copper mountain resort recreation enhancement...

FINAL DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

February 2017

COPPER MOUNTAIN RESORTRECREATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTSENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTVOLUME 2

USDA Forest ServiceWhite River National Forest

Dillon Ranger District

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected].

This institution is an equal opportunity provider.

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Copper Mountain Resort Recreation Enhancement Projects

Environmental Assessment – Volume 2 DN-1

FINAL DECISION NOTICE AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

COPPER MOUNTAIN RESORT RECREATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region White River National Forest

Dillon Ranger District Summit County, Colorado

February 2017

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This Decision Notice documents my decision and rationale for approving the proposed projects on the Dillon Ranger District, White River National Forest (WRNF). The Project Area is located within Copper Mountain Resort (CMR), in Summit County, Colorado. My decision is based on and supported by the August 2016 Copper Mountain Resort Recreation Enhancement Projects Environmental Assessment (EA).

CMR operates under a special use permit (SUP) administered by the WRNF’s Dillon Ranger District. The 2002 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides general standards and guidelines for the operation of CMR regarding its activities and operations on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The SUP and associated summer and winter operating plans, as well as other resource management documents, provide more specific guidance for annual winter and summer ski area operations and projects. The projects discussed in this document are identified and conceptually discussed in the Copper Mountain Resort 2011 Master Development Plan (MDP), which was accepted by the Forest Service in May 2011, and the supplemental 2015 Master Development Plan Amendment (MDPA), which was accepted by the Forest Service in November 2015.

The EA analyzed several projects identified in the MDP and MDPA, including the addition of an alpine coaster near the Center Village area; the addition of a mountain biking trail from Fat Marmot to Center Village; and snowmaking enhancements on West Encore and Collage ski trails.




PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the proposed projects is to address existing constraints and conditions at CMR and further improve the skiing experience for its visitors. The projects would address the following needs:

1. Diversify the recreation activities at CMR

Currently, there is a need for additional, diversified recreational activities at CMR. Specifically, CMR wants to provide adventure or thrill-based experiences that require little specialized knowledge, skills, equipment or familiarity with the mountain environment. These elements can be a barrier for visitors (e.g., families, the elderly/aging) desiring to engage in outdoor activities. Diversified summer recreation activities would complement the existing activities by offering a range of more accessible recreation opportunities to engage visitors on NFS lands.

2. Improve the mountain biking trail connectivity

There is a need for a direct trail connection between the Fat Marmot mountain biking trail and the base area. Currently, bikers coming off of Fat Marmot trail use B-Road to traverse to Red Tail or Elk Alley trails, and then take East Fork into the Center Village. This results in a large number of users on trails that are located on the lower portion of the mountain. Although CMR maintains 11 trails ranging from beginner to advanced ability levels, the majority of existing trails are located west of the American Eagle lift, which concentrates users on those trails and impacts the recreational experience for guests accessing CMR’s Center Village. A trail on the east side of American Eagle lift would help disperse users across the mountain.

3. Enhance the efficiency and coverage of snowmaking operations for ski and snowboard training and the general public

CMR’s existing snowmaking system covers approximately 329 acres of the developed terrain network. During the early season, CMR is committed to providing high quality terrain for ski training as well as public use. Due to the popularity, level of use, and windward exposure of West Encore and Collage trails, they often lack an appropriate depth of snow coverage. There is a need for improved efficiency and coverage of snowmaking operations on West Encore to accommodate ski and snowboard training, and on Collage to provide a top to bottom trail for the public during early season.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION After thoroughly considering the project purpose and need, issues, range of alternatives and analyses presented in the EA, as well as public comments that were received, I am approving Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action, from the EA. My decision meets the project Purpose and Need and is consistent with the Forest Plan. CMR is required to adhere to all project design criteria (PDC) identified in Table 2-3 in the EA (Chapter 2), and are included as part of this document (refer to Table 1). Project components are illustrated in the Selected Alternative figure.




The Selected Alternative includes the addition of an alpine coaster to diversify the on-mountain recreation experience, a mountain biking trail to provide an alternative route from B-Road to Center Village, and snowmaking enhancements to enhance the efficiency and snowmaking coverage for ski and snowboard training and the general public. Specific components of the Selected Alternative are described in detail and are consistent with current designs.

Alpine Coaster

The alpine coaster will be constructed and operated near the Center Village area to accommodate visitors who seek an additional or different on-mountain experience. The gravity-driven coaster will be located near the American Flyer lift and will operate year-round in an area that currently serves as a hub for summer and winter recreation at CMR. The Selected Alternative figure depicts the location of the proposed alpine coaster.

Example of alpine coaster track and infrastructure

Alpine coaster infrastructure includes:

• An uphill track (approximately 1,850 feet, which tows riders to the top terminal of the coaster);

• An operators building (located at the top terminal, an approximately 500-square foot building);

• A bottom terminal building with storage and mechanical, and will include a covered walkway (approximately 2,200 square feet on private land); and

• A downhill track (approximately 3,950 feet).

The coaster track would average approximately 6 feet in height and require three bridges—one over Loverly (crossed by an approximate 22-foot-tall bridge) and two over mountain access roads (Old A Road




and Lower A Road will be crossed by an approximate 16-foot-tall bridges)–to ensure skier flow and that snow cat access is maintained.

As part of the alpine coaster project, approximately 0.34 mile of the existing Elk Alley mountain biking trail will be re-routed around the alpine coaster track. The new segment of trail will be approximately 0.1 mile long and 5 feet wide; incidental tree removal and limbing will be necessary requiring less than 0.1 acre of tree removal and grading. The new trail segment will be constructed by a mini-excavator; the abandoned trail segment will be de-compacted and re-vegetated.

Construction of the coaster is expected to take six months. Construction and maintenance access to the coaster will utilize existing mountain access roads as well as the cleared route for the coaster track; however, a short access road, approximately 400 feet in length, will be built from A-Road to the top terminal of the coaster for long-term access. The power line for the coaster will run from a nearby existing maintenance facility to the top terminal, buried in a cleared ski trail and access road corridor.

Construction of the coaster will be completed using a variety of construction vehicles, all-terrain-vehicles, and possibly a helicopter or spider hoe. Concrete will be pumped to the construction site or mixed by hand. Tree removal (approximately 10 feet on either side of the track) will be completed over the snow. Tree removal associated with the “linear” projects (both the alpine coaster and mountain biking trail) will remove selected trees, as necessary, but will not clear-cut the entire alignment. Depending on the location, minimal removal of overstory vegetation will be required for the proposed projects as tree spacing in the project areas often exceeds 10 feet.

Tree removal associated with the Selected Alternative will occur in one of the following ways (as identified as appropriate by the ski area and Forest Service specialists): skidding over the snow to Loverly, stacking bucked smaller trees and transported off site, chipping, or burning. Burn piles will meet Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Standards (approximately 300 cubic feet for hand piling).

No nighttime operation hours were proposed for the alpine coaster; therefore, no lights will be installed for this project.

Mountain Biking Trail

An intermediate mountain biking trail will connect users on Fat Marmot with the Center Village and provide an alternative route from B-Road to Center Village, reducing the number of users on Red Tail. This will also be a more direct route than the current route utilized by bikers.

The mountain biking trail will originate from B-Road, just below Fat Marmot, approximately 2,100 feet below and to the east of Solitude Station and will travel through mostly forested terrain, joining East Fork approximately 800 feet above Center Village (refer to the Selected Alternative figure). The total length of the mountain biking trail will be just under 1 mile.




The trail will be constructed by a mini-excavator to build an average 5-foot tread width, requiring an approximate 8-foot cleared corridor.

Tree removal and limbing will be required to create the appropriate trail corridor. Tree removal associated with the “linear” projects (the alpine coaster and mountain biking trail) will include the removal of selected trees; however, the entire alignment will not be clear-cut. Depending on the location, minimal removal of overstory vegetation will be required for the Selected Alternative projects as tree spacing in the project areas often exceeds 10 feet. Trees will be skidded within the disturbed trail corridor to lower Andy’s Encore or Collage (a maximum of 0.4-mile), stacked, and transported off site, chipped, or burned. Burn piles will meet Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Standards (approximately 300 cubic feet for hand piling). Slash, logs, and stumps will be burned soon after tree removal in the spring and fall.

Additional Snowmaking Coverage

Installation of snowmaking infrastructure on West Encore and Upper Collage will provide an additional 20 acres of snowmaking coverage within the existing terrain network (refer to Selected Alternative figure). Water and power will be installed utilizing an underground trench (approximately 6,400 feet) and connected to existing infrastructure. Up to 0.25 acre of incidental tree removal may be necessary to install the snowmaking pipe.

West Encore will be utilized for competitive training and racing and will require more snowmaking water per acre of coverage than is needed on traditional ski trails. The 20 acres of additional coverage will require a total volume of water estimated at 26 acre-feet per ski season. Water needed for the additional snowmaking coverage will be provided by CMR’s existing physical and legal supply of water sources—diverting up to 530 acre-feet per season, as currently authorized by the Forest Service and CMR’s decreed water rights.1 By both re-distributing its current use of snowmaking water, as well as decreasing snowmaking operations on portions of trails that do not require as much coverage, CMR will be able to provide the snowmaking water needed for coverage on West Encore and Upper Collage.

Snowmaking Mitigation

West Encore and Upper Collage are located in the Wheeler Gulch and Formidable Creek basins. Higher water yields resulting from the proposed snowmaking coverage could result in increased potential for soil erosion, slope stability problems, and negative effects to stream health. To offset these potential impacts, a drainage management system has been designed to capture and re-route surface runoff originating from snowmelt in the West Encore and Upper Collage trails. The location of the additional snowmaking coverage and topography of the surrounding terrain provides an opportunity to capture snowmelt runoff from sections of Oh No and Andy’s Encore ski trails (both with existing snowmaking coverage). The

1 Case No. 92CW292 decreed 343 acre-feet of allowable snowmaking supplies and Case No. 10CW115 decreed an additional 187 acre-feet (total decreed snowmaking supply = 530 acre-feet).




mitigation plan will improve a series of existing water bars on the West Encore, Upper Collage, Oh No and Andy’s Encore trails, which will capture and convey water from snowmelt into an armored channel. The channel will route water to an inlet structure on B-Road connected to the approved drainage pipeline, which will then convey the captured runoff to West Lake. Additional surface runoff will be intercepted on the ski trails along the approved pipeline route (Middle Collage and Frank’s Fave).

A representative armored channel

The drainage system will offset potential impacts from the additional snowmaking coverage and from sections of ski trails where snowmaking operations already exist. The drainage system is estimated to capture a minimum of 40 acre-feet of snowmelt water during peak flows.

Additionally, the mitigation for increased snowmaking will include revegetation on Collage and West Encore. Natural vegetation has had very limited success in this previously graded area; therefore, CMR will add soil amendments to facilitate revegetation.

RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION

In reaching my decision, I relied on an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team comprised of Forest Service resource specialists to analyze the effects of the two alternatives documented in the EA. I considered the following issues, concerns, and anticipated effects to the recreation, scenery, cultural, social and economic, botanical, wetlands, water, wildlife, and soil resources within the Project Area. I also reviewed the PDC included in the EA, reviewed the public comments during scoping and on the EA, and considered how the Selected Alternative would address the stated purpose and need.

The EA public comment period generated three comment letters from organizations and agencies. The letters were generally neutral, although there was some concern in regards to the additional snowmaking,




both in terms of potential impacts of the new infrastructure and the potential impacts of additional snowmelt resulting from additional snowmaking coverage.

In reviewing the qualitative and quantitative effects on the human and biological environment presented in the EA, I find that they have been adequately addressed and disclosed. I considered impacts to the full range of resources affecting the human, biological, and physical environments. I have reviewed the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Specifically, I have considered the existing drainage conditions and potential impacts to the watershed resources at CMR. The Forest Service has determined that installation of a drainage system designed to capture runoff and carry it down to West Lake before it could contribute to stream flows or infiltrate into the ground will minimize potential for impacts to watershed resources resulting from the Alternative 2 projects. This system will manage the water from snowmelt on a portion of Oh No, Andy’s Encore and Collage, routing almost twice the amount of water off the mountain as will be used for snowmaking on Encore and Upper Collage. Therefore, I feel confident that any potential impacts to existing drainage issues will be mitigated.

In addition, the alpine coaster would diversify recreation offered at CMR and provide another opportunity for the public to experience NFS lands. Finally, the mountain biking trail will meet the need of improving connectivity for mountain bikers to Center Village.

Through the application of appropriate PDC identified to minimize impacts to these resources, I am confident that potential impacts have been thoroughly assessed and disclosed.

PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

The PDC in Table 2-3 of the EA (Chapter 2), along with several additional PDC identified during the EA comment process, have been incorporated into the Selected Alternative. My decision includes adhering to the PDC as described in the EA and in Table 1 of this document. Failure to comply with the required PDC will constitute a breach of the project approval and could temporarily suspend construction and/or operations on the facilities approved by this decision.

The Selected Alternative, along with my decision to require all of the PDC, meets all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. With the application of PDC, the project will not result in any unacceptable effects to NFS lands.




Table 1. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices RECREATION

R1 Where appropriate, fencing, flagging, signage and other safety mechanisms shall be used to alert winter and summer visitors to the location of activities and infrastructure.

R2 All hiking and mountain biking trails shall have appropriate signage to direct uphill and downhill traffic and prevent user conflict. CMR and WRNF will develop a trails master plan, which includes travel direction for trails.

R3 Unauthorized hiking and mountain biking trails developed by third parties shall be promptly deconstructed and reclaimed as they are discovered.

SCENERY

S1

Design plans for infrastructure, facilities, and buildings shall be reviewed and authorized through the WRNF Building Design Review process. Structures should follow Built Environment Image Guide guidance, color and reflectivity guidelines, and meet Scenic Integrity Objectives for the Project Area.

S2 Facilities, including trails and signs, shall meet Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines.

S3 Stumps should be cut as low as possible to the ground to avoid safety hazard and reduce scenery impacts.

S4 Trees shall be retained, where possible, to provide species and size diversity, maintain forest cover, and screen facilities.

S5 Straight edges shall be avoided where possible when removing trees. Variable density cutting (feathering) and age and size class selection should be utilized to create a more natural edge that blends into the existing vegetative structure.

S6 Utilities shall be buried as per 2002 Forest Plan standard.

S7 All flagging material, pin flags, lathe, construction signs, etc. shall be removed promptly when no longer necessary

CULTURAL

C1

If undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are located during ground disturbing activities or planning activities associated with approved construction activities, all construction in the immediate vicinity shall cease as specified in 36 CFR §800.11 concerning Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking.

VEGETATION

V1 Before implementing any approved project, the Project Area shall be surveyed for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species, Forest Service Sensitive Species, and Species of Local Concern (SOLC) using established protocols.

V2

If any previously undocumented Forest Service Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate, Forest Service Sensitive or SOLC plants are encountered within the Project Area prior to or during project implementation, the WRNF shall be notified. WRNF shall develop suitable mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts as appropriate.

V3 Where practicable, impacts to areas occupied by Botrychium spp. shall be minimized and avoided.

V4 Construction fencing and/or other barriers shall be erected adjacent to ground-disturbing activities in order to delineate occupied moonwort habitat and prevent impacts to these areas.

V5 Construction practices and operations shall avoid impacting native plant communities through designation of formal paths in heavy use areas and other appropriate means.

V6 A noxious weeds risk assessment and treatment plan shall be completed by CMR or a WRNF approved contractor and approved by WRNF staff prior to implementation of any authorized ground disturbing activities.

V7 Pretreatment of existing infestations with approved herbicides within the Project Area shall occur prior to project implementation when possible.




Table 1. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices

V8

The project administrator shall inspect all off-road equipment prior to entering NFS lands to ensure that they are free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold noxious weed seeds. “Off-road equipment” includes all construction machinery or off-highway vehicles, except for trucks, service vehicles, water trucks, pickup trucks, cars, and similar vehicles.

V9

All disturbed ground from construction shall be re-vegetated with native tree/plant species and WRNF-approved seed mix, and meet ground cover standards within three years after completion of project construction. All mulch used in re-vegetation efforts shall be certified to be free of weed species.

V10 Noxious weed infestations shall be monitored and treated for three years after project completion or until weed populations meet target thresholds. All contractors shall be approved by WRNF staff.

V11 Any Engelmann spruce that is felled should be either removed from the area or treated within one year after felling to reduce attack by spruce bark beetle. Treatments may include burning, burying or peeling bark.

V12 Leave trees and trail clearing limits shall be adequately marked.

V13 Burn piles should be limited to ≤ 300 cubic feet for hand piles and ≤ 7,068 cubic feet for machine piles.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

FW1

Tree removal associated with the construction of approved projects should occur, to the extent practicable, outside the portion of the nesting period (May 21 to July 15, dates inclusive) of migratory birds when active nests are present. Construction may occur within that nesting period if surveys (conducted by a qualified biologist as close to tree removal as practicable) show no active nests are present, or as otherwise approved by the Forest Service Responsible Official.

FW2 If boreal owl nests are located within project areas, tree removal in nesting areas should be avoided during the May 21 to July 15 nesting period.

FW3 If olive-sided flycatcher nests are located within project areas, tree removal in nesting areas should be avoided during the June 1 to July 15 nesting period.

FW4

If construction activities are proposed prior to July 31, surveys for active raptor nests and cavities shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. No ground disturbing activities or tree cutting should occur within 0.25 mile of active raptor nests/cavities until August 1, or until fledging occurs, or as otherwise approved by the Forest Service Responsible Official.

FW5 Any necessary fencing around the alpine coaster should be designed and installed to prevent the entanglement of wildlife and facilitate big game passage.

FW6

To minimize bird and animal mortality, appropriate caps on any existing and proposed uncapped vent pipes including restrooms, stove pipes, sign posts, gate posts, tubes protecting plants, and fence posts should be installed to prevent animal access, while maintaining their intended use and function. This includes any temporarily open hollow vertical pipes, such as snowmaking bases without guns.

FW7 All trash containers shall be bear proof and any locations that have food products stored outside of a building shall utilize bear proof food containers.

FW8 During construction, bear proof containers shall be used for all edible and food related trash. No food products or food containers shall be disposed of in larger roll-off type dumpsters.

FW9 All construction activities shall be confined to daylight hours, excluding emergencies.

FW10 Resort employees and contractors shall not bring dogs to construction areas on NFS lands while on duty.

FW11 Food or drink may be temporarily kept (i.e., for the day) in construction vehicles as long as vehicle windows are closed and doors locked to prevent bear entry. No food or drink shall be kept in vehicles overnight.




Table 1. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices FW12 Where practicable, snags should be retained that provide cavity nesting migratory bird habitat.

FW13 Human-wildlife conflicts or aggressive wildlife behavior should be reported to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

FW14 Helicopter use for construction should not occur until after July 31 to minimize impacts to calving, fawning and nesting activities.

SOILS AND WATERSHED

SW1

Prior to implementation, CMR shall submit grading plans for (1) projects greater than 1 acre, and (2) all new temporary and permanent paths/roads for agency review and authorization. At a minimum, these documents should meet the basic requirements for stormwater permitting through the State of Colorado Stormwater Management Program.

SW2 A site visit and field-fitting of planned projects, paths and roads shall occur by WRNF personnel before construction begins.

SW3

Prior to construction, a detailed site erosion control plan shall be submitted for agency review and authorization. This plan shall include the following components: (1) Silt fences, straw bales/wattles are sediment control BMPs to contain sediment on-site; (2) Jute-netting or appropriate erosion-control matting on steep fill slopes (areas with a slope angle of 35% or greater) to protect soils and enhance vegetation re-establishment; (3) Revegetation plans for disturbed areas; and (4) For projects that involve grading, defined grading limits and physical barriers along the perimeter of the graded area.

SW4 Seed mixtures and mulches should be free of noxious weeds. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non-native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials become established

SW5 Any site grading should blend disturbance areas into the existing topography to achieve a natural appearance. Cut and fill practices should be avoided near the transition of proposed grading and existing terrain.

SW6 Prior to construction, soil surveys should be completed within the construction area. In areas where grading or soil disturbance will occur, an assessment of the quantity (depths) of soil A and/or organic ground cover should be made to ensure no net loss of this material.

SW7 Effective ground cover (mulch) upon completion of ground disturbing activities should meet minimum levels of the pre-treatment habitat type.

SW8 During construction, maintenance and operations, top soil should be stockpiled to maintain organic matter. Excess native material should be incorporated into the disturbed area to maintain a natural appearance.

SW9 Vegetative buffers should be maintained adjacent to intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands. Where avoidance of the vegetative buffer is not possible, disturbance shall be minimized.

SW10 Soil-disturbing activities should be avoided during periods of heavy rain or excessively wet soils.

SW11

For ground-disturbing activities near perennial and intermittent streams and ephemeral draws, CDA should be minimized by draining roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams and ephemeral draws. Drainage from disturbed areas should be modified as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, ditch-relief culverts, etc., to disconnect disturbed areas from streams.

SW12 In the Watershed Influence Zone (WIZ) next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, only those activities and practices that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition should be authorized.

SW13

New concentrated-use sites should be located outside of the WIZ and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Existing sites in the WIZ should be hardened or reclaimed to prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion. WIZ boundaries adjacent to project areas shall be clearly demarcated on the ground to prevent infringement during construction and operations.





SW14

All wetlands within the vicinity of any ground disturbing activities or tree felling should be clearly identified. Heavy equipment shall be kept out of streams, swales, and lakes. Exceptions include: (1) crossing at designated points; (2) constructing crossings; (3) performing restoration work; (4) if there is at least 1 foot of packed snow or 3 inches of frozen soil present; or (5) a single wetlands crossing where temporary construction mats are employed with limited use. Water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands shall not be disrupted by avoiding disturbance of channels, seeps, springs, and streams (the proposed mitigation would only capture snowmelt during the peak of the runoff season, after soil has saturated).

SW15 Culverts should be designed and sized to easily pass sediment and debris transported by the stream to be crossed. Culverts less than 18 inches in diameter shall not be used to cross any stream channel.

SW16 Rocks, wood, or other material should not be added or moved in streams or lakes except if these actions maintain or improve stream health. Stream beds and banks should not be altered.

SW17 Culverts should not be installed and ground-disturbing activities should not be conducted near streams during spring runoff, or during periods of heavy precipitation.

SW18 Trees should be felled into intertrail islands to improve large woody debris density. In areas adjacent to a WIZ, tree should be felled in a way that protects vegetation in the WIZ.

SW19 Excavated material should not be stored in the WIZ.

SW20

Construction practices and operations should not introduce soils or debris into streams, channels, swales, lakes, or wetlands. Sediment waddles, sediment fencing, retention basins, or other applications should be installed before ground-disturbing activities begin. If natural or biodegradable materials are not used and left on site, all non-natural and non-biodegradable materials should be removed at the end of construction.

SW21 For projects that involve logging operations, logging over the snow should be prioritized when possible. Ground skidding shall be avoided on slopes steeper than 40%.

SW22 If logging over the snow, snow should be a minimum of 1 foot deep, continuously packed (i.e., not patchy) and sufficient to prevent vehicles from breaking through. If logging over frozen ground, a minimum of 3 inches of continuous frozen ground should be present.

SW23 Areas compacted by construction activities will require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity.

SW24 Existing roads should be employed for construction access and operations unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Where applicable, roads should be maintained or reconstructed for long-term soil and drainage stability.

SW25 Cross drains should be installed along roads to disperse ditch runoff into filter strips and minimize sediment delivery to streams.

SW26 Sediment traps along roads should be constructed. Sediment traps should be removed when traps are 80% full and sediment should be stockpiled in low-gradient upland sites.

SW27 Low standard roads should be outsloped to shed water.

SW28 Roads, trails, or other disturbed areas should not be located on slopes that show signs of instability, such as slope failure, mass movement, or slumps.

SW29 For projects that increase road traffic or require road use by heavy construction equipment, road surfacing should be applied near stream crossings as needed to harden the road surface and minimize sediment delivery to streams.

SW30

Prior to disturbance of any waters of the U.S., including wetlands, CMR shall coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine if the activities require the use of a Pre-Construction Notification (PCN). If the PCN requires the preparation and approval of a mitigation plan, the plan shall be reviewed and approved by the WRNF prior to implementation.





SW31

In order to prevent the proposed snowmaking and drainage pipelines from dewatering wetlands, a PVC liner or a similar type structure will be installed in the pipeline trench. Such a liner shall be installed where the excavated pipeline trench encounters high groundwater adjacent to or in the direct vicinity of wetland(s). In order to minimize impacts to water recharge and avoid negatively influencing the hydrology budget of wetlands, liners should not be used up-gradient from wetland resources.

SW32 Narrow the disturbance for the snowmaking drainage pipeline to 20 feet on Frank’s Fave, adjacent the wetland that is located on the ski trail to avoid impacts.

SW33 Detailed site plans shall be prepared for concentrated use sites. Sites should be designed to be resilient to increased foot traffic and other visitor use.

WATERSHED – TRAILS SPECIFIC

WT1 Mountain biking trails should be designed and constructed to drain runoff away from wetlands and stream channels.

WT2 Trails should be designed and constructed to the minimum width consistent with the intended use.

WT3 Trails should not be routed directly down the fall line. Drainage structures should be located above steep stretches of trail to minimize water routed into these areas. The frequency of drainage features should increase in steep areas.

WT4 The biking trail alignment through the upper intertrail island should follow and utilize existing openings in the forest understory (e.g., natural openings, game trails, portions of historic jeep trails, and “shots” that have been enhanced for skiing by limbing and sapling removal).

WT5 To provide for proper drainage, trails should not be routed near the bottom of ephemeral draws or other low spots.

WT6 Trails should be designed and constructed using natural topography to create grade reversals or rolling dips to provide adequate drainage. Where grade reversals or rolling dips are not practical, check dams, waterbars and sediment traps should be utilized.

WT7

Streams crossings should be minimized. If crossings cannot be avoided, bridges, boardwalks, or other spanning structures should be used to cross streams, wetlands and riparian areas. Crossings should be located where local topography, drainage and soil conditions minimize impacts. Rolling dips or grade reversals should be incorporated into the approach to streams to drain trail runoff into soils rather than streams.

WT8 Tree removal, excavation and grading should be minimized in the WIZ.

WT9 Where construction requires berms, banks, or other specialized trail features, specialized equipment designed for trail building should be used.

WT10 Biking trails should be managed with seasonal closures as needed to avoid the development of ruts when soils are saturated.

WT11

All abandoned portions of trails should be identified and rehabilitated. An adequate number of drainage features such as check dams, waterbars and sediment traps should be constructed to address erosion. Slopes should be re-contoured where trails have become entrenched or where major erosion problems exist.

WT12 Annual trail maintenance shall include monitoring and maintenance of waterbars, ditches, cross drains and other drainage features as necessary.

AIR QUALITY A1 Site improvements should be installed promptly to reduce the potential for dust emissions.

A2 Areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities should be kept to a minimum at all times.




ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action were the only alternatives analyzed in detail in the EA; however, multiple alternatives and design components were considered early in the NEPA process. These alternatives included different routes and locations for the alpine coaster, different routes for the drainage line, and a surface drainage system instead of a buried pipeline. Each concept was thoroughly considered by the Forest Service (CMR was consulted, as necessary) and for various operational, recreational, and environmental factors, none were carried forward into detailed analysis.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In February 2016 a scoping notice designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the Proposed Action, was sent to 56 community residents, interested individuals, public agencies, and other organizations. The scoping notice was accompanied by a legal notice published on February 11, 2016, in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (the newspaper of record). In response to the Forest Service’s solicitations for public comments during the scoping period, letters were received from each of the following organizations and associations: Environmental Protection Agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Copper Springs Condominium Association, Inc., Climax Molybdenum, Summit County Board of County Commissioners, and The Lodge at Copper Homeowners Association.

The EA was released for public review and comment on August 23, 2016. Publication of the EA was announced in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. The 30-day comment period extended through September 23, 2016. The EA public comment period generated three comment letters from organizations and agencies. The substantive comments included in those comment letters form the basis for the Response to Comments, which was included in the Draft Decision Notice Volume 2 document.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT After reviewing the EA, I have determined that implementation of the Selected Alternative will not significantly affect, individually or cumulatively, the quality of the human or natural environment. The provisions of 40 CFR 1508.27(b) indicate that project significance must be judged in terms of both context and intensity. Based on a review of these provisions, I have determined that an environmental impact statement is not required. I base my findings on the following definitions of context and intensity:

CONTEXT

The significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts and varies depending on the setting of the Proposed Action. The effects of implementing the Selected Alternative are localized, with implications only for the immediate vicinity of the ski area. Cumulative effects of past management, combined with the current proposal and reasonably foreseeable future actions, are displayed and analyzed in the EA for each resource.




INTENSITY

Intensity refers to the severity of the anticipated impact, and is based on information from the effects analysis of the EA. I have determined that the effects of this project were considered appropriately and thoroughly with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised during the public comment process. The environmental effects were analyzed using relevant scientific information and the ID Team’s knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the intensity of effects using the following ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b):

1. Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts.

I have considered both the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the Selected Alternative as presented in the EA and this Decision Notice. The Selected Alternative will provide recreational benefits to users of the WRNF and will improve recreation opportunities on NFS lands. In addition, the Selected Alternative will improve the operational efficiency and coverage of CMR’s snowmaking efforts. Adverse impacts to recreation, scenery, cultural, social and economic, botanical, wetlands, water, wildlife and soils resources are thoroughly documented in Chapter 3 of the EA and are determined to be non-significant. Other issues and resources were not included in detailed analysis in the EA due to a lack of anticipated impacts or because the resource was thoroughly examined in previous analyses and the conditions had not changed. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action.

2. Consideration of the effects on public health and safety.

The Selected Alternative will not significantly affect public health or safety. The projects have been designed to provide guests with a safe and high quality recreation experience at CMR. The projects associated with the Selected Alternative will continue to meet the desired recreation experience.

3. Consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area.

The area affected by the approved project elements does not represent a unique geographic area, contain historic features, park lands, prime farmlands, wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There will be 10.3 acres of grading, 1.4 acres of tree clearing. and 1.8 acres of tree clearing and grading. This relatively small amount of habitat loss would not preclude Canada lynx movement and foraging capability across the ski area, nor across the Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). Therefore, the Selected Alternative will not significantly impact any of the aforementioned unique characteristics.

4. Consideration of the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be considered controversial.

Based on the fact that the Forest Service has analyzed and approved numerous projects of this type, I do not believe the effects on the quality of the human environment to be “highly controversial” for the following reasons:

• Three letters were received by the public during the 30-day comment period.




• Many of the substantive comments raised were requesting additional information or consideration of an issue, which are provided in the Response to Comments.

• Some of the substantive issues are beyond the scope of this analysis as they relate to existing conditions and ongoing drainage management within the Village.

5. Consideration of the degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

These projects are common at ski areas that operate on NFS lands. The analysis shows that the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks. Therefore, based on the Forest Service’s experience with implementing these types of activities, as well as the requirement to implement PDC to minimize effects, I have determined that there will not be significant effects on the human environment.

6. Consideration of the degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or that it represents a decision in principle about future considerations.

I have determined that this decision does not establish precedence for future actions with significant risks to the environment. The Selected Alternative is consistent with forest-wide and Management Area 8.25 direction, as well as CMR’s SUP. Furthermore, the approved projects and activities are common at a developed four-season resort such as CMR. The Forest Service determined that these projects are similar to what has been approved and/or currently exist on NFS lands.

7. Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.

The Cumulative Effects analyses presented for each resource throughout Chapter 3 in the EA disclose a series of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions with potential to lead to effects that are cumulative in nature. Due to avoidance, project-specific PDC, and mitigation, the analyses do not identify any cumulatively significant impacts that are anticipated to result from implementation of the Selected Alternative.

8. Consideration of the degree to which the action may affect listed or eligible historic places.

As indicated on page 3-19 of the EA, four previously inventoried sites are present within the Analysis Area. No effects to eligible heritage and cultural resources are anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the Selected Alternative. Additionally, as stated in the PDC (Table 2-3 in the EA), if undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are discovered during ground disturbing or planning activities associated with construction, they will be treated as specified in 36 CFR 800.11, Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking.

9. Consideration of the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat.

The Selected Alternative will have no significant adverse effect on any other federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed plant or animal species.




A U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) species list was generated from the on-line Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) decision support system on May 23, 2016 (Table 1 of the Botanical Technical Report). The IPaC system was queried for the Project Area and resulted in one listed plant species: the federally threatened Penland’s alpine fen mustard (Eutrema penlandii). A brief description of this species, as well as rationale for its exclusion from further analysis, is provided on page 3-27 of the EA. No critical habitat is currently designated for this listed plant species within the Analysis Area. Lack of plants and suitable habitat was confirmed for federally threatened, endangered, and proposed plants. The project file contains a detailed account of those areas included in the botanical surveys, including a vascular plant species list.

Federally listed and proposed animal species that were initially considered included those identified by the USFWS (those generated from the Service’s on-line IPaC decision support system for Summit County on April 25, 2016) and/or potentially affected by management decisions associated with the Analysis Area.

From that initial list, the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema), greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) were dropped from further consideration because the Project Area is outside of their known ranges, they are not known or suspected to occur in the Project Area’s influence, they have no affinities to Project Area habitats, no currently suitable habitat is present, and the management decisions associated with the Selected Alternative would have “no effect” on the species, on their habitats, or on designated critical habitat. The humpback chub (G. cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) were dropped from further consideration because there would be no additional water use or water effects associated with the Selected Alternative beyond those considered in prior consultations (530 acre-feet). Table 3G-1 of the EA identifies federally listed and proposed animal species present on the WRNF, potentially present on the Dillon Ranger District, and/or potentially affected by management decisions associated with the Analysis Area.

CMR is located within the Tenmile LAU 28. The Selected Alternative will result in a permanent loss of approximately 2.9 acres of winter foraging habitat and 0.35 acre of other habitat on NFS and private lands within the Tenmile LAU. The Selected Alternative’s collective effects on lynx foraging, sheltering, and breeding would not exceed the definitions of insignificant and discountable or further impair an already injured lynx Analysis Area.2 Therefore, Alternative 2 “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx, lynx habitat, or lynx prey species. The Selected Alternative is consistent with all applicable lynx-related provisions of the Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and the associated Final

2 USFWS and NMFS, 1998




Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, as well as with Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act.

10. Consideration of whether the action violates Federal, State, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

I have reviewed the EA, Biological Assessment, and the project file and have determined that no Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or requirements for protection of the environment will be violated with implementation of the Selected Alternative. These laws and requirements are detailed in the next section.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS I have determined that the Selected Alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan goals and objectives and forest-wide and Management Area 8.25 standards and guidelines; therefore, this project complies with the National Forest Management Planning Act of 1976. The project was designed to conform with all other laws, regulations, and policies.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE Two objections were filed during the objection filing period. One objection did not meet the content requirements under §218.5(a) and was, therefore, ineligible; the second was withdrawn immediately. Therefore, the objection resolution period is not warranted for this project. This decision may be implemented immediately upon signing of this Decision Notice.

CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, contact:

Roger Poirier Winter Sports Program Manager [email protected] (970) 945-3245

Supe

r Bee

Alpine

Amer

ican E

agle

Ameri

can F

lyer

Excelerator

Gem

Sting

er

Pitch

fork

Carp

et

Prepared by:Service Layer Credits:

LEGENDExisting

LiftsStreamsSUP Boundary

ProposedMountain Biking TrailMulti-Use Trail Re-routingAlpine CoasterAlpine Coaster Power RouteAlpine Coaster Access RoadWater BarDrainage PipelineSnowmaking PipelineSnowmaking Coverage

I

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

Contours - 100'


Selected Alternative Figure

Prepared by:Date: December 2016

Formidable BasinWheeler Gulch

Far East Basin

Supe

r Bee

Alpine

Service Layer Credits:

LEGENDExisting Lifts

Existing LiftsExistingWaterbarsStreamsDrainagesWetlandsConnectedDisturbed Area

ProposedMountain BikingTrailProposedDrainageSystemArmored Channel

I

Prepared by:Date: December 20160 500 1,000250

FeetContours - 20'


Mitigation Detail Figure

OH NO

Andy'

s Enco

re

Collag

e

copper mountain resort recreation enhancement...

Documents