When is the next best time to comment?
- The Draft (DEIS) is expected to be available for public review in the spring of 2022. The public will have a minimum of 90 days after the Notice of Availability is published for the DEIS to provide comments on the analysis and findings. Although information has been released in the interim, it is best to hold formal comments until the opening of the DEIS comment period. This is the best way to ensure that commenters have standing to object, should it be determined appropriate later in the process.
Why are changes to project components happening at this time?
- As described under the News page of this website, a number of refinements to the Proposed Action have occurred following the close of the public scoping period. These refinements respond to resource concerns raised internally by the CTNF and externally by the public, as well as additional planning that occurred based on new resource information obtained since the release of the scoping notice. During a holistic review of the proposal for the purpose of the DEIS analysis, it became evident that certain supporting project elements (e.g., avalanche mitigation devices, utility connections, and other upgrades) needed to be included in this proposal. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the refined project elements during the DEIS comment period that is anticipated to start in the spring of 2022. Additional scoping of these project elements was not determined to be necessary.
Why hasn't the DEIS been released for public review?
- The DEIS is currently being prepared by the Forest Service and is expected to be available for public review in the spring of 2022. The public will have a minimum of 90 days after the Notice of Availability is published for the DEIS to provide comments on the analysis and findings. The reader is referred to the NEPA Process page of this website for a summary of the EIS process required for this project.
When will the project alternatives be available for review?
- Alternatives will be made available for review in the DEIS. Although the alternatives have been identified it is important that resource analyses be completed prior to releasing alternatives for public review. The DEIS will analyze the following alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative; 2) a modified version of the Proposed Action described in the Scoping Notice, including projects located within the existing SUP area and proposed expansion projects in Mono Trees and South Bowl; 3) proposed projects located within the existing SUP area only; 4) proposed projects located within the existing SUP area and proposed South Bowl expansion projects; and 5) proposed projects located within the existing SUP area and proposed Mono Trees expansion projects. Alternatives will be described in greater detail in the upcoming DEIS, which is expected to be available for public review in the spring of 2022.
When is it appropriate to share my comments/feedback on the alternatives and/or resource analyses?
- Under 36 CFR § 218.5, individuals must provide specific written comments during a designated comment period in order to have standing to object to the draft decision later in the process. These include the previously completed scoping comment period and the upcoming DEIS comment period. The DEIS comment period will be open for a minimum of 90 days and is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2022. A Notice of Availability will be published to initiate the start of the next comment period.
Why were the proposed South Bowl projects described in the Scoping Notice modified and removed from analysis in the upcoming DEIS?
- The proposed South Bowl expansion projects were modified in response to resource concerns raised by the CTNF and by the public, as well as additional planning that occurred based on new resource information obtained since the release of the Scoping Notice.
- The initial proposal for South Bowl included a 600-acre area bordering the existing GTR permit boundary that would have included three lifts: South Bowl West, South Both East, and South Bowl Connector. This design extended the SUP boundary east to meet the Jedidiah Smith Wilderness boundary and further south, providing guest access to a considerable area of expert terrain. These slopes are familiar to locals and backcountry skiers, who posed concerns regarding avalanche safety and risk mitigation.
- A preliminary avalanche study revealed that the South Bowl area contains high avalanche risk. The area under South Bowl West lift could be managed with boot packing and explosives risk reduction, and while it would require aggressive management in order to provide guests with a safe experience, it is possible to create a controlled environment. The South Bowl West lift would also be located outside of predicted avalanche paths, reducing the risk of infrastructural damage. Terrain served by South Bowl East and South Bowl Connector lifts, however, would require abundant explosives risk reductions and additional expenses for a very limited ability level of skiers. Due to the nature of the terrain, avalanche risk mitigation would be more difficult and dangerous to implement and less cost-effective. Therefore, South Bowl East and South Bowl Connector lifts and their areas of skiable terrain were eliminated from the South Bowl SUP expansion plan. The currently proposed South Bowl projects would allow GTR to perform avalanche mitigation in this area in a way that would both provide increased opportunities for lift served skiing and mitigate potential risks associated with improved access to this area from the introduction of the previously approved Peaked Lift.
- In addition to Public Safety concerns, the removal of the South Bowl East and South Bowl Connector lifts and the reduced SUP adjustment area would also address the following resource concerns that were identified during public scoping: Scenery concerns associated with tree removal, and chairlift and ski terrain construction; Socioeconomic concerns associated with the increased capacity of a three lift configuration that could cause a commensurate increase in visitation, including impacts to affordable housing; and Wildlife concerns associated with bighorn sheep and other species with potential habitat in South Bowl.
- Additional rationale for dismissing the South Bowl expansion projects described in the Scoping Notice will be provided in the upcoming DEIS.
What is the relationship between the 2019 Grand Targhee Resort First Amended Master Plan, approved by the Teton County, Wyoming Board of County Commissioners, and the projects currently proposed by GTR in the upcoming DEIS?
- The Teton County, Wyoming Board of County Commissioners approved the 2019 Grand Targhee Resort First Amended Master Plan to provide planned unit development zoning for non-federal lands in the GTR base area. The approval and associated base area development projects would occur independently of the on-mountain projects located on the CTNF currently proposed by GTR in the upcoming DEIS.
Will the upcoming DEIS analyze base area development plans approved by Teton County, Wyoming in the 2019 Grand Targhee Resort First Amended Master Plan?
- The approval and associated base area development projects from the 2019 Grand Targhee Resort First Amended Master Plan were reviewed and authorized in a County process, and would occur independently of the on-mountain projects currently proposed by GTR. In other words, base area development projects are currently approved and do not need approval under the current NEPA process. Therefore, the upcoming DEIS will not analyze the County approval and associated base area development projects from the 2019 Grand Targhee Resort First Amended Master Plan as a “connected action”. “Connected Actions” are defined in 40 CFR § 1508.25(a)(ii), as those that “[c]annot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously…” Should the County approval and associated base area development projects have the potential to contribute cumulative impacts to resources analyzed in the upcoming DEIS, they may be considered in the cumulative effects discussion.