may be "carved out" under the Stratton Corporation analysis and thus constitutes a "rural growth area". However, given the fact that the only development proposed in this area is the expansion of the existing Inn, the Applicant's proposal ~eets the standards of criterion 9(L) which require reasonable growth rates, clustering and economical use

'n.._..... of .. lan..ds .• __ ... •'-. _...... ,..,.., ...... ,_.., ..... ,.-.,.

SECTION 6086(a)(10) LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS

All Components

469. The applicable local plan is the Stowe Town Plan, last amended November 3, 1998. There is no capital program for the town of Stowe. The Applicant provided a .detailed JJ narrative articulating its views on conformance with specific provisions in the Town PlL Findmgs of Fact 5Ll338 Page 127

The District Commission incorporates by reference the Town Plan provisions cited int.he Applicant's nanative. Setting the broad co~text for the Town Plan is the Vision Statement contained in Chapter 2, which states that the community seeks to maintain its historic settlement patterns of compact development surrounded by a healthy natural environment. [See Applicant Exhibit 70]

470. The District Commission :finds that the follo~g provisions of the Town Plan are also pertinent to the master plan in addition to the provisions cited by the A,pplicant in Exhibit 70:

A) Community Facilities and Services (Chapter 4)

Objectives:·

3 - Infrastructure expansion spould strive to improve.the aesthetic quality ofthe community. Transmission lines should be buried wherever feasible.

B) Economy (Chapter 5)

Under the section which discusse~ "Stowe's Resort Economy," the Town Plan includes statements specific to ''Future Development'' by the Mt Mansfield Company: "Future investment and expansions by the Mt. Mansfield Company ... will have significant economic impact on the community. Eqmomic expansion. .. may also have substantial community-wide impact in areas such as municipal facilities, the transportation network, natural resources, housing availability and affordability, and surrounding land uses and values ....Review and analysis of development project impacts for both the phased and total project build-out periods, and direct and indirect locational impacts should be considered, and mitigation measures sought where necessary."

C) Housing (Chapter 7)

To provide a wide-range of housing opportunities. Housing opportunities should strive to meet owner and renter housing needs on a year-round and seasonal basis.

Objectives:

Encourage the development of facilities and services which support affordable housing needs - such as sewer, water, electricity, schools and municipal government services Findings ofFact 5L1338 Page 128 .. ))

Emphasis should be placed on the housing needs of the service oriented work force and special population groups such as the elderly and low and moderate income families.

Chapter 7 of the Town Plan includes a discussion of housing issues. The discussion refers to an Affordable Housing Committee which apparently . issued a report with recommendations. However, that report is not included in the Plan or in the District Commission's record. Appendix II to the Town Plan includes a 1995 addendum to the Plan with a section on ~--~- ... ··- -·-- --···-·"'·--- ·-·-·-·- '-··-- ··-· __ ..... -- .. ···-•· ---··-~-··- -·-·--·-..... - ... - ' ''Housing Update." At that time it was observed that "The issue of affordable housing requires not only a look at Stowe's housing stock, but that of the region as well;, and "An 1ssue yvhich should be ~ddressed in the upcoming Plan revision is the relationship between incomes and housing costs and the degree to which housing is beyond the reach of people employed in Stowe."

Chapter 7 concludes with a section focused on "Affordable Housing.,, A subcommittee report recognized ''that the key to the ongoing success of

Stowe ... rests on the idea of attracting and sustaining year-round residen 11 who work reliably at their job... Providmg housing that is affordable to this sector is to our collective community benefit." "Affordable" housing is defined as "housing units available at a cost of no more than 30% of a household's gross annual income, when such income is equal to or below the county median". The subcommittee believed that "incomes from the service-oriented jobs lie in the range of 56% of the county median; therefore, housing priced at the median may still be over the price range of a large sector of those people who need h9using." The subcommittee recommended a regional approach on the issue of affordable housing which ,cshould be scattered rather than concentrated in single locations.'7

:0) Transportation

Objectives

6 Level of Service - The Town should strive to maintain an acceptable level of service on roads as determine.d by the community. Maintaining this level of service does include some peak hour congestion in order to minimize transportation facility costs, promote a shift to alternative modes, and minimize negative environmental and comm.unity impacts in the long run. . I. Findings ofPact 5L1338 Page 129

7 Level of Service Enforcement- If traffic from a proposed development causes significant degradation of transportation effectiveness as measured by level of service ratings or causes wiacceptable community and environmental impacts, the developer may be required to adequately ~tiga~e these negative impacts.

Chapter 9 recognizes the importance of the Vermont Route 108 scenic highway conidor through which an estimated 700,000 visitors or commuters pass annually ..

Chapter 9 has a section entitled "Traffic" which examines the Vermont Route 100 and 108 intersection. The Tovm clearly "is unwilling to sacrifice aesthetic and human scale qualities of the village merely to move cars through faster." "The community feels that such delays ~ LOS F] are acceptable ... " Note is made that traffic volumes along the Vermont Route I 00 regional corridor have "grown much more relative to to all other roads in Stowe." Two approaches were endorsed to address the congestion at the Vermont Route 100 and 108 intersection: 1) steps to enhance circulation within the village core and 2) "neo­ traditional planning" techniques such as a new "direct connection" between Routes 100 and 108 but "only after congestion significantly worsens and the enhancement efforts and other road network improvements have been made."

471. The Stowe Planning Commission adopted a position on the Applicant's master plan under the provisions of the Town Plan. The position was adopted on August 12, 1999 prior to the District Commission's evidentiary proceedings. The Planning Commision concluded that:

The S1Y1R. 2000 Master Plan is a comprehensive effort to exemplify the goals and objec~ives of the Town Plan. It is a well designed, compact and clustered development that is utilizing state of the art engineering and planning which \vill protect and enhance the natural environment and in many cases providE:, a net benefit to existing conditions. At the same time, it is an effort to stabilize and grow its economic base which will not only benefit the community but the region and the state as well. The Planning Commission is convinced that a diligent effort has been made by the SMR Master Plan to not only comply but to embody the goals and objectives of the Town Plan. [Stowe Planning Commission Exhibit lJ.

,I 472. The Stowe Planning Commission provided a careful and detailed analysis of the provisions in the Town Plan with which the master plan demonstrates conformance. The District Commission incorporates by reference the Town Plan provisions cited in the Planning Commission's submittal. [Stowe Planning Commission ~xhibit 1]. Findings of Fact 5L1338 )) Page 130 .

473. The Chair of the Stowe Planning Commission opined that it was not the intent of Chapter 7 to place the burden of providing a wide range of housing opportunities on individual applicants. [Testimony of Sullivan at December 22, 1999 and January 20, 2000 hearings]

474. The Chair of the Stowe Planning Con:µnission believes housing needs are addressed in the Town's by-laws and ordinances. For example, 18% of expanded n;iunicipal sewerage system capacity will be allocated for affordable housing development. Secondly, density . "bonuses)' are proyided in certairt~oning_di&.tricts_iP.Jtt.der.to_ promote y.earronnd.rentaL

opportunities. [Testimony of Sullivan at December 22, 1999 and January 20, 2000 Hearings]. .

CONCLUSIONS

The District Commission incorporates by reference :findings stated above under all other criteria in order to reflect a sufficient record to support conclusions under the comprehensive provisions of the Stowe Town Plan. The District Commission places significant weight on the perspectiv· provided. by th~ Stowe Planning Commission ,under the local plan. The District Commission ,1 ) also concurs with the analysis provided by the Applicant under specific provisions of the local plan. In general, the District Commission concludes that the master plan conforms with the provisions of the 1998 Stowe Town Plan. The Environmental Board's master plan policy suggests that .a District Com.mission should refrain from reaching final conclusions of law under criterion 10 [See footnote at page 2 of the policy]. Indeed, the Applicant has yet to present its evidence under three of the criteria [criteria 6, 7 and 9(A)] cited by the Board in its footnote. The Applicant has, however, provided a thorough case under crit~rion 5. As we have concluded above under criterion 9(K), the record is not yet complete enough to support positive conclusions under that criterion.

The District Commission believes that it should refrain from stating positive conclusions relative . to.the t<>wn--plan-untilcomplet(::d ~v:idence:lia.s-been··prov-id.ed-1.1n.de:r all other criteria, including other criteria not cited in the prior paragraph. For example, the town plan has provisions which address environmental issues such as water quality; the record in this master plan review remains open pending final consideration of the monitoring proposal under criterion 1.

11 . The town plan is clear in that the townspeople have recognized the Applicant's tract as a site II ~armarked for development of the sort which is proposed in the master plan. While the creation of the ski PUD is evident, the details. of how development components will best fit within the I PUD is the puipose of the current detailed review. )) The District Commission anticipates thatwhen completed evidence is presented under the othe1 criteria, positive conclusions thereunder will result i?J. positive conclusions with respect to the Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 131 town plan. We have not been presented with a contested case under criterion 10. Nevertheless, the Environmental Board and Supreme Court have confirmed that a District Commission must perform independent fact finding under criterion 10 and until that function is met, conclusions are not possible.

In closing, ~e District Commission notes tha~ the issue of affordable housing is articulated in the town plan. The Commission awaits the Applicant; s evidence and positions on the issue not only under criterion 10 but, also, criteria 9(A) and 9(H). At that time, the District Commission will welcome the active participation ofthe Stowe Planning Commission in consideration of the applicable provisions in the local plan.

Regional Plan

All Components

4 75. The applicable regional plan is the Lamoille County Plan, adopted December 10, 1996 and ~ffective on January 15, 1997. The Applicant provided a detailed narrative articulating its views on conformance with specific provisions in the Town Plan. The District Commission incorporates by reference the Regional Plan provisions cited in the Applicant's narrative. The "Mission/Puzpose Statement" portion of the Regional Plan . states: "Growth must be balanced with a social and economic need to protect our environment and conserve natural resources, and the capability of our communities to accomodate future growth. Lamoille County's landscape and resource base is our economic base. Future growth must recognize this." ( emphasis on the original).

476. The Lamoille County Regional Plan filed an initial position [Exhibit LCPC 1] dated July ' 13, 1999 in which it outlined concerns and recommendations in five broad categories:

1. Pot~tial Effects on Smugglers' Notch State Parle The Applicant was urged to monitor effects, along with the Regional Planning Commission and the Agency of Natural Resources, which occur during the master plan buildout and to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Park.

2. Potential Effects on the Regional Labor Pool. The Applicant was urged to work closely with regional schools and the Department of Employment and Training to establish and maintain a trained workforce and to make every effort to employ regional labor in implementing its master plan.

3. Potential Effects on the Regional Housing Pool. The Applicant was urged to work closely with the Town of Stowe and regional entities to address employee housing needs. Findings of Fact 5L1338 j) Page 132

4. Potential Effects on the Regional Transportation System. The Applicant was urged to work closely with the Town of Stowe and surrounding communities to monitor traffic in order to anticipate future needs and to develop· an incentive system to encourage its employees and visitors to use the Stowe Trolley system.

5. Potential Effects on the Regioi;ial Electrical Supply System. The Applicant was encouraged to develop a plan with local utility companies toward best and most efficient methods to meet the energy demands for the master plan, to pursue -·-. _alt.ernate__ fue1-sources_anclenergy_c.onserY-ation and.to. conductperiodic .energy-... audits.

477. Chapter IX in the Regional Plan explicates "Regional Recreation and Tourism" and has a Mission Statement: "To facilitate the provision of recreational opportunities for all residents and visitors, and encourage the dev~lopmentof a viable and sustainable travel industcy in the region." Goals and policies are expressed after several pages analyzing the import of tourism, primarily in the context of uses of public lands.

478. Chapter V in the Regional Plan explicates "Economic Development" and has a Missio, Statement: "To maintain a healthy and diverse economy for Lamoille County that is }.l consistentwith the character oftb.~ regio11, by supporting cpmmunities in their efforts to attract or expand business that balance economic needs for employment and income with the need for the conservation of natural resources." Goals and policies are stated following an in-depth discussion of the available regional labor pool, wages, incomes and tax receipts.

479. Chapter VI in the Regional Plan explicates "Housing" and a Mission Statement declares: "To support safe and decent affordable housing for all Lamoille County residents". A~ goals and policies are provided after an extended analysis of residential land uses . and housing demographics.

48(1 €hapter VII inthe Regional·Plan explicates ~7ransportation'~-and its Mission Statement reads: "Coordinate with local governments and organizations, state and federal agencies and area employ~rs to ensure the provision of a safe and efficient transportation system I that services the needs ofresidents, businesses and visitors, and that is sensitive to the I region's rural character and natural, scenic and historic resources." The goals and· I policies are preceded by a summary of studies and reports on regional transportation I i issues as well as specific highway canidors and intersections. I 481. Chapter VIII of the Regional Plan explicates "Regional Utilities and Facilities" and the ~ Mission Statement is: "To encourage coordination and cooperation between comm.uni · . )J I facilities and services in order to address the ongoing and future needs of the region,s ' residents and visitors." Goal 3 is concerned with energy issues as are five policies which are based upon a discussion of the region's electrical facilities. Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 133

482. Following consideration of the Applicant's December 22, 1999 responses [Applicant Exhibit 94] to the Regional Planning Commission's positions, the Regional Planning Commission signified that the master plan conforms with the regional plan. [

CONCLUSIONS

As with the local plan, the District Commission incotporates by reference findings stated above under all other criteria in order to reflect a sufficient record to support conclusions under the comprehensive provisions of the Lamoille County plan. Our analysis with respect to performance with the 1997 regional plan is similar to that made above under the Stowe town plan. The Environmental Board's master policy suggests that final conclusions oflaw are not permissible. We also await completed evidence under other criteria which have comparable provisions in the regional plan, as cited in our findings. The District Commission anticipates that final consideration under the regional plan will be sufficient once we have had the opportunity to review co!llpleted evidence under the other criteria.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to Environmental Board Rule 21 and th~ Environmental Board's master permit policy dated March 29, 2000, the District 5 Environmental Commission issues the above-referenced Findings of Pact with Conclusions of Law stated for each component ofthemasterplan under the criteria of Act 250.

The Applicant requested positive conclusions of law as follows:

Spruce Hamlet Criteria 1 Air, lC, lD, lE, lF, lG, 4, 5, 8 (natural areas only), 8A, 9B through G, 9J, 9K, 91 and 10.

Spruce Golf Course Criteria 1 Air, lC, ID, IE, lF, IG, 2, 3, 5, 8 (natural areas only), 8A, 9B through G, 9J, 9K, 9L and 10.

Storage Reservoirs Criteria 1 Air, lC, lF, lG, 2, 3, 5, 8 (:q.atural areas only), 8A, 9B through G, 9J, 9K., 91 and 10.

Mountain Improvements Criteria 1 Air, IC, ID, lF, 5, 8 (natural areas only), 8A, 9B through G, 9J, 9K, 9L and 10. Findings of Fact 5Ll338 1 Page 134 ))

Toll House Improvements Criteria 1 Air, IC, ID, lF, lG, 5, 8 (natural areas only), 8A, 9B though G, 9J, 9K, 9L and 10,

In summary, the District Commission reached positive conclusions oflaw as follows:

Spruce Hamlet

Criteria ID, lF, lG, 4, 5, 8A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9B and 9L

Spruce Golf Course

Criteria ID, IF, 5, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E and 9L

Storage Reservoirs

Criteria IC, IF, lG, 5, 9B, 9C and 9L

Mountain Improvements . 'J Criteria ID, IF, 5, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E and 9L

Toll House Improvements

Criteria l(Air), IC, ID, IF, lG, 5, 8A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E and 9L

TERM OE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND. RENEWAL

Consistent with Environmental Board Rule 21 (E) and the Environmental Board's master permit policy dated March 29, 2000, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall remain in effect for a five year period running until June 30, 2006. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law may be-renewed and updated prior to the expiration date.-as -allowed-lUlder the-Board '-s policy statement.

APPEALS

Any positive Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law based upon the criteria of 10 V.S.A §6086(a) shall be a final decision and subject to appeal to the Environmental Board as provided for under the law. [10 V.S.A. §6086(b); See also Environmental Board Rule 21(D)]. However, the Applicant, and any other party, may elect to reserve an appeal from findings and conclusior . under these criteria until after final action on a complete application has been made by the · District Comnµssion. A,ccordingly, the Applicant or any party may appeal this decision within. ) J Findings of Fact 5L1338 Page 135 thirty days under 10 V.S.A. §6089, or may appeal this decision after a final decision on a complete application with positive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for all Act 250 criteri~ If the Applicant or party has not taken a prior appeal of a partial decision under 10 V .S.A §6086(b) with respect to particular criteria, then any findings on the complete application, relating to those criteria, maybe appealed under 10 V.S.A. §6089. Any appeal under 10 V.S.A. §6089 shall include the submission of the original and ten copies of the following: notice of appeal, a statement of why the appellant believes the Commission was in error, a statement of the issues to be addressed in the appeal, a summary of the evidence that will be presented, and a preliminary list of witnesses. [10 V.S.A. §6089(b)].

Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 8th day of June 2001.

By: ~*:&~~---LPhilip H. Zalinger~ air V ~ District #5 Environmental Commission

Commissioners participating in this decision:

Allan Heath Kenneth Libby

1338.ff/Zffi..llc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I sent a copy of the foregoing Partial Findings of Fact and Conclusions f of La,v regarding 5Ll338 (l\'It. Mansfield Company, Inc.) by U.S. Mail, post~ge prepaid, on j this 8th day of June, 2001, to the fol1owing: I Ii Henry B. Lunde, President Frederick & Maureen Lavilette :, Mt. Marisfield Company, Inc. PO Box 863 !I ;1 5781 Mountain Road Stowe Vennont 05672 Stowe Vermont 05672 ,,ti ~ I VPIRG IT Rob Apple, Director of Planning & Attn: Sarah O'Brien ll'.j p Development 141 Main Street Suite 6 q Mt. Mansfield Company Inc. Montpelier Vermont 05602-2916 !i dba Stowe Mountain Resort H 5781 Mountain Road Green Mountain Club Stowe Vermont 05672 Attn: Ben Rose RR 1 Box650 ii Dale Rocheleau, Esq. Waterbury Center Vennont 05677 i Downs Rachlin & Martin PLLC ,1I 199 Main Street VermontNatural Resources Council d11 PO Box 190 Attn: Elizabeth Courtney i! Burlington Vermont 05402-0190 9 Bailey Avenue ;:I Montpelier Vennont 05602 (j State of Vermont ·, i: Departments of Forests, Parks and Conservation Law Foundation ;t Recreation Attn: Chris Killian, Esq. ii 11 Commissioner Conrad Motyka 15 East State Street Suite 4 :j !I 103 South Main Street Montpelier Vennont 05602 !! Waterbury Vermont 05671-0605 t! RIPPLE ;i Andy Raubvogel, Esq. Larry Lackey ;i General Counsel PO Box 178 I ; ! Agency of Natural Resources Stowe Vermont 05672 . j I i; 103 South Main Street I Waterbury Vermont 05671-0301 Notch Brook Condominiums i :, Attn: Dan Wesson, General Manager ii Stowe Select Board 1229 Notch BrookRoad ii c/o Town Clerk i Stowe Vermont 05672 I :; PO Box 730 I i! Stowe Vennont 05672 FOR INFORMATION ONLY I :I Stowe Planning Commission Myron R. Sopher :, POBox.216 9 Deer Run ij Stowe Vermont 05 672 Shelburne Vermont 05482 ;1 I .,,. Lamoille County Planning Commission Philip M. & J. Crea Lintilhac I! ! I PO Box 1009 886 Northgate Road ;1 Morrisville Vermont 05661 Shelburne Vennont 05482 ·II, I: John Kessler, Esq. E. Douglas Mcsweeney, Jr. :/ Commerce & Community Development 76 Sunset Cliff · !1 National Life Building 6th FJoor Burlington Vermont .05401 ii,; Montpelier Vermont 05620-0501 I, i; University of Vermont :j Art Hogan, Jr. ;1 c/o John J. Collins, Esq. 153 Tracy Drive i: Sutherland Collins McMahon & Harris Inc. Burlington Vermont 05401 308 Main Street ·l PO Box 1623 Burlington Vermont 05401-1623 ji Certificate of Service 5Ll338 Page2

Stowe Area Association John Zicconi ) .J Michael Diender, President Stowe Reporter Valerie Rochon, Executive Director POBox489 PO Box 1320 Stowe Vennont 05672 51 Main Street Stowe Vermont 05672 Nancy Remsen Burlington Free Press Mt. Mansfield Ski & Snowboard Club POBox307 Attn: Tom Oddy, Executive Director Montpelier Vermont 05602 402 Spruce Peak Stowe Vermont 05672 John Dillon c/o VPR Trapp Family Lodge, Inc. 20 Troy Avenue c/o Averill Laundon, Esq. Colchester Vermont 05446 Qarby Latn1don Stearns Th9!11diJS~ & ~.Q{t~ ... Warren House District 5 EnVIronmeniai ·commission 89 South Main Street 324 North Main Street Waterbury Vermont 05676-1538 Barre, Vennont 05641

Green Mountain Power Attn: Haniet King, Esq. PO Box 879 Waitsfield Vermont 05673

Linda Seavey, University Planner ~ University of Vermont 109 South Prospect Street J} Burlington Vermont 05405

Senator Susan Bartlett PO Box 123 Hyde .Park Vermont 05655

Representative Richard C. Marron 788 Tamarack Road Stowe Vermont 05672

The Jolmson Company. Inc. Attn: Joel Behrsing, PE 100 State Street 11 Montpelier Vermont 05602

Thomas Kavet Grandview Road Wi11iamstown Vermont OS679

BY ::f::)([jJ j__ (~.tin.~ Lori Canas Administrative Secretary

~ /)

1338.cos/ZHUlc