County hears Forest Service briefing on Grand Targhee expansion; draft EIS comment period closes June 20

District Ranger Jay Pence of the Caribou‑Targhee National Forest briefed Teton County commissioners on June 2 about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Grand Targhee Resort’s proposed expansion and urged written comments before the public comment period closes on June 20.

The draft EIS analyzes a range of alternatives, including the resort’s proposed action to expand the ski‑area permit boundary by roughly 866 acres to include the Mono Trees and South Bowl areas, install new chairlifts and make on‑mountain improvements. "There are five alternatives discussed in detail," Pence said, adding that the Forest Service had not identified a preferred alternative at the draft stage so all options remain under consideration.

Why it matters: the proposal would change the resort footprint on national forest land, and the EIS addresses effects across recreation, wildlife habitat, scenery, traffic and local public services. County commissioners said they intend to provide technical comments on socioeconomic impacts, emergency services, parking and other community costs that the document does not fully quantify.

What the proposed action would do - Expand permit boundary by about 866 acres (Mono Trees and South Bowl) and add chairlifts in both areas. The proposal also would replace two existing lifts and add four additional lifts and two “magic carpet” conveyors within the ski‑area permit area. The EIS describes run cutting, tree removal and selective snow‑making on some traverses, plus new on‑mountain guest facilities referenced in the master development plan. - The resort’s master development plan accepted by the agency in 2018 serves as the guiding vision; the EIS is the vehicle to analyze implementation of portions of that plan.

District Ranger Jay Pence said the Forest Service contracted Snow Engineering to prepare the document and that the draft grew into a large, data‑heavy analysis. "I don't know if you had a chance to look at this 600‑plus page document," Pence said, noting the length reflected extensive study and many cooperating‑agency inputs.

Process and timing - The Forest Service opened the draft EIS for public comment; the comment period currently closes June 20. Pence said he had sought an extension but had not been able to confirm one and advised commissioners to assume the June 20 deadline. - After the comment period closes, the contractor will perform content analysis of comments and the Forest Service will reconvene an interdisciplinary team to determine whether the draft requires modification; the final EIS and a proposed decision are anticipated in 2026, with a potential decision next summer.

Issues raised by the county and commissioners - Socioeconomics and public costs: Commissioners asked that the EIS better account for public‑service costs associated with expanded resort use — emergency response, law enforcement, roads, search and rescue, solid waste and schools. Pence said cooperating agencies were relied upon to provide local socioeconomic data and that county input can strengthen that portion of the analysis. - Avalanche control and public safety: Pence explained that a primary safety rationale for adding certain lands to the permit area is to allow resort personnel to conduct avalanche mitigation inside the permitted boundary. "If you're going to do avalanche control, you need it to be within your resort boundary," he said; adding the South Bowl acreage to the permit would allow avalanche control associated with on‑mountain operations to occur within the permit footprint. - Wildlife: The record shows uncertainty about wintering bighorn sheep in the South Bowl; the Forest Service had difficulty getting camera data to confirm presence and said further analysis is part of the EIS review. - Wildfire and fuels mitigation: Commissioners asked about wildfire risk and evacuation given the ski‑area’s single primary access (Ski Hill Road). Pence said fuels reduction along Ski Hill Road and other operational corridors is planned and that the Forest Service would pursue funding to implement mechanical treatments to reduce wildfire risk and improve firefighter operational opportunities. - Night skies and lighting: Commissioners raised concerns that upland lights can increase sky glow under cloudy conditions; the EIS includes dark‑sky considerations and would require lighting downcast and time‑limited in some uses.

Role of the county and next steps - The county holds cooperating‑agency status and may designate an interdisciplinary team contact to provide technical input. Pence asked the county to name an ID‑team representative so the Forest Service can coordinate directly; commissioners were advised to send an email to Chris Colligan, the county project manager, naming a point of contact. - Commissioners and staff said they would compile and submit technical comments. Chris Colligan told the board he will gather commissioners’ points and present a draft county letter for the board to consider at the next meeting.

No county decision was required at the workshop. Commissioners and staff were briefed on the proposal, encouraged to review the draft EIS, and directed to submit written input through the Forest Service comment process.

Ending: The Forest Service will accept written comments into the administrative record for the draft EIS; District Ranger Jay Pence said he was available for follow‑up questions by email and phone and that the Forest Supervisor will make the eventual decision on the project.