The comment period closed on December 27, 2022 for public comments on the proposed redevelopment plan for what should be considered in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (MMSA) will prepare and release for review in September 2023. The Forest Service’s project website has 17 public comments posted that express the following concerns:

• How much employee housing will there be?
• Where will non-MMSA visitors to the national forest, Devils Postpile, and Minaret Vista area park and how far away it will be? Will it be harder to get to the Red’s Meadow shuttle? Will back country skiers, snowmobilers, x-country skiers, hikers, and bikers, have less access because of this project? Will the summer/winter access to the private properties  to the west of Parcel A still be off of SR203 and convenient?
• Some of the skier services, the gondola, a large parking lot, and administrative offices will be new development on undeveloped public lands. The new area is within the special use permit, but ten acres and more will be cleared of hundreds of trees. A take away of land for recreation, wildlife, and nature especially since skiing has a dubious future.
• Skier services will be in a smaller building, but more visitors are expected so, will this be sufficient for future needs?
• More lockers are needed than indicated in the plan for everyday skiers. What is planned, is farther from the lifts. Will there be lockers for the local ski/snowboard teams? The amenities are geared more towards residential users than day use visitors.
• The snow storage area might not be sufficient.
• What is the current groundwater usage and how much more water will be pumped and from which wells? How will it impact the Dry Creek basin, which is part of the Owens River Headwaters? How will the Forest Service monitor MMSA’s water usage and ensure that the groundwater and forest in the lower Dry Creek drainage is not impacted?
• How much wastewater will be generated and how much of it would be used for snowmaking and how much would be discharged or used for recharge? Will there be too much waste water generated?
• There will be up to three times more people living in the Wildland-Urban Interface making it more complicated to evacuate in the case of a wildfire. An evacuation plan should be included in the project. The increased development will change fire-fighting priorities. How much water would be available for fire-fighting? Will the buildings and landscaping in Parcels A and B follow best practices for defensible space?
• Will rerouting SR203 delay fire-fighters getting to the Postpile or make it harder for delivery trucks to get to Reds Meadow? Should there be another fire station nearby?
• Is subdividing Parcel B into 15 private parcels within the objective of the original Land Exchange Agreement?
• Tall buildings (3-8 stories) are likely to be more visible from surrounding areas including the adjacent wilderness. Should there be a height restriction?
• There will be more window glare and more light pollution affecting dark skies. It also changes the visitor experience to pass through a more urban area before entering the Postpile or wilderness.
• Many local agencies should be involved in the planning process and the development of the EIS i.e., LRWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, NPS (Depo), MMCA, Tribes, Mammoth water, fire, hospital, mosquito abatement (MCWD, MLFPD, SMHD, MLMAD) and Mono County.
• MCWD could treat the waste water more efficiently and can deal with high volumes of waste water.  This would require infrastructure to tie into the MMSA systems and an out-of-district service agreement, but worth considering.
• An analysis needs to be done for any geothermal development on the mountain to ensure it won’t impact the town’s water supply.
• This project will increase GHG emissions, create a lot of noise and dust during the construction phase that will impact the visitor experience and wildlife.
• How is MMSA offsetting the increase in GHG emissions? Are there any goals to be carbon neutral? i.e., for solar panels, electric buses and snowcats, charging stations, etc.
• Can the historic Yodler Restaurant be preserved?

There were suggestions for presenting alternatives in the EIS. Here are some of them:

• Let MCWD treat the sewage.
• Scale down the development by reducing the height of buildings, density of living facilities, reduced hotel capacity, etc.
• Provide a more equitable plan that services the day-use MMSA visitors and the non-MMSA visitors as well as the overnight guests.
• Do not expand into the undeveloped Forest Service land, e.g., the Big Bend area, the new beginner ski area, skier services, etc.
• Do not subdivide/privatize Parcel B.
• Do not develop Parcel B.

We'll be watching this project and will let you know when the EIS is released.