Final Environmental Impact Statement

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

VAIL MOUNTAIN RESORT GOLDEN PEAK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT United States Department of White River National Forest Agriculture Eagle County, Colorado Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region

November 2018

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, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 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 responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 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 discrimination complaint, 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] (link sends e-mail). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. This institution is an equal opportunity provider. Cover photo credits: Chris McLennan/Vail Resorts, Jack Affleck/Vail Resorts, Ski Club Vail

ABSTRACT

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project

White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District Eagle County, Colorado

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor White River National Forest

For Information Contact: Max Forgensi, Mountain Sports Permit Administrator Interdisciplinary Team Leader Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger Station 24747 US Highway 24 Minturn, CO 81645 [email protected]

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the estimated environmental impacts of the Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project. Vail Mountain Resort is located on the White River National Forest in Eagle County, Colorado and operates in accordance with the terms and conditions of a special use permit, which is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The Proposed Action includes the following elements: lift and terrain construction including 42 acres of trails and a surface lift; new facilities including lift operating buildings, race start buildings, equipment storage, fuel storage, and a maintenance building; snowmaking for the proposed terrain; construction and maintenance access to the proposed infrastructure; and clearing, grading, and surfacing for the proposed trails. Components of the Proposed Action are detailed in Chapter 2, under the Alternative 2 – Proposed Action discussion.

This FEIS discusses the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing the Proposed Action; and Project Design Criteria. Two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this FEIS: Alternative 1 – No Action; and Alternative 2 – Proposed Action.

Important Notice: A draft Record of Decision accompanies this FEIS. Only those who submitted timely and specific written comments during the scoping comment period or Draft Environmental Impact Statement comment period have eligibility to file an objection to the draft decision under 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 218.8. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to object must meet the information requirements in 36 CFR § 218.25(a)(3).

This page intentionally left blank.

Summary

The proposed improvements analyzed in this document constitute a federal action that has the potential to affect the quality of the human environment on public land administered by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service). Therefore, these projects must be analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, federal agencies must carefully consider environmental concerns in their decision-making processes and provide relevant information to the public for review and comment.

The Forest Service, White River National Forest (WRNF) has prepared this FEIS in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508), and Forest Service policy. The Forest Service is the lead agency for this FEIS.

This FEIS documents the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result from implementation of elements of the action alternatives. Additionally, it is intended to ensure that planning considers the environmental and social values of the Analysis Area and that potential resource conflicts are identified, minimized and/or avoided. Summary of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action There is a need for developed competition terrain at Vail Mountain Resort that meets international competition standards for women’s Downhill, men’s Super-G, moguls, and skier cross courses to adequately meet demand. Additionally, there is a need for adequate separation between ski/snowboard competition terrain and terrain used by the general public at Vail Mountain Resort to improve the quality of the training venue and guest experience. Summary of the Alternatives Analyzed in this FEIS This FEIS analyzes the No Action Alternative (analyzed in this document as Alternative 1), and one action alternative (analyzed as Alternative 2). Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative As required by NEPA, a No Action Alternative has been included in this analysis for review alongside the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternatives. By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades to existing conditions as a result of this NEPA analysis.

Improvements to Golden Peak would not be carried out under this alternative. However, previously approved, unimplemented projects are analyzed in the Cumulative Effects sections of Chapter 3 and are detailed in Appendix A. Brief descriptions of existing on-mountain facilities and services are provided in Section 3.1.2. The No Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 2-1.

Final Environmental Impact Statement S-1 Summary

Alternative 2 Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, was developed to meet the Purpose and Need for this project. The Proposed Action includes: construction of one surface lift (T-bar or similar design) and approximately 42 acres of new ski trails for women’s Downhill and men’s Super-G courses, moguls course and skier cross course; lift operating buildings, race start buildings, equipment storage, fuel storage, and maintenance building; infrastructure to support snowmaking on new ski trails; access road for construction of new lift and ski trails; staging areas and logging decks for construction materials and timber removal; and vegetation removal and surface smoothing/grading for new ski trails and drainage management. These projects would occur within the resort’s existing special use permit area and would be consistent with the 2018 Vail Master Development Plan. The Proposed Action is depicted in Figure 2-2. Summary of Public Involvement On March 21, 2017, a scoping notice was mailed to 62 individuals and organizations. It provided a brief description of the Proposed Action, the Purpose and Need, and one illustrative map. A legal notice was also published in the newspaper of record, the Post Independent, on March 30, 2017. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2017, which initiated a 30-day scoping comment period. A public scoping meeting was held on April 6, 2017, at the Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District office in Minturn, Colorado. Comments were accepted from the following sources: email, web submission, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone. In total, 190 letters were received during scoping.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2018, initiating the DEIS comment period, which remained open until May 21, 2018. Notification of the DEIS’s availability was mailed to 564 interested individuals, government officials (including tribal contacts), public agencies, and other organizations, in addition to 13 federal agencies, as specifically directed under NEPA. The DEIS notification letter was specifically designed to summarize the contents of the DEIS and elicit public comments during the 45-day comment period, as well as provide instructions for public involvement and resources for additional information. During the DEIS comment period, the WRNF received 173 comment submittals. Responses to the comments received are found in Appendix D of this FEIS. Per FSH 1909.15, Chapter 24.1(3), copies of comment letters received by any tribal, federal, state, or local government agencies are included as Appendix C of this FEIS. Summary of Resource Issues Addressed The Human Environment Recreation The proposed projects would alter the winter recreation experience within the special use permit (SUP) boundary. For example, new ski terrain, snowmaking, a lift, and other infrastructure could change the recreational experience.

S-2 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Summary

Social and Economic Resources The proposed lift and terrain expansion could affect employment in both the short and long term. The Physical and Biological Environment Air Quality Short-term construction related activity, as well as increased vehicular traffic related to increased daily/annual visitation, could negatively impact air quality in the region. Construction and operation of the proposed projects could result in greenhouse gas emissions.

Geology and Soils Proposed ground disturbance and snowmaking may contribute to increased rates of erosion and slope hazards.

Wildlife and Aquatic Species Ground-disturbing activities could potentially affect threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife and aquatic species through direct and indirect impacts to habitat and/or increased human presence.

Water Resources Proposed projects have the potential to impact water quality and quantity within the SUP area. Additional snowmaking coverage may impact stream flows through water depletions and/or increased runoff. Application of machine-produced snow and ground-disturbing activities may result in increased erosion and sedimentation, thereby impacting stream health.

Final Environmental Impact Statement S-3 Summary

Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Effects Table 2-3 found in Chapter 2 includes a summary comparison table of environmental consequences, by resource, for Alternatives 1 and 2. Detailed information on affected environment and environmental consequences for each resource considered in this analysis can be found Chapter 3.

S-4 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Contents

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals ...... 2 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 2 1.4 Summary of the Proposed Action ...... 3 1.5 Interagency Coordination ...... 4 1.6 Public Involvement ...... 4 1.7 Issues and Indicators ...... 5 1.7.1 Issues Analyzed ...... 5 1.7.2 Issues Not Warranting Further Documentation ...... 9 1.7.3 Scope of the Analysis ...... 10 1.8 Consistency with Forest Service Policy ...... 11 1.8.1 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ...... 11 1.9 Other Necessary Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation ...... 12 2. Description of Alternatives ...... 13 2.1 Introduction ...... 13 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 13 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 13 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 13 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 14 2.4 Project Design Criteria Incorporated in Action Alternatives ...... 16 2.5 Summary of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 22 2.6 Identification of the Agency Preferred Alternative ...... 23 2.7 Summary of Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 23 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 29 3.1 Recreation ...... 30 3.1.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 30 3.1.2 Affected Environment ...... 31 3.1.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 32 3.1.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 34 3.1.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 35 3.2 Traffic and Parking ...... 35 3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 35 3.2.2 Affected Environment ...... 35 3.2.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 40 3.2.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 42 3.2.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 44 3.3 Scenery Resources ...... 44 3.3.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 44 3.3.2 Affected Environment ...... 46 3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 48 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 49 3.3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 51 3.4 Social and Economic Resources ...... 51 3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 51 3.4.2 Affected Environment ...... 51 3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 55

Final Environmental Impact Statement i Acronyms and Abbreviations

3.4.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 57 3.4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 58 3.5 Air Quality ...... 58 3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 58 3.5.2 Federal, State, and Local Policy and Guidance ...... 58 3.5.3 Affected Environment ...... 59 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 62 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 64 3.5.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 64 3.6 Geology and Soils ...... 65 3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 65 3.6.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 65 3.6.3 Affected Environment ...... 67 3.6.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 70 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 72 3.6.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 73 3.7 Vegetation ...... 73 3.7.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 73 3.7.2 Affected Environment ...... 74 3.7.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 77 3.7.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 79 3.7.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 80 3.8 Wildlife and Aquatic Species ...... 80 3.8.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 80 3.8.2 Affected Environment ...... 80 3.8.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 90 3.8.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 96 3.8.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 98 3.9 Water Resources ...... 98 3.9.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 98 3.9.2 Affected Environment ...... 98 3.9.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 108 3.9.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 112 3.9.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 114 4. Consultation and Coordination ...... 115 4.1 Preparers ...... 115 4.1.1 Forest Service Team ...... 115 4.1.2 Consultant Team ...... 115 4.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted ...... 117 4.2.1 Federal Government ...... 117 4.2.2 Tribal Government ...... 117 4.2.3 State Government ...... 117 4.2.4 Local Governments ...... 117 4.2.5 Organizations ...... 118 4.2.6 Local Media ...... 118 4.2.7 Agencies and Organizations Who Have Participated in the NEPA Process ...... 118 4.2.8 Individuals Who Have Participated in the NEPA Process ...... 119 5. References ...... 121

ii Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Contents

6. Figures ...... 129 Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map Figure 2-1. Alternative 1 – No Action Figure 2-2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Figure 3.3-1. Visual Simulation of the Proposed Golden Peak Improvements – Red Sandstone Road Figure 3.3-2. Visual Simulation of the Proposed Golden Peak Improvements – Vail Village Figure 3.9-1. Water Resources 7. Glossary ...... 131 8. Index ...... 141 Appendices Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Matrix Appendix B. Construction Implementation Plan Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS List of Tables

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria ...... 17 Table 2-2. Summary of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 22 Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 24 Table 3.2-1. 2016 AADT at Key Locations...... 37 Table 3.2-2. Vail Mountain Resort Parking Supply ...... 39 Table 3.2-3. 2016 and 2035 AADT at Key Locations ...... 40 Table 3.4-1. Eagle County Population ...... 51 Table 3.5-1. Air Quality Assessment in Areas near the Analysis Area ...... 61 Table 3.6-1. Soils Standard 2 – Cross Drain Placement Requirements ...... 65 Table 3.6-2. Soils Guideline 1 – Ground Cover Requirements ...... 66 Table 3.6-3. General Characteristics of Mapped Soil Units ...... 68 Table 3.6-4. Thicknesses of Surface Horizons (A Horizons) and Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) ...... 69 Table 3.6-5. Ski Area Development Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areas ...... 70 Table 3.6-6. Alternative 2 Soil Map Units Disturbance ...... 72 Table 3.7-1. Vegetation Types within the Analysis Area ...... 74 Table 3.7-2. Noxious and Invasive Weeds of the Project Area ...... 77 Table 3.7-3. Overall Disturbance by Vegetation Type – Proposed Action ...... 78 Table 3.8-1. Federally Listed and Proposed Species Potentially Affected ...... 81 Table 3.8-2. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species Occurring on the WRNF ...... 83 Table 3.8-3. Mill Creek Fish Survey Results ...... 86 Table 3.8-4. USFWS Birds of Particular Conservation Concern with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area ...... 87 Table 3.8-5. Determinations for Federally Listed Species Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ...... 91 Table 3.8-6. Effects Determination and Rationale for Region 2 Sensitive Species Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ...... 92 Table 3.9-1. Existing Conditions within the Project Area Sub-basins ...... 99 Table 3.9-2. 303(D) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List ...... 102 Table 3.9-3. Disturbed Areas Within the Water Influence Zone ...... 104 Table 3.9-4. Connected Disturbed Areas and Isolated Disturbed Areas ...... 105 Table 3.9-5. Stream Health Classes ...... 106 Table 3.9-6. Mill Creek Stream Health ...... 107 Table 3.9-7. Proposed Conditions within the Project Area Sub-basins ...... 109 Table 3.9-8. Mill Creek Stream Health ...... 109 Table 3.9-9. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Hydrologic Conditions ...... 110 Table 3.9-10. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Disturbance in the WIZ ...... 112

Final Environmental Impact Statement iii Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic MAC Metcalf Archaeological Consultants ADT Average Daily Traffic MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act BA Biological Assessment MDP Master Development Plan BE Biological Evaluation MMI Multi-Metric Index BEIG Built Environment Image Guide MOU Memorandum of Understanding CCC Comfortable Carrying Capacity MPB Mountain Pine Beetle CDA Connected Disturbed Areas NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality CDOT Colorado Department of Standards Transportation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act CDPHE Colorado Department of Public of 1969 Health and Environment NFS National Forest System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NOA Notice of Availability CFR Code of Federal Regulations NOI Notice of Intent cfs Cubic Feet Per Second PDC Project Design Criteria CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife ppb Parts Per Billion CWA Clean Water Act ppm Parts Per Million DAU Data Analysis Unit ROD Record of Decision DEIS Draft Environmental Impact RPD Residual Pool Depths Statement SIO Scenic Integrity Objective DIA Denver International Airport SMS Scenery Management System EA Environmental Assessment SOLC Species of Local Concern EIS Environmental Impact Statement SUP Special Use Permit FEIS Final Environmental Impact TES Threatened, Endangered and Statement Sensitive FHA Federal Highway Administration USDA United States Department of FIS International Ski Federation Agriculture FSH Forest Service Handbook USEPA United States Environmental FSM Forest Service Manual Protection Agency FSR Forest System Road USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FTE Full-Time-Equivalent VMS Visual Management System GHG Greenhouse Gas VQO Visual Quality Objective GIS Geographic Information Systems WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook GPS Global Positioning System WIZ Water Influence Zone ID Interdisciplinary WRNF White River National Forest LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LOS Level of Service

iv Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 1. Introduction

1. Introduction

The proposed projects at Vail Mountain Resort analyzed in this document constitute a federal action that has the potential to affect the quality of the human environment on public lands administered by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service). Therefore, these projects must be analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, federal agencies must carefully consider environmental effects in their decision-making processes and provide relevant information to the public for review and comment.

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Forest Service policy. It discloses anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result from implementation of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives.

Additional documentation, including technical documents that provide analyses of Project Area resources, may be found in the project file located at the Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District office of the White River National Forest (WRNF). 1.1 Background Vail Mountain Resort is located on the Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District of the WRNF and is accessed by Interstate 70 (I-70), which passes through the Town of Vail, Colorado. The Town of Vail is located approximately 100 miles west of Denver (the largest metropolitan area in Colorado) and is approximately 30 miles east of the Eagle County Airport (refer to the Vicinity Map). Developed skiing at Vail Mountain Resort began in 1962 and now has an eight-year average seasonal skier visitation of over 1.6 million visits.1

Vail Mountain Resort is owned by Vail Resorts, Inc. (Vail Resorts) and is operated under a special use permit (SUP) from the Forest Service. The SUP covers 12,353 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands on the WRNF. Vail Mountain Resort’s skiable terrain is currently serviced by 22 aerial chairlifts and 9 surface/conveyor lifts. Developed skiing terrain within the SUP area is located in the treed areas and open bowls with 193 named trails. Chairlift-served skiing is supported by operational infrastructure, as well as guest and food service outlets throughout the SUP area.

Due to a growing market demand and the increasing expectations of the skiing public, Vail Mountain Resort has evolved over the decades since its inception by adding new chairlifts, new and improved ski terrain, additional parking, and day use facilities.

1 The approximate skier visitation data is undisclosed as it is considered proprietary information by Vail Resorts. In addition, the terms “ski, skier, and skiing” in this document encompass all chairlift-served sliding sports typically associated with a winter sports resort.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 1 Chapter 1. Introduction

In the 2007 Vail Master Development Plan (MDP) Update, Vail Mountain Resort identified a lack of adequate ski/snowboard competition terrain on Golden Peak to accommodate current and anticipated demand. This deficiency was reiterated in the 2018 Vail MDP. There is a need for ski/snowboard competition terrain that meets international competition standards and separates competition terrain from the general public. There is a long history of ski/snowboard competition at Vail Mountain Resort, and this is a valued use of NFS lands. Notable international events include the 1989, 1999, and 2015 World Alpine Ski Championships and the Burton Open. Golden Peak is the primary ski/snowboard competition venue for Vail Mountain Resort and the Ski and Snowboard Club Vail and provides a world-class venue for local athletes and international events. 1.2 Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals The Golden Peak Improvements Project was initially planned in the 2007 MDP Update and subsequently analyzed in the 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (2009 FEIS).2 The projects analyzed in the 2009 FEIS included approximately 45 acres of additional ski trails, two surface lifts, and new snowmaking coverage on 45 acres of terrain. The 2009 FEIS contained site- specific analysis of the proposed competition terrain and infrastructure, but these projects were not approved in the 2009 FEIS Record of Decision and Response to Comments (2009 ROD) due to concerns with stream health, soil stability, and sedimentation. Specifically, the 2009 ROD stated, “The proposal to construct new competition terrain at Golden Peak, and all associated chairlift and snowmaking infrastructure, is not approved.”3 The Forest Supervisor provided direction to Vail Mountain Resort in the 2009 ROD regarding Golden Peak, stating: “Vail [Mountain Resort] will need to pursue remedies to this situation in a coordinated effort with Forest Service staff before contemplating further development of competition terrain on Golden Peak and submitting future proposals for improvements there.”

Vail Mountain Resort, in collaboration with Forest Service hydrologists, has subsequently addressed stream health, soil stability, and sedimentation issues on Golden Peak raised in the 2009 ROD with the implementation of new drainage features, and the development of a Drainage Management Plan and updated hydrology and slope stability analysis. The Drainage Management Plan and analyses are contained in the Water Resources Specialist Report located in the project file. Following these improvements to the resource conditions on Golden Peak, Vail Mountain Resort proposed a modified version of the project including a reduced area of developed terrain and one lift.

Since it was originally proposed and analyzed in the 2009 FEIS and proposed in an alternative form in 2016 after resource condition improvements, the project has been modified in response to resource concerns. Both the area of new ski trails and number of lifts have been reduced compared to the 2009 FEIS Golden Peak project.

2 USDA Forest Service, 2009a 3 USDA Forest Service, 2009b

2 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 1. Introduction

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action As local, regional, national, and international groups continue to seek areas devoted specifically to ski/snowboard competition, a contained venue with adequate facilities to serve high-caliber events is needed. Vail Mountain Resort’s sole training and competition venue is located on the eastern edge of Golden Peak (roughly 27 acres) and served by Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6). While there is adequate separation between athletes and the general skiing public, according to international competition standards, the existing Golden Peak venue is too short for a women’s Downhill or a men’s Super-G course.

Golden Peak lacks adequate training terrain to accommodate current demand. Use on the Golden Peak Race trail during the 2015/16 ski season included 91 scheduled events and 13 mogul events on Cookshack. On days of scheduled events on Golden Peak, athletes trained on non-Golden Peak venues across the mountain (Black Forest and Whippersnapper). Athletes trained on Golden Peak virtually every other day of the season. Training groups include Ski and Snowboard Club Vail training every day to weekly training of the Battle Mountain High School ski team.

When Golden Peak is used for events, training and racing in other locations at Vail Mountain Resort detracts from the experience for both athletes and members of the general public. Black Forest, Whippersnapper, and Cookshack are located in the center of the resort’s front side terrain and are parallel to and/or intertwine other trails open to the public. Closing these additional trails for training reduces the amount of terrain available for the general public, and the presence of athletes increases skier traffic in these areas. The locations of these trails away from the training center at the base of Golden Peak is also inconvenient for athletes and creates operational inefficiencies.

In conclusion, there is a need for: • Developed competition terrain at Vail Mountain Resort that meets international competition standards for women’s Downhill, men’s Super-G, moguls, and skier cross courses to adequately meet demand. • Adequate separation between ski/snowboard competition terrain and terrain used by the general public at Vail Mountain Resort to improve the quality of the training venue and guest experience. 1.4 Summary of the Proposed Action Vail Mountain Resort has proposed projects within its SUP boundary that respond to the identified Purpose and Need. The proposed projects are confined within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP boundary and located in the Golden Peak area (in the eastern portion of the SUP area).

Final Environmental Impact Statement 3 Chapter 1. Introduction

• Facilities – lift operating buildings, race start buildings, equipment storage, fuel storage, and maintenance building; • Snowmaking – infrastructure to support snowmaking on new ski trails; • Construction Maintenance and Access – access road for construction of new lift and ski trails; staging areas and logging decks for construction materials and timber removal; and • Clearing, Grading and Surfacing – vegetation removal and surface smoothing/grading for new ski trails and drainage management. 1.5 Interagency Coordination In accordance with regulatory direction, and in furtherance of cooperative management among federal agencies charged with oversight of environmental and natural resources, federal, state, local, and tribal entities with a likely interest and/or jurisdiction in the Proposed Action were sent scoping notices and/or consulted prior to, and throughout, the NEPA process. 1.6 Public Involvement On March 21, 2017, a scoping notice was mailed to 62 community residents, interested individuals, public agencies, and other organizations. The information within the notice provided a brief description of the proposal, the Purpose and Need for action, and one illustrative map. A legal notice was also published in the newspaper of record, the Post Independent, on March 30, 2017. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2017, which initiated a 30-day scoping comment period. A public scoping meeting was held on April 6, 2017, at the Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District office in Minturn, Colorado. Individuals were able to obtain information and submit comments at this public scoping meeting. Scoping comments were also accepted through mail, fax, telephone, or email; or through the WRNF website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47937).

In total, 190 letters were received during scoping. The letters were reviewed, and substantive comments were extracted, ultimately categorizing them into major themes that were expressed. These themes were reviewed by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary (ID) Team on May 10, 2017. Comment themes were used to identify issues with the Proposed Action in response to public and agency concerns. The ID Team reviewed the issue statements. Following the May 10, 2017 meeting, the ID Team reviewed the project elements and determined the scope of the analysis for the DEIS.

Additional information was available on the WRNF website and comment submissions were accepted via this website. Comments were accepted from the following sources: email, web submission, letter, public

4 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 1. Introduction

meetings, fax, and phone. During the DEIS comment period, the WRNF received 173 comment submittals. All comment letters were reviewed for substantive comments and contact information for each commenter was entered into a master database. One comment was received following the close of the comment period.

A total of 184 comments were extracted from the letters across 23 broad categories. Not all 184 comments were substantive; non-substantive comments were included to illustrate public opinion on the project and DEIS. Comments were grouped further by subcategory and theme in order to facilitate the recording and response process. Similar comments were combined to be representative of common themes that were expressed by numerous individuals. Comments that resulted in an update to a particular component of the analysis between the DEIS and FEIS are indicated as such.

Names of those individuals who submitted comments on the DEIS are provided in Appendix D of this FEIS. Per FSH 1909.15, Chapter 24.1(3), copies of comment letters received by any tribes, federal, state or local government agencies are included as Appendix C of this FEIS. 1.7 Issues and Indicators Based on the results of public and internal scoping, the Forest Service identified specific resources that require in-depth analysis in Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. The following issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental effects to actions.4 Each of the following issue statements includes a list of analytical indicators which were identified as a means of measuring or quantifying the anticipated level of impact.5 While some indicators are necessarily qualitative in nature, every effort was made to utilize indicators that are quantifiable, measurable and predictable. 1.7.1 Issues Analyzed 1.7.1.1 Human Environment Recreation The proposed projects would alter the winter recreation experience within the SUP boundary. For example, new ski terrain, snowmaking, a lift, and other infrastructure could change the recreational experience. Analysis Area: SUP area Indicators: • Discussion of changes in recreational opportunities within the Project Area, including impact from events and competitions held at Golden Peak and on-hill access • Discussion of skier congestion under existing and proposed conditions in the Golden Peak area including the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) area

4 USDA Forest Service, 2012 Section 12.41 5 Ibid. Section 12.5

Final Environmental Impact Statement 5 Chapter 1. Introduction

• Discussion of anticipated changes to snow conditions due to snowmaking and grooming under the Proposed Action • Quantification of existing and proposed acreage of training and competition terrain at Vail Mountain Resort and a qualitative description of the ski training and public experience • Discussion of snowmaking operations under existing and proposed conditions

Traffic and Parking Implementation of proposed projects has potential to increase daily/annual visitation at Vail Mountain Resort with associated effects on traffic volumes and/or congestion on the South Frontage Road and I-70. Parking capacities may also be affected by the Proposed Action. Analysis Area: Private lands, base area lands, South Frontage Road, I-70 between exits 173 and 180, and base area parking facilities Indicators: • Discussion of existing and projected traffic counts for I-70, South Frontage Road, and other roads in the vicinity • Qualitative discussion of peak daily/hourly traffic volumes on South Frontage Road • Comparison of existing and projected winter traffic flow patterns within the analysis area in relation to Vail Mountain Resort’s “Manage-To” number of 19,900 guests • Quantification of parking capacities and demand for day skiers at Vail Mountain Resort

Scenery Resources Construction of the Golden Peak lift and additional terrain on Golden Peak would affect scenery resources. The clearing of trees for new ski terrain would have impacts on the scenic values of Golden Peak. Analysis Area: Views of the skiing facilities from within and outside of the Project Area Indicators: • Discussion of implementing the proposed projects on scenery resources compared to historic landscape alterations within the SUP area in relation to the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) of very low • Discussion of the Forest Service’s Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG), as applicable to existing and proposed guest service and recreational facilities and consistency with the Vail Architectural Guidelines • Preparation of visual simulations from identified critical viewpoints of proposed landscape alterations as compared to the existing condition. Modeled critical viewpoints include: ○ Golden Peak as viewed from Red Sandstone Road ○ Golden Peak as viewed from I-70 exit 176

6 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 1. Introduction

Social and Economic Resources The proposed lift and terrain expansion could affect employment in both the short and long term. Analysis Area: Town of Vail/Eagle County Indicators: • Discussion of staffing and employee housing/parking in the Town of Vail and in Eagle County • Disclosure of compliance with Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice 1.7.1.2 Biological Environment Air Quality Short-term construction related activity, as well as increased vehicular traffic related to increased daily/annual visitation, could negatively impact air quality in the region. Construction and operation of the proposed projects could result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Analysis Area: SUP area and nearby airshed Indicators: • Narrative description of existing air quality in the Analysis Area • Qualitative analysis of impacts to air quality from traffic and construction, including timber removal techniques • Qualitative discussion of potential impacts to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) • Qualitative discussion of the Proposed Action in relation to the guidance set forth in the 2009 WRNF Air Quality Management Plan • Discussion of the impact of climate change on the proposed projects • Qualitative discussion of potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed projects, during both construction and operation

Geology and Soils Proposed ground disturbance and snowmaking may contribute to increased rates of erosion and slope hazards. Analysis Area: Areas proposed for direct disturbance throughout the Project Area Indicators: • Discussion of soil conditions and baseline inventory of soil organic matter • Analysis of existing slope stability on Golden Peak • Analysis of possible effects of snowmaking, vegetation removal, and ground disturbance on slope stability and erosion • Digitization of bare ground/low vegetation cover areas within SUP boundary

Final Environmental Impact Statement 7 Chapter 1. Introduction

Vegetation Ground disturbance associated with construction and operation of proposed projects may affect plant communities throughout the Project Area, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species, WRNF species of local concern (SOLC), and invasive plant species. Tree clearing for the proposed Golden Peak expansion and lift installation would result in a decrease in the aspen and sub-alpine fir cover type and associated native understory vegetation. Analysis Area: Areas proposed for ground disturbance throughout the Project Area Indicators: • Identification of TES plant habitat/individuals • Identification of WRNF SOLC habitat/individuals • Vegetation cover by functional group and native vs. non-native status • Quantification (acreage) of proposed ground disturbance and overstory vegetation removal, including aspen, subalpine fir and lodgepole pine • Identification, monitoring, and control plan for invasive species in the Project Area Wildlife and Aquatic Species Ground-disturbing activities could potentially affect threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife and aquatic species through direct and indirect impacts to habitat and/or increased human presence. Analysis Area: SUP area, watershed, and associated/overlapping wildlife and aquatic population extents Indicators: • Quantification (acres) of existing wildlife habitat by species • Quantification of total proposed habitat conversion/removal (acres) • Identification and quantification of lynx habitat within the Camp Hale lynx analysis unit (LAU) boundaries in relation to the Project Area • Quantification of existing and proposed water depletions (acre-feet) • Identification of impacts to water quality and stream health Water Resources Proposed projects have the potential to impact water quality and quantity within the SUP area. Additional snowmaking coverage may impact stream flows through water depletions and/or increased runoff. Application of machine-produced snow and ground-disturbing activities may result in increased erosion and sedimentation, thereby impacting stream health. Analysis Area: Watersheds containing areas of proposed disturbance and/or snowmaking Indicators: • Identification of perennial and intermittent stream channels in relation to proposed projects • Quantification and qualitative discussion of existing hydrologic function and stream health conditions in the analysis area • Identification of any Clean Water Act (CWA) impaired or threatened waterbody segments

8 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 1. Introduction

• Quantification of connected disturbed areas (CDA) • Identification of proposed overstory vegetation removal and grading in the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) • Quantification of changes in water yield or discharge to receiving streams related to proposed ground disturbance and overstory vegetation removal • Quantification of water diversions for snowmaking (existing and proposed) • Discussion of existing drainage management features and implementation strategy 1.7.2 Issues Not Warranting Further Documentation The ID Team considered the potential impacts on cultural resources, wetlands, and TES/SOLC plants. However, it was determined that there would be no significant effects to these resources; therefore, cultural resources and wetlands were omitted from further analysis in the EIS. Analysis for these resources is located in the project file.

1.7.2.1 Cultural, Archeological and Historic Resources The Project Area is located within WRNF jurisdiction; therefore, it must account for the potential effects on historic properties in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants (MAC) was retained to review the proposal for potential impacts to cultural resources. MAC completed a Class III survey in September 2017.6 This Cultural Resource Inventory Report is contained in the project file.

The Class III survey resulted in the three previously identified but unrecorded sites. All three sites were recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places based on the 15 National Register criteria for evaluating properties. A finding of “no historic properties were affected” and no further work pertaining to cultural resources is required.

1.7.2.2 Wetlands In accordance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, the Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands wherever possible. There are no proposed permanent impacts to wetlands. The upgraded snowmaking pipeline could potentially temporarily impact 0.03 acre of a herbaceous wetland located in a ski trail. Although the proposed disturbance corridor is 80 feet wide, with the implementation of Project Design Criteria (PDC), the disturbance corridor width would be reduced adjacent to wetlands in order to avoid any impact. Finally, any potential indirect impact to wetlands from dewatering through trench construction would be ameliorated by a recommended site-specific PDC, which states that clay-cut off walls would be installed in the trench where high groundwater is encountered within or adjacent to any wetland resource. Therefore, no further analysis is included in this FEIS. The Vegetation and Wetland Specialist Report is included in the project file.

6 Metcalf, 2017

Final Environmental Impact Statement 9 Chapter 1. Introduction

1.7.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species and White River National Forest Plant Species of Local Concern No SOLC were documented within the Project Area. A biological assessment and evaluation (BA/BE) was completed. The BA/BE indicated that there was no effect to any threatened and endangered plant species or habitat. The BA/BE indicated that there was potential habitat for six sensitive species. A survey was conducted in the areas with potential habitat and no sensitive species were documented within the Project Area. Therefore, a determination of no impact is warranted for Botrychium ascendens, B. paradoxum, Cypripedium parviflorum, Festuca hallii, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, and Rubus arcticus subsp. acaulis, and no further analysis is included in this FEIS. The Botanical Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Report (BA/BE) is included in the project file. 1.7.3 Scope of the Analysis Based on preliminary internal Forest Service and external public scoping, and evaluation of the context and intensity factors contained in 36 CFR § 1508.27, the Forest Service prepared an EIS to review, analyze, and document the potential impacts to the human and biological environment anticipated to result from the implementation of the proposed projects. This FEIS is a disclosure rather than a decision document and its purpose is to provide sufficient environmental analysis to support a Record of Decision (ROD).

Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered within this FEIS. Furthermore, it includes the spatial and temporal boundaries associated with the actions, alternatives, and impacts as the scope of the analysis relates to the Purpose and Need. Individual project elements are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and illustrated in the alternative maps. A scope of analysis is presented at the beginning of each resource section in Chapter 3. The analysis areas are determined for each individual resource analysis presented in Chapter 3 (e.g., the Watershed and Aquatic Resources Analysis Area is spatially different from the Wildlife Analysis Area). It is important to note that implementation of the projects that comprise the Proposed Action could occur jointly, individually, and/or at different points in time.

Based on direction provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) the analysis provided in this FEIS considers the following types of actions, alternatives, and impacts.7

1.7.3.1 Actions • Connected Actions: actions that are dependent on each other for their utility. • Cumulative Actions: actions which, when viewed with other proposed actions, have cumulatively significant impacts and should, therefore, be discussed in the same impact statement.

1.7.3.2 Alternatives • No Action • Proposed Action

7 40 CFR § 1508.25

10 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 1. Introduction

1.7.3.3 Impacts • Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. • Indirect impacts are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the life of the project). • Cumulative impacts are the result of the incremental effects of any action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over an extended period of time. 1.8 Consistency with Forest Service Policy 1.8.1 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Vail Mountain Resort’s operations carried out on NFS lands must comply with management direction provided in the 2002 Revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan includes 33 separate Management Areas for different portions of the forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and anticipated future conditions. Management areas are grouped into eight major categories, which are managed with an emphasis and organized by theme, management area description, desired condition, and management area standards and guidelines.

Category 8 describes the lands on which the Golden Peak Improvements Project would occur. They are described as the following: “In this category, ecological conditions and processes are likely to be permanently altered by human activities beyond the level needed to maintain natural-appearing landscapes and ecological processes. These areas are generally small in scale. Ecological values are protected where they affect the health and welfare of human occupancy. Human activities are generally commercial in nature and directly or indirectly provide jobs and income. Motorized transportation is common.”8

All components of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action fall within Management Area 8.25 – Ski Areas (Existing and Potential), which directs: “Facilities may be intensively used throughout the year to satisfy a variety of seasonal recreational demands…Protection of scenic values is emphasized through application of basic landscape aesthetics and design principles, integrated with forest management and development objectives…Transportation systems provide convenient access to National Forest System lands in key portal locations with adequate public parking, base facilities, and community infrastructure. Base areas that serve as entrance portals are designed as gateways to public lands. They are architecturally designed to blend with the forest

8 USDA Forest Service, 2002 p 3-77

Final Environmental Impact Statement 11 Chapter 1. Introduction

setting and contain convenient facilities and services that provide for the needs of forest visitors.”9

As part of this analysis, the alternatives and Purpose and Need were reviewed to determine consistency with the forest-wide Goals and Objectives as well as the specific Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 8.25. The Proposed Action was compared against pertinent forest-wide and Management Area standards and guidelines; no inconsistencies between the proposal and pertinent standards and guidelines were identified.

The theme of Management Area 8.25 is discussed in the Forest Plan and states: “Ski areas are developed and operated by the private sector to provide opportunities for intensively managed outdoor recreation activities during all seasons of the year. This management area also includes areas with potential for future development.”10 1.9 Other Necessary Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation The Forest Service decision would apply only to NFS lands analyzed within this FEIS. However, other federal, state, and local entities may also have jurisdiction (per 40 CFR § 1502.25[b]). Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this FEIS. While the Forest Service assumes no responsibility for enforcing laws, regulations, or policies under the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies, Forest Service regulations require permittees to abide by applicable laws and conditions imposed by other jurisdictions. In addition to requisite Forest Service approvals, consultation with the following entities or permits may be required to implement any approved projects: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation • Eagle County General Construction Permit • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit. Colorado stormwater regulations (5 CCR 1002-61) require a permit for construction activity that disturbs 1 acre or more during the life of the project.11

9 Ibid. p. 3-80 10 Ibid. 11 CDPHE, 2017a

12 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

2. Description of Alternatives

2.1 Introduction Chapter 2 describes the alternatives considered within this environmental analysis and briefly summarizes the environmental consequences anticipated to result with the implementation of each. As required by the CEQ, the alternatives considered are presented in comparative form.12 PDC and BMPs, designed to lessen or avoid impacts anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of any of the action alternatives, are also detailed.

NEPA requires that an environmental analysis examines a range of alternatives, which are reasonably related to the purpose of the project.13 Both CEQ Regulations and Forest Service direction emphasize that alternatives must meet the “reasonableness” criteria in order to warrant detailed analysis. Alternatives that were considered within the analysis process, but were determined not reasonable, were eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the rationale for their elimination.14 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Since it was originally proposed and analyzed in the 2009 FEIS and proposed in an alternative form in 2016 subsequent to resource condition improvements, the project has been modified in response to resource concerns, especially with respect to drainage, soil and slope stability. For additional project history, refer to Section 1.2, “Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals.”

Both the area of new ski trails and number of lifts has been reduced compared to the 2009 FEIS Golden Peak project, and these changes have been reflected in resource analyses. During the years 2014–2017, a revised Drainage Management Plan and Water Resources Specialist Report (including a revised geohazard study) have been completed, which can be found in the project file. Conclusions from these reports have been included in this FEIS.

The issues raised during the scoping process including the above concerns (detailed in Chapter 1) were used as the basis for developing alternatives to the Proposed Action. 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative, required by NEPA regulations provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternative.15 By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. Improvements to Golden Peak would not be carried out under this alternative. However, previously approved, unimplemented projects are analyzed

12 40 CFR § 1502.14 13 FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 12.33 14 40 CFR § 1502.14(a) 15 40 CFR § 1502.14

Final Environmental Impact Statement 13 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

in the Cumulative Effects sections of Chapter 3 and are detailed in Appendix A. Brief descriptions of existing on-mountain facilities and services are provided in Section 3.1.2. The No Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 2-1. 2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Vail Mountain Resort has proposed improvements on Golden Peak including 42 acres of trails, a surface lift and accompanying infrastructure. These improvements are designed to improve ski/snowboard competition terrain and associated facilities. These projects would occur within Vail Mountain Resort’s existing SUP area and would be consistent with the 2018 MDP. The project would be consistent with the terms of use in the Vail Winter Operating Plan, an agreement between the Forest Service and Vail Mountain Resort.

The Proposed Action includes the following elements, each of which is defined in the subsequent text and depicted in Figure 2-2: • Lift and Terrain – construction of one surface lift (T-bar or similar design) and approximately 42 acres of new ski trails for women’s Downhill and men’s Super-G courses, moguls course and skier cross course • Facilities – lift operating buildings, race start buildings, equipment storage, fuel storage, and maintenance building • Snowmaking – infrastructure to support snowmaking on new ski trails • Construction Maintenance and Access – access road for construction of new lift and ski trails; staging areas and logging decks for construction materials and timber removal • Clearing, Grading and Surfacing – vegetation removal and surface smoothing/grading for new ski trails and drainage management

2.3.2.1 Lift and Terrain The Golden Peak trail network would be expanded by approximately 42 acres and 760 vertical feet. A majority of the proposed terrain would be served by one new surface lift (T-bar or similar design with 1,200 people-per-hour) roughly 1,870 feet in length. The proposed terrain would accommodate construction of a women’s Downhill course, a men’s Super-G course, skier cross training, and a moguls venue. Electrical and communication cables would be installed to support the proposed lift infrastructure.

2.3.2.2 Facilities Lift operations shelters are proposed at the top and bottom of the proposed lift. The bottom shelter would be approximately 75 square feet in size (roughly 8 feet by 8 feet). The top shelter would be slightly larger to accommodate a warming area and storage—approximately 225 square feet (roughly 15 feet by 15 feet).

The top lift operations shelter is designed to have restrooms in the vicinity (two separate structures roughly 8 feet by 8 feet in size). The restrooms would include composting toilets, which require 500- gallon water tanks for efficient operation. The water tank would be incorporated into each structure.

14 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

A race building to provide space for coaching and storage for safety fencing and other equipment is proposed near the bottom of the proposed mogul course, with an approximate area of 1,500 square feet (30 feet by 50 feet). No potable water is necessary or proposed.

Two race start houses (each approximately 75 square feet) would be constructed on the new trails. One would be located at the top of the Downhill course and the other at the top of the slalom course.

A new underground diesel fuel storage tank and snowcat maintenance shop are proposed on the southwest side of the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) mid-station. The proposed tank would meet all local, state, and federal standards. The fuel tank would have a capacity of up to 30,000 gallons (approximate dimensions would be 10.5 feet in diameter by 45 feet length) and would store fuel for use on Golden Peak for the maintenance of competition areas and terrain parks. Excess fill material would be removed from site or spread within the Project Area. The maintenance building would be approximately 3,000 square feet (50 feet by 60 feet), large enough to accommodate one snowcat and maintenance operations. These facilities would reduce snowcat traffic across the mountain and reduce fuel use by keeping snowcats on the eastern side of the mountain.

All proposed facilities would comply with Vail Mountain Resort Design Guidelines and be reviewed as part of the WRNF Facility Design Review process. 2.3.2.3 Snowmaking and Infrastructure Snowmaking infrastructure would be installed to provide coverage on all new ski trails (42 acres), including a 500-square foot booster pump station located near the bottom of the proposed lift. The booster station would comply with the Vail Mountain Resort Design Guidelines. Approximately 7,500 feet of new snowmaking pipelines and 9,000 feet of buried electric lines would be installed. Above the booster station, the snowmaking infrastructure would be new, while below the booster station, the snowmaking pipe would be upgraded and replaced. In addition, communication cables, electrical and transformers would be installed, and a waterline would be replaced with additional capacity from the existing pump station near Mill Creek to the proposed booster station (approximately 4,300 feet). The existing 8-inch- wide snowmaking pipe would be replaced with a 12-inch-wide snowmaking pipe.

2.3.2.4 Construction and Maintenance Access Existing roads on Golden Peak are sufficient to provide access for much of the construction, operation and maintenance of these proposed projects. Existing roads are sufficient to access the proposed mogul course terrain and the bottom of the proposed surface lift. Above the surface lift, tracked and wheeled vehicles would utilize a proposed construction and maintenance access road (approximately 5,000 feet) to access the upper third of this lift and terrain (refer to Figure 2-2). Vegetation clearing would be required for this road; the area is included in the overall trail acreage. This access road would be used rarely in the summer. Three logging decks (two near the bottom terminal of the proposed surface lift and one at the junction of the mogul course construction access and Mill Creek mountain road) and one construction staging area (southwest of the Riva Bahn Express [Chair 6] mid-station) are proposed to support construction.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 15 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

2.3.2.5 Clearing, Grading and Surface Smoothing To ensure consistent early season training conditions and to comply with recommendations of the International Ski Federation (FIS) for hosting races, all proposed trails on Golden Peak (42 acres) would be cleared of overstory vegetation, de-stumped, and the surface would be smoothed (thereby lessening the amount of snow that is necessary to open and maintain the terrain). FIS requires approved (homologated) racecourses to meet standards of vertical drop and length and recommends advance racecourse preparation such as grading and removing boulders to facilitate successful race day operations. Minimal traditional or terrain modification grading would be necessary (totaling approximately 3 acres) for the following proposed projects: construction of the lift and buildings, snowmaking pipe installation, construction of the mogul venue, and construction of the road to the top of the proposed lift. Additionally, installation of drainage management infrastructure, including water bars, would likely require grading/smoothing across much of the Project Area. All disturbed areas would be stabilized/revegetated promptly (including seeding, fertilization and mulching) with a native grass/forb mix (for more details, refer to Table 2-1). 2.4 Project Design Criteria Incorporated in Action Alternatives The following Management Requirements (including PDC and Mitigation Measures) have been incorporated into Alternative 2 (refer to Table 2-1).

PDC are designed into the Proposed Action to avoid or minimize impacts. PDC come from federal, state, and local laws; regulations and policies; ID Team recommendations and/or scientific research; and from experience in designing similar projects. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures were not included in Table 2-1; however, they are required and are considered as part of the Proposed Action.

As opposed to PDC, which are embedded in the proposed activities, Mitigation Measures are actions that have been added after initial environmental analysis if environmental impacts are shown to be unacceptable. The following Mitigation Measure would be a requirement of this project: • Mill Creek Road/Trail Restoration: The Proposed Action includes approximately 1 mile of new road and additional buildings and storage areas. These equal approximately 3 acres of new and permanent impermeable area in the Mill Creek watershed. Because of the effects of the Proposed Action on low stability reaches of Mill Creek, the project must be mitigated (Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook [WCPH] Management Measures 1, 2, 9, 12; Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, Standards 1–4).16 Successful mitigation would include restoring hydrologic function at other locations in the watershed, encouraging infiltration of collected water in the newly developed area, and enhancing low stability reaches of Mill Creek.

The proposed mitigation, for which Vail Mountain Resort would be responsible, includes approximately 7 miles of ripping, re-contouring, improving drainage, and restoring native vegetation on Mill Creek Road/Trail. The existing Mill Creek Trail is located within the resort’s SUP for the first mile. The

16 USDA Forest Service, 2006; USDA Forest Service, 2002

16 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

proposed mitigation of the Mill Creek Road/Trail would meet needs from several resource areas including hydrology, soils; fisheries, wildlife; botany, recreation, and scenery. Implementation of the trail restoration project would be completed by the project proponent with oversight by the Forest Service via a cost recovery agreement.

Responsibility for ensuring that the following Management Requirements (listed in Table 2-1) are implemented rests with Vail Mountain Resort and the Forest Service. In all cases, the ultimate enforcement mechanism for implementation of the specified PDC would be the Record of Decision for the FEIS and would extend to the Forest Service Special Use Permit Administrator, the District Ranger and the Forest Supervisor. Additionally, Appendix B provides details on additional Construction Implementation Plan details that will be required for construction, implementation, and ongoing operation and maintenance.

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria Project Phase Project Design Criteria

1. Any signs of manufactured or media associated with any elements of the Golden Peak Improvements Project will at a minimum include the following language: “Vail Mountain Resort is located within the White River National Forest and is operated by Vail Resorts under permit from the United States Forest Service, USDA” 2. Vail Resorts will convey with context and transparency the relationship of the Golden Peak Improvements Project to the Forest Service and its relevance to ski racing and winter recreation opportunities. To the extent possible, the shared story will be highlighted in press releases, media content, interpretive displays and sign infrastructure. 3. All construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring associated with the Golden Peak Improvements Project will adhere to the White River National Forest’s Standards and Guidelines. 4. The following project elements will follow guidelines set forth in the White River National Forest Mountain Sports Program’s Facility Design Review Guide March 2017 v3: • Ropeway and associated chairlift operator shelters (Type B Design Review) • Snowcat Maintenance Building and Fuel Storage (Type B Design Review) • Booster Pump Station (Type B Design Review) • Race Storage Building (Type B Design Review) Planning • Race Start Buildings and Restrooms (Type A Design Review) The facility design review for each element is anticipated to take 30 days from initial submission to Notice to Proceed. 5. All proposed structures, features, and facilities will be consistent with the Vail Mountain Resort Design Guidelines, which were developed in cooperation with the WRNF. 6. All proposed facilities must meet accessibility guidelines. These can be found at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/ 7. Prior to approved construction activities on NFS lands, Vail Mountain Resort will prepare a Construction Implementation Plan for Forest Service review. The Plan will include the following components: • Construction Management • Stormwater Management • Erosion Control and Runoff Management • Revegetation and Rehabilitation • Timber Management • Grading Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement 17 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria (cont.) Project Phase Project Design Criteria

• Project Description • List of Key Personnel • Project Sequence and Anticipated Construction Schedule • Site Reclamation tasks which will include: Final Grading and Soil Preparation, Seedbed Preparation, Seed Mix, Seeding Methods and Mulching • An overall site plan that will identify: ○ Utility Corridors ○ Stormwater Infrastructure ○ Staging Areas (material storage, equipment laydown, log decks, etc.) ○ Disturbance (road improvements, road reclamation, construction access & limits) • Topography (existing and proposed contours) The Plan must be submitted by Vail Mountain Resort to the Mountain Sports Ranger 30 days prior to construction starting. 8. Ski Trail Improvements (including timber removal, road, snowmaking and utility corridor infrastructure and smoothing): A Construction Implementation Plan, including timber management, are required to be submitted to and approved by the Forest Service before construction can start. A timber contract will be awarded prior to removing timber from NFS lands. 9. The Timber Management section of the Construction Implementation Plan will contain: • Defined logging decks areas and skid paths • Protocol for timber removal • Detail how timber will be removed or managed Planning 10. The shape of new openings and ski runs in the forest canopy should appear natural and (cont.) blend into the surrounding vegetated mosaic. Edges of new openings should be non-linear, and changes in tree heights along edges will be gradual rather than abrupt, where possible. Soften hard edges by selective removal of trees of different ages and heights to produce irregular corridor edges where possible. 11. A list of required elements within the Erosion Control and Runoff Management section of the Construction Implementation Plan can be found in Appendix B. 12. A Grading Plan will be required for all projects with major earthwork, or at the discretion of Forest Service officials. This plan will be incorporated in the Construction Implementation Plan. • A grading plan will be prepared for sites that would require grading in excess of 2,000 square feet. Portray existing topography and cut/fill areas on large-scale site plans. Define grading limits on the ground before construction by placing stakes, flagging, wattles, sediment fence, construction fence or some physical barrier along the perimeter of the area to be graded. Ensure that all grading is confined within the specified grading limits. • For grading projects greater than 1 acre, prepare an erosion control plan that, at minimum, meets the basic requirements for stormwater permitting through the State of Colorado Stormwater Management Program. 13. The Erosion Control and Runoff Management information will be included in Vail Mountain Resort’s Construction Implementation Plan. An active and working copy of the Construction Implementation Plan will be available at the project site at all time for Forest Service review throughout the entirety of the project. The Erosion Control and Runoff Management section will contain: • Silt fences, straw bales, straw wattles, and other standard erosion control BMPs to contain sediment onsite.

18 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria (cont.) Project Phase Project Design Criteria

• Erosion-control matting on steep fill slopes (i.e., land with a slope angle of 35 percent or greater) will be utilized to protect soils and enhance conditions for vegetation re- establishment. Biodegradable netting (erosion control blankets and matting) should be used; netting should be free of persistent plastic/polypropylene materials. • Slope movement monitoring protocols will be developed in coordination with the Forest Service soils/geology staff or their representative. These protocols will be implemented during construction and during post-construction monitoring. • A condition to return slash and native organic litter to site, apply imported soil organic matter, and use soil fertility to restore site organic matter and nutrients. No-net loss of soil organic matter (mineral A and/or organic O horizons) will be ensured through pre- and post-construction soil monitoring and subsequent reclamation, if necessary. • A condition to stockpile topsoil during construction, maintenance, and operations to the extent possible to maintain organic matter. Re-spread this material following construction and augment with Forest Service-approved soil amendment after post-construction soil organic matter transects are completed. 14. Vail Mountain Resort will revegetate disturbed areas to attain cover densities that would control erosion and prevent sedimentation consistent with Forest Plan Standards. Prior to Planning ground-disturbing activities, Vail Mountain Resort must submit for review a Revegetation (cont.) and Rehabilitation details, which will be incorporated into the Construction Implementation Plan. The section will contain: • A list of materials to be used for site stabilization and revegetation (i.e., soil amendments, seed mixes, erosion control products). Seed mixes and mulches will be certified to be free of noxious weeds. Seed mixes that incorporate native plant species similar to those within the project area are desirable. Utilize seed mixes approved by the Forest Service Botany Representative and certified to be free of noxious weed species and contain no more than 0.5 percent by weight of other weed seed. To prevent soil erosion, sterile annuals may be used while native species become established. Masticated wood chips, wood straw, coconut husk products, Excelsior products (shredded aspen), bonded fiber matrix (hydromulch), and other materials not containing seeds are preferred for erosion control. 15. A monitoring protocol for vegetative cover standards that will be implemented for a minimum of three years following seeding. Monitoring will document the plant species present, their likely origin (i.e., seed mix, colonizer, residual), the presence of invasive non- native plants and noxious weeds, and any problems with erosion or sedimentation. Recommendations for site improvements, if necessary, will also be provided. Documentation/findings of soil surveys to measure soil organic matter depths within areas of disturbance. 1. Details of timelines, work tasks, seed mixes, soil amendments, design, implementation, and monitoring roles and responsibilities will be clearly defined and included in the Construction Implementation Plan, to be submitted to Forest Service one month prior to the start of construction. 2. Vail Mountain Resort will obtain all required county, town and state permits prior to the start of construction. Pre- 3. If blasting will be relied upon for any project element, approval from the Eagle-Holy Cross Construction District Ranger is required. For blasting operations to be authorized, a safety plan, fire suppression plan, timing and notifications for the project shall be submitted to the Mountain Sports Ranger as part of the construction management plan submittal. 4. Conduct surveys to identify all noxious weed species and other non-native species present in the project area, record vegetation/other ground cover (in all areas with ground disturbance, access routes, staging areas), and measure soil organic matter depth (in areas with ground disturbance only). Surveys will be concurrent with rare plant or other surveys

Final Environmental Impact Statement 19 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria (cont.) Project Phase Project Design Criteria

done for NEPA analysis. Changes in location of disturbed area will necessitate further surveys. 5. Implement appropriate noxious weed prevention & mitigation measures which includes: • To reduce the opportunity for early successional noxious weed colonization, pretreat identified and existing state-listed noxious weed infestations within and adjacent to the project area for the 2018 growing season, prior to project start date. • Establish an equipment washing station adjacent to the project area and require all equipment to clean invasive plant propagules off equipment prior to entering the project area. A majority of the project area has been identified as invasive plant free. 6. If tree cutting activities are proposed between June 1–July 15, surveys for active migratory bird nests should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree cutting. Trees with active nests and snags providing cavity nesting habitat should be retained when practicable, Pre- or as otherwise approved by the Forest Service Responsible Official. Construction 7. A site visit and field-fitting of planned projects, paths and roads shall occur by Forest (cont.) personnel before construction may begin. 8. Prior to construction, soil surveys should be completed within the construction area. In areas where grading or soil disturbance would occur, an assessment of the quantity (depths) of soil horizons O and/or A should be made. Upon completion of ground disturbing activities, soil depths shall meet at pre-treatment quantities to ensure no net loss of this material. 9. Ski trail alignments shall be marked on the ground for field review with Forest Service specialists prior to initiating construction. 10. Before implementing any approved project activities not included in the 2014 botanical survey area, the specific project areas will be surveyed using established protocol. Surveys will be conducted for threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, and Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species. 11. Prior to construction, wetlands will be flagged to avoid impacts to the wetlands during construction 1. 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 must cease and they will be treated as specified in 36 CFR § 800.11 concerning Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking. 2. If determined to be necessary by Forest Service soil scientist, compacted soils will be rehabilitated by ‘sub-soiling’, scarification or any other method approved by the Forest Service. 3. No ground disturbing actions during periods of heavy precipitation. Halt construction activities during periods of heavy precipitation or when soils are excessively muddy and prone to rutting and compaction. 4. If occurrences of Forest Service Region 2 sensitive plants are encountered within the project During footprint during implementation, a Forest Service Botany Representative will be notified to Construction prepare mitigation measures to minimize impacts. 5. Stockpile topsoil removed during operations to be returned to the site after construction complete. No net loss of organic soil will occur. If necessary, soil amendments will be imported to the project site. A Forest Service soil scientist will ascertain if soil depths have been returned to pre-construction depths. 6. Sediment waddles, sediment fencing, retention basins, or other applications should be installed before ground-disturbing activities begin. 7. Clean construction equipment prior to entry onto NFS lands. 8. New access roads should be insloped with rock ditches and appropriately spaced cross drains. Cross drains would be utilized to direct water off roads into the forest or filter strips away from waterways.

20 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria (cont.) Project Phase Project Design Criteria

9. Sediment traps along roads should be constructed where necessary. Sediment traps should be removed when traps are 80 percent full and sediment should be stockpiled in low- gradient upland sites. 10. Any site grading should blend disturbance areas into the existing topography to achieve a During natural appearance. Cut and fill practices should be avoided near the transition of proposed Construction grading and existing terrain. (cont.) 11. Where chipping or mastication is used for slash disposal, implement the following: • Spread out wood chips to a depth not to exceed 3 inches. • Distribute chips in discontinuous patches that do not result in a continuous chip mat (<40 percent of surface covered by 3 inches of chips). 12. Do not bury or mix the chips in with the soil. 1. Complete mitigation of Mill Creek Road/Trail, for which Vail Mountain Resort would be responsible, including approximately 7 miles of ripping, re-contouring, improving drainage, and restoring native vegetation. The proposed mitigation of the Mill Creek Road/Trail would meet needs from several resource areas including hydrology, soils; fisheries, wildlife; botany, recreation, and scenery. Implementation of the trail restoration project would be completed by the project proponent with oversight by the Forest Service via a cost recovery agreement. 2. Re-treat non-native and invasive plants as needed. Treatment must ensure that non-native species present before construction increase cover by less than 10% in the project area. Any new non-native species introduced by construction must be eradicated. 3. Within three years of project completion, revegetation cover should be >66% of pre- treatment vegetation cover, and there will be an increase of <10% in non-native plant cover. No new non-native species will be present. Also, within three years of completion, soil organic matter quantities will be within 10% of recorded pre-treatment quantities (this can be achieved by re-spreading stockpiled local material, and, if needed, adding organic material). Additional rehabilitation measures will be needed if these vegetation and soil thresholds are not met. 4. Effective ground cover (mulch) upon completion of ground disturbing activities will meet Post minimum levels of pre-treatment habitat type (aspen 95 percent, lodgepole pine 90%, Construction spruce-fir 95%). 5. Wood straw, coconut husk products, Excelsior products (shredded aspen), bonded fiber matrix (hydromulch), and other materials not containing seeds should be used for erosion control. 6. Implement Erosion Control and Runoff Management criteria outlined in the approved Construction Implementation Plan with Forest Service monitoring. Adaptive management may be required if tactics outlined in the plan are unsuccessful. 7. Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical subsoiling and scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity 8. Installed non-natural and non-biodegradable material should be removed following a Forest Service specialist’s approval once review of ground stability after construction has been conducted and the threat of excessive soil and debris movement has been eradicated. 9. Re-spread stocked-piled top soil material following construction and augment with Forest Service-approved soil amendment after post-construction soil organic matter transects are completed. 10. Perform post-construction soil organic matter and soil A horizon transects. This is to ensure that there is no net loss of organic material and A horizon soil to ground disturbing activities. Soil depths shall be equal to pre-treatment quantities.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 21 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1. Project Design Criteria (cont.) Project Phase Project Design Criteria

11. The proponent shall ensure that the underground fuel tank and associated infrastructure Post (e.g., lines, pumps) are maintained and monitored in compliance with local, state, and Construction federal standards to prevent spills or other environmental contamination or safety violations. (cont.) 12. Monitor project area for three years after completion for presence of invasive plants and successful establishment of desirable vegetation. Re-treat invasive plants as needed.

2.5 Summary of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Table 2-2 provides a summary of project elements associated the Proposed Action. Because no new trails or infrastructure would be constructed under the Alternative 1, Table 2-2 does not provide values for that alternative.

Table 2-2. Summary of Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 Improvements Project Component Proposed Action Lift 1 surface lift Terrain 42 acres Facilities Top Lift Shelter 225 sq. ft. Bottom Lift Shelter 75 sq. ft. Restrooms 2 x 65 sq. ft. Race Building 1,500 sq. ft. Race Start Houses 2 x 75 sq. ft. Fuel Storage 30,000-gallon tank Maintenance Shop 3,000 sq. ft. Snowmaking Infrastructure New Snowmaking Line 7,500 ft. Upgraded Snowmaking Line 4,300 ft. Electrical Line 9,000 ft. Booster Pump Station 500 sq. ft.

22 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

2.6 Identification of the Agency Preferred Alternative Based on the analysis and environmental consequences of each alternative, Alternative 2 has been identified as the agency preferred alternative. This alternative meets the Purpose and Need for the project and reflects important revisions and improvements in the proposed project since the 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.17 2.7 Summary of Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Per direction provided in 40 CFR § 1502.14, Table 2-3 provides a comparison of environmental impacts by alternative. Detailed information on environmental impacts to each resource can be found in Chapter 3.

17 USDA Forest Service, 2009a

Final Environmental Impact Statement 23 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Issue No Action Proposed Action

Recreation The proposed projects would alter Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no The Proposed Action would represent a considerable the winter recreation experience changes, additions, or upgrades to the existing terrain improvement to recreation opportunities at Vail within the SUP boundary. For and facilities at Golden Peak. The area would continue Mountain Resort. The proposed terrain expansion example, new ski terrain, to host training and events but would not expand to would greatly improve the quality of existing facilities snowmaking, a lift, and other meet the growing demand. and operational efficiency of the Golden Peak area. infrastructure could change the The expansion would enlarge the Golden Peak trail recreational experience. area from 27 to 69 acres, creating more training terrain and space for additional events, such as FIS standard women’s Downhill and men’s Super-G competitions. A new surface lift would access the additional terrain and reduce skier congestion at the Golden Peak base area and Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6). As an area designed for athletes, the Golden Peak area, with the improvement projects, would create the necessary separation between athletes and the general public. The additional terrain is not expected to drive a substantial increase in visitation.

Traffic and Implementation of proposed Under the No Action Alternative, local traffic is The Proposed Action is not expected to drive Parking projects has potential to increase expected to increase due to population growth in Eagle measurable additional visitation at Vail Mountain daily/annual visitation at Vail County and the Denver Metropolitan area. Travel times Resort. It is not anticipated that there would be any Mountain Resort with associated on I-70, both in the Eagle Valley and between Town of increases to vehicular traffic on I-70 or the South effects on traffic volumes and/or Vail and Denver, are expected to increase on both Frontage Road related to the Proposed Action. congestion on the South Frontage weekdays and weekends. Weekdays are expected to Congested conditions are expected to persist Road and I-70. Parking capacities surpass weekends in terms of I-70 congestion in Eagle independent of the project. Vail Mountain Resort and may also be affected by the County by 2035. Traffic on the Town roads near its parking facilities are prepared to handle additional Proposed Action. Golden Peak is expected to increase as well. The Level training and competition events and manage those on a of Service (LOS) for some South Frontage Road case-by-case basis. Construction vehicle traffic intersections is expected to decline and have excessive represents a temporary increase in traffic during a set delays at peak hours. Traffic would increase on Vail construction period. Much of the construction-related Valley Drive but traffic should remain below the traffic is expected to occur on summer weekdays, road’s capacity. Given the projected annual increase in when the roads are less busy. By Town of Vail skier visitation, public parking shortages are expected requirements, the project would have an employee to continue to occur and increase in frequency. transportation and parking plan to reduce the impact on the town roads and parking structures.

24 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences (cont.) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Issue No Action Proposed Action

Scenery Construction of the Golden Peak Under the No Action Alternative, no changes would Implementation of the Proposed Action would not Resources lift, associated infrastructure, and occur to Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area that would cause a substantial scenery alteration to the developed additional terrain on Golden Peak affect the scenic environment and management of the character of Vail Mountain Resort. Vail Mountain would affect scenery resources. The SUP area would continue to meet the SIO of Very Resort’s SUP area would remain in compliance with clearing of trees for new ski terrain Low. Implementation of other, previously approved the SIO of Very Low. Mitigation measures would be would have impacts on the scenic projects could alter the scenery resource. applied to limit the associated impacts to scenery values of Golden Peak. resources. Once revegetation is complete and the vegetation matures after three to five years, the disturbance area would blend in with the rest of the front side of the resort.

Social and The proposed lift and terrain Selection of the No Action Alternative is not expected Implementation of the Proposed Action is not Economic expansion could affect employment to alter socioeconomic factors that currently affect Vail anticipated to affect the socioeconomic character of Resources in both the short and long term. Mountain Resort. Skier visitation would likely increase Vail Mountain Resort. Construction-related but no change in direct or indirect employment is employment is not anticipated to create a measurable anticipated with this alternative. No impacts on change in local employment or influence population or environmental justice were identified with the No housing trends. Direct, seasonal employment is Action Alternative. expected to increase by 11 positions, a less than 1% increase in total Vail Mountain Resort employees, and a negligible increase for the community. The additional employees from the Proposed Action is not expected to affect Vail Resorts’ provision of affordable housing and employee parking. No environmental justice impacts from the Proposed Action were identified.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 25 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences (cont.) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Issue No Action Proposed Action

Air Quality Short-term construction related Under the No Action Alternative, the contribution of The construction, timber removal, and operation of the activity, as well as increased activities at the mountain resort to climate change Proposed Action would result in minor impacts to air vehicular traffic related to would be unchanged. Vail Mountain Resort would quality and GHG emissions. The impacts from increased daily/annual visitation, continue to experience changes in timing and amount construction, from truck and construction equipment could negatively impact air quality of precipitation, timing and duration of winter season, emissions, would be small, localized, and temporary. in the region. Construction and and temperature due to climate change. Ongoing air Any prescribed timber burning would follow all operation of the proposed projects quality and climate-induced effects would continue applicable regulations to minimize air quality could result in GHG emissions. under the No Action Alternative. degradation. During operation, the Proposed Action would require electrical use for training, lifts, and competition and occasional vehicle trips for maintenance. The Golden Peak project is not expected to drive additional visitation and would not increase emissions related to traffic congestion. Given existing electrical and vehicular use at Vail Mountain Resort and in Eagle County, the Proposed Action does not represent a substantial impact to air quality and GHG emissions. No measurable impacts to air quality in wilderness or other WRNF areas are anticipated.

Geology and Proposed ground disturbance and Under the No Action Alternative, the Golden Peak area Two areas northwest and north of the Golden Peak Soils snowmaking may contribute to projects would continue to operate under its current area should be avoided of additional water diversions increased rates of erosion and slope design and capacity. Soil losses from erosion due to due to uncertainty if additional water infiltration would hazards. rainfall, runoff and wind, would continue to occur at occur. The proposed access road to the top of Golden existing rates. Most soil erosion would likely continue Peak would zig-zag up a dip slope in the Minturn to be from existing roads and from bare ground and Formation. Additional care would be needed during low vegetative cover areas. construction to avoid daylighting bedrock. The factor of safety was calculated to be well above failure level. Any additional water infiltrated as a result of the proposed projects would not cause a large enough groundwater rise in the project area to decrease its current high stability. Approximately 55 acres of disturbance would occur in the soil map units; however, 2.6 acres of soil resource would be permanently replaced with structures and access roads.

26 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences (cont.) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Issue No Action Proposed Action

Vegetation Ground disturbance associated with The No Action Alternative would represent a There is no effect to any threatened and endangered construction and operation of continuation of existing operations, and vegetation and plant species or habitat. No SOLC were documented proposed projects may affect plant forest management practices at Vail Mountain Resort. within the Project Area. communities throughout the Project Plant communities would remain similar to the existing The Proposed Action would result in disturbance to Area, including threatened, environment over the short term and would gradually approximately 55 acres of vegetation in Vail Mountain endangered, and sensitive (TES) change as natural succession over the long term, Resort’s SUP area. This consists of the clearing and species, WRNF species of local barring a natural disturbance. Invasive non-native grading of 38.6 acres of aspen forest, 6.6 acres of concern (SOLC), and invasive plant weeds would continue to be managed under Vail lodgepole pine forest, and the grading of 9.9 acres of species. Tree clearing for the Mountain Resort’s current Noxious Weed graminoid dominated ski trails. Under the Proposed proposed Golden Peak expansion Management Guidelines. Action, existing populations of noxious and invasive and lift installation would result in weeds may spread into currently uninfested regions of a decrease in the aspen and sub- the Analysis Area. Undesirable species could spread alpine fir cover type and associated via wind, clearing, construction vehicles, and native understory vegetation. reclamation seed mixes or mulches. Proper implementation of PDC would minimize the spread of noxious weeds.

Wildlife and Ground-disturbing activities could Big River Fish and Canada lynx: The No Action Big River Fish: Water use and depletions could result Aquatic potentially affect threatened, Alternative represents a continuation of existing in adverse effects to the endangered fish and their Species endangered and sensitive wildlife operations and management practices without changes, critical habitats, resulting in a likely to adversely affect and aquatic species through direct additions, or upgrades to existing conditions; therefore, determination. However, this determination has and indirect impacts to habitat Alternative 1 would have no effect on the big river fish previously been consulted on with USFWS. and/or increased human presence. and Canada lynx and their habitats. Canada lynx: Forty-five acres of lynx habitat (1 acre Region 2 Sensitive Species: Thirty-four Region 2 of primary, 38 acres of secondary, and 6 acres of sensitive species (refer to Table 3.8-2) were currently unsuitable) would be converted to non- determined to have potential habitat in the Analysis habitat. However, the existing level of year-round Area. Of the 34 species, nine were carried forward into human activity within the Golden Peak project area the analysis (Colorado River cutthroat trout, boreal likely cause lynx to avoid the area, thereby reducing or western toad, northern goshawk, American peregrine eliminating the functionality of the habitat; therefore, falcon, flammulated owl, boreal owl, olive-sided Alternative 2 warrants a may affect, not likely to flycatcher, hoary bat, American marten). Alternative 1 adversely affect determination. would have no impact on the nine species analyzed. toward federal listing. Refer to Table 3.8-6 for a complete rationale for each species carried forward into the analysis.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 27 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences (cont.) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Resource Issue No Action Proposed Action

Wildlife and Region 2 Sensitive Species: The following species Aquatic (Colorado River cutthroat trout, boreal western toad, Species (cont.) northern goshawk, American peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, hoary bat, American marten) were analyzed and determined to have a may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend

Water Proposed projects have the The No Action Alternative would represent a The Proposed Action has the potential to impact water Resources potential to impact water quality continuation of existing operations and water resource quality and quantity within the SUP area. New and quantity within the SUP area. management practices at Vail Mountain Resort. snowmaking would increase snowmaking water usage Additional snowmaking coverage Wetlands and waterbodies within the analysis area by 62 acre-feet per ski season. Additional snowmaking may impact stream flows through would not be impacted. Existing drainage features in coverage may impact stream flow through water water depletions and/or increased the project area, which primarily drains towards Mill depletions and/or increased runoff. Application of runoff. Application of machine- Creek, adequately reduce erosion and impacts to machine-produced snow and ground-disturbing produced snow and ground- stream health. activities may result in increased erosion and disturbing activities may result in sedimentation, thereby impacting stream health. There increased erosion and would be a 0.02 acre or approximately 6% increase in sedimentation, thereby impacting disturbance in the WIZ due to grading associated with stream health. the snowmaking pipe; however, this disturbance is located in an existing ski trail and should not result in the removal of trees in the WIZ.

28 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

CEQ regulations direct agencies to succinctly describe the environment that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration.18 As such, this chapter describes the existing physical, biological, social, and economic components of the Analysis Area, which have potential to be affected by implementing any of the alternatives (i.e., the Affected Environment). Each Affected Environment description is followed by an Environmental Consequences discussion that provides an analysis of the potential effects of implementation of each of the alternatives.

This chapter is organized by resource area, and follows the organization of issues and resources requiring further analysis (and indicators), as presented in Chapter 1. Each resource section in this chapter is organized in the following order:

Scope of the Analysis The scope of the analysis briefly describes the geographic area(s) potentially affected by the alternatives for each issue and its indicator(s). The scope of analysis varies according to resource area and may be different for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

Affected Environment The Affected Environment discussion provides a description of the environment potentially affected, as based upon current uses and management activities/decisions.

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences This discussion provides an analysis of direct and indirect environmental effects of implementing each of the alternatives and associated connected actions, according to the issues or resources requiring in-depth analysis and indicators identified in Chapter 1. Cumulative effects are discussed separately.

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the duration of the project).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the result of the incremental direct and indirect effects of any action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and can result from individually minor but collectively major actions taking place over a period of time. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are identified in Appendix A.

18 40 CFR § 1502.15

Final Environmental Impact Statement 29 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources An irreversible commitment is a permanent or essentially permanent use or loss of resources; it cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long term. Examples include minerals that have been extracted or soil productivity that has been lost. An irretrievable commitment is a loss of production or use of resources for a period of time. One example is the use of timber land for a logging road. Timber growth on the land is irretrievably lost while the land is a road, but the timber resource is not irreversibly lost because the land could grow trees in the near future. The Forest Service recognizes the fact that certain management activities will produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. The CEQ requires the disclosure of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources potentially resulting from federal actions.19

Description of Analysis This chapter provides detail on both the human and biological environment as based on the issues identified in Chapter 1. Based on an understanding of the proposal, familiarity of the project area, and analysis of the issues raised during scoping, the line officer approved the following resources to be considered in detail in this analysis: • Recreation • Traffic and Parking • Scenery Resources • Social and Economic Resources • Air Quality • Geology and Soils • Vegetation • Wildlife and Aquatic Species • Water Resources

The ID Team considered the potential impacts on several other resources; however, it was determined that there would be no measurable effects to these resources from construction and operation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, these resources were eliminated from further analysis in this FEIS. Rationale for eliminating these resources is provided in Chapter 1. 3.1 Recreation 3.1.1 Scope of the Analysis The Project Area for this recreational analysis encompasses Vail Mountain Resort’s 12,353-acre SUP area, with a specific focus on impacts that may occur to Golden Peak and the terrain immediately adjacent to it. The analysis focuses on winter use in the Golden Peak area.

19 40 CFR § 1502.16

30 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1.2 Affected Environment 3.1.2.1 Training, Competition, and Access Vail Mountain Resort’s Golden Peak area is located on the eastern edge of the SUP area. The skiable terrain has an elevation from 8,240 feet to 9,400 feet and is accessed by the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6), a high-speed quad. The primary trails in the Golden Peak area include Ruder’s Run, Pony Express, Whippersnapper, Golden Peak Terrain Park, and Golden Peak Race.

The Golden Peak Race trail (27 acres) has traditionally been dedicated as a training facility for skiers, snowboarders, and adaptive skier and riders. The trail is used nearly every day of the winter season for training purposes by local, national, and international groups. The trail is accessed via a catwalk from the mid-station of Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) or a catwalk midway down Ruder’s Run. When events are being held or training is in session, the Golden Peak Race trail is often fenced off to separate racers from the general public.

While most training and competitive events occurs within the Golden Peak area, the moguls course is located along the Cookshack trail. This trail is accessible by the Avanti Express (Chair 2), a mid-mountain chairlift requiring uploading on Gondola One, the Eagle Bahn Gondola (Chair 19), or the Born Free Express (Chair 8). The location of the Cookshack trail is not desirable as a dedicated training or competition venue because it is difficult to access for racers and spectators.

Competitive events are often held within the Golden Peak area and on Cookshack. During the 2015/16 ski season, 91 scheduled events were held in the Golden Peak area and 13 mogul events on the Cookshack mogul course. Events held at Golden Peak range from larger annual events that can require multiweek preparations (e.g., Burton Open, American Ski Classic, North American Cup, U16 Junior Championships) to smaller weekly events for locals and youth (e.g., weekly Town Series, high school races, Vail Cup). During scheduled competitive events, athletes not participating in the competition are assigned training venues on other parts of Vail Mountain Resort including Black Forest and Whippersnapper.

There is an identified need (refer to Section 1.3) for Vail Mountain Resort to host additional events within the Golden Peak area, especially women’s Downhill, men’s Super-G, and mogul competitions. The existing Golden Peak Race trail is too short to host a women’s Downhill or men’s Super-G competition as determined by the International Ski Federation (FIS).20 Golden Peak also lacks sufficient dedicated training terrain to satisfy the growing demand for competitive ski and snowboard events.

During the summer months, the Golden Peak area has little activity. Summer trails include the Vail Trail with an access point near the base of the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) and the Village Trail, the alignment of which mirrors the main mountain access road used by Vail Resorts employees to access the upper portion of Vail Mountain Resort for construction and maintenance activities.

20 International Ski Federation, 2017. All competitions must take place on FIS-approved courses, also known as course homologation. The approval is based on vertical drop, surface length and average gradient, among other requirements.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 31 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1.2.2 Skier Congestion Mixing of athletes and the general public occurs regularly before and after training and competition, which adds to congestion and increases lift lines for both the Avanti Express (Chair 2) and Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6).

It is Vail Mountain Resort’s intent to continue to host FIS-sanctioned events while simultaneously accommodating for the growing demand for training space. An expanded training area at Golden Peak would provide a superior training and event facility for athletes, and would simultaneously separate athletes from the general public, thereby reducing skier congestion in the Golden Peak area for both user- groups.

3.1.2.3 Snow Conditions Vail Mountain Resort’s snowmaking strategy is intended to enhance the reliability and consistency of snow coverage in response to site-specific operational concerns, including but not limited to below average natural snowfall, high snow-wear areas, critical circulation routes, and areas with high wind and/or solar exposure. Reliable snow conditions are essential for trails intended to serve as training and competition venues; these trails must have sufficient snow coverage and must be well-groomed to effectively serve their purpose.

3.1.2.4 Experience for Athletes and Public While athletes currently extensively use the Golden Peak Race trail, they share the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) with the general public, which provides the only repeat-access option for athletes training or competing at Golden Peak. As described above, a similar situation exists with the Cookshack trail, which athletes can only access via the shared Avanti Express (Chair 2). 3.1.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.1.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 does not include any terrain expansion at Golden Peak and would reflect a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. Golden Peak would continue to host events and training for a variety of disciplines; however, selection of this alternative would not result in the expansion of training and competition terrain at Golden Peak. The growing demand for training and competitive events would not be addressed. With no changes, additions, or upgrades, there would be a continued impact to the recreation experience for both athletes and the general public.

3.1.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Training, Competition, and Access The Proposed Action would constitute an overall enhancement to the recreational opportunities offered at Vail Mountain Resort during winter by improving quality of existing facilities and improving operational efficiency. Vail Mountain Resort would be better able to accommodate training and competitions, all of which are gaining in popularity as demonstrated by the growing demand for access to this facility throughout the winter season. The Golden Peak improvements would be achieved by enlarging the skiable terrain from 27 acres to a total of 69 acres and thereby providing considerably more training terrain for

32 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

athletes and to host events. This expansion would represent a 0.5 percent increase in skiable terrain at Vail Mountain Resort. This addition would also increase the terrain to a size that would allow Golden Peak to host women’s Downhill and men’s Super-G competitions, consistent with FIS standards, and consolidate competition areas to Golden Peak. When Golden Peak is not being actively managed for training or competitions, the terrain would be accessible to the general public.

In addition, the Proposed Action would provide improved access of the expanded Golden Peak terrain to athletes through the installation of the new surface lift.

Skier Congestion Installation of the new surface lift and expansion of the Golden Peak trail network would serve to separate athletes from the general public in the vicinity of Golden Peak and on the Cookshack trail, thereby reducing skier congestion on the trails in this area. In addition, athletes would have the option of riding the new surface lift to access Golden Peak, which would reduce lift lines on the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) and the Avanti Express (Chair 2) by limiting intermingling between athletes and general public on these chairlifts.

Snow Conditions Installing snowmaking infrastructure on new ski trails would provide consistent, early season snow conditions sufficient for training and events at Golden Peak. Consistent snow coverage allows athletes to effectively train and compete by providing some level of predictability in a sport that has numerous uncontrollable variables. Racers need a smooth hard surface; snowboarders need a well-maintained halfpipe and jumps; freestyle skiers need consistent moguls and courses. These competition- and training- specific snow conditions are different than snow conditions found on other parts of the mountain; the general public typically prefers softer snow conditions and smaller terrain features. The upgraded snowmaking pipe would provide the proposed booster station the necessary water pressure and capacity to fully operate the proposed snowmaking infrastructure.

Experience for Athletes and Public Operational efficiency for both athletes and the general public would be considerably improved by the Proposed Action. During times of heavy congestion at Golden Peak and on the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6), athletes could train on trails accessed by the proposed surface lift and avoid riding the chairlift. This could help reduce congestion during busy holiday weekends on the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6). The guest experience would also be improved through the separation of competitive athletes and the general public, who generally want to enjoy the ski resort in a more casual environment.

Visitation at Vail Mountain Resort is not anticipated to experience a notable increase as a result of the Proposed Action. The primary purpose of the Proposed Action is to redistribute athletes and the general public by limiting use of the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) and Avanti Express (Chair 2) by athletes and improving training and competition facilities. Existing visitation at Vail Mountain Resort averages over 1.6 million winter visitors annually over an eight-season period. An additional 0.01 percent to 0.5 percent increase in visitation is possible, but not probable. Events and competitions might attract 200 to 400 athletes, coaches and families per event. Many of these athletes, coaches and families are already accounted for in existing visitation estimates. In addition, this possible visitation increase would likely

Final Environmental Impact Statement 33 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

occur during periods of low visitation, primarily in November before Thanksgiving. During the month of November, early season training opportunities are rare around the country, and Vail Mountain Resort has built a reputation for providing quality training opportunities during this time.

Overall, the winter recreational experience within the Golden Peak area would mostly remain unchanged. Training and events would continue to take place nearly every day of the winter season. A few more events might take place; however, events already occur at Golden Peak for the majority of the season. The most substantial difference would be the consolidation of athletes who are now largely spread across the ski resort. The proposed projects on Golden Peak would not impact summer use in the Golden Peak area.

The race start buildings, equipment and fuel storage facilities, and a maintenance building would be support facilities for Golden Peak operations and greater Vail Mountain Resort on-mountain operations. The race start buildings and equipment storage would protect valuable training equipment and keep NFS lands clear of clutter. The fuel storage and maintenance building would allow Vail Mountain Resort to park and work on snowcats on the eastern portion of the SUP area, which would reduce the need to drive snowcats across the SUP area, thereby reducing the time and fuel required to keep ski trails properly groomed. Increased grooming efficiency would represent an overall improvement in the recreational experience for both athletes and the general public.

In summary, the Proposed Action would represent a substantial improvement to the recreation resource at Vail Mountain Resort by addressing the growing demand for additional training and competition terrain for racers, improving the sheer quality of this terrain, and by reducing skier congestion. 3.1.4 Cumulative Effects 3.1.4.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for recreation extend from Vail Mountain Resort’s inception as a resort in 1962 through the foreseeable future in which Vail Mountain Resort can be expected to operate and develop.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for recreation are limited to public and private lands in the vicinity of the Vail Mountain Resort SUP area.

3.1.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on recreation: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects • Town of Vail recreation events

34 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The types of projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis include Vail Mountain Resort projects to improve efficiencies (e.g., chairlift improvements), and Eagle Valley projects to improve infrastructure to recreation (e.g., Beaver Creek Resort improvements). Town of Vail also hosts and supports recreation events on the mountain and in the Town of Vail, including on Gore Creek. These projects cumulatively affect the recreational opportunities and experiences at Vail Mountain Resort. Example of projects that were small in scale but qualitatively important to the recreational experience at Vail Mountain Resort include summer maintenance (e.g., snowmaking line replacements and grading, etc.). These types of projects are typically proposed by Vail Mountain Resort in its annual summer construction plans to implement previous NEPA decisions or are approved via Decision Memos.

Within the Vail Mountain Resort SUP area and the greater Eagle Valley, the Golden Peak Improvements Project would cumulative add to the development of skiable terrain and development of the resort. The additional 42 acres of trails would add to the existing 5,100 acres of trails. This represents less than 1 percent increase in trail acreage. On Golden Peak, the terrain would be primarily dedicated to training and competition when scheduled. The terrain expansion would nearly double the amount of terrain primarily dedicated to training and competition. 3.1.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources have been identified that may impact the recreational resources in association with the alternatives analyzed in this document. 3.2 Traffic and Parking 3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis The focus of this analysis is the primary roadways used to access Vail Mountain Resort, the smaller roads that lead to Golden Peak, and the related traffic and parking issues at the resort. Those roadways include I-70 between East and West Vail (exits 173 to 180), the South Frontage Road from the Vail Road roundabout to Vail Valley Drive, and the full length of Vail Valley Drive.

The existing conditions of traffic and parking in Vail Village, as well as projected conditions under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative, are disclosed in this section. The traffic analysis calculates existing and projected traffic volumes on the assumption that the majority of Vail Mountain Resort’s guests arrive via automobile and that some locals and visitors use the free bus system. 3.2.2 Affected Environment 3.2.2.1 Ski Resort Access Interstate 70 (I-70) is Colorado’s major east-west travel corridor. It is open year-round and maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). I-70 provides access to the Town of Vail and Vail Mountain Resort from the Denver metropolitan area (approximately 100 miles, or one and a half to three hours driving time, depending on time of year, weather, and traffic volumes), through the Eisenhower- Johnson Memorial Tunnel at the Continental Divide. All visitors to the Eagle Valley use I-70, regardless if they fly into the Eagle County Regional Airport (west of the Town of Vail) or Denver International

Final Environmental Impact Statement 35 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Airport (DIA, east of the Town of Vail), drive personal/rental vehicles, or use a shuttle/bus service between DIA and Eagle County.

Visitors primarily access the Town of Vail by exiting I-70 at exit 176; many also exit the interstate at exits 173 or 180 and drive along the North or South Frontage Roads. Most visitors park in either the Vail Village or Lionshead parking structures. When the parking structures are full, the Town of Vail permits parking along the South Frontage Road under certain conditions. The South Frontage Road is also an east-west access route to residences, shops, recreation, and lodging in the Town of Vail. Vail Valley Drive is a loop from the South Frontage Road that accesses the Golden Peak area, the Vail Golf Club, lodging, and East Vail residential neighborhoods.

The Golden Peak base area can be accessed via drop-off, public transit, skiing, or nearby parking facilities. Free Town of Vail buses stop at Golden Peak, including the Village Shuttle, a frequent and popular service that runs between Golden Peak and Lionshead through Vail Village. Public parking for Golden Peak is primarily at the Vail Village parking structure. Visitors can either ride the Village Shuttle, walk, or ski over from Gondola 1. Twenty-three percent of those parking at Vail Village parking structure go directly to the Golden Peak area and ride the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) for their first chairlift ride of the day.21

Visitors to Vail Mountain Resort are a combination of day skiers, primarily from the Denver metropolitan area, locals, and destination skiers staying overnight in the area. Locals and destination skiers are more likely to be staying within walking distance, park in outlying areas or rely on local transit. Of those parking in the Town of Vail structures, 50 percent are day users, 44 percent are destination, and 6 percent are local.22 These percentages do not account for other parking and transit opportunities such as walking, riding the free bus system, and bicycling.

3.2.2.2 Traffic Existing traffic congestion along I-70, the major highway passing through Town of Vail, is negatively affecting the accessibility of mountain recreation.23 On weekends and holidays, the traffic through the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel is particularly heavy. Winter weekends, including Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, can see up to 150,000 vehicles pass through the tunnel.24 Many people from the Denver metropolitan area drive along the interstate to reach Town of Vail and the surrounding mountain areas. The additional skiing travelers compound the existing traffic from freight, local residents, and interstate commerce.

The South Frontage Road runs parallel to the interstate to provide local access to residential and business areas throughout Town of Vail. The ski resort, lodges, hotels, condominiums, restaurants, hospital, among others, contribute to vehicle use on the South Frontage Road.

21 RRC Associates, 2017 22 Ibid. 23 CDOT, 2011a 24 CDOT, 2016

36 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Vail Valley Drive, a winding loop off of the South Frontage Road, provides access to lodging, restaurants, homes and condos, athletic fields, and the Vail Golf Course/Nordic Center. Residents of East Vail can take Vail Valley Drive to reach Golden Peak and avoid traffic on the South Frontage Road.

The Forest Service, Town of Vail and Vail Mountain Resort have an agreement that recognizes skier threshold limits based primarily on traffic and circulation. The agreed upon Manage-To threshold of 19,900 skiers represents the point at which traffic and circulation issues may be expected to be encountered. While the 19,900 threshold is typically exceeded once or twice each a season, it is a dynamic process that allows for flexibility in addressing traffic and circulation issues as conditions dictate. The Manage-To process is recognized as a beneficial and critical step in managing a ski area with the size and popularity of Vail Mountain Resort; it would continue to be used as a method of addressing traffic and circulation related issues on peak visitation days.

Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes were collected from CDOT in 2016. CDOT provides Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes, or the total volume of traffic on a road segment for one year, divided by 365 days. The basic intent is to provide traffic volumes which best approximate the use of a given highway section for a typical day of the year. Therefore, these AADT volumes are likely lower than traffic on a typical winter day in Town of Vail, its busy season. Seasonal or monthly data was not available for estimates on I-70 traffic.

Included in this portion of the analysis are AADT values for I-70 Eastbound and Westbound on both sides of Vail Village; the onramps at I-70 exit 176; Vail Road south of the roundabout, a route used to reach locations in Vail Village and Lionshead by car; and Vail Valley Drive just after its intersection with the South Frontage Road and at Chalet Road, just west of the Golden Peak base area. The non-interstate roads AADT counts both directions of travel. Table 3.2-1 summarizes the AADT of the roadways included in this analysis.

Table 3.2-1. 2016 AADT at Key Locations Location AADT 1. I-70 WB (in front of Lionshead) 18,469 2. I-70 EB (in front of Lionshead) 17,351 3. I-70 WB (in front of Golden Peak) 14,973 4. I-70 EB (in front of Golden Peak) 13,576 5. I-70 WB onramp at Exit 176 4,946 6. I-70 EB onramp at Exit 176 1,758 7. Vail Road south of the roundabout 8,593 8. Vail Valley Drive south of the Frontage Road 4,297 9. Vail Valley Drive at Chalet Road 3,171 Source: CDOT 2016

Final Environmental Impact Statement 37 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The AADT volumes on I-70 west of exit 176 increased by 56 percent between 2006 and 2016 and by 19 percent east of the exit. Traffic volumes to the west of exit 176 are higher due to commuters and visitors from other areas of Eagle County who work or recreate in the Town of Vail. These traffic volumes are relatively similar to the AADT on I-70 through Avon and Frisco in Summit County. Traffic volumes are higher on segments of I-70 near the Eisenhower Tunnel and lower on I-70 through Copper Mountain.

Traffic on I-70 through Town of Vail is relatively free-flowing, except for peak-hour times. CDOT established Level of Service (LOS) ratings, a qualitative traffic measurement of congestion, for segments of I-70 in 2000 and forecasted 2035 levels. Current levels are between these values. LOS A represents minimal or no delay while LOS F signifies an excessive delay; LOS A-C are considered acceptable. These ratings were made for Dowd Canyon (mile 172), on the western edge of Town of Vail. In 2000 weekdays had a peak-hour LOS rating of C in both directions. Winter weekends had a peak-hour LOS B rating in the eastbound direction and C headed westbound.25

The Town of Vail, in preparing a Transportation Master Plan Update in 2009 authorized a traffic study on many of the arterials in town during peak season. They found that the South Frontage Road segment east of the exit 176 interchange is the heaviest traveled roadway within the Town (aside from I-70). During the peak winter season, the segment between the roundabout and Vail Valley Drive had daily traffic of 19,600 vehicles (counting both directions). Of the 2,000 vehicles per peak afternoon and evening hours, approximately 30 percent are headed to the Vail Village structure. The study also analyzed the LOS at intersections throughout the town. Turning left out of the Vail Village structure onto the South Frontage Road has a LOS E rating. At the intersection of Vail Valley Drive, turning left from the South Frontage Road onto Vail Valley Drive has a LOS D rating and continuing straight on the Frontage Road heading west has a C rating.26

Vail Valley Drive, north of Hanson Ranch Road, has a traffic volume of 689 vehicles per hour (both directions) during peak late afternoon hours. As a two-lane road, it has a capacity of about 1,800 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the existing traffic during peak hours represents 38 percent of total capacity. The intersections of Vail Valley Drive with Ski and Snowboard Club Vail’s driveway have an LOS rating of A and B during Saturday morning and afternoon peak hours, signifying acceptable conditions.27

3.2.2.3 Parking At Vail Mountain Resort and the Town of Vail, parking demand is primarily driven by skiers, shoppers, Vail Mountain Resort employees and Vail Village employees, all arriving in personal vehicles. On most days, the parking supply meets demand. However, on up to 30 days during the winter, the parking structures reach capacity and the South Frontage Road is used as overflow parking. Town of Vail has acknowledged a need for considerably more parking spaces, incentives and policy to reduce parking demand, and better information about outlying parking areas.28

25 CDOT, 2011b 26 Town of Vail, 2009 27 Kimley-Horn, 2014 28 Town of Vail, 2016a

38 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

During the 2016/17 season, overflow parking occurred on the South Frontage Road on 20 days, compared to 29 during the 2015/16 season. On its busiest day, there were 685 cars on the Frontage Road in 2017 compared to 969 in 2016. The town aims to limit the number of overflow parking days during the winter to 15.29 While the ski resort is capable of accommodating this level of use, Frontage Road parking was shown to have a considerable negative impact on the visitor experience.30

The Town of Vail operates two parking structures, the Vail Village and Lionshead structures. The parking structures comprise the vast majority of parking in Town of Vail with 2,200 spaces between them. Both parking structures charge for use during the winter and are free during the summer. Free parking is also available at Donovan Park, along the North Frontage Road in West Vail, and at Red Sandstone Park. These areas provide a total of 265 spaces and even on South Frontage Road overflow days, they were only at 65 percent of capacity. Parking is also available at the following trailheads: Gore Creek Trailhead, East Vail Interchange Trailhead, Pitkin Creek Trailhead, Booth Falls Trailhead, North Trail Spraddle Creek Trailhead, North Trail Red Sandstone Creek Trailhead, North Trail Buffehr Creek Trailhead, and North Trail Davos Trailhead. Some trailhead spaces are restricted to three hours. During the 2016/17 season, these outlying free parking areas, including trails, were used by 35,634 vehicles, or an average of 238 vehicles per day of the winter season. The town is working to accommodate their overflow volume in the current outlying free spaces. Table 3.2-2 lists the parking supply by location and category.

Table 3.2-2. Vail Mountain Resort Parking Supply Parking Supply Public Employee Total Village Structure 1,050 -- 1,050 Lionshead Structure 1,150 -- 1,150 Donovan Park 90 -- 90 North Frontage Road – West Vail 150 -- 150 Soccer Field Lot -- 55 55 Ford Park Lot -- 140 140 Red Sandstone Park 15 -- 15 Total 2,455 195 2,650 Source: Town of Vail 2017b

Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 2.7 persons, the non-employee parking spaces currently provide parking for 6,628 guests.31 With average daily skier visits at 11,000 people, the ski resort relies on local lodging and transit for additional transport. The Town of Vail free bus system has over 3.2 million rides per year, with 60 percent on the in-town Village Shuttle between Lionshead Transit Center and Golden Peak. Many local and destination skiers arrive via ECO Transit bus services provided by Eagle County Transportation Authority. Many destination visitors stay and park at local accommodations with

29 Town of Vail, 2017a 30 Town of Vail, 2017b 31 RRC Associates, 2017

Final Environmental Impact Statement 39 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

private garages. A few of these private garages are also open to the public: Cascade Village, Manor Vail Lodge, and Solaris.

The public parking supply in Town of Vail has decreased in recent years. Small public parking facilities at Golden Peak and Arrabelle have closed. Recent proposed parking projects at Evervail and Lionshead that would have created up to 1,300 new spaces have stalled and the town is primarily focused on accommodating all visitors with the existing facilities.

Currently, most people skiing Golden Peak park in the Vail Village structure. There is no town-managed parking facility by the Golden Peak base area. There are some spots open to the public, for a fee, at Manor Vail Lodge, across the street from the Vail Ski School. Ski and Snowboard Club Vail has a small parking facility for its club members and transports most of their athletes via carpool and vans. 3.2.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Traffic Under the No Action Alternative, traffic is expected to increase due to population growth in Eagle County and the Denver metropolitan area. By 2035, the population of the Denver metropolitan area is expected to increase by 32 percent from 2015 levels. Eagle County’s population is expected to increase by 43 percent over the same period.32

By 2035, the AADT on I-70 through the Eagle Valley is expected to increase by 26.6 percent or yearly growth of 1.25 percent. Table 3.2-3 lists the projected AADT in 2035.

Table 3.2-3. 2016 and 2035 AADT at Key Locations Location 2016 AADT 2035 Projected AADT 1. I-70 WB (in front of Lionshead) 18,469 23,382 2. I-70 EB (in front of Lionshead) 17,351 21,966 3. I-70 WB (in front of Golden Peak) 14,973 18,956 4. I-70 EB (in front of Golden Peak) 13,576 17,187 Source: CDOT 2016

CDOT also conducted further analysis on future traffic congestion in the corridor using the 2-way person trips metric to compare traffic in 2000 to projected levels in 2035. At mile marker 176 in Vail Village, CDOT calculated about 45,000 trips per weekday and 75,000 per weekend day. For 2035, CDOT forecasts about 100,000 trips on a weekday and almost 150,000 on a weekend.33

32 DOLA, 2017a 33 CDOT, 2011a

40 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

By 2035, at peak times, travel between Glenwood Springs and Silverthorne, through Town of Vail, is expected to be 183 minutes on weekdays and 159 on weekends, compared to 80 minutes in free-flowing conditions. Weekdays are anticipated to have higher congestion due to work commuting within Eagle County. Between Silverthorne and C-470, the route from the Denver metropolitan area, the weekday trip would take 115 minutes and 161 on the weekends, compared to 55 in free-flowing conditions.34

Traffic on the South Frontage Road is also expected to increase in the future. By 2025, the daily traffic is expected to increase to 28,500 during winter peak season, or an increase of 45 percent since 2009. In 2025 both turning left out of the parking garage and onto Vail Valley Drive from the South Frontage Road would have a LOS rating of F (compared to E and D in 2009). Driving on the South Frontage Road, heading west, would have a LOS rating of D (compared to C in 2009). All other intersections in the area would have an acceptable LOS rating. The town has proposed Improvement Alternatives to address many of these issues (refer to Section 3.2.4).35

Assuming a similar increase to traffic on Vail Valley Drive, the number of vehicles per hour during peak afternoon hours would be 895, an increase from 689. That number is still well below the road’s capacity of 1,800 vehicles per hour.

All skier-related traffic can be expected to increase commensurate with a reasonable estimate of 0.5 percent increase in annual skier visitation at Vail Mountain Resort (based on recent trends).

Therefore, based on that annual increase, it is expected that the Manage-To number of 19,900 would be exceeded three to five times per year by 2035. As is the current practice, Vail Mountain Resort and the Forest Service would meet at the end of any day that exceeds the Manage-To threshold to evaluate the day’s operations, including traffic circulation.

Parking Given the annual increase in skier visitation, it is expected that public parking shortages would be expected to occur and increase in frequency. Particularly with population growth in the Denver metropolitan area, the number of day skiers, who overwhelmingly require parking, is expected to increase.

3.2.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action It is not anticipated that Alternative 2 would drive measurable increase in visitation at Vail Mountain Resort. Additionally, due to the limited space available at Golden Peak, the area would not be able to accommodate a considerable increase in athletes. The opening of additional terrain would not increase the Manage-To threshold of 19,900 skiers. Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be any increases to vehicular traffic on I-70 or the South Frontage Road related to the Proposed Action. Current congested conditions during peak travel times on I-70 and the South Frontage Road are expected to persist independent of the project.

34 Ibid. 35 Town of Vail, 2009

Final Environmental Impact Statement 41 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Therefore, it is expected that the Manage-To threshold would be exceeded three to five times per year by 2035, in line with the No Action Alternative. Vail Mountain Resort and the Forest Service will meet at the end of any day that exceeds the Manage-To threshold to evaluate the day’s operations, including traffic circulation. Manage-To actions may be implemented as warranted by the review of the subject day’s operational impacts.

Under the Proposed Action, Vail Mountain Resort plans to host additional training and competitions. However, as Vail Mountain Resort already hosts many similarly sized events throughout the year, the ski resort and the parking facilities (including overflow parking) are prepared to handle such visitation. These situations would continue to be managed on a case by case basis.

Construction The construction of structures and other elements of the Proposed Action would necessitate truck trips for both tree and debris removal as well as bringing materials to the mountain. Construction vehicle traffic represents a temporary increase in traffic that would occur during a set construction period. Most of these vehicle trips would occur on existing access roads in the ski resort. Much of the construction-related traffic is expected to occur on summer weekdays, when the roads are less busy. The Town of Vail requires construction projects to have an employee transportation and parking plan to reduce the impact on the Town roads and parking structures. 3.2.4 Cumulative Effects 3.2.4.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for traffic and parking resources extend from Vail Mountain Resort’s founding as a resort in 1962 through the foreseeable future in which Vail Mountain Resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for traffic and parking resources include the roadways in the Town of Vail and I-70.

3.2.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document. The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on traffic, parking, and access: • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects

Alternative 2 is not intended to induce additional visitation at Vail related to traffic and parking in the Town of Vail or in Eagle County. However, other projects in the area would result in changes from the current conditions. These developments and effects within the Analysis Area are discussed below.

42 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In a cumulative context, and by design, Forest Service decisions within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area spanning five decades have dramatically altered the recreational setting at the resort, culminating in the developed, four-season recreational experience that exists today. These decisions date back to the original Forest Service approvals for constructing lift and trail systems within the SUP area in 1962, when the resort opened with two chairlifts, one gondola, and a $5 daily lift ticket.

Notably, although not a Forest Service project, the opening of the Eisenhower Tunnel in 1973 greatly improved access to mountain towns and national forests (including ski areas) in Summit and Eagle Counties from Front Range communities. Over the years, people living in the expanding Front Range communities have increasingly looked to the mountains for weekend recreational opportunities, creating traffic congestion on I-70.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have potential to affect traffic volumes on I-70 and Vail Valley Drive include improvements by the Town of Vail and Vail Mountain Resort and the ongoing improvements and modifications to I-70 being conducted by CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future include the CDOT I-70 Programmatic EIS, Town of Vail roadway improvements, Red Sandstone Elementary School parking structure and Ski and Snowboard Club Vail clubhouse construction.

The direct and indirect effects analysis indicates that increases in skier visitation under the Proposed Action would result in an inconsequential impact on traffic volumes on I-70. However, CDOT and the FHA began analyzing alternatives for the I-70 Mountain Corridor in January 2000 in order to address the underlying need to reduce congestion and to improve mobility and accessibility on I-70 between Glenwood Springs and C-470. The I-70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic EIS was undertaken because existing congestion along I-70 is degrading the accessibility of mountain travel for Colorado residents, tourists, and businesses, with projected increases in travel demand over the next twenty-five years and beyond. The Programmatic EIS calls for highway improvements such as road widening and express lanes near Town of Vail, non-infrastructure related components such as measures to encourage public transit and driver education, and an Advanced Guideway System within the corridor.

The 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update called for various improvements to relieve the traffic congestion along the South Frontage Road between Vail Road and Ford Park. The plan proposes prohibiting turning left from Vail Valley Drive onto the South Frontage Road and adding a continuous right turn lane along the South Frontage Road onto Vail Valley Drive. Additionally, providing a police officer at the Village Structure during evening peak hours would serve as a manual traffic signal when necessary.

The Town of Vail has partnered with Vail Resorts and Eagle County School District on a new parking structure at Red Sandstone Elementary School. The plans call for a 160-space parking structure at the school site off the North Frontage Road. Forty spaces would be reserved for school uses, but only on weekdays during the school year. The remainder would provide parking for Vail Mountain Resort guests, employees, and residents.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 43 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Ski and Snowboard Club Vail is currently constructing a new clubhouse in the same location as the past clubhouse on Vail Valley Drive. The 28,000-square foot building would be five floors with the third and fourth floors dedicated to residential use. The project is not intended to significantly change existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of the clubhouse. Parking spaces are included in the plans. The project is anticipated to be ready for the 2018/19 winter season. 3.2.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources have been identified that may impact the traffic and parking resources in association with the alternatives analyzed in this document. 3.3 Scenery Resources 3.3.1 Scope of the Analysis Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area and adjacent private land constitute the Analysis Area for scenery resources. Analysis of the aesthetic environment requires an evaluation of the Analysis Area’s ability to absorb the effects of both historic and ongoing human modification. Slope, natural vegetation types and patterns, topography, and viewing distance are important factors in this analysis. Development of skier facilities, infrastructure, and developed trails on the NFS and private lands within Vail Mountain Resort has occurred over the past five decades, over which time the area has been managed as a year-round recreation site. The aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes within the Project Area are considered in relation to the overall existing development/recreational theme of Vail Mountain Resort and Town of Vail. Vail Mountain Resort has developed into a concentrated year-round resort, and due to its nature as a developed ski resort, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of viewers expect it to appear as such.

As indicated in Chapter 1, two critical viewpoints were identified by the ID Team as appropriate for assessing the existing, as well as potentially altered, aesthetic quality of the Project Area. These viewpoints include: • From Red Sandstone Road (looking southeast) • From I-70 at exit 176 (looking southeast)

Two visual simulations were produced in conjunction with this analysis to depict the anticipated changes that would occur to scenery resources as a result of the Proposed Action (refer to Figure 3.3-1 and Figure 3.3-2). 3.3.1.1 Regulatory Setting White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Under Scenery Management, the Forest Plan does not include any standards; however, it does lay out several guidelines. The Scenery Management guidelines that are relevant to the Golden Peak Improvements Project are as follows:36

36 USDA Forest Service, 2002

44 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Management activities should be designed and implemented to achieve, at minimum, the level of scenic integrity shown on the scenic integrity objective map. • Plan, design, and locate vegetation manipulation on a scale that retains the color and texture of the landscape character, borrowing directional emphasis of form and line from natural features. • Choose facility and structure design, scale, color of materials, location, and orientation to meet the scenic integrity objective on the Scenic Integrity Objective Map. • Facilities, structures, and towers with exteriors consisting of galvanized metal or other reflective surfaces will be treated or painted dark non-reflective colors that blend with the forest background to meet an average neutral value of 4.5 or less as measured on the Munsell neutral scale.

The desired condition for management area prescription 8.25 emphasizes the importance of integrating development with appropriate land and resource management strategies. “Protection of scenic values is emphasized through application of basic landscape aesthetics and design principles, integrated with forest management and development objectives. Reasonable efforts are made to limit the visibility of structures, ski lifts, roads, utilities, buildings, signs, and other man-made facilities by locating them behind landform features, by adhering to color or design standards, or by screening them behind existing vegetation.”37 While efforts are made to preserve some level of scenic integrity on NFS lands guided by management area prescription 8.25, it is understood that these are not pristine environments.

Three of the infrastructure guidelines in management area prescription 8.25 are relevant for management of scenery resources:38 • Facilities are designed with an architectural theme intended to blend facilities with the natural environment. • Vegetation is retained to screen facilities from key viewpoints. • Roads are designed to minimize visual and resource impacts. They are constructed and maintained with good alignments and grades that minimize erosion.

Scenery Management System As indicated in the Forest Plan for management area prescription 8.25, the SIO for the Project Area is Very Low. This SIO refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” Although the SIO is Very Low, the goal is to achieve a higher SIO or to appear less altered. The Very Low SIO is defined as:39 Very Low scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles within or

37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 45 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

outside the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition.

Additional information regarding the Scenery Management System (SMS), including distance zones, are detailed in the Landscape Aesthetic Handbook.40

All four distance zones are applicable to this project. Recreationists within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area perceive the natural and altered scenic environment in the immediate foreground, foreground and middleground distance zones. The critical viewpoints for the Golden Peak Improvements Project are along the I-70 corridor between East and West Vail, within the foreground and middleground distance zones. From the perspectives of the critical viewpoints (mostly seen by motorists on I-70), the view to the south of Vail Mountain Resort’s developed chairlift and trail network is one of the dominant components of the visual environment. Backcountry recreationists in the nearby Eagles Nest and Holy Cross wilderness areas can also see Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area in the middleground and background distance zones; however, these wilderness areas experience substantially less visitation than other places that have a view of the Project Area. The Built Environment Image Guide The Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) provides a guide for construction of administrative and recreation buildings, landscape structures, site furnishings, structures on roads and trails, and signs installed or operated by the Forest Service, its cooperators, and permittees. Additional information can be found in the BEIG.41

Vail Mountain Resort has also created its own set of design standards for facilities across the mountain. Referred to as the Vail Mountain Design Guidelines, these design standards ensure that facilities at Vail Mountain Resort are constructed to represent an appropriate architectural theme for the area and comply with the BEIG. Vail Mountain Resort continually coordinates with the Forest Service during architectural design and construction of new facilities. There are several examples of facilities at Vail Mountain Resort that incorporate direction provided by the Vail Mountain Design Guidelines and are consistent with the BEIG, including but not limited to Two Elk Lodge, The 10th at Mid-Vail, and Belle’s Camp. 3.3.2 Affected Environment 3.3.2.1 Scenic Characteristics of Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area The cultural landscape in the modern Eagle Valley is, and has always been, defined by recreation, which began in the 1960s. The evolution of Vail Mountain Resort into a world class, four-season resort typifies this setting. The development of trails, chairlifts, infrastructure, and other skier facilities has occurred on NFS lands at the resort since its inception in 1962. Since that time, roughly 5,500 acres of skiable terrain have been developed on NFS lands within Vail Mountain Resort’s 12,353-acre SUP area. The resort’s skiable terrain is currently serviced by 22 aerial chairlifts and 9 surface/conveyor lifts. Developed skiing

40 USDA Forest Service, 1995a 41 USDA Forest Service, 2001; https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/beig/

46 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

terrain at Vail Mountain Resort exists within forested areas and open bowls with 193 named trails. Thus, recreation contributes heavily to the sense of place and scenery.

Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area can be segmented into three distinct areas: the front side, the back bowls; and Blue Sky Basin. This analysis focuses on the front side where Golden Peak is located. It is the most developed area of the ski resort with 15 lifts, defined trails, numerous guest service facilities, and maintenance buildings. While guests enjoy scenic views of Eagles Nest Wilderness and the surrounding NFS lands from the front side, the human-built environment is an unavoidable component of the front side view. Vail Mountain Resort currently meets the SIO standard of Very Low.

The most readily visible portions of chairlift and trail networks on NFS lands within the SUP area are on the north facing slopes of Vail Mountain Resort, which are visible to east- and west-bound travelers on I- 70. Most of the foreground to middleground area and the valley floor are privately owned. These areas are dominated by the four lanes of I-70 and the Town of Vail, which has gradually been built up over time. The buildings now consist of five or six floor buildings, mostly hotels and condominiums, to accommodate guests visiting the area. Refer to Figure 3.3-2 for a depiction of the valley floor. The majority of Vail Mountain Resort’s front side chairlift and trail network, as well as parking and guest service facilities, are seen in the foreground and middleground from I-70. All ski resort-related guest and parking facilities are located on private lands outside the SUP area.

The topography of the SUP area is comprised of steep slopes, large open bowls, basins, glades, and chutes. A well-balanced mix of predominantly south- and north-facing slopes characterize Vail Mountain Resort with distinct ridge lines, providing definition to the natural bowls and developed ski runs. Elevations at Vail Mountain Resort range from 8,300 feet in the base area up to 11,600 feet at the eastern extent of the SUP boundary. The mountaintops at Vail Mountain Resort afford guests panoramic views that include the Gore Range, Eagles Nest Wilderness, Mount of the Holy Cross, the Tenmile Range, and surrounding NFS lands.

Vegetation cover throughout the SUP area varies due to the broad range in elevation, slope aspect, and gradient. Plants that occur within the alpine zones (11,000 to 11,500 feet) and subalpine zones (9,000 to 11,500 feet) of Colorado characterize the SUP area. Vegetation within Vail Mountain Resort’s alpine zone is largely dominated by various types of low-lying grasses and forbs. At the lower elevations, below 11,000 feet, vegetation cover becomes denser with canopy cover varying with elevation. Dominant species include Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, sub-alpine fir, and aspen. The distinctive vegetation patterns typical of cut ski slopes contribute to the scenic character of Vail Mountain Resort. Refer to Figure 3.3-1 for a visual simulation of the vegetation and topography of Golden Peak from Red Sandstone Road.

3.3.2.2 Scenic Characteristics of Areas Proposed for Improvement The Golden Peak area is located on the eastern edge of Vail Mountain Resort’s front side within the SUP area and is currently undeveloped to the summit of Golden Peak. This area is clearly visible in the foreground and middleground distance zones to the Town of Vail (north of I-70), specifically from Red Sandstone Road, Potato Patch area, Sandstone Drive, and to travelers both east-bound and west-bound on I-70. Substantial vegetation is currently visible within the Golden Peak area; aspen trees dominate the

Final Environmental Impact Statement 47 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

area, with sparse lodgepole pine present as well. Substantial ski resort development is visible along the front side of Vail Mountain Resort, to the west of Golden Peak. Slopes within the Golden Peak area range from 8 to 49 percent, with an average gradient of 25 percent. 3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.3.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action No changes would occur within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area that would affect the scenic environment. Therefore, management of the SUP area would continue to meet the SIO of Very Low. Previously-approved projects on NFS lands may be implemented in the future, which would alter the scenic resource within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area. Implementation of previously-approved projects would be consistent with required PDC of the approval to protect the scenic integrity and will meet the Vail Mountain Resort Design Guidelines, BEIG guidelines and accessibility guidelines.

3.3.3.2 Alternative 2 –Proposed Action Implementation of Alternative 2 would not represent a substantial scenic alteration to the developed character of Vail Mountain Resort. The SUP area would remain in compliance with the SIO of Very Low. BMPs and PDC for scenery resources such as blending developments with the natural landscape character, installation of underground utilities, edge feathering, regrading and revegetation would be applied where appropriate and in such a way as to minimize associated impacts to scenery resources.

Two visual simulations (Figure 3.3-1 and Figure 3.3-2) of Golden Peak area were created for Alternative 2. Visual simulations capture northwest views from Red Sandstone Road across the valley to Golden Peak, and from the Vail Village exit of eastbound I-70 to Golden Peak. The distance from each viewpoint to Golden Peak ranges from 1.9 miles to 2.5 miles. In the simulations, the developed and undeveloped portions of the ski resort are seen in the middleground view.

The proposed additions to the Golden Peak area would be located on a moderately steep and forested section of the front side, near the base area. Golden Peak improvements would include 42 acres of trails and one surface lift. As shown in the in the upper-right corner of the visual simulations (refer to Figure 3.3-1 and Figure 3.3-2), the Proposed Action would be distinguishable; however, the trails would not include straight edges and the lift is not discernable from these distances. The venue would be noticeable but would not dominate the landscape as Vail Mountain Resort’s front side is the most developed portion of the ski resort with 15 chairlifts, developed trails, numerous guest service facilities, and maintenance buildings. To reduce the scenic prominence of the changes that would occur with the Golden Peak Improvements Project, terrain and infrastructure would replicate the natural form, line, and color of the existing developed area.

As depicted in the photo simulations, removal of trees to accommodate ski trails would be noticeable at the eastern edge of the front side of Vail Mountain Resort. The Golden Peak Improvements Project would necessitate removal of approximately 42 acres of tree removal on NFS land; grading associated with development of ski terrain and lift corridor; installation and use of snowmaking equipment; and construction of operations and maintenance facilities. Once revegetation is complete and vegetation

48 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

matures over a period of three to five years, disturbances to scenery resources would be minimized, and conditions would blend with the rest of the front side of Vail Mountain Resort.

In the photo simulations, elements of the Proposed Action are visible. The most noticeable elements are the ski trails and mountain access road. The surface lift is faintly visible, as well as operations and maintenance facilities. These aspects of the Proposed Action would represent unsubstantial, incremental effects to the scenic integrity of Vail Mountain Resort. The development would not cause an inconsistency with the SUP area’s SIO of Very Low and scenic impacts would be similar to those caused by existing ski terrain, chairlifts, and other structures in the vicinity of the Project Area.

While this project would result in an increased number of trails and infrastructure visible from the Town of Vail, Red Sandstone Road, Potato Patch area, Sandstone Drive, and the I-70 corridor, the human-built environment is unavoidable on the front side of Vail Mountain Resort, and implementation of the Proposed Action would be in compliance with the existing SIO of Very Low. BMPs and PDC would be applied where appropriate and in such a way as to minimize associated impacts to scenery resources.

All proposed facilities would comply with Vail Mountain Resort Design Guidelines and be reviewed as part of the WRNF Facility Design Review process. 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects Evidence of developed recreation at Vail Mountain Resort dominates the scenic characteristic of the Eagle Valley. As noted previously, historic development of the resort for chairlift-served skiing has involved clearing of trails, grading, lifts construction, roads, and buildings since the mid-1960s. While these alterations have undoubtedly changed the scenic character of the landscape over time, many of which pre- date both the Visual Management System (VMS) and SMS guidance, the SUP area is compliant with the SIO of Very Low established for the area. Some of the buildings at Vail Mountain Resort were constructed in the mid-1960s to early 1990s, which pre-dated the BEIG. However, in conjunction with the BEIG and the Vail Mountain Resort Design Guidelines, the resort will increasingly move toward a consistent architectural theme as new facilities are constructed or remodeled. Additionally, the mountain pine beetle epidemic which has killed thousands of pine trees throughout Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP, has affected the scenic characteristics of the Project Area. This will continue until understory vegetation becomes dominant and dead standing trees either fall or are removed.

As discussed under the No Action Alternative, previously-approved, unimplemented projects that could be pursued regardless of which alternative is selected include: the 2011 Vail Ski Area Forest Health Environmental Assessment (EA); the 2009 Vail Ski Area Improvements Final EIS; and the 2006 Vail Ski Area West Lionshead Lift EA. Cumulatively, implementation of any or all of these projects would further incrementally affect the scenic characteristics of the SUP area regardless of which alternative is selected.

3.3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in the cumulative effects discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on scenery resources within the Vail Mountain Resort SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 49 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for scenery resources extend from Vail Mountain Resort’s inception as a resort in 1962 through the foreseeable future in which the resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for scenery resources are limited to public and private lands in the vicinity of Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area.

3.3.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment. The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on scenery: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects

Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects have the potential to impact scenery resources there. These projects include but are not limited to chairlift replacements or installations, development of facilities that provide summer recreation opportunities, and various terrain modifications. These types of projects would increase or alter the developed nature of the Analysis Area in some way. Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects that could occur within and outside of Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area have the potential to impact scenery resources there. These forest health restoration projects include but are not limited to the removal of dead and dying lodgepole pines infested with the mountain pine beetle, removal of other hazardous fuels, and vegetation management projects specifically intended to improve habitat for species like the greater sage-grouse, mule deer, and the Brewer’s and sage sparrows. While these types of projects would improve forest health, they would introduce management activities to forested lands and, therefore, would reduce the natural, untouched character and scenery of certain NFS lands. Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects have the potential to impact scenery resources there. These projects include but are not limited to extension of existing trails, construction of affordable and permanent housing units, and upgrades or replacement of the existing Ski and Snowboard Club Vail clubhouse. These types of projects would increase or alter the developed nature of the Analysis Area. If any of the projects discussed above, when implemented, could be visible from within the Analysis Area, alterations would occur to the views within the Analysis Area; therefore, scenery impacts would occur. Depending on the viewpoint, these impacts would range from negligible changes to substantial changes in scenery resources. When added to the scenery resource impacts that would occur as a result of the Proposed Action and considering that the Analysis Area is already heavily developed, these

50 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

cumulative effects would mostly constitute negligible, incremental changes to scenery resources in the Analysis Area. 3.3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Additional developed terrain and infrastructure in previously undisturbed portions of the SUP area would represent irretrievable effects to scenery resources on Golden Peak because user experiences of the scenery resources that would be altered as a result of the Proposed Action could never be regained. However, this commitment of scenery resources is not considered irreversible in the long term, due to reclamation and mitigation work that could occur in the future. For example, facilities could be removed, and the affected environment restored to its natural setting through revegetation and reclamation over time. 3.4 Social and Economic Resources 3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis The scope of this analysis for social and economic resources summarizes current social and economic data specific to the proposed project at Golden Peak, including economic and employment considerations and housing and population trends within Eagle County. 3.4.2 Affected Environment Skier visitation is a factor in the overall growth of the county and has an influence on economic and social trends in the region. Eagle County’s regional population fluctuates throughout the year, increasing particularly during the ski season. The population of Town of Vail nearly doubles at peak times during the ski season, with 5,000 part-time residents in addition to the 5,305 permanent residents.42 However, there are other macroeconomic and social factors that affect population and housing trends in Eagle County. These factors include availability of affordable housing, number of year-round and seasonal employees, and households living in overcrowded conditions, as well as the combined future demand for employees.

The local and regional populations are key considerations in ski resort operations as they relate to both annual visitation and employment. In 2017 Eagle County had a year-round resident population of approximately 54,843, up slightly from 51,520 in 2009, an increase of 6 percent. By 2025, Eagle County’s population is expected to reach 62,628, or an increase of 14 percent over the next eight years.43 Current and projected population data for Eagle County are shown in Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1. Eagle County Population % Change Town 2015 2017 2020 2025 (2015–2025) Eagle County 53,320 54,842 57,571 62,628 17.5

Source: DOLA 2017a

42 Town of Vail, 2017c 43 DOLA, 2017a

Final Environmental Impact Statement 51 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.1 Economic and Employment Considerations The total number of jobs in Eagle County in 2016 was 40,912, as determined by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.44 The Colorado Workforce Center forecasts Eagle County annual job growth at 2 percent over the next ten years. Annual job growth has been between 3 and 4 percent since 2011 but is slowing and is expected to stabilize at 2 percent.45

The contribution of tourism in the State of Colorado is substantial, as visitors spend $19.7 billion annually, generating $1.2 billion in local and state tax revenue in 2016.46 Colorado is one of the top 10 tourist-attracting states in the country and has the most ski area visits of any state.47 Colorado ski areas contribute approximately $4.8 billion in annual economic impact, which is more than gaming, cultural related events in Denver, and commercial river rafting combined.48 Skiing is Eagle County’s major draw, as indicated by the fact that about 67 percent of the Town of Vail’s sales tax revenue was generated from November through April.49 The Town of Vail’s sales tax for all of 2016 was 25.8 million.50 Destination skiers are major contributors in this regard. In addition to generating revenue, the ski industry also sustains Colorado’s job market, supporting approximately 46,000 year-round jobs, or about 28 percent of all tourism-supported jobs.51

At the peak of ski season, Vail Mountain Resort may employ up to 2,700 people; in 2017 Vail Mountain Resort employed 2,053 full-time equivalent personnel. During the summer, a limited number of restaurants and chairlifts operate, so resort employment decreases to approximately 500 staff.52

Ski resort tourism spending plays an important role in Eagle County’s employment and income. In Eagle County, 17,719 jobs, or 43 percent of all county jobs, were related to tourism in 2016.53 As of 2015 the Town of Vail 1.65 million winter visitors each year, stimulating employment at the resort itself, as well as in areas such as lodging, restaurants, and retail throughout Eagle County.54 The Town of Vail has been marketing to attract visitors in the summer and shoulder seasons, and has seen an increase in summer lodging, meals, and entertainment spending. As an example, in 2014, 1.1 million people visited the Town of Vail during the summer.55

44 DOLA, 2017b 45 Colorado Workforce Center, 2016 46 Dean Runyan Associates, 2017 47 Longwoods, 2017 48 Colorado Ski Country, 2015 49 Steamboat Springs, 2016 50 Town of Vail, 2017d 51 Colorado Ski Country, 2015 52 Vail Resorts, 2007 53 DOLA, 2017c 54 Town of Vail, 2015 55 Ibid.

52 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.2 Housing The local and regional population represents the number of potential local users of a resort, as well as the number of people available to work at the resort. Eagle County’s population is 54,842 and is growing slowly. Between 2010 and 2016, the population grew by 3.6 percent.56 Eagle County had 31,555 housing units in 2016, an increase of 4.8 percent from 2010.57

The housing stock has an impact on affordability and availability of housing for all citizens in the community, including resort and non-resort employees. 93.1 percent of Eagle County’s workforce lived in the county in 2014, with an additional 6.9 percent commuting in. This is an increase from 2006, when 73 percent of the county’s workforce lived in the county and 27 percent commuted in.58 Providing affordable housing for the workforce is a major priority for both the public and private sector, as 70 percent of those commuting in would live in the county if they could afford it.59

As of 2016, 60 percent of the county’s 31,555 are occupied as a primary residence. That proportion varies throughout the county, with only 31.2 percent of housing units in the Town of Vail occupied as a primary residence.60 Countywide, primary ownership was down about 3 percent from 2007, indicating a slight rise in second home ownership.

In 2016 the average sales price for a housing unit in Eagle County was $976,041, a decline of 31 percent since 2008, but very close to the price in 2010. The average sales price of single family residences has fallen 19 percent since 2008 (although increased slightly since 2013) while the average sales price of a multi-family unit has fallen by 48 percent since 2008 but has been stable since 2011.61 The median home value in the county, which is less influenced by luxury home sales, was $438,500, or a decrease of 21 percent from 2010.62 The pace of residential construction in the county has slowed dramatically, from 871 units per year in 2006 to 157 in 2016. The pace has increased slightly in recent years, since only 83 units were constructed countywide in 2011.63

Rent in the county has remained relatively constant since 2010, with a median 2016 monthly rent of $1,284, compared to $1,225 in 2010. Rental units represent 18 percent of the total county housing stock or 31 percent of occupied (primary residence) units. However, 44 percent of renters paid at least 30 percent of their household income towards rent in 2016, a slight decrease from 47 percent in 2010. County homeowners also pay a substantial portion of their income towards their mortgage. In 2016, 38 percent of homeowners with a mortgage paid at least 30 percent of their household income towards their mortgage. As spending above 30 percent of household income is considered a cost burden, creating affordable rental and owner units is a major priority for the county.64

56 DOLA, 2017a 57 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a 58 Eagle County, 2016a 59 Eagle County, 2012 60 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a 61 Land Title, 2017 62 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a 63 Land Title, 2017 64 Eagle County, 2016a

Final Environmental Impact Statement 53 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Employee/Affordable Housing In 2015 Eagle County determined an immediate need for 2,307 affordable housing units to catch up to existing demand. At that time, it was estimated that almost 12,000 new units would be needed by 2025. The lack of affordable housing has led to overcrowding in shared units, rents requiring a high percentage of wages, and worker shortages due to the sheer lack of housing. A 2013 survey showed that 53 percent of County employers believe that finding housing is difficult for their employees.65

Eagle County owns or manages four affordable/low income housing communities in addition to privately owned affordable housing complexes throughout the county. In 2014 Eagle County amended their Affordable Housing Guidelines for residential and commercial developments that require Eagle County permits.

The Town of Vail passed an Employee Housing Strategic Plan in 2008 to ensure that deed restricted housing exists for at least 30 percent of the workforce within the Town of Vail. The “Inclusionary Housing Program” requires that 10 percent of new residential square footage in high density areas to be employee housing with deed restrictions and new commercial developments provide employee housing for at least 20 percent of the employees generated. Incentives and density bonuses are available for developments that exceed the minimum affordable housing requirements of the code.66 Vail Housing 2027, a visioning plan passed in 2016, stated the goal of town acquisition of 1,000 additional deed restricted housing units by the year 2027.67 As of 2017, there are 697 deed-restricted rental and for-sale employee units within the Town of Vail and an additional 32 for-sale deed-restricted units under construction. The Town also has 60 rooms available to Town of Vail employees.68

Employee Parking There are many options for employee parking at a variety of price points in Town of Vail. Many employees access Vail Mountain Resort via ECO Transit or the Town of Vail bus system. Additionally, Vail Resorts offers discounted bus passes to its seasonal and full-time employees. The Town of Vail currently provides 195 employee parking spaces for employees at the soccer field and Ford Park at $200 for the season. Additional spaces are available for a higher price at the Lionshead and Village structures. Town of Vail and Eagle County residents and employees receive a discount when parking in the Lionshead and Village structures. There are also incentives to encourage employee carpooling.

3.4.2.3 Environmental Justice In 1994 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations to ensure such populations are not subject to disproportionately high levels of environmental risk.69 Executive Order 12898 provides that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and

65 Eagle County, 2014 66 Town of Vail, 2008 67 Town of Vail, 2016 68 Town of Vail, 2017e 69 59 Federal Register 7629, 1994; Disproportionately is a generic term used to define the adverse effects of environmental actions that burden minority and/or low-income populations at a higher rate than the general public.

54 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Executive Order 12898 makes it clear that its provisions apply fully to programs involving Native Americans.

Eagle County is becoming increasingly ethnically and racially diverse. 67 percent of the county’s population is non-Hispanic white (a decrease of 7 percent since 2000). The largest change has been the growth of the Hispanic community, now 29.7 percent of the population (an increase from 13.3 percent in 1990 and 23.2 percent in 2000). Other groups, each contributing 1 percent or less of the population in Eagle County, are: Black, American Indian and Eskimo, Asian, and Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. People of two or more races are 1.9 percent of the population.70 3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Economic Impacts Population growth both in Eagle County and Colorado’s Front Range communities, combined with I-70 improvements, would likely increase skier visitation at Vail Mountain Resort in the future. Selection of the No Action Alternative is not expected to alter socioeconomic factors that currently affect Vail Mountain Resort.

Employment Impacts Selection of the No Action Alternative would not alter Vail Mountain Resort’s current operations; therefore, no change in direct or indirect employment is anticipated to result in conjunction with this alternative.

Employee Housing/Parking Eagle County and the Town of Vail are working to provide the necessary affordable housing. Vail Resorts has developed seasonal and long-term employee housing to help accommodate the employees it requires through the season, and plans to continue these developments, as necessary, even under the No Action Alternative. Vail Resorts would continue to provide employee parking, for a fee, at Ford Park and the soccer field under the No Action Alternative.

Environmental Justice No low income or minority populations were identified as potentially being disproportionately affected in terms of Environmental Justice issues. Therefore, no impacts on environmental justice related to the No Action Alternative were identified. The No Action Alternative is in compliance with Executive Order 12898.

70 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b

Final Environmental Impact Statement 55 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Economic Impacts Due to the scale of the Proposed Action, implementation of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to affect the socioeconomic character in Town of Vail. The resort’s Manage-To number of 19,900 is determined by an agreement with the Town of Vail, and Vail Resorts has not proposed to increase it under the Proposed Action.

Employment Impacts Construction of project components would occur across multiple construction seasons (e.g., lift, snowmaking infrastructure, and clearing terrain), resulting in short-term, seasonal increases in employment in Eagle County over approximately eighteen months. However, due to the scale of the project (42 acres), construction-related employment is not anticipated to generate any measurable change in local area population or housing growth trends. No substantial secondary and/or induced employment related to construction projects is anticipated.

Direct, seasonal employment at Vail Mountain Resort is anticipated to increase by approximately 11 positions as a result of the improvements in the Proposed Action. This increase of 11 employees compared to approximately 2,000 current full-time employees represents a less than 1 percent increase in total Vail Mountain Resort employees. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in negligible contributions to additional direct and indirect employment within the community when compared to the more than 17,000 tourism- and resort-related jobs in Eagle County.

Additional events and early-season training could have a slight benefit to the local economy but would be in keeping with the events that Vail Mountain Resort already hosts, such as competitions and early-season training. New events based on improved terrain may result in additional visitation to the Town of Vail and the ski resort during the winter months (refer to Section 3.1 for more details on the changes to recreational amenities based on the Proposed Action).

Golden Peak has limited space available for terrain and cannot accommodate a considerable increase in athletes. Given the anticipated levels of visitation and spending at Town of Vail, and in the region, there would be no measurable increases in the regional economy and labor force as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Employee Housing/Parking As discussed under the No Action Alternative, Vail Resorts has developed employee housing for a portion of the employees they require. Additionally, employees obtain short- and long-term housing throughout Eagle County. Due to the small number of additional employees resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action, there would be negligible change to the demand for affordable housing in Eagle County from the Proposed Action. Similarly, the minimal increase in employees would not affect the demand for employee parking at Vail Mountain Resort.

56 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Justice The level of environmental risk to humans is too low to measure since no low income or minority populations were identified as potentially being disproportionately. Therefore, no environmental justice impacts from the Proposed Action were identified. The Proposed Action is in compliance with Executive Order 12898. 3.4.4 Cumulative Effects The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.4.4.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of social and economic resources extend from 1962 when Vail Mountain Resort first opened through the foreseeable future in which the resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of social and economic resources on Vail Mountain Resort, the Town of Vail as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.4.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment.

The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on socioeconomics: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects

Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects have the potential to impact socioeconomic resources there. These projects include but are not limited to chairlift replacements or installations, development of facilities that provide summer recreation opportunities, and various terrain modifications. These types of projects would improve the recreational opportunities available at Vail Mountain Resort, which could result in increased visitation and associated tourism-related economic development.

Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects have the potential to impact socioeconomic resources there. These projects include but are not limited to extension of existing trails, construction of affordable and permanent housing units, upgrades or replacement of the existing Ski and Snowboard Club Vail clubhouse, and identification of a strategy for the Town of Vail parking plan. These

Final Environmental Impact Statement 57 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

types of projects would improve circulation, visitor housing opportunities, and recreational opportunities in the Analysis Area, which could result in increased visitation and/or changes in employment trends.

If any of the projects discussed above change visitation or employment trends within the Analysis Area, socioeconomic impacts could occur. When added to the socioeconomic resource impacts that could occur because of the projects above, the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action would result in minor, incremental changes to socioeconomics resources in the Analysis Area. 3.4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of socioeconomic resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. This is because there are no measurable economic impacts, employee housing/parking impacts, or environmental justice impacts. Although 11 new employees are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action, this change would not be considered an irretrievable or irreversible commitment of socioeconomic resources because it would not result in measurable, indirect socioeconomic effects throughout Eagle County. 3.5 Air Quality 3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis The purpose of this air quality analysis is to assess impacts that air emissions from activities related to the Golden Peak Improvements Project would have on air quality and climate change in the region.

Climate change and air quality are intricately related. Although climate change is a global issue, the spatial scope of this analysis is the mountainous regions of Colorado and adjacent areas in the central Rocky Mountains of Colorado with similar climate, ecology, wildlife, and plant species. The temporal scope of this analysis spans from the resort’s inception in 1962 through 2050, the date climate change literature uses as a benchmark in discussion of climate change effects.71 3.5.2 Federal, State, and Local Policy and Guidance Due to its importance to human health, visibility, and the health of the natural environment, there are numerous regulations that support monitoring and improvement of air quality at national, regional, and local levels. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments established Class I, II, and III areas, where emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are restricted. Mandatory Class I federal lands include various national wilderness areas, national parks, national memorials, and some international parks based on acreage or existence prior to 1978. Federal land managers are charged with direct responsibility to protect the air quality of Class I lands. (For this analysis, nearby Class I and Class II areas are described in more detail in Section 3.5.3.1).

71 Gordon and Ojima, 2015

58 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

At a regional level, the WRNF developed an Air Resources Management Plan in 2009.72 The plan is intended to provide guidance and information for land managers and the public. It identifies potential regional sources of air pollution that may impact the forest, and specifies standards and monitoring especially for designated wilderness areas in the forest.

The State of Colorado air quality regulations also apply to this proposed project. The State of Colorado supports Class I and Class II designations for the locations listed above. The nearest PM10 (particulate matter <10 microns) attainment area is in Steamboat, Colorado.73 State of Colorado air quality regulations include air quality standards, designations and emission budgets for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, odors, wood burning, motor vehicle emissions, etc.74

Eagle County has guidance on outdoor air quality, including wood burning, open burning, and fugitive dust.75 Per Eagle County policy, anyone who disturbs 5 acres or more during land development must obtain a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division. Eagle County and the Town of Vail are also signatories to the Climate Action Plan for the Eagle County Community, which includes a countywide vision and strategies for GHG emission reduction and other climate action goals.76

Air quality and climate change are related because air pollutants can act as GHGs. As an agency, the Forest Service has guidance for how to incorporate climate change into NEPA analyses. Per this national guidance, two types of climate change effects will be considered: (1) the effect of a proposed project on climate change, including short- and long-term GHG emissions; and (2) the effect of climate change on a proposed project.77 Both these types of effects are considered in the impact analysis below. 3.5.3 Affected Environment 3.5.3.1 Regional Air Quality Colorado is home to numerous state and national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. Among these are a number of federal Class I areas. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments established Class I, II, and III areas, where emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are restricted. The restrictions are most severe in Class I areas and are progressively more lenient in Class II and III areas. Mandatory Class I federal lands include various national wilderness areas, national parks, national memorials, and some international parks based on acreage or existence prior to 1978. Federal land managers are charged with direct responsibility to protect the air quality and AQRVs, including visibility, of Class I lands and to consider, in consultation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), whether proposed industrial facilities will have an adverse impact on these values. Federal land managers are also required to determine whether existing industrial sources of air pollution must be retrofitted to reduce

72 USDA Forest Service, 2009d 73 State of Colorado, 2017a 74 State of Colorado, 2017b 75 Eagle County, 2017 76 Eagle County, 2016b 77 USDA Forest Service, 2009c

Final Environmental Impact Statement 59 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

impacts on Class I areas to acceptable levels. The Class I areas within approximately 50 miles of Town of Vail are: • Eagles Nest Wilderness, ~9 miles east-northeast • Flat Tops Wilderness, ~55 miles northwest • Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, ~52 miles southwest

Eagles Nest, Flat Tops, and Maroon Bells-Snowmass wilderness areas are Class I areas in the WRNF. The remainder of the WRNF is a Class II area. The closest large populations centers are Denver (~90 miles to the east) and Grand Junction (~100 miles to the west). Because of the prevailing weather patterns in central Colorado, Golden Peak and the surrounding WRNF lands are much more likely to receive air pollution from the west (Grand Junction) than the east (Front Range and Denver), though it occasionally occurs. Due in part to its population size and nearby oil and gas industry facilities, Grand Junction generally has “moderate” to “good” air quality. The State of Colorado monitors and reports daily highs and current conditions for carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone in Grand Junction.78

The AQRVs for the WRNF include impacts on visibility, odor, water quality, soils, flora, fauna, and cultural resources. Effects on flora are measured on lichen communities in the Flat Tops Wilderness. Water quality is monitored at lakes in wilderness areas on the forest. Visibility is measured at Eagles Nest and Maroon Bells-Snowmass wilderness areas. Detailed trends of AQRVs up until 2007 can be found in the WRNF Air Resource Management Plan.79

Regional Forest Service Class 1 areas such as Maroon Bells-Snowmass, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Mount Zirkel wilderness areas provide insight into nearby air quality trends for a more recent time period. Deciviews are a measure of haze and are used as a proxy for overall air quality. In the period between 2000 and 2015, both wilderness areas showed a substantial improvement in visibility (e.g., a decline in deciview value) with deciview values less than half the national average. For example, in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, in 2001 the national average was 7.1 deciview while the site level was 1.1 deciview, and by 2015, the national average had declined to 5.1 deciview and the site level declined to 0.4 deciview. Similar trends were observed in the Rocky Mountain National Park and Mount Zirkel wilderness areas. During this time period, visibility at these three sites were noted as “significantly improving.”80

NAAQS are often used as a proxy for understanding the relative air quality of a region. Table 3.5-1 lists the current NAAQS that are important for monitoring in Colorado. If an area is not located in a designated non-attainment zone for a certain pollutant, it means that it has concentrations of that pollutant that are below the levels established by the NAAQS.

78 State of Colorado, 2017b 79 USDA Forest Service, 2009d 80 USEPA, 2017

60 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.5-1. Air Quality Assessment in Areas near the Analysis Area Averaging Pollutant NAAQS Level Notes for Pollutant Levels in Eagle County Time

8 hours 9 ppm Eagle County is not located in a designated non- Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 35 ppm attainment area for carbon monoxide.

1 hour 100 ppb Eagle County is not located in a designated non- Nitrogen Dioxide 1 year 0.053 ppm attainment area for nitrogen dioxide. Eagle County is not located in a designated non- Ozone 8 hours 0.070 ppm attainment area ozone. PM2.5 (particulate 1 year 12.0 ug/m3 Eagle County is not located in a designated non- matter of 5 attainment area for PM2.5. microns or less) 24 hours 35 ug/m3 PM10 (particulate Eagle County is not located in a designated non- matter of 10 24 hours 150 ug/m3 attainment area for PM10. microns or less) 1 hour 75 ppb Eagle County is not located in a designated non- Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours 0.5 ppm attainment area for sulfur dioxide. Source: USEPA 2018 Notes: ppb=parts per billion; ppm=parts per million; ug/m3= micrograms per cubic meter

In general, air quality in Eagle County is good as evidenced by its attainment of NAAQS. However, county leadership and the community are concerned about reducing the county’s GHG emissions. In 2016 Eagle County released an emissions and energy inventory from data collected in 2014. Eagle County releases almost 1.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs. The recreation and tourism industries in Eagle County, which includes Vail Mountain Resort, Beaver Creek Resort, and recreation areas located across Eagle County, are local drivers of vehicle emissions.

3.5.3.2 Overview of the Current Climate and Future Climate Projections The climate of Colorado is characterized by frequent sunshine, low humidity, and large temperature variations. Golden Peak ranges in elevation from approximately 8,240 to 9,400 feet above mean sea level. As measured in the Town of Vail, Colorado, the average winter temperature is approximately 20ºF and the average summer temperature is approximately 55ºF. Average annual precipitation in Town of Vail is approximately 23 inches per year.81

The effects of climate change have already been observed in both Colorado and the central Rocky Mountains. In the last fifty years, the annual average temperature in Colorado has increased by 2.5ºF.82 The daily minimum temperatures have warmed more than the daily maximum temperatures, and temperature increases are observed in all seasons, with the highest temperature increases recorded in the summer months. In addition to these temperature increases, the timing of snowmelt and peak runoff has shifted earlier, between one to four weeks with year-to-year variability, over the last thirty years. More

81 NCDC, 2011 82 Lukas et al., 2014

Final Environmental Impact Statement 61 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

frequent soil moisture drought conditions have also been observed in this timeframe, reflecting the warming trends and below average precipitation that have been observed since 2000.

Global change models predict a warming trend will continue into mid-century (2050) and beyond.83 These models are complex, integrated computer simulations of earth’s physical processes that project how the global climate system will respond to increasing GHG concentrations. According to the Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study, completed in 2015, the statewide average annual temperature is projected to change +2.5ºF to +5.0ºF by 2050. Summers are projected to warm more than winters. The models diverge in the precipitation projections from -3 percent to +8 percent; however, there is general agreement that winter precipitation is expected to increase.

Annual temperature and winter temperature modeling undertaken by the Forest Service for the WRNF indicate similar trends: between a +4.5ºF to +5.0ºF increase in both winter and annual average temperatures when comparing historical temperatures to predictions for the year 2080. Likewise, the Forest Service models predict likely increases in both annual and winter precipitation across the Analysis Area.84

A decrease in annual streamflow for rivers is predicted, due to the loss of moisture from warmer snowpack, soils, and vegetation. Dust-on-snow events may cause peak snowmelt to occur between three and six weeks earlier than historic averages. Runoff in central Colorado is predicted to occur earlier, by one to three weeks, resulting in decreasing flows in later summer. The U.S. Global Change Research Program and other scientists predict likely increases in the frequency and severity of heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and extreme precipitation events in Colorado and the American West.85 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.5.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, Vail Mountain Resort resources would remain in their existing conditions and the resort would continue to operate under existing management policies. The contribution of activities at the resort to climate change would remain unchanged. The effects of climate change on Vail Mountain Resort would continue to follow current climate change trends. No new effects from the Proposed Action to GHG emissions or air quality would occur under the No Action Alternative. Vail Mountain Resort would continue to experience changes in the timing and amount of precipitation that falls as snowpack; the timing and duration of the winter season and snowmelt/runoff; and changes to minimum and maximum temperatures due to climate change. Changes to air quality around Vail Mountain Resort would continue without additional influences from the Proposed Action. Ongoing air quality and climate-induced effects would be expected to continue under the No Action Alternative, and could have effects on snowmaking capacity, visibility, visitation season, and ski resort operations.

83 Gordon and Ojima, 2015; Lukas et al., 2014 84 USDA Forest Service, 2017a 85 Lukas et al., 2014; Melillo et al., 2014

62 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.5.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Impacts from Construction and Timber Removal Air quality may be degraded temporarily from truck trips and other vehicle emissions during the timber removal and construction phases of the project. These impacts are anticipated to be small, localized, and short term. Timber removal equipment and construction equipment including trucks and staff vehicles would be the primary sources of these emissions. If prescribed burning is used as part of timber removal activities, it would be conducted under local, state, and federal permits and regulations to minimize air quality degradation. Prescribed burning, like other activities during the construction period, would result in short term and localized air quality impacts.

The Proposed Action would require trucks and other heavy equipment for tree and vegetation removal, construction, staging, and installation of the proposed lift and training infrastructure. This vehicular activity would generate GHG emissions, as would additional electricity consumption during construction.

Impacts from Operation In the long run, air quality degradation and climate change emissions due to the Golden Peak improvements would be small. Electrical use for training, competitions and lift operations would be the primary source of additional, small emissions beyond the current emissions from Vail Mountain Resort. Occasional vehicle use, such as during the summer for maintenance activities, would contribute an incremental amount of GHG emissions from vehicles. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to cause measurable additions to traffic to the ski resort in general (refer to Section 3.2), so additional GHG emissions or air quality degradation is not anticipated from the Proposed Action beyond the traffic- induced congestion that already occurs.

Due to the small scale of the project in comparison with other emissions and sources of degradation to air quality in Eagle County, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to have any effect on the attainment of NAAQS.

The Proposed Action does not violate any guidance set forth in the 2009 WRNF Air Resource Management Plan.86 No measurable impacts on air quality in Class I (wilderness areas) or Class II (the rest of WRNF) in the vicinity would be anticipated from the Proposed Action, nor are there any anticipated impacts to the flora, lichens, or visibility AQRVs or sensitive receptors set forth in the plan.

Impacts of Climate Change on the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is not located in a climatically marginal area and is generally not considered at unreasonable risk. Variability in temperatures, such as minimum low temperatures in the Eagle Valley, may affect the residence time of natural snowfall as well as the capacity of the resort to make artificial snow. Changes in the timing, duration, intensity, and frequency of precipitation may alter the amount of natural snow, artificial snowmaking capacity, and timing of snowmelt each spring, which would affect use of and operations at Golden Peak. Climate change may also affect the duration, timing, and nature of visitation to the Vail Mountain Resort, which in turn may affect the competition operations. Watershed

86 USDA Forest Service, 2009d

Final Environmental Impact Statement 63 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

resource impacts from climate change on natural hydrologic cycles may also affect the resort’s ability to store water and make artificial snow in the long term. 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.5.5.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of air quality and climate change extend from 1962 when Vail Mountain Resort first opened through the foreseeable future in which Vail Mountain Resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of air quality and climate change on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.5.5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment.

The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on air quality and climate change: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects

The project categories above would result in vegetation removal, vehicle use, additional staff and visitor activities and transportation, and land use change. Continued development and use of fossil fuels in Eagle County and around the world will continue to escalate the issue of climate change and could contribute to vehicular, electrical use, and other types of emissions of air pollutants, particulate matter, and GHG emissions. However, the Eagle County Community Climate Action Plan and the Town of Vail’s and Vail Mountain Resort’s continuing efforts to promote sustainability and reduce activities that produce GHG emissions may result in localized, incremental beneficial impacts on air quality and climate change. Therefore, the Proposed Action may contribute a small adverse increment to particulate matter and GHG emissions that result in air quality degradation. 3.5.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The addition of new trails, snowmaking capability, and infrastructure on Golden Peak represent irretrievable contributions to climate change and air quality, because the emissions that would be

64 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

generated from the construction and operation of the proposed projects cannot be retrieved. However, these emissions are not considered irreversible due to offsetting and mitigation that could possibly occur in the future. The loss of carbon sequestration capacity resulting from vegetation removal could be reversed in the long term if vegetation were allowed to regrow, and measures could be put into place to reduce vehicular and operational emissions that might impact air quality. 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis This geology and soils analysis focuses on the underlying geology and soil in the Golden Peak area. The Analysis Area includes areas directly disturbed by, and slopes adjacent to, proposed projects on Golden Peak. This area is about 220 acres on NFS lands within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area.

This geological and soils summary is based on a geotechnical analysis of slope stability and a soil survey to confirm soil types and measure thicknesses of organic and surface soil mineral horizons. Both the Geologic Hazard Technical Report and Soils Specialist Report covering the site-specific review of the Golden Peak area and are available in the project file.87 3.6.2 Forest Plan Direction Both the Forest Plan and the WCPH provide soil management measures to guide land treatments within the WRNF. The following direction applies to the proposed projects analyzed in this FEIS.

3.6.2.1 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Management Area 8.25 Ski Areas – Existing and Potential Soils Standard 1. Effective ground cover (mulch) upon completion of ground disturbing activities will meet minimum levels of pre-treatment habitat type (aspen 95 percent, lodgepole pine 90 percent, spruce- fir 95 percent).

Soils Standard 2. Cross drain placement will meet the following minimum spacing:

Table 3.6-1. Soils Standard 2 – Cross Drain Placement Requirements Ski Trail Slope Maximum Distance (%) (ft) 1–6 300 7–9 200 10–14 150 15–20 90 21–40 50 40+ 25

87 Buscher & Western Ecological Resource, 2017; GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc., 2017

Final Environmental Impact Statement 65 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soils Guideline 1. Ground cover as a combination of revegetation and mulch applications, should meet the requirements in Table 3.6-2, one and two years following completion of ground disturbing activities.

Table 3.6-2. Soils Guideline 1 – Ground Cover Requirements Year 1 Year 2 Minimum Effective Minimum Effective Erosion Hazard Class Ground Cover Ground Cover (%) (%) Low 20–30 30–40 Moderate 30–45 40–60 High 45–60 60–75 Very High/Severe 60–90 75–90

Forest-wide Guideline 1. Conduct an onsite slope stability exam in areas identified as potentially unstable. Potentially unstable land is described as having a “high” or “very high” instability ranking. Limit intensive ground- disturbing activities on unstable slopes identified during examinations.

3.6.2.2 Forest Service Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) Hydrologic Function 11.2 Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff.

Riparian Areas and Wetlands 12.4 Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function.

Sediment Control 13.3 Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion.

13.4 Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage.

Soil Quality 14.1 Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of any activity area. 14.2 Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands.

66 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.3 Affected Environment 3.6.3.1 Geology Golden Peak is underlain by sedimentary limestone, sandstone, siltstone and shale of the Minturn Formation. These four types of rock differ in resistance to erosion, resulting in varying slope characteristics between the summit (sandstone, siltstone and shale) and the lower (limestone) portions of the proposed trails. Sandstone, siltstone, and shale are less resistant to erosion and consequently, the upper portion of the proposed trails on Golden Peak is smooth and less steep then the lower portion. As a result, the soft, micaceous siltstone/clay found on the upper portion of Golden Peak is more susceptible to erosion, and subsequent gullying, from concentrated overland water flow.

The topography of the lower portion of the area proposed for new trails at Golden Peak is steeper, as exhibited by the cliffs and ledges that formed in the hard limestone of the Minturn Formation. The entire slope is mantled with glacial till, but the layer is thin with the steep cliff band clearly reflecting the underlying bedrock control. A ridge bisects the upper and lower portion of the area proposed for trails resulting in differing slope angles. The upper portion of this area inclines approximately 20 to 22 degrees to the west, while the lower portion of Golden Peak is inclined approximately 15 degrees to the east.

Colluvium, or unconsolidated sediment at the base of a hillside, covers the slopes in most places near the Golden Peak access road, for no more than 2 to 3 feet thick. In other places on Golden Peak, such as directly upslope of the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) mid-station, the colluvium is thin to non-existent and bedrock lies at the surface.

Downslope of the access road, near the existing half-pipe, the northern edge of the slope is again mantled with a thin layer of glacial till deposited as lateral moraine by the latest Pleistocene Eagle Valley glacier. The glacial till matrix is sandy and well-drained, making it a permeable layer (of unknown thickness) that sits atop the less permeable Minturn Formation. In many areas of Colorado (e.g., the Aspen area), this geometry of permeable till overlying impermeable fine-grained bedrock gives rise to landslides. 3.6.3.2 Soils The Golden Peak area soils have developed mostly from materials weathered from sedimentary rocks of the Minturn Formation (primarily consisting of limestone, sandstone, siltstone, and shale). The soils occur on steep mountainsides and gently sloping ridges with slopes typically ranging from about 5 to 70 percent. The soils have formed in a cold climate with a mean annual air temperature of 26 to 38 degrees Fahrenheit and a soil temperature at 50 cm of less than 46 degrees Fahrenheit. Mean annual precipitation ranges from about 15 to 23 inches.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 67 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soil Map Units There are five soil map units within the Golden Peak area defined in the Soil Survey of the Holy Cross Area and as modified by the site-specific soil study.88 They are Gateview-Handran-Eyre families complex (map unit 346C), Scout-Leadville families complex (map unit 367B), Scout-Rock outcrop-Hechtman families complex (map unit 385D), Seitz-Tellura families complex (map unit 386C), and Anvik-Skylick- Handran families complex (map unit 452B). General soil characteristics can be found in Table 3.6-3.

Table 3.6-3. General Characteristics of Mapped Soil Units Map Unit/ Analysis Area Drainage Available Water Runoffb Depth Name [acres (%)] Class Capacitya 346C 17.8 (8%) Gateview well moderate moderate >60” Handran somewhat exc. low moderate >60” Eyre well low rapid <20” 367B 15.9 (7%) Scout somewhat exc. low moderate >60” Leadville well moderate moderate >60” 385D 155.8 (70%) Scout somewhat exc. low moderate >60” Hechtman somewhat exc. low moderate <20” 386C 0.3 (0.1%) Seitz-Tellura well high rapid >60” Cryaquolls well high rapid >60” 452B 32.8 (15%) Anvik well moderate moderate >60” Skylick well moderate moderate >60” Handran somewhat exc. low moderate >60” Source: USDA Forest Service 1998 Notes: exc. = excessively; N/A = not applicable a Available Water Capacity refers to the volume of water that should be available to plants if the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, were at field capacity. b Runoff refers to the degree to/rate at which precipitation, once interfaced with the soil, flows as a result of gravitational forces. Greater rates of runoff are generally consistent with greater erosion risk.

88 USDA Forest Service, 1995b; Buscher & Western Ecological Resource, 2017

68 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Organic Matter Organic matter and surface mineral horizon thicknesses were measured for the site-specific soil study in soil map units that are proposed to have at least the surface horizon removed in areas. Organic layer thicknesses in the analysis area are typically thin, only a few inches. Most soils have an average of about 5 inches of organic soil surface horizon depth (A horizons). Thicknesses of organic and surface horizons are shown in Table 3.6-4.

Table 3.6-4. Thicknesses of Surface Horizons (A Horizons) and Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) Average Thickness of Average Thickness of Number of Map Unit Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) Surface Horizon (A Horizons) Measurements (in) (in) 346C 0 ND ND 367B 12 2.5 5 385D 32 2.5 5.5 385D* 10 0.5 4.5 386C 0 ND ND 452B 23 2.5 5.5 Notes: ND = not determined; * = on existing ski trail

Soil Erosion Hazard Erosion hazard is the inherent susceptibility of a soil to particle detachment and transport by rainfall and runoff when the vegetation is removed. Soil properties that affect particle detachability are soil structure, texture, organic matter content, and permeability. Runoff and sediment transport are affected by slope and number of coarse fragments. Most of the soils have moderate erosion hazards and are subject to water erosion if the vegetation is removed. Even though some map units have poor ratings for unsurfaced roads, foundations, and revegetation, this does not imply that the map unit is entirely unsuitable for that use, but can usually be overcome with proper design and mitigation measures. However, these ratings indicate that frequent maintenance and erosion control measures would be required. Table 3.6-5 lists soil properties and erosion hazard for each soil map unit found in the analysis area.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 69 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-5. Ski Area Development Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areasa Shrink- Unsurfaced Cut-and-Fill Revegetation Map Analysis Area Erosion Foundation – Swell Roads – Slopes – Potential – Unit Hazard Limitations (acres [%]) Potential Limitations Limitations Limitations moderate – slope, poor – slope poor – erosion hazard, low and shallow to moderate – shallow to available water 346C 17.8 (8%) low low bedrock in slope bedrock in holding capacity places places and shallow to bedrock in places moderate – low available water 367B 15.9 (7%) moderate low slight slight Good holding capacity, and cobble and stones poor – low poor – slope, available water poor – cliffs and holding capacity, moderate – shallow to 385D 155.8 (70%) moderate low shallow to shallow to bedrock slopes bedrock in bedrock in in places and steep places places slopes on east side of Analysis Area poor – high shrink-swell moderate – poor – high potential, low poor – slope and 386C 0.3 (0.1%) moderate high fine grained shrink-swell bearing erosion hazard material potential strength, and slope moderate – fine- grained moderate – moderate – material, moderate 452B 32.8 (15%) moderate moderate fine- grained slight moderate shrink-swell material shrink-swell potential potential Source: USDA Forest Service 1995b; USDA Forest Service 1974 Notes: a Good or slight limitation indicates that soil properties are generally favorable for the rated use; limitations are minor and easily overcome. Moderate limitation indicates that some soil properties are unfavorable but can be overcome or modified by special planning and design. Poor limitations indicate that soil properties are so unfavorable and so difficult to correct or overcome that major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. Very poor limitations mean one or more soil properties are so unfavorable for a particular use that overcoming the limitations is difficult and costly and commonly not practical for the rated use.

Bare Ground Analysis An analysis was completed for the Golden Peak area to determine how much bare ground exists. These areas have been previously disturbed and not re-vegetated, and exclude areas purposefully meant to be bare ground (e.g., summer trails, roads and areas around buildings). Within the analysis area, there are 11.9 acres of bare ground or low vegetative cover areas that are not related to buildings, facilities, roads and summer trails, most of which are in map unit 385D. Restoring bare ground areas would reduce soil erosion and sedimentation and may potentially reduce mass movement potential in these areas. However, site specific investigations should be conducted to prioritize areas that are the most critical for restoration.

70 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.6.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the Golden Peak Improvements Project would not occur. Vail Mountain Resort would continue to operate under its current design and capacity. There would be no direct or indirect effects on soils resources, and soil erosion initiated by construction activities would not occur. Soil losses from erosion due to rainfall, runoff and wind, would continue to occur at existing rates. Most soil erosion would likely continue to be from existing roads and from bare ground and low vegetative cover areas.

Soil resources on NFS lands would continue to be managed as under current conditions. The Forest Service would continue to be responsible for managing the soil resources such that physical, chemical and biological processes and functions of the soil are maintained or enhanced.89

3.6.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Geology In the Golden Peak area, there are few signs of geologically recent bedrock landsliding in the analysis area. The mogul course and trail extends northwest down the crest of a bedrock ridge, which is the most stable setting for a trail and shows no signs of past slope instability. Bedrock scarps were identified below the Golden Peak summit, where the trails and a surface lift are proposed. However, the area is now a dip slope floored by resistant limestone beds, and these do not daylight out of the slope except in small areas. The direct impact of tree clearing and snowmaking on the proposed trail is anticipated to be low.

Two areas northwest and north of the Golden Peak area should be avoided of additional water diversion. The head of the steep slope northwest of Golden Peak contains two scarp landforms in bedrock that indicate deep-seated gravitational slope failure toward Eagle Valley. This failure is likely quite old, thus it is hard to predict the effect of diverting new runoff onto this part of the slope, so diversion is preferable. In addition, the area north of the summit of Golden Peak is a large bowl filled with a complex of landslide deposits, including young-looking deposits. No runoff from the new trails or snowmaking should be diverted into this bowl.

The proposed access road to the top of Golden Peak would zig-zag up a dip slope in the Minturn Formation. The road would cross several slope bands that are steeper than bedding plane dips. The roadcuts for the access road should not expose bedrock in a way that would encourage landsliding, especially in areas directly downslope from proposed runoff infiltration areas.

Factor of safety for the Golden Peak area was calculated based on borehole and computer slope stability analysis. The analysis indicates a high factor of safety for the present condition. A simulation was also completed for the spring snowmelt runoff where the water table reaches the surface. This would indicate a 50-foot rise from initial condition and is considered extremely unlikely. However, the factor of safety was calculated to be well above failure level. Given these results, any additional water infiltrated as a result of

89 USDA Forest Service, 2002; USDA Forest Service, 2006

Final Environmental Impact Statement 71 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the proposed projects would not cause a large enough groundwater rise in the project area to decrease its current high stability.

Soils Approximately 55 acres of disturbance would occur in the soil map units identified in Table 3.6-6 for the proposed projects. The majority of the impacts would be for the proposed trails, covering approximately 33 acres. These areas would require vegetation clearing and grading to construct, but would be revegetated post construction. Impact to soils would include an increase in soil erosion and sedimentation, changes to soil physical and chemical characteristics reducing soil productivity, and permanent loss of soil resources. There would be 2.6 acres of soil resources that would be permanently replaced with structures and access roads.

Table 3.6-6. Alternative 2 Soil Map Units Disturbance Map Unit Disturbance Map Unit Name Symbol (acres) 346C Gateview-Handran-Eyre families complex 0.8 367B Scout-Leadville families complex 9.5 Scout-Rock outcrop-Hechtman families 385D 27.1 complex 386C Seitz-Tellura families complex <0.01 452B Anvik-Skylick-Hechtman families complex 17.8 Total 55.2

Soil losses and sedimentation due to erosion would be long term, but would return to natural rates once vegetation is re-established about two to five years after reclamation. Due to mixing of soil horizons, soil profile characteristics and soil productivity would be considerably changed over pre-construction conditions. Decreases in soil productivity would be long term in all reclaimed areas and would likely require years for soil productivity to return to pre-disturbance conditions. Impacts would be mitigated with the proper use of PDC found in Table 2-1.

Alternative 2 would also indirectly cause soil erosion from vehicle traffic on new access roads. Vehicles would likely travel on the proposed access roads from maintenance of facilities in the Golden Peak area. This vehicle traffic would likely be in the summer with few vehicles traveling on these roads after the construction phase is complete. Implementation of PDC would minimize erosion and impacts to soil organic material. 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

72 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.5.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of geology and soils extend from 1962 when Vail Mountain Resort first opened through the foreseeable future in which the resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of geology and soils on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.6.5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment. The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on soils: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects

This assessment focuses on localized impacts associated with Vail Mountain Resort’s development projects within its SUP area since it has the highest potential out of any other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions to impact geologic and soil resources at Vail Mountain Resort.

Existing conditions exhibit changes in sediment yield, soils compaction, and productivity that reflect differences in land use, management, and vegetative cover between pre-development conditions and the present day ski resort infrastructure. Nonetheless, ground disturbance associated with past development/construction activities at Vail Mountain Resort have cumulatively impacted soil resources in, and in the vicinity of, the SUP area. Historic and on-going operational practices involve continuing use of existing roads in addition to soils disturbance associated with routine construction and maintenance activities. Many of the effects are temporary during construction activities; however, some activities have and would continue to result in compacted soils and loss of organic matter, which would ultimately be permanent in nature, and therefore, cumulative in effect beyond existing conditions.

If design criteria and BMPs are properly implemented and maintained, onsite erosion and potential increases in sedimentation to waterways would be minimized. In addition, implementation of projects identified in the Drainage Management Plan would help control soil losses and sedimentation within the analysis area.90

90 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018

Final Environmental Impact Statement 73 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Under Alternative 2, approximately 2.6 acres of soil resources would be permanently replaced with structures and access roads. Although these losses would represent a minimal acreage within the soil map unit as a whole, soil is a very slowly renewable resource. This permanent loss of soil resources would be irreversible and irretrievable, but would be minor. 3.7 Vegetation 3.7.1 Scope of the Analysis The Analysis Area for botanical resources is the specific boundary evaluated for direct and indirect effects and is located immediately adjacent to (and south of) the Town of Vail. The Analysis Area is approximately 193 acres in size and encompasses NFS lands within Vail Mountain Resort’s existing SUP area. The 1,680 feet of vertical relief ranges from a high of approximately 10,080 feet just east of the proposed race start house to a low of 8,400 feet at the lower end of the proposed snowmaking pipeline replacement. 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3.7.2.1 Vegetation and Forest Health Vegetation types within the 193-acre Analysis Area include aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests, lodgepole pine forests (Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia), and open ski trail habitats. A few wetland and rock outcrop habitats also occur. Each of the vegetation types is summarized below. Table 3.7-1 lists the acreage of each vegetation type within the Analysis Area. Additional information can be found in the project file.91

Table 3.7-1. Vegetation Types within the Analysis Area

Vegetation Type Total (cover type) (acres) (%) Lodgepole Pine Forest 22.8 11.8 Aspen Forest 105.0 54.4 Ski Trails 65.2 33.8 Total 193.0 100 Source: WEI 2016

91 Western Ecological Resource, 2017

74 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.7.2.2 Vegetation Descriptions Aspen Forests Aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests occupy 54 percent of the vegetation within the Analysis Area.92 The majority of these forests are comprised of mature individual aspen trees 10 to 12 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) with occasional individuals as large as 16 inches dbh. The lush and dense understory is commonly represented by a native functionally diverse community of shrubs, graminoids and forbs. Common shrubs, where present, include serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius) and red elderberry (Sambucus microbotrys). Herbaceous graminoids and forbs include blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Thurber fescue (Festuca thurberi), fringed brome (Bromopsis canadensis), Fendler meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), American vetch (Vicia americana), Engelmann’s aster (Eucephalus engelmannii), aspen daisy (Erigeron speciosus), starry false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum stellatum), and numerous others. Mesic aspen habitats often support cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) and larkspur (Delphinium barbeyi). Finally, the aspen forest on dry rocky ridgetops supports a sparser cover of sapling to pole sized aspen with elk sedge (Carex geyeri), fringed brome, spiked false oat (Trisetum spicatum), green needlegrass (Nassella viridula), showy goldeneye (Heliomeris multiflora), false dandelion (Agoseris aurantiaca), manyray goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata), and Eaton’s thistle (Cirsium eatonii). Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) regeneration is found scattered throughout. Lodgepole Pine Forests Stands of lodgepole pine occupy 12 percent of the Analysis Area.93 All stands have experienced mortality from mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae, MPB), which ranges from 30 percent individuals killed to over 90 percent mortality. With the removal of overstory shading in these areas, herbaceous plants have increased in cover and many areas now contain a dense graminoid layer of blue wildrye, fringed brome and bluejoint reedgrass.

Graminoid Dominated Ski Trails Ski trails are dominated mainly by non-native agricultural grasses, weeds, and a scattering of native forbs. Common plant species include smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), both agricultural grasses, along with native forbs such a strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), and non-natives including species of noxious weeds such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle (Carduus acanthoides) and yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris). Overall, this vegetation type comprises 34 percent of the Analysis Area.94

92 WEI, 2016 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 75 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Rock Outcrops Steep 30-foot-tall rock outcrops occur approximately 150 feet north of the lower end of the proposed mogul course. These areas support Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii), wax currant (Ribes cereum), common juniper (Juniperus communis), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), Drummond rock cress (Boechera stricta), Fendler rockcress (Boechera fendleri), spreading fleabane (Erigeron flagellaris), littleleaf alumroot (Heuchera parviflora), pasque flower (Pulsatilla patens subsp. patens), and loose flower milkvetch (Astragalus tenellus). Scattered shrubs of mountain maple (Acer glabrum), and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) also occur.

3.7.2.3 Forest Health Since the mid-2000s, the Eagle Valley has experienced a heavy mortality of lodgepole pine due to an epidemic of mountain pine beetle. In 2011 the Forest Service authorized the implementation of the Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project (2011 Forest Health Project), which presented plans to treat approximately 984 acres of NFS lands within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area. The 2011 Forest Health Project is designed to protect human health and infrastructure from hazard trees, enhance the growth of new and existing forest areas, and maintain the visual setting. The 2011 Forest Health Project includes a variety of silvicultural methods including partial cuts, clear cuts of varying size, and hazard tree removal. Although Vail Mountain Resort is currently implementing the project, none of these projects appear to overlap the Golden Peak area. Field reconnaissance in 2014 and 2016 confirmed that all of the lodgepole pine stands within the Analysis Area have been affected by mountain pine beetle and 70 to over 95 percent of the mature lodgepole pine trees have been killed.95 According to the Forest Service aerial surveys, no additional outbreaks of MPB or other pathogens have been recorded since 2010.96

3.7.2.4 Invasive Non-Native Weeds Four species of invasive non-native weeds, all Colorado-listed “noxious,” were documented within the Analysis Area. These include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), ox- eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), and musk thistle (Carduus nutans subsp. macrolepis). Refer to Table 3.7-2. In general, noxious weeds are more common at the lower elevations of the Analysis Area within and adjacent to ski trails and wetlands. Canada thistle was observed near the proposed fuel storage tank and Canada thistle along with the other three weed species were located near the proposed mogul course project area.

95 Ibid. 96 USDA Forest Service, 2017b

76 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.7-2. Noxious and Invasive Weeds of the Project Area Species Noxious Weed Class Management Status (Common name/Scientific name) Perennial Forbs Canada thistle/Cirsium arvense (Breea) Class B Suppression Yellow toadflax/Linaria vulgaris Class B Suppression Ox-eye daisy/Leucanthemum vulgare Class B Suppression Annual/Biennial Forbs Musk thistle/Carduus nutans subsp. macrolepis Class B Elimination by 2020 Source: State of Colorado 2017c Notes: “Elimination” means the removal or destruction of all emerged, growing plants of a population of List A or List B species designated for eradication by the Commissioner. It is the first step in achieving Eradication and is succeeded by efforts to detect and destroy newly emerged plants arising from seed, reproductive propagule, or remaining root stock for the duration of the seed longevity for the particular species. “Suppression” means reducing the vigor of noxious weed populations within an infested region, decreasing the propensity of noxious weed species to spread to surrounding lands, and mitigating the negative effects of noxious weed populations on infested lands. Suppression efforts may employ a wide variety of integrated management techniques.

Invasive species have been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four substantial threats to NFS lands. The Forest Service National Strategy is based on four components: 1) prevention, 2) early detection and rapid response, 3) control and management, and 4) rehabilitation and restoration. On February 3, 1999, Executive Order 13751, Safeguarding the National Forest from the Impacts of Invasive Species was signed. The Order requires agencies to utilize programs and authorities to take steps to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, and to support efforts to eradicate and control invasive species that are established. Other authorities related to noxious weed management include the Federal Noxious Weeds Act (7 U.S.C. § 2801), Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2080, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.23, Section 330, the Forest Plan as amended, and the Colorado Weed Management Act. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act directs the Department of Agriculture to develop and implement management plans for all List A and List B noxious weed species. There are no List A Noxious Weeds within the Golden Peak Analysis Area. However, there are four List B species, three of which are slated for suppression in Eagle County. The fourth species, musk thistle, is designated for elimination by 2020. The weed management plans are regularly reviewed, updated and detailed in the Rules Pertaining to the Administration and Enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, also known as the Noxious Weed Rule (8 CCR 1206-2). 3.7.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.7.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Vegetation and Forest Health The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail Mountain Resort without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS lands (other than those previously-approved, yet to be implemented projects). Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been analyzed in prior documents and are considered herein. Over the short term,

Final Environmental Impact Statement 77 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

plant communities would remain similar to those described in the Affected Environment section. Barring a natural disturbance such as a wildfire, plant communities would gradually change over the long term through natural succession to later seral stages.

Invasive Non-Native Weeds Under the No Action Alternative, Vail Mountain Resort would continue to manage invasive non-native weeds according to their current Noxious Weed Management guidelines. No adverse impacts due to invasive and non-native weeds are anticipated.

3.7.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Vegetation and Forest Health Alternative 2 would result in disturbance to approximately 55 acres of vegetation within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area (refer to Table 3.7-3). This includes the clearing and grading of 38.6 acres of aspen forest, 6.6 acres of clearing and grading to lodgepole pine forest, and grading of 9.9 acres of graminoid dominated ski trails. While reducing the overall forest cover on Golden Peak, the proposed trail corridors would create fragmented forested openings that are similar to their overall pattern and distribution throughout the SUP area. For the lodgepole pine forest type, the existing mortality of mature individuals in stands proposed to be impacted ranges from 70 percent to over 95 percent. Overall, 45 acres of forested habitat types would be converted to herbaceous graminoid dominated ski trails. Due to implementation of the drainage management features, approximately 1 acre of additional vegetation removal, primarily aspen forest, may be required for a drainage pipeline.

Table 3.7-3. Overall Disturbance by Vegetation Type – Proposed Action

Acres of Disturbance Percent Project Lodgepole of Total Aspen Forest Ski Trails Total Pine Forest (%) Facilities 0.2 -- 0.01 0.2 0.3 Infrastructure 8.0 1.1 8.2 17.3 31.3 Surface lift 1.2 -- 0.02 1.2 2.2 Terrain 27.9 5.4 0.05 33.3 60.3 Drainage Management 1.4a 0.2 1.7 3.3 5.9 Total 38.6 6.6 9.9 55.2 100 Source: WEI 2016 Notes: Total is the sum of unrounded numbers. a Additional vegetation removal of 1 acre may be required for a drainage pipeline.

Invasive Non-Native Weeds Under the Proposed Action, the existing populations of noxious and invasive weeds could potentially spread into relatively uninfested regions of the Analysis Area. Primary dispersal methods include dispersal of mature seeds by wind (i.e., anemochory) or when seeds, plants, or plant parts are transported via humans and animals by direct attachment (i.e., zoochory), or when embedded in soil and transported on vehicles and construction equipment. Additionally, undesirable species could be introduced to the

78 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

project area in reclamation seed mixes or in agricultural mulches. Finally, noxious and other invasive weed seed may already be present in the seed bank and forest overstory clearing could potentially release the seed, leading to additional populations of noxious weed growth and establishment in newly cleared areas. However, with proper implementation of PDC, the potential increase in noxious weed spread would be lessened. These PDC include 1) pretreatment of existing infestations to reduce seed set, 2) cleaning all off-road equipment, 3) revegetation with approved seed mixes that are certified noxious weed free, and 4) monitoring and treatment of the project area for three years. 3.7.4 Cumulative Effects 3.7.4.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for vegetation extend from Vail Mountain Resort’s inception as a resort in 1962 through the foreseeable future in which the resort can be expected to operate and develop.

Spatial Bounds The Analysis Area for botanical resources is the specific boundary evaluated for cumulative effects and is located immediately adjacent to (and south of) the Town of Vail. The cumulative effects analysis area encompasses NFS lands within Vail Mountain Resort’s existing SUP area and areas surrounding it in the Town of Vail and Eagle Valley.

3.7.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment. Types of projects with possible cumulative impacts include: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects

Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects often include ground disturbance and permanent loss of herbaceous and forest vegetation. Some projects include revegetation, reducing the total amount of acreage with vegetation removed in the long term. Similarly, projects in the Town of Vail and the Eagle Valley community that result in additional residential or commercial development reduce the overall amount of vegetation in the Eagle Valley. Forest Service tree hazard reduction and other vegetation projects (such as sagebrush enhancement) often include vegetation removal and sometimes prescribed fire, resulting in short-term reduction of vegetative cover but long-term improvements to forest health and habitat. Refer to Appendix A for details on individual projects that have affected or may affect vegetation in the cumulative effects analysis area.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 79 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

When combined with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the conversion of forested habitat to herbaceous graminoid-dominated ski trails would cumulatively add to the loss of forested habitats within the Eagle Valley due to other private and public land development projects. Finally, this project has the potential to cumulatively add to noxious weed invasion and spread. However, with the proper implementation of PDC related to revegetation and noxious weed control, these impacts are expected to be minimal.

The above projects may individually cover tens to several thousand acres of vegetated lands. The Golden Peak project is considered a small increment of the cumulative impact of these projects on vegetation and forested and herbaceous habitat in the Eagle Valley. 3.7.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Ground disturbance associated with the Proposed Action represents an irretrievable effect to forest health resources within the SUP area and adjacent private lands. Overstory removal is not considered an irreversible commitment because timber is a renewable resource.

There is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources associated with noxious weeds. 3.8 Wildlife and Aquatic Species 3.8.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis summarizes the Golden Peak Improvements Project Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (Fish and Wildlife Technical Report), which is available in the project file.97 This document is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Refer to the Affected Environment discussion in Section 3.7 for a detailed description of vegetation communities within the project area. The general project area of the wildlife analysis primarily includes NFS and private lands within the area surrounding Vail Mountain Resort SUP, but it also extends to areas beyond that could be impacted from a wildlife habitat or movement standpoint. Individual species have slightly different analysis areas depending on the location of habitat or environmental influences and will be specified in each species discussion. 3.8.2 Affected Environment 3.8.2.1 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Alternative 1 would be consistent with all applicable forest-wide standards and guidelines.98 A Forest Plan Consistency Analysis indicated Alternative 2 would be consistent with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines except for the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout – Standard #2. Mitigation would be implemented for Alternative 2 to be consistent with Colorado River Cutthroat Trout – Standard #2.

Species of Viability Concern, Aquatic  Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Standard #2: When implementing management activities in 6th field Hydrologic Unit Codes (sub-watersheds) containing cutthroat trout identified as recovery

97 WEI, 2018 98 USDA Forest Service, 2002

80 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

populations in the Colorado River Cutthroat Recovery Plan, maintain or reduce existing net density of roads (open or closed) to restore or prevent alteration of the hydrologic function of the sub- watershed. Temporary roads must be decommissioned upon project completion.

The implementation of the Proposed Action would result in approximately 0.9 mile of new road construction in the Mill Creek watershed. To offset this increase in road density and meet compliance with Standard #2, approximately 7 miles of the upper Mill Creek Road would be decommissioned and restored. This road was closed by the 2011 Travel Management Plan decision yet remains intact on the ground. Refer to Section 2.4 for more information on the Mill Creek Trail/Road Restoration project that would be required as part of the Proposed Action. This mitigation requirement would convert the existing Mill Creek Road/Trail to a hiking/biking trail per direction in the 2011 Travel Management Plan. This action would reduce the road density in the Mill Creek watershed by approximately 6.1 miles.

Refer to the Fish and Wildlife Technical Report in the project file for a complete description of the applicable forest-wide standards and guidelines and analysis. 3.8.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Federally threatened and endangered species that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities related to the proposed Golden Peak Improvements Project were retrieved from the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation website. Table 3.8-1 includes threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat within the project area, or that are located adjacent to or downstream of the project and could potentially be affected.

Table 3.8-1. Federally Listed and Proposed Species Potentially Affected Species Status Rationale for Exclusion from Detailed Analysis (Habitat) (Common name/Scientific name) Humpback chub/Gila cypha E Analyzed in detail. Bonytail chub/G. elegans E Analyzed in detail. Colorado pikeminnow/ E Analyzed in detail. Ptychocheilus lucius Razorback sucker/ E Analyzed in detail. Xyrauchen texanus Greenback cutthroat trout/ Not analyzed because habitat occupied by Colorado River cutthroat T Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias trout (analyzed below in Region 2 Sensitive Species). Mexican spotted owl/ No breeding habitat present or affected (steep canyons with a T Strix occidentalis Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine/pinyon-juniper component) Yellow-billed cuckoo/ No suitable habitat present or affected (old-growth riparian T Coccyzus americanus woodlands with dense understories) North American wolverine/ Historic range; No known individuals in the Southern Rockies P Gulo gulo luscus Ecosystem (remote mountains and alpine areas) due to extirpation. Canada lynx/Lynx canadensis T Analyzed in detail. Source: WEI 2018; USFWS 2018 Notes: Status: S=sensitive; T=threatened; E=endangered; P=proposed

Final Environmental Impact Statement 81 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species carried forward in this analysis are listed as “analyzed in detail” in Table 3.8-1; no further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present.

Species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act are automatically placed on the Region 2 sensitive species list. The analysis and determination of effects for candidate species are included under the Region 2 sensitive species, after the following discussions of federally listed species analyzed in detail.

Four Big River Fish The four listed, endangered fish (humpback chub, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker) are known locally as the “four big river fish.” For the purposes of this analysis, the big river fish analysis area is the Upper Colorado River Basin, extending downstream from the project area to and including occupied reaches of the Colorado River subbasin within Colorado, exclusive of the Gunnison River subbasin.99

None of the four listed, endangered fish are known to occur on the WRNF or any closer to the project area than the mainstem of the Colorado River near Rifle, Colorado.100 These four big river fish are addressed together because they occur far downstream from the project area in the Upper Colorado River Basin and because water depletions, water quality degradation, and the effects of impoundments have been the major factors adversely affecting these species. The USFWS has determined that water depletions are among the current activities with the greatest impact on all four of these endangered fish. Activities resulting in water depletion in the Upper Colorado River Basin may jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish. The impact of the project on the four big river fish are carried forward for analysis because the Proposed Action would result in additional water depletion for snowmaking; however, the water depletion is covered by previous Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations, which allows up to 1,316 acre-feet water depletions at Vail Mountain Resort annually.101 Canada Lynx For the purposes of this analysis, the Canada lynx analysis area is the Camp Hale LAU, as defined and assigned by the Forest Service. The Golden Peak project area is located entirely within the north end of the Camp Hale LAU. The Camp Hale LAU encompasses 82,870 acres, extending west to Highway 24, north to NFS and private property along the south side of I-70, east toward I-70 and the West Tenmile and Arkansas River/Eagle River hydrologic divide and south to the Continental Divide. Of the 82,870, 90 percent is public lands and 10 percent on private lands.

The Golden Peak project area was field verified for lynx habitat, which was provided by the Forest Service. In general, all conventional ski trails and non-forested ski terrain in the project area is “non- habitat.” Primary lynx habitat vegetation consists of Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, aspen-conifer mix, and lodgepole pine that occurs on spruce-fir habitat types. Secondary lynx habitat vegetation in the

99 USFWS, 1999 100 USFWS, 1999 101 USDA Forest Service, 2009a

82 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Golden Peak project area consists of primarily lodgepole pine stands and primarily aspen stands. Dead, standing lodgepole stands that have not been cleared, including two in the project area, are considered “currently unsuitable” lynx habitat.

The USFWS has concluded that although high quality lynx habitat may occur adjacent to ski runs (i.e., within intertrail islands and adjacent to the resort’s winter operational boundary), its functionality is likely degraded by the winter elimination of hares due to human intrusion and disturbance into the habitat.102 This impacts lynx movement in the Golden Peak area. Two lynx observations were recorded in 2003. One occurrence was 500 feet northeast of the bottom of the proposed trails and another occurrence along Forest Service Road (FSR) 710 (Mill Creek Road). Preliminary data from four lynx monitored in the vicinity of Summit and Eagle County ski areas suggested that lynx approach ski areas’ operational boundaries, but may not be using ski areas during daylight hours during the winter operating season (mid- November to mid-April). However, lynx may use ski areas at night and during summer months when recreational activities have ceased.103 In the project area, lynx use of the area is unlikely due to habitat fragmentation.

3.8.2.3 Region 2 Sensitive Species Based on documented habitat affinities, 34 Region 2 sensitive species identified in Table 3.8-2 were determined to have potential habitat in the project area. Region 2 has designated “sensitive species,” representing species declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to federal listing if action is not taken to reverse the trend, and species whose habitat or population is stable but limited.104 Region 2 sensitive species for which there is no habitat in the project area were eliminated from detailed analysis and listed as “excluded” in Table 3.8-2; species listed “not excluded” are carried forward into the analysis (species name denoted in bold). The sensitive species analysis is included in the Fish and Wildlife Technical Report, which are contained in the project file.

Table 3.8-2. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species Occurring on the WRNF Species Rationale, if not carried forward in analysis (Common name/Scientific name) Insects Excluded. No habitat (montane and subalpine meadows with diverse Western bumblebee/Bombus occidentalis forb communities). Monarch butterfly/Danaus plexippus plexippus Excluded. No host plant (milkweed) habitat. Fish Excluded. No suitable habitat (Colorado River up through Glenwood Roundtail chub/Gila robusta robusta Canyon). Excluded. No suitable habitat (small to medium streams below 7000 ft.; Mountain sucker/Catostomus platyrhynchus four populations documented on the Rifle and Blanco Districts). Excluded. Outside range. Located far downstream outside the influence Bluehead sucker/Catostomus discobolus of proposed activities. Occupied habitat downstream in Eagle River (Colorado/Eagle River upstream to Alkali Creek).

102 USFWS, 2013 103 Roberts, 2015; Nettles, 2016 104 USDA Forest Service, 2017d

Final Environmental Impact Statement 83 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.8-2. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species Occurring on the WRNF (cont.) Species Rationale, if not carried forward in analysis (Common name/Scientific name) Excluded. Outside range. Occupied habitat downstream in Eagle River Flannelmouth sucker/Catostomus latipinnis (Colorado River to Granby, Milk, Piceance, and Divide Creeks, Eagle River). Colorado River cutthroat trout/ Not excluded. Present (isolated, headwater streams and lakes). Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Amphibians Not excluded. Potential dispersal and hibernacula habitat (subalpine Boreal western toad/Anaxyrus boreas boreas marshes and wet meadows; ponds, margins of streams; adjacent uplands 8,500–11,000 ft.). Northern leopard frog/Lithobates pipiens Excluded. Outside range (permanent wetlands). Birds Not excluded. Potential foraging habitat (closed montane forests Northern goshawk/Accipiter gentilis >7,500 ft.). Excluded. No habitat (grasslands, agricultural lands, marshes, and Northern harrier/Circus cyaneus alpine). Ferruginous hawk/Buteo regalis Excluded. No habitat (plains, grasslands). American peregrine falcon/ Not excluded. Potential foraging habitat (cliffs, habitats Falco peregrinus anatum concentrating/exposing vulnerable prey). Bald eagle/Haliaeetos leucocephalus Excluded. No habitat (open water bodies, big game winter range). White-tailed ptarmigan/Lagopus leucurus Excluded. No habitat (alpine habitat and upper elevation willow stands). Greater sage grouse/Centrocercus urophasianus Excluded. No habitat (sagebrush). Columbian sharp-tailed grouse/ Excluded. No habitat (sagebrush and mountain shrub). Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Flammulated owl/Otus flammeolus Not excluded. Potential habitat (old-growth ponderosa pine and aspen). Boreal owl/Aegolius funereus Not excluded. Potential habitat (mature spruce-fir and mixed conifer). Black swift/Cypseloides niger Excluded. No local nesting habitat (waterfalls, cliffs). Lewis’ woodpecker/Melanerpes lewis Excluded. No habitat (ponderosa pine and cottonwoods). Not excluded. Potential habitat (open, upper elevation conifer forests Olive-sided flycatcher/Contopus cooperi and aspen). Loggerhead shrike/Lanius ludovicianus Excluded. No habitat (plains, low valleys, shrublands). Purple martin/Progne subis Excluded. No habitat (old-growth aspen). Excluded. No habitat (sagebrush and other structurally similar Brewer’s sparrow/Spizella breweri shrublands). Excluded. No habitat (lLow elevation big sagebrush and Sage sparrow/Amphispiza belli sage/greasewood). Mammals Pygmy shrew/Sorex hoyi Excluded. No habitat (affinity for mesic subalpine habitats). Fringed myotis/Myotis thysanodes Excluded. No habitat (forests/woodlands below 7,500 ft.). Hoary bat/Lasiurus cinereus Not excluded. Potential habitat (any habitat with trees).

84 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.8-2. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species Occurring on the WRNF (cont.) Species Rationale, if not carried forward in analysis (Common name/Scientific name) Spotted bat/Euderma maculatum Excluded. No habitat (cliffs, arid terrain). Townsend’s big-eared bat/ Excluded. No habitat (structures, tree cavities <9,500 ft.). Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii American marten/Martes americana Not excluded. Potential habitat (conifer forests). Excluded. No habitat (year-round open water and streamflows of ≥10 River otter/Lontra canadensis cfs). Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep/ Excluded. No habitat (high visibility habitat near escape terrain). Ovis canadensis canadensis Source: USDA Forest Service 2015; Austin 2016 Notes: Species in bold are potentially present and/or are discussed in the text. Wildlife are listed phylogenetically. Other Region 2 species are not listed because they have not been found on the WRNF, they have no affinities to project area habitats, the project area is outside of the species’ range or elevational distribution. Potential pre-field survey occurrence on the project area, potential for project effects, and habitat affinity is summarized for each species.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Colorado River cutthroat trout is a Region 2 sensitive species due to its substantial reduction in occupied habitat and numbers within Region 2.105 Mill Creek is a historic Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat and is located west of the project area. The drainage network within the project area drains primarily towards Mill Creek, which is a perennial tributary of Gore Creek, with the remaining network draining toward Gore Creek.106 In the past, Mill Creek has been stocked with Colorado River cutthroat trout and natural reproduction has occurred. Colorado River cutthroat trout have been documented in Mill Creek between barriers while other reaches of the stream appear to be unoccupied.107 Stream health and macroinvertebrate data collected from Mill Creek and its tributaries currently exhibits diminished stream health class.108 The extensive ski resort development in the Mill Creek drainage resulting in change to the runoff and sediment regimes is likely the main cause of degraded aquatic habitats and the loss of Colorado River cutthroat trout from the stream.109 Refer to Section 3.9 and the Water Resources Specialist Report in the project file for a detailed discussion of hydrologic conditions on Mill Creek and Gore Creek.

Since 2002, Forest Service staff have been conducting periodic fish surveys on Mill Creek for the presence of Colorado River cutthroat trout. The results of the surveys are in Table 3.8-3. Colorado River cutthroat trout were present in 2002 and 2017. An October 2002 survey in Mill Creek indicated that hybrid cutthroat trout were present. During a 2017 survey at Mill 1 and 1A, Colorado River cutthroat trout were observed. A population estimate was not completed at that time.

105 USDA Forest Service, 2003 106 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018 107 Healy, 2008; Grove, 2017 108 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018 109 Healy, 2008

Final Environmental Impact Statement 85 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.8-3. Mill Creek Fish Survey Results Approximate Year Fish Stream Reach Length Species Sampled Present? (feet) Mill Creek (unknown location) 2002 Unknown Yes cutthroat trout Mill 1 2008 328 No None Mill (2 reaches near the WRNF Boundary) 2008 328 No None Mill 1 2013 328 No None Mill 2 2013 328 No None Mill 3 2013 328 No None Mill 1 to 1A 2017 656 Yes cutthroat trout Source: Healy 2008; Grove 2017

The surveys also noted relevant barriers to fish movement in Mill Creek. A culvert, a set of gabion structures and stream crossing above sample site Mill 1 are likely limiting trout movement from Gore Creek upstream into lower Mill Creek. Farther upstream on Mill Creek, near Highline Express (Chair 10) and sample site Mill 3, a natural waterfall dropping over a 10-foot-high rock ledge was documented. No fish were observed upstream of this barrier.

3.8.2.4 Migratory Birds In 2008, the Forest Service Chief signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (#08-MU-1113-2400- 264) with the USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds. This MOU was pursuant to Executive Order 131866, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The Executive Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further comply with the migratory bird conventions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and other relevant statutes.

Table 3.8-4 identifies the birds of particular conservation concern that may be seasonally present within a species analysis area. For species listed in bold, it was determined that they may occur in the analysis area. However, during field surveys, no bird nests or species were detected or observed. The olive-sided flycatcher and peregrine falcon are Region 2 sensitive species that were carried forward into analysis and are noted in Table 3.8-2.

86 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.8-4. USFWS Birds of Particular Conservation Concern with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area Species Season of General Habitat (Common name/Scientific name) Occurrence American bittern/Botaurus lentiginosus Breeding Riparian/wetlands Bald Eagle/Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round Riparian/wetlands Black rosy-finch/Leucosticte atrata Year-round Alpine Tundra Brewer’s sparrow/Spizella breweri Breeding Sagebrush Brown-capped rosy-finch/Leucosticte australis Wintering Alpine Tundra Calliope hummingbird/Stellula calliope Migrating Mountain Shrub Cassin’s finch/Carpodacus cassinii Year-round Mixed-conifer Ferruginous hawk/Buteo regalis Wintering Sagebrush Fox sparrow/Passerella iliaca Breeding Sagebrush Golden eagle/Aquila chrysaetos Year-round Rock/cliff Greater sage-grouse/Centrocercus urophasianus Year-round Sagebrush Juniper titmouse/Baeolophus ridgwayi Year-round Pinyon-Juniper Lewis’s woodpecker/Melanerpes lewis Breeding Riparian Cottonwood Loggerhead shrike/Lanius ludovicianus Breeding Sagebrush Long-billed curlew/Numenius americanus Breeding Grasslands Olive-sided flycatcher/Contopus cooperi Breeding Mixed-conifer Peregrine falcon/Falco peregrinus Breeding Rock/cliff Pinyon jay/Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Year-round Pinyon-Juniper Prairie falcon/Falco mexicanus Year-round Rock/cliff Rufous hummingbird/Selasphorus rufus Migrating Mountain Shrub Sage thrasher/Oreoscoptes montanus Breeding Sagebrush Short-eared owl/Asio flammeus Wintering Riparian/wetlands Swainson’s hawk/Buteo swainsoni Breeding Grasslands Veery/Catharus fuscescens Breeding Riparian/wetlands Western grebe/Aechmophorus occidentalis Breeding Riparian/wetlands Williamson’s sapsucker/Sphyrapicus thyroideus Breeding Snag & Cavity Dependent Willow flycatcher/Empidonax traillii Breeding Riparian/wetlands Source: WEI 2018; USFWS 2018

Final Environmental Impact Statement 87 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.8.2.5 Species of Local Concern Species of local concern (SOLC) are other species of concern not considered in the above sections. The basis for the consideration of these species is Forest Plan Goal 1, Ecosystem Health, Objective 1b: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and to achieve objectives for focal species. The species addressed in this section (aquatic macroinvertebrates, American elk and mule deer) are those identified from the Forest Plan.110

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Because of their wide distribution and their sensitivity to disturbance and pollutants, aquatic macroinvertebrates are widely used to monitor the health of streams and rivers. The spatial extent of aquatic macroinvertebrate analysis is Mill Creek and Gore Creek downstream of the confluence of Mill Creek.

Hydrologic characteristics of Mill Creek are described in detail in Section 3.9, which indicates that Mill Creek is in a diminished stream health condition. Recent macroinvertebrate sampling data for Mill Creek indicate sample sites below the Golden Peak project area had lower quality values than sample sites above the project area, including three metrics with diminished values. Of the three lower sample sites, only one met the criterion of four of six robust values in 2017. Only the Mill 1 sample site had comparative multi- year data, which indicated declining values for five of six metrics between 2013 and 2017.

In addition to the macroinvertebrate sampling, Mill Creek was analyzed using the Multi-Metric Index (MMI). Guidelines for this analysis are established by the CDPHE. The MMI provides a single index score based on five or six equally weighted metrics. All sample sites were in attainment of the aquatic life standards according to the CDPHE Water Quality commission’s MMI standards for Mountain Biotype streams.111

American Elk The elk analysis area is at the Data Analysis Unit (DAU) scale, which is the geographic area that represents the year-round range of an elk herd and includes all of the seasonal ranges of this herd. In this case, the applicable herd is DAU E-16, the Frying Pan River Elk herd.

Habitat Conditions The DAU E-16 is 1,378 square miles. Approximately 80 percent is on public lands, and 20 percent is on private. DAU E-16 elk winter range is 63 percent on public lands and 37 percent is on private lands.

Elk winter range in DAU E-16 is in poor to fair condition due to maturation and succession of plant communities, as well as habitat loss and fragmentation from land development.112 If not already developed, there is heavy pressure to continue to develop private lands on winter range.

110 USDA Forest Service, 2002 111 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018 and WEI, 2018 112 Mao et al., 2013

88 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Herd Population Trends The E-16 population objective was established in 1988 to be 5,100 elk. The herd was estimated to be 6,550 animals post-hunt in 2016. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has been actively managing this herd under the current DAU plan through liberal hunting seasons targeting the antlerless segment of the population. The goal has been to decrease the herd to the population objective of 5,100 elk post-hunting season.113

Elk Baseline Conditions in the Analysis Area CPW data indicate that the Golden Peak project area is elk overall range, summer range, and overlaps the edge of an elk winter range (the proposed mogul course). The area was surveyed for evidence of winter elk use. With the exception of one aspen that had a 4- to 5-square inch area of elk barking (marking or removal of aspen bark by elk) made during the last couple of winters near the bottom of the mogul course and some inconclusive, but possible old and light barking near the top of the mogul course, there was no evidence of winter elk use by more than occasional individuals during some winters.

The ski season and seasonal elk use of Vail Mountain Resort, including migration, are virtually mutually exclusive temporal events. In spring, the ski resort has been closed at least several weeks before the first eastward elk movements from down valley winter ranges reach the western edge of the ski area. Some of these movements go through the Golden Peak area, including existing and proposed ski terrain. There is some spring residency time in the project area before elk continue moving to higher elevations and more secluded terrain. Summer maintenance and recreational activities diurnally displace elk from developed terrain and access corridors. There has been no evidence of calving detected in the Golden Peak project area, probably because of the influences of human activities, including the Town of Vail and I-70. Mule Deer Mule deer are common widespread species that inhabit a wide variety of montane through alpine habitats in Eagle County. Mule deer range over most of the WRNF and use essentially all habitats. Like elk, mule deer inhabit higher elevations during spring and summer and migrate to lower elevations for winter range. Winter range availability and habitat effectiveness may be the most critical seasonal range for deer survival.

Herd Population Trends The Golden Peak project area is located within CPW DAU D-8. The Upper Eagle River Valley deer herd population objective has been reduced several times since 1980. The current population objective is from 13,500 to 16,500. The need to reduce the population objective was due to several factors with the main factors being: loss of winter habitats (largely due to development), habitat fragmentation, increased recreational impacts, weather, predators, and habitat quality.114 Competition losses with elk is another important factor on some local winter ranges (e.g., east of Minturn).

113 Ibid. 114 Mao et al., 2009; CPW, 2016; Andree, 2017

Final Environmental Impact Statement 89 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mule Deer Baseline Conditions in the Analysis Area Mule deer are seasonally present spring through fall on Vail Mountain Resort and in the Golden Peak project area. Seasonal range mapping indicates that the entire Golden Peak project area is mule deer overall range and mule deer summer range.115 Mule deer winter range occurs down valley to the west. The ski season and seasonal deer use of Vail Mountain Resort, including migration, are virtually mutually exclusive temporal events. In the spring, the ski resort has been closed at least several weeks before the first eastward deer movements reach the western edge of the resort. All deer migration has crossed the area by traditional fall ski resort opening dates. Initial fall migration follows general patterns reversing spring movements. As snow depths accumulate, movements occur at increasingly lower elevations on the mountain and may be more concerted and extended.

The intact forest outside of the developed ski terrain at Vail Mountain Resort is used as part of spring and fall big game migration, as summer deer range, and most importantly, as part of a fall transitional range. These areas are the Golden Peak area east of the ridgeline (outside, but contiguous with the Golden Peak project area), and the area west of the Eagle Bahn Gondola (Chair 19). The fall transition range is where relatively large numbers of deer stage before snow initiates their concerted migration west, through the Mud Springs underpass (i.e., Dowd Junction), and down valley to lower elevation winter ranges.116 The effectiveness of fall transitional range is important because the longer deer stay on it, the later that winter range use begins. The area west of the resort is closed to hunting to facilitate its fall use. Fall big game use of Golden Peak and habitat to the north and east is influenced by moderate hunting pressure during the hunting seasons, generally extending from late August to mid-November. That hunting pressure pushes the deer away from the Golden Peak area to more secluded terrain. While the amount of deer use in the Golden Peak area has dropped in recent years, there continues to be summer and fall transitional range use.117 3.8.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.8.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail Mountain Resort without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS lands (other than those previously-approved, yet to be implemented projects). Wildlife would remain similar to those described in the Affected Environment section. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impact on threatened, endangered, Region 2 sensitive species, migratory birds, or SOLC.

115 Mule Deer Overall Range: Area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a mule deer population. Mule Deer Summer Range: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. 116 Andree, 2017 117 Ibid.

90 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.8.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Threatened and Endangered Species Table 3.8-5 summarizes determinations for federally listed animal species that may be affected by the Alternative 2.

Table 3.8-5. Determinations for Federally Listed Species Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Species Determination by Alternative Common name/Scientific name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Humpback chub/Gila cypha NE LAAa Bonytail chub/Gila. elegans NE LAAa Colorado pikeminnow/Ptychocheilus lucius NE LAAa Razorback sucker/Xyrauchen texanus NE LAAa Canada lynx/Lynx canadensis NE NLAA Source: WEI 2018 Notes: NE = “no effect,” NLAA = “not likely to adversely affect,” and LAA = “likely to adversely affect” a USFWS Biological Opinion (USFWS Biological Opinion No. ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP053). The impacts from water depletions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the big river fish or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat if the Recovery Program criteria were met.

Four Big River Fish Alternative 2 could adversely affect endangered fish species and their critical habitat downstream in the Colorado River system through its associated water depletions. New snowmaking included in the proposed Golden Peak Improvements Project would cover 42 acres of ski trails. With the implementation of Alternative 2, Vail Mountain Resort water depletion would increase to 149.1 acre-feet, well below the amount of depletions covered by pervious Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation (1,316 acre-feet). Thus, water use and depletions could result in adverse effects to the endangered fish and their critical habitats. As a result, Alternative 2 is likely to adversely affect the four big river fish. However, the effects of this additional water use have already been considered and accounted for in previous consultations on Vail Mountain Resort activities. In 2004, 603 acre-feet of depletions were consulted on in the USFWS Biological Opinion (No. ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP053). The impacts from water depletions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the big river fish or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat if the Recovery Program criteria were met. For a detailed discussion of the water use at Vail Mountain Resort refer to Section 3.9 and the Water Resources Specialists Report in the project file.

Canada Lynx Under Alternative 2, 45 acres of lynx habitat would be converted to non-habitat as a result of the Proposed Action. Of the 45 acres, 1 acre would be primary vegetation lynx habitat, 38 acres would be secondary vegetation lynx habitat and 6 acres would be vegetation lynx habitat. The 45 acres would be converted to grassland typical of exiting ski trails on Golden Peak and across Vail Mountain Resort. Most of the lynx habitat in the project area is functionally impaired because of habitat fragmentation and close

Final Environmental Impact Statement 91 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

proximity to the base area and the Town of Vail. Within the Camp Hale LAU, the 45 acres represent 0.08 percent decrease in lynx habitat.

The collective public and private habitat losses, land uses, human activities, and traffic within the Camp Hale LAU have adversely affected lynx and lynx habitat use. The effects of Alternative 2 on lynx foraging and travel would be additive to the adverse baseline effects. However, the existing level of year-round human activity within the overall resort area and the Golden Peak project area likely cause lynx to avoid the area, thereby reducing or eliminating the functionality of the habitat. The additional removal of lower quality lynx habitat, infrastructure installation, and increased human presence within the project area is unlikely to cause additional measurable effects to lynx, when added to the baseline effects.

Under Alternative 2, no designated critical habitat for lynx would be affected and the Proposed Action would be consistent with Southern Rocky Lynx Management Direction applicable to ski areas.118 For these reasons, Alternative 2 results in a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for Canada lynx. Greater detail and supporting metrics for this analysis are provided in the Fish and Wildlife Technical Report contained in the project file.

Region 2 Sensitive Species Table 3.8-6 summarizes the Region 2 sensitive species impact determinations.119

Table 3.8-6. Effects Determination and Rationale for Region 2 Sensitive Species Under Alternatives 1 and 2 Species Alternative Determination (Common name/ Scientific name) Alt 1 Alt 2 Rationale Fish Alternative 2 would increase water yield, peak flow intensity, and sedimentation. This may diminish stream health in the project area. Significant impacts to Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat would be avoided by implementing the Drainage Management Plan and PDC. Even slight disturbances to stream health may Colorado River cutthroat trout/ NI MAII affect this population negatively resulting in the loss of Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus individuals. Nevertheless, other conservation populations within the planning area would remain viable and would not be affected by the proposed project. Appropriate mitigation or actions are necessary to maintain or improve conditions towards the robust stream health class.

118 USFWS, 2014; USDA Forest Service, 2008 and 2009e; WEI, 2018 119 Detailed effects analyses by species are included in the Fish and Wildlife BA/BE Report, which is contained in the project file.

92 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.8-6. Effects Determination and Rationale for Region 2 Sensitive Species Under Alternatives 1 and 2 (cont.) Species Alternative Determination (Common name/ Scientific name) Alt 1 Alt 2 Rationale Amphibians No suitable boreal toad breeding habitat or post- breeding, dispersal, and overwinter habitat within the Boreal western toad/ NI NI maximum dispersal distance from the closest known Anaxyrus boreas boreas breeding site exists within the Golden Peak analysis area. Birds Alternative 2 would result in the permanent removal of 45 acres of potential foraging habitat. Habitat values (i.e., prey species abundance) in unaffected forest islands and surrounding forest would be diminished. This would affect a larger area of habitat than the narrow trail corridors that would be cleared. Although Northern goshawk NI MAII the habitat structure and prey base in undeveloped Accipiter gentilis portions of the project area may fall within the continuum of goshawk nesting habitat, the area is suboptimal for nesting because it borders the heavily fragmented ski resort and receives 24/7 noise from I-70 and the Town of Vail. Much more effective nesting habitat occurs in the surrounding area. Alternative 2 would affect one pair of peregrines by fragmenting and converting 45.4 acres of closed canopy aspen and lodgepole pine forest into ski trails. Peregrines do not hunt below forest canopies, so the American peregrine falcon NI MAII prey base below the canopy is largely unavailable to Falco peregrinus anatum them. The openings created by the new ski trails could increase prey availability by exposing birds flying between intertrail islands to peregrine attach, although such birds would be relatively close to the ground. Alternative 2 would negatively affect flammulated owls Flammulated owl by fragmenting and converting 36 acres of mature aspen NI MAII Otus flammeolus habitat on Golden Peak considered to be suboptimal, secondary foraging and nesting habitat. Alternative 2 would affect boreal owls by fragmenting and converting conifer forest to ski trails and lift corridors representing potential nesting and year-round Boreal owl NI MAII foraging habitat, likely contained within the home range Aegolius funereus of a single pair of birds. As a worst-case scenario, potential boreal owl habitat affected (lodgepole pine) would total 6.64 acres under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would affect olive-sided flycatchers by fragmenting and converting forest to ski trails and lift corridors representing potential nesting and summer Olive-sided flycatcher NI MAII foraging habitat, likely contained within the home range Contopus cooperi of up to several pairs of birds. Potential olive-sided flycatcher habitat (lodgepole pine) affected would total 6.6 acres under Alternative 2.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 93 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.8-6. Effects Determination and Rationale for Region 2 Sensitive Species Under Alternatives 1 and 2 (cont.) Species Alternative Determination (Common name/ Scientific name) Alt 1 Alt 2 Rationale Mammals Alternative 2 would affect hoary bats by removing 45 acres of forest representing summer habitat for several individuals. Foraging habitat probably would not be improved along graded trails and lift corridors Hoary bat NI MAII because the trails would be reseeded with a mix Lasiurus cinereus dominated by non-native graminoids. These project effects to potential foraging and roosting habitats could occur within the relatively large potential home range of several individual bats. Alternative 2 would affect martens by removing 6.6 acres of forest representing secondary year-round American marten NI MAII foraging habitat for individuals most likely limited to Martes americana one territory. Some of this forest cover loss would be associated with stands bordering existing ski terrain. Source: WEI 2018 Notes: NI = No impact; MAII = may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

As shown in Table 3.8-6, Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the following species: Colorado River cutthroat trout, northern goshawk, American peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, hoary bat and American marten. Excluding those species above, Alternative 2 would have no impact on any other Region 2 sensitive species. As discussed in Section 3.8.2.1, Alternative 2 would require mitigation in order to meet WRNF Colorado River cutthroat trout Standard #2. Alternative 2 would be consistent with all other applicable WRNF management direction.

Migratory Birds Direct mortality of eggs and/or nestlings of all migratory bird species known or suspected of occurring in the project area disturbance zones could occur under Alternative 2 during construction. After construction is complete, it is unlikely nests would be impacted during regular operation of the Golden Peak area. Mortality during construction could be minimized through application of construction PDC and BMPs during nesting periods. For northern goshawk, American peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, refer to species specific discussions included in the previous Region 2 Sensitive Species discussion (refer to Table 3.8-6).

Species of Local Concern

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Alternative 2 could result in increased stream flows and sedimentation. Increased stream flows can flush aquatic insects from the stream, although recolonization would likely be rapid and increased stream-flows

94 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

are not expected to be outside the natural variability of natural high runoff events.120 Increased sedimentation could change macroinvertebrate communities; however, large amounts of sedimentation is not expected with the implementation of the Drainage Management Plan.121 The Drainage Management Plan was developed to address water movement, storage, and erosion associated with the Proposed Action. The drainage improvements are intended to minimize erosion, attenuate average and peak flow increases, and distribute runoff to allow infiltration in areas that are not subject to slope failure or landslide activity.

It should be noted that the section of Gore Creek, which receives streams that flow off the front side of Vail Mountain Resort is listed for impairment for aquatic life standards under the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). The segment flows from the confluence with Black Gore Creek to the confluence of the Eagle River and is heavily influenced by urbanization from the Town of Vail. It does not appear at this time that sediment is a limiting factor or source of degradation in Gore Creek.122 With implementation of the PDC and the Drainage Management Plan, Alternative 2 would maintain stream health throughout the analysis area (Mill and Gore Creeks). Alternative 2 is not expected to negatively affect the 303(d) impaired section of Gore Creek. Alternative 2 would also be consistent with all forest-wide standards and guidelines and WCPH Management Measures that are applicable to water quality and aquatic habitat.

American Elk Alternative 2 would result in the loss of 45 acres of elk overall range and summer range as the existing aspen and lodgepole pine is converted to graded ski trails. Several acres of winter range in the vicinity of the proposed mogul course would also be lost under Alternative 2. The winter range area overlaps the lower northern edge of the Golden Peak project area and extends approximately 2 miles east of the resort on the south side of I-70 to East Vail. This winter range area is not thought to have much functional use because the ski trails are mowed and packed with compressed snowmaking snow by the onset of the winter period. Although some elk would continue to use this fragmented habitat, the amount of use and the effectiveness of the foraging habitat in and around the developed terrain would be reduced. The effectiveness of adjacent, otherwise unmodified winter range may also be lost from direct habitat conversion effects, fragmentation, and expanded skier activity, although those effects would be minimized by the topographic buffer provided by the ridgeline.

The elk migration pattern, as defined by CPW, would not be changed by Alternative 2, nor would the migration patterns taken by elk through the resort during the spring and fall. There would be no structures or activities that would deflect local movements. Also, as described in Affected Environment, both spring and fall migration by elk and human use on Golden Peak should continue to be largely mutually exclusive on a temporal (seasonal) basis.

120 Matthews, 1998 121 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018 122 WEI, 2018

Final Environmental Impact Statement 95 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mule Deer Impacts to mule deer, such as habitat impacts, reduced habitat effectiveness and displacement from recreational use, are very similar to those described above for elk. Alternative 2 would result in the loss of 45 acres of mule deer overall range and summer range as it is converted to graded ski trails. This habitat loss would add to the summer range losses that have occurred across Vail Mountain Resort, the displacing effects that summer recreational and maintenance activities across the ski resort have had, and the pressure on the increasing small area and effectiveness of deer winter range in the DAU largely due to development, habitat fragmentation, and recreational impacts.123 The habitat loss and pressures could reduce the local deer population.

With respect to Alternative 2 effects on fall transitional range use, there could be minor negative effects on the fall staging area near Golden Peak. The proposed projects are set back from the ridgeline where most fall transitional use occurs. Although the boundary of the mule deer fall transitional range has always been the ridgeline, it is possible that some fall use of the Golden Peak area also occurs. If that is the case, there would be some loss of fall transitional habitat and some additional pressure on increased winter range use. However, as described in Affected Environment, there is temporal (seasonal) separation of mule deer habitat use and the period of use of the proposed terrain improvements on Golden Peak. 3.8.4 Cumulative Effects 3.8.4.1 Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to both alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of wildlife and aquatic species extend from 1962 when Vail Mountain Resort first opened through the foreseeable future in which the resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of wildlife and aquatic species on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.8.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects project area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment.

123 Mao et al., 2009; CPW, 2016

96 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on wildlife and aquatic species: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects • Town of Vail recreation events Threatened and Endangered Species The Eagle County population is projected to increase by 40 percent, to 76,600 people, by 2035.124 Virtually all of this growth will occur within private lands and within towns along the I-70 corridor. This growth will cause an increase in water use in the Upper Colorado River Basin above reaches occupied by the four big river fish. Lower population growth rates, but additional residential growth, in communities downstream of and in the occupied habitat will also increase water demand and use.

The 1999 programmatic biological opinion for the four big river fish considered population growth and water demand as existing conditions, and specified amounts of new depletions that are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the fish, nor adversely modify their critical habitat in the Colorado River subbasin within Colorado (exclusive of the Gunnison River subbasin, much farther downstream of the Proposed Action).125

Eagle County and the Town of Vail planning departments were contacted to identify pending land use applications.126 No applications identified met reasonably foreseeable criteria and would affect lynx habitat. Additional dispersed recreation in functional lynx habitat on NFS lands from the growing human population and additional demand to expand recreational facilities in lynx habitat throughout the county could have additive negative effects to lynx habitat functionality in the LAU.

Region 2 Sensitive Species Since there are no substantial negative direct or indirect effects expected to aquatic resources as a result of the Proposed Action, there are no expected cumulative effects above the baseline condition associated with the Proposed Action to Colorado River cutthroat trout. Mill Creek stream health, both physical and biological, is expected to be maintained and not further impaired by Alternative 2 with implementation of the Drainage Management Plan.127 Town of Vail also hosts and supports recreation events on the mountain and in the Town of Vail, including on Gore Creek.

For the northern goshawk, American peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, hoary bat and American marten, projects listed in Appendix A would contribute no additional meaningful cumulative effects on these species because project areas would not extend to potential habitat

124 DOLA, 2018 125 USFWS, 1999 126 Eagle County, 2018 127 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018

Final Environmental Impact Statement 97 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

that could be affected by the Proposed Action on NFS lands.128 Refer to the Fish and Wildlife Technical Report in the project file for a complete discussion of cumulative effects on each species.

Migratory Birds Projects listed in Appendix A would contribute no additional cumulative effects on migratory birds.

Species of Local Concern The development of Vail Mountain Resort since 1962 has had cumulative impacts on Mill Creek from the development of Mill Creek Road to cutting of ski trails to building and construction of Mid-Vail. The proposed project may add cumulatively to the wildlife-related impacts to Mill Creek, such as impacts on fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Required mitigation measures related to stream health and water resources (see Table 2-1) would offset some of these impacts.

The loss of elk and mule deer habitat from development of the Eagle Valley, as well as the development of Vail Mountain Resort over the years has added to the considerable summer and winter range losses that have occurred in the area. The Proposed Action would add cumulatively to this loss of habitat. The Eagle County and Town of Vail planning departments were contacted to identify pending land use applications.129 No pending and use applications identified reasonably foreseeable criteria and would potentially affect elk and mule deer habitats. 3.8.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Tree and other vegetation removal related to the proposed Golden Peak Improvements Project would represent an irretrievable effect to some habitat for some threatened and endangered, Region 2 sensitive, and animal SOLC as well as migratory birds within the Analysis Area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because the habitat is a renewable resource that could be replaced in the long term with restoration efforts. 3.9 Water Resources 3.9.1 Scope of the Analysis This analysis summarizes the Water Resources Specialist Report and Drainage Management Plan, which are available in the project file.130 For the purposes of the Water Resources analysis, the project area is a 1,605-acre area that encompasses 17 sub-basin watersheds (sub-basins). 3.9.2 Affected Environment The Proposed Action is located on a primarily west-facing slope that ranges from approximately 10,080 feet in elevation at Golden Peak to 8,360 feet in elevation at the snowmaking compressor house. Existing ski facilities include a terrain park, a training center, an extensive network of ski trails, and extensive snowmaking infrastructure between 8,500 and 9,500 feet in elevation. Table 3.9-1 provides the amounts

128 CEQ, 1997; USEPA, 1999 129 Eagle County, 2017 130 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018

98 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of treed areas, ski trails with and without snowmaking, and developed area within the project area sub- basins. For sub-basin delineations, refer to the Water Resources Specialist Report in the project file.

Table 3.9-1. Existing Conditions within the Project Area Sub-basins Land Use Type

Sub-Basin Area Ski Trails Ski Trails with Sub-Basin (acres) Treed Areas without Snowmaking Developed Area (acres) Snowmaking Area (acres) (acres) (acres) GC-1B 260.6 161.2 0.2 2.3 97.0 GP-2A 29.5 1.3 0.0 28.2 0.0 GP-2B 18.3 6.2 2.8 9.4 0.0 GP-2C 26.1 18.0 0.5 7.7 0.0 GP-2D 12.5 1.6 0.04 10.8 0.0 GP-2E 19.0 9.6 3.6 5.7 0.0 GP-2F 5.7 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 GP-2G 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 GP-2H 9.4 3.4 0.3 5.7 0.0 GP-2I 23.5 8.0 3.0 12.5 0.0 GP-2J 26.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP-2K 24.6 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP-3 59.4 50.1 8.8 0.5 0.0 GP-5 69.2 56.4 12.8 0.0 0.0 MB-1 232.1 223.2 0.0 0.0 8.9 MC-1 461.1 284.9 176.1 0.0 0.0 MC-3 326.0 259.5 66.4 0.0 0.0 Total 1,604.9 1,138.7 276.6 83.6 105.9

Based on Table 3.9-1, treed areas make up approximately 71 percent of the project area. Ski trails (with or without snowmaking) make up approximately 22 percent of the project area, and developed areas comprise 7 percent of the project area. The amount of developed land within the project area is due to sub-basin GC-1B extending into the Town of Vail.

3.9.2.1 Vegetation Vegetation within the project area primarily includes treed, grassed (graminoid), and wetland areas. Treed areas have canopies consisting primarily of aspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia). The understories are typically well vegetated with primarily herbaceous and shrub species; little bare ground is present. Non-treed areas within the project area include graminoid dominated ski trails (with and without snow-making during the winter months) and developed areas associated with the Town of Vail. Refer to Section 3.7 for more information.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 99 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.9.2.2 Drainage Network The lower portion of Golden Peak, from the Riva Bahn Express (Chair 6) mid-station and below, have been modified over the years to accommodate the creation of the Vail Mountain Resort. Modifications have included tree clearing for ski runs and snowmaking during the winter months to improve skiing conditions. Drainage patterns have been affected by re-contouring of ski slopes, construction of roads, and numerous drainage improvements (e.g., water bars, sediment basins, channels, ditches, pipelines) to distribute runoff in a manner that reduces the concentration of erosive energy and minimizes the potential for water quality impacts on down-gradient streams.

Detailed descriptions of existing drainage conditions and improvements are provided in the Drainage Management Plan, found in the Water Resources Specialist Report in the project file.

The drainage network within the project area drains primarily towards Mill Creek, which is a perennial tributary of Gore Creek. The remainder of the Golden Peak area drains into Gore Creek. Gore Creek is tributary to the Eagle River. The Eagle River is tributary to the Colorado River. The Analysis Area is located within the upper Eagle River watershed (HUC 14010003).131

3.9.2.3 Hydrologic Conditions The hydrologic conditions of the project area are based on existing vegetation types (e.g., trees, graminoids), density of vegetation coverage, hydrologic cycle (including additional snow application), and water conveyance via overland flow and drainage features (e.g., man-made features, naturally occurring drainages). A Drainage Management Plan has been created which addresses current hydrologic conditions.

Currently in the 1,605 acres in the project area, snowmaking occurs on approximately 83 acres of ski trails (or 5 percent) including a 25-foot half-pipe and multiple terrain features located in the lower portion of the project area. The total amount of snow applied annually is up to 253 acre-feet. Under existing conditions, snowmaking generally begins in mid to late October with the majority of snow being applied in the months of November and December. Snowmaking typically ends by late January. Snowmaking extends the duration of snowmelt and delays peak discharge from natural conditions. These changes are due to snow being on ski trails for a longer period of time than if snow was not applied. It is also important to note that discrete runoff events associated with summer rainstorms may equal or occasionally exceed peak flows that occur during spring runoff. As a result, runoff management throughout the year is an important component of the Drainage Management Plan.

Based on hydrologic modeling, annual runoff totals 781 acre-feet in a wet year, 710 acre-feet in an average year, and 482 acre-feet in a dry year. Peak flows range from 22 cubic feet per second (cfs) in a wet year, 18 cfs in an average year, and 9 cfs in a dry year. In average and wet years there is a considerable increase in discharge at the end of March or early April with peak discharge occurring in late May or early June. Runoff steadily declines in June and July. In dry years, there is an increase in flows at the end of March with peak discharge occurring in mid-April.

131 CDPHE, 2003

100 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Runoff is intercepted by water bars, channels, and infiltration areas that store and convey water to Mill Creek. Small sedimentation basins and energy dissipating structures that reduce energy and spread flow to prevent erosion are located on the slope between swales and Mill Creek. A majority of the runoff from the middle portion of the ski resort is intercepted by the Dragon’s Breath pipeline, which is located at the lower end of the existing terrain park. The Dragon’s Breath pipeline conveys runoff to Mill Creek via a 24-inch culvert. Based on field observations, the existing drainage features and infiltration areas are effective in the management of existing runoff.132 Few signs of erosion were observed. Existing drainage features associated with Vail Mountain Resort appear to adequately reduce erosion and reduce impacts on stream health.

3.9.2.4 Depletions Snowmaking at Vail Mountain Resort is dependent upon diverting water from Gore Creek. The primary water diversions for snowmaking at the resort are located on Gore Creek above Red Sandstone Creek and at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River. Total water usage over the last five years averaged 534.5 acre-feet per ski season for snowmaking.133 Approximately 25 percent of the water used for snowmaking does not return to Gore Creek due to water depletions from evaporation, sublimation, and evapotranspiration. Based on average annual water usage (534.5 acre-feet), the current average annual water depletions to Gore Creek and the Colorado River are 133.6 acre-feet.

The USFWS has determined that water depletions to the Colorado River above the confluence with the Gunnison River may affect the following endangered Colorado big river fish including the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and their designated critical habitat. A cooperative agreement between the Department of the Interior, the Upper Colorado River Basin states, and other parties approved the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery Program). Under the Recovery Program, a framework has been established for conducting Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Section 7) consultation on depletion impacts. In December 1999 the USFWS completed a programmatic Biological Opinion covering actions under the Recovery Program. To be included under the umbrella of the programmatic Biological Opinion, water users are required to enter into a Recovery Agreement. Vail Resorts signed a Recovery Agreement with the USFWS on March 30, 2000. Per the 2009 FEIS, 1,316 acre-feet of annual snowmaking water depletions are covered by previous Section 7 consultations.134 The existing depletions (133.6 acre-feet) are well below this amount. See the Water Resources Specialist Report for more information, contained in the project file.

3.9.2.5 Impaired Waters The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission has adopted and amended Regulation #93 which includes Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (303(d) List) and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) List. The 303(d) List fulfills the requirements of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, which requires states to provide the USEPA with a list of

132 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018 133 Vail Resorts, 2017 134 USDA Forest Service, 2009a

Final Environmental Impact Statement 101 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

waters for which technology-based effluent limitation and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards.135 Table 3.9-2 identifies waterbodies that are downgradient of the Proposed Action that are on the 303(d) or M&E List.

Table 3.9-2. 303(D) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List Reach Start Reach End Parameter Type Gore Creek – Segment 8 Black Gore Creek Confluence with the Eagle River Aquatic Life (provisional) Impaired (Low Priority) Eagle River – Segment 9a Berry Creek Ute Creek Temperature Additional Data Needed¹ Ute Creek Rube Creek Temperature Impaired (High Priority) Berry Creek Squaw Creek Aquatic Life Additional Data Needed¹ Berry Creek Squaw Creek Sediment Impaired (High Priority) Gore Creek Berry Creek Sediment Additional Data Neededa Gore Creek Squaw Creek Arsenic Impaired (Low Priority) Notes: a Included on the M&E List. Additional data is needed to determine whether or not standards are being met.

Segment 8 includes the mainstem of Gore Creek from Black Gore Creek to the confluence of the Eagle River. In December 2012 Gore Creek (Segment 8) was added to the 303(d) list for aquatic life use impairment, with a provisional qualifier indicating that the cause of impairment is unknown. The listing would remain provisional until a pollutant—one that is either the cause of the impairment, or one that fails to meet a water quality standard—is identified.

Several key stressors have been identified as the cause of impairment and biological degradation in Gore Creek.136 Recent studies have documented the primary stressors in Gore Creek, which include: urban runoff containing pollutants such as petroleum products, nutrients, fertilizers, and other lawn care products, and other pollutants. These studies found stressed conditions throughout the urbanized areas of the Town of Vail. The areas that showed the most biological degradation were in East Vail and upstream from Mill Creek and the Vail Golf Course. Biological conditions observed in the East Vail reach of Gore Creek are consistent with impacts from insecticides and herbicides, road deicers, and petroleum products. Observations of stream substrate conditions in Gore Creek, above and below the confluence of Mill Creek, during the collection of biological samples have not indicated embedded conditions or considerable accumulation of fine sediment that would cause or contribute to the impairment of aquatic life.

Eagle River Basin Segment 9a includes the mainstem of the Eagle River from its confluence with Gore Creek to the confluence with Squaw Creek. Several stream reaches in Eagle River Segment 9a (from Gore Creek to Squaw Creek) are listed as impaired and have been identified for Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). The portion of Eagle River from Berry Creek to Squaw Creek has been placed on the

135 CDPHE, 2017b 136 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2013

102 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

303(d) List for sediment. The portions of Eagle River segment 9a above Berry Creek and below Squaw Creek were placed on the M&E list for sediment.

The 6-mile-long portion of Segment 9a from Berry Creek to Ute Creek has been added to the State of Colorado’s M&E List for temperature and the portion from Ute Creek to Rube Creek has been added to the 303(d) List for temperature. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, in consultation with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, is collecting and evaluating temperature data to determine the potential causes (natural and anthropogenic) of elevated temperatures during the late summer and fall, the potential biological impacts, and the appropriateness of the currently applicable standards. It is important to note that this area is located 9 to 11 miles downstream from the confluences of Gore Creek and Game Creek with the Eagle River.

In 2016 the entire 12-mile-long Eagle River Segment 9a from Gore Creek to Squaw Creek was added as having a low-priority impairment for arsenic on the 303(d) List. This occurred because this segment exceeded acceptable arsenic limits, though not to a degree to warrant a “high-priority” listing. Arsenic can be naturally occurring or may occur as a result of mining activities. These factors, or others, could be contributing to the arsenic impairment. 3.9.2.6 Stream Health A major effort has been underway to improve stream health in Gore Creek in response to the addition of Gore Creek to the 303(d) List. This effort is being coordinated by the Eagle River Watershed Council and has resulted in the recent completion of the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan.137 Coordinated efforts are currently underway by the Town of Vail, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Vail Resorts, Colorado Department of Transportation as well as other interested stakeholders to implement water quality protection and improvement programs and projects.

It is important to note that the majority of the project area (1,112 acres or 69 percent) is tributary to Mill Creek which flows into Gore Creek. The remainder of the project area in sub-basins GC-1B and MB-1B is tributary to Gore Creek (493 acres or 31 percent). As a result, the stream health assessment focused on the Mill Creek sub-basins where the majority of the Proposed Action is located.

3.9.2.7 Watershed Analysis Vegetation next to water bodies plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic systems. Values provided include shade, bank stability, fish cover, woody debris input, storage and release of sediment, surface-ground water interactions, and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals. The Water Influence Zone (WIZ) includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. The WIZ protects interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems. Its minimal horizontal width (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is greater.138 For purposes of this study, it was assumed that the mean height of mature dominant late-seral

137 Ibid. 138 USDA Forest Service, 2006

Final Environmental Impact Statement 103 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

vegetation was less than 100 feet; therefore, the Mill Creek WIZ extends 100 feet from the top of each bank.

Disturbed areas within the WIZ and the remainder of the project area that would be impacted by the Proposed Action were identified by TerraCognito GIS Services, who conducted field surveys, reviewed aerial photographs, and assessed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data to identify anthropogenic land disturbance.139 The total area of WIZ in the sub-basins, amount of disturbed WIZ, and types of disturbance are provided in Table 3.9-3.

Table 3.9-3. Disturbed Areas Within the Water Influence Zone Total WIZ in Disturbed Area Sub-Basin Project Area Within the WIZ Type of Disturbance (acres) (acres) GP-3 10.5 0.4 Buildings, Facilities, Roads, Trails, Past Grading GP-5 7.4 0.8 Roads, Trails, Past Grading MC-1 47.5 0.2 Roads, Trails, Past Grading MC-3 29.4 0.8 Roads, Trails, Past Grading Total 94.8 2.2 Source: TerraCognito 2017

In summary, approximately 2.2 acres or 2.3 percent of the 94.8-acre Mill Creek WIZ has been disturbed by buildings, facilities, roads, trails and past grading. Tree removal and ground disturbance in the WIZ can impact bank stability by creating hydrologic connections between high-runoff areas and the channel network, known as connected disturbed areas (CDAs). Roads and trails that intersect the WIZ were assumed to be connected to the stream channel network because roadside drainage ditches may frequently discharge directly into the stream channel network (e.g., Mill Creek). The connection of roadside drainage increases direct routing of runoff flow within the watershed, increasing peak flows and subsequent erosion and sediment transport.

For purposes of this study, disturbed areas within the WIZ and areas outside the WIZ (e.g., roads, trails, ditches, compacted soils, bare soils, and other high runoff areas) that are directly connected to the channel system were considered CDAs. Table 3.9-4 provides CDAs and isolated disturbed areas by sub-basin.

139 TerraCognito, 2017

104 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-4. Connected Disturbed Areas and Isolated Disturbed Areas Isolated Sub-Basin Area CDA Within WIZ CDA Outside WIZ Total CDA Disturbed Areas Sub-Basin Within Project Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (Non-CDA) (acres) (acres) GC-1B 260.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP-2A 29.5 0.0 6.5 6.5 0.4 GP-2B 18.3 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.1 GP-2C 26.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.1 GP-2D 12.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.6 GP-2E 19.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 GP-2F 5.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 GP-2G 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 GP-2H 9.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 GP-2I 23.5 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.6 GP-2J 26.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.02 GP-2K 24.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 GP-3 59.4 0.4 2.1 2.5 0.04 GP-5 69.2 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.8 MB-1B 232.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MC-1 461.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 MC-3 326.0 0.8 4.8 5.6 0.6 Total 1,604.9 2.2 21.8 23.9 5.9 Source: TerraCognito 2017

In addition to the 2.2 acres of CDA within the Mill Creek WIZ, an additional 21.8 acres of CDA is present outside the WIZ. These CDAs may deliver sediment to Mill Creek during runoff events. These areas are connected to CDAs within the WIZ primarily by man-made water bars, channels, and ditches. CDAs inside and outside the WIZ total approximately 23.9 acres or 1.5 percent project area. While not considered CDAs, there are an additional 5.9 acres of isolated disturbed areas.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 105 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.9.2.8 Stream Health Analysis – Riparian and Stream Channel Conditions The information used for this section was provided by the Forest Service. In general, field observations of stream health are in agreement with Forest Service information and findings.140 The impact of disturbed areas on riparian and stream channel conditions was evaluated by the Forest Service using the agency’s stream health methodology.141 Stream health is defined as the condition of a stream (i.e., Mill Creek) compared to the condition of a pristine or minimally disturbed reference stream. Reference streams represent the natural condition that is most attainable for a given channel type and geology. Stream health classes, which are based on habitat conditions as a percent of the reference site(s), are provided in.

Table 3.9-5. Stream Health Classes Stream Reference Site Habitat Conditionb Health Classa (%) Stream exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity > 74 relative to its natural potential condition. Physical, chemical and/or Robust or biologic conditions suggest that state-assigned water quality (beneficial, < 126c designated or classified) uses are supported. Stream exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity 59 to 73 relative to its natural potential condition (as represented by a suitable At Risk or reference condition). Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions 127 to 141c suggest that state-assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses are at risk and may be threatened. Stream exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity < 58 relative to its natural potential condition (as represented by a suitable Diminished or reference condition). Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions > 142c suggest that state-assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses may not be supported. Notes: a Stream health classes are calculated from the reference values using the Forest Service Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25). b Habitat condition is typically quantified by measuring the channel features needed to support aquatic life such as streambed sediment, pool depths, stream bank stability and wood frequency (where applicable). c For metrics that increase with decreasing stream health, such as fine sediment and unstable stream banks.

Six reference streams for Mill Creek were identified by the Forest Service within the SUP. These reference streams were similar to Mill Creek in that they are considered Rosgen Stream Type A and have similar watershed aspects and flowpath characteristics. Rosgen Stream Type A includes relatively straight streams with a dominant slope range of 4 to 10 percent. These streams may have step-pools, cascades or chute beds. All reference streams were determined to be robust.142

140 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018 141 USDA Forest Service, 2006; CDPHE, 2014 142 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018

106 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Three stream health surveys were conducted by Forest Service specialists within the Mill Creek drainage during 2017. All stream health analysis survey locations were located downgradient of the uppermost watershed alteration associated with the Proposed Action. The stream reaches surveyed exhibited multiple indications of peak flow rates beyond what Mill Creek’s inherent stability can tolerate. The percentage of unstable banks and relatively low percentage of fines, along with healthy residual pool depths (RPD), indicate the recurrence of energy events or conditions capable of carrying excessive volumes of eroded sediment from Mill Creek drainage into Gore Creek. Table 3.9-6 provides stream health information for the Mill Creek 1, 1A and C sampling locations.

Table 3.9-6. Mill Creek Stream Health Map Gradient Fine Sediment Residual Pool Depth Unstable Banks Stream (%) (% of streambed) (meters) (%) Mill 1A 7.7 5.3 0.35 0.00 Mill 1 10.9 3.5 0.40 17.0 Mill C 11.3 11.8 0.43 15.1 Robust Health Class <14.0 >0.24 <8.5 At-Risk Health Class 14.0–15.7 0.19–0.24 8.5–9.6 Diminished Health Class >15.7 < 0.19 >9.6

The percent of fine sediments and residual pool depth for each sample location indicated Robust stream health. Bank stability was considered Robust at Mill 1A and Diminished at Mill 1 and C. The stream health class ratings (refer to Table 3.9-5) represent the cumulative effects of all past and current activities on stream bank stability and fine sediment levels in the Mill Creek drainage. Stream health indicators may be used to estimate the effect of watershed alteration and compare alternatives. Unstable banks may include breakdown (clumps of bank are broken away and banks are exposed); slumping (banks have slipped down); tension cracking or fracture (a crack visible on the bank); or vertical and eroding (bank is mostly uncovered, less than 50 percent covered by perennial vegetation, roots, rocks of cobble size or larger, logs of 0.1 meter in diameter or larger, and the bank angle is steeper than 80 degrees from the horizontal). Undercut banks are considered stable unless tension fractures show on the ground surface at the back of the undercut. The Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook lists increased runoff as one of the major sources of stream impacts.143 It has been demonstrated that increases in peak discharge and annual volume of runoff can negatively impact the stability of streambanks.

143 USDA Forest Service, 2006

Final Environmental Impact Statement 107 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.9.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 3.9.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail Mountain Resort without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS lands (other than those previously-approved, yet to be implemented projects). Water resources and hydrologic function would remain similar to those described in the Section 3.9.3.

3.9.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Construction of the Proposed Action would result in ground disturbance and potential sedimentation that could potentially impact the water quality in Mill Creek and other downgradient streams (e.g., Gore Creek). The majority of the project area (1,112 acres or 69 percent) is tributary to Mill Creek which flows into Gore Creek. The remainder of the area (493 acres or 31 percent) in sub-basins GC-1B and MB-1B is tributary to Gore Creek. Of the 493 acres that drains towards Gore Creek, only 4.3 acres or 0.9 percent of the upper portions of sub-basin GC-1B and MB-1B would be directly impacted by the Proposed Action. These impacts are buffered from Gore Creek by dense, undeveloped aspen and lodgepole pine forest. In addition, it is anticipated that runoff in these sub-basins would be directed towards the Mill Creek sub- basins via water bars, a lined or armored drainage, and pipelines included in the Drainage Management Plan (refer to the Water Resources Specialist Report). As a result, the stream health assessment focused on the Mill Creek sub-basins where the majority of the Proposed Action is located.

The Drainage Management Plan includes a detailed plan of proposed drainage features, infiltration areas, pipelines and connection to the existing drainage system that would be used to mitigate changes in hydrology, attenuate flows, reduce erosion, and maintain stream health. The Drainage Management Plan consist primarily of improvements of water bars, reconfiguration and improvement of some existing water bars, construction of new or improved roadside ditches/lined channels to direct runoff and reduce erosive energy. Pipelines may be considered as alternatives to convey flow. The feasibility, sizing, and alignments of pipelines should be considered during the final design, construction, and implementation of the Drainage Management Plan.

3.9.3.3 Vegetation The Proposed Action would result in the following land use types within the project area (refer to Table 3.9-7). Table 3.9-8 provides a comparison of existing land conditions.

108 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-7. Proposed Conditions within the Project Area Sub-basins Land Use Type Sub-Basin Area Sub-Basin Treed Ski Trails without Ski Trails with Developed (acres) Areas Snowmaking Snowmaking Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) GC-1B 260.6 160.1 0.2 3.4 97.0 GP-2A 29.5 1.3 0.0 28.2 0.0 GP-2B 18.3 6.2 2.8 9.4 0.0 GP-2C 26.1 12.6 0.6 13.0 0.0 GP-2D 12.5 1.6 0.04 10.8 0.0 GP-2E 19.0 9.6 3.6 5.7 0.0 GP-2F 5.7 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 GP-2G 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 GP-2H 9.4 3.1 0.6 5.7 0.0 GP-2I 23.5 8.0 3.0 12.5 0.0 GP-2J 26.4 11.3 0.4 14.7 0.0 GP-2K 24.6 7.7 0.4 16.5 0.01 GP-3 59.4 50.1 8.8 0.5 0.0 GP-5 69.2 56.4 12.8 0.0 0.0 MB-1 232.1 220.0 0.01 3.2 8.9 MC-1 461.1 284.9 176.1 0.0 0.0 MC-3 326.0 258.5 66.4 0.5 0.5 Total 1,604.9 1,095.7 277.8 124.9 106.4

Table 3.9-8. Mill Creek Stream Health Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Change in Land Use Percent Change Land Use Type (acres) (acres) (acres) (%) Treed Areas 1,138.7 1,095.6 -43.1 -4 Ski Trails Without 276.5 277.7 +1.2 +1 Snowmaking Ski Trails With 83.6 124.9 +41.3 +49 Snowmakinga Developed Area 105.8 106.4 +0.5 +1 Notes: a Only includes snowmaking associated with the Proposed Action.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 109 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Of the 1,605 acres project area, approximately 43 acres of treed areas would be converted to ski trails and developed areas (e.g., buildings) as a result of the Proposed Action. This conversion results in a 4 percent reduction in treed area within the project area. An incremental increase in ski trails without snowmaking (approximately 1.2 acres or approximately 1 percent) would occur due to grading on the edges of existing and proposed ski trails. An incremental increase in developed area (0.5 acre or approximately 1 percent) would occur due to the construction of structures in sub-basins MB-1B (race start houses and top lift shelter) and MC-3 (fuel storage, maintenance building, bathrooms). There would be a net increase of 41 acres of new ski trails with snowmaking within the project area. This would nearly double the acreage of ski trails with snowmaking in the project area. In addition to ski trail development, approximately 1 acre of additional vegetation clearing may be needed for the construction of potential drainage management pipelines. 3.9.3.4 Drainage Network The project area has been modified over the years to accommodate the creation of the Vail Mountain Resort. Modifications have included tree clearing for ski runs and snow making during the winter months to improve skiing conditions. Drainage patterns have been affected by re-contouring of ski slopes, construction of roads, and numerous drainage improvements (e.g., water bars, sediment basins, channels, ditches, pipelines) to distribute runoff in a manner that reduces the concentration of erosive energy and minimizes the potential for water quality impacts on down-gradient streams. The Proposed Action would involve additional changes to drainage patterns for the same reasons. Detailed descriptions of existing drainage conditions and proposed improvements are provided in the Drainage Management Plan (refer to the Water Resources Specialist Report).

3.9.3.5 Hydrologic Conditions Table 3.9-9 shows a comparison of existing and proposed hydrologic conditions.

Table 3.9-9. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Hydrologic Conditions Existing Proposed Hydrologic Component Amount of Change Percent Change Conditions Conditions Snowmaking Area (acres) 83 125 +41 +47 Quantity (acre-feet) 253 315 +62 +25 Annual Runoff Volume Wet Year (acre-feet) 781 848 +67 +9 Average Year (acre-feet) 710 774 +64 +9 Dry Year (acre-feet) 482 537 +55 +11 Peak Flow Wet Year (cfs) 22 21 -1 -5 Average Year (cfs) 18 20 +2 +11 Dry Year (cfs) 9 9 0 0

110 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Proposed Action would require tree clearing, grading, slope contouring, and construction of a new access road which would result in changes to the quantity and timing of runoff and the physical alteration of drainage patterns. Snowmelt and storm event runoff from previously developed areas on or below the Proposed Action would also be affected by tree clearing and snowmaking practices. The Proposed Action would result in the annual runoff volume increasing by 67 acre-feet (9 percent) in a wet year and 64 acre- feet in an average year with the largest monthly volume shifting from May to June as a result of increased snowmaking runoff. The annual runoff volume in a dry year would increase by 55 acre-feet (11 percent), with the largest monthly volume shifting from April to May and a net decrease in runoff in November and December as a result of increased snowmaking. Snowmelt is not anticipated to occur later in the year after implementation of the Proposed Action compared to current conditions. In fact, snowmelt may occur earlier in some areas, due to snow exposure to sun and wind. The volume of snow may be greater in some areas, but the timing of runoff or snowmaking would not substantially change. Natural weather variability such as precipitation, sunny vs. cloudy days, and temperatures are the primary drivers of how long snow persists on the race terrain. Peak flows would remain at or below the existing peak for many of the sub- basins in dry and wet years, but peak flows are expected to increase by approximately 2 cfs (11 percent) in an average year. See the Water Resources Specialist Report for more detailed information on individual sub-basin drainage areas’ characteristics, geomorphology, and hydrology. The Drainage Management Plan also includes a detailed plan describing the proposed drainage features, infiltration areas, pipelines, and connection to the existing drainage system that would be used to mitigate changes in hydrology, attenuate flows, reduce erosion, and maintain stream health. 3.9.3.6 Depletions New snowmaking for the Proposed Action would cover 41.3 acres of ski trails and would increase snowmaking water usage by 62 acre-feet per ski season (refer to Table 3.9-9). Water depletions for this new snowmaking would average 15.5 acre-feet per year (25 percent of 62 acre-feet). This would increase snowmaking depletions to 149.1 acre-feet per year (133.6 acre-feet of existing depletions plus 15.5 acre- feet of new depletions). This amount is well below the amount of depletions covered by previous Section 7 consultations (1,316 acre-feet).144

3.9.3.7 Stream Health Mill Creek currently exhibits diminished stream health class for stream bank stability. The Proposed Action improvements have the ability to quickly route water to the stream and contribute to increased peak flows. Removal of vegetative cover reduces soil permeability, allows water to runoff much more quickly and exposes soil to erosion which increases sediment loading to streams. Increases in runoff (peak flows) may diminish stream health in Mill Creek without appropriate mitigation to maintain or improve conditions towards the robust stream health class. Prior to construction, an erosion and sediment control plan should be developed that would be comprised of three major elements: (1) erosion control measures should be used to limit erosion of soil from disturbed areas at a construction site; (2) sediment control measures should be used to limit transport of sediment to off-site properties and downstream receiving waters; and (3) drainageway protection and runoff management measures should be used to protect streams and other drainageways located on the construction site from erosion and sediment damages.

144 Leonard Rice Engineers, 2018

Final Environmental Impact Statement 111 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

During construction and operation, mitigation and monitoring should continue, such as but not limited to minimizing disturbance in CDAs, allowing only those land treatments that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition, and minimizing sediment discharge during construction and operation. Refer to the Water Resources Specialist Report for additional information on stream health (refer to Table 2-1 in this document and Table 18 in the Water Resources Specialist Report).

Vegetation next to water bodies plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic systems. The WIZ protects interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems. For purposes of this study, the Mill Creek WIZ extends 100 feet from the top of each bank. A comparison of existing and proposed disturbance in WIZ is provided in Table 3.9-10.

Table 3.9-10. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Disturbance in the WIZ Existing Proposed Change in Change in Total WIZ in Project Disturbance Sub-Basin Disturbance in the Disturbance Disturbance Area (acres) Within the WIZ¹ WIZ (acres) (percentage) (acres) GP-3 10.5 0.4 0.4 +0.02 +6 GP-5 7.4 0.8 0.8 0 0 MC-1 47.5 0.2 0.2 0 0 MC-3 29.4 0.8 0.8 0 0 Total 94.8 2.2 2.2 0.02 6 Source: TerraCognito 2017

In summary, approximately 2.2 acres or 2.3 percent of the 94.8-acre Mill Creek WIZ has been disturbed by buildings, facilities, roads, trails and past grading. There would be a 0.02 acre or approximately 6 percent increase in disturbance in the WIZ due to grading associated with the snowmaking pipe. This disturbance is located in an existing ski trail and should not result in the removal of trees in the WIZ. These impacts would be considered temporary (e.g., no tree removal, minimal grading) and would be revegetated with a native grass/forb mix approved by the WRNF Botanist.

Construction of the Proposed Action would result in ground disturbance outside of the WIZ and an increase in the amount of connected disturbed areas. See the Water Resources Specialist Report in the project file for more detail. 3.9.4 Cumulative Effects 3.9.4.1 Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

112 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of water resources extend from 1962 when Vail Mountain Resort first opened through the foreseeable future in which the resort can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of water resources on Vail Mountain Resort and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Eagle County.

3.9.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects project area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski resort and county development projects have been incorporated and analyzed in this document as part of the Affected Environment. The following types of projects could have cumulative impacts on water resources: • Vail Mountain Resort improvements projects • Forest Service tree hazard and vegetation clearing and restoration projects • Town of Vail and Eagle Valley planning and development projects • Town of Vail recreation events

Past activities that have affected watershed resources on WRNF and private lands within the Upper Eagle River and Gore Creek watersheds include: timber harvest; heavy metals mining and associated tailings and waste rock; railroad construction, highway and road construction and development for US Highway 24 and Interstate 70, military usage associated with the World War II-era Camp Hale army base; dispersed outdoor recreation; and private residential development. Town of Vail also hosts and supports recreation events on the mountain and in the Town of Vail, including on Gore Creek. On-going human influence within the Upper Eagle River watershed has substantially altered land cover, resulting in changes to riparian ecosystems and hydrologic function via a variety of impact mechanisms: • Increasing peak flows due to stormwater runoff from developed areas. • Increases in stream temperature due to loss of shading from removal of riparian vegetation. • Loss of riparian habitat associated with the historic straightening of the Eagle River within the confines of Camp Hale. • Increased erosion and sediment transport within the watershed due to military, mining, and transportation development. • Severe sediment impacts within Black Gore Creek associated with traction sanding on I-70. • Municipal water diversions for the municipalities of Vail, Minturn, and Red Cliff. • Wastewater loads from municipal treatment facilities. • Snowmaking diversions from Vail Mountain Resort.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 113 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Decreased stream flows due to anthropogenic water withdrawals, including a trans-basin diversion along the crest of Tennessee Pass that conveys water into the Arkansas River watershed. • Impacts to fisheries habitat caused by timber harvest, mining, development, grazing and transportation. • Impacts to water quality caused by heavy metals loading from mining waste rock and tailings. • Benefits to water quality resulting from reclamation of mine sites.

Cumulatively, these changes have resulted in an altered watershed ecosystem, with the associated impacts resulting in degraded stream health conditions, both within the Upper Eagle River and Gore Creek watersheds. The Proposed Action would add a small increment of adverse cumulative impact on water resources, especially to Mill Creek. The proposed mitigation activities on the Mill Creek Trail (refer to Chapter 2 and Appendix A) would offset a substantial portion of these adverse cumulative impacts. 3.9.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Under Alternative 2, stream health, hydrology, and water yield would change. Although these changes would represent a small amount of alteration to the water resources in and around the project area, water is a renewable resource. This alteration of water resources would be irretrievable during construction and operation of the Proposed Action but could be irreversible if the water diversion structures and changes to Golden Peak terrain were reversed in the long term (e.g., vegetation could be replanted, water bars could be removed, snowmaking operations could cease) to restore more natural hydrologic conditions.

114 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4. Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Preparers 4.1.1 Forest Service Team The following people participated in initial scoping, were members of the ID Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this FEIS. Scott Fitzwilliams White River National Forest Supervisor, Responsible Official Aaron Mayville Eagle-Holy Cross District Ranger Marcia Gilles Eagle-Holy Cross Deputy District Ranger Max Forgensi Mountain Sports Permit Administrator, ID Team Leader Justin Anderson Hydrologist Jennifer Austin Wildlife Biologist Michael Beach Trails and Wilderness Adam Bianchi East Zone NEPA Coordinator Stephen Elzinga Range Technician Thomas Fuller Archaeologist Donna Graham Landscape Architect Cary Green Timber Management Matt Grove Fisheries Biologist Lynn Khaut Soil Scientist Kristen Pelz Ecologist Thomas Probert Hydrologist 4.1.2 Consultant Team The use of a third-party consulting firm for preparation of an EIS is addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR § 1506.5(c). If an EIS is prepared with the assistance of a consulting firm, the firm must execute a disclosure statement, as indicated below: Except as provided in §§1506.2 and 1506.3 any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor selected by the lead agency or where appropriate under §1501.6(b), a cooperating agency. It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency, or where appropriate the cooperating agency, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit any agency from

Final Environmental Impact Statement 115 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

requesting any person to submit information to it or to prohibit any person from submitting information to any agency.

Furthermore, the use of a third-party contractor in preparing an EIS is specifically addressed by the CEQ in its “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations” in question #17a.145 Per this CEQ direction: When a consulting firm has been involved in developing initial data and plans for the project, but does not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the decision, it need not be disqualified from preparing the EIS. However, a disclosure statement in the draft EIS should clearly state the scope and extent of the firm’s prior involvement to expose any potential conflicts of interest that may exist.

Accordingly, disclosure statements were signed by all entities that make up the third-party consulting team. These disclosure statements are included in the project file.

4.1.2.1 SE Group Kent Sharp Principal, Senior Project Manager Larissa Read Senior Project Manager Kristen Carey Associate Environmental Planner Will Hollo Environmental Analyst Sam O’Keefe Environmental Analyst Drew Gorin Environmental Analyst Eleanor Wachtel Environmental Analyst Mitch Lefevre Visual Simulations Paula Samuelson Document Production

4.1.2.2 Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. David Buscher Soil Scientist

4.1.2.3 GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. James P. McCalpin GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc.

4.1.2.4 Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. Samantha Clark Senior Project Manager Mark Mitisek Project Manager Robert M. Weaver Senior Project Adviser

4.1.2.5 Metcalf Archeology Melissa Elkins Project Manager/Regional Project Coordinator Ann McKibbin Principal Investigator

145 CEQ, 1986

116 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4.1.2.6 TerraCognito GIS Services Lex Ivey Principal

4.1.2.7 Western Ecological Resource, Inc. and Peak Ecological Services, LLC Rea Orthner Plant Ecologist and Botanist

4.1.2.8 Western Ecosystems, Inc. Richard W. Thompson Certified Wildlife Biologist 4.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted 4.2.1 Federal Government U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Representative, Honorable Jared Polis USDA National Resources Conservation Service 4.2.2 Tribal Government Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah & Ouray Reservation) Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 4.2.3 State Government Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado Parks and Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service Colorado Wildlife Federation Conservation Colorado Governor of Colorado, Honorable John Hickenlooper USDA NRCS Glenwood Springs Service Center U.S. Representative, Honorable Jared Polis U.S. Senator, Honorable Michael Bennett U.S. Senator, Honorable Cory Gardner 4.2.4 Local Governments Eagle County Commissioners Eagle County Government Eagle County Planning Department

Final Environmental Impact Statement 117 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Town of Vail Town of Avon 4.2.5 Organizations Alliance for Sustainable Colorado Center for Biological Diversity Colorado Mountain Club Colorado Ski Country USA Colorado Trail Foundation Colorado Trails Preservation Alliance Colorado Trout Unlimited Colorado Wildlife Federation Conservation Colorado Defenders of Wildlife – Rockies and Plains Office Eagle County Chamber of Commerce Eagle River Watershed Council Environment Colorado National Ski Areas Association Nature Conservancy – Colorado Field Office Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Rocky Mountain Wild Sierra Club – Rocky Mountain Chapter Ski and Snowboard Club Vail Vail Homeowners Association Vail Recreation District Vail Valley Foundation Western Resources Advocates – Colorado Office Western Watersheds WildEarth Guardians – Colorado Office Wilderness Society – Colorado Office Wilderness Workshop 4.2.6 Local Media Post Independent Vail Daily News 4.2.7 Agencies and Organizations Who Have Participated in the NEPA Process Afton Alps Alpine Club Borgen Family Foundation Colorado Parks and Wildlife

118 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Eagle River Watershed Council Northwoods Condominium Association Outdoor DIVAS Ski and Snowboard Club Vail U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vail Homeowners Association Vail Ski & Snowboard Academy Vail Trails East Condo Association Wilderness Workshop 4.2.8 Individuals Who Have Participated in the NEPA Process Charles Adams Brian Burke Jennifer Ebner Paul Hields Greg Anderson Alex Burkin Mickie Eggebrecht Joanna Hopkins Christine Andrie Liza Burkina Brian Eggleton Kevin Hopkins John Andrie Dennis Byrne Marcy Eisenhauer Philip E. Hoversten Chris Anthony Michael Callas Buck Elliott Tiffany Hoversten Balz Arrigoni Mark Cassidy Gail Ellis Paul Jaeger Christina Arrigoni Rocky Christopher Gail Galvin Ellis Carol Johnson Steve Avery Dick Cleveland Anne Esson Ross Johnson Daniel B Richard Clubine Lindsey Everhart Tess Johnson Jacqui Baggaley Brad Cohn Gil Fancher Thomas Johnson Jason Baggaley John Cole Roger Fang Adam Joice Cindy Balin Nancy Cole Kirsten Fink Jeffrey Judd Robert Bank Stephen Connolly Eleanor Finlay Maria Kalapos Mark Barounos Donald Conty Ann Flaherty Steve Kalapos Margaret Bathgate David Coulter Paul Ford Anne-Marie Keane Martin Bell Michelle Courtney Harry Frampton John Keane Sam Bennett Steve Crowley Ellen Geldbaugh Adrian Kearney Max Bervy Betsy Cuthbertson Brad Ghent Arthur Kelton Susan Bird Michael Karent Ghent Elaine Kelton Denise Bolton Cuthbertson Brian Gillette Peter Kinsella Stacey Boltz Paul Cuthbertson Cory Glackin Jeff Kirwood Paige Bordelon Zora Daniels James Glendining Kim Kohlhofer Bjorn Erik Borgen Javier De Pedro Valerie Glimp Kristine Krone Kathy Borgen Kevin Deighan Steve Goodman Brad Kreuz Kaia Borgen-Moritz Mark DesRochers Dana Gordon John Kust Ron Braden Ray Dixon Geoffrey Grimmer Todd LaBaugh Javier Braun Everett Dooley Lysle Gust Dave Label Christine Braun Kevin Douglas Susan Hanus Jim Lamont Cleo Braun John Dowling Peter Hart Peter Lange Jim Brenneman Michael Ducey John Harty Kim Langmaid Ian Bruce Loren Dumont Kara Heide Laine Lapin Kris Bruce Janet Dulin Jan Helen Debbie Lathram Barbara Bruecker Jim Dulin Norman Helwig Craig Lathram Peter Buckley Kirk Dwyer Matthey Hendrix Kyleena Lathram

Final Environmental Impact Statement 119 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Samantha Lathram Jon Morse Jacob Roach Erik Strickler Johnny Law AnneMarie Mueller Justin Roach Jon Strickler Alex Leever Jason Napoli Kerry Roach Adalie Sullivan Daniel Leever Karl Neumann Amy Roberts Campbell Sullivan Harold (Skip) Betsy Nevin Craig Roberts Lindsey Sullivan Leever Terence JT Romatzke Michael Swartz Julie Leever Nottingham Bryan Rooney Leslie Tabor Jean Levac Lauri O’Brien Terry Rosenbaum Pierre Tagliabue Michael Levan Kris Ochs Sam Rosenkrantz Nellie Rose Talbot Will Lewis Brian Ogawa Brett Rubenstein Tom Talbot Samantha Leyba Tracy Ogawa Rock Sackbauer Kenny Thayer Susi Livran Kai Ogawa Ernest Saeger Heidi Trueblood Clifford Loeb Christopher Ogilvie Gerry Salani Mike Trueblood Paul Lockey Antony Olin Kim Salani Dominique Holly Loff Jonathan Olin Jay Sapp Underhill Colleen Logue Lindsey Olsen Ashley Saunders Stephen Vastagh Tim Losa Dave Osbourne David Saunders Rick Vernon Allen H. Lowe Kai Owens Patrick Scanlan David Viele Carl Luppens Liudmila Ozerova Sherrie Schaeffer Charley Viola Zack MacMillan Nathan Park Trey Schill Blondie Vucich Andrea Malboeuf Jim Pavelich Robert Schilling Tom Vucich Simon Marsh Gus Pernetz Tom Schlader Peter Wadden Ted Martin Katherine Peterson Sharon Schmidt Todd Wallis Brice May Pam Peterson Tracey Schmidt Kevin Ward Sharon McCormick Kathryn Poehling Pete Seibert Richard Warner Monica McDonald Jesse Pomerantz Santigo Sepulveda Julie Weihaupt Robert McLeod Steve Prawdzik Jenifer Shay Holly Welles Russ Meyers Jeremy Preheim Carrie Shelton Megan Wilder Maria Meyers Steven Price Phil Shettig Perry Will Richard Michaux Jean Pubilee Mikaela Shiffrin Walt Williams Terry Miller Aldo Radamus Pete Siebert Mike Wolfson Peter Millett Allie Resnick Robert Silverstone Margaret Wood Jessica Milloy Michael Resnick Jim Smith Donald Zelkind Rika Moore Sara Resnick Mikayla Smyth Lisa Zimmerman Liv Moritz Bill Rey Hannes Spaeh Dale Zurbay Misha Moritz Brianna Richards Pamela Stenmark Jeffrey Morris Lance Richards Emory Strawn

120 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 5. References

5. References

In-Text Citation Reference 36 CFR § 60.4. 2004. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 36 CFR § 60.4, 2004 amended, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., and Executive Order 11593. 40 CFR §§ 1500–1508.28. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the 36 CFR §§ 1500–1508.28, Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, as 1978 amended July 1, 1986. 16 U.S.C. § 497b. 2011. Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement 16 U.S.C. § 497b, 2011 Act of 2011. Andree, B. 2017. Personal communication with B. Andree, CPW District Andree, 2017 Wildlife Manager on January 4. Austin, J. 2016. Personal communication with J. Austin, WRNF biologist Austin, 2016 on November 17. Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc and Western Ecological Buscher & Western Resource, Inc. 2017. Soils Specialist Report Vail Ski Resort – Golden Peak Ecological Resource, 2017 Improvements. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2011a. I-70 Mountain Corridor CDOT, 2011a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2011b. I-70 Mountain Corridor CDOT, 2011b PEIS Travel Demand Technical Report. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2016. Online Transportation CDOT, 2016 Information System. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2003. CDPHE, 2003 Regulation No 82 401 – Certification Regulation 5 CCR 1002-82. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2010. Aquatic CDPHE, 2010 Life Use Attainment: Methodology to Determine Use Attainment for Rivers and Streams. Policy Statement 2010-1. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2014. Guidance for implementation of Colorado’s narrative sediment standard. CDPHE, 2014 Regulation No 31, Section 31.11(1)(a)(i). Revised November. Water Quality Control Commission Policy 98-1. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2017. CDPHE, 2017a Regulation No 61 – Colorado Discharge Permit System 5 CCR 1002-61 Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. 2017. 2010 303(d) List of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs – 303(d) List CDPHE, 2017b and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List. Accessed December 2017: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/impaired-waters Colorado Ski Country. 2015. Economic Study Reveals Ski Industry’s Colorado Ski Country, 2015 $4.8 Billion Annual Impact to Colorado. Available at: https://www.coloradoski.com/media_manager/mm_collections/view/183

Final Environmental Impact Statement 121 Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference Colorado Workforce Center. 2016. Economy Overview: Eagle County. Colorado Workforce Center, Available at: https://files.vailvalleypartnership.com/sites/4/2016/12/ 2016 EmsiEagleNov2016.pdf Council on Environmental Quality. 1986. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. CEQ, 1986 Available at: https://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/forty-most-asked- questions-concerning-ceqs-national-environmental-policy-act Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering cumulative effects CEQ, 1997 under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. Wash., D.C. 64 pp. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2016. Berlaimont Estates Access CPW, 2016 Route EIS Scoping Comments. Referral letter from Perry Will (CPW) to Scott Fitzwilliams (WRNF Forest Supervisor). November 7. 15 pp. Dean Runyan Associations. 2017. The Economic Impact of Travel on Dean Runyan, 2017 Colorado 1996–2016. Available at: http://www.deanrunyan.com/doc_library/COImp.pdf Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2017. Population Forecasts – years (2000 to 2050). Available at: https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/ DOLA, 2017a population/population-totals-counties/#population-totals-for-colorado- counties Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2017. Jobs by Sector NAICS DOLA, 2017b based. Available at: https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/economy-labor- force/data/jobs-by-sector/#jobs-by-sector-naics Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2017. Basic Industries Analysis – DOLA, 2017c County. Available at: https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/economy- labor-force/data/base-analysis/#base-industries-analysis Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). 2018. State Demography DOLA, 2018 Office: Eagle County Population Estimation and Projections. Available at: https://gis.dola.colorado.gov/apps/demographic_dashboard/?county=37 Eagle County. 2012. Housing Needs Assessment Update 2012. Available Eagle County, 2012 at: https://www.vailgov.com/docs/dl_forms/Eagle_County_Housing_ Needs_Assessment_2012_Final.pdf Eagle County. 2014. Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Eagle County, 2014 Available at: http://www.valleyhomestore.org/ResourceCenter/Download/ 15685~323119 Eagle County. 2016. Housing Needs Assessment Update 2016. Available Eagle County, 2016a at: https://files.vailvalleypartnership.com/sites/2/2016/07/2016-Housing- Needs-Assessment-upated_FINAL.pdf

122 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference Eagle County. 2016. Climate Action Plan for the Eagle County Community. Eagle County, Colorado. Available at: Eagle County, 2016b http://www.walkingmountains.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Climate- Action-Plan-for-the-Eagle-County-Community_FINAL_December-V3- 2016_WEB.pdf. Eagle County. 2017. Environmental Health – Outdoor Air Quality Eagle County, 2017 Information. Eagle County, Colorado. Available at: http://www.eaglecounty.us/EnvHealth/Air_Quality/Outdoor_Air/ Eagle County. 2018. Active Land Use Applications. Available at: Eagle County, 2018 http://www.eaglecounty.us/Planning/Active_Land_Use_Applications/, accessed Feb. 23, 2018. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Environmental Assessment. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project, 2011 Forest Health Project. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest. Eagle County, Colorado. GEO-HAZ Consulting, GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. 2018. Geology and Geologic Hazard of the Inc., 2018 Proposed Golden Peak Race Training Area, Vail Resort, Colorado. Grove, M. 2017. Personal communication with M. Grove, WRNF biologist Grove, 2017 on October 20. International Ski Federation (FIS). 2017. The International Ski International Ski Competition Rules: Book IV Joint Regulations for Alpine Skiing. Federation, 2017 Available at: http://www.fis-ski.com/mm/Document/documentlibrary/ AlpineSkiing/03/29/54/ICR_2017_final_08082017_Neutral.pdf. Gordon and Ojima. 2015. Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study: Gordon and Ojima, 2015 A Report by the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University to the Colorado Energy Office. Healy, B. 2008. Vail Mountain Resort Master Development Plan Phase I Improvements Project, Environmental Impact Statement Specialist’s Healy, 2008 Report – Aquatic Management Indicator Species. USDA Forest Service, Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District, Minturn, Colorado. November 17. Kimley-Horn and Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2014. Ski & Snowboard Club Vail Traffic Associates, 2014 Analysis Letter. Land Title Guarantee Company. 2017. Eagle County Real Estate 2016 By Land Title, 2017 the Numbers. Available at: https://files.vailvalleypartnership.com/sites/4/ 2017/02/Land-Title-Vail-Economic-Council-2017.pdf Leonard Rice Engineers, Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. 2013. Gore Creek Water Quality 2013 Improvement Plan. Denver, CO. Leonard Rice Engineers, Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. 2017. Memo to file: Golden Peak Race 2017 Center Snowmaking Water Depletions. Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. 2018. Water Resources Specialist Report and Leonard Rice Engineers, Drainage Management Plan for Vail Ski Area – Golden Peak 2018 Improvements.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 123 Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference Longwoods International. 2017. Colorado Travel Year 2016. Available at: Longwoods, 2017 https://www.colorado.com/sites/default/master/files/ColoradoLongwoods Report2016.pdf Lukas, J., J. Barsugli, N. Doesken, I. Rangwala, and K. Wolter. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado, A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Lukas et al., 2014 Management and Adaptation, Second Edition – August 2014, A Report for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. Mao, J., J. Martens, J. Yost, P. Will, L. Sidener, J. Haskins, B. Andree, B. Wodrich, B. Manly, L. Miller, G, Abram, and D. Domson. 2009. D-8 State Mao et al., 2009 Bridge Deer Data Analysis Unit Plan, Game Management Units 15, 35, 36, and 45. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. September. Mao, J., B. Andree, C, Wescoatt, K. Wright, M. Yamashita, and P. Will. 2013. Frying Pan River Elk Herd E-16 Data Analysis Unit Plan, Game Mao et al., 2013 Management Units 44, 45, 47, and 444. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. July. Matthews, W. J. 1998. Patterns in freshwater fish ecology. Chapman and Matthews, 1998 Hall Publishing, New York, NY. 756 pp. Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds). 2014. Highlights of Melillo et al., 2014 Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Chance Research Program, 148 pp. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 2017. SE Group: A Class III Metcalf Archaeological Cultural Resource Inventory of Proposed Development on Golden Peak, Consultants, Inc. 2017 Vail Resort, Eagle County, Colorado (OAHP Doc# EA.FS.R91). September. Nettles, A. 2016. Personal communication with A. Nettles, Forest Service Nettles, 2016 wildlife biologist on February 19. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2011. NOAA’s 1981–2010 NCDC, 2011 Climate Normals. Available at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov. Roberts, E. 2015. Personal communication with E. Roberts, Forest Service Roberts, 2015 wildlife biologist on March 11. RRC Associates. 2017. Town of Vail Parking Survey Winter 2017 Final RRC Associates, 2017 Results. Air Quality Control Commission, Department of Health and Environment. State of Colorado, 2017a Available at: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs. State of Colorado. 2017b. Air Quality division webpage, Department of State of Colorado, 2017b Public Health Environment. Available at: https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/ss_map_wm.aspx. State of Colorado. 2017c. County Weed Programs webpage for Eagle State of Colorado, 2017c County, Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/county-weed-programs

124 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference City of Steamboat Springs. 2017. Mountain Communities Taxable Sales Steamboat Springs, 2017 Comparison. Available at: http://www.steamboatsprings.net/DocumentCenter/View/9123 TerraCognito GIS Services, Inc. 2017. Vail SUP EIS-Bare Ground TerraCognito, 2017 Analysis. Town of Vail. 1986 (updated 2009) Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Vail, Colorado. Available at: http://www.vailgov.com/Portals/0/docs/ Town of Vail, 1986 community%20development/master%20plan%20downloads/VailLandUse Plan012809.pdf. Accessed December 2017. Town of Vail. 2008. Town of Vail Employee Housing Strategic Plan. Town of Vail, 2008 Available at: https://www.vailgov.com/docs/dl_forms/Resolution_No._20- _Series_of_2008.pdf Town of Vail, 2009 Town of Vail. 2009. Vail Transportation Master Plan Update. Town of Vail. 2015. The Vail Overview 2015. Available at: Town of Vail, 2015 https://www.vailgov.com/Portals/0/docs/community%20development/Vail %20Overview%202015.pdf Town of Vail, 2016a Town of Vail. 2016a. Parking Update Memo. Town of Vail. 2016b. Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan. Town of Vail, 2016b https://www.vailgov.com/Portals/0/docs/community%20development/Hou sing/Housing%20Strategic%20Plan%20graphics.pdf Town of Vail. 2017a. Vail Town Council Agenda Memo: Parking and Town of Vail, 2017a Transportation Task Force Recommended Winter 2017/18 Parking Program. Town of Vail. 2017b. Vail Town Council Agenda Memo: Update on Town of Vail, 2017b Parking & Transportation Task Force Recommended 2017/18 Winter Parking Program Memo Town of Vail. 2017c. Welcome to Vail. Available at: Town of Vail, 2017c https://www.vailgov.com/welcome-to-vail Town of Vail. 2017d. Town of Vail Year in Review 2016. Available at: Town of Vail, 2017d https://www.vailgov.com/Portals/0/docs/town%20manager/YearInReview2 016.pdf Town of Vail. 2017e. Housing in the Town of Vail. Available at: Town of Vail, 2017e https://www.vailgov.com/housing USDA Forest Service. 1974. Guidelines for Making Soil Interpretations. USDA Forest Service, 1974 Branch of Soils, Division of Watershed Management, Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS Users Guide. Available at: USDA Forest Service, 1982 https://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosguide_1982.pdf USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for USDA Forest Service, Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook 701. Washington, D.C. 1995a December.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 125 Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Soil Survey of the Holy Cross Area, 1995b Colorado. In-Service Report. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Record of Decision, Final Supplement to the USDA Forest Service, 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Category III Ski Area Development. USDA Forest Service. 1998. Holy Cross Soil Survey, White River USDA Forest Service, 1998 National Forest. GIS Shapefile. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Built Environmental Image Guide. Rocky USDA Forest Service, 2001 Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 2002. White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 2002 Glenwood Springs. CO. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/ FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_000999.pdf. Accessed December 2017. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Region 2 Sensitive Species List: Colorado USDA Forest Service, 2003 River Cutthroat Trout Rationale. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5297142.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 Watershed USDA Forest Service, 2006 Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, USDA Forest Service, 2008 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Management Direction, Vol. 1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region Denver, CO. October. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 2009a the 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project. USDA Forest Service. 2009b. 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Projects USDA Forest Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision and Response 2009b to Comments. USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Climate Change Considerations in Project USDA Forest Service, Level NEPA Analysis. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/ 2009c climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2009d. White River National Forest Air Resource USDA Forest Service, Management Plan. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whiteriver/ 2009d landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_001237. USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Implementation guide to the Southern USDA Forest Service, Rockies Lynx Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reg. 2009e Denver, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2012, as amended. Forest Service Handbook USDA Forest Service, 2012 1909.15: National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Chapter 10. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Service Manual 2340.14 Additional USDA Forest Service, 2014 Seasonal and Year-Round Recreation at Ski Areas. Published April 2017.

126 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference USDA Forest Service. 2015. Forest Service Manual 2670 – Threatened, USDA Forest Service, 2015 Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Supplement No: 2600- 2015-1, Effective Date: October 23, 2015. USDA Forest Service, 2017a. National Forest Climate Change Maps, USDA Forest Service, Region 2 Forests. Available at: 2017a https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NFS-regional-climate- change-maps/regions/rocky-mountain-region-r2.html USDA Forest Service. 2017b. Region 2 Aerial Detection Survey Data. USDA Forest Service, Downloadable GIS shapefiles from 1994–2016. Available at: 2017b https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/forest-grasslandhealth/?cid= fsbdev3_041629 USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 2017c. Lynx mapping vegetation descriptions. 2017c USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, CO. April 30. 2 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2017d. Forest Service Manual 2670 Region 2 USDA Forest Service, Supplement. Wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat management: 2017d threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. July 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Consideration of USEPA, 1999 cumulative effects in EPA review of NEPA documents. U.S. EPA Office of Federal Activities. Washington, D.C. 18 pp. USEPA. 2017. Our Nation’s Air, 2017 Trends Report. Available at: USEPA, 2017 https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2017/#home. USEPA. 2018. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table. Available at: USEPA, 2018 https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed January 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final programmatic biological opinion for Bureau of Reclamation’s operations and depletions, other USFWS, 1999 depletions, and funding and recovery program actions in the Upper Colorado River above the confluence with the Gunnison River. Grand Junction, CO. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States; USFWS, 2013 establishment of a nonessential experimental population of the North American wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; proposed rules. 50 CFR § 17. Federal Register Volume 78, No. 23, February 4. pp 7864–7890. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the USFWS, 2014 Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule. 50 CFR § 17. Federal Register Volume 79, No. 177, September 14. pp 54782–54846.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 127 Chapter 5. References

In-Text Citation Reference U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Information, Planning and USFWS, 2018 Conservation System. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/ipac/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. 2012–2016 American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a 5-Year Estimates: Selected Housing Characteristics. U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. 2016 American Community: Selected Housing U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b Demographic and Housing Estimates. Vail Resorts, Inc. 2007. Vail Resort Master Development Plan Update. Vail Resorts, 2007 August. Vail, Colorado. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5339323.pdf. Vail Resorts, Inc. 2018. Vail Resort Master Development Plan Update. Vail Resorts, 2018 August. Vail, Colorado. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5339323.pdf. Vail Resorts, Inc. 2017. Data provided to Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., Vail Resorts, 2017 Broomfield, CO. Western Ecosystems Inc. (WEI). 2016. Field verified vegetation cover WEI, 2016 classes based on Region 2Veg shapefiles. Western Ecosystems Inc. (WEI). 2016. Golden Peak Improvements Project WEI, 2018 Vail Mountain Resort Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. Eagle- Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. (WER). 2017. Vegetation and Wetland WER, 2017 Specialist Report for Vail Ski Resort – Golden Peak Improvements.

128 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 6. Figures

6. Figures

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map

Figure 2-1. Alternative 1 – No Action

Figure 2-2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Figure 3.3-1. Visual Simulation of the Proposed Golden Peak Improvements – Red Sandstone Road

Figure 3.3-2. Visual Simulation of the Proposed Golden Peak Improvements – Vail Village Exit

Figure 3.9-1. Water Resources

Final Environmental Impact Statement 129 Chapter 6. Figures

This page intentionally left blank.

130 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Environmental Impact Statement Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map

White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District 0 10 20 40 Miles [

Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Prepared by: November 2018 Sources: National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, Golden Peak

Riva Bahn Mid-Station

P o n y E x W p h re i s p s pe rs na p p e r

Ruder's Run

G o l

e d

s en

r u P e o a k C T e er c ra a in R P k a a r

e k

e d

RIVA BAHN EXPRESS

o G

e s r

u o

e c a

k R a e

n e

d l

H r e h

p VISTA BAHN EXPRESS

Go Vail Mountain Resort Existing: [ Golden Peak Improvements Project Environmental Impact Statement Lift Snowmaking Pipe within Project Area

Figure 2-1 Mountain Roads Alternative 1 - No Action SUP Boundary

White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District November 2018 Prepared by: 0 250 500 1,000 ' Proposed Race Start Houses

Proposed Restrooms

Proposed Snowmaking Booster Station

PROPOSED LIFT Proposed Maintenance Building

Proposed Fuel Storage Riva Bahn Mid-Station

P o n y E x W p h re i s p s pe rs na p p e r

Ruder's Run

G o l

e d

s en

r u P e o a k C T e er c ra a in R P k a a r

e k

e d

RIVA BAHN EXPRESS

o G

Proposed Race Building

e s r

u o

e c a

k R a e

n e

d l

H r e h

p VISTA BAHN EXPRESS

Go Vail Mountain Resort Existing: Proposed: Drainage Channels [ Golden Peak Improvements Project Ski Trails Environmental Impact Statement Lift Lift Mogul Course Snowmaking Pipe Snowmaking Pipe within Project Area Facilities Buried Electricity Figure 2-2 Mountain Roads Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Construction and SUP Boundary Maintenance Access Note: Snowmaking coverage Road is proposed on all proposed trails White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District November 2018 Prepared by: 0 250 500 1,000 ' Existing Conditions

Existing Conditions Northwest view of Golden Peak from the Red Sandstone Road across the valley. Golden Peak Improvements Project Proposed Conditions Figure 3.3-1 View of the proposed Golden Peak PROPOSED ACTION Improvements Project. Distance from viewpoint to the top of Golden Peak is 2.5 miles. Visual Simulation of the Simulation Reference Proposed Golden Peak The Simulation Reference image provides Improvements an overview of the area analyzed in the visual simulation. Areas of clearing are shown in green, while proposed surface Note: This Visual Simulation is intended to indicate the lift is a bold red line. general design features of the proposed projects at the Golden Peak Race Venue. While actual implementation may not acheive the exact same result, it would meet the intent of the NEPA decision and apply the relevant design guidelines.

V N

A H N

E T I G N I H S E T

L E ' SimulationE Reference Proposed Conditions I I S Simulation Reference N

R A E E

G O X

F P L

R E

E B

S A

L H P

( R B N

2 I

) D G

E O

Mid-Unload Terminal L

GOLDEN PEAK V ( 1 I S 9

) T OPOSED LIFT A PR B

E O X

R P

N R R

I E V F A S R B S E

A E H ( 1 N 6 E E ) X X P P R R

E E S S S S (6

) ( 8

)

VAIL VILLAGE

LIONSHEAD

¨¦§I-70 Vail Valley / Town of Vail ¨¦§I-70

P Prepared By: Existing Conditions

Existing Conditions Northwest view of Golden Peak from the Vail Village Exit of Eastbound Interstate 70. Golden Peak Improvements Project Proposed Conditions Figure 3.3-2 View of the proposed Golden Peak PROPOSED ACTION Improvements Project. Distance from viewpoint to the top of Golden Peak is 1.9 miles. Visual Simulation of the Simulation Reference Proposed Golden Peak The Simulation Reference image provides Improvements an overview of the area analyzed in the visual simulation. Areas of clearing are shown in green, while proposed surface Note: This Visual Simulation is intended to indicate the lift is a bold red line. general design features of the proposed projects at the Golden Peak Race Venue. While actual implementation may not acheive the exact same result, it would meet the intent of the NEPA decision and apply the relevant design guidelines.

V N

A H N

E T I G N I H S E T

L E ' SimulationE Reference Proposed Conditions I I S Simulation Reference N

R A E E

G O X

F P L

R E

E B

S A

L H P

( R B N

2 I

) D G

E O

Mid-Unload Terminal L

GOLDEN PEAK V ( 1 I S 9

) T OPOSED LIFT A PR B

E O X

R P

N R R

I E V F A S R B S E

A E H ( 1 N 6 E E ) X X P P R R

E E S S S S (6

) ( 8

)

VAIL VILLAGE

LIONSHEAD

¨¦§I-70 Vail Valley / Town of Vail ¨¦§I-70

P Prepared By: Mill Creek

PROPOSED LIFT

RIVA BAHN EXPRESS

^ _

Mill Creek

Gore Creek

VISTA BAHN EXPRESS

GOPHER HILL Vail Mountain Resort Existing: Water Resources: Proposed: [ Golden Peak Improvements Project Springs Disturbance Areas Environmental Impact Statement Lift ^_ Mountain Roads Streams Lift

Figure 3.9-1 SUP Boundary Wetlands

Water Resources Water Influence Zone

White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District November 2018 Prepared by: 0 250 500 1,000 ' Chapter 7. Glossary

7. Glossary

Acre-foot. The amount of water necessary to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equals 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons.

Action Alternative: Any alternative that includes upgrading and/or expansion of existing facilities (also referred to as Proposed Action).

Affected environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic environment that would or may be changed by actions proposed and the relationship of people to that environment.

Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs): A resource that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. The resource may include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource for a particular area.

Airshed: A geographical area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same air. The Clean Air Act establishes three air quality classes (I, II, and III), each with defined air quality standards.

Alternative: Conceptual development plan described and evaluated in the EIS.

Analysis Area: The geographical area and/or physical, biological, and social environments that are analyzed for specific resources in the EIS.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Annual average two-way daily traffic volume represents the total traffic on a section of roadway for the year, divided by 365. It includes both weekday and weekend traffic volumes.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Average daily two-way traffic volume represents the total traffic on a section of roadway for a given day or sampling period, but not necessarily for a given year. It is equivalent to VPD, defined below.

Background: A landscape viewing area visible to a viewer from approximately 3 to 5 miles to infinity. Also, in economics, naturally occurring; uninduced.

Baseline condition: The existing dynamic conditions prior to development, against which potential effects are judged.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Forest management actions and mitigation prescriptions, which are designed to maintain resource values through preventative rather than corrective measures.

Biological Evaluation: An evaluation conducted to determine whether a proposed action is likely to affect any species which are listed as sensitive, candidate, or other special designations.

Candidate species: Those plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may become threatened or endangered. Not protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 131 Chapter 7. Glossary

Canopy: The more-or-less continuous cover of leaves, needles and/or branches collectively formed by the crowns of adjacent trees in a stand or forest.

Clean Water Act: An act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1977 to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. This act was formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344).

CO2 equivalent: The carbon dioxide equivalent is a metric used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE): The State of Colorado Department responsible for overseeing water quality and air quality regulations within Colorado.

Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC): Comfortable Carrying Capacity is a planning tool used to determine the optimum level of utilization that facilitates a pleasant recreational experience. This is a planning figure only and does not represent a regulatory cap on visitation. CCC is used to ensure that different aspects of a resort’s facilities are designed to work in harmony, that capacities are equivalent across facilities, and sufficient to meet anticipated demand. CCC is based on factors such as vertical transport and trail capacities.

Cooperating agency: A federal agency, other than a lead agency, which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact associated with the proposed action or one of the alternatives. A state or local agency or an Indian tribe may be a cooperating agency with agreement from the lead agency.

Corridor: A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. Also, a contiguous strip of habitat suitable to facilitate animal dispersal or migration.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters.

Cover: Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators and weather conditions, or in which to reproduce.

Critical habitat: A formal designation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act which may be applied to a particular habitat that is essential to the life cycle of a given species, and if lost, would adversely affect that species. Critical habitat can have a less formal meaning when used outside the context of the Endangered Species Act.

Cubic feet per second (cfs): Unit measure of streamflow or discharge, equivalent to 449 gallons per minute or about 2 acre-feet per day.

Cultural resource: Cultural resources are the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. Cultural resources

132 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 7. Glossary

include, but are not limited to sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events.

Cumulative impact: The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Each increment from each project may not be noticeable but cumulative impacts may be noticeable when all increments are considered together.

Developed recreation site: An area with characteristics that enable to accommodate, or be used for intense recreation. Such sites are often enhanced to augment the recreational value. Improvements range from those designed to provide great comfort and convenience to the user to rudimentary improvements in isolated areas.

Developed terrain network: consists of its named, defined, lift-served, maintained (groomed) ski trails. These trails represent the baseline of the terrain at any resort, as they are where the majority of guests ski, and are usually the only place to ski during the early season, periods of poor or undesirable snow conditions, avalanche closures, and certain weather conditions.

Direct impact: An effect which occurs as a result of an action associated with implementing the proposal or one of the alternatives, including construction, operation, and maintenance.

Distance zone: One of three categories used in the visual management system to divide a view into near and far components. The three categories are (1) foreground, (2) middleground, and (3) background (refer to individual entries).

District Ranger: The official responsible for administering the NFS lands on a Forest Service District.

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

Ecosystem: The system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their environment, for example, marsh, watershed, or lake.

Effects: Results expected to be achieved from implementation of the alternatives relative to physical, biological, economic, and social factors. Effects can be direct, indirect, or cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental.

Endangered species: An official designation for any species of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species must be designated in the Federal Register by the appropriate Federal Agency Secretary.

Environmental analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short- and long-term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social and environmental design factors and their interactions.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 133 Chapter 7. Glossary

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document required by the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act which briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A disclosure document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that documents the anticipated environmental effects of a proposed action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal agency charged with lead enforcement of multiple environmental laws, including review of Environmental Impact Statements.

Erosion: The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by wind, water, ice, or gravity.

Erosion control: Materials, structure, and techniques designed to reduce erosion. Erosion control may include rapid revegetation, avoiding steep or highly erosive sites, and installation of cross-slope drainage structures.

Erosion hazard: Soil ratings to predict the erosion hazard or potential to be eroded.

Forage: All browse and non-woody plants used for grazing or harvested for feeding livestock or game animals.

Forb: Any non-grass-like plant having little or no woody material on it. A palatable, broadleaved, flowering herb whose stem, above ground, does not become woody and persistent.

Foreground: The landscape area visible to an observer from the immediate area to 0.5 mile.

Forest Plan: A comprehensive management plan prepared under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 that provides standards and guidelines for management activities specific to each National Forest.

Forest Service: The agency of the United States Department of Agriculture responsible for managing National Forests and Grasslands.

Forest Supervisor: The official responsible for administering the National Forest System lands in a Forest Service administrative unit who reports to the Regional Forester.

Fuel: Plants, both living and dead, and woody vegetative materials capable of burning.

Full-Time Equivalent (FTEs): Sufficient work to keep one person employed full-time for one year. In seasonal industries one FTE may be represented by several employment positions.

GIS: Geographic information system, a computer mapping system composed of hardware and software.

GHG: Greenhouse gas.

GPS: Global Positioning System, a satellite-based surveying system.

134 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 7. Glossary

Gradient: The vertical distance divided by the horizontal distance, usually measured as percent. Gradient is used to describe streams and ski slopes.

Grading: the practice of moving or re-contouring earthen materials to achieve a specified slope in the landform.

Grooming: The preparation and smoothing of the developed trail network’s snow surface, using large over-the-snow vehicles (commonly referred to as “snow cats” or “groomers”). Groomers are equipped with front-mounted blades to push snow and rear-mounted implements to flatten and/or till the snow to the desired consistency.

Groundwater: Subsurface water in the part of the ground that is wholly saturated.

Guest services facilities or guest services: Facilities or services that are supplied by a resort—both on- mountain and at the base area—to accommodate guests’ needs and to enhance the quality of the recreational experience. Examples of guest services facilities include: restaurants, warming huts, general information desks, resort lost and found departments, restrooms and lounges, ski school, daycare, public lockers and ski-check facilities, ski patrol, first aid clinics, etc.

Guideline: An indication or outline of policy or conduct that is not a mandatory requirement (as opposed to a standard, which is mandatory).

Habitat: The sum of environmental conditions of a specific place that is occupied by an organism, a population, or a community.

Habitat type: A classification of the vegetation resource based on dominant growth forms. The forested areas are more specifically classified by the dominant tree species.

Impacts: See Effects.

Indicator species: An animal species used to represent a group of species that utilize the same habitat. For monitoring purposes, the wellbeing of the indicator species is assumed to reflect the general health of the community.

Indirect impact: Secondary consequences to the environment resulting from a direct impact. An example of an indirect impact is the deposition of sediment in a wetland resulting from surface disturbance in the upland.

Instream flow: The volume of surface water in a stream system passing a given point at a given time.

Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team): A group of individuals each representing specialty resource areas assembled to solve a problem or perform a task through frequent interaction so that different disciplines can combine to provide new solutions.

International Ski Federation (FIS): International governing body for winter sports, including Alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, ski jumping, Nordic skiing, freestyle skiing and snowboarding.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 135 Chapter 7. Glossary

Lynx analysis unit (LAU): An area of at least the size used by an individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 square miles.

Management direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them.

Management practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

Manage-To: refer to Comfortable Carrying Capacity

Master Development Plan (MDP): A document that is required as a condition of the ski area term special use permit, designed to guide resort planning and development in the long and short term— typically across both public and private lands.

Middleground: The landscape area visible to a viewer from 0.5 mile to about 4 miles.

Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse environmental impacts.

Mountain Roads: On-mountain primary and secondary roads that provide summertime access to mountain buildings and lift terminal locations.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Established under the Clean Air Act of 1963, there are primary standards, designed to protect public health, and secondary standards, designed to protect public welfare from known or anticipated air pollutants.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): A law enacted by Congress in 1969 that requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of all major federal activities that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System (NFS) lands: National Forests, National Grasslands, and other related lands for which the Forest Service is assigned administrative responsibility.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): An act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1966 to protect historic sites and artifacts (16 U.S.C. § 470). Section 106 of the Act requires consultation with members and representatives of Indian tribes.

National Register of Historic Places: A listing maintained by the National Park Service of areas which have been designated as historically significant. The register includes places of local and state significance, as well as those of value to the nation in general.

No Action Alternative: The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely to exist in the future if the current trends and management would continue unchanged. Under NEPA, it means following the current approved Forest Plan management direction and guidance.

136 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 7. Glossary

Objective: A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre- established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals.

Particulates: Small particles suspended in the air and generally considered pollutants.

Permit area: See Special Use Permit.

Preferred alternative: The alternative selected from the range of alternatives which is favored by the lead agency.

Prehistoric: The period prior to a written record, and may include emigrant exploration, trappers, miners, etc., but generally refers to the previous Native American (aboriginal) occupants of the area, who kept no written records.

Project Area: The area encompassed by the development proposal including base area and the permit area.

Project Design Criteria (PDC): Specific measures designed to minimize or avoid impacts anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. PDC are incorporated within the proposal of specified action alternatives.

Proponent: The individual or business who is proposing the development. In this case, the proponent is Vail Mountain Resort.

Record of Decision (ROD): A document prepared within 30 days after the final EIS is issued which states the agency’s decision and why one alternative was favored over another, what factors entered into the agency’s decision, and whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why not.

Revegetation: The re-establishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On disturbed sites, this normally requires human assistance such as seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching.

Rilling: Erosion by concentrated overland flow.

Riparian habitat: Land situated along the bank of a stream or other body of water and directly influenced by the presence of water (e.g., streamsides, lake shores, etc.).

Scenery Management: The art and science of arranging, planning and designing landscape attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in outdoor settings.

Scenery Management System: The USDA Forest Service methodology for classifying the aesthetic values of landscapes are based upon the scenic attractiveness of the landscape, the landscape’s visibility and the public’s concern about changes in the landscape from a natural condition.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 137 Chapter 7. Glossary

Scenic Integrity: State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character in a national forest.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs): The objectives that define the minimum level to which landscapes are to be managed from an aesthetics standpoint. There are six objectives that describe the landscape in varying degrees from naturalness: Very High (Unaltered), High (Appears Unaltered), Moderate (Slightly Altered), Low (Moderately Altered), Very Low (Heavily Altered).

Scoping process: A process that determines the issues, concerns, and opportunities, which should be considered in analyzing the impacts of a proposal by receiving input from the public and affected agencies. The depths of analysis for these issues identified are determined during scoping.

Sediment: Solid material, both organic and mineral, that has been transported from its site of origin by air, water, or ice.

Sensitive species: Species which have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed additions to the endangered or threatened species list; those which are on an official state list or are recognized by the Regional Forester to need special management in order to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.

Significant impact: A somewhat subjective judgement based on the context and intensity of the impact. Generally, a significant impact is one that exceeds a standard, guideline, law, or regulation.

Ski area operational boundary: Within the SUP boundary, the boundary which defines the current extent to which ski patrol conducts snow safety activities and maintains a presence. The ski area operational boundary includes developed (i.e., maintained) and undeveloped (i.e., hike-to and off-piste) terrain.

Skier: At ski areas, one may see people using Alpine, snowboard, telemark, cross-country, and other specialized ski equipment, such as that used by disabled or other skiers. Accordingly, the terms “ski, skier, and skiing” in this document encompass all lift-served sliding sports typically associated with a winter sports resort.

Skier circulation: How guests navigate throughout a ski area; specifically, how a guest would migrate from one side of the ski area to the other and potentially back again.

Skier visit: One skier utilizing the ski area for any length of time; a skier visit is typically recorded as a ticket scan. Regardless of how many times a single ticket is scanned, it counts a one skier visit.

Soil: A dynamic natural body on the surface of the earth in which plants grow, composed of mineral and organic materials and living forms.

Soil productivity: The capacity of a soil for producing plant biomass under a specific system of management. It is expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year.

138 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 7. Glossary

Special Use Permit (SUP): A legal document, similar to a lease, issued by the Forest Service. These permits are issued to private individuals or corporations to conduct commercial operations on National Forest System lands. They specify the terms and conditions under which the permitted activity may be conducted.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC): Forest has the discretion to consider assessing species that may be of “local concern.” Local endemics, even if not known to be at risk, may be worth added analysis if small population size and/or isolation make the populations vulnerable.

SUP area: That area of NFS lands encompassed within the permit boundary held by Vail Mountain Resort and designated for recreational use (e.g., downhill skiing and Nordic skiing). Excludes private land.

SUP boundary: The extent of the SUP area, within which Vail Mountain Resort is permitted to provide operational facilities and guest services.

Stand: A community of trees or other vegetation, which is sufficiently uniform in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities and to thus, form a management entity.

Standard: a course of action which must be followed; adherence is mandatory.

Threatened species: Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future and which has been designated in the Federal Register as a threatened species.

Understory: Low-growing vegetation (herbaceous, brush or reproduction) growing under a stand of trees. Also, that portion of trees in a forest stand below the overstory.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The agency of the Department of the Interior responsible for managing wildlife, including non-ocean-going species protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Vehicle trips: The number of times vehicles use a segment of road.

Vehicles per day (VPD): The total two-way daily traffic volume on a section of roadway.

Visual Management System (VMS): System to identify and classify the scenic quality of the existing landscape, and to establish quality objectives for alteration of the visual resource.

Visual quality: Describes the degree of variety in the landscape, created by the basic vegetative patterns, landform, and water forms. Landscapes with the greatest variety or diversity have the greatest potential for high scenic value or visual quality.

Visual Quality Objective (VQO): A desired level of excellence based on the physical and sociological characteristics of an area. Refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape. The levels are Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification.

Final Environmental Impact Statement 139 Chapter 7. Glossary

Visual resource: The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors.

Water Influence Zone (WIZ): The land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining long-term integrity of aquatic systems. It includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is most.

Water rights: The legal right to use water.

Watershed: The entire area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream.

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH): A Forest Service Region 2 manual suggesting design criteria and guidelines for watershed projects.

Wilderness: Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness is undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements of human habitation. It is protected and managed so to preserve its natural conditions.

Winter range: That part of the home range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the winter at least five out of ten winters.

140 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Chapter 8. Index

8. Index

B Biological Assessment ...... 9, 80, 81, 83, 92, 98, 128 M Biological Evaluation ...... 9, 80, 81, 83, 92, 98, 128, 131 Management Area 8.25 ...... 11, 12, 65 mitigation ...... 16, 20, 21, 51, 65, 69, 81, 92, C 94, 98, 111, 114, 131 Canada lynx ...... 8, 27, 81–83, 91, 92, 97, 136 Clean Water Act ...... 8, 95, 101, 132 P Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment .... Project Design Criteria ...... 9, 13, 16–22, 27, 48, 49, 72, 12, 59, 88, 100, 101, 102, 106, 121, 132 79, 80, 92, 94, 95, 137 Colorado River cutthroat trout ...... 27, 28, 80, 81, 84–86, 92, 94, 97 R connected disturbed area ...... 8, 104, 105, 112 Council on Environmental Quality ...... 1, 10, 13, 29, riparian habitat ...... 113 30, 98, 116, 122, 132 critical habitat ...... 27, 81, 91, 92, 97, 101, 127 S cultural resource...... 9, 60 Scenic Integrity Objective ...... 6, 25, 45, 47–49, 138 Section 106 ...... 9, 136 D sediment ...... 18, 20, 21, 67, 69, 73, 85, 95, 100, depletions ...... 8, 27, 28, 82, 91, 97, 101, 111, 123, 127 102–107, 110, 111, 113, 121, 135 sensitive species ...... 9, 20, 27, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 92, 94 stream health ...... 2, 8, 28, 85, 88, 92, 95, 97, 98, 101, E 103, 106–108, 111, 114 elk ...... 46, 75, 88, 89, 95, 96, 98, 124 endangered species ...... 9, 12, 81, 82, 91, 97, 101, 126, T 127, 131–133, 139 Endangered Species Act ...... 12, 82, 91, 101, 131, 132, 139 terrain ...... 1–3, 5, 6, 14–16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30–35, Environmental Protection Agency .... 59, 117, 119, 127, 134 41, 46, 48–51, 56, 57, 78, 82, 85, 89, 90, 94–96, 98, erosion ...... 7, 8, 18, 19, 21, 26, 28, 45, 66–73, 100, 101, 111, 114, 133, 138, 140 95, 101, 104, 108, 111, 113, 134 threatened species ...... 9, 81, 91, 97, 126, 127, 138, 139

F U Forest Service Manual ...... 77, 126, 127 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 12, 27, 81–83, full-time-equivalent ...... 134 86, 87, 91, 92, 97, 101, 117, 127, 131, 139

I W Interstate 70 ...... 1, 6, 24, 35–38, 40–44, 46–49, Water Influence Zone ...... 8, 28, 103–105, 112, 140 55, 82, 89, 93, 95, 97, 113, 121 watershed ...... 8, 10, 16, 63, 66, 81, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107, 113, 114, 118, 119, 125, 126, 133, 140 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook ...... 16, 65, L 66, 95, 106, 107, 126, 140 Lynx Analysis Unit ...... 8, 82, 92, 97, 136

Final Environmental Impact Statement 141 Chapter 8. Index

This page intentionally left blank.

142 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendices

Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Appendix B. Construction Implementation Plan Appendix C. Agency Comment Letters Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

The physical, biological, recreational and socio-economic character of the Eagle Valley has been shaped by over five decades of development on both NFS and private lands. This has culminated in the developed, four-season recreational experience that exists today within the Vail Mountain Resort SUP area and on adjacent private lands. Furthermore, the opening of the Eisenhower Tunnel in 1973 greatly improved access to mountain towns and national forests (including ski areas) in Summit and Eagle counties from the expanding Front Range communities.

Notable developments and activities that have occurred over five decades within the Vail Mountain Resort SUP area and in the Eagle Valley include (but are not limited to):

1960s 1962: Vail Mountain Resort opens to the public with two chairlifts and one gondola 1966: Town of Vail is established 1967: Golden Peak opens 1968: First snowmaking system is installed 1969: Lionshead base area and Lionshead Gondola open; Game Creek Bowl opens

1970s 1973: Free bus system is established 1978: Private condominium development occurs north of the project area

1980s 1985: Vail Mountain Resort prepares its Master Development Plan 1985: Vista Bahn chairlift and four other high-speed quad chairlifts are installed 1985(circa): Fhabiirst summer trails are constructed on Vail Mountain 1988: China Bowl opens 1989: World Alpine Ski Championship held at Vail Mountain Resort

1990s 1996: Adventure Ridge opens with night skiing on Chair 15, snowtubing, ice skating, a half-pipe, ski bikes, and snowshoeing 1997: The Eagle Bahn Gondola is installed, replacing the original Lionshead Gondola 1999: World Alpine Ski Championship held at Vail Mountain Resort and Beaver Creek Mountain Resort 1999: Work begins on Category III, the third phase of Vail Mountain Resort’s 1985 Master Development Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement A-1 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

2000s 2000/01: Blue Sky Basin opens, including three high-speed quads and 525 acres of terrain

2010s 2010: High Noon (Chair 5) is upgraded to a high-speed detachable quad; The 10th opens at Mid-Vail 2012: Gondola One replaces the Vista Bahn chairlift 2013–present: Additional non-skiing activities added at Adventure Ridge include two aerial challenge courses, a four-line zip line, mountain coaster, tubing hill, climbing wall, interpretive installation, canopy tour and trails 2015: Chair 2 upgraded to a high-speed detachable six-pack 2016: Chair 17 upgraded to a high-speed detachable quad and designated as Chair 9 2017: Chair 11 upgraded to a high-speed detachable six-pack

Average annual visitation has exceeded 1.5 million skiers since 1997. Dating back to the original development of chairlifts and trails within the SUP area, development of Vail Mountain Resort for lift- served skiing has involved clearing of trails, grading, chairlifts construction, roads, and buildings.

A-2 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP) Vail Mountain Resort Improvements Projects Installation of approximately 30 miles of Notice of • Recreation snowmaking pipeline to provide coverage Proposed Action 2018 Vail Snowmaking EA Within SUP area 260 acres • Soils on approximately 260 acres of existing ski issued in October • trails. 2018 Watershed Decision Memo • Recreation Replacement of the Northwoods Lift (Chair (DM) signed • Soils 11) and construction of fourteen small 2017 Chair 11 Replacement Within SUP area 2017, 5 acres • Vegetation shade canopies and tents around Adventure implementation • Ridge. Watershed ongoing • Wildlife Sun Up Lift (Chair 17) replacement, Chair 3 and 4 east maze regrade and corbel • Recreation installation, removable multi-use deck, • Soils 2016 Vail Summer Construction DM signed 2016, Within SUP area Adventure Ridge storage building and kids 5 acres • Vegetation Projects CE fully implemented summer tubing lanes and the Eagle Nest • Watershed deck upgrade, facilities and landscaping • Wildlife plan. • Recreation Replacement of Chair 2, snowmaking on • Soils 2015 Vail Mountain Summer DM signed 2015, Within SUP area Upper Lions Way, egress route Seiberts 5 acres • Vegetation Projects DM fully implemented Stash and multipurpose deck Pickeroon. • Watershed • Wildlife Vail Mountain Resort proposed 13 non-ski • Recreation based projects to provide year-round DM signed 2014, • Soils 2014 Vail Mountain Recreation Within SUP area recreation, taking advantage of existing implementation 51 acres • Vegetation Enhancements Project EIS infrastructure and designed for a variety of ongoing • Watershed visitors. • Wildlife • Recreation Analyzed upgrading the Gopher Hill (Chair • Scenery DM signed 2013, 2013 Vail Summer #12) and Mountain Top Express (Chair #4) Approximately • Soils Within SUP area implementation Improvements DM at Vail Mountain Resort to increase uphill 5 acres • Vegetation ongoing capacity. • Watershed • Wildlife

Final Environmental Impact Statement A-3 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP)

Analyzed relocation of the half-pipe • Recreation platform and addition of summer tubing, • Scenery 2012 Vail Summer aerial challenge courses, a 4-line zip line, a DM signed 2012, Approximately Within SUP area • Soils Improvements DM zip adventure course, and climbing wall and fully implemented 5 acres • freestanding climbing features at Adventure Vegetation Ridge. • Watershed • Recreation Analyzed vegetation treatments in response Decision Notice • Scenery 2011 Vail Ski Area Forest to the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic, (DN) signed • Soils Health Project Environmental Within SUP area including insecticide, hazard tree removal, 2011, 984 acres • Vegetation Assessment (EA) clearcut, small clearcuts within a thinning implementation • and partial cut to reduce risk to the public. ongoing Watershed • Wildlife Analyzed replacing the existing tubing hill surface lift with an elevated, covered, carpet • Recreation lift as well as regrading the existing tubing • Scenery hill slope. Also added a downhill bike trail 2010 Vail Mountain Summer DM signed 2010, • Soils Within SUP area between Simba and the Eagle Bahn 4 acres Improvements DM fully implemented • Vegetation Gondola and a hiking trail from Eagle’s • Nest to Mid-Vail. Watershed • Wildlife

• Recreation Analyzed upgrading the existing • Scenery 2009 Golden Peak Snowmaking snowmaking system on Golden Peak Race Within SUP area DM 2009, fully Approximately • Soils and Race Course Improvements Trail and half-pipe to an automated system (Golden Peak) implemented 130 acres • DM to facilitate early season race training and Vegetation • half-pipe construction. Watershed • Wildlife Approved removal of dead and dying • Scenery lodgepole infested with the mountain pine • Air Quality 2009 Vail Beetle Tree Salvage beetle on approximately 26 acres of DM 2009, fully • Soils Within SUP area 26 acres Project DM National Forest System Land distributed implemented • Vegetation throughout Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP • Watershed area. • Wildlife

A-4 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP) Analyzed projects identified in 2007 MDP, 12,590 acres • Recreation Within SUP area including: upgrading High Noon, new Sun (specifically, • Scenery (front side of Vail Down Bowl; improvements to the Snow ROD 2009, 2009 Vail Ski Area Vail Mountain, • Soils Mountain and Summit Cat Garage; a new Mid-Vail implementation Improvements Project Final EIS Golden Peak, • Vegetation Sundown/Sun Up restaurant (The 10th); and additional ongoing Sun Up/Sun • bowls) snowmaking on the front side Vail Watershed Mountain Down Bowls) • Wildlife Supplemented Vail Mountain Resort’s 1985 Master Development Plan and the subsequent 1986 DN/FONSI that approved it, as well as the 1996 Vail Category III • Final Environmental EIS and ROD. Various projects Recreation accepted, • Scenery Planned projects included: chairlift approval 12,590 acres • Air Quality 2007 Vail Resort Master Extent of installation/upgrades; new trails, chairlifts dependent upon (acreage of • Soils Development Plan Update SUP area and snowmaking on Golden Peak; terrain analysis, SUP) • improvements across the SUP area; guest Vegetation implementation service improvements; and improvements to • Watershed ongoing maintenance, utilities operations and • Wildlife snowmaking. The MDP also addresses alternative experiences and summer trails at Adventure Ridge. 3.5 acres of vegetation • Recreation Analyzed the installation of the West DN signed 2006, removal on • Scenery 2006 Vail Ski Area West Within SUP area Lionshead chairlift, originating in West Vail pending NFS land and • Soils Lionshead Lift EA and terminating above Pride Express. implementation 0.5 acre on • Vegetation private land in • Watershed West Vail • Recreation • Scenery 2006 Golden Peak Terrain Within SUP area Analyzed grading related to construction of DM signed 2006, Approximately • Soils Modification DM (Golden Peak) a proposed half-pipe on Golden Peak. fully implemented 5 acres • Vegetation • Watershed • Wildlife

Final Environmental Impact Statement A-5 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP) ROD 1996, Many approved upgrades implemented, including four proposed chairlifts, 645 • Recreation Analyzed chairlifts, trails, guest service acres of • Scenery Category III 1996 Vail Category III Ski Area facilities, food service (indoor and outdoor), developed terrain • Soils Within SUP area portion of SUP Development EIS restrooms, ski patrol, and utilities in the (out of a total of • area Vegetation Category III portion of the SUP area. 800 approved), • Watershed utility installation, • Wildlife food services (Belle’s Camp warming hut and The Dog House), and patrol facilities. Forest Service Tree Hazard and Vegetation Clearing and Restoration Projects Rehabilitation by ripping, re-contouring/ improving drainage, and restoring native Pending Vail • Recreation Within and vegetation along 7 miles in the Mill Creek Golden Peak • Soils To Be Mill Creek Restoration Project adjacent to Vail’s watershed. Implementation of the trail Improvements • Vegetation Determined SUP area restoration project would be completed by Project EIS • Watershed the project proponent with oversight by the approval • Wildlife USFS via a cost recovery agreement. • Recreation • Scenery Located in the Intermountain Area of Vail 2 miles west of DM signed 2016, 319 acres • Air Quality 2016 Vail Intermountain Fuels on the south side of I-70 and west of Vail Vail Mountain implementation within the • Soils Project EA Mountain Resort. Treatment of 194 acres of Resort SUP area hazardous fuels within 319 acres. ongoing WRNF • Vegetation • Watershed • Wildlife

A-6 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP) • Vegetation 3 miles north of Vegetation management. Salvage and DN/FONSI 914 acres • Wildlife 2012 Piney Project EA Vail Mountain regenerate 914 acres of lodgepole pine signed 2014, fully within the • Watershed Resort SUP area infested with mountain pine beetle. implemented WRNF • Recreation Remove up to 1,400 acres of pinon-juniper, burn up to 1,650 acres of sagebrush, and DM signed 2012, 1,400 acres 2012 Sagebrush Enhancement mow up to 770 acres of sagebrush to benefit • Vegetation County-wide implementation within the Project greater sage-grouse, mule deer, Brewer’s • Wildlife and sage sparrow and reduce fuels. Seed ongoing WRNF and replant the area. 3 miles west and • Vegetation Vegetation management. Salvage and DN/FONSI 1763 acres 2010 Upper Eagle Beetle Salvage 3 miles north of • Wildlife regenerate 1,763 acres of lodgepole pine signed 2010, fully within the Project EA Vail Mountain • infested with mountain pine beetle. implemented WRNF Watershed Resort SUP area • Recreation Portions of WRNF lands in • Scenery Eagle, Garfield, • Air Quality Proposal to remove or fell hazardous trees 2009, 2009 Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Pitkin, and • Soils Forest-wide in compliance with the Healthy Forest implementation Removal and Fuels Reduction Summit, for a • Vegetation Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). ongoing total acreage of • Watershed 1.2 million • Wildlife acresa • Recreation Adaptive Grazing Livestock Management • Scenery including design criteria, mountain plans, DN signed 2009, 2009 Holy Cross Grazing • Soils County-wide and adaptive management options. North implementation 185,764 acres Allotment EA • Vegetation side of Vail Mountain eliminated from ongoing Meadow-Vail allotment. • Watershed • Wildlife

Final Environmental Impact Statement A-7 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP) Emphasized vegetation management 72,405 acres Eagle Valley actions, including green tree removal, • Scenery (including along the I-70 sanitation and salvage, felling in place, pile • Soils 2006 Vail Valley Forest Health ROD 2006, fully 57,598 on NFS, corridor between and broadcast burning, pruning, and • Vegetation Project EIS implemented 13,726 on Vail Pass and chipping, that would improve forest health • private, and Watershed Avon and reduce the accumulation of fuels near • Wildlife communities in the Eagle Valley. 1,081 on state) Town of Vail and Eagle Valley Planning and Development Projects • Traffic/Parking • Socioeconomic • Air Quality Within Town of Ongoing residential development have Town of Vail Residential Scenery Vail and Vail contributed to resource degradation and loss Ongoing Vail Valley Development • Soils Valley of habitat. • Vegetation • Watershed • Wildlife Proposed parking structure at Red Sandstone Elementary School for 120-160 Construction Red Sandstone Elementary Within 52,000 space town-funded parking structure Summer 2018 • Traffic/Parking School Parking Structure Town of Vail square feet to be built on the school site for use by the pending approvals Town of Vail. 28,000-square To be completed foot building, • Recreation Ski & Snowboard Club Vail At base of Upgrade/replacement of the existing and operational in Town of Vail Traffic/Parking Clubhouse Construction Golden Peak Ski & Snowboard Club Vail clubhouse. late fall 2018 and Vail • Socioeconomic Resorts land Town of Vail hosts town recreation events • and supports other organizations that do so, Recreation Town of Vail Recreation Events Varies including watersports and fishing Ongoing Varies • Watershed competitions on Gore Creek. • Wildlife

A-8 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP) 680 acres of private land accessed year- round by a paved, maintained • Scenery 13 miles west of road. The Berlaimont Estates Access Route 19 homes are planned on a private • Soils the Town of Vail, DEIS released roughly 5-mile EIS inholding surrounded by the WRNF. • Vegetation in Edwards long road • would use a Wildlife combination of existing Forest System roads and new road segments • Recreation 5 miles west of • Soils Replacement Chair 5, a double lift to a DM signed 2017, 5 acres within 2017 Beaver Creek Chair 5 CE Vail Mountain • Vegetation high-speed quad. fully implemented the WRNF Resort SUP area • Watershed • Wildlife • Recreation 3 miles west of DM signed 2017, • Soils Extension of existing EagleVail Trail to 5 acres within 2017 EagleVail Trail CE Vail Mountain implementation • Vegetation Forest Service Minturn office. the WRNF Resort SUP area ongoing • Watershed • Wildlife Proposal to accomplish three projects at • Recreation Beaver Creek Resort during the 2016 Within • Scenery Soils 2016 Beaver Creek Summer summer construction season: Women's DM signed 2016, Beaver Creek 5 acres • Vegetation Construction CE Downhill Start Mound Removal, Finish fully implemented SUP area • Area Commentator Booth and Red Tail Watershed Grading Projects. • Wildlife Analyzes transportation needs of the public ROD signed 2,482,000 acres 2011 White River National and the need to provide adequate access for 2011, • Recreation Forest-wide within the Forest Travel Management Plan forest and resource management, while still implementation • Wildlife WRNF allowing for protection of natural resources. ongoing

Final Environmental Impact Statement A-9 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Table A-1. Cumulative Effects Matrix (cont.) Project Location (Straight Line Resources Project Approval/ Project Area Project Distance to Vail Project Description Potentially Implementation (acres/length) Mountain Resort Affected SUP)

Improvements including non-infrastructure • Recreation related components, advance guideway ROD signed • Traffic/Parking 2011 CDOT Final Adjacent to SUP system and highway improvements needed 2011, 150 miles • Air Quality Programmatic EIS area along the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from implementation • Glenwood Springs to Denver metropolitan ongoing Watershed area. • Wildlife Analyzed key components of Beaver • Recreation Creek’s 2010 MDP related to hosting the • Scenery 5 miles west of ROD signed Beaver Creek 2011 Beaver Creek Mountain 2015 World Alpine Ski Championships. • Soils Vail Mountain 2012, fully SUP area Improvements Project Final EIS Included construction of new race courses, • Vegetation Resort SUP area implemented (3,849 acres) and improvements to Red Tail Camp for the • Watershed racecourse finish area. • Wildlife Promote sustainable communities in Eagle Country through the creation of affordable 2009 Amended Eagle County 2009, and permanent-resident housing units with Local Resident Housing County-wide implementation Eagle County • Socioeconomic guidelines, such as a base rate for Local Guidelines ongoing Resident Housing at 35% of total square footage of a project. Objectives include establishing Frontage Road improvement plan, developing transportation demand management 2009, 2009 Vail Transportation Town of Vail measures for peak traffic, developing implementation Town of Vail • Traffic/Parking Master Plan Update Frontage Road Access Management Plan, ongoing and identifying a strategy towards a Town parking plan. Provides guidance for all resource • Recreation management activities on a National Forest • Scenery 2002 White River National 2002, including forest-wide multiple-use goals • Soils Forest Resource Management Forest-wide implementation 2,285,970 acres and objectives, forest-wide standards and • Vegetation Plan Revision ongoing guidelines, and monitoring and evaluation • Watershed requirements. • Wildlife a Within 5 miles of the Vail Mountain Resort SUP area include: Lost Lake (202 acres), Martin Creek (37 acres), Red Sandstone (290 acres), No Name/Grouse (207 acres), Red White (191 acres), McAllister (40 acres), and Lime Creek (38 acres).

A-10 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix B. Construction Implementation Plan

Appendix B. Construction Implementation Plan

The following construction implementation plan would be completed pending approval of the Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project. The document will include the following components listed below and submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval. Each section below lists required elements the plan should contain when submitted to the Forest Service for approval. Erosion Control and Runoff Management • Silt fences, straw bales/wattles or sediment control best management practices (BMPs) to contain sediment on-site. • 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. • Revegetation plans for disturbed areas. • Defined grading limits and physical barriers along the perimeter of graded areas. Revegetation and Rehabilitation • All disturbed ground will be revegetated with desirable plant species. A revegetation plan will be given to the Forest Service with a list of all materials to be used for site stabilization and revegetation (i.e., soil amendments, seed mixes, erosion control blankets). Seed mixes that incorporate native plant species similar to those within the project area are desirable. To prevent soil erosion sterile annuals may be used while native species become established. Utilize seed mixes approved by the Forest Service botany representative and certified to be free of weed species. Any mulch used in revegetation efforts must be certified to be free of weed species and cannot knowingly contain other non-native plant seeds. • A list of materials to be used for site stabilization and revegetation (i.e., soil amendments, seed mixes, erosion control blankets). Seed mixtures and mulches will 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. The Forest Service must approve the seed mixtures prior to implementation, unless previously approved seed mixes are employed. • A monitoring protocol for vegetative cover standards from the 2002 Revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) to be implemented for a minimum of two years following seeding. • Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity. • Noxious weed and other non-native plant infestations guidelines to control noxious weeds in the area. • Implement Forest Service-approved revegetation guidelines at all sites where ground disturbance occurs, including using certified noxious weed-free mulches that do not contain non-native seeds and are appropriate native seed mixtures.

Final Environmental Impact Statement B-1 Appendix B. Construction Implementation Plan

Construction Management • Grading limits and grading plans. ○ Define grading limits on the ground before construction by placing wattles, sediment fence, construction fence, or other physical barrier along the perimeter of the area to be graded. Ensure that all grading is confined within the specified grading limits. ○ Any site grading should blend disturbance into the existing topography to achieve a natural appearance. Minimize cut and fill at the transition of proposed grading and existing terrain. ○ For grading projects greater than 1 acre, obtain a Stormwater Construction Permit from the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Discharge Permit System. The primary requirement of the permit is the development and implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan. • Construction access routes. ○ Avoid trampling of native plant communities through designation of formal paths in heavy use areas, and other appropriate means. • Construction best management practices. ○ No ground disturbing actions near streams during spring runoff, or during periods of heavy precipitation. ○ Heavy equipment will be kept out of streams. ○ During construction, food and other bear attractants should not be kept in vehicles on the job site. ○ During construction, workers shall remove all food waste from the project area daily. ○ Construction workers will not be allowed to bring dogs on site during construction. ○ All construction will be confined to daylight hours. ○ Adequately mark leave trees and trail clearing limits to avoid mistakes in clearing limits during construction. ○ Clean Equipment. Ensure that prior to moving on to National Forest System lands, all off-road equipment is 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. The project administrator will inspect the equipment prior to entrance onto the Forest to see that it is free of debris.

B-2 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix B. Construction Implementation Plan

Timber • Defined logging decks areas and skid paths. • Protocol for timber removal. • Detail how timber will be removed or managed. Vegetation is retained to screen facilities from key viewpoints. • Consider the health and windthrow potential of residual trees as the major selection factors, when possible, during the selection of trees for removal. • Biomass management strategies (chipping/mastication) should adhere to the following protocol: ○ Based on literature review and the best available science, wood chip depth shall not exceed a maximum depth of 3 inches and should be applied at a relatively uniform thickness. Rake by hand as necessary to achieve uniform application. ○ Incorporate needles and/or leaves into chipped biomass to balance nutrient content of wood chips and to mimic the carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio of the native forest floor. Ideally, the C:N of applied biomass material should be less than 30:1. ○ Avoid operations with chipping/mastication equipment during periods of excess soil moisture. Use broad, sweeping turns with equipment, as practicable, to avoid rutting and displacement of soil. ○ Monitor for invasive weeds following operations with chipping/mastication equipment, particularly Canada thistle (Cirsium avense). Grading • A grading plan will be prepared for sites that would require grading in excess of 2,000 square feet. Portray existing topography and cut/fill areas on large-scale site plans. Define grading limits on the ground before construction by placing stakes, flagging, wattles, sediment fence, construction fence or some physical barrier along the perimeter of the area to be graded. Ensure that all grading is confined within the specified grading limits. • For grading projects greater than 1 acre, prepare an erosion control plan that, at minimum, meets the basic requirements for stormwater permitting through the State of Colorado Stormwater Management Program.

Final Environmental Impact Statement B-3 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS

Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS

Comment letters on the DEIS were submitted by the following agencies: • United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 • Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Final Environmental Impact Statement C-1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 www.epa.gov/region08 HAY 21 201B

Ref: 8EPR-N

Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor White River National Forest c/o Max Forgensi, Interdisciplinary Team Leader 24747 US Highway 24 Minturn, Colorado 81645

Dear Supervisor Fitzwilliams:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 has reviewed the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service's (USFS's) March 2018 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (CEQ No. 20180057), pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed project includes constructing a lift and terrain including 42 acres of trails, operations buildings for racing starts and the lift, facilities for equipment and fuel storage and maintenance activities, and snowmaking infrastructure. Tree removal, vegetation management and additional snowmaking coverage are also proposed.

The EPA provided scoping comments for this Draft EIS in a May 1, 201 7, letter that focused on assessing baseline environmental conditions, potential impacts to water resources, including wetlands, and potential impacts to air quality. We also participated in a site visit last summer and appreciated the USFS's willingness to meet and answer our questions about the project. The Draft EIS is responsive to the EPA' s scoping comments and questions, and we support the strong project design criteria (PDC) and best management practices (BMPs) included, which are valuable for avoiding and minimizing impacts. Our few remaining comments highlight issues related to water resources, specifically water quality and wetlands, that we recommend be addressed in the Final EIS.

The EPA is rating the Draft EIS as EC-1, Environmental Concerns - Adequate Information. The EC-1 rating is based primarily on potential impacts to water resources from additional snowmaking and associated runoff. For your Final EIS consideration, our detailed recommendations are provided in the enclosure. A description of the EPA's rating system can be found at: https ://www.epa.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statement-rating-system-criteria.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review of the Draft EIS. We are committed to working with you as you prepare the Final EIS. If further explanation of our comments would be helpful, please contact me at (303) 312-6704, or your staff may contact Amy Platt at (303) 312-6449 or [email protected].

Sincerely, ~~c- / ~.~ - _...,-_ Philip S. Strobel Director, NEPA Compliance and Review Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation

Enclosure

2 ENCLOSURE

The EPA considers protection of water resources to be among the most important issues to be addressed in the NEPA analysis for these types of ski area project activities. We support the USFS' s proposed PDC and BMPs to protect these valuable resources in the project area.

Water Quality: The Draft EIS states that the stream health assessment focused on Mill Creek and the Mill Creek sub-basins because a majority of the project area flows into Mill Creek. Mill Creek is tributary to Gore Creek which is tributary to Eagle River which is tributary to the Colorado River. The Draft EIS also notes that the proposed project has the potential to impact water quality and quantity in the project area due to increased runoff from ground disturbance and additional snowmaking.

The Draft EIS limits assessment of potential water quality impacts to Mill Creek and Gore Creek, although impaired waters are identified both near the project area and further downstream. The 2016 Colorado Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list for impaired waters includes Segment 9a of the Eagle River (temperature). Although this segment is quite a distance downstream from the project area, the Draft EIS notes that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, in consultation with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, is collecting and evaluating temperature data to determine potential causes, impacts, and appropriateness of current standards. We recommend the Final EIS include any related information that becomes available between now and the release of the Final EIS, along with a commitment to work with the State on additional measures that may be necessary if Vail Ski Resort's proposed additional 62 acre-feet of water withdrawal for new snowmaking purposes may exacerbate downstream temperature issues.

The Draft EIS notes that the proposed additional snowmaking coverage may impact stream flows through water depletions or increased runoff or both. The Water Resources Specialist Report notes that the proposed action would result in increased flow rates and volumes and alteration in peak flow timing that could result in a decreasing trend in stream health, even with the installation of BMPs and other features proposed in the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of Water Resources Specialist Report). We recommend the Final EIS identify additional BMPs and project-specific mitigation that will be added in the event that the USFS determines that the Golden Peak PDCs and BMPs are not adequate to improve and protect watershed conditions consistent with Forest Plan objectives. If it has not already been done, we encourage the USFS to reach out to the Town of Vail and other stakeholders for input on the Drainage Management Plan.

Wetlands: The Draft EIS includes numerous PDC and BMPs that will be implemented to avoid and minimize any potential impacts to wetlands. The Vegetation and Wetland Specialist Report identifies Wetland B emanating from a small spring. This wetland/spring area is located in an existing ski trail and the disturbance area for the proposed upgraded snowmaking pipeline. We recommend that a Wetland Biologist be present on site during the construction phase of the pipeline upgrade through the wetlands/spring section of the disturbance area. Having such expertise on hand will ensure real-time marking of wetlands to inform placement of work activities and will provide oversight to address unanticipated issues that may arise during the construction phase of the project. COLORADO Parks and Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources

Glenwood Springs Area Office 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2920 I F 970.947.2936

April 25, 2018

Scott Fitzwilliams clo Max Forgensi Mountain Sports/Special Uses White River National Forest PO Box 0190 Minturn, CO 81645

RE: Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Draft EIS

Dear Mr. Fitzwilliams,

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for Vail Resort's proposed Golden Peak Improvements Project. CPW has been involved in this project since the planning stages and submitted scoping comments to the Forest Service on April 25, 2017.

As you may be aware, CPW has a statutory responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado; this responsibility is embraced and fulfilled through CPW's mission to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage the wildlife of Colorado for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the State and its visitors. Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff has reviewed the Draft EIS and would like to offer the following comments and recommendations for your consideration.

The project area provides important refuge habitat for mule deer, elk and other forest-dwelling species including American marten, pine squirrel, dusky grouse, etc. In addition to potential terrestrial impacts, CPW is concerned with the effects of additional snowmaking on the aquatic ecosystems and flow regimes of Mill Creek and Gore Creek.

Terrestrial Wildlife Considerations

Overall, CPW agrees with the Draft EIS and Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) that the impacts to terrestrial species will be mostly additive to existing impacts from the ski area and associated development and human activity. Although winter ski area operations may be mutually exclusive from the spring, fall, and summer use by many terrestrial species, we do recommend fully implementing the PDC from page 16 of the BA/BE that states "Extend a signed ski area boundary/ closure line around the north and top sides of the expanded ski terrain to minimize skier disturbance to the undeveloped north-facing habitat above the valley bottom."

Bob D. Brascheid, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildife • Parks and Wildlife Coomlssioo: Robert W. Bray• Marie Haskett• Carrie Besnette Hauser John Howard, Chair • Marvin McDaniel • Dale Pizel • Jim Spehar • James Vigil, Secretaty • Dean Wingfield • Michelle Zimmerman, Vice-Chair • Alex Zipp We also recommend that Vail Resorts and the FS restrict future summer-use activities in this area to protect big game transitional movements.

Additionally, the elk information in the BA/BE is not up-to-date. It states that the 2011 post-hunt population estimate for DAU E-16 is the most current estimate available. While the population size did not change drastically throughout the following five years, CPW recommends using the 2016 post-hunt population estimate for the Draft EIS and associated documents. The 2016 post hunt estimate for E-16 was 6,550 animals.

Aquatic Considerations

Given the presence of fish barriers to prevent non-native trout colonization, Mill Creek is an important area for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout to subsist without non-native competition or hybridization. CPW supports the proposed Mill Creek Road mitigation project to improve the hydrologic conditions in Mill Creek.

CPW encourages the FS to continue macroinvertebrate and fish sampling within Mill Creek following implementation of the Golden Peak Improvement Projects and Mill Creek Road/Trail mitigation project. If conditions continue to deteriorate, additional mitigation and/or restrictions should be considered to improve upon the diminished stream health conditions currently present. As stated in the Draft EIS, extensive work and planning has been undertaken to improve the condition of Gore Creek and its tributaries and every measure should be taken to compliment these efforts.

Additionally, CPW would like to see an expanded analysis (page 63 of the BA/BE document) of how the proposed changes in peak flow and annual runoff (page 111 of Draft EIS) may affect spring-spawning trout species {i.e. cutthroat trout and rainbow trout). Specifically, CPW is concerned with the shift in peak flows from May to June during average years and April to May during drier years.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and submit comments for this project. We look forward to assisting with future monitoring efforts on Mill Creek and Gore Creek. If there are any questions or needs for additional information, don't hesitate to contact Land Use Specialist, Taylor Elm, at (970) 947-2971 or District Wildlife Manager, Bill Andree, at (970) 328-6563.

JT Romatzke, Northwest Regional Manager cc Perry Will, Area Wildlife Manager Bill Andree, District Wildlife Manager Taylor Elm, Land Use Specialist File Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Introduction

Information was made available on the White River National Forest (WRNF) website at (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47937); comment submissions were also accepted via this website. Comments were accepted from the following sources: email, web submission, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone. During the DEIS comment period, the WRNF received 173 comment submittals. All comment letters were reviewed for substantive comments, and contact information for each commenter was entered into a master database. One comment was received following the close of the comment period.

A total of 184 comments were extracted from the letters across 23 broad categories. Not all 184 comments were substantive; non-substantive comments were included to illustrate public opinion on the project and DEIS. These 184 comments provide the foundation for which this Response to Comments document is based. Comments were grouped further by subcategory and theme in order to facilitate the recording and response process. Similar comments were combined to be representative of common themes that were expressed by numerous individuals. Comments that resulted in an update to a particular component of the analysis between the DEIS and FEIS are indicated as such.

Names of those individuals who submitted comments on the DEIS are provided on the following page. Per Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 24.1(3), copies of comment letters received by federal, state ,and local government agencies are included as Appendix C of the FEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-1 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Charles Adams Eleanor Finlay Holly Loff Amy Roberts Greg Anderson Ellen Geldbaugh Colleen Logue Craig Roberts Christine Andrie Bradley Ghent Tim Losa JT Romatzke John Andrie Brian Gillette Carl Luppens Bryan Rooney Chris Anthony Cory Glackin Zack MacMillan Sam Rosenkrantz Steve Avery Valerie Glimp Andrea Malboeuf Brett Rubenstein Daniel B Steve Goodman Brice May Gerald Salani Jason Baggaley Lysle Gust Monica McDonald Jay Sapp Jacqui Baggaley Susan Hanus Robert McLeod Ashley Saunders Robert Bank Peter Hart Russell Meyers David Saunders Mark Barounos Jan Helen Maria Meyers Patrick Scanlan Max Bervy Paul Hields Richard Michaux Sherrie Schaeffer Bjorn Erik Borgen Philip Hoversten Terry Miller Trey Schill Katherine Borgen Paul Jaeger Peter Millett Robert Schilling Kaia Borgen-Moritz Carol Johnson Jessica Milloy Tom Schlader Javier Braun Tess Johnson Jeffrey Morris Sharon Schmidt Christine Braun Thomas Johnson Jon Morse Tracey Schmidt Cleo Braun Adam Joice AnneMarie Mueller Santigo Sepulveda Jim Brenneman Jeffrey Judd Jason Napoli Carrie Shelton Ian Bruce Steve Kalapos Terence Nottingham Mikaela Shiffrin Peter Buckley John Keane Brian Ogawa Pete Siebert Liza Burkina Adrian Kearney Tracy Ogawa Robert Silverstone Dennis Byrne Jeffrey Kirwood Kai Ogawa Mikayla Smyth Michael Callas Kim Kohlhofer Christopher Ogilvie Hannes Spaeh Richard Clubine Brad Kreuz Antony Olin Emory Strawn John Cole John Kust Jonathan Olin Erik Strickler Donald Conty Peter Lange Dave Osbourne Jon Strickler David Coulter Debbie Lathram Nathan Park Lindsey Sullivan Steve Crowley Craig Lathram Gus Pernetz Leslie Tabor Zora Daniels Kyleena Lathram Katherine Peterson Heidi Trueblood Javier De Pedro Samantha Lathram Amy Platt Mike Trueblood Ray Dixon Daniel Leever Kathryn Poehling Stephen Vastagh Everett Dooley Harold Leever Jesse Pomerantz Rick Vernon John Dowling Julie Leever Steve Prawdzik David Viele Michael Ducey Jean Levac Jean Publie Kevin Ward Loren Dumont Michael Levan Aldo Radamus Richard Warner Kirk Dwyer Will Lewis Sara Resnick Donald Zelkind Brian Eggleton Samantha Leyba Bill Rey Lisa Zimmerman Anne Esson Susi Livran Lance Richards Gil Fancher Paul Lockey Justin Roach Roger Fang Clifford Loeb Kerry Roach

D-2 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Response to Comments 1.0 Alternatives 1.1 As we saw this year millions of gallons of water melted at the early season low elevation of Golden Peak. Building a race course at lower elevation doesn’t make sense for the environment nor VR’s business. Why don’t they use terrain above 10,000 ft that holds better such as what Copper Mountain does. Weather is changing as we know and its crucial that we protect these beautiful areas with Colorado’s extreme growth. Vail Mountain Resort’s Golden Peak area is located on the eastern edge of the special use permit (SUP) area and the skiable terrain rises 1,160 vertical feet spanning the elevations of 8,240 to 9,400 feet. This location is particularly strategic for this race course as the high elevation enhances the reliability and consistency of the snow coverage on an annual basis. See Section 3.1.2.3 of the DEIS, which addresses the predictability of snow surface at Vail Mountain Resort.

1.2 Some reasonable alternatives that could reduce impacts, but that were not considered in the DEIS include: 1) an alternative permitting the proposed expansion only with a firm agreement from Vail Resorts to protect an equivalent amount of similar wildlife habitat within the Company’s ski area permit from future disturbance and (Footnote 1: Vail Resorts has other expansion projects in the pipeline that will impact important wildlife habitat. See e.g., Beaver Creek Resort - McCoy Park Terrain, Notice of Proposed Action Legal Notice (Apr. 27, 2018) available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=52650.);2) an alternative conditioning approval of this expansion on the proponent’s execution of specific actions that would improve water quality in the impacted watersheds (e.g., eliminating barriers that isolate populations of aquatic species, increasing vegetation in water influence zones, etc.)(Footnote 2: Degraded water quality in Mill Creek is likely a result of ski resort , and the water quality may be declining rather than improving. DEIS at 86, 89.); 3) an alternative requiring the project proponent to undertake mandatory weed eradication measures to ensure that any new is accompanied by a net decrease in the amount of weeds within the ski area permit; 4) upgrading existing race courses on the International, Giant Steps, and Hunky Dory runs, for the intended use; and 5) an alternative that does not include additional snowmaking to avoid new stream depletions and problems with increased spring run-off—the impacts of which, along with impacts of all the proposed and foreseeable snowmaking proposals on nearby ski areas, have not been considered (see Section 2 infra). These are all reasonable alternatives that would improve the health of public land values while also allowing for additional within the ski area boundary. None of them were considered by the USFS in this DEIS. The Golden Peak Improvements Project was initially planned in the 2007 Vail Master Development Plan Update and subsequently analyzed in the 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (2009 FEIS). The project in 2009 was not approved due to concerns about stream health, soil stability and sedimentation, but extensive work has occurred between 2009 and 2015 to address these issues before the current proposal was submitted. See Section 1.2 in the DEIS.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-3 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Vail Mountain Resort and the Forest Service considered a variety of options for changes to terrain, acreage, location, slope, etc. following the 2009 environmental review. In 2016 Vail Mountain Resort put forth a single best option in a revised proposal that the Forest Service accepted. Because several alternatives had already been formally and informally analyzed by the Forest Service and specialists during the revision period, only one proposal was put forth by Vail Mountain Resort, in order to minimize costly and time-consuming analysis.

In 1997 a Record of Decision (ROD) was finalized for the Vail Category III Ski Area Development Final EIS.1 This agreement formalized areas designated for future wildlife habitat protection as suggested in “alternative 1” above.

The Proposed Action contains a requirement of mitigation on Mill Creek as suggested in “alternative 2” above. See Section 2.4 of the DEIS for more details on the mitigation project, which would improvements on approximately 7 miles of the Mill Creek Road/Trail. Vail Mountain Resort would be responsible for the project.

Considering “alternative 3” above related to “mandatory weed eradication,” the current project design criteria (PDC) incorporate appropriate treatment protocols to minimize the establishment of noxious and invasive plants in the project site through the pretreatment of existing weed infestations, the cleaning of all off-road equipment, revegetation measures and monitoring of the project area for three years post completion. See Section 2.4 and Section 3.7 of the DEIS.

In consideration of “alternative 4” above, the commenter mentioned trails that would not meet the Purpose and Need for training and racing terrain, public safety, and operational efficiency. In particular, there is a need for “adequate separation between ski/snowboard competition terrain and terrain used by the general public.” See Section 1.3 of the DEIS.

As suggested above, “alternative 5” would not meet the purpose and need of the project, as additional snowmaking would be required to develop safe and operationally efficient training and race terrain.

The Golden Peak Improvements Project resides within Vail Mountain Resort’s SUP area and is guided by the Forest Plan, which states that 8.25 Ski areas – Existing and Potential, are “to provide opportunities for intensively management outdoor recreation activities.”2

1.3 The DEIS suffers from a lack of a reasonable range of alternatives. In addition to the statutorily required “no action” alternative, there is only one action alternative. NEPA requires that an FEIS contain a reasonable range of alternatives. The alternatives are actually alternatives to the proposed action. See NEPA§ 102(2)(E). There are no action alternatives to the proposed action; therefore there is no range of action alternatives. The additional analysis suggested by CTL/Thompson presents information that is appropriate as supplementation to

1 USDA Forest Service. 1997. Record of Decision, Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Category III Ski Area Development 2 USDA Forest Service. 2002. White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_000999.pdf. Accessed December 2017.

D-4 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

the proposed action in a supplement DEIS and that could be incorporated into another action alternative as appropriate. See also NEPA § 102(2)(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). The information provided by CTL Thompson has been considered and additional changes were incorporated into the Drainage Management Plan between the DEIS and FEIS.

Where a major federal action that may affect the human environment is proposed, then alternatives must be explored and analyzed thoroughly to meet the intent and requirements of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA 42 U.S.C. § 4332. Section 102 directs that “to the fullest extent possible…” the environmental impact statement provides a) an evaluation of the benefits of the proposed project in light of its environmental risk, and b) a comparison of the net balance for the proposed project with the environmental risks presented by alternative courses of action.3 Both of these requirements have been met under the current proposal and the reasonable alternatives have already been explored to the fullest extent possible starting with the first incarnation of the project in 2009.

The discussion of environmental effects of alternatives need not be exhaustive but they do need to permit a reasoned choice by the Responsible Official. The agency should explore the reasonable alternatives, including the no-action alternative and the Forest Service preferred alternative action. Section 102 requires only the “appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action…” which have been proposed and explored by the Responsible Official.

1.4 The planned drainage improvements are positive, but not designed with the intent of mitigating risk of landslides, mudfloods, and mudflows that could affect Northwoods. Considering that a substantial degree of risk from flooding and mudflow currently exists and mogul course construction could increase the risk, we recommend this risk be evaluated by the Forest Service in a supplemental DEIS. Potential Project Design Criteria or new alternatives may range from not constructing the mogul course, moving of the planned mogul course, or construction of berms, lined detention ponds and subsurface drains, none of which have been analyzed in the DEIS or associated reports. Since the Golden Peak project was proposed and analyzed in the 2009 FEIS and then again proposed in an alternative form in 2016, the project has been modified in response to resource concerns, especially with respect to concerns about drainage, soils, and slope stability. During the years 2014–2017, a revised Drainage Management Plan and Water Resources Specialist Report, including a revised geohazard study, have been completed (these documents can be found in the project file).4 Importantly, the area of the project has been reduced in size since the project was first proposed in 2009 and a variety of PDC and mitigation measures have been included to limit adverse impacts on the environment. A list of required elements for the Erosion Control and Runoff Management section of the Construction Implementation Plan can be found in the PDC, as well as in Appendix B of the DEIS. The risk of mudflows and flooding has been evaluated in the above documents, and a supplemental EIS is not necessary. The Drainage

3 Natural Resource Defense Council v. Morton 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972) 4 Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. 2018. Water Resources Specialist Report and Drainage Management Plan for Vail Ski Area – Golden Peak Improvements.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-5 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Management Plan describes how water will move away, not towards, private property north of the mogul course.

If the Golden Peak project did not include the mogul course, then the project would not meet the purpose and need outlined in the DEIS. Considering that few, if any, suitable places with the appropriate slope for a mogul course exist elsewhere on Vail Mountain, the proposed location is the most suitable to meet the determined need. The construction of berms, detention ponds, and subsurface drains were considered in the Drainage Management Plan.

1.5 In fact, given the numerous and growing number of new snowmaking proposals on ski resorts in the area, the USFS should undertake a programmatic analysis that considers the broader impacts of these proposals altogether, and that provides a rational explanation for any agency decision with those impacts in mind. - It would be good to have threshold compliance targets for reclamation activities and consequences for not reaching those targets. A programmatic analysis for all snowmaking is out of scope of this project, and is in the purview of Vail, the state water engineer, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Vail Mountain Resort consulted on their water depletions with USFWS in 2004. The effects of additional water use have previously been determined in a Biological Opinion from 2004 (No. ES/GJ-6-CO-00-F-033-CP053). The impacts from water depletions would not jeopardize the four endangered species in the nearby section of the Colorado River (humpback chub, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker). 2.0 Project Design Criteria 2.1 Consistent with a the ‘polluter pays’ principal in environmental policy frameworks, WRNF should not be required to take on additional monitoring expenses within their general aquatics program budget to accommodate the Golden Peak project’s ongoing impacts. Should aquatic conditions exhibit degradation and decline, ongoing monitoring costs and any potentially required mitigation or compensatory measures should remain solely the financial and legal obligation of the project proponent. The Proposed Action would result in approximately 0.9 mile of new road construction in the Mill Creek Watershed but due to the restoration project the action would also reduce road density in the Mill Creek watershed by approximately 6.1 miles. The Mill Creek Trail/Road Restoration project, which is the proposed mitigation, places the responsibility of the mitigation project on the Proponent. See Section 2.4 of the DEIS.

2.2 Although winter ski area operations may be mutually exclusive from the spring, fall, and summer use by many terrestrial species, we do recommend fully implementing the PDC from page 16 of the BA/BE that states “Extend a signed ski area boundary/ closure line around the north and top sides of the expanded ski terrain to minimize skier disturbance to the undeveloped north-facing habitat above the valley bottom.” A backcountry gate would not be added at the time of construction unless safety concerns or wildlife impacts develop that warrant it. PDC for the proposed improvements project are included in Table 2-1 of the DEIS.

D-6 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

2.3 Table 2-1, under “Post-Construction,” also calls for monitoring the project area for three years for the presence of invasive plants and successful establishment of desired vegetation. Similarly efforts should be made to monitor over a period of years the slope stability above Northwoods and efficacy of the drainage management to confirm that it is adequate. References made elsewhere in the DEIS to adaptive management should be specifically called out and expanded with regard to implementation of the Drainage Management Plan. The implementation of post construction Erosion Control and Drainage Management criteria have already been included in the PDC. Other erosion related measures outlined in the post-construction section of the PDC include the revegetation plan, the restoration of bulk density and soil porosity, as well as soil transects to ensure there is no net loss of organic material from the site. See Section 2.4 of the DEIS.

Other BMPs for erosion control are outlined in the Erosion Control and Drainage Management Plan (refer to Appendix B). 3.0 Planning Process 3.1 If it has not already been done, we encourage the USFS to reach out to the Town of Vail and other stakeholders for input on the Drainage Management Plan. The WRNF’s Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District staff ensured that the Town of Vail was aware of the NEPA analysis and Proposed Action. The Ranger District staff solicited their input through the formal NEPA process and in inter-agency conversations. The Town of Vail did not submit formal comment letters during either the scoping or the DEIS comment period. 4.0 Recreation 4.1 The use of public lands for a private resort is contentious enough, but expanding the race facilities would limit use to an even smaller portion of people...Skiers and snowboarders who already access this terrain through the backcountry gate will lose their ability to use the land. The proposed improvements project would reduce current restrictions on public use that occur when training or racing is scheduled for locations such as Black Forest, Cookshack, and Whippersnapper. Backcountry access will not be affected by this project. The project area is currently designated in the Forest Plan as Management Area 8.25 (Ski Areas – Existing and Potential). This management area designation allows for this type of ski area use.

4.2 There is currently a HEAVY impact to both the history, lift operations, customer experience and lift line congestion at Golden Peak #6 lift. Additional exposure, and development will markedly degrade the history and operation quality of users at Golden Peak. The Proposed Action would represent a considerable improvement to recreation opportunities at Vail Mountain Resort as the proposed terrain expansion would “reduce skier congestion at the Golden Peak base area and…create necessary separation between athletes and the general public.” See Section 2.3.2 of the DEIS for a description of the Proposed Action. This is precisely in line with the Purpose and Need of this project and will increase the quality of the training venue and the guest experience.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-7 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

4.3 We also recommend that Vail Resorts and the FS restrict future summer-use activities in this area to protect big game transitional movements. Summer activities on Golden Peak are not proposed at this time nor included in the Proposed Action. 5.0 Traffic and Parking 5.1 Parking congestion which is an issue can be reduced significantly by signage, and enforcement of the rules for racers to not be dropped off by private vehicles or any other non authorized vehicles in the area. This has been done while the new club building is under construction, but it can and should be improved for the benefit of property owners affected by traffic in that area. It is not clear that the USFS has taken a hard look at emissions from increased traffic. Implementation of the proposed project has potential to increase daily/annual visitation at Vail Mountain Resort with associated effects on traffic volumes and/or congestion on the South Frontage Road and Interstate 70 (I-70). Parking capacities may also be affected by the Proposed Action. However, it is not estimated that the Proposed Action would drive a measurable increase in visitation to Vail Mountain Resort and further Golden Peak would not be able to accommodate a considerable amount of athletes.

For these reasons it is expected that there would not be an increase in vehicular traffic on I-70 or the South Frontage Road due to the Proposed Action. Therefore, without a measurable increase in vehicular traffic, vehicular emissions are not anticipated to increase measurably. Vehicular emissions were considered by the WRNF; however, a detailed analysis was not warranted for this issue. Parking is also not anticipated to be impacted as resort’s parking facilities are capable of accommodating parking during periods of high visitation. See Section 3.2 of the DEIS. 6.0 Scenery Resources 6.1 The plan has not and does not address the environmental as well as the visual impact of removing 80% of the pristine aspen forest. The reader is referred to the Section 3.7 of the DEIS, for an analysis of environmental impacts of tree removal as a result of the Proposed Action.

The reader is referred to the Section 3.3 of the DEIS for an analysis of visual impacts of tree removal as a result of the Proposed Action. The analysis was undertaken within the framework of Forest Service Scenery Management System guidelines, scenic integrity objectives and Built Environment Image Guide, as well as the Management Area definitions for ski areas (management area prescription 8.25).5

The reader is referred to Chapter 6 of the DEIS for visual simulations of the Proposed Action from vantage points on Red Sandstone Road and the Vail Village Exit off I-70.

5 USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook 701. Washington, D.C. December; USDA Forest Service. 2001. Built Environmental Image Guide. Rocky Mountain Region.

D-8 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

7.0 Social and Economic Resources 7.1 The threat of serious to catastrophic consequences to Northwoods from an inadequately designed and constructed drainage management plan decreases the value of the Northwoods condominiums and should be analyzed if no changes are made to the proposed Drainage Management Plan as it exists in the DEIS. Slope instability above Northwoods due to the Project is a major concern negatively affecting Northwoods’ economic value. The Northwoods condominiums are very valuable real estate holdings of the condominium owners and it is reasonably foreseeable that a poorly designed or constructed drainage management system could have significant economic impacts on those condominium values. The economic effects should be analyzed in this section. The Drainage Management Plan was formulated to address hydrologic changes that may result from the Proposed Action; drainage system requirements needed to minimize erosion, sedimentation and changes in peak flow during runoff events; and drainage management strategies to avoid and minimize potential impacts to areas where there may be slope stability problems.6

The area the reader makes reference to (“Northwoods”) will not be directly affected by ground disturbance or additional water from the Proposed Action due to the implementation of the Drainage Management Plan features. Any additional water from snowmelt is designed flow toward Mill Creek through a series of water bars and infiltrations areas as detailed in the Drainage Management Plan. Therefore, property value impacts were not considered in the scope of the analysis. 8.0 Air Quality 8.1 But the agency fails to discuss any of these new climate-related studies in its analysis of snowmaking, water depletions, and Colorado River fish. Climate change was included in the DEIS and FEIS per Forest Service guidance on the inclusion of climate change in NEPA analyses.7 A description of historic and projected climate and its potential impacts is included in Section 3.5.3.2 of the DEIS. Data included in the analysis therein was from 2014 or sooner, including the best available projections for Colorado and the WRNF.8

6 Leonard Rice Engineers. 2018. Water Resources Specialist Report and Drainage Management Plan for Vail Ski Area – Golden Peak Improvements. 7 USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis. Available at https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance.pdf 8 Lukas, J., J. Barsugli, N. Doesken, I. Rangwala, and K. Wolter. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado, A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation, Second Edition – August 2014, A Report for the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds). 2014. Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Chance Research Program, 148 pp. Gordon and Ojima. 2015. Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study: A Report by the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University to the Colorado Energy Office. USDA Forest Service, 2017a. National Forest Climate Change Maps, Region 2 Forests. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NFS-regional-climate-change-maps/regions/rocky-mountain-region- r2.html

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-9 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

The interdisciplinary team did not include the impacts of climate change on snowmaking, water depletions, and Colorado River fish because the additional depletions from the Proposed Action would constitute a small percentage of depletions compared to the overall depletions that have been previously consulted on.

Impacts of the Proposed Action on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and climate change can also be found in Section 3.5 of the DEIS. 9.0 Geology and Soils 9.1 It also seems to me that with an extended ski training season snow would be held on this area as long as possible increasing risk of an unnaturally fast spring melt off, and huge potential for flooding or mudslides below. Snowmaking operations typically result in concentrated areas of snow, as well as snow stockpiles. This results in a large volume of potential runoff water in spring and summer months. We are concerned about the snow management programs effect on potential runoff that would affect Northwoods. The training season is not expected to be longer than the current training season, late October or early November to mid-April. Occasional training after closing day may occur, as it does now.

Snowmelt from snow stockpiles may melt later, not earlier, compared to other locations due to exposure to wind and sun. Stockpiles also provide better management options for operators to manage snow melt in the spring and summer, as spreading out the snow has proven to lead to more rapid, less manageable runoff.

Natural weather variability such as precipitation, sunny vs. cloudy days, and temperatures are the primary drivers of how long snow persists on the race terrain.

9.2 Potential for other mechanisms, such as flood, mudflood and mudflow were not evaluated in the DEIS. The potential of increased risk to Northwoods was not evaluated. GEO-HAZ did not evaluate the potential effect of the planned tree clearing and increased moisture from snowmaking on the slopes above Northwoods. A review of the DEIS and the engineering report shows increased risks to Northwoods from potential massive flooding, mudflows and instability of slopes due to the construction and operation of this Golden Peak project above Northwoods. The mogul course specifically could have adverse effects on Northwoods with the tree clearing, surface grading changes, high- pressure water lines and the increase man-made snow capabilities. The potential of landslide floods, mudslides and mud flow was not evaluated as their effect on the $250.000.000 worth of homes at Northwoods below this project. Snowmaking and snow stockpiles and the runoff of water in spring and summer months were not considered as an effect on Northwoods. These issues and many others as listed in the engineering report could be mitigated, with proper design and construction techniques.

D-10 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

In that same table, under the heading “Water Resources, Proposed Action,” reference is made to new snowmaking that would increase snowmaking water usage by 62 acre feet per ski season and potentially increase runoff. But there is no detailed analysis as to the effects of that potential runoff on Northwoods. The reader is referred to Table G-1 and Figure 2 of the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report). The Drainage Management Plan was formulated to address hydrologic changes that may result from the Proposed Action; drainage system requirements needed to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and changes in peak flow during runoff events; and drainage management strategies to avoid and minimize potential impacts to areas where there may be slope stability problems.

Because Drainage Management Plan features are designed to direct surface and subsurface flow south toward Mill Creek and away from private property to the north, floods, mudfloods and mudflows were not included in the scope of the analysis. The Geology and Geologic Hazards Technical Report (Attachment C of the Drainage Management Plan in the Water Resources Specialist Report) notes that “direct impacts of tree clearing and snowmaking on the trail footprint is anticipated to be low.”

9.3 Development that increases runoff toward Northwoods will increase the existing substantial risk of flood, mudflood and mudflow exposure. These risks can be reduced by careful- management of surface grading and potential construction of subsurface drain systems, but management of these risks is not discussed in the DEIS or associated technical reports. Grading changes that direct ski area runoff west and east of (away from) Northwoods would substantially reduce exposure of the property to these hazards. Combining this approach with interceptor drains would be a positive method to mitigate excessive soil saturation. Again, none of these options is discussed in the DEIS or referenced technical reports. The reader is referred to Table G-1 and Figure 2 of the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report). The Drainage Management Plan was formulated to address hydrologic changes that may result from the Proposed Action; drainage system requirements needed to minimize erosion, sedimentation and changes in peak flow during runoff events; and drainage management strategies to avoid and minimize potential impacts to areas where there may be slope stability problems. The mogul course is located in sub-Basins GP-2C. Runoff from this sub-basin would be conveyed to Mill Creek and infiltration area 1 via WB-11, WB-13, WB-15, WB-17, WB-19 and IMP-2. Infiltration areas are anticipated to attenuate both surface and subsurface flows by dispersing and dissipating energy.

9.4 Section 3.6.1-Geology and Soils, Scope of the Analysis This section refers to the “Analysis Area” which is defined as 220 acres on National Forest Service lands within Vail Mountain

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-11 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Resort’s Special Use Permit area. Consequently, by definition, the Analysis Area does not extend outside of the special use permit area to the north where Northwoods is located. By drawing the Analysis Area too narrowly, the DEIS does not consider the affected environment and environmental consequences of the Project on the geology, slopes, soils, and water drainage at and above Northwoods lying to the north of the special use permit area. The DEIS should be supplemented to include those lands within the Analysis Area for geology, slopes, soils, and water drainage. As defined by the FSH 1909.5, “The affected area is the area in which a specific resource may be affected by management actions; whether they are past, present, or future. Affected areas can vary in size by resource and by the type of effect that may occur.” The Analysis Area for geology and soils includes “areas directly disturbed by, and slopes adjacent to, proposed projects on Golden Peak.” The Analysis Area for water resources includes “1,605-acre area that encompasses 17 sub-basin watersheds.” The area the reader makes reference to (“at or above Northwoods”) will not be directly affected by ground disturbance or additional water from the Proposed Action. Any additional water from snowmelt is designed to flow toward Mill Creek through a series of water bars and infiltrations areas as detailed in Table G-1 and Figure 2 of the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report).

9.5 Under “Geology and Soils Proposed Action,” the following sentence appears: Two areas northwest and north of the Golden Peak area should be avoided of additional water diversion due to uncertainty if additional water infiltration would occur. This sentence is grammatically confusing and incapable of understanding and analysis. It may have direct bearing on Northwoods that lies northwest and north of the Golden Peak area. Consequently, the DEIS should be supplemented to expand on this concept so that the reader may fully understand the effects of the ground disturbance and snowmaking and their contribution to increased rates of erosion and slope hazards. The sentence in question summarizes findings in Section 3.6.4.2. The sentence has been modified to: “Two areas northwest and north of the Golden Peak area should be avoided of additional water diversion. The head of the steep slope northwest of Golden Peak contains two scarp landforms in bedrock that indicate deep-seated gravitational slope failure toward Eagle Valley. This failure is likely quite old, thus it is hard to predict the effect of diverting new runoff onto this part of the slope, so diversion is preferable. In addition, the area north of the summit of Golden Peak is a large bowl filled with a complex of landslide deposits, including young-looking deposits. No runoff from the new trails or snowmaking should be diverted into this bowl.”

Detailed descriptions of existing drainage conditions and improvement are provided in the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report). The PDC also speak to various runoff mitigation measures including water bars, channels and infiltration areas to reduce erosion and the impacts on surrounding properties. Furthermore, Table 3.6-5 outlines erosion hazards based on soil properties and accounts for each soil type found on the map units for the analysis area. See the Soil Erosion Hazards discussion under Section 3.6.3.2 of the DEIS.

D-12 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

The Proposed Action may result in some soil erosion; however, the implementation of PDC (Table 2-1 of the DEIS) would minimize impacts to soil and organic material. For this reason, a supplemental EIS is unwarranted and unnecessary.

9.6 Table 2-1, Planning, including discussion of slope movement monitoring protocols as part of the Erosion Control and Drainage Management Plan measures that will, at some point in the future, be included in the Stormwater Management Plan for the Project. These slope movement monitoring protocols will be developed in the future by an unnamed entity in coordination with the Forest Service and implemented during construction and post- construction monitoring. The slope movement monitoring protocols are not required to be part of the Erosion Control and Damage Management Plan according to Appendix B that lists the required elements of that plan. These protocols are essential to the Forest Service’s and the public’s understanding of potential slope movement as a result of the Project that could affect Northwoods and all other human activities downslope from the construction. These protocols should be made a mandatory part of the erosion control plan. Further, these protocols are essential to the protection of human life and real and personal property and could include such concepts as inclinometers and years of post-construction monitoring. The slope movement monitoring protocols should apply outside of the Vail Resorts special use permit area and specifically on steep slopes trending toward Northwoods. Most importantly for purposes of this DEIS, Northwoods is unable to fully evaluate the DEIS because of the absence of these protocols in the document leading to immediate concerns about the inadequacy of the DEIS and future concerns about segmentation of the analysis. For this reason, the slope movement monitoring protocol should be fully developed and incorporated into a supplemental DEIS for public review. The DEIS states in Table 2-1, “Slope movement monitoring protocols will be developed in coordination with the Forest Service soils/geology staff or their representative. These protocols will be implemented during construction and during post-construction monitoring.”

9.7 Table 2-1, Planning, states that Vail Mountain Report “will prepare the following plans for Forest Service review: ... (2) Stormwater Erosion Control and Drainage Management.” Is this drainage plan different from or the same as the previously-referenced Drainage Management Plan that is Attachment E to the Water Resources Specialist Report? It is unclear to the reader if there is a separate plan not contained in that report that needs to be provided to the public through a supplemental DEIS. If the stormwater drainage management plan is released only after the final EIS and Record of Decision, it raises concerns regarding segmentation of the analysis of connected actions under NEPA. Connected actions are those actions that are closely related and should be discussed in the same NEPA document. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a){l). Failing to discuss connected actions can result in illegal segmentation of the analysis. A plan not reviewed by the public in the DEIS would constitute new circumstances or information that are significant to the federal action and relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its effects. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(l}(ii). This additional information could also constitute a substantial change to the proposed action which is also relevant to the environmental concerns. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(l)(i). If you

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-13 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

add a new alternative that is outside the spectrum of alternatives already analyzed, this further supports supplementation of the DEIS. Table 2-1 also references the required elements of the Erosion Control and Drainage Management Plan found in Appendix B to the DEIS. That appendix section consists of nothing more than four short bullet points on plan elements that might be included in the plan and does not indicate that the plan has yet been produced. In fact, Appendix B suggests the opposite in that these management plans “would be completed pending approval of the Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project.” Further, Appendix B states these plans will be submitted to the Forest Service for approval in the future. Consequently, Northwoods and the public are unable to evaluate these plans for their environmental impacts, requiring supplementation of the DEIS. Similarly, Table 2-1, Planning, discusses a “Grading Plan” that will be prepared sometime in the future for the Project. Grading in the Project area could have a significant impact on water drainage and erosion control. Northwoods is unable to fully analyze the impacts of the Golden Peak Improvements Project without having an opportunity to review and analyze the Grading Plan. The Grading Plan should be developed and distributed to the public as part of a supplemental DEIS to avoid segmentation concerns. Construction-level documentation is not a requirement of NEPA. However, some future plans will be necessary for construction and operation of the Proposed Action, so these plans and their required elements have been included in Table 2-1 and Appendix B of the DEIS.

The reader is referred to Table G-1 and Figure 2 of the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report) for detail description of drainage management features designed to address hydrologic changes that may result from the Proposed Action.

A Stormwater Management Plan is a construction, site specific planning document used as communication tool between the Proponent and the Forest Service to clearly outline expectations and requirements, such as but are not limited to the features listed in Table 2-1 (i.e., silt fences, erosion- control matting, etc.). 10.0 Vegetation 10.1 The DEIS makes it clear that “[u]nder the Proposed Action, existing populations of noxious and invasive weeds may spread into currently uninfested regions of the Analysis Area. Undesirable species could spread via wind, clearing, construction vehicles, and reclamation seed mixes or mulches.” DEIS Table 2-3, at 26, 79...Allowing the continued spread of invasive weeds across the planning area fails to minimize impacts and fails to achieve the goals outlined in relevant Orders, laws, and regulations cited in the DEIS. We understand that weeds are hard to control. But considering the threat they pose to the health of the native ecosystems on our public lands and the prevalence of weeds within portions of the ski area that have already

D-14 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

been developed, the USFS must do more than simply asking the proponent not to increase the problem by more than a specified percentage. The current PDC incorporate appropriate treatment protocols to minimize the establishment of noxious and invasive plants in the project site through the pretreatment of existing weed infestations, the cleaning of all off-road equipment, revegetation measures and monitoring of the project area for three years post completion. See Section 2.4 and the Vegetation and Forest Health discussion under Section 3.7.3.2.

With the proper implementation of the PDCs related to vegetation and noxious weed control, the impact of this project is expected to be minimal. There is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources associated with noxious weeds in this project.

The management plans for the Proposed Action addresses noxious weed and invasive plant control in a manner consistent with the WRNF Weed Implementation Guide, in order to minimize the spread and invasion of weeds on the project site (refer to Appendix B). 11.0 Wildlife and Aquatic Species 11.1 The DEIS suggests that lynx may utilize the project area at night. DEIS at 83. The analysis, however, fails to acknowledge or address the fact that this particular project will require an unusually high amount of nighttime grooming and snowmaking due to the nature of the proposed use. If lynx really do use this area at night, the proposed activities will have an impact that deserves more discussion in the DEIS. Vail Mountain Resort currently grooms approximately 1,600 acres of terrain. Nighttime grooming is carried out in accordance with Vail Category III Ski Area Development Final EIS.9 The proposed trails would be groomed on a regular basis and would account for less than a 3 percent increase in grooming activity.

As noted in the DEIS, “The USFWS has concluded that although high quality lynx habitat may occur adjacent to ski runs (i.e., within intertrail islands and adjacent to the resort’s winter operational boundary), its functionality is likely degraded by the winter elimination of hares due to human intrusion and disturbance into the habitat.10 This impacts lynx movement in the Golden Peak area.” The FEIS has been updated to note that lynx use of the area is unlikely due to habitat fragmentation.

11.2 Additionally, the elk information in the BA/BE is not up-to-date. It states that the 2011 post- hunt population estimate for DAU E-16 is the most current estimate available. While the population size did not change drastically throughout the following five years, CPW

9 USDA Forest Service. 1997. Record of Decision. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Category III Ski Area Development. 10 USFWS. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States; establishment of a nonessential experimental population of the North American wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; proposed rules. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Volume 78, No. 23, February 4. pp 7864–7890.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-15 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

recommends using the 2016 post-hunt population estimate for the Draft EIS and associated documents. The 2016 post hunt estimate for E-16 was 6,550 animals. The FEIS has been updated with the 2016 post hunt elk population estimate for DAU E-16.

11.3 CPW would like to see an expanded analysis (page 63 of the BA/BE document) of how the proposed changes in peak flow and annual runoff (page 111 of Draft EIS) may affect spring- spawning trout species (i.e., cutthroat trout and rainbow trout). Specifically, CPW is concerned with the shift in peak flows from May to June during average years and April to May during drier years. Additional text has been added to Section 3.9.3 of the FEIS (p. 111) to clarify: “Snowmelt is not anticipated to occur later in the year after implementation of the Proposed Action compared to current conditions. In fact, snowmelt may occur earlier in some areas, due to snow exposure to sun and wind. The volume of snow may be greater in some areas, but the timing of runoff or snowmaking would not substantially change. Natural weather variability such as precipitation, sunny vs. cloudy days, and temperatures are the primary drivers of how long snow persists on the race terrain.”

11.4 The DEIS makes clear that there are Colorado Cutthroat in the project area. See DEIS Table 3.8-2, at 84. The DEIS, however, makes no mention of FWS consultation or potential ESA protections for these fish. The USFS must consult with USFWS on the potential impacts to Colorado Cutthroat prior to approving this project. Rationale for the effects determination is in Section 3.8 of the DEIS. Colorado River cutthroat trout are a Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species, not a federally listed species, so consultation with USFWS is not required. The plan concludes that the Proposed Action may affect individuals but not populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. The fish are present in isolated headwater streams and lakes, neither of which are near the project area.

Alternative 2 may impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Mitigation would be implemented for Alternative 2 to be consistent with Colorado River Cutthroat Trout – WRNF Forest Plan Standard #2. WRNF staff will work closely with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff to ensure appropriate protection of this species.

11.5 It has been well documented that the wildlife in Eagle County is in a tailspin. Elk, Deer and Moose herds are declining at an alarming rate and this is happening so fast that it is undetermined exactly what the cause is. Also, birds and other wildlife in our county are declining. Elk and deer were analyzed in the DEIS in Section 3.8.

For elk, the DEIS states (p. 90), “The E-16 population objective was established in 1988 to be 5,100 elk. The herd was estimated to be 13,000 animals in 1999 and has been managed to 7,100 in 2011. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has been actively managing this herd under the current DAU plan through liberal hunting seasons targeting the antlerless segment of the population. The goal has been to decrease the herd to the population objective of 5,100 elk post-hunting season.”

D-16 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

For deer, the DEIS states (p. 91), “The Upper Eagle River Valley deer herd population objective has been reduced several times since 1980. The current population objective is from 13,500 to 16,500. The need to reduce the population objective was due to several factors with the main factors being: loss of winter habitats (largely due to development), habitat fragmentation, increased recreational impacts, weather, predators, and habitat quality. Competition losses with elk is another important factor on some local winter ranges (e.g., east of Minturn).”

11.6 Consideration for the level of noise created on the Gold Peak expansion related to lift motor location and snow gun selection are important to impacts to wildlife. As noted in the Wildlife Specialist Report, “some level of human activity is present in the project area year-round.” This is due to the proximity of the project area to the base area, town and I-70 corridor. The level of noise in the project area during winter operational days would be similar to existing levels (i.e., the proposed surface lift would operate at the same time as Chair 6 and snow gun technology would be similar, if not newer, than the existing snow guns on Golden Peak).

A number of alternatives and design measures were considered since the Golden Peak project was originally planned in the 2007 Vail MDP Update and analyzed in the 2009 EIS. The lift location and alignments have been modified and reduced, as well as the number of acres proposed for snowmaking. The proposal was three lifts and 46 acres of snowmaking coverage. The 2018 DEIS analyze one surface lift and 42 acres of snowmaking coverage.

Snow gun technology has improved drastically over the last several decades. Vail Mountain Resort strives to install energy efficient technology that has minimal impact on the surrounding environment.

11.7 Given the presence of fish barriers to prevent non-native trout colonization, Mill Creek is an important area for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout to subsist without non-native competition or hybridization. CPW supports the proposed Mill Creek Road mitigation project to improve the hydrologic conditions in Mill Creek. CPW encourages the FS to continue macroinvertebrate and fish sampling within Mill Creek following implementation of the Golden Peak Improvement Projects and Mill Creek Road/Trail mitigation project. If conditions continue to deteriorate, additional mitigation and/or restrictions should be considered to improve upon the diminished stream health conditions currently present. The Mill Creek Road/Trail Restoration project is a required component of the Proposed Action. It would allow the Proposed Action to meet WCPH management measures and improve conditions for multiple resources.

The Forest Service is committed to continued monitoring improvements in the Gore Creek watershed, to which Mill Creek is tributary. If deterioration of conditions were to occur, the Forest Service would work with partners such as CPW, the Town of Vail, and Eagle River Watershed Council to identify causes and solutions.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-17 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

12.0 Water Resources 12.1 The mogul course is the component of the proposed development that is likely to adversely affect Northwoods. Tree clearing, surface grading changes, new high-pressure water lines, and additional manmade snow are planned for this project feature. These changes will increase the volume of runoff and potential sediment loads, especially when spring rain events coincide with snowmelt. We believe some of the additional runoff will be towards Northwoods. Increases in subsurface water are also likely to result in this area. We request that the Forest Service require the thorough evaluation so that the drainage improvements appropriately mitigate the risk and ensure that the Pinos del Norte property is not adversely affected by the proposed project. The potential volume and flow rate of water directed toward the slopes above Northwoods has not been analyzed in either the DEIS or the associated technical reports. The amount of water and sediment loads may be significant, especially if the Golden Peak features are constructed as proposed. A profile of the slope from the bottom of the mogul course to the ridge top above Northwoods is shown below. This slope profile, generated with Google Earth, indicates that surface and subsurface water at the base of the mogul course is likely to travel to the slopes directly above the Northwoods property. Tree clearing, reshaped surface grades, and additional manmade snow required for the course is likely to increase the amount of surface runoff and subsurface water to the slope directly above Northwoods. This could increase driving forces for slope failures and sediment loads resulting in mudfloods and mudflows. The project was redesigned since 2009 in order to redirect water flow away from the private properties cited by the commenters above. Therefore, the potential volume and flow rate of water directed towards the slopes above Northwoods were not analyzed in detail.

The Drainage Management Plan was developed to address water movement, storage, and erosion associated with the Proposed Action.11 The drainage improvements are intended to minimize erosion, attenuate average and peak flow increases, and distribute runoff to allow infiltration in areas that are not subject to slope failure or landslide activity. The Drainage Management Plan states that “infiltration areas are anticipated to attenuate both surface and subsurface flows by dispersing and dissipating energy. The primary function of the infiltration areas is to retime flows which should reduce the cumulative impacts of peak flows and disconnect disturbed areas from receiving waters (e.g., Mill Creek).”

The runoff from the improvements project will be captured and directed westward. Five waterbars were designed in the mogul course area to achieve this goal. Proposed drainage features, infiltration areas, pipelines and connection to the existing drainage system would be used to mitigate changes in hydrology, attenuate flows, reduce erosion, and maintain stream health.

11 Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. 2018. Water Resources Specialist Report and Drainage Management Plan for Vail Ski Area – Golden Peak Improvements.

D-18 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

12.2 The DEIS is full of detail about how the existing developed ski area contributes to erosion, sedimentation, and watershed degradation. The Erosion Control Plan, however, simply includes a list of measures that Vail Resorts and other companies have long used to develop ski areas. The Erosion Control and Runoff Management section of the Construction Implementation Plan (Appendix B of the FEIS) is a pre-construction planning document used between the Forest Service and the Proponent to define construction and post-construction expectations with regards to soil and water resources. The PDC listed in the DEIS are techniques that have mitigated soil and water impacts at past projects across the WRNF. These design criteria, along with the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E in the Water Resources Specialist Report), and Mill Creek Trail/Road Restoration Project, are all designed to mitigate soil and water impacts from the proposed projects.

12.3 The 2016 Colorado Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list for impaired waters includes Segment 9a of the Eagle River (temperature). Although this segment is quite a distance downstream from the project area, the Draft EIS notes that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, in consultation with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, is collecting and evaluating temperature data to determine potential causes, impacts, and appropriateness of current standards. We recommend the Final EIS include any related information that becomes available between now and the release of the Final EIS, along with a commitment to work with the State on additional measures that may be necessary if Vail Ski Resort’s proposed additional 62 acre-feet of water withdrawal for new snowmaking purposes may exacerbate downstream temperature issues. Segment 9a of the Eagle River (COUCEA09a) is the section of the Eagle River between its confluence with Berry Creek to its confluence with Squaw Creek. This segment is located approximately 14 miles downstream of the project site and is outside the area of potential cumulative impacts. No additional data for Segment 9a is currently available.

The DEIS states (p. 83), “The Proposed Action would result in additional water depletion for snowmaking; however, the water depletion is covered by previous Endangered Species Action Section 7 consultation, which allows up to 1,316 acre-feet water depletions at Vail Mountain Resort annually” and “Total water usage over the last five years averaged 534.5 acres-feet per ski season for the entire resort” (p. 102).

12.4 The DEIS suggests discusses in several places that the depletions associated with new snowmaking for this project are well below the amount of depletions covered by the previous Section 7 consultations (see e.g., DEIS at 112), but the DEIS fails to quantify and disclose the total extent of depletions Vail Resorts is currently responsible for. WRR at 30 lists the stream depletions associated with snowmaking, but it fails to mention depletions for other purposes. Total depletions are an important consideration that cannot be omitted from this analysis. As stated in the DEIS, the current average annual water depletions to Gore Creek and the Colorado River are 133.6 acre-feet. Water use associated with stream depletions do not result from other purposes at Vail Mountain Resort. Domestic water (such as for culinary use) is provided by municipal sources and wells. Depletions associated with the implementation of Alternative 2 snowmaking would be an additional

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-19 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

149.1 acre-feet. No other water uses are associated with Alternative 2; therefore, there would be no additional depletions. If implemented, total water depletions would be 282.7 acre-feet, well below the amount of depletions Vail Mountain Resort has previously consulted on up to 1,316 acre-feet. Municipal water use is outside the scope of the analysis. See Section 3.9.2.5 and 3.9.3.6 of the DEIS, which discusses existing and proposed water depletions.

12.5 The proposed action would clearly not comply with the WCPH. The DEIS states that: “The proposed mitigation activities on the Mill Creek Trail … would offset a substantial portion of these adverse cumulative impacts. Id. at 114. How “substantial” would the portion of impacts offset be? And would it be enough to prevent a further decrease in stream health for an already impaired stream? The Proposed Action complies with the WCPH with the inclusion of mitigation on Mill Creek. A description of the Mill Creek Road/Trail Restoration project can be found in Chapter 2, Section 4, Project Design Criteria Incorporated in Action Alternatives. The Mill Creek restoration project is a required component of the Proposed Action. The proposed mitigation would improve resource conditions for hydrology, soils, fisheries, wildlife, botany, recreation, and scenery. Implementation would be carried out by Vail Mountain Resort.

12.6 The Vegetation and Wetland Specialist Report identifies Wetland B emanating from a small spring. This wetland/spring area is located in an existing ski trail and the disturbance area for the proposed upgraded snowmaking pipeline. We recommend that a Wetland Biologist be present on site during the construction phase of the pipeline upgrade through the wetlands/spring section of the disturbance area. Having such expertise on hand will ensure real-time marking of wetlands to inform placement of work activities and will provide oversight to address unanticipated issues that may arise during the construction phase of the project. Although wetlands impacts for this project are fairly minimal in acreage, ERWC believes that for this project and future projects in the watershed, wetlands impact mitigation, as required by Clean Water Act §404, should exceed rather than equal a minimum 1:1 acreage ratio and functional value estimate. ERWC strongly believes that wetlands mitigation should only occur in-basin and benefit the impacted watershed directly. For example, project proponents should not be permitted to buy into a wetlands banking schema elsewhere in the state; mitigation and restoration actions must be required to occur within the Eagle River watershed, and preferably, within the Gore Creek watershed itself as a part of project approval. Wetlands were dismissed from detailed analysis (see Section 1.7.2 of the DEIS). A PDC requiring that a wetland survey would be required prior to construction activities has been added to the FEIS. Based on prior surveys, no wetlands are anticipated to be found. If any are found, flagging would be installed for construction. An on-site wetlands biologist need not be on site if wetlands are flagged for the construction team. Off-site mitigation should not be required for the Proposed Action.

12.7 The Draft EIS notes that the proposed additional snowmaking coverage may impact stream flows through water depletions or increased runoff or both. The Water Resources Specialist Report notes that the proposed action would result in increased flow rates and volumes and

D-20 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

alteration in peak flow timing that could result in a decreasing trend in stream health, even with the installation of BMPs and other features proposed in the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of Water Resources Specialist Report). We recommend the Final EIS identify additional BMPs and project-specific mitigation that will be added in the event that the USFS determines that the Golden Peak PDCs and BMPs are not adequate to improve and protect watershed conditions consistent with Forest Plan objectives. The BMPs and PDC are critical components of project success and are put in place during construction and operation to minimize resource impacts. If the BMPs and PDC do not meet Forest Service criteria or monitoring thresholds are not met, they will be modified.

12.8 Section 3.9.2.3-Hydrologic Conditions This section refers to a drainage management plan that has been created to address hydrologic conditions but again it is unclear whether that plan is already in existence, is Attachment E to the Water Resources Specialist Report, or part of the future plan to be established as described in Appendix B. Section 3.9.3.4-Drainage Network- refers to the plan in the Water Resources Specialist Report but the question remains as to what the previous and other references to drainage management plans refer to. The reader is referred to Table G-1 and Figure 2 of the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report) for detail description of drainage management features designed to address hydrologic changes that may result from the Proposed Action. These features would be constructed pending Forest Service approval of the Proposed Action. The reader also references Appendix B; this plan (including erosion control and drainage management; revegetation and rehabilitation; and construction management) are tools used by the Forest Service for construction specific details. This plan would be submitted to the Forest Service for approval prior to construction.

12.9 Section 3.6.4.2-Alternative 2-Proposed Action, Geology, the DEIS states the two areas northwest and north of the Golden Peak area should be avoided for additional water diversions. Because the Analysis Area does not extend beyond the SUP area, these two unidentified areas northwest and north of Golden Peak are within the SUP. However, this is unclear and should be clarified in a supplemental DEIS. The Analysis Area should expand to include Northwoods and the proposed plan for geology should state that it will avoid additional water diversions toward Northwoods as well. The reader references two areas: the head of the steep slope northwest of Golden Peak and the large bowl north of the summit of Golden Peak as referenced in Section 3.6.4.2. Both areas are located in sub-basins GC-1. The reader is referred to Table G-1 of the Drainage Management Plan (Attachment E of the Water Resources Specialist Report) for a description of the area. The existing conditions states, “sub-basin GC-1 is a steeply treed area with no ski trail development. Runoff from this area naturally flows northeast and is tributary to Gore Creek.” The hydrological impacts from the Proposed Action notes, “Less than 1 percent (of this sub-basin) would be affected by the Proposed Action. Runoff from this 1.1 acres would be redirected south via water bars toward sub-basin GP-2J and Mill Creek. This means that runoff from the 1.1 acres that originally flowed towards Gore Creek would now be directed toward Mill Creek. The remaining runoff from the portion of this sub-basin that won’t be disturbed by the Proposed Action would continue to drain naturally toward Gore Creek. The timing would be the same as historical conditions.”

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-21 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

12.10 This section references the “development and implementation of a drainage management plan and slope stability analysis, contained in the project file as Water Resources Specialist Report.” (Emphasis added.) If this drainage management plan has already been implemented subsequent to the 2009 ROD, please indicate the NEPA analysis that accompanied that major federal action. If this quoted passage refers to the plan that is Attachment E to the Water Resources Specialist Report, then the language in this section is misleading where it states that previous concerns have been “subsequently addressed” through the implementation of that plan and analysis. The plan and analysis is merely a part of the Forest Service’s proposed action, has not been adopted in a Record of Decision, and has not been implemented on the ground. The sentence in question has been modified to: “Vail Mountain Resort, in collaboration with Forest Service hydrologists, has subsequently addressed stream health, soil stability, and sedimentation issues on Golden Peak raised in the 2009 ROD with the implementation of new drainage features, and the development of a Drainage Management Plan and updated hydrology and slope stability analysis. The Drainage Management Plan and analyses are contained in the Water Resources Specialist Report located in the project file.” See Section 1.2 of the DEIS. 13.0 Cumulative Effects 13.1 Appendix A-cumulative Effects Projects Appendix A fails to list the development of the 71-unit Northwoods condominium project in 1978, nor is there any discussion of the cumulative effects of that project as a past action on the proposed action of the Forest Service. Section 3.6.5.1-Cumulative Effects. Scope of the Analysis The cumulative effects temporal and spatial boundaries extend from 1962 to date and include lands at the Vail Mountain Resort, adjacent Forest Service lands, private lands, and lands throughout Eagle County. By definition, this scope of the cumulative effects analysis encompasses Northwoods that was built just north of the Project area in 1978. Yet, nowhere in the cumulative effects analysis is the Northwoods condominium development specifically discussed and analyzed as a past cumulative action. The cumulative effects analysis should analyze any effect that the Northwoods development may have had on the north-facing slope above the development. Town of Vail private residential development has been added to the cumulative effects analysis in Appendix A.

13.2 The push to increase recreational events on Gore Creek and to manipulate the stream channel to allow for additional recreation activities or to extend the season of use could all have significant impacts on the ability of Gore Creek to function as a quality fishery. Town of Vail recreation events has been added to the cumulative effects analysis in the FEIS (refer to the FEIS resource sections and Appendix A).

13.3 The USFS failed to take a hard look at potential impacts of additional snowmaking associated with this project and other similar projects on Federally listed fish. The DEIS makes it clear that water depletions associated with snowmaking for the proposed action are likely to adversely affect Colorado River fish and their critical habitat…The DEIS suggests that as

D-22 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

much as 25% of the water used for snowmaking doesn’t make it back into the stream. DEIS at 102. Adding the potential stream depletions from this project to depletions likely to result from other similar projects may be significant. Each of these snowmaking proposals will result in additional stream depletions. And cumulatively they may result in more significant impacts on Colorado River fish and the fishes’ habitat than the USFS has analyzed or disclosed in the DEIS. To comply with the “hard look” obligations of NEPA, the USFS must initiate a new consultation with USFWS for an updated BO and consider any new proposal for snowmaking along with all of the other snowmaking proposals that are being considered or that are reasonably foreseeable. Based on a dated Biological Opinion (BO) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2009), however, the Forest Service concludes that the affects of this project won’t jeopardize the continued existence of the fish or destroy critical habitat. DEIS at 92. That conclusion is not supported by the requisite hard look. USFS reliance on the BO is misplaced because that opinion was completed years ago, and it fails to consider important new information and changed circumstances. No Biological Opinion is expected for this project because the effects of the additional water used for snowmaking was already consulted on in a prior opinion in 2004 (No. ES/GJ-6-CO-00-F-033-CP053).

The return rate of 75–80 percent of snowmaking water to the watershed is a commonly accepted return rate of water to the river following snowmaking use. Annual depletions average 25 percent of total snowmaking water use (i.e., 75 percent return flow).12

The DEIS provides further clarity in Chapter 3: “Alterative 2 could adversely affect endangered fish species and their critical habitat downstream in the Colorado River system through its associated water depletions. New snowmaking included in the proposed Golden Peak Improvements Project would cover 42 acres of ski trails. With the implementation of Alternative 2, Vail Mountain Resort water depletion would increase to 149.1 acre-feet, well below the amount of depletions covered by pervious Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation (1,316 acre-feet).” 14.0 Representative Support and Opposition Comments Most of the comment letters that the Forest Service received throughout the DEIS comment period were supportive of the Proposed Action, while some were in opposition or had concerns about the Proposed Action. The following non-substantive comments have been included here to provide the public and the decision maker with additional context for this project and the decision to be made. Many of the comments included below are representative of multiple comments received. No responses are provided.

14.1 I recently rode up the lift with was a man from Jamaica, whose one goal in life was to be the first Jamaican Olympic downhiller. What a special opportunity this is to support our national ski team, and ski teams from around the world. Does this not fit into the goals of our public

12 Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc. 2017. Memo to file: Golden Peak Race Center Snowmaking Water Depletions.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-23 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

lands? Is this not in the end a public purpose? A national purpose? How else do we support our Olympians? 14.2 As a Vail Ski and Snowboard Club member, I would rather not attend the meeting. I am strongly AGAINST the expansion. There are plenty of training venues for the alpine/moguls team. My kids are in the park & pipe program. We manage travel to Breck/Copper everyday. There is no reason to destroy additional forest so they mogul team doesn’t have to take an additional ski lift. 14.3 Safety is my main reason for my support of the expansion… The expansion would give our racers more room to train and race, while not taking terrain away from the skiing public 14.4 The project brings tremendous benefit to Ski Club Vail, the Town of Vail and the community at large. The new terrain will bring World Cup racing back to the town of Vail and provides enough terrain to safely manage the enrollment of SSCV, BWL, VMS and BMHS ski teams as well as visiting clubs and international teams of varying disciplines. It will be a first-class venue, as a Vail venue should be, and no apologies should be made for that... This plan provides tremendous benefit to a wide range of constituents with limited impact. I encourage you to approve this exciting and well thought out project that will bring great benefit to our town and community. 14.5 Most people are referring to this project as an expansion, I would refer to it as the completion. The original plan for Golden Peak called for a chairlift to the top, they cut a narrow line for the profile survey that can still be seen today. Prior to ordering the lift someone came up with the idea of taking one chairlift over the Ridge to what was known as South 6 and the idea of going to the top was put on hold… The additional terrain will allow for FIS homologated Men’s Super G and Women’s Downhill. The higher elevation will allow for more consistent November training. The addition of a freestyle venue will take the athletes off Chair 2 and prevent them from mixing with the skiing public above and below the bump venue on Cook Shack, that will be safer for all concerned. The new terrain will allow for better athlete safety than moving to Giant Steps when the Burton Open takes over most of the Arena for the month prior to and during the event. 14.6 Part of this project is the proposed mogul training & competition site. The new site would provide greatly improved access to better training in the most beneficial windows of opportunity. In short, this project is in keeping with SSCVs motto, ‘For The Kids’. Yes, the Gold Peak Improvement Project will likely open more terrain to the general public by freeing up existing terrain designated for SSCV use, but the big benefits are for the kids. 14.7 Right now the training hill does not provide enough space for all the age groups to train adequately and is therefore preventing proper athlete development and preventing athletes from reaching their potential, which in some cases would be the national teams. It is similar to having a junior tennis club but only having one tennis court. Twenty years ago the terrain was

D-24 Vail Mountain Resort Golden Peak Improvements Project Appendix D. Response to Comments on the DEIS

plenty big enough but with the size of the club now, over 600 athletes, we are bursting at the seams. 14.8 First off this project will benefit the kids that train and compete for Ski and Snowboard Club Vail. This new training area will give the kids a safe environment with the ample room for them to hone their skills in their winter sport. The kids that train at Vail come here to have the access to our outstanding Golden Peak training area. This give the kids the ability to get more training in then other areas of the country. With the additional snow making and higher elevation this will give them a longer training season and an advantage against their competitors across the country. 14.9 I believe the addition of the training area will increase the opportunity for the Vail area to host regional and national ski racing and will further benefit the region economically while respecting the low impacts needed on our national forest lands. 14.10 The expansion will also help the community by attracting teams from across the globe to train here in Vail. Bringing in additional revenue to our local business owners. As well as attracting teams to train here it will also let Vail host additional competitions which will help with tourism and exposure of Vail to other people from around the world. 14.11 In addition, we are aware of the concern among some residents for increased landslide risk. SE Group identified nine Project Design Criteria (PDC) based on the Watershed Conservation Practice Management Measures outlined by the regional Forest Service office. The geotechnical analysis and risk mitigation concerning landslide risk and sediment runoff appears appropriate and sufficient. 14.12 Over time the scope of the expansion has been greatly reduced in scale eliminating a chairlift and significantly reducing the amount of clearing involved. This reduced scope also helps to address the concerns regarding erosion and run off. 14.13 The project area provides important refuge habitat for mule deer, elk and other forest-dwelling species including American marten, pine squirrel, dusky grouse, etc. In addition to potential terrestrial impacts, CPW is concerned with the effects of additional snowmaking on the aquatic ecosystems and flow regimes of Mill Creek and Gore Creek. Terrestrial Wildlife Considerations Overall, CPW agrees with the Draft EIS and Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) that the impacts to terrestrial species will be mostly additive to existing impacts from the ski area and associated development and human activity. 14.14 The addition of ski trails and ski lift(s) serve only to profit the aforementioned organizations at the expense of wildlife and the public who want to retain the natural beauty of Golden Peak. Please do not approve this project as it will negatively impact a pristine area with clear cutting and ruin forest resources for current and future generations of wildlife and humans. 14.15 I object because of the exclusivity of the proposed use, the environmental impact of the expansion, and the existence of alternatives for training that do not require further use of public lands.

Final Environmental Impact Statement D-25