2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-1 Executive Summary

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Vail Final Environmental Impact Statement

December 2009

USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ABSTRACT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

2007 VAIL SKI AREA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO

DECEMBER 2009

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Scott Fitzwilliams Forest Supervisor White River National Forest

For Information Contact: Roger Poirier, Winter Sports Program Manager White River National Forest Supervisors Office P.O. Box 948 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948 fax (970) 945-3266

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the estimated environmental effects of implementation of projects contained in Vail Resort’s (Vail) 2007 Improvements Project. Vail is located on the White River National Forest and Eagle County, CO. Vail operates in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Special Use Permit issued by the United States Forest Service. Proposed projects focus on enhancing the recreational experience at Vail by addressing issues related to the lift and terrain network, skier circulation, snowmaking coverage, guest services facilities and on-mountain maintenance infrastructure. All components of the 2007 Improvements Project are within Vail’s Special Use Permit area.

This FEIS discusses the purpose and need for the Proposed Action; alternatives to the Proposed Action; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing each alternative; and project design criteria. A total of three alternatives are analyzed in the FEIS. The Decision Maker’s Selected Alternative is identified in the accompanying Record of Decision (ROD). Appeals: The decision documented in the ROD is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. Any appeal of this decision must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14, “Content of Notice of Appeal,” and it must be received within 45 days of the date of publication of the legal notice in the Glenwood Post. Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The full text of the purpose and need can be found in Chapter 1.

Purpose #1: Expedite mountain circulation and afternoon egress between Vail Mountain and the Vail Village/Lionshead base areas.

Purpose #2: Improve skier/rider access to Sun Down Bowl.

Purpose #3: Improve Vail’s lift and vehicular maintenance facilities.

Purpose #4: Improve early-season and low snow year skiing on the front side of Vail Mountain.

Purpose #5: Provide additional on-mountain dining opportunities.

Purpose #6: Provide a ski/snowboard racing and training venue that meets international racing standards.

SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE DEIS

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades to existing conditions.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

The goal of Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action is to enhance the guest experience through a series of strategic, qualitative improvements. Vail’s Manage-To number of 19,900 daily guests would not change.

Lifts

High Noon lift (Chair 5) would be upgraded with new technology to decrease ride time.1 A new high-speed, detachable quad chairlift would replace the fixed grip triple chairlift.

A new chairlift in Sun Down Bowl would be installed and operated to provide lift-served, roundtrip skiing.

Maintenance Facilities

The existing Snow Summit Cat Garage at Eagle’s Nest would be converted to a lift maintenance facility and a new snowcat garage would be constructed adjacent to it.

1 Chair 5, also referred to as High Noon lift, is generally referred to by the public by number, rather than by name.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-1 Executive Summary

Race Terrain

The Golden Peak race venue would be expanded to better serve races and training demands while continuing to segregate these activities from the general public.

Guest Services

A new restaurant at Mid Vail would be constructed and operated to increase indoor guest seating capacity and provide a more diverse range of on-mountain dining opportunities.

Snowmaking

Additional snowmaking infrastructure would be installed on the front side of Vail Mountain (on Simba and new Golden Peak terrain) to improve early-season and low-snow year skiing conditions and reduced congestion.

ALTERNATIVE 3

Alternative 3 is identical to the Proposed Action but excludes installation of the Sun Down Express lift and expansion of the Golden Peak Race Venue.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

On November 14, 2007, a scoping notice was mailed to 67 community residents, interested individuals, public agencies, and other organizations. A legal notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent, and a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register, on November 16, 2007. In response to the public outreach conducted by the Forest Service, 170 comment letters were received.

The Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2008. Forty-three public and agency comments were received. Substantive comments are included, and responded to, in the Response to Comments.

Between release of the DEIS and Final EIS (FEIS), a supplement to the 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) was prepared to analyze the modified location of the proposed on-mountain restaurant to Mid Vail. The 45-day SDEIS comment period extended through August 10, 2009; no comment letters were received.

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE ISSUES ADDRESSED

Based on the results of public scoping, the Forest Service identified specific areas of public concern. Each of the following issue statements includes a list of indicators (see Chapter 1) which were identified as a means of measuring or quantifying the anticipated level of impact on a particular resource.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-2 Executive Summary

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Cultural, Archaeological, and Heritage Resources

Proposed projects and associated ground disturbing activities could affect cultural and heritage resources.

Recreation

By design, proposed projects would alter the winter recreation experience within the SUP boundary. For example, upgrading High Noon (Chair 5) with high speed technology and installing a new Sun Down Express would affect the existing recreational character of the Back Bowl experience at Vail. Upgrading Chair 5 to a high speed lift would increase uphill capacity from 1,400 pph to 2,400 people per hour (pph). Improved access to Sun Down Bowl from the Sun Down Express (with an uphill capacity of 2,400 pph) could be accompanied by increased skier densities. The existing average skier density in Sun Down Bowl is only 1.2 skiers per acre, which is considered low for terrain of this nature. Consequently, skied-out conditions in the Bowl would be expedited. Additional impacts to the recreational experience are anticipated from the proposed snowmaking projects, the Golden Peak race venue expansion, and the proposed on-mountain restaurant.

Traffic and Parking

Implementation of proposed projects has potential to increase daily/annual visitation at Vail with associated effects on traffic volumes and/or congestion on the South Frontage Road and I-70. Parking capacities may also be affected by proposed projects.

Scenery Resources

Construction of the Sun Down Express and additional terrain on Golden Peak addition may affect visual resources.

Social and Economic Resources

The proposed on-mountain restaurant would require an increase in Vail employees and subsequent increased demand for employee housing.

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Wildlife and Aquatic Species

Ground disturbing activities could potentially affect Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive wildlife and aquatic species, as well as Management Indicator Species (MIS) through direct and indirect impacts to habitat and/or increased human presence.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species

Ground disturbing activities may affect TES plant species.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-3 Executive Summary

Forest Health

Tree clearing for the proposed Golden Peak expansion and Sun Down Express installation would result in a decrease in the aspen and sub-alpine fir cover type —both of which are unaffected by the mountain pine beetle outbreak.

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.

Geotechnical Analysis

Proposed ground disturbance (e.g., lift construction, Golden Peak addition, grading projects in the vicinity of the Chair 5 bottom terminal) may contribute to increased rates of erosion in the project area. Additional snowmaking may result in slope instability and/or failure and subsequent sediment loading to streams.

Water Resources

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

SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 2-3 (pages 2-17 through 2-25) found in Chapter 2 includes a summary comparison of environmental consequences, by resource, for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Detailed information on affected environment and environmental consequences for each resource considered in this analysis can be found in Chapter 3.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-4 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS...... 1-2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1-2 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1-6 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ...... 1-7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 1-7 ISSUES AND INDICATORS ...... 1-8 CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY ...... 1-13 DECISION TO BE MADE ...... 1-15 OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION ...... 1-15 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 2-1 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS IN THIS FINAL EIS ...... 2-9 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-9 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA, MITIGATION MEASURES & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCORPORATED INTO ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3 ...... 2-11 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 2-16 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 3-1 A. RECREATION ...... 3-3 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-3 Affected Environment ...... 3-3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-15 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-33 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-37 B. TRAFFIC AND PARKING ...... 3-38 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-38 Affected Environment ...... 3-38 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-41 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-43 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-45 C. SCENERY RESOURCES ...... 3-46 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-46 Forest Service Scenery Management System ...... 3-46 Affected Environment ...... 3-50 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-53 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-56 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-57 D. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 3-58 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-58 Affected Environment ...... 3-58 Economic and Employment Considerations...... 3-58 Housing ...... 3-59 Environmental Justice ...... 3-61 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-61 Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-63 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-65

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement i Table of Contents

E. WILDLIFE ...... 3-66 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-66 Affected Environment ...... 3-66 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-77 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-85 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-88 F. AQUATIC SPECIES...... 3-89 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-89 Affected Environment ...... 3-89 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-102 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-112 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-114 G. VEGETATION ...... 3-115 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-115 Affected Environment ...... 3-116 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-119 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-121 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-121 H. FOREST HEALTH ...... 3-122 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-122 Affected Environment ...... 3-122 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-124 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-126 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-129 I. AIR QUALITY ...... 3-130 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-130 Regulatory Direction ...... 3-130 Affected Environment ...... 3-132 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-134 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-135 J. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ...... 3-136 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-136 Affected Environment ...... 3-136 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-139 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-140 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-141 K. WATER RESOURCES ...... 3-142 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-142 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3-142 Affected Environment ...... 3-149 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 3-159 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-168 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-173 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 4-1 PREPARERS ...... 4-1 Forest Service Team ...... 4-1 Consultant Team ...... 4-1 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED ...... 4-2 Federal Government ...... 4-2 Tribal Government ...... 4-2 State Government ...... 4-2 Local Government ...... 4-2 Other Organizations ...... 4-2 Individuals Who Commented on the DEIS ...... 4-3

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ii Table of Contents

5. REFERENCES ...... 5-1 6. FIGURES ...... 6-1

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2-1: EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 2-2: PROPOSED ACTION FIGURE 2-2A: PROPOSED ACTION–BACK BOWL PROJECTS FIGURE 2-2B: PROPOSED ACTION–FRONT SIDE PROJECTS FIGURE 2-3: ALTERNATIVE 3 FIGURE 2-3A: ALTERNATIVE 3–BACK BOWL PROJECTS FIGURE 2-3B: ALTERNATIVE 3–FRONT SIDE PROJECTS FIGURE 2-4: EXISTING–EGRESS FIGURE 2-5: PROPOSED ACTION–EGRESS FIGURE 2-6: ALTERNATIVE 3–EGRESS FIGURE 3-1: PROPOSED ACTION VISUAL SIMULATION–RED SANDSTONE ROAD FIGURE 3-1A: PROPOSED ACTION VISUAL SIMULATION–I-70 VAIL VILLAGE EXIT FIGURE 3-2: DRAINAGES AND WATER INFLUENCE ZONE 7. GLOSSARY ...... 7-1 8. INDEX ...... 8-1 APPENDIX A: EIS DRAINAGE PLAN

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement iii Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1: COMPARISON OF PROJECT ELEMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-10 TABLE 2-2: MITIGATION MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 2-13 TABLE 2-3: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 2-17

TABLE 3A-1: TOTAL ANNUAL VAIL SKIER VISITATION COMPARED TO THE STATE OF COLORADO ...... 3-4 TABLE 3A-2: LIFTS THAT CONTRIBUTE SKIERS TO SUN DOWN BOWL – EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3-6 TABLE 3A-3: TARGETED SKIERS PER ACRE BY TERRAIN ABILITY LEVEL ...... 3-7 TABLE 3A-4: SUN DOWN CAT WALK USE STATISTICS ...... 3-7 TABLE 3A-5: EGRESS ROUTES – EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3-9 TABLE 3A-6: SKIERS USING CHAIR 5 AND NORTHWOODS EXPRESS FOR EGRESS ...... 3-10 TABLE 3A-7: CHAIR 5 AND NORTHWOODS EXPRESS EGRESS LIFT LINE WAIT TIMES ...... 3-10 TABLE 3A-8: MID VAIL EGRESS DENSITIES ON LIONS WAY CATWALK ...... 3-11 TABLE 3A-9: CHAIR 5 LIFT LINE WAIT TIMES ...... 3-12 TABLE 3A-10: EXISTING RESTAURANT SEATING ...... 3-14 TABLE 3A-11: USAGE BREAKDOWN – PROPOSED ACTION LIFTS THAT CONTRIBUTE SKIERS TO SUN DOWN BOWL ...... 3-19 TABLE 3A-12: USE LEVEL – PROPOSED CONDITIONS SUN DOWN CAT WALK ...... 3-20 TABLE 3A-13: EGRESS ROUTES – PROPOSED CONDITIONS (ALTERNATIVE 2) ...... 3-22 TABLE 3A-14: SKIERS USING CHAIR 5, NORTHWOODS EXPRESS AND SUN DOWN EXPRESS FOR EGRESS ...... 3-23 TABLE 3A-15: CHAIR 5 AND NORTHWOODS EXPRESS EGRESS LIFT LINE WAIT TIMES...... 3-24 TABLE 3A-16: MID VAIL EGRESS DENSITIES ON LIONS WAY CATWALK – EXISTING AND PROPOSED ...... 3-24 TABLE 3A-17: USAGE BREAKDOWN – ALTERNATIVE 3 LIFTS THAT CONTRIBUTE SKIERS TO SUN DOWN BOWL .... 3-28 TABLE 3A-18: USE LEVEL – ALTERNATIVE 3 SUN DOWN CAT WALK ...... 3-28 TABLE 3A-19: EGRESS ROUTES – ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 3-30 TABLE 3A-20: SKIERS USING CHAIR 5 AND NORTHWOODS EXPRESS FOR EGRESS ...... 3-31 TABLE 3A-21: CHAIR 5 AND NORTHWOODS EXPRESS EGRESS LIFT LINE WAIT TIMES...... 3-31 TABLE 3A-22: MID VAIL EGRESS DENSITIES ON LIONS WAY CATWALK EXISTING AND ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 3-32

TABLE 3B-1: AADT DATA ON I-70 ...... 3-39 TABLE 3B-2: PARKING LOTS AND CAPACITIES – EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3-41

TABLE 3D-1: EAGLE COUNTY POPULATION ...... 3-58

TABLE 3E-1: ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE STATUS OF LYNX HABITAT IN THE EAGLE VALLEY AND CAMP HALE LYNX ANALYSIS UNITS: LAU 20 AND LAU 22 ...... 3-68 TABLE 3E-2: PRE-FIELD CHECKLIST OF R2 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES THAT OCCUR ON THE WRNF ...... 3-70 TABLE 3E-3: WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES AND THEIR POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 3-75 TABLE 3E-4: HABITAT WITH POTENTIAL TO BE EFFECTED BY THE VAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS ...... 3-79 TABLE 3E-5: DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON R2 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3-80

TABLE 3F-1: SUMMARY OF SNOWMAKING DIVERSION SECTION 7 CONSULTATION HISTORY ...... 3-92 TABLE 3F-2: SENSITIVE SPECIES IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION ...... 3-95 TABLE 3F-3: SUMMARY OF EXISTING STREAM HEALTH ...... 3-102 TABLE 3F-4: VAIL GORE CREEK (COLORADO WATERSHED) DEPLETIONS ...... 3-105 TABLE 3F-5: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON R2 SENSITIVE FISH SPECIES ...... 3-112

TABLE 3G-1: CHECKLIST OF R2 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCUR ON THE WRNF ...... 3-117 TABLE 3G-2: COMPARISON OF OVERSTORY VEGETATION DISTURBANCE BY ALTERNATIVE ...... 3-121

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement iv Table of Contents

TABLE 3H-1: ACRES OF TREE REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 3-125

TABLE 3I-1: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND PSD INCREMENTS ...... 3-131

TABLE 3K-1: HABITAT STREAM HEALTH CLASSES ...... 3-144 TABLE 3K-2: WRNF STREAM HEALTH CATEGORIES ...... 3-147 TABLE 3K-3: PROJECT AREA STREAM HEALTH CONDITIONS ...... 3-148 TABLE 3K-4: VAIL PROJECT AREA THIRD-ORDER SUB-WATERSHEDS ...... 3-150 TABLE 3K-5: VAIL PROJECT AREA ANALYSIS DRAINAGES ...... 3-150 TABLE 3K-6: VAIL SKI AREA SNOWMAKING WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ...... 3-152 TABLE 3K-7: VAIL SNOWMAKING WATER DIVERSIONS...... 3-152 TABLE 3K-8: EXISTING TRAILS AND SNOWMAKING ...... 3-155 TABLE 3K-9: HYDROGRAPH CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3-156 TABLE 3K-10: CHANGES IN YIELD AND PEAK FLOW CURRENT VS. BASELINE ...... 3-157 TABLE 3K-11: PROJECT AREA CDA ...... 3-158 TABLE 3K-12: PROPOSED ACTION TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND SNOWMAKING ...... 3-161 TABLE 3K-13: PROPOSED ACTION FLOW AND YIELD CHARACTERISTICS ...... 3-162 TABLE 3K-14: CHANGES IN YIELD AND PEAK FLOW PROPOSED ACTION VS. BASELINE ...... 3-162 TABLE 3K-15: PROPOSED CONNECTED SNOWMAKING AND GRADING ...... 3-164

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement v List of Acronyms

LIST OF ACRONYMS AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ADT Average Daily Traffic AF Acre-feet AMSL Above Mean Sea Level BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BEIG Built Environment Image Guide BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic Feet per Second CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPTSB Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board CWA Clean Water Act DMP Drainage Management Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FIS International Ski Federation FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GIS Geographic Information System ID Team Interdisciplinary Team LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MA Management Areas mg/l Milligrams per liter µg Micrograms MIS Management Indicator Species NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxide NOI Notice of Intent

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement vi List of Acronyms

NRHP National Register of Historic Places PDC Project Design Criteria

PM2.5 Particulate Matter under 2.5 microns

PM10 Particulate Matter under 10 microns PPH People Per Hour PHQ Patrol Headquarters PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration ROD Record of Decision SAOT Skiers-at-one-time SIO Scenic Integrity Objective

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SUP Special Use Permit TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TOC Threshold of Concern USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USCA United States Code Annotated USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS US Forest Service USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project WIZ Water Influence Zone WRNF White River National Forest

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement vii Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzing the 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project was released for public review and comment in December 2008. The DEIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It disclosed the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts anticipated to result from implementation of each of the three alternatives (No Action and two action alternatives). The 45-day DEIS comment period extended through February 11, 2009 and elicited 42 comment letters.

Between release of the DEIS and the Final EIS (FEIS), a supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) was prepared to disclose the impacts of a modified proposal for an on-mountain restaurant that was originally proposed for construction at the summit of Vail Mountain but relocated to the Mid Vail area. Mid Vail was identified as a more appropriate location for the new restaurant to better accommodate guest utilization patterns and utilize existing utilities and infrastructure. The 45-day SDEIS comment period extended through August 10, 2009, eliciting no public comments.

The White River National Forest (WRNF) prepared this FEIS, which clarifies and updates components of the original analysis, as based on comments received on the DEIS and on a change to the Proposed Action. Aside from the relocation of the proposed on-mountain restaurant to Mid Vail in both Alternative 2 and 3, the clarifications and updates incorporated into the analysis between the DEIS and the FEIS are minor. None of the specific effects determinations, nor overall conclusions, have changed in the FEIS.

The Response to Comments (RTC) on the DEIS is contained in Volume 2 of this FEIS. A Record of Decision (ROD) has been prepared and is included in Volume 2 of the FEIS. The ROD documents the Decision Maker’s Selected Alternative and rational for the decision.

BACKGROUND

Vail Ski Area (Vail) 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. Vail is approximately 100 miles west of Denver, the largest metropolitan area in Colorado, and is located approximately 30 miles east of the Eagle County Airport (refer to Location Map). Developed skiing at Vail began in 1962, with average annual visitation exceeding 1.5 million skiers since 1997.1

1 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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Vail is owned by Vail Associates, Inc. and operated under a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the Forest Service. The SUP boundary covers 12,590 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands on the White River National Forest and encompasses 33 lifts serving approximately 8,850 skiable acres. There are 14 food service outlets within the SUP area; ski school and retail services are offered as well.

In concert with growing market demand and the increasing expectations of the skiing public, Vail has evolved over the decades since its inception in 1962 by adding new chairlifts, new and improved ski terrain, additional parking and day lodge facilities.

A condition of Vail’s Forest Service-issued SUP requires the development of a Master Development Plan (MDP), which identifies management direction and opportunities for future management of the ski area on NFS lands. In September 2007, the Forest Service accepted Vail’s MDP Update which identified, among other things, improvements to lifts and trails, guest services, and snowmaking infrastructure.

The purpose of the MDP is to guide the long-term investment in development of facilities on NFS lands and outline short term upgrades to the existing resort.

RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS

This DEIS is consistent with and incorporates by reference and/or tiers to several documents which are related to the management of NFS lands at Vail, including:2

2006 Vail Ski Area West Lionshead Lift Environmental Assessment (EA), Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN & FONSI)

2005 EA Chairs 10 and 14 Upgrade Proposal EA, DN & FONSI

2003 Vail/Beaver Creek Bug Trees EA, DN & FONSI

2002 White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

1996 Vail Category III Ski Area Development FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD)

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The goal of the project is to enhance the guest experience through a series of strategic, qualitative improvements. It is important to note that, with this proposal, Vail is not proposing to alter its ―Manage-To‖ number of 19,900 daily guests. Rather, the proposal is tailored to improve Vail’s ability to respond to its changing market/guest demands, expectations, and preferences—both in the near and long- term. This goal would be accomplished by maintaining a variety of terrain that continues to provide a challenge for the majority of the ski/snowboard market, improving inter-mountain circulation, providing a

2 These documents, part of the planning record for this DEIS, are available for review at the Holy Cross Ranger District in Minturn, CO.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-2 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need more efficient lift system utilizing high speed lift technology, and creating additional on-mountain guest services.

Purpose #1 Expedite mountain circulation and afternoon egress between Vail Mountain and the Vail Village/Lionshead base areas.

Roughly 1,200 acres in Sun Up Bowl and Sun Down Bowl are served by Chair 5. Chair 5 has an hourly capacity of 1,400 people and an 11-minute ride time. Terrain served by this lift is popular, particularly on powder days and during the spring. The hourly capacity of this fixed-grip triple lift is too low for the demand that is commonly placed on it. One result is that the terrain accessible from Chair 5 is underutilized due to the existing lift’s hourly capacity. This situation is explored in detail in the Recreational analysis found in Chapter 3A.

Once skiers are on the mountain, the morning west-east skier migration (i.e., traveling from the Lionshead or Vail Village base areas to the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin) is adequate. However, end-of-day east- west skier egress (traveling from the Back Bowls to Lionshead base area) is time consuming and difficult due to multiple required lift rides and limited routes. The most common (and expeditious) method of exiting Blue Sky Basin, China Bowl, and/or Teacup Bowl is via the following method:

Ride Tea Cup Express (Chair 36) or Orient Express (Chair 21)

Descend Flapjack Trail to Northwoods Express (Chair 11)

Descend to the Mid Vail area

Ride Chair 3 and or disperse across the front of the mountain

This egress pattern causes circulation difficulties including congestion on Flapjack and the Mid Vail area, and long wait times at Northwoods Express. The Recreation analysis in Chapter 3A explores circulation and wait times in detail.

There is a need for:

An alternative, higher-speed egress route to facilitate east-west migration;

Reduced lift line wait times and congestion at Chairs 5 and Northwoods Express;

Reduced skier congestion on Flapjack.

Purpose #2 Improve skier/rider access to Sun Down Bowl.

The absence of lift service in Sun Down Bowl means that much of the 750-acre bowl cannot be round trip skied via one lift. The most common method of repeatedly using terrain in the western portion of Sun Down Bowl is to ride Chair 5, descend to the Mid Vail area, and then ride Chair 3 to the top of Sun Down

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Bowl. Terrain in the western portion of Sun Down Bowl is difficult to access, and therefore, underutilized due to crowding at Mid Vail and frequent long lift lines.

There is a need for:

Improved access to, and use of, terrain in the western portion of Sun Down Bowl; and

More even distribution of skiers across the mountain.

Purpose #3 Improve Vail’s lift and vehicular maintenance facilities.

Lift and over snow vehicle maintenance operations at Vail are currently conducted out of numerous facilities across public and private lands. Although vehicles (snowcats and snowmobiles) and skiers are in close proximity from time to time at the ski area, it is Vail’s intent to minimize this occurrence to the greatest extent practical to improve guest experiences and provide a safer recreation environment.

The primary maintenance facility for lifts and vehicles is located within the Town of Vail on private land on the western most edge of the ski area. However, the majority of terrain that requires grooming is on the eastern portion of the SUP area. From the bottom of Cascade lift (Chair 20), it is 6 miles to the top of Pete’s lift (Chair 39). As a result, snowcat travel time and energy expenditures are currently high due to the distance between the operations facility and the groomed terrain.

Snowcats are maintained, and snowmobiles are stored and maintained, in the Snow Summit Shop located on the Mid Vail/Eagles Nest Road. Individual bays for snowcat maintenance are undersized and in its current design, this facility is no longer able to meet Vail’s operational needs.

The Lift Maintenance Department has facilities on the east and west sides of the mountain, in a stand- alone building near the top of Tea Cup Express, and in the Eagles Nest building. However, these facilities are currently undersized, and have not grown commensurately with the installation of additional lifts at Vail. Therefore, it is difficult for Vail to efficiently and adequately accommodate the required maintenance for 33 lifts.

There is a need for:

A central, on-mountain facility from which to conduct lift and snowcat maintenance operations;

Increased efficiencies in terms of travel time and energy expenditures; and

Decreased snowcat/snowmobile traffic on the mountain during operational hours, particularly on the front side of Vail Mountain. This is explored in more detail in the Recreation analysis in Chapter 3A.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Purpose #4 Improve early-season and low snow year skiing on the front side of Vail Mountain.

Consistent top-to-bottom snowmaking coverage is not currently provided on intermediate trails serviced by the Eagle Bahn Gondola (Chair 19) and the Pride Express lift (Chair 26). This limits Vail’s ability to ensure that quality snow coverage is offered in the critical early season period, as well as low-snow years. The lower end of Born Free trail, served by Born Free Express lift (Chair 8) which has snowmaking equipment, is the only trail that Vail can ensure will be open for Thanksgiving and in low-snow years. In addition, the upper and middle portions of the Simba trail has on-going maintenance issues related to snowcat and skier wear on the snow surface.

There is a need for:

Additional acres of snowmaking coverage on intermediate terrain during Vail’s opening configuration (i.e., early season) as well as during low snow conditions;

Decreased skier congestion; and

Quality snow surface in the early season, low-snow periods, and on high-wear areas.

Purpose #5 Provide additional on-mountain dining opportunities

According to Vail’s customer survey data, on-mountain table service dining is an amenity that is currently lacking. On good weather days, Vail has seating capacity for approximately 19,000 guests, while on adverse weather days the capacity is approximately 12,400 guests (i.e., indoor seating capacity).

There is a need for:

Additional on-mountain indoor dining capacity seating during inclement weather conditions;

On-mountain dining options that meet guests’ expectations such as table service and buffet style fine dining.

Purpose #6 Provide a ski/snowboard racing and training venue that meets international racing standards.

Local and regional groups continue to seek areas devoted specifically to racing and training. Segregating race and competitive training terrain from the general public is important from an operational and safety perspective.

Vail’s sole race training venue is located on the eastern edge of Golden Peak (roughly 26.5 acres) and served by Riva Bahn Express lift (Chair 6). While there is adequate segregation between racers and the general skiing public, according to international racing standards, the Golden Peak Venue is too short for a Women’s Downhill or Men’s Super G Course.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Golden Peak lacks adequate training terrain to accommodate current demand. Use on the Golden Peak Race trail during the 2007–08 ski season included 65 scheduled race events, training by 26 groups from Ski and Snowboard Club Vail every day from early December through mid-April, and training for Battle Mountain High School skiers occurred throughout the winter.

There is a need for:

A larger training/racing area allowing for continued segregation of racers from the general skiing population; and

Expanded terrain to accommodate simultaneous racing events and training.

PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action was designed to address goals articulated in the Purpose and Need statements. The Proposed Action was introduced to the public in November 2007. It is important to note that the Proposed Action, which was designed in response to the Purpose and Need (stated above), was modified throughout this analysis—between scoping and the DEIS. Modifications to the Proposed Action were in direct response to resource issues that emerged through site specific environmental analysis.

It was determined that installation of a retaining wall instead of a 2:1 cut back on the slope at the bottom terminal location of the Sun Down Express could achieve the needs of the projects while minimizing ground disturbance. Therefore, the retaining wall has been incorporated into the design features of the Sun Down Express.

Installation of snowmaking infrastructure was originally proposed for Ledges, Simba and Upper Born Free. In response to feedback from Forest Service resource specialists, snowmaking on Ledges and Upper Born Free was eliminated from the Action Alternatives.

Maintained access to West Earl’s Bowl terrain was originally proposed to improve ski patrol and mountain operations and reduce skier/rider use of designated snowshoe hare habitat blocks along the current West Earl’s Bowl access route. In response to wildlife issues, specifically impacts to Canada lynx denning/foraging habitat, maintained access to West Earl’s Bowl was eliminated from the Action Alternatives.

A summary of the Proposed Action is provided here, and a detailed description is presented in Chapter 2.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

PROJECT COMPONENT SUMMARY

Lifts

Chair 5 would be upgraded with new technology to decrease ride time.3 A new high-speed, detachable quad chairlift would replace the fixed grip triple chairlift.

A new chairlift in Sun Down Bowl would be installed and operated to provide lift-served, roundtrip skiing.

Maintenance Facilities

The existing Snow Summit Cat Garage at Eagle’s Nest would be converted to a lift maintenance facility and a new snowcat garage would be constructed adjacent to it.

Race Terrain

The Golden Peak race venue would be expanded to better serve races and training demands while continuing to segregate these activities from the general public.

Guest Services

A new restaurant at Mid Vail would be constructed and operated to increase indoor guest seating capacity and provide a more diverse range of on-mountain dining opportunities.

Snowmaking

Additional snowmaking infrastructure would be installed on the front side of Vail Mountain (on Simba) to improve early-season and low-snow year skiing conditions and reduced congestion.

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.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

On November 14, 2007, a scoping notice was mailed to 67 community residents, interested individuals, public agencies, and other organizations. The scoping package provided a brief description of the Proposed Action, the Purpose and Need for action, preliminary issues raised, and an illustrative map. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the Proposed Action. A legal notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent, and a notice of intent (NOI) to

3 Chair 5, also referred to as High Noon lift, is generally referred to by the public by number, rather than by name.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register, on November 16, 2007. In addition to the legal notice and NOI, a public open house was held at the Vail Public Library on December 5, 2007 to allow interested individuals to discuss project concerns with the Forest Service. In response to the public outreach conducted by the Forest Service, 170 comment letters were received. Based on the comments received, the Forest Service Interdisciplinary (ID) Team categorized each substantive comment to identify issues and to formulate potential alternatives to the Proposed Action.4 Resource issues and indicators are identified below and are addressed in Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.

A Notice of Availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2008. The comment period on the DEIS extended through February 11, 2009, yielding 42 public and agency comment letters—both oppositional and supportive. Substantive comments on the DEIS are included, and responded to, in the Response to Comments (Volume II of the FEIS). Substantive comments led to updates and clarifications that are presented in the FEIS.

Between release of the DEIS and FEIS, a supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) was prepared to analyze the modified location of the proposed on-mountain restaurant from the summit of Vail Mountain proposed in the DEIS to Mid Vail. The 45-day SDEIS comment period extended through August 10, 2009; no comment letters were received. Information and analysis presented in the SDEIS has been incorporated into the FEIS.

ISSUES AND INDICATORS

Based on the results of public scoping, the Forest Service identified specific areas of public concern. Issues generally require in-depth analysis and disclosure, and are utilized to generate alternatives. In some cases, they can be addressed by project design criteria (PDC) or mitigation measures. Each of the following issue statements includes a list of indicators which were identified as a means of measuring or quantifying the anticipated level of impact on a particular resource. While some indicators are necessarily qualitative in nature, every effort was made to utilize indicators that are quantitative, measurable and predictable.

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Cultural, Archaeological, and Heritage Resources

Proposed projects and associated ground disturbing activities could affect cultural and heritage resources.

Study Area: Areas proposed for direct ground disturbance throughout the SUP area

4 The scoping comment disposition analysis is available in the project file.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Indicators:

Impacts to known archaeological resources in areas proposed for disturbance

Recreation

By design, proposed projects would alter the winter recreation experience within the SUP boundary. For example, upgrading Chair 5 with high speed technology and installing a new Sun Down Express would affect the existing recreational character of the Back Bowl experience at Vail. Upgrading Chair 5 to a high-speed lift would increase uphill capacity from 1,400 pph to 2,400 people per hour (pph). Additionally, improved access to Sun Down Bowl from the Sun Down Express (with a capacity of 2,400 pph) could be accompanied by increased skier densities. The existing average skier density in Sun Down Bowl is only 1.2 skiers per acre, which is considered low for terrain of this nature. Consequently, skied-out conditions in the bowl would be expedited. Additional impacts to the recreational experience are anticipated from the proposed snowmaking projects, the Golden Peak race venue expansion, and the proposed on-mountain restaurant.

Study Area: SUP area

Indicators:

Changes in recreational opportunities within the SUP area

Skier densities in Back Bowls

Snow conditions

Parking and Traffic

Study Area: Private lands, base area lands, South Frontage Road, I-70 between exits 173 and 180, and base area parking facilities

Indicators:

Traffic counts for I-70 and South Frontage Road

Peak daily/hourly traffic volumes on South Frontage Road

Winter traffic flow patterns within study area in relation to Vail’s ―Manage-To‖ number of 19,900 guests

Parking capacities for day skiers at Vail

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Scenery Resources

Construction of the Sun Down Express and additional terrain on Golden Peak may affect visual resources.

Study Area: Views of the skiing facilities from within and outside of the SUP area

Indicators:

Incremental effects 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

Visual simulations, from identified critical viewpoints, of proposed landscape alterations as compared to the existing condition. Modeled critical viewpoints include:

 Golden Peak as perceived from Red Sandstone Road  Golden Peak as viewed from I-70 exit 176

Social and Economic Resources

The proposed on-mountain restaurant would require an increase in Vail employees and subsequent increased demand for employee housing.

Study Area: Town of Vail / Eagle County

Indicators:

Staffing and employee housing/parking in the Town of Vail and in Eagle County

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Wildlife and Aquatic Species

Study Area: SUP area and associated/overlapping wildlife and aquatic management areas

Indicators:

Quantification (acres) of existing wildlife habitat by species

Quantification of total proposed habitat alteration/removal (acres) by species

Identification and quantification of LAU boundaries in relation to the Project Area

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Quantification of existing and proposed water depletions (acre feet [AF])

Identification of impacts to water quality and stream health

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species

Ground disturbing activities may affect TES plant species.

Study Area: Areas proposed for direct ground disturbance throughout the SUP area

Indicators:

Identification and quantification (acres) of existing TES plant habitat by species

Forest Health

Tree clearing for the proposed Golden Peak expansion and Sun Down Express installation would result in a decrease in the aspen and sub-alpine fir cover type—both of which are unaffected by the mountain pine beetle outbreak.

Study Area: SUP area and surrounding NFS lands

Indicators:

Quantitative (acres) and qualitative discussion of existing and anticipated aspen and sub-alpine fir forest due to the proposed projects

Quantitative (acres) and qualitative discussion of existing and anticipated lodgepole pine cover within the context of the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

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.

Study Area: Immediate vicinity and surrounding Class I Airsheds

Indicators:

Estimated increase in number of vehicles

Discussion of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding air quality—existing and future

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Geotechnical Analysis

Study Area: Areas proposed for direct disturbance throughout the SUP area

Indicators:

Analysis of existing slope stability at Golden Peak and in the vicinity of the bottom terminal of Chair 5

Analysis of possible effects of snowmaking, vegetation removal, and ground disturbance on slope stability

Water Resources

Study Area: Watersheds containing areas of proposed disturbance and/or snowmaking

Indicators:

Quantification of snowmaking storage capacity

Quantification of water diversions for snowmaking (existing and proposed)

Modeled effects of snowmaking runoff on stream flows

Quantification of total consumptive water losses (i.e., evaporation, evapotranspiration, sublimation) resulting from existing and proposed snowmaking

Determination of stream health conditions within the project area (in accordance with WRNF and Region 2 protocols), as based on the following parameters:

 Bank stability  Percent fines  Pool habitat

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

RESOURCES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The ID Team considered the potential impacts on cultural and wetlands resources. However, it was determined that there would be no significant effects to these resources and therefore these resources were omitted from further analysis in the EIS. Analysis for these resources is located in the Project Record.

Cultural, Archeological and Historic Resources

The project area is located within WRNF jurisdiction and therefore 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. No field inventories were conducted because the area has been adequately covered by other cultural inventories. The MAC report is contained in the project file.

The project area covers sections 7 and 18 and a large, un-sectioned area of T5S R80W. Two historical property surveys—the 1985 Vail Permit Area Inventory, and the 1993 Category III Expansion Area Inventory—evaluated the entire project area and recommended a finding of ―no historic properties affected‖ for the proposed project elements.5 Two sites—a bridge in the Town of Vail and a historic trail—were listed in the survey area. The trail is ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the vehicle-bridge is well outside the project area. Four isolated sites were identified to be within the survey area, one was determined to be near or within the project footprint, but ―no historic properties were affected‖ and no further work pertaining to cultural resources is required.

Wetlands

A wetlands survey was conducted for the Vail 2007 Improvements Projects on NFS land within the Vail SUP. To ensure consistency with US Federal, Colorado State, and local regulations, SE Group delineates wetlands (as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 [a][1-8] and 328.3 [b-c]) consistent with the methodology outlined in the 1987 Manual and supplemented by current regulations and Regulatory Guidance Letters (RGL) and memoranda (US Army Corps of Engineers, RGL 82-2 and 86-9).6 The 2008 wetlands survey revealed no wetlands would be affected by any of the proposed project components.

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY

Vail’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 (2002 Forest Plan). The 2002 Forest Plan includes 33 separate Management Areas for different portions of the forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and anticipated future conditions. All components of

5 McKibbin, 2008 6 USACE, Memorandum, 3-92

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 fall within the 8.25 Management Area – 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 setting and contain convenient facilities and services that provide for the needs of forest visitors.”7

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 Purpose and Need is consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan General Recreation Standards and Guidelines. The 2002 Forest Plan acknowledges an increasing demand for recreation on the WRNF, and states:

“Satisfy demand for recreation services that are supplied by private-sector permittees at authorized sites or areas before new sites or areas are permitted.”8

The theme of Management Area 8.25 is discussed in the 2002 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.”9

7 USDA Forest Service, 2002c p. 3-80 8 USDA Forest Service, 2002a p. 2-31 9 USDA Forest Service, 2002a p. 3-80

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

DECISION TO BE MADE

This Final EIS is a disclosure rather than a decision document and its purpose is to provide sufficient environmental analysis to support a Record of Decision (ROD).

Based on the analysis documented within this Final EIS, the responsible official, the Forest Supervisor for the WRNF, will decide whether to select Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action), Alternative 3, or the No Action Alternative. The Forest Supervisor is not required to choose either an action alternative or the No Action Alternative described herein, but may select components of an action alternative or develop an entirely new alternative created from components of each.

OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION10

The Forest Service decision would apply only to NFS lands analyzed within this DEIS. However, other federal, state, and local entities may also have jurisdiction. Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this DEIS. 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), ESA Section 7 Consultation

Eagle County General Construction Permit

10 Per 40 CFR 1502.25(b)

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

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 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the alternatives considered are presented in comparative form.11 Project Design Criteria (PDC), Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices (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 examine a range of alternatives, which are reasonably related to the purpose of the project.12 Both CEQ Regulations and Forest Service Handbook direction emphasize that alternatives must meet the ―reasonableness‖ criteria in order to warrant detailed analysis. All alternatives considered are fully analyzed in this FEIS.

The issues raised during the scoping process (detailed in Chapter 1) were utilized as the basis for developing alternatives to the Proposed Action.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

As required by NEPA, a No Action Alternative has been included in this analysis for review alongside the action alternatives.13 By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades to existing conditions. However, previously approved, unimplemented projects would likely be implemented in the future. These projects are listed in Chapter 1 and assessed cumulatively as reasonably foreseeable future actions in Chapter 3. Brief descriptions of existing on-mountain facilities and services are provided below. The No Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 2-1 in the Figures tab.

Manage-To Capacity Analysis

For guest capacities, Vail and the Forest Service utilize a ―Manage-To‖ process that allows them to address: public health and safety; traffic circulation; and recreational quality issues based on calculated planning thresholds. As designed, the Manage-To process is a flexible process used at Vail when daily visitation numbers exceed the agreed upon threshold of 19,900 skiers. The Manage-To threshold was primarily designed around identified traffic and circulation issues at Vail, but transcends these issues to

11 40 CFR 1502 12 FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 12.33 13 40 CFR 1502.14

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives include Vail’s lift, trail and on-mountain services as well. The Manage-To threshold is typically not exceeded more than twice each season; however, in instances when the threshold is exceeded, Vail holds a staff meeting (including a Forest Service representative) at the end of the day to evaluate numerous considerations of the exceeded day’s operation.

The Manage-To process provides a system of checks and balance for the ski area and the Forest Service. It is a dynamic system that is important in managing a ski area the size and popularity of Vail.

Steps have been outlined to manage skier numbers on subsequent days if it is likely the Manage-To threshold may be exceeded again. There are a variety of actions available, including, but not necessarily limited to:

1. Restrictions on employee and dependant passes;

2. Restrictions on issuance of complimentary tickets;

3. Management of ticket pricing;

4. Restrictions on student and merchant passes; and

5. Restrictions on Colorado card prices.

The Manage-To threshold of 19,900 skiers would not change.

Lifts

Vail’s lift network would remain in its current configuration. Vail has 22 chairlifts (1 gondola, 16 detachable quad express lifts, 1 fixed-grip quad, 3 triples, and 1 fixed-grip double), 6 surface conveyors (i.e., magic carpets), and 3 surface lifts.14

The bottom terminal collection/milling area of Chair 5 is currently undersized and below grade which creates maintenance and skier circulation issues. Wildwood Express would continue to be the primary route for afternoon egress (east to west) from Blue Sky Basin to Lionshead. Chair 5 is also an option, although it is rarely used for afternoon egress because it is a slow fixed grip triple. Access to the western portion of Sun Down Bowl, limited to the Wildwood Express and Game Creek Express, would remain unchanged.15

14 Generally, chairlifts in this document will be referred to by name; the exception is the High Noon lift (Chair 5) which the public recognizes by number, thus the High Noon lift is called Chair 5 throughout the document. 15 Under the existing configuration: 1) east-west (cross-mountain) egress from Blue Sky Basin to Lionshead requires two lift rides (Chair 5 and Chair 3) and two descents; and 2) Sun Down Bowl cannot be roundtrip skied; skiers must ride at least two chairlifts to repeat access this terrain.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-2 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Maintenance Facilities

Lift and over snow vehicle maintenance operations at Vail are currently conducted out of numerous facilities across public and private lands. Vail’s existing maintenance facilities would remain unchanged. Lift Maintenance has facilities at the top of Eagle Bahn Gondola in the Eagle’s Nest building, as well as in a stand-alone building near the top of the Teacup Express. Snow cats are maintained in the Snow Summit Cat Garage located on the Mid Vail/Eagle’s Nest Road. The primary vehicle and lift maintenance operations facility is located within the Town of Vail on private land on the western most edge of the ski area. From the bottom of Cascade Village lift, it is 6 miles to the top of Pete’s lift. The road is 12 miles from the bottom of the mountain to Blue Sky Basin.

Terrain

Vail’s skiable terrain would remain at 5,571acres, comprised of 193 named trails, including maintained and groomed ski trails and open bowls. Vail would also continue to provide a variety of tree skiing areas, glades, and chutes. No improvements to, or extension of, Vail’s operational boundary would occur.

Sun Down Bowl Access to Sun Down Bowl would continue to be serviced by riding Chair 5, descending to the Mid Vail area, and then riding the Wildwood Express to the top to Sun Down Bowl.

Golden Peak Vail’s current race training venue is located on the eastern edge of Golden Peak on the 26.5-acre Golden Peak Race trail. The Golden Peak Race Venue is serviced by Riva Bahn Express and is well segregated between racers and the general skiing public. However, according to International Ski Federation (FIS) standards, the Golden Peak venue is too short for a women’s’ downhill or men’s’ Super G course. There is a notable lack of training terrain to satisfy local demand. No improvements to, or extension of, the training/racing area would occur.

Guest Services

Guest service facilities would not change. Existing indoor/outdoor seating (3,404 and 1,808 respectively) would remain at 5,212 seats throughout Vail’s 14 on-mountain and base area restaurants. The only potential for guest service improvement would be the Blue Sky Basin restaurant that was approved in the 1996 ROD. Construction of this facility is not likely to occur in the near future due to costs and constraints posed by additional permits that would be required (related to water supply and disposal).

Snowmaking

No increase in snowmaking would occur at Vail. Existing snowmaking coverage (approximately 442 acres) would remain unchanged and no additional snowmaking infrastructure would be constructed.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 2 – THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Forest Service received a proposal from Vail which was accepted (in a modified form) and became the Proposed Action. Projects contained in Alternative 2—the Proposed Action—respond to the purpose and need outlined in Chapter 1.

The goal of Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) is to enhance the guest experience through a series of strategic, qualitative improvements. It is important to note that, with this proposal, Vail’s Manage-To number of 19,900 daily guests would not change. Rather, the Proposed Action is tailored to improve Vail’s ability to respond to its changing market/guests’ demands, expectations, and preferences—both in the near- and long-term. This goal would be accomplished by: maintaining a variety of terrain that continues to provide a challenge for the majority of the ski/snowboard market throughout the season; improving inter-mountain circulation, access, and utilization; providing a more efficient lift system, utilizing high speed lift technology; improving training and race terrain; and creating additional on- mountain guest services and maintenance facilities.

The Proposed Action is depicted in the Figures tab (Figures 2-2, 2-2A and 2-2B).

Lifts

The Proposed Action includes upgrading Chair 5 with high-speed, detachable technology. In addition, a new chairlift (Sun Down Express) would be installed in Sun Down Bowl.

Chair 5 Upgrade Originally installed in 1979, Chair 5 is proposed to be upgraded with high-speed detachable technology. Remaining in its current alignment, the upgraded Chair 5 would increase in uphill capacity from 1,400 people per hour (pph) to 2,400 pph. Chair 5 would maintain its existing alignment, with approximately 0.5 acre of tree removal and grading conducted along the lift corridor as necessary to accommodate Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB) requirements for a wider-gauge lift. The lift is proposed to be approximately 5,500 feet in slope length with a vertical rise of 1,857 feet. In addition to accommodating better use of terrain in Sun Up Bowl, as well as terrain in the eastern portion of Sun Down Bowl, the upgraded Chair 5 is intended to provide more efficient guest egress from the Back Bowls to the front side of the mountain (especially at the end of the day) and to reduce lift line wait times at Chairs 5 and Northwoods Express.16

Sun Down Express Lift Installation The proposed Sun Down Express would have an uphill capacity of up to 2,400 pph and would provide lift access within the western extent of Sun Down Bowl. The lift would be approximately 6,177 feet in slope length with a vertical rise of 1,608 feet. The upper terminal of the proposed top-drive lift would be located

16 Current and projected Chair 5 and 11 wait times are presented in Table 3A-3 in Chapter 3 – Recreation.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives at an elevation of 10,981 feet between Game Creek Express and Wildwood Express top terminals, on the ridge separating Game Creek and Sun Down bowls. This location is approximately 160 feet south of the top terminal of the Wildwood Express and approximately 290 feet northeast of the top terminal of the Game Creek Express, (refer to Figures 2-2 and 2-2B in the Figures tab). This location was proposed to best facilitate east-west skier egress while simultaneously improving access to, and use of, terrain in the western portion of Sun Down Bowl. Construction of the Sun Down Express would entail approximately 1.8 acres of tree clearing.

Chair 5 and Sun Down Express Grading Projects Using excess material generated from excavation and installation of the Sun Down Express, the area encompassing the bottom terminals of Chair 5 and the proposed Sun Down Express would be raised in elevation to provide additional room for accommodating infrastructure related to two detachable quad terminals plus skier milling areas. While final designs of this bottom terminal location are forthcoming (refer to ―Project Design Criteria,‖ below), it is likely that a combination of retaining walls would be necessary—one to increase the area used for skier milling, and the other to maintain slope stability at the toe of the slope immediately west of the Sun Down Express terminal while decreasing ground disturbance. Finally, the proposed Chair 5 upgrade includes re-grading around the top-terminal location to improve skier movement when exiting the chairlift. Construction of the Sun Down Express would entail approximately 1.4 acres of grading. The proposed upgrades to Chair 5 are depicted on Figures 2-2 and 2-2B.

All construction equipment would gain access to the top terminal areas of Chair 5 and the proposed Sun Down Express by using existing service roads. Access to the bottom terminals would be via the existing Sun Up access road.

Power for the proposed lifts would follow the existing Sun Up road alignment from the bottom terminal of Chair 17 to the lower terminals of Chair 5 and Sun Down Express.

Maintenance Facilities

The Proposed Action includes construction of a new snowcat maintenance garage (approximately 6,000 square feet) adjacent to, and uphill of, the existing Snow Summit facility located between Eagle’s Nest and Mid Vail. This would expand the total square footage of Vail’s maintenance facility in this area from approximately 6,700 square feet to 12,700 square feet. The new garage would be a single story building including four snowcat bays, a break room, restrooms, and parts storage to better accommodate Vail’s operational needs into the foreseeable future. Maintenance structures are generally located in areas that are not readily visible to visitors to Vail, or from private land adjacent to Vail’s SUP area. The structure would be screened by vegetation and sited below ridgelines, so the SIO of very low could be maintained. If deemed appropriate, upon site review prior to project implementation, the maintenance facility would comply with the BEIG guidelines.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-5 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

The existing Snow Summit Cat Garage would be retrofitted to provide a more centrally located, on- mountain facility for lift maintenance. Construction of the proposed snowcat maintenance garage would involve approximately 0.9 acre of tree clearing and grading. Utility connections (i.e., water, wastewater, and power) would tie in with existing infrastructure proximate to the proposed garage location.

Terrain

Golden Peak Proposed projects at Golden Peak, while completely within Vail’s SUP boundary, would extend Vail’s operational boundary by approximately 68 acres. As designed, this project component would provide 45 acres of additional trails and terrain features, including an International Skier Federation (FIS) sanctioned Women’s Downhill and a Men’s Super G Course to better accommodate skier training and race events that are popular at Vail. This would bring training and racing terrain available on Golden Peak to 71.5 acres. As proposed, the additional terrain would allow for races and training to occur simultaneously, which is not currently possible at Vail.

Two surface lifts are proposed to service new terrain in the upper extent of this venue. A mobile race building, which would be pre-fabricated and require no foundation, is proposed to be located near the top of Golden Peak.17 While the proposed trails on the eastern portion of Golden Peak would provide traditional racing/training terrain, the western trails would include limited terrain features for training (e.g., kickers and sliding features). The proposed lower race trail expansion would include a mogul training/competition course which would require some terrain modification.

As proposed, the race venue expansion would require 45.5 acres of grading and tree removal and to achieve the desired slope and terrain features. Snowmaking infrastructure (sufficient for the entire 45 acres of trails) would be installed to provide consistent training conditions and comply with FIS requirements.

Access for tree removal, grading, and lift/snowmaking installation would use existing access roads.

Golden Peak exhibits a number of drainage management concerns such as snowmaking, grading and earth disturbance, and historic changes to the hydrologic regime. To maintain watershed and stream health on NFS lands at Vail, a comprehensive Drainage Management Plan (DMP) would be implemented as part of the Golden Peak development including water bars, re-seeding to increase vegetative cover, and improving drainage channels. For a detailed discussion of the drainage improvements refer to the DMP, located in Appendix A.

17 This mobile facility would not require the installation of any permanent building components (e.g., foundation or communication lines).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-6 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Guest Services

The new Mid Vail restaurant would have a 12,000-square foot footprint, with a total of approximately 17,000 square feet of interior space. This would be a one and a half story building, including a half-level ground story and a full second level, located south of the current guest buildings at Mid Vail. The new restaurant would offer approximately 250 seats, 40 of which would be outside. Although this proposal would provide half of the seating that was proposed under Alternative 2 in the DEIS, a smaller venue would still accommodate Vail’s guest experience needs. Given an average seating turnover of 2.0 people per lunchtime seating, this facility would increase Vail’s adverse weather seating capacity by approximately 3 percent, rather than 8 percent as originally proposed. As was explained in the DEIS, there would continue to be a deficit in adverse weather seating on-mountain at Vail with the addition of this facility.

Water and sewer for the new restaurant would connect to the existing infrastructure at Mid Vail. Due to water conservation practices at the current Mid Vail facility, new water usage associated with the table- service restaurant would be accommodated by an existing 1041 permit from Eagle County. This permit allows for use of 2 million gallons per ski season at Mid Vail. During the 2007/08 ski season the existing facility at Mid Vail used approximately 67 percent of the permitted quantity of water. Consistent with other facilities at Vail, fixtures and policies would be in place to conserve water at the new restaurant. The architecture style of the building would be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service to ensure compliance with the Rocky Mountain Province theme in the BEIG. The restaurant would require approximately 1.4 acres of ground disturbance and removal of approximately 0.4 acre of trees.

Snowmaking

The middle and upper portions of Simba have long presented maintenance problems due to snowcat/skier wear on the snow surface. To improve early season and lean snow year conditions and provide snow coverage from the top of the mountain to the base area (the entire length of the gondola), snowmaking infrastructure is proposed to provide coverage on 33 acres of Simba. Installation of snowmaking infrastructure would require 4.8 acres of temporary ground disturbance. In conjunction with approximately 45 acres of new coverage on Golden Peak (previously discussed), this would bring Vail snowmaking coverage to approximately 520 acres.

Modifications Made to the Proposed Action (Pre-DEIS)

Snowmaking Installation of snowmaking infrastructure was originally proposed for three Front Side trails: Ledges, Simba and Upper Born Free. In response to hydrologic issues, and to minimize potential impacts to Mill Creek, snowmaking on Ledges and Upper Born Free was eliminated from the Action Alternatives.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-7 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

West Earl’s Bowl Access Maintained access to West Earl’s Bowl terrain was originally proposed to improve ski patrol and mountain operations and reduce skier/rider use of designated snowshoe hare habitat blocks along the current West Earl’s Bowl access route. In response to wildlife issues, specifically lynx denning/foraging habitat, maintained access to West Earl’s Bowl was eliminated from the Action Alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to public comments regarding impacts to snow quality in Sun Down Bowl, and concerns over impacts to soils and stream health related to vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and additional snowmaking on Golden Peak. Currently, favorable snow conditions (i.e., ―un- tracked‖) tend to persist in Sun Down Bowl. The need to take multiple lifts to round-trip ski the Bowl results in an average skier density of only 1.2 skiers per acre, which is considered low for terrain of this nature. Scoping comments identified a level of discomfort with installation of the Sun Down Express and potential impacts to the character and quality of skiing in Sun Down Bowl. As a result, the ID Team determined that a third alternative (one that excludes installation of the Sun Down Express) was warranted.

Additionally, Alternative 3 was designed to address ground disturbance and soils and stream health impacts related to tree clearing and snowmaking on Golden Peak.

Alternative 3 is comprised of all elements described in Alternative 2 – Proposed Action with the exception of two projects, which have been removed:

1. The Sun Down Express installation; and

2. The Golden Peak trails, lifts and snowmaking.

These elements were removed to reduce the required clearing, terrain modification and snowmaking thereby minimizing soil disturbance and resultant stream health impacts to Mill Creek. Total snowmaking coverage provided under Alternative 3 would be approximately 475 acres.

Alternative 3 includes the Chair 5 upgrade, increasing this lift’s capacity from 1,400 pph to 2,400 pph. By excluding the Sun Down Express from Alternative 3, associated grading and tree removal would be reduced by 1.6 acres. Soil disturbance (excavation and grading) and resultant stream health impacts (i.e., sediment loading) within the (Water Influence Zone) WIZ would also be reduced (Figure 2-3A).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-8 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Modifications to Alternative 3

The original Alternative 3 was developed to address watershed issues and included a scaled-back proposal for development of Golden Peak as compared to the Proposed Action. After further ID team analysis, field verification, and DMP development, it was determined that additional development on Golden Peak would be removed entirely from Alternative 3 to address watershed issues.

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM ANALYSIS IN THIS FINAL EIS

Alternatives to the Sun Down Express Lift

Based on feedback on the DEIS, a surface lift on the Windows Road (between the top of Chair 5 and Wildwood) was considered to provide afternoon egress to Lionshead and to improve access to Sun Down Bowl; however the negative impacts of this concept outweighed the potential benefits. The Windows Road area is a heavily traveled motorized corridor for mountain operations in both summer and winter and also serves as skier access to Windows, Skipper, and the Wildwood Restaurant for those willing to ascend a short uphill section. Any additional facilities, such as a surface lift, would need to account for these existing uses. Construction of a surface lift in this area would require widening of the trail corridor through a stand of mature spruce/fir forest that would result in impacts to Canada lynx habitat.

The Forest Service has also considered an alternative Sun Down Express alignment that would extend from the bottom terminal location at the junction of No Name Creek and Two Elk Creek to the top terminal location east of the Wildwood Restaurant. Based on field observations by Vail and Forest Service staff and a preliminary analysis of the recreational benefits of this concept, it was determined that the environmental impacts would outweigh potential merits of this lift. While it is acknowledged that this alternative configuration for the Sun Down Express had potential to address the stated Purpose and Need, it would be approximately 1,300 feet longer than the configuration included in Alternative 2. This would result in additional negative ground, vegetation and stream impacts.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-1 provides a comparison of project elements associated with each alternative.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-9 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1: Comparison of Project Elements by Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action

GUEST CAPACITIES Manage-To Threshold 19,900 guests 19,900 guests 19,900 guests TERRAIN SUP area 12,590 acres 12,590 acres 12,590 acres Total Skiable Terrain 5,571 acres 5,643 acres 5,571 acres Golden Peak Race Venue Terrain 26.5 acres 71.5 acres 26.5 acres LIFT NETWORK (CAPACITY) Chair 5 1,400 pph 2,400 pph 2,400 pph Sun Down Express N/A 2,400 pph N/A Golden Peak Race 1 N/A 600 pph N/A Golden Peak Race 2 N/A 600 pph N/A ON MOUNTAIN RESTAURANT SEATING Table Service Seats N/A 250 250 Table Service Capacitya N/A 500 500 Good Weather Seats 5,212 5,462 5,462 Good Weather Capacitya 19,044 19,544 19,544 Inclement Weather Seats 3,404 3,614 3,614 Inclement Weather Capacitya 12,380 12,800 12,800 SNOWMAKING Mountain Total 442 acresb 520 acres 475 acres ON-MOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE FACILITIES Snow Summit Cat Garage 6,700 sq. ft 12,700 sq. ft. 12,700 sq. ft. GROUND & VEGETATION DISTURBANCE CHAIR 5 Tree Clearing N/A 0.3 acre 0.3 acre Tree Clearing and Grading N/A 0.3 acre 0.3 acre Grading N/A 1.1 acres 1.1 acres Total disturbance N/A 1.7 acres 1.7 acres SUN DOWN EXPRESS Tree Clearing N/A 1.3 acres N/A Tree Clearing and Grading N/A 0.1 acre N/A Grading N/A 0.3 acre N/A Total disturbance N/A 1.7 acres N/A GOLDEN PEAK Tree Clearing and Grading N/A 44.2 acres N/A Grading N/A 1.4 acres N/A Total disturbance N/A 45.5 N/A

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-10 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1: Comparison of Project Elements by Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action

RESTAURANT Tree Clearing and Grading N/A 0.4 0.4 Grading N/A 1.0 acre 1.0 acre Total disturbance N/A 1.4 acre 1.4 acre SNOWMAKING Ground disturbance (temporary) N/A 4.8 4.8 MAINTENANCE FACILITY Tree Clearing and Grading N/A 0.9 0.9 Total disturbance N/A 0.9 0.9 TOTAL TREE CLEARING AND GROUND DISTURBANCE Tree Clearing N/A 1.6 acres 0.3 acre Tree Clearing and Grading N/A 45.9 acres 1.6 acres Grading N/A 3.8 acres 2.1 acres Ground disturbance (temporary) N/A 4.8 acres 4.8 acres Total disturbance N/A 56 acres 8.8 acres a Capacity is based on the number of seats multiplied by the average turnover, ranging from 2 to 5 people per lunch time seating, depending on the nature of the facility. b Vail can cover 442 acres of terrain with its permanent snowmaking infrastructure. By ―stretching‖ flexible water lines across the snow to areas that do not have snowmaking infrastructure, an additional (approximate) 15 acres of terrain can be covered when needed, for a total of 457 acres.

PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA, MITIGATION MEASURES & BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCORPORATED INTO ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3

PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

In order to minimize potential resource impacts from implementation of approved projects, specific Project Design Criteria (PDC) have been incorporated into Alternatives 2 and 3. PDC are included to reduce known environmental impacts associated with specific projects.

Soils, Geology and Geotechnical The design of the Sun Down Express bottom terminal in relation to the toe of the identified landslide complex shall be stability-neutral. The Geotechnical Analysis in Chapter 3J includes additional information on this.

Hydrology Those components of the Drainage Management Plan (included in Appendix A of this document) appropriate to potentially approved projects will be implemented.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-11 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Design plans for the project activities at the bottom of Chair 5 would include a detailed erosion control and stormwater management plan that would be reviewed and approved by WRNF resource specialists.

MITIGATION MEASURES AND BMPs

Mitigation measures, BMPs, monitoring requirements and/or regulations (where applicable) were designed by the Forest Service specialists involved in this analysis. The bulk of the BMPs provided in Table 2-2 are considered common practices that ski area managers have historically used in alpine and sub-alpine environments to prevent or decrease degradation of natural resources. They are highly effective methods that can be planned in advance and adapted to site conditions, as needed.

Responsibility for ensuring that these mitigation measures are implemented rests with Vail management and the Forest Service. In all cases, the ultimate enforcement mechanism for implementation of the specified mitigation measures would be the Record of Decision, and would extend to the Forest Service Special Use Permit Administrator, the District Ranger and the Forest Supervisor.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-12 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices

CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES Although site-specific surveys have been conducted, if undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are located during ground disturbing activities or planning activities associated with approved construction activities, they would be treated as specified in 36 CFR 800.11 concerning Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking. SCENIC RESOURCES Facility and structure design, scale, color of materials, location, and orientation will be incorporated into proposed buildings to meet the scenic integrity objective for this project area and the Built Environment Image Guide guidelines. Structures would be constructed of materials which blend with the landscape character as is practicable and shall meet FSM 2380 policy for color and reflectivity, which is 4.5 on the Munsell neutral value color scale. Building designs will be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval through the White River Building Design Review Process. Follow FSM guidelines (Section 2380)and Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) guidelines: The scenic character will be protected through appropriate siting of buildings and the use of low-impact materials and colors (e.g., indigenous construction materials, such as stone and wood, as well as low-reflective glass and roofing materials). Remain in context with the landscape (i.e., rustic, craftsman, and country lodge styles). Architecture, materials, and colors should follow the Forest Service’s Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG). The edges of lift lines, trails and structures, where the vegetation is removed, need to use a variable density cutting (feathering) technique applied to create a more natural edge that blends into the existing vegetative. Edges should be non-linear, and changes in tree heights along the edges of openings should be gradual rather than abrupt. Soften hard edges by selective removal of trees of different ages and heights to produce irregular corridor edges where possible. Where stumps are retained, they should be cut as low as possible to the ground to avoid safety hazard and to meet scenery objectives. Re-grade to restore a natural terrain appearance. Where there is disturbed ground for new lifts including terminals, towers and foundation placements, road realignments, and water storage ponds and structures including the culverts, put any excess material back to the area with grading to avoid stockpile of material and maintain a natural appearance at transitions. Any site grading should blend disturbance into the existing topography to achieve a natural appearance and minimize cuts and fills at the transition with proposed grading and existing terrain. Utilities must be buried as per Forest Plan Standards. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. Seeding should be repeated until satisfactory revegetation is accomplished. Reseed with an approved seed mixture using a variety of native seed grasses, wildflowers and forbs. Facilities or structures including buildings, lift terminals and chairs need to meet reflectivity guidelines. This includes any reflective surfaces (metal, glass, plastics, or other materials with smooth surfaces), that do not blend with the natural environment. They should be covered, painted, stained, chemically treated, etched, sandblasted, corrugated, or otherwise treated to meet the solar reflectivity standards. The specific requirements for reflectivity are as follows: Facilities and structures 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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-13 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices Facilities or structures including buildings, lift terminals and chairs, culverts need to meet color guidelines. Bright colors are inappropriate for the forest setting. The colors should be muted, subdued colors because they blend well with the natural color scheme. The Forest Service Handbook No. 617, ―National Forest Landscape Management for Ski Areas, Volume 2, Chapter 7,‖ refers recommended colors for ski areas on page 37 of that handbook. The colors are darker colors; greens, browns, navy blue, grays and black. The proposed restaurant should meet the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) and Accessibility Guidelines. VEGETATION Except as otherwise noted within descriptions of individual project components requiring tree removal, all new ski trails, individual tree removal, lift corridors, and lift terminal sites would be constructed by ―flush cutting‖ removed trees. With this method, stumps would be cut to a height of 4 inches or less from the ground surface; the process may also include stump grinding. This trail preparation method avoids the need to disturb the remaining stumps and/or surrounding soils, thereby minimizing overall ground disturbance and existing vegetation. Revegetation should be accomplished with approved plants. Genetically local (at the ecological subsection level) seeds would be used if available. Seed mixtures and mulches will be noxious weed-free. 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. Effective ground cover (mulch) upon completion of ground disturbing activities would meet minimum level of the pre-treatment habitat type. Leave trees, islands, and tree clearing limits would be adequately marked to minimize mistakes in clearing limits during construction. Efforts should be made to retain or transplant seedlings and saplings to other areas to maintain vegetation cover (with regards to lodgepole pine mortality) Any Engelmann spruce that is felled must be either removed from the area or treated within one year after felling to prevent the buildup of spruce bark beetle. Treatments can include burning, burying or peeling the bark off felled Engelmann spruce. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Existing roads would be used for construction and routine maintenance of the proposed project components. Surface netting in conjunction with mulching would be used to reduce the erosion hazard. Vegetative buffers would be maintained adjacent to any intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands, to the extent possible. In all areas where grading or soil disturbance will occur, topsoil would be stockpiled and re-spread following slope grading and prior to re-seeding. Soil-disturbing activities would be avoided during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical sub-soiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity. When logging over the snow, conditions should allow for 1 foot of packed snow to be continuous (i.e., not patchy) and competent enough so that wheeled or tracked vehicles do not break through. When logging over frozen ground, a minimum of 3 inches of continuous frozen ground should be present. Ground cover, as a combination of revegetation and mulch applications, should meet requirements for the one and two years following completion of ground disturbing activities.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-14 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices

HYDROLOGY See ―Project Design Criteria‖ and Appendix A – Drainage Management Plan. Vail will be required to develop and submit grading and drainage management plans to USFS resource specialists for review and approval prior to construction of facilities. AIR QUALITY To the extent feasible, site improvements would be installed promptly in order to reduce the potential for dust emissions. The area disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities would be kept to a minimum at all times, allowing improvements to be implemented in sections. Grading areas, including lift terminal areas, would be watered as necessary and practical to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In the absence of natural precipitation, watering of these areas would occur as practical. WILDLIFE All known active and inactive raptor nest areas will be protected and a non-disturbance buffer will be placed on all known active nests. To minimize impact to lynx movements, construction would occur during daylight hours, expect in emergency situations. Vail has a mandatory Forest Supervisor’s closure of the Back Bowls from May 6 through July 1 annually. There would be no activity (construction or recreation) for the duration of the closure. PARKING AND TRAFFIC Construction vehicles and materials used for the 2007 Improvements Projects would be stored in appropriate areas on land within Vail’s SUP boundary, to minimize impacts to Town of Vail traffic and parking resources. Any construction staging within Town boundaries would be coordinated with the Town of Vail.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-15 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

For the purpose of comparison, the environmental consequences associated with implementation of the previously described alternatives are summarized in Table 2-3.18 This table is organized by the issues and indicators listed in the Chapter 1. For detailed discussions of potential effects resulting from implementation of either of the alternatives, including cumulative effects, refer to individual narrative discussions in Chapter 3.

18 40 CFR 1502.14

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-16 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

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

CULTURAL Issue: Proposed projects and associated ground disturbing activities could affect cultural and heritage resources. No impacts to identified or previously unidentified Two historical property surveys evaluated the Same as Alternative 2 cultural resources within the Vail SUP would entire project area in 1985 and 1993. Identified occur. cultural resources have been recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP by certified archaeologists, and as a consequence, a recommendation of ―no historic properties affected‖ was made.

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Issue: By design, proposed projects would alter the winter recreation experience within the SUP. For example, new chairs (Sun Down and Chair 5 upgrade) could affect the existing recreational character of the Back Bowl experience at Vail. Improved access to Sun Down Bowl could be accompanied by increased skier densities and subsequent, expedited skied-out conditions. Additional impacts to the recreational experience are anticipated from the proposed snowmaking projects, the Golden Peak race venue expansion, and the proposed on-mountain restaurant. No operational or infrastructural changes/additions Installation of the Sun Down Express would The Chair 5 upgrade would improve afternoon would occur within the SUP area which would improve access to, and would therefore increase egress over existing conditions by decreasing lift alter the recreational experience. utilization of, approximately 400 acres of terrain in wait and ride times. the center and western side of Sun Down Bowl. The Chair 5 upgrade would improve afternoon egress from the Back Bowls; reduce lift wait times, and lift ride times. As a result of improved egress, a significant decrease in skier densities on egress terrain would occur. Total egress time from the Back Bowls to the base Total egress time from the Back Bowls to the base Total egress time from the Back Bowls to the base areas range from 56 to 85 minutes. areas range from 42 to 70 minutes. areas range from 51 to 82 minutes.

Directly lift-served Back Bowl terrain is With the addition of Sun Down Express, directly Same as Alternative 1. approximately 2,100 acres. lift-served terrain would increase to approximately 2,420 acres of Back Bowl terrain.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-17 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Skier density (skiers per acre) in Sun Down Bowl Skier density in Sun Down Bowl would increase to Same as Alternative 1. is 1.2. 2.9, due to direct lift service from the Sun Down Skier density in the Back Bowls has been Express. calculated at 2.5 skiers per acre. Skier density in the Back Bowls would decrease to 2.2 skiers per acre, by spreading more skiers across the Sun Down Bowl terrain. Golden Peak currently provides 26.5 acres of Golden Peak Race/Training Venue would Same as Alternative 1. training and racing terrain. accommodate FIS-sanctioned Women’s Downhill events or a Men’s Super G Course, allow for races and training to occur simultaneously, segregate racing and training from the general public, and respond to the growing demand for competitive ski racing venues from various groups who are seeking more access for training and races. The proposed Golden Peak race venue expansion would provide a total of 71.5 acres of training and competition terrain. Vail currently offers cafeteria style restaurants The proposed Mid Vail restaurant would increase Same as Alternative 2. providing adverse weather seating for 12,380 Vail’s adverse weather seating capacity by 3 people. percent (12,380 to 12,800) and would provide table service, an on-mountain amenity currently unavailable to guests. A retail sales area and bar/lounge are included in the site-plan, as well as restroom facilities for resort guests. Vail currently offers 442 acres of snowmaking. An additional 33 acres of snowmaking on Simba An additional 33 acres of snowmaking on Simba would help ensure a predictable opening date, high would help ensure a predictable opening date, high quality conditions during the early- and mid- quality conditions during the early- and mid- season, and reliable conditions through mid-April. season, and reliable conditions through mid-April. In addition, Alternative 2 includes 45 new acres of terrain on Golden Peak that would be covered with snowmaking, facilitating early season racing and training.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-18 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

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

PARKING AND TRAFFIC Issue: Implementation of proposed projects has potential to increase daily/annual visitation at Vail with associated effects on traffic volumes and/or congestion on the South Frontage Road and I-70. Parking capacities may also be affected by proposed projects. Visitation and associated vehicular traffic can be Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. assumed to remain consistent with recent trends of over 1.5 million visits for the last three years, with potential increases commensurate with regional population growth. Vail’s current parking lots (3,031 spaces) would continue to accommodate day skier parking needs on average days and any shortages would continue to be offset by the Town of Vail free bus system, the Eagle County bus system, and parking associated with lodging and private clubs.

SCENIC RESOURCES Issue: Construction of the Sun Down Express, the on-mountain restaurant and the Golden Peak addition may affect visual resources. No changes to the scenic environment within Although development increases the scale of The Golden Peak race venue expansion is not Vail’s SUP area. Therefore, Vail would continue deviation from a natural appearing landscape, proposed under Alternative 3. Alternative 3 to be consistent with the SIO of Very Low. existing and proposed projects are consistent with proposed projects would increase on mountain what a typical viewer would expect to encounter at development, but would not be visible to viewers a developed ski area. With incorporation of project outside the ski area. All proposed projects were design criteria, including adherence to Forest determined consistent with the Forest Plan SIO of Service Manual direction for scenic resources, all Very Low for the identified managed viewsheds. proposed projects were determined consistent with the Forest Plan SIO of Very Low for the identified managed viewsheds.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-19 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

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

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES Issue: The proposed on-mountain restaurant would require an increase in Vail employees and subsequent increased demand for employee housing. Provides for no improvements that would directly Provides for no improvements that would directly No improvements would directly impact day skier impact day skier visitation. Skier visitation would impact day skier visitation. Skier visitation would visitation. Skier visitation would be anticipated to be anticipated to increase an average of 0.5 percent be anticipated to increase an average of 0.5 percent increase an average of 0.5 percent per year. per year based on historic regional trends. per year based on historic regional trends. An increase of 75 seasonal employees would be Changes to population, employment, or housing An increase of 82 seasonal and 2 year-round required to staff the on-mountain restaurant. would continue at historic levels as related to the employees would be required to operate new lifts Town of Vail and Eagle County. No direct or and staff on-mountain guest services. indirect affects would be attributable to Vail.

WATER RESOURCES Issue: Proposed projects have the potential to impact water quality and quantity within the SUP area. Additional snowmaking coverage on front-side terrain may impact stream flows through water depletions and/or increased runoff. Application of machine-produced snow and ground disturbance activities may result in increased erosion and sedimentation, thereby impacting stream health. This alternative reflects a continuation of existing Snowmaking Snowmaking operations and management practices at Vail. No Under the Proposed Action, Vail would increase Under Alternative 3 Vail would increase additional direct, indirect or cumulative impacts or snowmaking from the existing 442 acres to an snowmaking from the existing 442 acres to a benefits to watershed resources or riparian habitats approximate total of 520 acres: ~45 acres on proposed total of approximately 475 acres with the would occur as a result of this alternative. Golden Peak; and 33 acres on Simba. addition of 33 acres on Simba. No new Snowmaking water diversions would increase, but snowmaking would occur on Golden Peak. they would not be expected to substantially affect Impacts to water diversions are expected to be the instream flows during low-flow conditions. same as for Alternative 2. Water Quantity Water Quantity Snowmaking and vegetation clearing on the front Water yield effects would be less than for side of Vail would affect watershed hydrology in Alternative 2: since no new water yield effects the study area. Within the Golden Peak drainage, would occur in the Golden Peak drainage; and peak flow increases would bring drainage to 43 snowmaking on Simba would be the same as for percent above baseline (un-developed) conditions; Alternative 2. peak flows would increase 2.4 cfs. Adding Tree removal related to the Chair 5 upgrade would snowmaking on Simba would increase peak flow result in no measurable change to flow conditions conditions to 8 percent above baseline conditions; in Sundown Bowl Creek. peak flows would increase 0.6 cfs). Snowmaking

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-20 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action on Simba would increase peak flows in the Stream Health Mountain Front drainage to 35 percent above Because Alternative 3 eliminates any new projects baseline conditions; peak flow would increase on Golden Peak, all Alternative 3 projects could be 5.4 cfs. completed while maintaining stream health Small areas of proposed tree removal related to conditions (with implementation of mitigation Sun Down Express and the Chair 5 upgrade would measures). result in no measurable change to flow conditions in Sundown Bowl Creek. Stream Health Due to the proposed trail construction and snowmaking activities on Golden Peak, an area with degraded drainage conditions, Alternative 2 projects on Golden Peak could not proceed completed while maintaining stream health conditions. Proposed snowmaking on Simba, as well as the proposed lift improvements in Sundown Bowl, could proceed while satisfying WRNF watershed management objectives (with implementation of mitigation measures).

WILDLIFE & AQUATIC RESOURCES Issue: Ground disturbing activities, could potentially affect Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) wildlife species, as well as Management Indicator Species (MIS) through direct impacts to habitat and/or increased human presence. No additional direct or indirect impacts or benefits TES Effects to wildlife life in Alternative 3 are to the animals and their habitats addressed in the There will be no direct or indirect impacts on the essentially the same as in Alternative 2. Aquatic analysis area would occur as a result of this Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly. resources are discussed below. alternative. There are no meaningful changes to which Vail or TES LAU 20/LAU 22 could support lynx or facilitate Alternative 3 ―May Affect, and is Likely to lynx movements as a result of Alternative 2. Adversely Affect‖ Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail The Proposed Action ―May Affect, and is Likely chub, razorback sucker, and humpback chub. to Adversely Affect‖ Colorado pikeminnow, Sensitive bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and humpback Alternative 3 includes activities that may result in chub. slight short-term sedimentation and minimal

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-21 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Region 2 Sensitive reductions in LWD recruitment to water influence Alternative 2 may have some direct and indirect zones. No other measurable impacts would be impacts to individual R2 species such as the expected, and therefore no impacts to Colorado Northern Goshawk, Boreal owl, three-toed River cutthroat trout are expected with the Woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, and American implementation of Alternative 3 marten, but is not likely to result in a loss of No proposed activities under Alternative 3 are viability on the planning area, or cause a trend to expected to effect bluehead and flannelmouth federal listing or loss of species viability sucker habitat. Therefore, no impacts are expected rangewide. for bluehead sucker or flannelmouth sucker. Direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 would Alternatives 3 may adversely impact individuals, have no affect on the R2 flammulated owl. but would not likely result in a loss of viability in Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal but would not likely result in a loss of viability in listing for boreal toad. the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal Since northern leopard frogs would not be listing for Colorado River cutthroat trout. expected to disperse long distances across dry Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, terrain from breeding sites, and no occurrence but would not likely result in a loss of viability in records or breeding sites are known for the species the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal within or near the project area, Alternatives 3 listing for bluehead sucker and flannelmouth would have NO IMPACT to northern leopard frog sucker. individuals or habitat. Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, MIS but would not likely result in a loss of viability in The implementation of Alternative 3 would neither the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal inhibit nor contribute towards meeting Forest-wide listing for boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas). objectives for aquatic MIS. Alternatives 2 would have no impact to northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) individuals or habitat. MIS Regarding MIS Elk species, the proposed actions may have minor, local effects on elk habitat effectiveness, but no significant effect on habitat effectiveness within the DAU.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-22 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action While negative effects to physical habitat quality would be expected for trout and aquatic macroinvertebrates at the project scale, no change in populations would be expected due to Alternative 2 at the Forest-wide scale.

VEGETATION Issue: Plant communities (including TES and regionally important plants) may be altered as a result of the proposed projects. No additional direct or indirect impacts or benefits Permanent and short- to long-term disturbances Permanent and short- to long-term disturbances to the plants and habitats, including federally listed (i.e., before reclamation restored areas to pre- (i.e., before reclamation restored areas to pre- or R2 sensitive plant species would occur as a disturbance conditions) to 56 acres of habitat disturbance conditions) to 8.8 acres of habitat result of the No Action Alternative. within Vail’s SUP area (including the 47.5 acres of within Vail’s SUP area (including the 1.9 acres of tree clearing associated with Golden Peak, the tree clearing associated with the Chair 5 upgrade, Chair 5 upgrade, the new Sun Down Express, the the restaurant and the maintenance facility, and an restaurant and the maintenance facility, and 8.6 additional 6.9 acres of grading non-forested areas). acres of grading non-forested areas). As with Alternative 2, no listed, proposed, or R2 No direct or indirect impacts on any listed or sensitive plant species would be affected. proposed plant species. No portion of the project area has been designated critical plant habitat. No R2 sensitive plant species were detected in areas proposed for disturbance.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-23 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

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

GEOLOGY AND SOILS Issue: Proposed ground disturbance (e.g., lift construction, Golden Peak addition, grading projects in the vicinity of the Chair 5 bottom terminal) may contribute to increased rates of erosion in the project area. Additional snowmaking may result in slope instability and/or failure and subsequent sediment loading to streams. Under the No Action Alternative, no new ground Alternative 2 snowmaking and tree clearing is not Impact to Golden Peak would be the same as for disturbance would occur on NFS lands within the expected to increase slumps, slides or debris flows Alternative 2. Vail SUP. The landslide risk at Golden Peak on Golden Peak. Although the Sun Down Express would not be would remain low to (possibly) moderate. Shallow Because the lower terminal location of Chair constructed under Alternative 3, project design slumps would persist near the Chair 5 bottom 5/Sun Down Express is at the toe of the lower, criteria would need to incorporate measures to terminal. younger part of an identified landslide complex, decrease or eliminate any negative effects on the project design criteria would need to incorporate stability of this young slump associated with any measures to decrease or eliminate any negative approved grading that takes place in this location. effects on the stability of this young slump.

AIR QUALITY Issue: 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. No new projects would be authorized for NFS As with Alternative 1, no discernable changes to As in Alternative 2, no discernable changes to lands; and therefore, no short- or long-term current trends in air quality are anticipated as a current trends in air quality are anticipated as a impacts to air quality, as a result of actions on direct result of the Proposed Action. direct result of Alternative 3. public lands, are associated with this alternative.

FOREST HEALTH Issue: Tree clearing for the proposed Golden Peak expansion and Sun Down Express installation would result in a decrease in the aspen and sub-alpine fir cover type—both of which are unaffected by the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Under all alternatives, the mountain pine beetle Alternative 2 would result in permanent Approximately 1.9 acres of primarily lodgepole epidemic will continue to persist, eventually disturbance to approximately 38 acres of aspen, pine with some aspen and spruce/fir would be affecting all lodgepole pine throughout NFS and associated with Golden Peak racing terrain; and removed within Vail’s SUP under Alternative 3. private lands in Eagle County. The resulting loss 1 acre of spruce/fir cover type associated with the All lodgepole pine are expected to succumb to the of lodgepole pine stands and risk of wildfire will Chair 5 upgrade and Sun Down Express. mountain pine beetle epidemic in the near future. undoubtedly increase in the future. Additionally, approximately 8 acres of lodgepole pine/lodgepole pine mix would be removed within Vail’s SUP in association with Golden Peak, the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-24 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Chair 5 upgrade, Sun Down Express and the Maintenance Building. However, up to 95 percent of the mature lodgepole pine stands in Eagle County are expected to succumb to the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the next 3-5 years. This equates to approximately 80 percent mortality of lodgepole pine throughout Eagle County.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-25 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.19 As such, Chapter 3 describes the existing environment for resources across the human and biological environments that have the potential to be affected by implementing any of the alternatives. Each Existing Condition description is followed by an Environmental Consequences discussion that provides an analysis of the potential effects of implementation of the alternative.

ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTER 3

Chapter 3 is organized by resource area in the following order:

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The Scope of the Analysis briefly describes the geographic and/or regulatory as well as temporal bounds of analysis for each resource. The Scope of the Analysis varies according to resource area and may be different for direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Affected Environment section provides a description of the existing condition of the environment potentially affected.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section provides an analysis of direct and indirect environmental effects of implementing each of the alternatives, according to the issues and indicators identified in Chapter 1.

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or 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 significant actions taking place over a period of time.

19 40 CFR 1502.15

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Spatial and temporal bounds of analysis are defined as follows:

Spatial Bounds

The physical extent of this cumulative effects analysis comprises the Vail SUP area and adjacent NFS and private lands proximate to Vail and is bounded by Interstate 70 to the north and east, by State Highway 24 to the west, and by Shrine Pass Road (FSR 712) to the south.

Temporal Bounds

The temporal extent of the analysis commences with conditions extant before the development of Vail, extends through the history of Vail to the present, and includes the lifespan of current proposed projects as well as those that are current reasonably foreseeable future actions, in general 10 to 20 years into the future from the date of this document.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are identified here. 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 lesser 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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

A. RECREATION

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The study area for this recreational analysis extends to winter uses at Vail Mountain within its 12,590-acre SUP boundary. The scope of this analysis is specific to areas within the SUP boundary that have potential to be affected by proposed projects, including: Golden Peak, Sun Up/Down Bowls, and Simba trail. On-mountain guest services are also discussed.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Since its inaugural season in 1962, Vail has become one of the most visited ski resorts in North America (along with Breckenridge and Whistler/Blackcomb), with an average annual visitation of more than 1.5 million over the period 1998 to 2008.20

For guest capacities, Vail and the Forest Service utilize a ―Manage-To‖ process that allows them to address numerous health and safety, vehicular traffic circulation, and recreational quality issues based on calculated planning thresholds. As designed, Manage-To is a flexible process used at Vail when skier numbers exceed the agreed upon threshold of 19,900 skiers per day. The Manage-To threshold is typically not exceeded more than twice each season; however, in instances when the threshold is exceeded, Vail holds a staff meeting (including a Forest Service representative) at the end of the day to evaluate numerous considerations of the exceeded day‘s operation.

Winter Recreation

Vail has a base elevation of approximately 8,200 feet with lift access to an elevation of 11,577 feet. Vail has 22 chairlifts (1 gondola, 16 detachable quad express lifts, 1 fixed-grip quad, 3 triples, and 1 fixed-grip double), 6 surface conveyors (i.e., magic carpets), and 3 surface lifts.

Vail‘s operational boundary encompasses 193 named trails and approximately 5,100 acres. The resort‘s bowls, glades, and trails provide a wide variety of skiing, with approximately 21 percent of the trail system classified as beginner/novice, 39 percent as intermediate, and 39 percent as advanced/expert.21

A typical ski season at Vail lasts from mid-November through mid-April. A variety of winter recreation activities are available at Vail, including alpine skiing, snowboarding, telemark skiing, and adaptive skiing. Non-skiing guests can visit the on-mountain Adventure Ridge facility for tubing and a children‘s snowmobile track. Ski bikes and snowshoes are also available at Adventure Ridge.

20 CSCUSA, 2007 21 Due to mathematical rounding, these do not total 100.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

The Vail Nordic Center (owned and operated by the Town of Vail) offers approximately 17 kilometers of ski trails and 10 kilometers of snowshoe trails east of the Vail Village (outside of the SUP boundary). Nordic trails are open to the public, and they are maintained weekly. Snowmobiling, sledding, sleigh rides, and dog sledding are also popular activities for skiers and non-skiers alike, and are available in the general Vail area.

Annual Visitation

Vail‘s annual skier visits have averaged a roughly 0.5 percent annual growth over the last decade. In 1987 Vail had 1,890 skiable acres and averaged approximately 8,600 skiers per day. Vail now offers over 5,100 skiable acres. Annual visitation has exceeded 1.5 million skiers since 2002/03. In 2006/07 Vail received over 1.6 million visits and averaged approximately 11,000 skier visits per day.

Table 3A-1: Total Annual Vail Skier Visitation Compared to the State of Colorado Percentage of Annual Annual Colorado Annual Vail Skier Season CO Skier Visits Skier Visits Visits Attributed to Vail 2006/07 12,566,299 1,608,000 12.8 2005/06 12,524,907 1,676,000 13.4 2004/05 11,815,572 1,568,000 13.3 2003/04 11,200,000 1,556,000 13.9 2002/03 11,605,588 1,611,000 13.9 5-Year Average 11,942,473 1,603,800 13.5 Source: Vail Resorts, 2008; CSCUSA, 2007

The 2002 Forest Plan predicted an additional 176,159 skier visits per year in Eagle County (including Vail and Beaver Creek) by 2010, raising the number of annual skier visits at Vail and Beaver Creek to approximately 2.4 million.22 However, according to Vail Resort records this threshold has already been attained during the 2007/08 season (1.6 million visits at Vail and 800,000 visits at Beaver Creek). This can be attributed to the County‘s close proximity to the expanding Front Range communities, Denver International Airport, Eagle County airport and, relatively inexpensive season passes.

Sun Up and Sun Down Bowls

Sun Up and Sun Down bowls provide approximately 1,200 acres of combined intermediate/expert terrain on the back side of Vail Mountain. Here, guests ski and ride glades and open bowls while taking in expansive views of Blue Sky Basin and Mount of the Holy Cross.

Installed in 1979, Chair 5 (High Noon) provides lift-served skiing and riding primarily in Sun Up Bowl and the west side of Sun Down Bowl. It has a design capacity of 1,400 persons per hour (pph) and an

22 USDA Forest Service, 2002a p. 3-472

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

11-minute ride time. Terrain served by this lift is popular, particularly on powder days and during the spring. While this existing fixed-grip triple chairlift is in good operating condition, long lift lines are common throughout the season. On powder and/or peak days, Chair 5‘s capacity is consistently overwhelmed by the demand placed upon it (lift line wait times can exceed one hour). The result is that the terrain accessible from Chair 5 is underserved due to the existing lift‘s limited hourly capacity.

Sun Down Bowl offers a unique skiing/riding experience for an advanced segment of Vail‘s guests. Compared to similar terrain in the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin, favorable snow conditions (i.e., ―un- tracked‖) are often encountered here for longer durations due to more difficult access to the western sides of this bowl.23 In addition, low skier/rider densities are typical. When compared to Vail‘s other Back Bowls, most of which afford relatively easy, repeat-access (and, as a result, higher skier densities), the western portion of Sun Down Bowl provides a distinctive experience for Vail‘s skiers/riders.

Currently, the western portion of Sun Down Bowl is skied (from Chair 5) by a small segment of Vail‘s clientele due to a lack of direct lift service. From Chair 5, skiers can descend the west ridge of Vail Mountain (Windows Road), though cannot proceed further west than the top of The Windows, approximately 1,400 feet east of the top terminal of Wildwood Express, without self-propelling (refer to Figure 2-4). Topography and lack of direct lift access prevent roundtrip skiing of approximately 300 acres of skiable terrain in the western half of Sun Down Bowl (i.e., Morning Side Ridge, Straight Shot, Ricky’s Ridge, Widge’s Ridge, Seldom, Never, and O.S.) from Chair 5.

The most logical option for repeat access to the terrain in the western portion of Sun Down Bowl is achieved by the following method (refer to Figure 2-4):

1. Ride Chair 5

2. Descend to Mid Vail

3. Ride Chair 3

4. Traverse approximately 300 feet southwest to the Sun Down Bowl access point

Thus, current conditions are such that optimal access to existing terrain in the western portion Sun Down Bowl is hindered by the need to ride multiple lifts as well as negotiation of the Mid Vail area, which results in the Sun Down Bowl terrain being underutilized as compared to Vail‘s Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin.

23 Vail‘s Back Bowls include Mongolia, Siberia, China, Tea Cup, Sun Up, Sun Down bowls.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Sun Down Bowl Terrain Density Analysis

An important aspect of ski area design is the balancing of uphill lift capacity with downhill trail capacity. Trail densities are derived by contrasting the uphill, skiers-at-one-time (SAOT) capacity of each lift system with the trail acreage associated with each lift pod.

Trail density (for an entire ski area or specific to a trail pod) is calculated by dividing the number of guests on the trails by trail area (acres). The terrain acreages used for this density analysis of Sun Down Bowl comes from the existing terrain statistics table found in the Vail 2007 Master Development Plan Update. In addition to the open bowls and glades, the trails used for this density analysis include Forever, Morning Side Ridge, Never, OS, Ricky’s Ridge, Seldom, Straight Shot, Widge’s Ridge, Windows, and Wow. In total, 540 acres of terrain were included in this density analysis, including virtually all skiable acreage in the Sun Down Bowl area (irrespective of ease of access—i.e., lift access). Because there is currently no lift that directly serves the western portion of Sun Down Bowl, this analysis reasonably assumes that a certain percentage of skiers from the surrounding five lifts identified in Table 3A-2 are utilizing them to indirectly access Sun Down Bowl. The usage breakdown in Table 3A-2 details what percentages of skiers from surrounding lifts are reasonably assumed to be skiing in Sun Down Bowl. These percentages are determined based on terrain distribution as well as reasonable assumptions and observations from Vail staff. This type of skier density ratio indicates the overall number of guests distributed throughout the mountain facilities, including those guests that are waiting in lift lines, riding lifts or using milling areas and support facilities within each lift pod.

Table 3A-2: Lifts that Contribute Skiers to Sun Down Bowl – Existing Conditions Estimated Estimated Number of Skiers Percentage of Number of Skiers Lift Name/# in Lift Pod Skiers Going to Going to Sun Sun Down Bowl Down Bowl Wildwood Express (3) 763 10 76 High Noon (5) 1,077 30 323 Mountaintop Express (4) 1,297 5 65 Northwoods Express (11) 1,357 5 68 Game Creek Express (7) 1,145 10 114 Total -- -- 647

Dividing the estimated 647 skiers in Sun Down Bowl by the 540 acres of terrain accounted for in this density analysis yields a result of 1.2 skiers per acre. Up to 5 skiers per acre is an industry norm for expert terrain; therefore, as evidenced below in Table 3A-3, below, 1.2 skiers per acre is a low density of skiers

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation and riders on expert terrain, comparing favorably to similar expert terrain pods at Vail that are lift-served. The average overall density for Vail‘s lift-served Back Bowl terrain is 2.5 skiers per acre.24

Table 3A-3: Targeted Skiers per Acre by Terrain Ability Level Ability Level Skiers/Rider per Acre Beginner 25 to 35 Novice 12 to 25 Low Intermediate 8 to 20 Intermediate 6 to 15 Adv. Intermediate 4 to 10 Expert 2 to 5

A likely constraint to skier capacity in Sun Down Bowl is the narrow skiway at the bottom of the bowl, named Sun Down Cat Walk. Any skier or rider descending Sun Down Bowl must use this skiway to return to the bottom terminal of Chair 5. Since there is no lift that directly serves this area for repeat skiing, the rate of skiers on the skiway is largely dictated by the hourly capacity of Chair 5, which transports skiers out from the bottom of the bowl, at the same percentages as used in the above usage breakdown table. The analysis in Table 3A-4 demonstrates the current use level of this cat track.

Table 3A-4: Sun Down Cat Walk Use Statistics Skiers per hour using skiway 420 Skiers per minute using skiway 7 Rate of travel (miles per hour) 20 Rate of travel (feet per minute) 1,760 Average skier spacing (feet) 251

For reference, compared to the Sun Down Cat Walk‘s skier spacing of 251 feet, the lower skiway section of Born Free has an estimated average skier spacing of roughly 60 feet (during regular daytime hours, not afternoon egress).

Lift-Served Back Bowl Densities

The total area of lift serviced Back Bowl terrain (from Mongolia Bowl to Sun Down Bowl) is approximately 2,100 acres (i.e., repeat-skiable from one lift), with a calculated capacity of roughly 5,300 skiers/riders (derived from capacities for each of the Back Bowl areas). Thus, the overall Back Bowls density is approximately 2.5 skiers per acre.

24 While the skiers/riders per acre numbers provided in Table 3A-3 are in no way absolute, they provide ski area planners and resort operators with useful information when analyzing terrain.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

East-To-West Skier/Rider Egress

As introduced in the Purpose and Need discussion in Chapter 1, the morning west-east skier migration to the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin (i.e., from the Lionshead or Vail Village base areas to the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin) is adequate.

Due to its central location on the back side of Vail Mountain, Chair 5 should be an important east-to-west lift linkage for skiers/riders returning to Vail Village and Lionshead from Sun Up Bowl, Sun Down Bowl, and Blue Sky Basin at the end of their day (the reader is referred to Figure 2-1). However, the existing uphill capacity of Chair 5 is inadequate for the demands placed upon it during peak days and big snow days. Since Chair 5 is a slow fixed-grip lift (11 minute ride time), very few people use it during the critical afternoon egress period. With an existing (average) lift line wait of 19 minutes (as observed, refer to Table 3A-9) and a lift ride of 11 minutes, it typically takes guests 30 minutes to get from the bottom of Chair 5 to the top of Vail Mountain. As discussed in this section, end-of-day east-to-west skier migration is hindered by multiple required lift rides and limited possible routes. Chair 5 is underutilized during this period for the previously-stated reasons.

Using the top of Tea Cup Express (Chair 36) as a starting point for exiting Blue Sky Basin, and/or Teacup Bowl and migrating to either Vail Village or Lionshead, there are currently two possible routes for east- west egress.25 The routes and their associated lift wait, lift ride, and descent times are presented in Table 3A-5 (the reader is encouraged to concurrently review Figure 2-4 to complement this narrative).26

25 Because all skiers/riders exiting Blue Sky Basin, Teacup Bowl and some from China Bowl must ride Tea Cup Express, analysis of the available egress routes begins at the top terminal of this chair. 26 All descent and wait times are based on Vail and/or Forest Service staff observations of afternoon (2 p.m.–4 p.m.) egress and are based on the best approximation of a intermediate ability skier/rider in average conditions (clear sky, packed powder, and relatively uncrowded).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Table 3A-5: Egress Routes – Existing Conditions Figure 2-4 Time Figure 2-4 Time Egress Route 1 Egress Route 2 Reference (min) Reference (min) Start at top of Chair 36 Egress Start -- Start at top of Chair 36 Egress Start -- Descent to bottom of Descent to bottom of A 15 G 15 High Noon (Chair 5) Northwoods Express Chair 5 Wait 5 Northwoods Express Wait 20 B H Chair 5 Ride 11 Northwoods Express Ride 6 Descent to Mid Vail C 10 Descent to Mid Vail C 10 Option 1a Option 2a Descent to Base Areas D 15 Descent to Base Areas D 15 Option 1b Option 2b Wildwood (Chair 3) Wait 10 Wildwood (Chair 3) Wait 10 E E Chair 3 Ride 3.5 Chair 3 Ride 3.5 Descent to Base Areas F 20 Descent to Base Areas F 20 Total Egress Time Option 1a 56 minutes Option 2a 66 minutes Option 1b 75 minutes Option 2b 85 minutes

As illustrated in Table 3A-5, existing egress routes are estimated to consume between almost 56 to 85 minutes (options 1a and 2b, respectively). Nearly all skiers exiting the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin pass through the Mid Vail area when returning to Vail Village/Lionshead. As a result, both egress routes contribute to existing circulation issues and congestion on Flapjack and in the Mid Vail area. Despite the trail congestion and long lift lines experienced at Northwoods Express, most guests choose Route 2, as portrayed in Table 3A-5, in order to avoid Chair 5 (a fixed-grip triple) in which delays due to perceived lift lines and ride time have come to be expected.

Currently, Mid Vail experiences heavy skier traffic because of its central location on the mountain. It serves as the top terminal of the Vista Bahn (Chairlift #16), which provides mountain access from Vail Village. In addition, virtually all of the skiers egressing from the Back Bowls/Blue Sky Basin to the Front Side at the end of the day have to pass through the Mid Vail area.

East-to-West Egress Lift Lines Most of the east to west egress occurs at the end of the day when skiers and riders in the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin begin their return to the front side and the base areas. As described in Table 3A-5, although Chair 5 is an option for returning to the front side terrain from Blue Sky Basin and the Back Bowls, skiers and riders tend to avoid using Chair 5 and instead use Northwoods Express to return to the base areas. Eleven lifts serve Blue Sky Basin, the Back Bowls, and the northeast bowls; the combined capacity of which is 12,100 SAOT (Table 3A-6). Not all of the skiers and riders in Blue Sky Basin, the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-9 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Back Bowls, and the northeast bowls will remain in those areas until the end of the day; some will make their way to the Front Side and remain there for the duration of their day. Since the Back Side lifts close earlier than Front Side lifts, this analysis assumes (based on observations and feedback from ski area management) that 75 percent of those skiers and riders will be using Chair 5 and Northwoods Express during the last hour of their operation. Also, it is possible to get to the bottom of the mountain via other routes (e.g., the Golden Peak terrain), so it is assumed that 25 percent of the remaining skiers and riders will egress the mountain via some other route. The remaining number of skiers and riders is estimated at roughly 6,800 (Table 3A-6). The number of skiers from each lift, and the allocation to Chair 5 or Northwoods Express, is also shown.

Table 3A-6: Skiers using Chair 5 and Northwoods Express for Egress Reduced for % to # to Reduced for % to # to Lift SAOT % not using Northwoods Northwoods Egress Hour Chair 5 Chair 5 lifts Express Express 5 1,270 953 714 0 100 0 714 10 940 705 529 100 0 529 0 11 1,600 1,200 900 50 0 450 0 14 860 645 484 95 5 460 24 17 910 683 512 50 50 256 256 21 1,920 1,440 1,080 90 10 972 108 22 120 90 68 90 10 61 7 36 1,190 893 669 70 30 469 201 37 1,770 1,328 996 70 30 697 299 38 520 390 293 70 30 205 88 39 1,000 750 563 70 30 394 169 Total 12,100 9,075 6,806 4,491 1,865 Notes: It is assumed half of the skiers on Northwoods Express will continue skiing on it.

Table 3A-7 shows allocations of skiers and riders to Chair 5 and Northwoods Express and the corresponding lift line wait times.

Table 3A-7: Chair 5 and Northwoods Express Egress Lift Line Wait Times Number of Lift Hourly Average Lift Lift Skiers/Riders Capacity Line Northwoods 4,491 2,400 pph 28 minutes Express Chair 5 1,865 1,400 pph 15 minutes Total 6,356 3,800 pph --

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-10 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Wait times indicated in Table 3A-7 are modeled lift line wait times. These and are intended for comparative purposes rather than literal representations. Modeled lift line times are based on a comparison of the number of skiers/riders arriving at the base of the lift during the egress hour time period and the hourly capacity of the lift. However, the reader should note the very close correlation between the Chair 5 calculated lift line wait time here and the actual observed average time in the ―Typical Lift Lines‖ discussion (15 minutes here versus 18.6 minutes).

East-to-West Egress Densities As discussed previously, virtually all of the skiers egressing from the Back Bowls/Blue Sky Basin to the Front Side at the end of the day have to pass through the Mid Vail area. The tightest constriction point is on the top of Upper Lion‘s Way Catwalk, just below the Mid Vail facility. This section of the catwalk is roughly 45 feet wide. Using the same assumptions as in the ―East-to-West Egress Lift Line‖ analysis above, it is assumed that approximately 6,356 people will traverse through this area during the last hour of operation. Table 3A-8 shows the calculation for the egress density at that specific point during the last hour.

Table 3A-8: Mid Vail Egress Densities on Lions Way Catwalk Min. Width Skier Speed One Hour Egress Egress Density Egress Route (ft.) (fpm) (guests) (guests/acre) Mid Vail 45 1,500 6,356 68

A density of 68 skiers per acre is higher than normal for a typical trail at Vail Mountain; however, this is an egress density for a catwalk and, as such, is not directly comparable to typical trail densities.

Lift Line Wait Times During the 2007/08 season, Forest Service personnel monitored lift line wait times and photographed the Chair 5 lift line.27 The survey methodology included recording the time that elapsed between a specific individual entering the lift maze and loading the chairlift. The surveys were conducted on non-holiday periods in order to best reflect a typical day. The surveys took place on the following days: December 8, 10, 14 and 20, January 17, and February 6, 9 and 26. The surveys generally spanned a three-hour period between 10:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., to best represent the busiest time of the day. The results of the lift line wait time survey are listed in Table 3A-9.

27 USDA Forest Service, 2008f

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Table 3A-9: Chair 5 Lift Line Wait Times Chair 5 Wait Time Daily Visitation Snow Conditions Date Time (minutes) 12/08/07 10:45 a.m. 40 14,141 4 in. new 12/10/07 11:30 a.m. 6 5,693 4 in. new 12/14/07 11:00 a.m. 8 6,429 0 12/20/07 1:30 p.m. 12 7,955 0 01/17/08 1:45 p.m. 15 7,538 4 in. new 02/06/08 11:00 a.m. 8 8,784 Snowing 02/09/08 10:40 a.m. 35 18,484 8 in. new 02/26/08 12:00 p.m. 25 11,217 2 in. new Average 18.6 10,030

As demonstrated in Table 3A-9, lift line wait times for the eight days surveyed at Chair 5 averaged approximately 19 minutes, with the longest wait surveyed at 40 minutes and the shortest at 6 minutes. Further, this ―average‖ lift line wait time corresponds with a daily visitation that is approximately half of Vail‘s Manage-To number. During spring conditions and/or big snow days, lift lines in excess of one hour can occur at Chair 5.

Golden Peak Race/Training Venue

Vail‘s race/training area is located on the eastern edge of Golden Peak and is accessed from the Riva Bahn Express lift. Racers/trainers currently have exclusive use of Golden Peak Race (26.5 acres) and share access to Chair 6 Lift Line, and Ruder‘s Route trails, that are partially segregated from the general skiing public.28 The Riva Bahn Express provides the only repeat-access option for athletes training within the Golden Peak venue; racers and the public share this lift.

In addition to race training and competition at Golden Peak, there is also specialized training and competition for mogul skiing on the Cookshack trail (which is surrounded by public skiing and riding). This trail is accessible from the Avanti Express lift (Chair 2), a mid-mountain lift requiring uploading on the Vista Bahn (Chair 16), the Eagle Bahn Gondola (Chair 19), or the Born Free Express (Chair 8). The Cookshack location is not desirable due to difficult access for racers and spectators, and the subsequent mixing of competitors and public before and after races and training.

According to International Ski Federation (FIS) standards, the existing Golden Peak venue is too short for a women‘s downhill or men‘s Super G course. Golden Peak also lacks enough training terrain to satisfy growing demand for competitive ski racing venues. For example, during the 2007/08 ski season, 65

28 While training terrain is (mostly) fenced-off from the general public, intermingling between the two user-groups does occur.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation events were scheduled on the single trail at the Golden Peak Venue. Ski and Snowboard Club Vail had 28 programs that trained on Golden Peak every day from early December through mid-April. Vail routinely turns groups away due to lack of training and racing terrain. Battle Mountain High School also trains on Golden Peak throughout the winter. Thus, existing training terrain is deficient, in quantity and quality, for the current level of demand.

It is Vail‘s intent to continue to host FIS sanctioned events while simultaneously accommodating the growing demand for training space. A specialized training facility as part of the Golden Peak race venue would better serve the need to segregate ski/snowboard racers from the general public while simultaneously providing a superior training facility in light of the demand placed on it.

Snowmaking

Vail‘s snowmaking strategy is intended to enhance the reliability and consistency of the skiing surface 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. Guests may choose to ski Vail over other resorts because of the consistency and reliability of its ski surfaces. The snowmaking system at Vail helps ensure a predictable opening date, high quality conditions during the early- and mid-season, and reliable conditions through mid-April.

The snowmaking infrastructure at Vail covers a total of 442 acres of terrain.29 Water for snowmaking is supplied by the Green Mountain, Eagle Park, and Homestake reservoirs and by Black Lakes. Though inefficient and relatively resource intensive, additional coverage is provided by stretching hoses from hydrants in other areas or by pushing man-made snow to these areas with snow cats. Therefore, the resort currently has the ability to cover approximately 457 acres of terrain, when conditions dictate.

Currently, consistent, top-to-bottom snowmaking coverage is not provided on intermediate trails serviced by the Eagle Bahn Gondola and Pride Express. This limits Vail‘s ability to ensure that quality snow coverage is offered in its ―opening configuration‖ (critical early season period) as well as during low- snow years. Lower Born Free (serviced by Born Free Express) which has snowmaking, is the only trail that Vail can ensure will be open for Thanksgiving and in years when continued snowmaking is necessary. Furthermore, the middle face of Simba (which has no snowmaking) receives particularly high snowcat traffic and is problematic from a snow retention perspective throughout the year.

Guest Services

The following table summarizes the existing on-mountain opportunities for restaurant seating (both indoor and outdoor) at Vail, as well as the ‗nice day‘ and ‗adverse day‘ seating capacities. These

29 Snowmaking acreage has been computer generated from digital mapping and assumes the full trail width coverage of developed ski trails and full groomable width on catwalks.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation capacities are based on the assumption that outdoor seating may be utilized when the weather is fair (i.e., nice day), while guests are limited to indoor seating during adverse weather days.

Table 3A-10 demonstrates that, on nice days Vail, has an on-mountain capacity for 19,044 guests, while on adverse weather days the capacity is 12,380. Thus, there is adequate seating on busy days when the outdoor decks can be utilized; while during inclement weather, there is a shortage of guest seating. In addition to adverse weather seating, customer survey data repeatedly identifies deficiencies in on- mountain dining opportunities (particularly on-mountain table service) at Vail.30

Table 3A-10: Existing Restaurant Seating Average Adverse Indoor Outdoor Total Nice Day Restaurant Seat Day Seating Seating Seating Capacity Turnover Capacity Market Place 415 40 455 3.0 1,365 1,245 Blue Moon 120 120 240 3.0 720 360 Wildwood 280 220 500 4.0 2,000 1,120 Buffalo‘s 60 120 180 4.0 720 240 Two Elk 1,100 600 1,700 3.5 5,950 3,850 Belle‘s Camp 50 120 170 3.5 595 175 Dawg House 0 48 48 3.0 144 0 Mid Vail 700 260 960 4.0 3,840 2,800 Gondoli‘s Pizza 50 0 50 10.0 500 500 Chaos Canyon 170 - 170 4.0 680 680 Black Forest 80 280 360 4.0 1,440 320 Game Creek Club 194 - 194 2.5 485 485 Golden Peak Grill 160 - 160 3.0 480 480 Golden Peak bakery 25 0 25 5.0 125 125 Total 3,404 1,808 5,212 19,044 12,380

Maintenance Facilities

The primary maintenance facility for Vail‘s lifts and vehicles is located at the base area on private land on the western most edge of the ski area.

The majority of Vail‘s snowcats and snowmobiles are stored and maintained at the Snow Summit Shop, located on the Mid Vail/Eagles Nest Road. Individual bays for snowcat maintenance are undersized, and in its current design, this facility is no longer able to meet Vail‘s snow vehicle maintenance needs.

30 Vail Resort, 2007

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Therefore, snowcat maintenance issues requiring anything beyond minor repair must be handled at the primary maintenance facility.

Vail‘s Lift Maintenance Department has facilities on the east and west sides of the mountain, in a stand- alone building near the top of Tea Cup Express, and in the Eagles Nest building. However, these facilities are undersized as they have not grown commensurately with the installation of additional lifts at Vail over the years. Therefore, it is difficult for Vail to efficiently and adequately accommodate the required maintenance for 33 lifts.

Vail operates snowcats on the mountain 24 hours a day across the ski season, which is a common practice in the ski industry. It is therefore inherent that operational traffic (i.e., snowcats and snow machines) mixes with descending skiers and riders across the mountain. In order to decrease interactions between operational equipment and descending skiers/riders, Vail has implemented a protocol for snowcat and snowmachine drivers pertaining to speed and audible/visible indicators. Nonetheless, Vail‘s goal is to reduce the number of snowcat trips between the mountain and the primary maintenance facility at the base area, and to keep snowcats on-mountain unless major maintenance is required.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Annual Visitation

None of the alternatives are designed to increase daily or annual visitation, and Vail‘s Manage-To number of 19,900 SAOT will remain in effect under any circumstances. The Manage-To number effectively limits the number of daily skiers Vail can accommodate. As noted, and attributable to the County‘s close proximity to the Front Range communities, Denver International Airport, Eagle County airport and, relatively inexpensive season passes, annual skier visits in Eagle County reached approximately 2.4 million during the 2007/08 season, a full two years earlier than predicted by the 2002 Forest Plan.31 Considering such forecasts, and based on a 10-year running average, annual visitation at Vail is reasonably anticipated to increase at an approximate average rate of 0.5 percent annually irrespective of the selected alternative.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in no operational or infrastructural changes/additions within Vail‘s SUP area. No alteration to the recreational experience would occur, and generally speaking, the quality of wintertime recreation opportunities would resemble those currently existing. However, Vail retains the opportunity to carry out any unimplemented projects authorized through the 2006 Vail Ski Area Proposed West Lionshead Lift Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and the 1996 Vail Category III Ski Area Development FEIS and ROD, which would enhance the recreational experience

31 Vail Resorts, 2008a; USDA Forest Service, 2002a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation within the SUP boundary. Vail‘s operational boundary would remain at approximately 8,100 acres under the No Action alternative.

Sun Up and Sun Down Bowls Sun Down Bowl Terrain Density Analysis Skier densities in the western portion of Sun Down Bowl would be expected to resemble existing conditions (approximately 1.2 skiers per acre).

Lift-Served Back Bowl Density

The total area of lift serviced Back Bowl terrain (from Mongolia Bowl to Sun Down Bowl) would remain at approximately 2,100 acres. Average skier densities throughout the lift-served Back Bowls would be expected resemble the existing condition of approximately 2.5 skiers per acre.

East-To-West Skier/Rider Egress

Lift capacities would not change and congestion, along with inefficient egress, would be expected to persist and likely worsen in step with the projected increase in annual skier visits.

Egress Lift Lines Wait times (particularly on Northwoods Express) would remain similar to the existing conditions for east- to-west egress times. It is anticipated that Chair 5 would continue to be avoided, and therefore underutilized, during the egress period.

Egress Densities Under the No Action Alternative, egress densities at Mid Vail would not change. Higher than optimal trail densities would be expected to persist.

Golden Peak Race/Training Venue

Vail‘s supply of racing and training terrain would be expected to fall short (in terms of both quality and acreage of terrain) in light of the demand that is placed on it.

Snowmaking

No change to existing snowmaking infrastructure or coverage would occur under the No Action alternative, and Vail would be able to cover approximately 442 acres. Vail‘s ability to ensure that quality snow coverage under its opening configuration (i.e., the critical early season period) as well as during low-snow years would continue to be limited.

The Lower Born Free trail (serviced by Chair 8) would continue to be the only trail that Vail can ensure would be open for Thanksgiving and in years when continued snowmaking is necessary. Furthermore, the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation middle face of Simba (which has no snowmaking) would continue to receive particularly high snowcat traffic, which would continue to be problematic from a snow retention perspective throughout the year.

Guest Services

There would be no change from the existing conditions for guest service facilities.

Maintenance Facilities

The Snow Summit Shop vehicle maintenance facility would remain in its current configuration, with satellite lift maintenance facilities located near the top terminals of the Eagle Bahn Gondola and Tea Cup Express. The primary vehicle and lift maintenance operations facility would remain within the Town of Vail on private lands. Inefficiencies in time and energy consumption and the mixing of operational traffic with skiers and riders on the mountain would continue. However, the mixing of operational traffic and descending skiers/riders is a common occurrence at any developed ski area and would occur under any alternative.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

The goals of the Proposed Action are to enhance the guest experience at Vail Mountain and improve Vail‘s ability to respond to its changing market/guests‘ demands, expectations, and preferences—both in the near and long-term. This goal is intended to be accomplished by maintaining a variety of terrain that continues to provide a challenge for the majority of the ski/snowboard market, improving inter-mountain circulation, providing a more efficient lift system utilizing high speed lift technology, creating additional on-mountain guest services, and a reliable, early season terrain configuration.

A summary of Alternative 2 effects to terrain densities, skiing/riding experience, egress, lift line waits, and egress densities is provided here to assist the reader in reviewing this section.

Summary of Recreational Impacts Terrain Density Analysis The total area of Back Bowl terrain that is directly lift-served would increase by approximately 300 acres with installation of the Sun Down Express, bringing the total amount of Back Bowl terrain that is directly lift-served to 2,420 acres. Installation of the Sun Down Express would increase the average density (skiers per acre) from 1.2 to 2.9 in Sun Down Bowl. However, the overall lift-served Back Bowl densities would reduce by 12 percent—from 2.5 to 2.2 skiers per acre compared to the No Action Alternative.

Skier/ride capacity in Sun Down Bowl is, and would continue to be, constrained by the Sun Down Cat Walk. The rate of skiers/riders on the skiway would be largely dictated by the hourly capacity of the proposed Sun Down Express and the upgraded hourly capacity of Chair 5.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-17 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Skiing/Riding Experience Installation of the Sun Down Express would improve access to, and would therefore increase utilization of, approximately 400 acres of terrain in the center and western side of Sun Down Bowl. Skier densities would remain low as compared to similar expert terrain at Vail that is lift served. Snow cover characteristics of Sun Down Bowl would be expected to change, particularly on powder days (i.e., snow would be tracked out sooner) due to more efficient access, increased use in the area and systematic skier compaction. However, snow conditions are anticipated to remain consistent with what is typically found in Vail‘s other Back Bowls.

Egress The Chair 5 upgrade would improve afternoon egress from Blue Sky Basin, Tea Cup Bowl, and some skiers/riders in China Bowl. The cross-mountain migration for guests opting for the Chair 5 egress route would be reduced by an estimated twenty minutes, when compared to the No Action Alternative.

Lift Line Waits Given the hourly capacities of Chair 5, Northwoods Express and the Sun Down Express, there would be a reduction in lift lines during the end of day east-to-west egress period. The increased capacity of the upgraded Chair 5, and installation of the Sun Down Express, would move more people-per-hour (pph) than under the No Action Alternative. The result of the combined hourly capacities of Chair 5 and the Sun Down Express is that there would be lift lines at certain times during the day, and on powder days, but in general there would not be lines since the hourly capacities of those lifts is sufficient to move the number of skiers projected to arrive at the bottom terminals of those lifts.

Skiers moving from the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin to the Front Side at the end of the day would need to ride the upgraded Chair 5 or Northwoods Express to get back to the Front Side; however, riding the proposed Sun Down Express would become an option under Alternative 2. Given that all three options would have similar capacities and ride times under Alternative 2, it is reasonable to assume that the skiers and riders would more evenly distribute between the three lift options. The implication is that, on average, there would be lift lines at Northwoods Express, but that there would not be egress lift lines at the Chair 5 and the Sun Down Express.

Egress Densities As a result of the changed skier circulation patterns there would be a corresponding, and significant, decrease in skier densities on the Upper Lion‘s Way Catwalk, just below the Mid Vail facility. Specifically, this would be attributable to skiers and riders having the option of riding the proposed Sun

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-18 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Down Express to egress the mountain, completely bypassing the Mid Vail area and descending straight to Lionshead. This reduction in densities on the Lions Way Catwalk would be expected to be quite significant and noticeable.

Finally, skiers and riders who unload the Sun Down Express would have the option of completely bypassing lower Born Free, an area that has high egress densities. Unloading the Sun Down Express, skiers and riders would be able to descend Eagle’s Nest Ridge to Safari/Simba, and to Lionshead or Cascade Village.

Sun Up and Sun Down Bowls Sun Down Bowl Terrain Density Analysis As briefly discussed in the previous ―Summary of Recreational Impacts,‖ compared to the average of 1.2 skiers per acre under existing conditions, the Proposed Action would yield a 2.9 skiers per acre density in Sun Down Bowl. This is due to installation of the Sun Down Express (with an uphill capacity of 2,400 pph), which would improve access to approximately 400 acres of the center and western portion of Sun Down Bowl. (As indicated previously, up to 5 skiers per acre is an industry norm for expert terrain.) Although higher than under Alternative 1 as listed in Table 3A-3, this is still considered a low skier density as compared to similar expert terrain at Vail that is lift served but higher than other Back Bowl lift served terrain. It is also important to note that the redistribution of skiers in Sun Down Bowl under the Proposed Action would result in a commensurate decrease in skiers in other locations (presumably on similar types of terrain) throughout the Back Bowls. Similarly, the average distance between skiers on the Sun Down Cat Walk would decrease (deteriorate) from 251 feet to approximately 37 feet, resulting in less space between skiers and riders as they take the cat walk to the bottom of Chair 5 and the Sun Down Express. Table 3A-11 demonstrates the anticipated contributions to Sun Down Bowl density from the surrounding lifts.

Table 3A-11: Usage Breakdown – Proposed Action Lifts that Contribute Skiers to Sun Down Bowl Estimated Percentage Estimated Number of Number of Skiers Lift Name/# of Skiers Going to Skiers Going to Sun in Lift Pod Sun Down Bowl Down Bowl Wildwood Express (3) 677 10 68 High Noon (5) 1,437 30 431 Mountain Top Express (4) 1,151 5 58 Northwoods Express (11) 1,204 5 60 Game Creek Express (7) 1,016 10 102 Sun Down Express 940 90 846 Total -- -- 1,565

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Because skier capacity in Sun Down Bowl is constrained by the Sun Down Cat Walk, the rate of skiers on the skiway is largely dictated by the hourly capacity of the proposed Sun Down Express and the upgraded hourly capacity of Chair 5. The analysis in Table 3A-12 demonstrates the use level of the Sun Down Cat Walk under Alternative 2:

Table 3A-12: Use Level – Proposed Conditions Sun Down Cat Walk Skiers per hour using skiway 2,880 Skiers per minute using skiway 48 Rate of travel (miles per hour) 20 Rate of travel (feet per minute) 1,760 Average skier spacing (feet) 37

Skiing/Riding Experience Regarding skiing conditions in Sun Down Bowl, it is important to acknowledge that Alternative 2 would alter the skiing experience from the current conditions.

By providing direct lift service, installation of the Sun Down Express would improve access to (and therefore utilization of) the full extent of Sun Down Bowl for a larger number of Vail‘s guests compared to current use. While access would be improved on the full 540 acres of terrain in Sun Down Bowl, the most significant improvement to accessibility would occur on the approximately 400 acres in the center and western part of the Bowl. Snow cover characteristics of Sun Down Bowl would therefore be expected to change, particularly on powder days (i.e., snow would be tracked out sooner) due to more efficient access, increased use in the area and systematic skier compaction. However, snow conditions are anticipated to remain consistent with what is typically found in Vail‘s other Back Bowls. This would be undesirable for the segment of Vail‘s guests who tolerate the existing, less direct access to Sun Down Bowl and the snow conditions that are associated with it. As previously stated, a density analysis indicated that skier densities in Sun Down Bowl would increase from the current 1.2 skiers per acre to approximately 2.9 skiers per acre under Alternative 2. This maintains a lower density (see Table 3A-3) and is still within the range that is acceptable for advanced, open bowl terrain.

Lift-Served Back Bowl Densities

While total skiable acreage would not change under the Proposed Action, the total area of Back Bowl terrain that is directly lift-served would increase with installation of the Sun Down Express. Sun Down Bowl would increase the total amount of lift-serviced Back Bowl terrain by approximately 300 acres—to a total of 2,420 acres (compared to approximately 2,100 acres in Alternative 1). However, since the total number of skiers on the mountain is not projected to increase significantly, it can be assumed that the total number of skiers accessing lift-served Back Bowl terrain would remain constant at around 5,300. Installation of the Sun Down Express would have the effect of reducing the overall lift-serviced Back

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Bowl densities as compared to the No Action Alternative, from 2.5 to 2.2 skiers per acre (or a reduction of 12 percent).

East-To-West Skier/Rider Egress

A benefit from the Chair 5 upgrade would be improved afternoon egress from Blue Sky Basin, Tea Cup Bowl, and some skiers in China Bowl. As identified in the Affected Environment section, existing uphill capacity of Chair 5 is inadequate for the demands placed upon it during peak days and big snow days, and Chair 5 is avoided due to its long ride time. The proposed upgrade of Chair 5 (from 1,400 pph to 2,400 pph) would cut the average amount of time it takes one to get from the bottom of Chair 5 to the top of Vail Mountain by more than half. This would be achieved by reducing the Chair 5 lift-line wait times (which have been documented at up to 40 minutes [per Table 3A-9]) to an estimated 6 minutes and reducing the lift ride time from 11 minutes to 5.5 minutes. This would result in an 11.5 minute trip to the summit of Vail Mountain.32 Thus, under the Proposed Action, the average cross-mountain migration for guests opting for the Chair 5 egress route (Route 1 identified in Table 3A-13 and on Figure 2-5) would be reduced by an estimated twenty minutes, when compared to the No Action Alternative.

The proposed high-speed Sun Down Express would complement Chair 5‘s east-to-west egress role. With an hourly capacity of 2,400 pph and a 6.2 minute ride time, the proposed lift would provide a critical cross-mountain link by providing a one-lift connection between Blue Sky Basin and Lionshead. An effect of the Sun Down Express installation would be the associated reduction in skier congestion on Flapjack and in the Mid Vail area as skiers returning from the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin would utilize more direct routes to the west (towards Eagle‘s Nest). Figure 2-5 presents Route 3 which provides another, more efficient egress route than the existing circuitous routes (Routes 1 & 2 presented in Table 3A-5 and Figure 2-4), thereby saving more than an hour in their end-of-day, cross-mountain trek (Table 3A-13).

32 The times given here are estimates only and are based upon lift design speed and capacity. Actual times will likely vary and depend on other factors (i.e., Sun Down Express utilization, weather, attendance, etc.).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Table 3A-13: Egress Routes – Proposed Conditions (Alternative 2) Figure 2-5 Time Figure 2-5 Time Figure 2-5 Time Egress Route 1 Egress Route 2 Egress Route 3 Reference (min) Reference (min) Reference (min) Egress Start at top of Chair 36 Egress Start -- Start at top of Chair 36 Egress Start -- Start at top of Chair 36 -- Start Descent to bottom of Descent to bottom of Descent to bottom of A 15 G 15 A 15 upgraded Chair 5 Northwoods Express Sun Down Express Chair 5 Wait 3 Northwoods Express Wait 10 Sun Down Express Wait 5 B H I Chair 5 Ride 5.5 Northwoods Express Ride 6 Sun Down Express Ride 6 Descent to Mid Vail C 10 Descent to Mid Vail C 10 Option 3a Option 1a Option 2a Descent to Base Areas F 20 Descent to Base Areas D 15 Descent to Base Areas D 15 Option 3a Option 1b Option 2b Descent to Base Areas J 16 Wildwood (Chair 3) Wait 5 Wildwood (Chair 3) Wait 5 E E Chair 3 Ride 3.5 Chair 3 Ride 3.5 Descent to Base Areas F 20 Descent to Base Areas F 20 Total Egress Time Option 1a 49 minutes Option 2a 56 minutes Option 3a 46 minutes Option 1b 62 minutes Option 2b 70 minutes Option 3b 42 minutes

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Egress Lift Lines By upgrading Chair 5 to a high-speed detachable-quad, the lift ride time would decrease. In addition, the increased capacity would have a commensurate effect on the lift line wait time (from what has been observed at an average of 19 minutes [per Table 3A-9] to an estimated 6 minutes). Chair 5‘s increased capacity would exhibit demonstrable effects on skier/rider circulation.

As based on design hourly lift capacities, an identified benefit of Alternative 2 is a significant reduction in lift lines during the end of day east-to-west egress period. An increased number of skiers would be moving from the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin to the Front Side at the end of the day. They would need to ride the upgraded Chair 5 or Northwoods Express to get back to the Front Side; however, riding the proposed Sun Down Express would become an option under Alternative 2. This is anticipated to be a popular choice, as it would be an easy descent to Lionshead from the top of this lift (as described above).

In addition, the increased capacity of the upgraded Chair 5 would move more people-per-hour than under the No Action Alternative. Given that all three route options would have similar capacities and ride times under Alternative 2, it is reasonable to assume that the skiers and riders would more evenly distribute between the three lift options as detailed in Table 3A-14 below. The number of skiers from each lift, and the allocation to Chair 5, Northwoods Express, or Sun Down Express, is detailed in Table 3A-14.

Table 3A-14: Skiers using Chair 5, Northwoods Express and Sun Down Express for Egress Reduced Reduced % to % to # to # to for for % % to # to Lift SAOT Northwoods Sun Northwoods Sun Egress not using Chair 5 Chair 5 Express Down Express Down Hour lifts 5 1,910 1,433 1,074 0 50 50 0 537 537 SD 1,250 938 703 0 50 50 0 352 352 10 940 705 529 100 0 0 529 0 0 11 1,600 1,200 900 50 0 0 450 0 0 14 860 645 484 95 3 3 460 12 12 17 910 683 512 33 33 33 169 169 169 21 1,920 1,440 1,080 70 15 15 756 162 162 22 120 90 68 90 5 5 61 3 3 36 1,190 893 669 33 33 33 221 221 221 37 1,770 1,328 996 33 33 33 329 329 329 38 520 390 293 33 33 33 97 97 97 39 1,000 750 563 33 33 33 186 186 186 Totals 13,990 10,493 7,869 3,256 2,067 2,067 Note: It is assumed that only half of the skiers skiing on Northwoods Express will still be there during the last hour of operation.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Table 3A-15 shows the theoretical allocation of skiers and riders across the three lifts and the corresponding lift line wait times.33

Table 3A-15: Chair 5 and Northwoods Express Egress Lift Line Wait Times Number of Lift Hourly Average Lift Lift People Capacity Line Northwoods Express 3,256 2400 16 Chair 5 2,067 2400 0 Sun Down Express 2,067 2400 0 Total 7,389

These are modeled lift line wait times, and are intended for comparative purposes rather than literal representations. As discussed previously, modeled lift line times are based on a comparison of the number of skiers/riders arriving at the base of the lift during the egress hour time period and the hourly capacity of the lift. The implication of this analysis is that, on average, there will not be egress lift lines at the Chair 5 and the Sun Down Express. This is a result of the combined hourly capacities of those two lifts being higher than the number of skiers/riders expected to arrive at the base of those lifts during the egress hour. Due to the randomness of skier circulation patterns, it can be assumed that there would be lift lines at certain times during that hour, but in general there would not be lines since the hourly capacities of those lifts is sufficient to move the number of skiers projected to arrive at the bottom terminals of those lifts.

Egress Densities As a result of the changed skier circulation patterns, and as described in the section above, there would be a corresponding decrease in skier densities on the Upper Lion‘s Way Catwalk, just below the Mid Vail facility. Specifically, this would be attributable to skiers and riders having the option of riding the proposed Sun Down Express to egress the mountain, completely bypassing the Mid Vail area and descending straight to Lionshead. The following table shows the calculation for the egress densities under the existing and proposed conditions at that specific point during the last hour of the day.

Table 3A-16: Mid Vail Egress Densities on Lions Way Catwalk – Existing and Proposed Minimum Width Skier Speed One Hour Egress Egress Density

(ft.) (fpm) (guests) (guests/acre) Existing 45 1,500 6,356 68 Proposed 45 1,500 5,322 57

33 Note that if the hourly capacity of the lift exceeds the number of people that will be transported by the lift during that hour, on average there will be no lift lines. Do to the randomness of skier patterns, there could easily be short lift lines during that time period, but on average there will not be lift lines.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

As portrayed in Table 3A-16, there is a 16 percent reduction in densities on the Lions Way Catwalk (from 68 skiers per acre to 57). This reduction would bring the density closer to typical ski run densities, which are often up to 40 skiers per acre.

Finally, skiers and riders who unload the Sun Down Express would have the option of completely bypassing lower Born Free, and area that has high egress densities. Unloading the Sun Down Express, skiers and riders would be able to descend Eagle’s Nest Ridge to Safari/Simba, and to the bottom of Lionshead. The Sun Down Express would also enable expedited access to the Cascade base area.

Golden Peak Race/Training Venue

Proposed projects at the Golden Peak race/training Venue would improve Vail‘s ability to accommodate training, races, and special events-all of which are gaining in popularity as demonstrated by the demand for this limited facility throughout the ski season. This would be achieved by enlarging the Golden Peak venue from 26.5 acres to a total of 71.5 acres, installing snowmaking infrastructure on new terrain (approximately 45 acres), and adding dedicated freestyle and mogul areas. This would accommodate FIS-sanctioned Women‘s Downhill events and a Men‘s Super G Course, and would allow for races and training to occur simultaneously, which is not currently possible.

Segregating skiers who are racing and training from the general public responds to the growing demand for competitive ski racing venues from various groups who are seeking more access for training and races. In addition, having a dedicated mogul training course on Golden Peak would remove this existing mogul training from Cookshack, which is desirable in terms of separating competitors, spectators, and skiing/riding public.

Snowmaking

The Proposed Action includes installation of snowmaking infrastructure sufficient to cover 33 acres of Simba, in addition to approximately 45 acres of new terrain on Golden Peak), thereby improving the efficiency of Vail‘s snowmaking coverage on NFS lands. With more reliable coverage, the resort would be able to open more of the front-side terrain, thereby improving skier circulation and reducing congestion problems in the months of November and December when natural snowfall is not typically reliable.

Specifically, snowmaking on the upper and middle portions of Simba would enable Vail to increase the available early season (opening configuration) terrain in this critical area of the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation mountain.34 This would provide for a consistent snow surface, facilitating skiing/riding during low snow years and early/late season conditions.

Guest Services

Mid Vail was identified as an optimal location for a new on-mountain restaurant to allow guests of all ability levels to access the facility. Because this facility would offer table service, as compared to cafeteria-style service found at other on-mountain venues at Vail, it would be expected to have a lower turnover rate (2 people per lunchtime seating) and thus a lower daily capacity—500 people on fair-weather days and 420 on days with inclement weather. This facility would increase Vail‘s adverse weather seating capacity and would provide table service dining, currently unavailable to guests.

Maintenance Facilities

In Vail accepted 2007 Master Development Plan Update, the Snow Summit area is identified as ―Zone 4 – Mountain Operations Center.‖ Supplementing the existing Snow Summit Shop is therefore consistent with what was envisioned in the Master Development Plan. The expansion of the Snow Summit Shop would allow centralized, on-mountain maintenance of Vail‘s snowcat fleet and lift operations, thereby reducing operational traffic between the top and bottom of the mountain and decreasing skier/rider interactions with maintenance equipment when compared to the No Action Alternative. When combined with development of the adjacent lift maintenance facility, efficiencies in travel time and energy expenditures for Vail‘s maintenance fleet would be realized.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is composed of all elements described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of the Sun Down Express installation and the Golden Peak expansion. Only those recreation resource sub-categories in which Alternative 3 analysis differs from the Proposed Action are discussed below.

A summary of Alternative 3 effects to terrain densities, skiing/riding experience, egress, lift line waits, and egress densities is provided here to assist the reader in reviewing this section.

Summary of Alternative 3 Recreational Impacts Terrain Density Analysis Densities in Sun Down Bowl would increase slightly from the No Action Alternative to 1.4 skiers per acre as a result of the higher capacity of the upgraded Chair 5. Skier/rider capacity of Sun

34 Currently, Lower Born Free is the only trail that Vail can ensure will be open for Thanksgiving and in years when continued snowmaking is necessary. Additional snowmaking coverage on Simba would enable use of the Eagle Bahn Gondola during the early-season.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-26 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Down Bowl would continue to be constrained by the Sun Down Cat Walk—all skiers and riders descending from Sun Down Bowl must use this skiway to return to the bottom terminal of Chair 5.

The total area of direct lift-serviced Back Bowl terrain would remain at approximately 2,100 acres under Alternative 3, since the western Sun Down Bowl area would not become directly lift-served. Average skier densities throughout the lift-served Back Bowls would be expected to resemble the existing condition of approximately 2.5 skiers per acre.

Skiing/Riding Experience Sun Down Bowl would remain in its current state, with no direct lift service. Thus, the quality of the snow—particularly on new snow days—would be expected to resemble the No Action alternative. Upgrading Chair 5 would decrease both lift line waits and ride times, resulting in expedited round trip skiing and riding of Sun Down Bowl as compared to the No Action Alternative.

Egress Alternative 3 would improve east-to-west skier migration over the No Action Alternative, however, without the Sun Down Express installation, this would be less pronounced as compared to the Proposed Action. Despite upgrading Chair 5, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction to lift line delays at Chair 5 and Northwoods Express, and continued congestion in/around Mid Vail.

Lift Line Waits The increased capacity of the upgraded Chair 5 would move more people-per-hour than the existing lift, resulting in decreased lift line wait times. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that skiers and riders would more evenly distribute between the Chair 5 and 11 under Alternative 3, given that they would have similar capacities and ride times. However, the combined hourly capacities of those lifts would not be sufficient to completely eliminate lift lines. Although shorter than the No Action Alternative, relatively long lift lines could be expected under Alternative 3.

Egress Densities Egress densities at Mid Vail would be expected to slightly increase as compared to the No Action Alternative as the SAOT of the Chair 5 area would increase and skiers/riders would not be presented with a method of bypassing the area (i.e., through the new Sun Down Express). High densities would be expected to persist and potentially increase.

Sun Up and Sun Down Bowls Sun Down Bowl Terrain Density Analysis The usage breakdown table below (Table 3A-17) details what percentages of skiers from surrounding lifts are assumed to be skiing/riding in Sun Down Bowl. These percentages are

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation determined based on terrain distribution as well as reasonable assumptions and observations from Vail staff. This type of skier density ratio indicates the overall number of guests distributed throughout the mountain facilities, including those guests that are waiting in lift lines, riding lifts or using milling areas and support facilities within each lift pod.

Table 3A-17: Usage Breakdown – Alternative 3 Lifts that Contribute Skiers to Sun Down Bowl Estimated Number of Estimated Number Percentage of Lift Name/# Skiers in Lift of Skiers Going to Skiers Going to Pod Sun Down Bowl Sun Down Bowl Wildwood Express (3) 711 10 71 High Noon (5) 1,508 30 452 Mountain Top Express (4) 1,208 5 60 Northwoods Express (11) 1,263 5 63 Game Creek Express (7) 1,066 10 107 Total -- -- 753

Dividing the 753 skiers in the bowl by the 540 acres of terrain available yields a result of 1.4 skiers per acre—slightly higher than the No Action Alternative at 1.2 skiers per acre, and considered a low density for advanced, lift-served terrain. It is again important to note that this redistribution of skiers to Sun Down Bowl under the Proposed Action would result in a commensurate decrease in skiers in other locations of similar terrain throughout the Back Bowls, because the total number of skiers on the mountain is not anticipated to increase.

Skier capacity of Sun Down Bowl would continue to be constrained by the Sun Down Cat Walk. As previously discussed, all skiers and riders descending from Sun Down Bowl must use this skiway to return to the bottom terminal of Chair 5, which would be upgraded. Since Alternative 3 does not contain provisions for direct lift service in Sun Down Bowl, the rate of skiers on the skiway is largely dictated by the upgraded hourly capacity of Chair 5 that transports skiers out from the bottom of the bowl at the same percentages as used in the above usage breakdown table. The analysis in Table 3A-18 demonstrates the proposed use level of this cat track.

Table 3A-18: Use Level – Alternative 3 Sun Down Cat Walk Skiers per hour using skiway 720 Skiers per minute using skiway 12 Rate of travel (miles per hour) 20 Rate of travel (feet per minute) 1,760 Average skier spacing (feet) 147

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

The average skier spacing in existing conditions is 251 feet, so Alternative 3 represents an approximate 58 percent decrease (deterioration) in skier spacing from the existing conditions (251 to 147).

Sun Down Bowl Skiing Experience Sun Down Bowl would remain in its current state, with no direct lift service. Thus, the quality of the snow—particularly on new snow days—would be expected to persist longer throughout the day, similar to the No Action Alternative. While use of Chair 5 would still be required to roundtrip ski Sun Down Bowl, upgrading Chair 5 would decrease both lift line waits and ride times, resulting in expedited round trip skiing and riding as compared to the No Action Alternative.

Lift-Served Back Bowl Density

The total area of lift-served Back Bowl terrain would remain at approximately 2,100 acres under Alternative 3, since the Sun Down Bowl area would not become directly lift-served. Despite the increased capacity of Chair 5 in this alternative, the total number of skiers on the mountain is not projected to increase. As a result, it can be assumed that the total number of skiers accessing lift- served Back Bowl terrain would remain constant under Alternative 3, at around 5,300. Under Alternative 3, average skier densities throughout the lift-served Back Bowls would be expected to resemble the existing condition of approximately 2.5 skiers per acre.

East-to West Skier/Rider Egress

A benefit from the Chair 5 upgrade would be improved afternoon egress from Blue Sky Basin, Tea Cup Bowl, and some skiers in China Bowl. As identified in the Affected Environment section, existing uphill capacity of Chair 5 is inadequate for the demands placed upon it during peak days and big snow days, and Chair 5 is avoided due to its long ride time. The proposed upgrade of Chair 5 (from 1,400 pph to 2,400 pph) would cut the average amount of time it takes one to get from the bottom of Chair 5 to the top of Vail Mountain by more than half. This would be achieved by reducing the Chair 5 lift-line wait times (which have been documented at up to 40 minutes [per Table 3A-9]) to an estimated 6 minutes and reducing the lift ride time from 11 minutes to 5.5 minutes. This would result in an 11.5 minute trip to the summit of Vail Mountain.35 Thus, under Alternative 3, the average cross-mountain migration for guests opting for the Chair 5 egress route (Route 1 identified in Table 3A-19 and on Figure 2-6) would be reduced, when compared to the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 3 would improve east-to-west skier migration over the No Action Alternative, however, without the Sun Down Express installation, this would be less pronounced as compared to the Proposed Action. Under Alternative 3, guests leaving the Back Bowls and/or Blue Sky

35 The times given here are estimates only and are based upon lift design speed and capacity. Actual times will likely vary and depend on other factors (i.e., Sun Down Express utilization, weather, attendance, etc.).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Basin (particularly in the late afternoon egress period) would continue to experience (and contribute to) skier congestion in the Mid Vail area. This situation would resemble the No Action Alternative. Despite upgrading Chair 5, Alternative 3 would result in a less than significant reduction to lift line delays at Chair 5 and Northwoods Express, and continued congestion in/around Mid Vail.

Table 3A-19: Egress Routes – Alternative 3 Figure 2-4 Time Figure 2-4 Time Egress Route 1 Egress Route 2 Reference (min) Reference (min) Start at top of Chair 36 Egress Start -- Start at top of Chair 36 Egress Start -- Descent to bottom of Descent to bottom of A 15 G 15 upgraded Chair 5 Northwoods Express Chair 5 Wait 5 Northwoods Express Wait 17 B H Chair 5 Ride 5.5 Northwoods Express Ride 6 Descent to Mid Vail C 10 Descent to Mid Vail C 10 Option 1a Option 2a Descent to Base Areas D 15 Descent to Base Areas D 15 Option 1b Option 2b Wildwood (Chair 3) Wait 10 Wildwood (Chair 3) Wait 10 E E Chair 3 Ride 3.5 Chair 3 Ride 3.5 Descent to Base Areas F 20 Descent to Base Areas F 20 Total Egress Time Option 1a 51 minutes Option 2a 63 minutes Option 1b 69 minutes Option 2b 82 minutes

Egress Lift Lines The number of skiers who would need to ride the upgraded Chair 5 or Northwoods Express to return to the Front Side would increase due to the increased capacity of Chair 5. The increased capacity of the upgraded Chair 5 would move more people-per-hour than the existing lift, resulting in decreased lift line wait times. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that skiers and riders would more evenly distribute between the Chair 5 and Northwoods Express under Alternative 3, given that they would have similar capacities and ride times. The number of skiers from each lift, and the allocation to Chair 5 or Northwoods Express, is detailed in Table 3A-20.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Table 3A-20: Skiers using Chair 5 and Northwoods Express for Egress Reduced for % to # to Reduced for % to # to Lift SAOT % not using Northwoods Northwoods Egress Hour Chair 5 Chair 5 lifts Express Express 5 1,910 1,433 1,074 0 100 0 1,074 10 940 705 529 100 0 529 0 11 1,600 1,200 900 50 0 450 0 14 860 645 484 95 5 460 24 17 910 683 512 50 50 256 256 21 1,920 1,440 1,080 85 15 918 162 22 120 90 68 95 5 64 3 36 1,190 893 669 50 50 335 335 37 1,770 1,328 996 50 50 498 498 38 520 390 293 50 50 146 146 39 1000 750 563 50 50 281 281 Total 12,740 9,555 7,166 3,936 2,780 Note: It is assumed that only half of the skiers skiing on Northwoods Express will still be there during the last hour of operation.

Table 3A-21 shows allocations of skiers and riders to Chair 5 and Northwoods Express the corresponding lift line wait times.

As has been previously discussed, these are modeled lift line wait times, and are intended for comparative purposes rather than literal representations. Modeled lift line times are based on a comparison of the number of skiers arriving at the base of the lift during the egress hour time period and the hourly capacity of the lift. However, the reader should note the very close correlation between the Chair 5 calculated lift line wait time here and the actual observed average time in the ―Typical Lift Lines‖ discussion, below.

Table 3A-21: Chair 5 and Northwoods Express Egress Lift Line Wait Times Number of Lift Hourly Average Lift

People Capacity Line Northwoods 3,936 2,400 23 minutes Express Chair 5 2,780 2,400 8 minutes

There is a noticeable decrease in lift line wait times for Northwoods Express (when compared to existing conditions), since more skiers would be expected to be going to Chair 5, but the Chair 5 wait time would not change dramatically, since the increase in capacity would be cancelled out by the increased percentage of skiers using the lift.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Egress Densities Under Alternative 3, egress densities at Mid Vail would be expected to slightly increase as compared to the No Action Alternative as the SAOT of the Chair 5 area would increase and skiers/riders would not be presented with a method of bypassing the area (i.e., through the new Sun Down Express). High densities would therefore be expected to persist and increase, as detailed in Table 3A-22.

Table 3A-22: Mid Vail Egress Densities on Lions Way Catwalk Existing and Alternative 3 Minimum Width Skier Speed One Hour Egress Egress Density

(ft.) (fpm) (guests) (guests/acre) Existing 45 1,500 6,356 68 Proposed 45 1,500 6,716 72

While this 6 percent increase would likely not be particularly noticeable, it would compound an existing, identified area of congestion.

Lift Lines Alternative 3 would require continued utilization of a multiple lift circuit (Chair 5 and Chair 3) described above and depicted in Figure 2-4. While access to the western half of Sun Down Bowl would be improved with an upgraded Chair 5, approximately 300 acres of the western portion of Sun Down Bowl would continue to be underutilized with Alternative 3, similar to the No Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 3, uphill capacity in Sun Down Bowl would increase by 1,000 pph, as compared to the No Action Alternative. As a result, it is anticipated that Alternative 3 would still meet the stated purpose and need for reduced lift line wait times at Chair 5 and Northwoods Express (Tables 3A-5 and 3A-13, Figures 2-5 and 2-6), although to a lesser degree than the Proposed Action.

Golden Peak Race/Training Venue

Specific to Golden Peak, Alternative 3 would resemble the No Action Alternative. Vail‘s race/training area would remain on the eastern portion of Golden Peak offering downhill and mogul, training and competition terrain. Racers/trainers would continue to have exclusive use of Golden Peak Race (26.5 acres) and share access to Chair 6 Lift Line, and Ruder’s Route trails, which would continue to be partially segregated from the general skiing public. Golden Peak is undersized for growing demand and activities such as the Super G course, however it would continue to host training and competition events similar to past years.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Front Side Terrain Snowmaking

Under Alternative 3 front side snowmaking is proposed to be identical to the Proposed Action (with the exception of Golden Peak) which would include infrastructure sufficient to cover 33 acres of Simba. Impacts are anticipated to be the same as discussed under Alternative 2.

Guest Services

The Mid Vail restaurant facility is proposed to be identical to the Proposed Action—providing 210 indoor seats and 40 outdoor seats—and accommodating approximately 500 people per lunchtime seating. Impacts to the recreational experience are anticipated to be the same as discussed under Alternative 2.

Maintenance Facilities

The expansion of the Snow Summit Shop would be the same as proposed for Proposed Action; therefore impacts resulting from the expansion of the maintenance facility would be identical as discussed under Alternative 2.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In a cumulative context, and by design, Forest Service decisions within Vail‘s SUP area spanning five decades have dramatically altered the recreational setting at Vail, 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 Vail‘s SUP area in 1962. Notably, 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. Other notable developments resulting from Forest Service decisions include:

1962: Vail opens to the public

1967: Golden Peak opens

1969: the Lionshead base area and Lionshead gondola open; Game Creek Bowl opens

1988: China Bowl opens

1998: Arson fires destroy Two Elk restaurant, Ski Patrol Headquarters (PHQ), and Camp One. Two Elk and PHQ reopen in 1999

2000: Blue Sky Basin opens

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Past, Present, and Reasonably-Foreseeable Future Projects

While not exhaustive, the following Forest Service decisions are included in this cumulative effects analysis because they represent some of the more recent projects that, when considered singularly or in combination with all other projects, have affected the recreational experience at Vail.

Vail Category III Ski Area Development Record of Decision, August 1996

The Record of Decision approved lifts, trails, guest service facilities, food service (indoor and outdoor), restrooms, ski patrol, and utilities. Many of these approved upgrades have been implemented, including four proposed lifts, 645 acres of developed terrain (out of a total of 800 acres that were approved), utility installation, food services (Bell‘s Camp warming hut and The Dog House hotdog wagon), and patrol facilities.

A 20,000-square foot restaurant was approved adjacent to Two Elk Creek, just west of Pete‘s Bridge. Vail has no plans to build this facility in the foreseeable future.

Chairs 10 & 14 Decision Notice, April, 2005

Highline (Chair 10)—a fixed-grip double, and Sourdough (Chair 14)—a fixed-grip triple, were approved for replacement in 2005. Both have since been upgraded to high-speed, detachable lifts.

Golden Peak Terrain Modification Decision Memo, August, 2006

The Decision Memo approved grading related to construction of the half-pipe on Golden Peak.

Vail Ski Area West Lionshead Lift Decision Notice, June, 2006

To date, this project has not been implemented.

Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain

Developments worth over $1 billion dollars related to future developments at Battle Mountain in Minturn, CO include a private ski hill, a golf course, lake, and 1,700 exclusive slope side homes. Originally conceived of by the Ginn Company, the future entitlement of this project is uncertain, and the timeline for these developments is unknown. While impacts to Eagle County traffic are expected, at this time, they are not quantifiable.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

As of publication of this FEIS, Crave Real Estate Ventures will take over the project. However, the current state of the real estate industry and general economy, as well as water rights for the project.

Golden Peak Snowmaking and Race Course Improvements Decision Memo, June 2009

The Decision Memo approved upgrading the existing snowmaking system on the Golden Peak Race Trail and Half Pipe to an automated system to facilitate early season race training and half pipe construction. Approximately 0.53 acre of aspen trees along the Golden Peak Race Trail are approved to be removed in conjunction with this project.

Vail Beetle Tree Salvage Project Decision Memo, June 2009

The Decision Memo approved removal of dead and dying lodgepole pine infested with mountain pine beetles on approximately 26 acres of National Forest System Land distributed throughout Vail‘s SUP area. As approved, the project includes salvaging timber in the following locations: Vista Bahn (Chair 16) and Avanti (Chair 2) lift lines. Dead and dying trees will be removed up to 90 feet on either side of chairlifts.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

All of the previously discussed projects have cumulatively affected the recreational opportunities and experiences at Vail. Example of projects that were small in scale but qualitatively important to the recreational experience at Vail include summer maintenance (e.g., snowmaking line replacements and grading, etc.). These types of projects are typically proposed by Vail in its annual summer construction plans to implement previous NEPA decisions or are approved via Decision Memos.

East-to-West Skier/Rider Egress

In the last two decades, the Category III approval and subsequent implementation of Blue Sky Basin has had the most dramatic affects on recreational opportunities and experiences. Over a decade after Blue Sky Basin was incorporated into Vail‘s lift and trail network, it has proved to be an extremely popular and successful addition. Blue Sky Basin increased Vail‘s skiable acreage by approximately 12 percent, and with it, dramatically changed the way that skiers and riders distribute across the mountain. It is acknowledged that the Cat III decision, and the resulting construction of Blue Sky Basin, is a catalyst for needing better end-of-day egress options from the ―back side‖ to the ―front side.‖ However, due to the sheer size/width of Vail‘s SUP area, east- west skier migration is an inherent issue that Vail has contended with pre-dating the construction of Blue Sky Basin, and dating back to the installation of Chairs 11 and 14 in the 1970s. To address this issue, mountain planners identified the Sun Down Express as a logical method of

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-35 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation addressing end-of-day egress/circulation needs—one that is within Vail‘s existing, developed operational boundary.

Out-of-Base Capacity

As discussed in the 2006 West Lionshead Decision Notice, the Forest Supervisor found it necessary that improvements be made to allow for better access Vail‘s up-mountain lift and trail network, as Lionshead will continue to be a major access point for the mountain. The current out- of-base lift capacity at Vail is roughly 10,548 people-per-hour. Implementation of the 2,600 pph West Lionshead Lift will increase Vail‘s out-of-base capacity to approximately 13,148 pph, resulting in a net increase of 1,520 pph and reduced wait times for guest access to the mountain. No change in Vail‘s ―Manage To‖ threshold would occur with implementation of the West Lionsheald lift. The approval to install the West Lionshead lift in conjunction with the two Action Alternatives being considered in this FEIS is inconsequential, as these projects area mutually exclusive (addressing ingress and end-of-day egress, respectively).

Guest Services

Table 3A-10 demonstrates that, on nice days Vail, has an on-mountain capacity for 19,044 guests, while on adverse weather days the capacity is 12,380. Thus, there is adequate seating on busy days when the outdoor decks can be utilized; while during inclement weather, there is a shortage of guest seating. In addition to adverse weather seating, customer survey data repeatedly identifies deficiencies in on-mountain dining opportunities (particularly on-mountain table service) at Vail.36

Aside from the Two Elk Restaurant, which was constructed in 1999 and replaced a building lost to the 1998 arson fires, the last on-mountain guest services facility to be constructed at Vail was Belle‘s Camp (constructed in conjunction with Blue Sky Basin). However, food service at Belle‘s Camp is limited, as is indoor seating (50 seats). As noted previously, Vail has no plans to build the guest services facility approved in the Cat III Record of Decision in the foreseeable future. Vail has an on-mountain capacity for 19,044 guests, and while there is adequate seating on busy days when the outdoor decks can be utilized, during inclement weather, there is a shortage of guest seating. However, None of Vail‘s existing on-mountain guest service facilities provide table service for guests, which is a need expressed in Vail‘s customer survey data. Hence, the proposed Mid Vail restaurant is designed to address this need.

36 Vail Resort, 2007

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-36 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Recreation

Snowmaking

The 2009 Decision Memo that approved upgrading the existing snowmaking system on the Golden Peak Race Trail and Half Pipe will improve Vail‘s ability to provide early season coverage on Golden Peak in a more efficient manner.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of the recreation resource has been identified in association with implementation of any of the action alternatives analyzed herein.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking

B. TRAFFIC AND PARKING SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The scope of this parking and traffic analysis is limited to the sections of the South Frontage Road and I-70 between exit 180 at East Vail and exit 173 at West Vail. This analysis describes the access routes to Vail and related traffic and parking issues at the ski area. The traffic analysis calculates existing and projected traffic volumes on the premise that the majority of Vail’s guests arrive via automobile, and that some locals and visitors use the free bus system. Proposed projects are not designed to drive additional visitation or subsequent increased traffic volumes.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Ski Area Access

Eagle County and Vail Mountain can be accessed by flying into Eagle County Airport or Denver International Airport, by car east/west along I-70 or Highway 6, or by a variety of shuttle/bus services. Visitors access Vail by exiting I-70 between exit 180 and 173 and taking the South Frontage Road, toward the Vail Village or Lionshead parking structures or to overflow parking along the South Frontage Road. The South Frontage Road provides access to lodging, retail and services throughout the Vail Valley. I-70 is Colorado’s major east-west travel corridor that provides access to Vail from the Denver metropolitan area (approximately 100 miles or 1.5 to 2 hours driving time, depending on traffic volumes), through Eisenhower Tunnel. Eastbound access to the ski area also occurs primarily via I-70.

It is estimated that 20 percent of Vail’s clientele is composed of day skiers primarily from east of the Continental Divide, another 20 percent are locals, and the remaining 60 percent are destination skiers staying in the area.37

Traffic

Interstate 70 bisects Colorado east to west and is a link in the national interstate highway system. I-70 is open year-round and maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).

Existing traffic congestion along I-70, particularly from Glenwood Springs to Denver through the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel, is degrading the accessibility of mountain travel.38 The need to relieve this congestion is heightened on extended weekends when travelers seek access between the Denver metropolitan area and US 40 (to Grand County), and through the Eisenhower Tunnel to the Western Slope. Traffic congestion is compounded during these times since these road corridors also provide access for freight, local residents, and interstate commerce.39

37 Town of Vail, 2006 38 I-70 Coalition, 2008 39 CDOT, 2004

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking

The South Frontage Road in Vail runs parallel to the interstate providing access to residential and business areas throughout Vail. The ski area, lodges, hotels, condominiums, restaurants, hospital, among others, contribute to vehicle use on the South Frontage Road.

As introduced in Chapter 1 (under the No Action Alternative description) the Forest Service, Town of Vail and Vail Resorts 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 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 the size and popularity of Vail; it will continue to be used as a method of addressing traffic and circulation related issues on peak visitation days.

Traffic Volumes

CDOT records traffic volumes on state highways and Colorado interstate highway systems. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the number of vehicles passing a count location in both directions in a 24-hour period. Raw ADT data is processed and converted to Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes, defined as the total volume of traffic on a road segment for one year, divided by 365 days. Both directions of traffic volumes are reported. AADT can be adjusted to compensate for monthly and daily fluctuations in traffic; the basic intent being to provide traffic volumes which best approximate the use of a given highway section for a typical day of the year.

Current and projected AADT for I-70 at mile markers (mm) 173 and 176 is displayed in Table 3B-1.

Table 3B-1: AADT Data on I-70 Design Projected AADT Percent Traffic Counter Location Hourly AADT 2007 Increase Volume* 2025 I-70 West Vail Interchange (west bound) mm 173 24,900 11% 37,226 50 I-70 Vail Interchange (east bound) mm 176 24,300 10% 35,891 50 *Design Hourly Volume is the thirtieth highest hourly traffic volume for the design year, commonly 20 years from the year of construction. Source: CDOT, 2008a

The I-70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic EIS analyzed the Level of Service (LOS) along I-70 from mile marker 172 to the East Vail Exit (mile marker 180) in 2000. An LOS A rating represents ideal conditions where traffic is free flowing. An LOS F rating is the worst condition, where traffic is stop and go. Between LOS E and LOS F ratings, roads operate at capacity, becoming congested by disruption to flow.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking

In 2000 east and westbound I-70 was operating at a LOS C rating, except eastbound on Fridays and summer Sundays when I-70 functioned at an LOS D rating.40

In front of the Vail Village parking structure the South Frontage Road is four lanes wide (plus a turning lane) to accommodate existing traffic in that area. The level of service reported for the South Frontage road is an “A” indicating the traffic is free flowing, and drivers can move as they choose.41

Parking

On busy days at the resort, parking demand is driven by skiers arriving in their personal vehicles, as well as the mountain’s employees, the village’s non-mountain employees, village shoppers and construction workers. On most days the existing parking lots are adequate and the supply meets the demand. On average, up to 30 days per season all parking areas were completely full and overflow parking occurred on the South Frontage Road, Ford Park, and/or the soccer field.42

During the 2007/08 season, overflow parking on the Frontage Road occurred on 48 days, compared to 25 days in 2006/07. Overflow parking at the soccer field, Ford Park, and Wendy’s occurred on a regular basis. Twenty of the highest car count days in the Town of Vail corresponded with peak skier visitation days. While the ski area can absorb this type of use, parking congestion has an obvious affects on the initial phase of the recreational experience.

The Town of Vail operates two parking structures, one in Vail Village and the other in Lionshead, with a total of 2,350 spaces available between them. Both parking structures charge for winter use and are free to summer users. There are ten other areas that are also used for public and employee parking throughout Vail (East Vail Interchange, Stephens Park, North Frontage Rd West Vail, North Trailhead, Spraddle Creek Trailhead, North Day Lot, Holy Cross Lot, Red Sandstone, Vail Mountain School, and the Wendy’s lot).43 As indicated in Table 3B-2, the two parking garages, combined with the ten other areas that are used for public and employee parking, provide a total of 3,031 parking spaces. Assuming average vehicle occupancy of 2.8 persons, these parking spaces currently provide parking for approximately 8,487 people. During the 2007/08 ski season, average daily skier visitation was approximately 11,000 guests. Generally, 60 percent of Vail visitors are destination guests who are staying and parking in local accommodations, rather than in public lots. While Vail has enough day skier parking on a typical, periodic deficits of parking (i.e., peak days) are offset by the Town of Vail’s free bus system (accommodating over 3 million users throughout the typical year), the Eagle County bus system,

40 Ibid. 41 TDOT, 2008; Mauriello, 2006 42 Town of Vail, 2008d 43 Vail Resorts, 2007

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking overflow parking on the South Frontage Road and Ford Park, and parking associated with lodging and private clubs.44

In December 2007 the Town of Vail opened two additional free parking areas, totaling 155 spaces, to ease public parking shortages created by increased construction activity; approximately 75 spaces at the former Wendy’s site and approximately 180 cars were allowed to park along the North Frontage Road in West Vail. I-70 road closures and crowds enjoying record snowfall compounded parking shortages in the 2007/08 winter season. Summer parking in the Town of Vail has also become a challenge, particularly on weekends and during special events.45

Future parking developments in the planning stages are discussed in the Cumulative Effects Section. Table 3B-2 details the parking capacities of each lot in the Town of Vail.

Table 3B-2: Parking Lots and Capacities – Existing Conditions Parking Supply Public Employee Total

Village Structure 1,150 -- 1,150 Lionshead Structure 1,200 -- 1,200 East Vail Interchange 12 -- 12 Stephens Park 15 -- 15 North Frontage Rd – West Vail 180 -- 180 North Trailhead 6 -- 6 Spraddle Creek Trailhead 12 -- -- North Day Lot -- 102 102 Holy Cross Lot -- 194 194 Red Sandstone Park 15 -- 15 Vail Mountain School 70 -- 70 Wendy’s Lot 75 -- 75 Total 2,735 296 3,031

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Traffic

Although Vail and Eagle County’s population and weekend winter traffic is projected to experience an increase from 2000 to 2025, the South Frontage Road level of service (LOS) is projected to continue with

44 Ibid. 45 Town of Vail, 2007 and 2008b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking an A rating until 2025.46 Conversely, traffic delays on I-70 are projected to increase from 2000 to 2025, decreasing I-70’s LOS. Winter weekends are anticipated to experience the greatest growth, with the most congestion occurring on Friday.47

Traffic along 1-70 is expected to increase by over 50 percent by 2025 due to continual growth along the I-70 corridor.48 The South Frontage Road will continue to be a main thoroughfare to lodging, retail and services throughout the Vail Valley. Traffic is also likely to increase on the South Frontage Road due to Vail and Eagle County population growth (projected at 35 percent and 33 percent, respectively, by 2015). Access provided by the South Frontage Road is projected to be sufficient through 2025.

Skier-related traffic can be expected to increase commensurate with a reasonable estimate of 0.5 percent increase in annual skier visitation at Vail (based on trends over the past ten years).

It is predicted that Manage-To number of 19,900 would be exceeded two times per year. As is the current case, Vail 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. Manage-To actions (defined in Chapter 2) may be implemented as warranted by the review of the subject day’s operational impacts.

Parking

Currently there are 3,031 parking spaces that provide parking for 8,487 people in the Town of Vail. Assuming average daily skier guest visitation is approximately 11,000 people per day, population growth in the Town of Vail and Eagle County, and increases in summer visitation, public parking shortages would continue to occur and are expected to increase in frequency. Occasional shortages in public parking and continued use of overflow parking would be anticipated.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – The Action Alternatives

It is not anticipated that authorization of the projects proposed under either Alternative 2 or 3 would induce additional visitation at Vail. The proposed projects would not change 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 Action Alternatives. Current congested conditions during peak travel times on I-70 and the South Frontage Road are expected to persist independent of the proposed project.

It is predicted that the Manage-To number of 19,900 would continue to be exceeded two times per year under the Action Alternatives. Vail 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 (defined in Chapter 2) may be implemented as warranted by the review of the subject day’s operational

46 Ibid. 47 CDOT, 2004 48 CDOT, 2008a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking impacts. Under the Action Alternatives occasional shortages in public parking and continued use of overflow parking would be anticipated.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 additional employees for operations would be necessary (85 under Alternative 2 or 75 under Alternative 3). Although public transportation is expected to be used by some employees, employees that drive to and park in the Town of Vail would add to the existing traffic and demand for parking spaces. The incremental increase in traffic related to additional employees who drive instead of using public transportation is expected to be inconsequential relative to existing traffic circulation.

The 45 acres of additional terrain at Golden Peak under Alternative 2 would accommodate existing and future training and events at Vail, and in most cases, additional terrain at Golden Peak is not anticipated to carry with it additional visitation. Vail already hosts a variety of special events at Golden Peak throughout the year and would continue to manage these situations on a case-by-case basis.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

None of the alternatives are anticipated to induce additional visitation at Vail such that direct or indirect effects would occur 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 study area are discussed below.

In a cumulative context, and by design, Forest Service decisions within Vail’s SUP area spanning five decades have dramatically altered the recreational setting at Vail, 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 Vail’s SUP area in 1962, when Vail 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 (as defined in the “Existing Conditions” section).

Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have potential to affect traffic volumes on I-70 and South Frontage Road include improvements by the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts, potential development of Battle Mountain into a four-season resort, and the on-going I-70 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) being conducted by CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking

Past, Present, and Reasonably-Foreseeable Future Projects Town of Vail and Vail Resorts Parking Projects

Future parking improvements being considered by the Town of Vail include up to 489 public spaces at the Lionshead parking structure, and a parking structure at Ford Park.49 Additionally, Vail Resorts is planning to develop a parking structure as part of Evervail which would offer 800 new spaces. This increase in available public parking spaces would better accommodate the current and future demand for parking surrounding Vail.

Additionally, the Town of Vail Public Works plans to construct 1,000 new parking spaces in the Town of Vail to alleviate the current 400 space deficit in parking for employees, shoppers, skiers, and locals accessing town infrastructure, and 600 spaces to accommodate anticipated future demand.

Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain

Developments worth over $1 billion dollars related to future developments at Battle Mountain in Minturn, CO include a private ski hill, a golf course, lake, and 1,700 exclusive slope side homes. Originally conceived of by the Ginn Company, the future entitlement of this project is uncertain, as is a timeline for potential developments. While impacts to Eagle County traffic are expected, at this time, they are not quantifiable.

As of publication of this FEIS, Crave Real Estate Ventures will take over the project. However, due to the current state of the real estate industry and general economy, as well as water rights for the project, the cumulative effects of this project cannot be analyzed in greater detail at this time.

Should it be realized in the short to long-term future, there are likely to be traffic impacts throughout the Vail Valley; however, fewer visitors are expected than at a public resort, and traffic into and around Minturn are expected to increase due to employees and visitors to the area. Because the future entitlement of this project is uncertain, the timeline for these developments is unknown. While impacts to Eagle County traffic are expected, at this time, they are not quantifiable.

I-70 Programmatic EIS

The direct and indirect effects analysis indicates that increases in skier visitation under all three alternatives would be insignificant to traffic volumes on I-70. However, traffic on Colorado’s major east- west corridor is becoming a major issue. 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 Draft PEIS 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

49 Town of Vail, 2008b and c

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Traffic and Parking demand over the next 25 years and beyond. The I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft PEIS was released for public review and comment on December 10, 2004, and received comments through May 2005. The Final PEIS is awaiting results from a collaborative effort to evaluate multi-model solutions to transportation issues along the corridor.50

The PEIS identifies that the need to relieve this congestion is especially acute for extended weekend travelers seeking access between the Denver metropolitan area and US 40 (to Grand County), as well as through the Eisenhower Tunnel to the Western Slope. Ultimately, the selected alternative that will be identified in the upcoming ROD is expected to result in greater accessibility to mountain communities along the I-70 corridor, benefiting Summit and Eagle County economies, as well as ski areas.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

Cumulatively, the previously discussed projects can, and likely will, affect traffic and parking in the Vail Valley. However, because the two Action Alternatives analyzed in this FEIS are qualitative in nature, they do not have potential to cumulatively affect traffic and parking resources.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of resources in relation to traffic, parking, and ski area access have been identified in association with either alternative analyzed in this document.

50 CDOT, 2008a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

C. SCENERY RESOURCES

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

Vail‟s SUP area and adjacent private land represents the analysis area for scenic resources. Analysis of the aesthetic environment requires an evaluation of the analysis area and its 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. The development of skier facilities, infrastructure, and developed trails on NFS and private lands within the ski area has occurred over the past four decades over which time the area has been managed as a winter recreation site. The aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes within the project area were considered in relation to the overall existing development/recreational theme of the resort and the Town of Vail. Vail has developed into a concentrated four-season resort, and due to its nature as a developed ski area, 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 to the scenery resource (see Figures 3-1 an d3-1A).

FOREST SERVICE SCENERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In addition to providing recreation experiences and the production of numerous resources, public landscapes provide beauty, which is a valuable resource to many Forest Service constituencies. This resource is explicitly recognized in law. NEPA requires equal consideration of aesthetics and science.

The Scenery Management System (SMS) was adopted in 1995 as the primary scenery management direction by the Forest Service. In brief, the SMS is a systematic approach for assessing scenic resources in a project area and developing findings to help make management decisions on the project. The system is founded on an ecological aesthetic, which recognizes that management which preserves the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community, preserves the scenery as well.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

Scenic Integrity Objectives and Landscape Character

People experience the scenic environment as an integrated whole, not as a series of separate objects. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be complete, indicating the degree of intactness and wholeness of the landscape character.

An action can cause scenic resource change that can be objectively measured. Viewer response to this change, although subjective, usually displays broad patterns of consensus. Thus, scenery impacts comprise both the landscape change and viewer response to that change. By assessing the existing scenic character of an area in terms of pattern elements (form, line, color and texture) and pattern character (dominance, scale diversity and continuity), it is possible to identify the extent to which the scenic character of a facility would exhibit scenic contrast with the landscape, or its converse, scenery compatibility.

The 2002 Forest Plan establishes acceptable limits of change for Scenic Resources.51 The acceptable limits of change of a particular area (e.g., Forest Plan Management Area) are the documented Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO), which serve as a management goal for scenic resources. SIOs provide a measure of visible disruption of landscape character and help locate and rank areas in need of scenic rehabilitation.

SIOs range from “Very High” (unaltered environment) to “Unacceptably Low” (extremely altered environment). As indicated in the 2002 Forest Plan, the SIO for Vail‟s SUP area is Very Low. This SIO befittingly refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” The frame of reference for measuring achievement of SIOs is the valued attributes of the “existing” landscape character “being viewed.” The Very Low SIO is defined as:52

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, changes in vegetation types, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped by and blend with the natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings and structures do not dominate the composition.

However, the Forest Plan states that all NFS lands shall be managed to attain the highest possible scenic quality commensurate with other appropriate public uses, costs, and benefits.53

51 USDA Forest Service, 2002a 52 USDA Forest Service, 1995 53 USDA Forest Service, 2002a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

SMS Distance Zones

Viewing distance is important in determining how change is perceived across a landscape. Distance zones are divisions of a particular landscape being viewed, and are used to describe the part of a characteristic landscape that is being inventoried or evaluated.

Immediate Foreground: This zone begins at the viewer and extends to about 300 feet. Individual leaves, flowers, twigs, bark texture, and other details dominate this view.

Foreground: This zone is usually limited to areas within 300 feet to 0.5 mile (not to exceed 0.5 mile) of the observer, but it must be determined on a case-by-case basis, as should any distance zoning. Generally, detail of landforms is more pronounced when viewed from within the foreground zone.

Middleground: Alterations in the middleground (0.5 to 4 miles from the observer) are less distinctive. Texture is normally characterized by the masses of trees in stands or uniform tree cover.

Background: This zone extends from middleground (minimum of 4 miles between the observer and the area being viewed) to infinity. Shape may remain evident beyond 10 miles, especially if it is inconsistent with other landscape forms. Beyond 10 miles, alteration in landscape character becomes obscure.

Accounting for the critical viewpoints, the SMS Distance Zones identified for this project area are foreground and middleground. The majority of the viewing public, for this project, is considered to be motorists on the I-70 corridor between East and West Vail. Based on the view of the project area from I- 70, two critical viewpoints were selected to be representative of perspectives of the project area. Due to topography and changes in the highway corridor‟s orientation, there are no portions of the project area that are visible in the background view from the I-70 corridor.

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

In addition to the SMS, the 2002 Forest Plan contains forest-wide standards and guidelines which apply to resources across the Forest.54 While the 2002 Forest Plan contains no standards for scenery management, it offers the following guidelines:55

Management activities should be designed and implemented to achieve, at minimum, the level of scenic integrity shown on the Scenic Integrity Objective Map.

54 A standard is a course of action which must be followed; adherence is mandatory. A guideline is a preferred course of action designed to achieve a goal, respond to variable site conditions, or respond to an overall condition. 55 USDA Forest Service, 2002a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-48 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

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.

Furthermore, the following information on the desired condition for scenic values is contained in Management Area 8.25:56

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 or by screening them behind existing vegetation. Facilities are architecturally designed to blend and harmonize with the national forest setting as seen from key viewpoints. Facilities that no longer serve a useful purpose are removed.

The 2002 Forest Plan further states that it is a regional goal to “provide for scenic quality and a range of recreational opportunities that respond to the needs of the forest customers and local communities.”57

The Built Environmental Image Guide

The Built Environmental Image Guide (BEIG) is a manual for the “thoughtful design and management” of the built environment contained within the National Forests by province.58 The Forest Service defines the built environment as “the 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 permitees.59 The BEIG places Vail and adjacent NFS lands within the Rocky Mountain Province. Site development, sustainability, and architectural character would conform to BEIG guidelines described for this Province.

56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 USDA Forest Service, 2001a 59 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-49 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A general overview of the project area‟s scenic character is provided, followed by more specific information on areas proposed for alteration due to proposed projects activities. Vail‟s existing lift and trail network, all related infrastructure, maintenance and guest operation buildings are currently meeting the SIO of Very Low.

Scenic Characteristics of Vail’s SUP Area

The cultural landscape in the modern Vail Valley is, and has always been, defined by recreation, which began in the 1960‟s. The evolution of Vail into a world class, four-season resort typifies this setting. The development of trails, lifts, infrastructure, and skier facilities has occurred on NFS lands at Vail since the ski area‟s inception in 1962, when its base area was established. Since that time, roughly 5,571 acres of skiable terrain have been developed on NFS lands within Vail‟s 12,500-acre SUP area. Vail‟s skiable terrain is currently serviced by 24 aerial lifts and 10 surface/conveyor lifts. Developed skiing terrain within the SUP area occurs on 193 named trails and within treed and open bowls. Thus, recreation contributes heavily to the sense of place.

The most readily visible portions of lift and trail networks on NFS lands within the SUP area are on the north facing slopes of Vail, to east and west-bound travelers on I-70. Most of the foreground to middleground area and the valley floor are privately owned. The majority of Vail‟s front side lift and trail network, as well as parking and guest service facilities, are seen in the foreground and middleground from I-70. All ski area-related guest and parking facilities are located on private lands outside Vail‟s SUP area.

The topography of the SUP area is comprised of steeps, large open bowls, basins, glades, and chutes. A well-balanced mix of predominantly south and north-facing slopes characterize Vail with distinct ridge lines providing definition to the natural bowls and developed ski runs. Elevations at Vail range from 8,300 feet in the base area up to 11,600 feet at the eastern extent of the SUP boundary. The mountain tops at Vail afford guests panoramic views that include the Gore Range, Eagle‟s Nest Wilderness, Mount of the Holy Cross, the Tenmile Range, and the 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‟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‟s current operational boundary area. Lodgepole pine within and around the SUP area, primarily below 9,800 feet, continue to succumb to mountain pine beetle outbreak. This mortality, in conjunction with approved treatment practices (see Forest Health analysis), will continue to affect the Valley‟s scenic quality in the near future.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-50 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

Vail‟s SUP area can be segmented into three distinct areas: the Front Side; the Back Bowls; and Blue Sky Basin. Vail‟s Front Side is the most developed area of the resort with 15 lifts, defined trails, numerous guest service facilities, and maintenance buildings. While guests can enjoy scenic views of Eagle‟s Nest Wilderness and the surrounding NFS lands from its north-facing slopes, the human-built environment is unavoidable on the front of Vail Mountain.

The Back Bowls, located on the „back side‟ of Vail Mountain, provide guests with a less-developed and more „natural‟ alpine setting. The area is removed from the busier beginner and intermediate trails and views of developments in the base area. Although the Back Bowls are fully lift served, visitors value the remote skiing experience provided by the scenic integrity of the area. From the Back Bowls‟ mostly south-facing slopes, the views of Blue Sky Basin and Mount of the Holy Cross are natural and continuous in the foreground, middle and background. Scenic integrity is only occasionally interrupted by chairlifts and defined ski trails (i.e., trails with a definite left and right edge).

Scenic Characteristics of Areas Proposed for Alteration

The guest services and maintenance facilities, Sun Down Bowl and Golden Peak are discussed in detail to provide the reader with information regarding the current visual characteristics of the project area in relation to proposed activities.

Guest Services and Maintenance Facilities

Mid Vail is located on the Front Side of Vail Mountain in an area that is already highly developed for winter recreation. Existing ski area infrastructure at Mid Vail includes the top terminal of the Vista Bahn (Chair # 16), the bottom terminals of Wildwood and Mountain Top (Chairs #3 and #4) and the Mid Vail facility. The existing Mid Vail facility was built before a high alpine architectural theme was established for the mountain which is seen in facilities such as Two Elk restaurant. All of Vail‟s existing guest service facilities currently meet the SIO of Very Low.

The Mid Vail area is situated at the bottom of steep treed and open terrain. The expanse of terrain above Mid Vail funnels ski trails into Mid Vail where the flatter slope accommodates an existing restaurant and three lift terminals. Most of flatter section of Mid Vail was cleared of trees and graded when the lifts and restaurant were constructed. The Gore Range is visible to skiers milling, waiting in lift lines, and dining at Mid Vail.

Although some facilities at Vail were built before an architectural theme was established for the mountain, new structures such as Two Elk restaurant were designed to exhibit influences of high alpine design techniques that reflect the western heritage of the Rocky Mountains. Individual building designs tend to avoid modern trends and are inspired by more traditional, historic examples. Materials are natural and indigenous such as: stone, log, timber, wood, or stucco. Detailing has been hewn, rugged, and less refined. The exterior and interior use of materials conveys simplicity and craftsmanship. When

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-51 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources appropriate, proposed structures will be designed to meet the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) guidelines using architectural design, colors, and materials that meet the Rocky Mountain Province. The design of the structures will follow the WRNF Design Process from the start to finish of design, including approval of the conceptual design.

Maintenance structures are generally located in areas that are not readily visible to visitors to Vail, or from private land adjacent to Vail‟s SUP area. The structures are screened by trees islands and built below ridgelines; facility color and designs blend with natural landscape characteristics.

Sun Down Bowl

Sun Down Bowl is a relatively open, south-facing bowl located within the SUP area immediately southwest of the Northwoods, Mountaintop, and Chair 5 top terminals. With a summit elevation of 11,250 feet, the Bowl is defined by a steep upper ridge to the north and a broad, north-south ridge line (Sun Down Ridge) that defines its border with Sun Up Bowl to the east. The majority of the Bowl‟s side slopes are steep with average grades of 40 percent. There are five distinct drainage heads within Sun Down Bowl that converge at 9,700 feet, where the Bowl narrows to a single valley roughly 150 feet wide. This stream then flows into Two Elk creek near the bottom terminal of Chair 5 at an elevation of 9,350 feet.

Sun Down Bowl cannot be seen from the north at any point within the Town of Vail or along I-70. In addition, Sun Down Bowl is not visible from any point along Highway 24 to the west and south. Sun Down Bowl is visible to skiers and riders from within Vail‟s SUP area; specifically, from the ridge tops and slopes of the Back Bowls and Blue Sky Basin.

Vegetation cover in Sun Down Bowl is similar to Vail‟s front side terrain and is typical of an alpine/subalpine zone environment. With the exception of a spruce-fir stand extending southwest from the summit of Vail Mountain down to approximately 10,500 feet, the area is a large, open bowl with slopes ranging from 10 to 75 percent. From an elevation of 9,800 feet and below, thick stands of aspen trees dominate the vegetation cover.

Chair 5

Chair 5 cannot be seen from the north at any point within the town of Vail, along I-70, or from any point along Highway 24 to the west and south. Portions of the Chair 5 corridor are visible to skiers and riders from within Vail‟s SUP area; specifically, those portions of Sun Up and Sun Down bowls that pass under the lift. Tree clearing associated with the Chair 5 lift line exhibits linear edges in the foreground view, common in lift corridors installed over four decades ago.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-52 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

Golden Peak

Golden Peak ski terrain is located on the eastern edge of Vail‟s front side within the SUP area. This area is clearly visible in the foreground and middleground distance zones to the Town of Vail (north of I-70), specifically Red Sandstone Road, Potato Patch area, Sandstone Drive, and to travelers both east-bound and west-bound on I-70. Predominately aspen with sparse lodgepole pine, Golden Peak exhibits substantial ski trail development. Slopes here range from 8 to 49 percent, with an average gradient of 25 percent.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1 – No Action

No changes would occur in Vail‟s SUP area that would affect the scenic environment. Management of the SUP area would continue to meet the SIO of Very Low. Previously-approved projects on NFS lands, however, may be implemented in the future, which would alter the scenic resource within Vail‟s SUP area. Previously-approved, unimplemented projects include: the West Lionshead lift, a Cascade cat route, and Blue Sky Basin Trails and restaurant. Implementation of previously-approved projects would be consistent with required Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the approval to protect the scenic integrity and will meet the BEIG guidelines and accessibility guidelines. Although many of the older structures were built before the BEIG was created, they may not meet BEIG if constructed today.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

Implementation of Alternative 2 would not represent an incrementally significant visual addition to the developed character of Vail. Vail‟s SUP area would remain in compliance with the SIO of Very Low. Mitigation measures and BMPs for Scenery Resources such as blending developments with the natural landscape character, installation of underground utilities, edge feathering, regrading and revegetation (further described in Chapter 2) would be applied where appropriate and in such a way as to minimize associated impacts to scenery resources.

Installing snowmaking on Simba would result in 4.8 acres of temporary ground disturbance which would be promptly regraded and revegetated. During construction periods and revegetation activities these activities would be evident in the foreground, middleground, and background view. As revegetation efforts mature over a period of three to five years, these disturbances would ultimately return to a condition similar to the present.

Guest Services and Maintenance Facilities

The addition of a new facility at Mid Vail would increase the developed nature of the Mid Vail area. The new facility would be visible in the foreground to skiers unloading from the Vista Bahn, those loading Chairs 3 and 4 and visitors to the existing Mid Vail restaurant and retail location. The location of the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-53 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources restaurant within a treed bowl and the topography of Vail Mountain prevent the restaurant from being visible outside the immediate area. Construction of the restaurant would require 0.4 acre of tree removal. The impact to the scenic integrity of the area would be considered minimal because of existing development and the limited viewpoints it will impact.

Vail‟s SUP area would remain in compliance with the SIO of Very Low. Mitigation measures and BMPs for scenery resources such as using design techniques that blend the restaurant with the natural landscape character, installation of underground utilities, regrading and revegetation would be applied where appropriate to minimize associated impacts to scenery resources. The restaurant facility would be designed to meet the BEIG and Forest Service accessibility guidelines. Final designs would require Forest Service approval prior to construction of any authorized facility.

Exterior lighting would be limited to those required for safety and emergency access minimizing light that would be visible from other areas of the resort. The lighting plan for the proposed restaurant would require approval by the Forest Service. BMPs and mitigation measures for Scenery Resources described in Chapter 2 would be applied where appropriate and in such a way as to minimize associated impacts to scenery resources.

The snowcat garage location would allow adequate screening from public view and generally only be noticeable to maintenance workers at the facility. Vegetation removal and grading (0.9 acre) associated with the new snowcat garage would contribute to the developed theme of the front side of the mountain. BMPs and mitigation measures are described in Chapter 2. Disturbance to the aesthetic environment on NFS lands due to vegetation removal and installation of the maintenance facility is considered negligible. The stated SIO of Very Low for the SUP area would be met. The snow cat garage will be designed to meet the BEIG and Accessibility guidelines.

Sun Down Express Installation

The proposed Sun Down Express, built in conjunction with Alternative 2, would be approximately 6,177 feet in slope length with a vertical rise of 1,608 feet, requiring a linear corridor between the bottom terminal (next to the Chair 5 bottom terminal) and top terminal (located where the Wildwood and Game Creek lifts currently terminate). Total overstory vegetation clearing for the lift corridor would be approximately 1.4 acres. The rest of the proposed lift alignment would be located within the open bowl where vegetation primarily consists of low-lying grasses and forbs. Ground disturbance (1.7 acres) would be evident during construction and directly after; as re-vegetation efforts mature over a period of three to five years, these disturbances would ultimately return to a condition similar to the present. The lift would be visible in the foreground and middleground from parts of Sun Down Bowl and Chair 5 and would be a degradation to the visual appearance, but would be consistent with what visitors expect to see within Vail.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-54 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources

While the final design is forthcoming, it is likely that two retaining walls would be necessary at the bottom terminal of the Sun Down and Chair 5 lifts. The retaining wall west of the Sun Down Express would be visible from the Sun Down and Chair 5 bottom terminals, but would be designed to minimize impacts to the aesthetic environment. The second retaining wall would be located along the streambed below the lift maze and would not be readily visible to visitors. The second retaining wall would not impact visual resources.

The Sun Down Express and associated ground disturbance and vegetation clearing would only be visible to skiers at Vail and would not be visible from anywhere outside of the resort, thus remaining in compliance with the SIO of Very Low.

Chair 5 Upgrade

Chair 5 would maintain its existing alignment, and be constructed and maintained using existing roads, minimizing tree removal to 0.3 acre for widening the lift corridor (CPTSB regulations), and installing the larger top and bottom terminals required for detachable lifts. The proposed Chair 5 upgrade includes regrading and excavating 1.4 acres around the top and bottom terminal locations to improve skier progress when loading and unloading the chairlift.

Golden Peak Race Venue

The proposed additions to the Golden Peak Race Venue would be located on a moderately steep and forested section of the front side, near the base of Vail. Under Alternative 2, Golden Peak race venue would consist of five trails and two surface lifts. The venue would be noticeable, but would not dominate the landscape as Vail‟s Front Side is the most developed area of the resort with 15 lifts, developed trails, numerous guest service facilities, and maintenance buildings. To reduce the visual prominence of Golden Peak developments, terrain and infrastructure should replicate the natural form, line and color of the existing project area.

Two visual simulations of Golden Peak Race Venue can be found in the Figures tab. Figures 3-1A and 3-1B simulate 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 is approximately 9,100 feet. In the simulations, the developed and undeveloped portions of the ski area are seen in the middleground view.

Based on the photo simulations, removal of trees to accommodate ski trails would be noticeable at the eastern edge of the front side of Vail. As proposed under Alternative 2 the Golden Peak Race Venue would necessitate removal of approximately 44 acres of tree removal on NFS land; grading associated with development of ski terrain and lift corridors; installation and use of snowmaking equipment; and a temporary and movable race shack. As revegetation efforts mature over a period of three to five years,

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-55 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources disturbances to visual resources would be minimized, and conditions would blend with the rest of the front side of Vail.

The lower surface lift infrastructure is visible on the lower trail of the venue. The upper and lower terminals of the upper surface lift can be identified in the southern trails of the venue; the towers of the upper lift are hidden from view on the west side of the tree islands. This aspect of the Proposed Action represents an unsubstantial, incremental effect to the visual integrity of Vail Mountain, and would remain in compliance with the SUP‟s SIO of Very Low.

While this project would result in an increased number of trails 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 of Vail, and proposed projects at the Golden Peak Race Venue can be implemented in compliance with the existing developed ski area SIO of Very Low. BMPs and mitigation measures for Scenery Resources would be applied where appropriate and in such a way as to minimize associated impacts to scenery resources.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 the proposed Chair 5 upgrade, maintenance facility, snowmaking, and restaurant would remain the same as proposed under Alternative 2. Impacts resulting from implementation of these four projects are anticipated to be the same as discussed under Alternative 2.

The Sun Down Express installation and Golden Peak Race venue are not components of Alternative 3, therefore there would be no scenic consequences associated with Sun Down Express or Golden Peak under Alternative 3. Vail would remain in compliance with the existing developed ski area SIO of Very Low.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

As noted previously, historic development of Vail for lift-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 original Visual Management System (VMS) and newer SMS guidance, the SUP area meets the stated direction for the Very Low SIO in the SMS. Many of the buildings on Vail were constructed in the mid 1960‟s to early 1990‟s (pre-BEIG) do not have a consistent architectural theme and may not meet the intent of the BEIG guidelines if constructed today.

Over time, pine trees on NFS and private lands throughout the Vail Valley (primarily below the 9,800-foot elevation level) will continue to succumb to the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Mountain pine beetle mortality, in conjunction with approved treatment practices (see the Forest Health analysis in Section 3J), will obviously continue to affect the Valley‟s scenic quality in the near future. The 47.5 acres

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-56 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Scenery Resources of overstory vegetation removal proposed in conjunction with Alternative 2 or 1.9 acres of overstory vegetation clearing as part of Alternative 3 are related to clearing for trails and lift corridors; however, pine tree mortality and approved treatments will further reduce the number of standing (live and dead) pine trees in the project area. Thus, the overstory vegetation removal proposed in the Action Alternatives must be considered in the context of historic and future mountain pine beetle mortality as well as approved practices that will undoubtedly alter the vegetative structure of the area. In short, the project area‟s scenic integrity will dramatically change in the near future regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Additional developed terrain and infrastructure in previously undisturbed portions of the SUP area would represent irretrievable effects to scenic resources on Golden Peak and Sun Down Bowl. However, this commitment of the scenic resource is not irreversible because facilities could be removed and, in time, areas could be reclaimed and revegetated, restoring their natural appearance.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-57 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources

D. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The scope of this analysis for social and economic resources summarizes current social and economic data specific to proposed projects at Vail, including economic and employment considerations and housing and population trends within Eagle County, Colorado. Proposed projects are not designed to drive additional visitation or changes to socioeconomic conditions.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Skier visitation at Vail 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 by 40 to 50 percent at peak times in the ski season.60 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, 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 related to both annual visitation and employment. In 2007, Eagle County had a year-round resident population of approximately 52,236, up from 41,659 in 2000—reflecting an approximate 20.2 percent increase. By 2015, Eagle County’s population is expected to reach 66,113, continuing the 20 percent growth in population over the next eight years.61 Current and projected population data for Eagle County are shown in Table 3D-1.

Table 3D-1: Eagle County Population % Change Town 2005 2007 2010 2015 (2005-2015) Eagle County 49,375 52,236 57,881 66,113 33.9 Source: RRC Associates, 2007

ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The total number of jobs in Eagle County in 2007 was 38,751, as determined by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.62 The Center for Business and Economic Forecasting projects Eagle County annual job

60 LSC, 2003 61 RRC Associates, 2007 62 CDLA, 2008

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources growth rates near 4.1 percent for the next six years which is considered very strong growth; after which growth is expected to drop to around 3 percent.63

The contribution of tourism in the state of Colorado is substantial, generating an average of $9.8 billion in 2007. Colorado ski areas contributed approximately $2.6 billion in revenues, which is more than gaming, cultural related events in Denver and commercial river rafting combined.64 Skiing is Eagle County’s major draw, as indicated by the fact that about 68 percent of the Town of Vail’s sales-tax receipts are generated during October through March. The Town of Vail’s sales tax for all of 2007 was nearly $18.9 million. Destination skiers are major contributors in this regard.65 In addition to generating revenue, the ski industry also supports Colorado’s job market, providing approximately 31,000 jobs, or about 14 percent of all jobs related to the state’s tourism industry.

Ski resort tourism spending plays an important role in the County’s employment and income. In 2000, services, retail, construction, and real estate were the sectors with the most employees. Vail has averaged over 1.5 million annual skier visits for the past five years, stimulating employment at the ski area itself, as well as in areas such as lodging, restaurants, and retail throughout Eagle County. At the peak of the ski season Vail typically employs up to 2,700 people on mountain. During the summer a limited number of lifts and restaurants operate, and employment decreases to approximately 500 people.66 Since 2000 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.67

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. From 1990 to 2000, Eagle County was one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, almost doubling (90 percent) in population over the decade.68 From 2000 to 2006 Eagle County’s population grew approximately 18 percent and total county housing grew 24 percent.69

The housing stock has an impact on affordability and availability of housing for all citizens in the community including resort and non-resort employees. According to the Eagle County 2006 Comprehensive Plan, 73 percent of Eagle County’s workforce lived in Eagle County in 2000. By 2050,

63 Eagle County, 2005b 64 Denver Business Journal, 2008; Walsh, 2004 65 Town of Vail, 2004 66 Vail Resort, 2007 67 Ibid. 68 RRC Associates, 2002 69 Colorado State Demography Office, 2007

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-59 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources the County projects 56 percent or 33,153 laborers will be commuting into Eagle County for work. Giving private companies incentives to provide affordable housing to employees has become a County priority.70

As of 2007, the Department of Local Affairs estimated that there are approximately 29,774 housing units in Eagle County; approximately 63 percent of those units were occupied as primary residences. Primary ownership was down about about 5 percent from 2000, indicating a slight rise in second home ownership.

Between 2000 and 2006, the average selling price of housing in Eagle County increased 60 percent from $325,000 to $519,300. The median sale price of single family homes increased 48 percent, town homes increased 56 percent, condominium prices increased 67 percent, and there was a 9 percent increase in mobile/manufactured home sale prices. Price per square foot of new construction has increased by 56 percent.71

Employee/Affordable Housing

Vail Resorts currently offers 1,300 beds for employees in Eagle County (for Vail and Beaver Creek employees).

In 2008 Eagle County determined an immediate need for 3,400 affordable housing units to close the gap between affordable housing that is available and what is needed in the County.72 By 2015 over 8,000 additional units will be necessary for employees within the County. Beyond concerns of overcrowding to share unit costs and rent requiring a high percentage of wages, employers are reporting worker shortages because of the lack of affordable housing in the County.73 Eagle County owns or manages three affordable/low income housing communities in addition to privately owned affordable housing complexes throughout the County.74

In 2008, Eagle County passed Inclusionary Housing Guidelines for residential and commercial developments that require Eagle County permits. The guidelines require providing a percentage of employee housing based on the square footage of the development.75

Zoning regulations in the Town of Vail require developers to provide employee housing equivalent to 10 percent of new residential developments and 20 percent of new commercial developments, as of 2007. Employee housing is deed restricted housing and can be provided onsite, offsite or fee-in-lieu.76 The Town of Vail plans to house 30 percent of employees working in the Town of Vail, currently 1,890

70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Eagle County, 2008 73 RRC Associates, 2007 74 Eagle County, 2008 75 Ibid. 76 Town of Vail, 2005

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-60 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources employees, in the community. The Town of Vail offers 79 for-sale developments and 745 rental units available to the public and 50 rooms available to municipal employees.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 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.77 EO 12898 provides that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 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.” EO 12898 makes it clear that its provisions apply fully to programs involving Native Americans.

Racial diversity has remained limited in Eagle County; 74.15 percent of the County’s population is white. The largest change has been the growth of the Hispanic community, which increased from 13.3 percent of the 1990 population to 23.2 percent of the 2000 population. Other groups, each contributing to less than 1 percent of the population in Eagle County, are: Black, American Indian and Eskimo, Asian, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Other, and people of two or more races.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1 – No Action

Economics

Under the No Action Alternative population growth in both Eagle County and Colorado’s Front Range communities combined with I-70 improvements, will likely influence skier visitation at Vail in the future. Selection of the No Action Alternative is not expected to alter socioeconomic factors that affect Vail.

Employment

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

Employee Housing

Eagle County and the Town of Vail are working to provide the necessary affordable housing and satisfy the current gap of 3,400 units. Vail has developed seasonal and long-term employee housing to help accommodate the employees they require throughout the season, and plans to continue these developments, as necessary, even under the No Action Alternative.

77 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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-61 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources

Environmental Justice

No low income or minority populations were identified as potentially being disproportionately affected in terms of Environmental Justice issues. Therefore, no Environmental Justice issues related to the No Action Alternative were identified to be analyzed.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – The Action Alternatives

Economic

Due to the scale of the projects included in the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3), implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 is not anticipated to affect the socioeconomic character in Vail. Vail’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 either of the Action Alternatives.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would include capital expenditures of approximately $30 million over the course of the next several years. Because the Sun Down Express would not be installed under Alternative 3, this alternative would cost approximately $26 million.

Employment

Construction of project components included in both of the Action Alternatives would occur across multiple construction seasons (e.g., lifts, snowmaking infrastructure, and the on-mountain restaurant) resulting in short-term, seasonal increases in employment in Eagle County. Due to the specialized nature of their lift installations, lift manufacturers tend to rely upon their own employees. However, other projects would be completed by local contractors and Vail Resort employees. Construction related employment is not anticipated to generate any significant change in local area population or housing growth trends. No significant secondary and/or induced employment related to construction projects is anticipated.

Direct, seasonal employment at Vail is anticipated to increase by approximately 85 resort positions as a result of the proposed improvements associated with Alternative 2. Seasonal positions would include 75 restaurant staff and eight lift operators. One mechanic and one electrician responsible for new lift operation and maintenance would be added as fulltime, year-round staff. This increase in employees represents a 0.03 percent increase in employees, from 2,700 to 2,785. Proposed components of Alternative 3 would result in an increase in approximately 75 restaurant staff, no lift operators, mechanics or electricians would be hired in conjunction with the upgrade of Chair 5.78 Thus, implementation of the Action Alternatives would minimally contribute to additional direct and indirect employment within the community.

78 Allender, 2008

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-62 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources

Given the anticipated levels of visitation and spending at 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

The restaurant component of the Action Alternatives would result in approximately 75 new employees in Eagle County. As discussed under the No Action Alternative, Vail has developed employee housing for a portion of the employees they require. Vail holds master leases and houses over 650 employees in an average ski season. Additionally, employees obtain long-term and short-term housing throughout Eagle County. Development of the restaurant component of the Action Alternatives would contribute to the number of employees needing affordable housing in Eagle County.

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 affected in terms of Environmental Justice issues. Therefore, no Environmental Justice issues related to the Action Alternatives were identified to be analyzed.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

By design, Forest Service decisions within Vail’s SUP area spanning five decades have dramatically altered the visitor setting at Vail, culminating in the developed, four-season recreational experience that exists today. This recreational experience is the main economic driver of Eagle County.

Past, Present, and Reasonably-Foreseeable Future Projects

Affordable/Employee Housing

To improve Eagle County’s affordable housing deficit, the Town of Vail plans to add 1,000 affordable housing units in the near future by evaluating several housing developments and a buy-down program, where homes are bought, deeded and sold to qualified buyers. The Town is looking for options to redevelop Timber Ridge employee housing and expand beyond its current 198 units. The Town is also in the planning stages for the Chamonix Property and the adjacent Wendy’s restaurant site which will focus on for-sale employee housing anticipated to development in 2009. Although the number of jobs potentially created as a result of implementation of the Action Alternatives is considered negligible in regards to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the additional employees would contribute to the need for affordable housing.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-63 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources

An additional 120 employee beds are planned to be built beginning in 2010 in support of the Arrabelle at Vail Square development.79

As discussed previously, Eagle County has determined an immediate need for 3,400 affordable housing units to close the gap between affordable housing that is available and what is needed in the County.80 In the near term, beyond Vail Resorts’ existing 1,300 beds for its employees, and the Town’s 198 employee units at Timber Ridge, an additional 1,120 employee/affordable housing units will be built in Eagle County. This does not account for future, unspecified housing projects at Timber Ridge and Chamonix.

I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic EIS

The I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic EIS will potentially lead to expedited access to Eagle County and is expected to benefit local businesses through increased tourism and commerce. However, the timeline for implementation of whatever emerges as the selected alternative is unknown, and therefore the cumulative effects of this project on the socioeconomic dynamic of Eagle County not quantifiable at this time.

Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain

As of publication of this FEIS, Crave Real Estate Ventures will take over the project. However, the state of the general economy, the real estate industry, as well as water rights for the project, are all uncertain. Therefore, the details of this project are speculative, and the short- and long-term cumulative impacts of its development are unquantifiable.

Future development of a four-season resort in Eagle County would undoubtedly impact economies throughout the Valley. Architects and planners have been engaged throughout a long and controversial entitlement process; and future site cleanup, construction, administration and management of these developments could multiply Minturn’s current budget by thousands.81 An estimated 776 employees would be needed to run the development, one-third would be hired from Eagle County; the remainder would come from Leadville and Lake County. The timeline for these developments is unknown; impacts to Eagle County socioeconomics are expected, but at this time are not quantifiable.

79 Vail Resorts, 2008; Town of Vail, 2008b 80 Eagle County, 2008 81 Rocky Mountain News, 2005

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-64 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Social and Economic Resources

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of social and economic resources have been identified in association with either Action Alternative analyzed in this document.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-65 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

E. WILDLIFE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

This wildlife analysis is tiered to the WRNF Forest Plan, as amended, and incorporates by reference the Biological Assessment (BA), Biological Evaluation (BE) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) report that were prepared in conjunction with this analysis.

As different animal species occupy different ranges and habitats, the study area varies for Threatened, Endangered, and MIS, as discussed throughout this analysis.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Threatened and Endangered Species

A BA was prepared for this project and is part of the project file and incorporated herein by reference.82 Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species that were initially considered in the BA included those identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potentially occurring on the Holy Cross Ranger District or potentially affected by management activities on the District. Those species identified include: Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Candidate species were considered as R2 sensitive species.

Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from numerous sources, including: USFWS recovery plans; Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) data base maps and reports; Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat mapping; Forest-wide geographic information system (GIS) lynx mapping coverages and snow compaction areas; personal knowledge of the Forest Service wildlife biologist preparing the BA; various scientific studies and reports; correspondence with USFWS biologists; and an extensive compilation of information contained in the BA for the Proposed Revision of the White River National Forest.83

The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, initially considered, was dropped from further detailed consideration because habitat necessary for its life requirements (snow willow populations) are not found within the project area. The one remaining species warranting additional discussion, Canada lynx, is addressed below.

Canada Lynx Environmental Baseline

The project area for Canada lynx is located within two Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs). The Eagle Valley LAU (LAU 20) contains 117,234 total acres, including 97,646 acres (83.3 percent) in federal ownership and 19,588 acres (16.7 percent) in non-federal ownership. The Camp Hale LAU (LAU 22) contains

82 USDA Forest Service, 2008b 83 USDA Forest Service, 2002a; USDA Forest Service, 2008b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-66 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

68,325 total acres, including 60,025 acres (88 percent) federal ownership and 8,300 acres (12 percent) in non-federal ownership.

Although native lynx have been extinct from Colorado since the 1970s, the State of Colorado released lynx in southwestern Colorado in 1999 and 2000 in an effort to reintroduce a viable population of lynx within the state. Location data generated from satellite and telemetry locations show that there have been lynx in and around the Vail SUP area since the reintroductions began.84

There are no reliable data available on the population status of lynx in the area, although it is generally thought that resident lynx do not occur within the project area but that transplanted lynx from southwestern Colorado regularly move through Eagle County. As of October 2007 three lynx have been confirmed moving through the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area, Cat III area, and the Jones Gulch area. Studies west of the Vail project area reveal both a continuous presence of lynx (which suggest the potential for year-round residency by lynx) and use as a movement corridor over the six years the area has been studied.85

Eagle Valley and Camp Hale Lynx Analysis Units The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) indicated that project planning should evaluate the effects to lynx habitat within designated LAUs exceeding 25,000 acres in the Southern Rocky Mountain Geographic Area.86

Environmental baseline statistics of lynx habitat in LAUs 20 and 22 are summarized in Table 3E-1. Combined, LAU 20 and LAU 22 show 21,848 acres of potential lynx denning habitat, 38,261 acres of non-denning lynx winter foraging habitat, 29,237 acres of ―other‖ lynx habitat, totaling 91,330 acres of lynx habitat in the current mapping.87 Roughly 1 percent of the lynx habitat in the LAU is currently mapped as unsuitable and 11 percent is mapped as denning. Non-habitat totals 94,231 acres. These values are consistent with the management thresholds required by the 2002 Forest Plan to help support lynx within the landscape.88 The Camp Hale LAU is currently under evaluation from the USFWS. Based on the draft Biological Opinion for the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area USFWS initially determined the Camp Hale LAU to be significantly impaired and non-functional to lynx during the winter months, November through April. Although the recommended habitat management threshold is met, the level of human use in the Camp Hale LAU has significantly impaired habitat connectivity.

84 Shenk, 2005 85 Shenk, 2007 86 Ruediger et al., 2000 87 The definition of each habitat type can be found in the 2008 BA. 88 Forest Service, 2002a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-67 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Table 3E-1: Environmental Baseline Status of Lynx Habitat in the Eagle Valley and Camp Hale Lynx Analysis Units: LAU 20 and LAU 22 Acres of Habitat in Acres of Habitat in % of all Lynx habitat Habitat Description Total LAU 20 LAU 22 in LAU 20 and 22 Winter Foraging 18,401 19,860 38,261 20 Denning 14,273 7,575 21,848 11 Other 19,141 10,096 29,237 15 Unsuitable 1,380 602 1,982 1 Non-habitat 64,039 30,192 94,231 51 Total Lynx Habitat 53,197 38,133 91,330 49

Lynx Habitat Classification of Proposed Disturbance Areas The mapping of lynx habitat on the WRNF was developed by the Forest Service with review by the USFWS. This mapping may undergo future modifications as new information develops. Under the current mapping, denning habitat designation represents all spruce-fir forests on all aspects with trees greater than 8.9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater than 40 percent canopy and all north- facing lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir forests with trees greater than 8.9 inches dbh and greater than 40 percent canopy. Winter foraging habitat designation is represented by:

spruce-fir habitats of small and medium size and greater than 40 percent canopy;

Douglas-fir types and mixed lodgepole pine forests of small size and greater than 40 percent canopy or with trees greater than 8.9 inches dbh and greater than 40 percent canopy on all aspects;

aspen-conifer mixed forests with trees greater than 4.9 inches dbh and greater than 40 percent canopy on all aspects; and

pure lodgepole pine forest of small size and greater than 40 percent canopy or with trees greater than 8.9 inches dbh and greater than 40 percent canopy on all aspects.

Other lynx habitat designation is represented by:

all spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, lodgepole-conifer mixed, and aspen-conifer mixed forests of all sizes with canopies greater than 40 percent;

pure lodgepole pine forests with medium size and greater than 40 percent canopy;

willow, pure aspen, and sagebrush within 500 meters of denning or winter foraging habitat; and

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-68 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

aspen-mixed conifer forests of small size and greater than 40 percent canopy. Ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper are considered to be unsuitable vegetation for lynx although lynx may travel through it on occasions.

Habitat Connectivity across Vail’s SUP Area While no key landscape linkages have been identified within the Vail SUP area, several have been designated nearby. The project area is south of the Southern Rocky Mountain Geographic identified linkage from Avon to Georgetown along the I-70 corridor. The closest designated landscape linkages are the Vail Pass linkage, Tennessee Pass Linkage, and Dowd Junction Linkage.

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

R2 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.89 The updated R2 Sensitive Species List was refined by the WRNF to produce a subset of sensitive species, including 2 insects, 17 birds, and 8 mammals that may be present or potentially present on the WRNF after an analysis of all sensitive animal species on the overall updated R2 list (refer to Table 3E-2).90 These species are considered below in phylogenetically ordered taxa (insects, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals) and discussed individually where appropriate.

Information on R2 sensitive species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from CNHP data base maps and reports, CDOW habitat mapping, personal knowledge from Forest Service wildlife biologists, various scientific studies and reports, field surveys, and an extensive compilation of information contained in the 2002 Forest Plan.

89 USDA Forest Service, 2003 90 USDA Forest Service, 2002a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-69 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Table 3E-2: Pre-field Checklist of R2 Sensitive Animal Species that Occur on the WRNF Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity)

INSECTS Great Basin silverspot, No habitat (Wetlands supporting violet populations) Speyeria nokomis nokomis Hudsonian emerald, Somatochlora hudsonica No habitat (Wooded ponds; not found to date on WRNF) BIRDS Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis Potential habitat (Closed montane forests > 7,500’) Flammulated owl, Otus flammeolus Potential habitat (Old-growth ponderosa pine and aspen) Three-toed woodpecker, Picoides tridactylus Potential habitat (Mature-decadent conifer forests) Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi Potential habitat (Open, upper elev. conifer forests) Boreal owl, Aegolius funereus Potential habitat (Mature spruce-fir & mixed conifer) Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus No habitat (Grasslands, agricultural lands, marshes, & alpine) Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis No habitat (Plains, grasslands) American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum No habitat (Cliffs, open habitats concentrating vulnerable prey) White-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus No habitat (Alpine habitat and upper elevation willow stands) Greater sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus No habitat (Sagebrush) Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, No habitat (Sagebrush and mountain shrub) Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Black swift, Cypseloides niger No habitat (Waterfalls, cliffs) Lewis’ woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis No habitat (Riparian forests) Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus No habitat (Plains, low valleys, shrublands) Purple martin, Progne subis No habitat (Old-growth aspen) Brewer’s sparrow, Spizella breweri No habitat (Sagebrush and other structurally similar shrublands) Sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli No habitat (Low elevation big sagebrush and sage/greasewood) MAMMALS American marten, Martes americana Present (Conifer forests) Pygmy shrew, Microsorex hoyi montanus No habitat (Variety of subalpine habitats) Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes No habitat (Forests/woodlands to 7,500 ft.; unknown on WRNF Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum No habitat (Cliffs, arid terrain) Townsend’s big-eared bat, No habitat (Structures, tree cavities <9,500 ft.) Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii North American wolverine, Gulo gulo luscus Historical documentation, likely extinct on the forest River otter, Lutra canadensis No habitat (Year-round open water and streamflows of ≥ 10 cfs Big Horn Sheep, Ovis canadensis canadensis No habitat (Isolated herds throughout the WRNF) Note: Other R2 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, and/or the Action Alternatives would have no impact on those species or their habitats. Potential pre-field survey occurrence on the project area, potential for project effects, and habitat affinity is summarized for each species. Species in bold are potentially present and/or are discussed in the text. Animals are listed phylogenetically. Source: Forest Service, 2008c

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-70 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Insects

One species of R2 sensitive insects, Great Basin silverspot butterfly (Speyeria nokomis nokomis), is potentially present on the WRNF (refer to Table 3E-2).91 Neither of these species has potential habitat within the area of influence of the project area nor have known distributions overlapping the WRNF.

Birds

Seventeen species of sensitive birds are known or expected to occur on the WRNF (refer to Table 3E-2).92 Twelve of these species have not been documented in the project area and/or are associated with habitats that are not found in the project area, or are not documented within the area. These 12 species include: ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus), black swift (Cypseloides niger), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), purple martin (Progne subis), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus), Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli). The following five bird species are potentially present in the study area.

Northern Goshawk Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) are a forest-interior species generally associated with aspen and conifer forests between 7,500 and 11,300 feet. Goshawks nest in mature to old-growth aspen, mixed aspen and coniferous forests with a depauperate understory on gently sloping north or east aspects near the bottom of stream courses. On the WRNF nests are mostly found in mixed aspen stands. Migrants and winter residents are found in all types on coniferous and riparian forests and occasionally in shrublands. Nests may be reused in subsequent years.

Timber management, especially overstory removal, may alter stand structure sufficiently to eliminate the necessary stand structure for nesting. While the size of the stand may be small (down to 10 acres), the need for adequate canopy closure and other structural characteristics may limit availability of nest sites. Adjacent stands of some canopy cover are necessary during the post-fledging period, which may also be impacted by timber harvesting. Impacts to foraging habitat are generally of lower importance since the species used all adjacent vegetation types for foraging. While they may seem to prefer areas of some canopy cover, they are known to hunt in open habitats.

No nest sites or territories have been detected in the proposed disturbance areas. Goshawks have been detected occasionally hunting developed portions of Breckenridge, Vail, Ski Cooper, and Powderhorn ski areas. Based on the distribution of habitats around the project area much of the proposed project area is potential nesting habitat.

91 USDA Forest Service, 2003 92 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-71 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Flammulated Owl Flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) prefer aspen and aspen conifer stands with adequate canopy closure and nest cavity sites. They are most commonly found in the southwest portion of the state, although during the breeding season, the owls are restricted to montane forests such as those found in the WRNF. No nest sites have been documented within the proposed project area; however, there is suitable nesting habitat available in the Golden Peak action area.

Boreal Owl Boreal owls (Aegolius funereus) are uncommon residents of Colorado’s mountains, 16 individuals have been documented throughout the WRNF. Populations are thought to be currently stable in Colorado, and the WRNF. They inhabit mature and late-succession (greater than 150 years old) spruce-fir, spruce-fir/ lodgepole pine, and aspen forests interspersed with small meadows, streams, and wetlands, mainly above 9,000 feet. The forest structure provides nest cavities and the more mesic communities generally support higher small rodent populations. Approximately 367,000 acres of mature and old growth spruce-fir suitable habitat exists on the forest. Year-round home ranges for two males varied from 3,447 to 3,894 acres and overlapped each other by over 90 percent. Boreal owls are tolerant of human and machine noise; there is no evidence that human disturbance is an important factor in boreal owl nest loss or movements.

Boreal owls have been identified in the Cat III area by FS biologist. There is sufficient habitat for the boreal owl throughout Vail Ski area. And based on structural characteristics of some conifer stands in the project area, presence of owls can be assumed.

Three-Toed Woodpecker Three-toed woodpeckers (Picoides tridactylus) prefer spruce-fir forest especially where there have been fires or die-offs between elevations of 7,000 and 12,000 feet. Elsewhere, they occur at low densities, even in old-growth stands. Reported densities range from one pair per 35 to 106 acres. This cavity nester is generally associated with spruce-fir forests, but also occurs in spruce, tamarack, pine, cedar and aspen forests supporting high insect populations. Where insect populations are high, it may also occur in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine forests. Kingery et al. speculated that fire suppression has led to forest conditions favorable to wood-boring insect infestations that this species feeds on.93 This suggests that the Colorado population is fairly near historic high densities in unburned forests, but does not support an abundance of high-density populations that occur after fires, although the recent pine beetle infestation in Summit County has extended suitable habitat patches for this species.

Three-toed woodpeckers have been detected using suitably mature and senescent spruce-fir and lodgepole forests in developed and undeveloped ski terrain in portions of Breckenridge, Vail, Monarch,

93 Kingery, 1998

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-72 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Beaver Creek, Copper Mountain, Wolf Creek, and Durango Mountain Ski Areas. While habitat fragmentation may affect this species on ski areas, it does not exclude them.

Olive-Sided Flycatcher Olive-sided flycatchers (Contopus cooperi) are uncommon summer residents of Colorado’s higher mountains and migrants through lower elevations. Requisite habitat components for this species are snags and conifers. In Colorado, they breed from 7,000 to 11,000 feet, preferring open areas and edges that provide habitat for foraging. Generally, nesting habitat does not have a dense canopy closure. They occur less frequently in deciduous or mixed aspen/conifer forest, but as part of their breeding territory they use aspen clear cuts in patches where remnant snags and spruce trees remain.

Olive-sided flycatchers are confirmed breeders at Vail, occupying both developed and undeveloped ski terrain.

Mammals

Eight species of R2 sensitive mammals occur or are expected to occur on the WRNF (refer to Table 3E-2).94 One of those species, American marten (Martes Americana) is present within the project area. Marten are addressed below. The remaining seven species have not been detected on or near the project area, do not have affinities to project area habitats, and/or have elevation and/or distributional ranges that do not overlap the project area. These species include: spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), and river otter (Lutra canadensis), pygmy shrew (sorex hoyi), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis).

American Marten Martens are boreal weasels closely associated with dense, late-successional, spruce-fir forests in Colorado, although their seasonal distribution also extends upward into the alpine and down into lodgepole pine forests and coniferous riparian corridors. Complex physical habitat structure, particularly on the forest floor, provides three important microhabitat functions: access to subnivian space for foraging and resting, escape cover, and thermal protection. Such structure might be in the form of logs, rock piles/outcrops, stumps, windthrown trees, slash, boulder fields, and squirrel middens. Martens generally avoid habitats lacking overhead cover, including large clearcuts, burns, and meadows. Excluding marten use of talus and alpine boulder fields, openings in the range of 100 to 300 meters wide are the largest that martens are known to cross.

Marten primarily eat red-backed voles, other voles, pine and ground squirrels, and other small mammals, but will opportunistically eat insects, birds, fruits, and nuts. Martens are mainly crepuscular and nocturnal, are active year-round, and may forage on the ground or in trees, except during periods of

94 USDA Forest Service, 2003a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-73 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife severe winter weather. Their movements respond to prey availability, but they do not exhibit seasonal or altitudinal migrations.

Home range size varies widely among reported studies, due to sex, geographic area, prey abundance, and habitat characteristics, including type and degree of forest fragmentation. Home ranges are larger for males, larger in areas of reduced prey availability or abundance, and larger in more fragmented landscapes. In Wyoming, the closest study area to Colorado in which marten home ranges were measured, males averaged 494 to 791 acres and females 198 acres. Marten have been documented on the WRNF.

Management Indicator Species

The Forest Service uses MIS to provide a means to monitor selected issues on the Forest as required by regulation. MIS are those species whose response to management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a larger group of species with similar habitat requirements. In addition, selected MIS should be those whose change in population would be directly attributable to the management action. MIS are meant to be a WRNF-wide issue. Project-level activities are evaluated in relation to how they affect Forest-wide population and habitat trends.

Forest-wide Goals and Objectives for MIS:

Since the establishment of the original 16 MIS in the 2002 Forest Plan, there have been advancements in MIS knowledge and application, including a Region 2 clarification of the selection criteria found in the 1982 National Forest Management Act planning regulations. Based on that clarification, the WRNF conducted a MIS data review involving the 16 original MIS. The goal of the review was to determine the usefulness of each species as a MIS and the practicality of monitoring population trend for each based on species biology, available methodologies, and effectiveness. The 2005 MIS review found that several species on the 2002 MIS list do not serve strong roles as indicators of major management activities’ effects or of ecosystem change. Several of these species do not respond to the criteria for selecting MIS and do not indicate a well defined range of habitat. For some species the effects of management activities are difficult to determine because of the infeasibility and ineffectiveness of collecting monitoring data at appropriate scales. Populations of several MIS are strongly influenced by factors in addition to direct habitat change. For those MIS, population changes are difficult to interpret in relation to management actions. As a result of a 2005 MIS review, the WRNF MIS list was updated.

Monitoring protocols (on file at the WRNF Supervisor’s Office in Glenwood Springs) have been developed for each MIS on the Forest to obtain the data elements necessary to meet the intent of the regulations defining MIS. Results of the annual monitoring program are included in the Forest-wide Monitoring Report as a portion of the 2002 Forest Plan. Population and habitat trends for all MIS will be reflected in this report and will guide future WRNF management programs.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-74 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

MIS Evaluated

From the revised list of Forest-wide MIS, effective March 1, 2006, American elk (Cervus elaphus), was identified as project MIS, based on 2002 Forest Plan selection criteria and the presence or potential occurrence of these organisms and their habitats on NFS lands within or adjacent to the project area. This species is discussed below. As demonstrated in Table 3E-3, other MIS were not selected as project MIS because they do not occur on NFS lands in the project area and they and their associated habitats on NFS lands would not be affected by any proposed activities. Species not selected as project MIS include cave bats (no caves present or affected), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri, no sagebrush present or affected), Virginia’s warbler (Vermivora Virginia no scrub oak, pinyon juniper brushland present or affected), and American Pipit (Anthus rubescen, no alpine grassland present or affected). Table 3E-3 summarizes the analysis and rationale of the MIS evaluation for the Proposed Action.

Table 3E-3: White River National Forest Management Indicator Species and their Potential to Occur in the Project Area Monitoring Question Identified in Habitat Occupied by Species? Are species

2002 Forest Plan Revision and habitat present in the analysis area? Elk Does Forest motorized and non-motorized Wide range of forest and non-forest travel and recreation management result in habitats; effective use of habitat by large Species Presence: Yes ungulates?‖ Habitat Presence: Yes Cave Bats Are caves being managed so that bat Caves, abandoned mines; species will continue to use the caves, and Species Presence: No maintain populations in the areas adjacent Habitat Presence: No to the caves?‖ American Pipit ―Is the alpine grassland habitat being Alpine Grassland; managed to provide habitat for those Species Presence: No species dependent or strongly associated Habitat Presence: No with alpine grassland habitat?‖ Brewer’s Sparrow ―Is sagebrush habitat being managed Sagebrush; adequately to provide the quality and Species Presence: No quantity of habitat for species dependent or Habitat Presence: No strongly associated with sagebrush?‖ Virginia’s Warbler ―Does forest management maintain Dense Shrub Habitats; populations of species dependent on dense Species Presence: No shrub habitat dispersed throughout the Habitat Presence: No shrub cover types?‖ Source: USDA Forest Service, 2008d

American Elk Forest and District Level Information

Elk habitat on the WRNF includes all of the dominant vegetation types, and most of the other types found in the Southern Rocky Mountains. The WRNF provides most of the summer range for the herds in the general area. Certain areas in the extreme lower elevations of the Forest are used as winter or

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-75 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife transitional range, but the vast majority of the winter range occurs off the Forest. Winter range is considered the most limiting seasonal range for most elk populations on the Forest.

The State of Colorado has responsibility for the management of wildlife populations. The CDOW has specific elk management goals and objectives that have been developed in cooperation with landowners, the public and federal land management agencies. These plans help guide the State’s direction in the management of elk. Periodically these plans are updated to cover land management changes, new social perspectives, and changes in elk populations. The CDOW estimates population numbers of elk and sets management objectives for elk in units referred to as Data Analysis Unit (DAU). The WRNF contains portions of the following elk DAUs: E6, E12, E13, E14, E15, and E16. These DAUs are located in the northwestern part of Colorado, and cover 10,873 square miles. Approximately 3,853 square miles (2,465,920 acres; 35 percent) of these DAUs are found within the proclaimed boundary of the WRNF.

Project-Level Information

The Vail project area is in DAU E-16, which comprises 1,377 square miles—a triangle of land from Glenwood Springs to Aspen to Vail. Approximately 1,043 square miles of DAU E-16 is on the WRNF. Private land in the north and west portion of the DAU are heavily developed as private home sites. The Hunter Frying Pan Wilderness and Holy Cross Wilderness are both located within this DAU. Approximately 40 percent of the herd’s winter range is on the WRNF. Bull elk harvest has remained stable over the past ten years, and bull-to-cow ratios have slightly increased over that time. However the calf-to-cow ratio is low and has declined over the past five years likely due to possibly due to drought conditions, increased recreation use of public lands in the DAU, and increased development of private lands in the DAU. The current elk population objective for DAU E-16 is 5,100 elk post-hunting season. From 1998 to 2007 the herd’s population declined 27 percent from 10,595 to 7,696 as a result of active management. The DAU E-16 herd remains above the population objective.

Elk were selected as a MIS to answer the question ―Does Forest motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation management result in effective use of habitat by ungulates?‖ Forest-wide, the elk population is increasing, but the population is decreasing in some areas as a result of intentional management (e.g., DAU E-16). Per the 2002 Forest Plan, elk habitat quantity across the WRNF is expected to remain stable, habitat quality is expected to remain stable, and the future elk population trend is unknown. Part of the uncertainty with future population trends is that elk numbers are affected by weather and hunting levels that are independent of Forest Service control. The main MIS concern for elk is habitat effectiveness and their ability to disperse across the Forest. Elk were selected as a project-level MIS for this analysis because elk are seasonally present on Vail. The Forest Service is implementing the elk monitoring protocol (on file at the WRNF Supervisor’s Office in Glenwood Springs), in cooperation with the CDOW, to monitor population and habitats trends across the WRNF. This species was not chosen as a MIS because of any viability concerns, there is not a viability concern for this species on the WRNF, viability is not expected to become a concern through implementation of this project or continued

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-76 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife implementation of the 2002 Forest Plan, and viability of this MIS will not be addressed further in this document. Elk life history information is contained in the project file.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail, as described above. Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been considered in prior documents and are considered herein as part of the environmental baseline. The current status of animal species and groups and how they have been affected by conditions under this alternative are described above in the Affected Environment section.

The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct or indirect impacts or benefits to the animals and their habitats addressed in this document, and Vail would continue operating as it does currently. Alternative 1 would have no impact on any listed or proposed animal species or designated critical habitat, no impact on any R2 sensitive animal species, and would be consistent with all applicable WRNF standards and guidelines, as amended, the management objective, and Forest direction for project MIS.95

Alternative 2 Forest Plan Consistency

A Forest Plan Consistency Analysis indicated that Alternative 2 – Proposed Action is consistent with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, management objectives, and WRNF direction for wildlife resources.96

Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

The Proposed Action would have no direct or indirect impacts on the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly. Species warranting additional discussion, the Canada lynx, is addressed below.

Canada Lynx Evaluation of potential project effects on lynx is assessed with respect to relevant conservation measures recommended in the 2002 Forest Plan, including maintaining suitable foraging and denning habitat, maintaining diurnal security areas, and maintaining habitat connectivity within and between LAUs.97 Alternative 2 components would be contained within the existing SUP area, within the existing development area boundary where lynx habitat is already highly dissected developed and heavily used by winter recreationists.

95 USDA Forest Service, 2002a 96 USDA Forest Service, 2002a,b 97 Ruediger et al., 2000; USDA Forest Service, 2002a,d

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-77 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Direct Effects Potential Effects of Alternative 2 Project Components on Lynx The top terminal locations for Chair 5 and the proposed Sun Down Express are surrounded by spruce-fir stands that support both snowshoe hare and red squirrels. Upgrading Chair 5 to a larger lift and the installing the Sun Down Express would result in a permanent loss of approximately 1 acre of winter foraging habitat. These projects fall within LAU 22, which would continue to meet the minimum threshold of 15,000 acres of lynx winter foraging habitat recommended from the Lynx Biology Team. None of the proposed projects in Alternative 2 would impact quality or suitable denning habitat.

Lynx movements would most likely occur during nocturnal and crepuscular hours when animals are most active. That period would be largely outside of the diurnal construction traffic and activity interval. However, lynx can be active at any time of the day. A lynx encountering a lift construction area would most likely result in the lynx avoiding the activity and going around it. A lynx encountering construction traffic might wait in forest cover to cross the road until the vehicle passed, increase its gait across the road before the vehicle arrived, or, stand and watch the vehicle that would likely stop to observe the lynx.98 Another less likely option would be for the lynx to retrace its route. Road-kill of a healthy lynx would be unlikely because of the slow vehicle speeds along the mountain roads. In any event, it is unlikely that any such encounter would occur, and if it occurred, would meaningfully affect lynx habitat use or survival probabilities.

The proposed maintenance building is located within a lodgepole pine stand described as ―other‖ habitat. Construction of this building would result in a permanent loss of 0.94 acre of ―other‖ habitat. The dominant vegetation found in the proposed Golden Peak race venue is aspen with patches of lodgepole pine, described as ―other‖ habitat. Additions to the Golden Peak race venue would result in a permanent loss of 44.2 acres of ―other‖ habitat.

Mid Vail is already highly dissected developed, and heavily used by winter recreationists. The restaurant at Mid Vail would result in permanent removal of 0.4 acre of mixed lodgepole pine forest which is not suitable for lynx habitat. The proposed snowmaking construction on the Front Side would also occur in unsuitable habitat. The proposed restaurant construction would also occur in unsuitable habitat. Therefore, these activities would have no impact on lynx habitat.

The project area is not located in a designated forested landscape linkage. While portions of the developed ski area could facilitate lynx movements, most of the current project area is not forested and probably contributes little to potential lynx movements. The proposed projects would not impair local lynx movements or habitat connectivity.

98 This occurred at Keystone Resort on October 3, 2000.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-78 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Table 3E-4: Habitat with Potential to be Effected by the Vail Improvements Projects Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Project Vegetation LAU Disturbance (acres) Disturbance (acres) Aspen 37.69 0 Grass/Forbs 1.36 0 Golden Peak 20 Lodgepole Pine 6.48 0 Total Disturbance 45.53 0 Grass/Forbs 1.1 0.91 Lodgepole Pine 0.21 0.21 Chair 5 Upgrade Spruce/Fir 0.32 0.32 22 Aspen 0.05 0.05 Total Disturbance 1.68 1.48 Grass/Forbs 0.28 0 Lodgepole Pine 0.14 0 Sun Down Express Spruce/Fir 0.44 0 22 Aspen 0.8 0 Total Disturbance 1.67 0 Lodgepole Pine mix 0.4 0.4 Restaurant Grass/Forbs 1.0 1.0 20 Total Disturbance 1.4 1.4 Grass/Forbs 0 0 Maintenance Building Lodgepole Pine mix 0.94 0.94 20 Total Disturbance 0.94 0.94 Grass/Forbs 4.84 4.84 Simba Snowmaking Lodgepole Pine 0 0 20 Pipeline Aspen 0 0 Total Disturbance 4.84 4.84 Total Tree Removal 47.47 1.92

Total Ground Disturbance 55.46 8.66 Note: Due to differences in rounding, the vegetation disturbance numbers in this table differ slightly from the Comparison of Project Elements by Alternative Table 2-1.

In summary, there would be no meaningful changes in the extent to which the project area, LAU 20, or LAU 22 could support lynx or facilitate lynx movements as a result of Alternative 2. The Proposed Action would be consistent with historic ski area operations, and be contained within Vail’s SUP area. The removal of patches of winter foraging habitat totaling 1 acre near the top terminal of Chair 5 and the proposed Sun Down Express would have minimal effect on potential lynx home range viability or dispersal throughout the project area. The maintenance building would be constructed in ―other‖ habitat. Removal of 0.94 acre of ―other‖ habitat would have no impact on lynx habitat.99

99 Roberts, 2008

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-79 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Based on the above information and the current baseline conditions the Proposed Action may affect but will not likely adversely affect lynx (NLAA).

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

Determination of risks to populations of sensitive animals (including insects, birds, and mammals) considers population size and density, occurrence, suitable habitat, location of the population, and consequence of adverse effect on the species as a whole within its range and within the WRNF. The reader should also note that every acre of potential habitat is not necessarily occupied by a particular species, and that every acre of suitable habitat is not of equal importance, nor must it be maintained to be effective, well-distributed habitat for any particular species across the WRNF. Some habitat loss or impact may affect individuals so long as sufficient habitat components exist which maintain population viability across the WRNF. In addition, ―impacts‖ and ―adverse effects‖ on individuals considered herein do not necessarily equate to the death of those individuals. In most cases, adverse effects on NFS lands simply refer to the displacement of individuals from a small portion of their former territory or potential habitat. Furthermore, as a document evaluating worst case scenarios, many of the predicted adverse effects may be unrealized, for example, where unoccupied, but potential habitat that would be lost to an action is actually uninhabited by a particular species.

Based on the habitat to be affected and the habitat affinities of the R2 sensitive species (refer to Table 3E-2), the Proposed Action may impact the following five R2 sensitive species: northern goshawk; boreal owl; three-toed woodpecker; olive-sided flycatcher; and American marten (refer to Table 3E-5). These species are addressed below. Evaluated species information and the environmental baseline for the species evaluated are contained above in the Affected Environment and in the BE within the project file, which is incorporated herein by reference.100

Table 3E-5: Determination Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Animal Species Resulting from the Proposed Action Determination Common name, Scientific name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

INSECTS Great Basin silverspot, Speyeria nokomis nokomis NI NI NI Hudsonian emerald, Somatochlora hudsonica NI NI NI BIRDS Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis NI NI NI Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus NI NI NI Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis NI NI NI American peregrine falcon, NI NI NI Falco peregrinus anatum

100 USDA Forest Service, 2008c

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-80 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Table 3E-5: Determination Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Animal Species Resulting from the Proposed Action Determination Common name, Scientific name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 White-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus NI NI NI Greater sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus NI NI NI Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus NI NI NI phasianellus columbianus Flammulated owl, Otus flammeolus NI NI NI MAII: 47.5 acres of tree MAII: 1.9 acres of tree Boreal owl, Aegolius funereus NI removal removal Black swift, Cypseloides niger NI NI NI MAII: Chair 5 and Sun Down MAII: Chair 5 may bisect Three-toed woodpecker, Picoides tridactylus NI Express may bisect pairs pairs home range home range MAII: Chair 5 and Sun Down MAII: Chair 5 may bisect Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi NI Express may bisect pairs pairs home range home range Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus NI NI NI Purple martin, Progne subis NI NI NI Brewer’s sparrow, Spizella breweri NI NI NI Sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli NI NI NI MAMMALS Pygmy shrew, Microsorex hoyi montanus NI NI NI Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes NI NI NI Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum NI NI NI Townsend’s big-eared bat, NI NI NI Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii MAII: 47.5 acres of tree MAII: 1.9 acres of tree American marten, Martes americana NI removal removal North American wolverine, Gulo gulo luscus NI NI NI River otter, Lutra canadensis NI NI NI Other R2 sensitive animals are not listed because they have not been found on the WRNF, they have no affinities to habitats on the project area, the project area is outside of the species’ range or elevational distribution, and Alternative 2 would have no impact on those species. Species in bold are potentially present and/or are discussed in the text. Animals are listed phylogenetically. NI = No impact. MAII = may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. Determinations in this table only consider NFS lands that may be directly or indirectly affected by Alternative 2, which R2 species determinations are based on. Species in Bold are potentially present in the project area.

Northern Goshawk Tree removal associated with Golden Peak, Chair 5 and Sun Down Express, and the lift maintenance facility may alter stand structure sufficiently to eliminate the necessary stand structure for nesting, and during the post-fledging period. Currently, no nest sites or territories have been detected in the project area. Additionally adequate nesting, post-fledging and foraging habitat would likely be maintained

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-81 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife throughout the surrounding forested areas, and possible impacts on the reproductive success of some pairs would be limited. Impacts to foraging habitat are generally of lower importance since the species uses all adjacent vegetation types for foraging. While Goshawks may seem to prefer areas of some canopy cover, they are known to hunt in open habitats. No measurable impacts from any action are expected on prey availability. Regarding goshawks, direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Boreal Owl The Proposed Action would affect boreal owls by removing approximately 47.5 acres of forest that represents potential foraging and nesting habitat. Trees that might contain nest cavities would be removed. Densities of some prey species may decline in an area larger than the area of tree removal as a result of fragmentation effects. Indirect effects associated with this project (described above) would have virtually no impacts on boreal owls. Regarding boreal owls, direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Three-toed Woodpecker Alternative 2 would result in complete tree removal of 47.5 acres of occupied habitat that may be a pair’s home range. However, due to the current status of the bark beetle epidemic in Eagle County (see Section H – Forest Health in this chapter) there has been an increase in suitable habitat for this species. Regarding three-toed woodpeckers, direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Olive-sided Flycatcher Olive-sided flycatchers are confirmed breeders within the project area, occupying both developed and undeveloped ski terrain. The new Sun Down Express and the Chair 5 upgrade would bisect habitat that is likely occupied and could be part of a pair’s home range. However, because of the current status of the bark beetle epidemic in Eagle County (see Section H – Forest Health in this chapter), there has been an increase in suitable habitat for this species. Regarding olive-side flycatchers, direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Flammulated Owls No nest sites have been documented within the project area. However there is suitable nesting habitat available on Golden Peak. The proposed vegetation management for the Golden Peak area would remove a portion of the suitable nesting habitat, but there would be suitable habitat surround the proposed ski

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-82 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife trails. Regarding flammulated owls, direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 would have no affect on this species.

American Marten Tree removal including 44.2 acres of aspen and lodgepole pine on Golden Peak, 1.96 acres of aspen, lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir surrounding the lifts, 0.9 acre of lodgepole pine surrounding the maintenance facility and 0.4 acre of mixed lodgepole pine surrounding the restaurant would locally reduce marten prey availability, foraging habitat, and denning opportunities. This species is mainly crepuscular and nocturnal and would be unaffected by skiing activities, although tree skiing could affect potential prey availability (i.e., snowshoe hares). Brief, nightly exposure to snowcats in forested areas of Golden Peak would have temporary (i.e., amounting to minutes), disruptive and displacing effects on foraging. Densities of some prey species may decline in an area larger than the area of tree removal as a result of habitat fragmentation effects, ski trail management, and high levels of winter recreation. Conversely, potential prey base declines may be somewhat less than the area of tree removal because lift corridors and ski terrain still provide some habitat for potential prey species, particularly outside the snow season. Tree removal would not result in meaningful changes to vegetation structure and patterns that would individually or collectively impair marten life history functions or the ability of marten to maintain a home range. There would be no indirect effects associated with this project (described above) on marten. Regarding marten, the Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Management Indicator Species Elk There would be a loss of approximately 44 acres of elk habitat in the Golden Peak area. The affected habitat includes aspen, lodgepole pine, and grass/forbs. Elk use the Golden Peak area for foraging during the spring and fall. There are elk that reside in the area for the duration of the winter. The proposed projects may have minor, local effects on elk habitat effectiveness, but no significant effect on habitat effectiveness within the DAU.

Direct impacts to elk resulting from the Proposed Action include:

temporary displacement of elk from project construction zones,

habitat modifications, primarily on Golden Peak, but also along the lift alignments and at the maintenance facility, and

temporary displacement from construction and maintenance roads.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-83 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Most elk within, and adjacent to, impact areas at the time of construction would be displaced from the area and its zone of influence. Displacement duration could be influenced by construction duration, time (season) of construction, subsequent human activity, and type of elk use. Vail has a mandatory closure of the Back Bowls from May 6 through July 1. There would be no activity (construction or recreation) for the duration of the closure. Therefore, the proposed Chair 5 upgrade and the Sun Down Express, located in the Back Bowls, would not disturb elk calving. Elk use Golden Peak for foraging during the spring and fall, and as a residence during the winter. Adverse effects from habitat loss on Golden Peak would therefore be associated with the 44.2 acres of aspen and lodgepole pine removal.

Assuming a stable elk population (dependent on CDOW management and other variables independent of WRNF management), the collective, long-term direct effects of the Proposed Action should not result in discernibly different numbers of elk summering in or around Vail. The Proposed Action may have minor, local effects on elk habitat effectiveness, but no significant effect on habitat effectiveness within the DAU. The WRNF-wide implementation of more conservative standards and guidelines associated with the 2002 Forest Plan, other habitat protection measures, and ongoing monitoring and management, is expected to maintain WRNF-wide habitat quality for elk.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is composed of all elements described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of the Sun Down Express installation and the proposed Golden Peak race area. Alternative 3 would result in 1.92 acres of tree removal and 8.66 acres of ground disturbance. Impacts to threatened and endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species are summarized below. Alternative 3 would result in less tree removal and ground disturbance than Alternative 2. Refer to Table 3E-4 for disturbance calculations comparing the Alternatives.

Threatened and Endangered

Upgrading Chair 5 to a larger lift would result in a permanent loss of 0.53 acre of winter foraging habitat. This project is located within LAU 22, which would continue to meet the minimum threshold of 15,000 acres of lynx winter foraging habitat recommended from the Lynx Biology Team. None of the proposed projects in Alternative 3 would impact quality or suitable denning habitat. There would be no meaningful changes in the extent to which the project area, LAU 20, or LAU 22 could support lynx or facilitate lynx movements as a result of Alternative 3.101

R2 Sensitive Species

As shown in Table 3E-5, individual Boreal owls and American marten may lose habitat due to the 1.92 acres of tree removal under Alternative 3. Additionally, the Chair 5 upgrade may bisect three-toed woodpecker and olive sided flycatcher home range. Although these projects may adversely impact some

101 USDA Forest Service, 2008b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-84 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife individuals they are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.102

Management Indicator Species

Long-term effects to elk from Alternative 3 should not result in discernibly different numbers of elk summering in or around Vail and ongoing monitoring and management is expected to sustain elk habitat quality on the WRNF.103

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past actions that have occurred within Vail’s SUP area include lift construction, trail and vegetation clearing, grading, snowmaking and utility line installation, road construction, and restaurant and building construction. Present actions include those that are currently under way or which are considered to be part of ongoing resort operations or recently-approved current projects (e.g., annual summer construction projects).

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Major developments within the Eagle Valley LAU have occurred in the following locations:

North half of the Vail Ski Area

Beaver Creek Ski Area

Town of Vail

Town of Avon

Unincorporated towns of Eagle-Vail and Edwards

I-70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

Major developments within the Camp Hale LAU have occurred in the following locations:

South half of Vail Ski Area

Ski Cooper Ski Area

Town of Red Cliff

102 USDA Forest Service, 2008c 103 USDA Forest Service, 2008d

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-85 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Residential area of Tennessee Pass

Ginn Development

All ski area developments undergo environmental analysis by the Forest Service. Vail ski area has created and will continue to create an intense, developed recreational experience in the Vail Valley. The Action Alternatives represent an incremental addition to the overall developed recreational theme of the area.

Threatened and Endangered Residential Growth by County The Eagle Valley and Camp Hale LAUs are located in Eagle County, Colorado, where growth and populations trends for the last five years have been steadily increasing. Eagle County’s population is projected to increase from 47,000 to 100,000 by 2035.104 Much of this growth will occur within private land surrounding towns along the I-70 corridor. Areas such as Vail, Avon, Minturn, Edwards, Eagle, and Eagle-Vail may accommodate growth by building ―high density‖ living accommodations (i.e., town homes and condominiums). This growth will cause an increase in traffic along I-70, Highway 91, and Highway 24. It may be assumed that this increase in traffic may inhibit connectivity between quality habitats for Canada lynx moving outside this study area. There are a total of 19,588 acres of private land in the Eagle Valley LAU and 8,300 acres of private land within the Camp Hale LAU. Lynx foraging habitat may still present on the private lands despite the residential development. Also dense cover exists in rather close proximity to the homes and a lynx could possible move through the private parcels while remaining hidden from existing home sites. Continuing residential growth may impair habitat connectivity and lynx movement through the Eagle Valley and Camp Hale LAU’s. In addition, the Camp Hale LAU is currently under evaluation from the USFWS. Based on the draft Biological Opinion for the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area USFWS initially determined the Camp Hale LAU to be significantly impaired and non-functional to lynx during the winter months, November through April. Although the recommended habitat management threshold is met, the level of human use in the Camp Hale LAU has significantly impaired habitat connectivity.

I-70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic EIS The I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS is a federal document examining the potential impacts of expanding and modifying the I-70 Corridor to threatened and endangered species, R2 sensitive species and MIS. These modifications may include additional lanes, light rail systems, interchange modification, tunnels, etc. These modifications in the I-70 corridor would increase traffic and number of recreationists within the study area.

104 USDA Forest Service, 2008b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-86 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain The 4,809-acre development conceived at Battle Mountain proposed to build a community consisting of a ski area, golf course, and a number of residential units. This private land development is located west of the project area near the town of Red Cliff. It is likely that the existing lynx habitat within this development will be impacted.

Connectivity between LAU’s Connectivity between quality Canada lynx habitats along I-70, Highway 91, and Highway 24 is a significant issue. The Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area is surrounded by I-70 to the north, Copper Mountain Resort and Highway 91 to the northeast, Tennessee Pass to the southeast, Highway 24 and Camp Hale to the south, Battle Mountain Development (Proposed Ginn Development) to the southwest, and Vail Ski Area to the west. All areas surrounding the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area receive consistent, high use during the day and some evening use. Due to the location of the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area and surrounding developments, lynx may have limited and specific travel corridors that are safe and undisturbed. Ongoing mortality to lodgepole pine due to beetle-kill will likely decrease hiding cover for lynx along some travel corridors. The biggest obstacle for lynx movement across the highway will remain the level of traffic volume. For more detailed discussion on LAU connectivity refer to the 2008 BA.

In order for the Colorado lynx population to grow, movement corridors need to be designated and protected from destructive human disturbance. Destructive disturbance from humans could result in lynx behavior changes, such as avoidance of an area, isolated from quality foraging, or avoidance of natal denning sites.

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

Cumulatively, the Action Alternatives and past, present and future projects would impact the following R2 species habitat: northern goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, boreal owl and American marten. Timber management treatments that result in the development of early seral conditions dominated by the grass/forbs structural communities decrease the available habitat, at least in the short term. However due to pine mortality caused by the bark beetle, marten habitat is declining. Any project that results in timber loss could have a locally adverse effect on the quality and quantity of habitat. The proposed project may impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide

Management Indicator Species Elk Implementation of the Action Alternatives at Vail would not result in or contribute any discernable cumulative effects to elk, elk habitat quality, quantity, or effectiveness, or the ability of elk to disperse at the Forest level.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-87 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Wildlife

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Based on the commitment the Forest Service has made regarding the development and operation of the Vail SUP area as an 8.25 Management Area, the previously-approved and proposed components that would be installed within the SUP area under Alternative 2 would be difficult to reverse, but would not represent irretrievable commitments of resources. The minimal amount of habitat modifications, as well as disturbances during the ski season, related to the Chair 5 upgrade, installation of Sun Down Express and developments on Golden Peak would irretrievably affect some individual members of various wildlife species (as discussed previously under the direct, indirect and cumulative effects analyses), but are not considered irreversible.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-88 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

F. AQUATIC SPECIES SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

This fisheries analysis is tiered to the WRNF Forest Plan, as amended, and incorporates by reference the Biological Assessment (BA), Biological Evaluation (BE) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) reports that were prepared in conjunction with this analysis. These documents are contained in the project file.

As different animal species occupy different ranges and habitats, the Analysis Area varies for Threatened, Endangered, and Management Indicator Species, as discussed throughout this analysis.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation History

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that water depletions to the Colorado River above the confluence with the Gunnision River may affect the endangered Colorado big river fish: Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker, and their designated critical habitat. In January of 1988, 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 consultation under the Endangered Species Action (ESA) on depletion impacts of existing and new projects in the Upper Basin.

In December 1999, the USFWS completed a programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) for Bureau of Reclamation’s Operations and Depletions, Other Depletions, and Funding and Implementation of Recovery Program Actions in the Upper Colorado River above the Gunnison River. The BO found that actions under the Recovery Program are sufficient to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical big river fish habitat for existing water depletions (estimated average of 1,000,000 AF per year) and future depletions (up to 120,000 AF per year). To be included under the umbrella of this programmatic BO, water users are required to enter into a Recovery Agreement. Vail Associates, Inc. signed the Recovery Agreement with the USFWS on March 30, 2000.

Consultations under Section 7 of the ESA for water depletions associated with Vail’s snowmaking operations have occurred in conjunction with permitting for Vail’s snowmaking water diversion facilities and augmentation sources. The water diversions for snowmaking at Vail are located on Gore Creek above Red Sandstone Creek and at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River. In addition, in 2007, the Forest Service approved installation of a well adjacent to Two Elk Creek for diversion of up to 1 AF of water for snowmaking. The results of these Section 7 consultations are summarized below and in Table 3F-1.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-89 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Snowmaking Diversion on Gore Creek above Red Sandstone Creek The Vail Ski Area can divert up to 603 AF of water for snowmaking at this location with a diversion rate of up to 4.46 cfs. Water rights augmentation for this diversion is provided by Green Mountain Reservoir under a Water Marketing Program contract between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (Contract No. 9-07-60-W0408 82CW328). The water depletion impacts and required conservation measures associated with the Green Mountain Reservoir Water Marketing Program (1988) were originally addressed in a BO issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June 15, 1987. This BO has been superseded by the 1999 Final Programmatic BO referenced above.

In 2004, Vail Associates reconstructed the Gore Creek snowmaking intake facility with authorization under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 404 Permit (Permit No. 200475190). The BO issued by the USFWS for the new intake facility concluded that the project met the criteria to rely on actions under the Recovery Program to offset depletion impacts and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat (USFSW BO No. ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP053).

For water rights augmentation purposes, snowmaking water diversions constitute a 100 percent depletion to the stream at the times when the diversions occur. Vail also has the right to recapture and reuse the snowmaking return flows from diversions augmented by Green Mountain Reservoir to extinction. Based upon these considerations, the BO assumes that depletions will be 100 percent of the amount diverted for snowmaking.

Snowmaking diversion at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River Vail can divert up to 700 AF of water annually for snowmaking at this location at a diversion rate of 4.5 cfs. Water rights augmentation for this diversion is provided by Green Mountain Reservoir under a Water Marketing Program contract between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and (Contract No. 9-07-60- W0404 89CW296). As described above, the water depletion impacts and required conservation measures associated with the Green Mountain Water Marketing Program were originally addressed in a 1987 BO, which has been superseded by the 1999 Programmatic BO. When the 404 Permit (Permit No. 199575069) for the snowmaking diversion at the mouth of Gore Creek was approved in 1995, the COE and the USFWS did not require additional Section 7 Consultation and therefore did not issue a separate BO because the depletion impacts had been addressed in conjunction with the Green Mountain Water Marketing Program.

As described above, the 1999 Programmatic BO assumes that the depletions for snowmaking diversions augmented by Green Mountain Reservoir will be 100 percent of the amount diverted.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-90 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Eagle Park Reservoir In 1998, Vail Associates acquired an interest in Eagle Park Reservoir located on the East Fork of the Eagle River at the Climax Mine. Eagle Park Reservoir water provides an alternative augmentation source for snowmaking water diversions at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River. Section 7 consultation for the Eagle Park Reservoir was completed in 2007 in conjunction with 404 Permitting for the Eagle Park Reservoir Enlargement Project (COE Permit No. SPK-2007-339-GB). The BO issued by the USFWS for Eagle Park Reservoir concluded that the project met the criteria to rely on actions under the Recovery Program to offset 1,234 AF of average annual depletion impacts and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat (USFSW BO No. ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP085). The Vail Associates ownership interest in Eagle Park Reservoir provides an average of 594 AF of water for augmentation of snowmaking diversions at the Vail and/or Beaver Creek Ski Areas.

Because the Eagle Park Reservoir water is used as an alternate augmentation source and does not allow for additional diversion, the amount of water covered under this consultation is not added to the total presented below.

In 1993 the Forest Service conducted Section 7 consultation for minor depletions associated with routine Forest decisions including 12 AF of depletions for snowmaking on 25 acres at Vail Ski Area.

In summary, as shown in Table 3F-1, the diversion facilities located on Gore Creek above Red Sandstone Creek, at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River, and the planned snowmaking well adjacent to Two Elk Creek are currently permitted for diversion of up to 1,316 AF of water for snowmaking at Vail. Section 7 consultation for water depletions associated with these facilities, and their augmentation sources, has been completed in conjunction with COE 404 permitting and the 1999 Final Programmatic BO.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-91 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Table 3F-1: Summary of Snowmaking Diversion Section 7 Consultation History Depletion Project (year) Water Source Biological Opinion Amount 1993 Minor Water Depletions Upper Colorado River associated with routine forest 12 AF FWS/ES/FS/GJ-6 CO-93-F-036 Basin/Gore Creek decisions 1995 Snowmaking Diversion at confluence of Gore Creek and Gore Creek and Eagle River: Green Mountain Res. (1999 PBO) the Eagle River Green Mountain and Eagle Park 700 AF Eagle Park Res.: 2007 Eagle Park Reservoir Res. augmentation ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP085 Expansion 2004 Snowmaking Diversion on Gore Creek: Gore Creek above Red Green Mountain Res. 603 AF ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP053 Sandstone Creek augmentation Two Elk Creek: 2007 Tea Cup Well 1 AF ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033-CP088 Eagle Park Res. augmentation Total Diversions 1,316 AF

Species Considered

Listed or candidate fish initially considered for this analysis include those identified by the USFWS as potentially occurring on the Holy Cross Ranger District or potentially affected by management activities on the Holy Cross Ranger District (July 20, 2009). This list includes: Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and greenback cutthroat trout.105 Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from USFWS recovery plans, Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat mapping, personal knowledge of the Forest Service wildlife biologist preparing this BA, various scientific studies and reports, correspondence with USFWS biologists, and an extensive compilation of information contained in the BA for the Proposed Revision of the WRNF.106

Therefore, the following species are considered in this document.

Colorado pikeminnow Historic range of the Colorado pikeminnow included the main channels and major tributaries of the entire Colorado River basin. Present distribution of this species is restricted to the upper Colorado River system above Glen Canyon Dam. Colorado pikeminnow use a variety of riverine habitats with varying depths and velocities. Shoreline, eddy, and main channel areas are extensively used by adult pikeminnow year- round with pool and backwater habitats seasonally important. As water temperatures decline in the fall,

105 Greenback cutthroat trout are not native to the Western Slope; the one identified population on the Holy Cross Ranger District is not in the vicinity of the Vail SUP area. Therefore, greenback cutthroat will not be discussed further in this FEIS (Personal communication with Christine Hirsch, WRNF Fisheries Biologist, September 2009). 106 USDA Forest Service, 2008b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-92 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species adult pikeminnow shift from fast water habitats to slower water areas. The diet of young pikeminnow consists primarily of zooplankton and insect larvae, and then switches mainly to fish in juvenile life stages. After reaching the adult stage, pikeminnow are almost exclusively piscivorous. Spawning occurs in late June and July when water temperatures have reached 20°C for a few days.

Bonytail Historic distribution of the bonytail included the main channels and larger tributaries of the Colorado River system. The upper limit of present distribution on the Colorado River is the Black Rocks area of Ruby Canyon. Habitat requirements and general ecology of the bonytail is largely unknown due to the scarcity of individuals remaining in the wild. The few captures of bonytails in the wild (excluding the lower basin reservoirs) in the past two decades have been in canyons with deep, fast currents. However, the general consensus among researchers is that adult bonytails use primarily pool and eddy habitat types with slow currents. Bonytail diet consists of primarily aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. Spawning occurs when river temperatures reach approximately 18°C.

Razorback sucker Historic range of the razorback sucker in the Upper Colorado River basin is similar to that of the bonytail and pikeminnow but was always more common within the lower basin. At present, razorbacks have been documented in the Green River (below its confluence with the Yampa River), and the Colorado River upstream from the confluence of the Green River to DeBeque, Colorado. Unique morphological characteristics of the razorback sucker suggest it is adapted to large riverine systems with turbulent flows. However, in the upper Colorado River basin the majority of razorback captures have been in low velocity, off-channel areas in low gradient reaches. Food consists primarily of small invertebrates and organic debris on the bottom. Spawning occurs within low velocity backwaters over gravel substrate where predation by non-native fish species contributes to low survival. Spawning occurs when river temperatures range from 12 to 16°C.

Humpback Chub Little is known of the humpback chub’s historic distribution within the Colorado River system. At present, humpback chubs occur in the upper Colorado River. The highest known concentrations are located in the Black Rocks area of Ruby Canyon and Westwater Canyon reaches near the Colorado/Utah State line. Humpback chubs are found in a variety of habitats but have primarily been documented in areas associated with fast currents, deep pools, and boulders. Humpback chub are primarily bottom feeders but will feed on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates that occur throughout the water column. Adults may also turn to piscivory given the opportunity.107 Spawning is thought to occur over gravel- cobble substrate in backwaters that are associated with preferred deep canyon habitats when water temperatures approach 16°C.

107 Stone and Gorman, 2006

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-93 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

R2 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.108 Information on the distribution, status, and ecological requirements of sensitive aquatic species on or adjacent to the WRNF was gathered from the Colorado Natural Heritage program database, published reports, Colorado Division of Wildlife Fisheries database, field surveys, consultation with agency biologists. In addition an extensive spatial dataset (WRNF Geographical Information System), derived from the above listed sources, containing sensitive fish and amphibian distribution information was also consulted for preparation of this report. Field surveys were also conducted by the author or WRNF fisheries staff where proposed project components were located near or within potential habitat for TES aquatic species.

The Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) lists five sensitive fish and two sensitive amphibian species that are considered in this report including: Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (C. latipinnis), mountain sucker (C. platyrhynchus), boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens). Habitat associations and occurrence information for each species is given in Table 3F-2.

108 USDA Forest Service, 2003

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-94 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Table 3F-2: Sensitive Species in the Rocky Mountain Region Known/ Suitable Common Name, suspected Status habitat Habitat Scientific Name to be present? present? Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, Potential Habitat (Isolated, headwater streams Sensitive Yes Yes Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus and lakes) Bluehead sucker, Potential Habitat (Larger rivers of western Sensitive No Yes Catostomus discobolus slope of Colorado) Flannelmouth sucker, Potential Habitat (Larger rivers of western Sensitive No Yes Catostomus latipinnis slope of Colorado) No Habitat (Clear cold creeks and small to Mountain sucker, Sensitive No No medium rivers with rubble, gravel, or sand Catostomus platyrhynchus substrate) Roundtail chub, No habitat (Larger rivers of Colorado River Sensitive No No Gila robusta basin) Potential Habitat (Subalpine habitats with Boreal toad, marshes and wet meadows; ponds, margins of Sensitive Yes Yes Anaxyrus boreas boreas streams. Most common between 8,500’ and 11,000’ in elevation). Potential Habitat (Banks and shallow portions Northern leopard frog, of lakes, pond, wetlands, especially those with Sensitive No Yes Lithobates pipiens rooted aquatic vegetation to 9,800’ in elevation). Source: USDA Forest Service, 2008e

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. The previous table summarizes the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then potential effects are evaluated.

Fish and Fish Habitat

Occurrences of Colorado River cutthroat trout have been recorded from within the Vail Ski Area recently (see Table 3F-2), so potential effects to this species are analyzed. Suitable habitat is not found within the Project Area for bluehead, flannelmouth, and mountain suckers, nor for roundtail chub. However, flannelmouth and bluehead suckers may be present in the Eagle River or possibly the lower reaches of Gore Creek downstream. Sedimentation effects as a result of sediment loading from within the watershed may be evident in lower Gore Creek and the Eagle River near the confluence, so effects are analyzed in detail below.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Pure Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) are found only within limited areas across their historic range, mainly within headwater streams or lakes isolated from lower reaches by impassable barriers to upstream fish movement. This isolation, particularly in small areas of watersheds, decreases the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-95 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species probability that native cutthroat populations will persist over time. Colorado River cutthroat trout spawning begins following peak runoff flows and ends prior to the end of runoff in spring or early summer. Riffles or runs with the appropriate combination of depth and water velocity with clean gravels are used for spawning. Fry emerge from spawning gravels in late summer to early fall, but timing of fry emergence varies depending on elevation and water temperature. In streams occupied by CRCT, deep pools, mainly created by large woody debris, have been found to be important for adults for both feeding and over-wintering habitats. Large-woody debris also functions to trap spawning gravels, provides water velocity refuge and shade and/or cover for CRCT.

Stocking of non-native trout species, historic over-fishing, and impacts to physical stream habitat, such as excessive sediment deposition in streams and water withdrawals, have resulted in fragmentation or degradation of habitat and the extirpation of Colorado River cutthroat trout from much of its former range. Threats to CRCT populations or habitat can include excessive sedimentation of spawning and food production areas. These impacts can result in reduced annual productivity of salmonids, particularly in steeper streams where spawning gravels are limited.

Conservation populations of CRCT are found in several streams within the Gore Creek watershed (outside the project area), and stocked individuals have been sampled in Two Elk Creek downstream. Cutthroat trout have randomly appeared during sampling of Gore Creek as well as Black Gore Creek. Although three year classes of cutthroat trout were sampled from Mill Creek within the Vail Ski Area during 2002, no fish were present in the three reaches surveyed on Mill Creek in 2008.109 A brook trout was observed in the stream near the base of Chair 5, hereafter referred to as “Sun Down Bowl Creek” (un-named tributary to Two Elk Creek) in 2008. Additional field observations were made to assess the physical CRCT habitat conditions in Mill Creek in August 2008.

Flannelmouth Sucker The flannelmouth sucker is endemic to the Colorado River basin with populations occurring in western Colorado. It was historically found in most medium to large lower elevation streams of the Upper Colorado River drainage and currently occupies streams and rivers that are not impacted by impoundments or habitat degradation. This species has also been associated with smaller tributaries and is found occasionally in lakes and reservoirs. The flannelmouth sucker has declined in abundance and distribution throughout its historic range. Flannelmouth suckers are typically found in larger, slow moving rivers of the Colorado River drainage. They occupy mainstream habitats of medium to large rivers and are occasionally found in smaller streams. This species frequents pools and deep runs and can also be found in the mouths of tributaries, riffles, and backwaters. The adults are generalists that typically use pool and eddy habitats while juveniles and young-of-the-year tend to be associated with backwaters and shoreline areas of slower habitat types. Flannelmouth suckers generally prefer warmer stream

109 Two 100-meter reaches of lower Mill Creek were electro-fished by CDOW and the author on July 23, 2008, and an 80-meter reach was sampled by the author and a USFS crew on September 24, 2008.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-96 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species temperatures around 25°C, and are rarer in cool headwater streams.110 Flannelmouth suckers are a long- lived species with individuals living up to 30 years. In the Upper Colorado River basin, breeding typically occurs from April to June. Spawning habitat consists of glides or slow riffles over medium to coarse gravel substrate. The eggs incubate approximately 6 to 7 days. Juvenile flannelmouth suckers typically reach sexual maturity by their fifth year.

Flannelmouth suckers have been collected in the Eagle River near Edwards, and are thought to have occurred within the Upper Eagle River watershed as well. Surveys in the study area have not resulted in sampling of flannelmouth suckers. Small fish-bearing streams (e.g., Game Creek, Two Elk, Mill Creek) within the project area likely do not provide flannelmouth sucker habitat. However, some project area streams are tributary to Gore Creek that may contain individuals.

This species is particularly sensitive to habitat fragmentation due to impoundments and water diversions, or dams. In addition, flannelmouth suckers are sensitive to dissolved heavy metals including zinc. Elevated zinc levels are present in the Eagle River upstream of its confluence with Gore Creek that may preclude its occurrence there.

Bluehead Sucker The bluehead sucker is native to the Colorado River Basin and is found within the Upper Colorado River and its smaller tributaries. Detailed distribution and trend information is relatively limited but recent studies suggest that populations are declining throughout their historic range. The bluehead sucker inhabits a wide variety of habitat types throughout its range. It is most commonly found in small to mid sized streams in the Upper Colorado River basin but is present in large rivers as well. Bluehead suckers tend to occur in lower-order streams at higher elevations in watersheds when compared to the distribution of flannelmouth suckers. Healthy populations have persisted across a wide range of sediment and flow regimes. This species tends to prefer rocky substrate and is often associated with riffle/run type habitats. Bluehead suckers are believed to be a long lived species with a life span of approximately 20 years. Data on timing and extent of spawning migrations is limited, but generally breeding in the upper Colorado River basin occurs in spring and summer. Larval suckers are known to drift after emergence from the egg dispersing downstream. Surveys near the study area have not resulted in sampling of bluehead suckers, but bluehead suckers and other catostomids are frequently collected in the Eagle River. Bluehead suckers are expected to occur in the Upper Eagle River however, zinc loading from the Eagle Mine may limit their distribution. The physical stream habitat in the project area and Gore Creek may support a bluehead sucker population, but little specific habitat preference data are available to make this determination.

Habitat degradation and competition with non-native species continue to be the main threats to the bluehead sucker in the Upper Colorado River basin. Anthropogenic activities such as water development projects, dams and diversions, over grazing in riparian areas, improper timber harvest, and road building

110 Rees et al., 2005

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-97 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species have resulted in habitat fragmentation and degradation of habitat and the extirpation of bluehead sucker from much of its former range. Predation and displacement by non-native fish continue to threaten bluehead sucker populations.

Amphibians

Boreal toad breeding habitat is present within the project area, and a report of a boreal toad occurrence was recorded in the Two Elk Creek drainage, within the project area. In East Vail, a successful breeding population is found adjacent to Gore Creek. Because potential habitat for both boreal toad and northern leopard frog is found within the project area these species are analyzed in detail below.

Boreal Toad Boreal toad populations are found in small abundances scattered across the WRNF. While the species is distributed throughout the west, the Southern Rocky Mountain populations are separated from others by elevation and geographical barriers. The boreal toad can occupy three different habitat types throughout the year including aquatic breeding areas, wet and dry summer range, and winter hibernacula. The distribution of the boreal toad is restricted within an elevation range of 7,000 to 12,000 feet. Egg and larval stages in the boreal toad lifecycle are restricted to permanent aquatic habitat and breeding occurs in spring and is regulated by seasonal snowmelt, usually mid-May to July.

Southern Rocky Mountain boreal toad populations have suffered a well-documented decline in both population size and distribution over the past 20 years. One of the primary reasons for the decline of boreal toads is believed to be attributable to a fungal disease (Chytridiomycosis, or chytrid), among other factors such as habitat loss. A boreal toad occurrence was recorded in a wetland complex in the upper Two Elk Creek drainage, about 2.5 miles from the proposed project activities. An amphibian survey was conducted in July 2008 along the Chair 5 access road, as well as the area proposed for the Sun Down Express placement/grading. Breeding habitat was extremely limited, consisting only of two to three, 10 by 10-foot partially breached beaver ponds. This habitat may be used for dispersal, but breeding is unlikely. No wetlands that could serve as breeding amphibian habitat were noted in the Golden Peak area, although upland habitat that could function as boreal toad dispersal habitat exists within the proposed race course area. No boreal toad individuals were noted, and no suitable breeding habitat was found.

Northern Leopard Frog The northern leopard frog ranges across much of northern United States and southern Canada. It occurs throughout Colorado except in the southeast portion of the state. The northern leopard frog ranges to 11,000 feet in elevation and has been documented in eight different locations on the White River National Forest, Blanco and Rifle Ranger District. Formerly abundant in Colorado, the northern leopard frog is declining and has become scarce in many areas. Northern leopard frogs inhabit a wide range of aquatic habitats associated with perennial water. They are typically found along the banks and shallow

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-98 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species portions of ponds, lakes, wetlands, reservoirs, beaver ponds, and streams. No northern leopard frog occurrences have been documented in or near the project area, however habitat may be available downstream in wetlands along Two Elk Creek or in other areas within the Vail Ski Area (see Boreal Toad section above). One of the main reasons for the decline is believed to be attributable to a fungal disease (Chytridiomycosis, or chytrid), among other factors.

Management Indicator Species

The Code of Federal Regulations states “population trends of management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined.”111 The WRNF’s Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (Forest Plan) was revised in 2002. The Forest Plan’s Ecosystem Health Goals and Objectives for MIS include “(w)ithin 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in habitat availability, habitat quality, or other factors affecting sensitive species and Management Indicator Species.” MIS trends are to be evaluated at the Forest-wide scale. This document discloses the potential effects of the proposed Alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action (described below) on fisheries and aquatic MIS (all trout and aquatic macroinvertebrates).

Fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities within the project area watersheds reflect the cold-water stream habitats that are present. Brook, brown, rainbow, and cutthroat trout are widespread and common in or downstream of the project area, but mottled and Pauite sculpin (Cottus sp.) may also present in some streams (e.g., Gore Creek, Two Elk Creek). Most streams within the project area are small, 1st to 3rd order streams. However, project area streams are tributary to the Eagle River and Gore Creek, both of which contain economically important recreational fisheries. Gore Creek is particularly valuable due to its designation as a Gold Medal trout fishery by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW).

Forest-wide Goals and Objectives for MIS:

To assess the existing condition of streams within and downstream of the project area, analysis included a comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate, fish population, and physical stream health data collected from appropriate reference and response streams. Only a detailed discussion of analysis of biological metrics, as well as an interpretation of how physical habitat analysis results relate to biota, is included here. Using biological communities such as macroinvertebrates and fish to assess stream health is advantageous because annual variations and acute disturbances are reflected in the data, rather than only “snapshot” measurements of habitat impairment made using physical stream health data collected over a period of days.

MIS Evaluated

Aquatic MIS chosen for monitoring under the WRNF Forest Plan (2002 revision) include aquatic macroinvertebrates and total trout density. Both aquatic MIS are present within the project area and

111 36 CFR 219.19 (a)(6)

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-99 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species would be potentially affected by proposed activities, so detailed analysis of project area effects to those species is included below. Indicators measured from streams within or downstream of the project area are compared with an established reference condition, as defined in FSH 2509.25.

Trout Fish communities are also used to describe the existing condition of the project area and potential effects of various project components. Total trout density, or the number of all trout individuals per 100 meters of stream, is an MIS, and is a useful measure of habitat quality. Trout are usually sampled in a relatively short, representative stream reach to assess populations, but it is questionable whether data from a single reach is truly representative of the population in an entire stream. Nevertheless, the number of fish, age classes, as well as population densities can be useful to assess habitat in a given reach.

Trout occur in most of the perennial water bodies on the WRNF, including streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Trout may be excluded from some areas due to chemical contamination below mines or by natural or human-caused barriers. At high elevations, trout may be absent due to low water temperatures that inhibit growth and recruitment of young-of-year.112

The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. Geology, elevation, temperature, stream gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased fine sediment (particles < 6–8mm), or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions or increases), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor age-class distribution.

Sampling of three reaches of Mill Creek within the project area in 2008 revealed that trout had likely been extirpated from the stream sometime between 2002 and 2008. Three age-classes of cutthroat trout were found in Mill Creek Reach 2 in 2002. Since no fish were sampled from Mill Creek, no reference stream data were collected for fish. Mill Creek is considered to be in a diminished stream health class since it may not currently support fish. Sun Down Bowl Creek was not sampled for fish, but proposed activities in Sun Down Bowl are likely near the natural upstream distribution of fish, although a brook trout was observed. A large fish population would not be expected in this stream. Gore Creek is considered a Gold Medal trout fishery however current population data are not available. An analysis of trout abundance data in Two Elk Creek in 2007 found that populations were robust compared to those recorded prior to significant expansion in the back bowls of Vail.

Since minimally-impaired watersheds with similar physical background characteristics normally would contain fish, it is likely that habitat alterations, including those related to runoff regime changes related to road and ski run construction (see water yield discussion in Section K – Water Resources) have led to

112 Coleman and Fausch, 2006

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-100 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species habitat changes that are unsupportive of fish populations. In addition, physical barriers to fish movement within the project area currently limit immigration from other streams, such as Gore Creek. While a complete fish passage analysis was not conducted, a set of culverts on private land in the Town of Vail may effectively disconnect Mill Creek from Gore Creek.

Macroinvertebrate Communities Aquatic macroinvertebrates are those invertebrates that spend at least part of their life cycles in water. These include worms, mollusks, mites, and insects, the latter of which are by far are the most common. Most insect species spend just the immature phase (larval or nymph) in water. Although sensitive species occur in most insect orders, three orders are comprised primarily of species that are most sensitive to disturbance, including Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies).

Macroinvertebrate communities occur in all water bodies on the WRNF, including ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, rivers, and perennial and intermittent streams. Even degraded systems usually contain aquatic macroinvertebrates, however these communities are composed of very different assemblages of species than those in minimally-impaired (i.e., reference) aquatic habitats. On the WRNF, macroinvertebrates were selected to address trend and condition of flowing waters only and therefore macroinvertebrate communities in sill waters (e.g., lakes and ponds) are not discussed further in this document. Due to their sensitivity to habitat degradation, aquatic insect communities can be used to assess the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of aquatic ecosystems.113

Macroinvertebrates are influenced by the timing of flow and water quality in the streams in which they live. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are factors that commonly influence macroinvertebrate community structure. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased fine sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), the response of the macroinvertebrate community is typically a reduction in the number of species that occur there and especially the number of sensitive species.

Macroinvertebrate data were available for tributaries to Mill Creek (Northeast Bowl Creek, Ptarmigan Creek), Two Elk Creek, and Gore Creek, within or downstream of the project area. Mill Creek tributary and Gore Creek macroinvertebrate communities indicated severe impacts to aquatic habitat and diminished stream health classes. Macroinvertebrate data from lower Two Elk Creek showed robust stream health for almost all metrics, indicating high quality habitat and few signs of degradation in the watershed.

Stream Health

Stream health is assessed using metrics such as channel geometry, large woody debris, substrate, bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry, and aquatic biota (FSH 2509.25 zero code). Of these types of

113 Barbour et al., 1999

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-101 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

metrics, channel geometry (i.e., pool metrics), large-woody debris, substrate, bank stability, and aquatic biota (fish and aquatic insects), may be affected by the proposed project. Table 3F-3 is a summary of stream health analysis results for streams within or potentially affected by the proposed projects.

Table 3F-3: Summary of Existing Stream Health Mill Two Gore East Mill Ptarmigan NE Bowl Sun Down Indicator (above Mill R2 Mill R3 Elk Creek Ck Creek Creek Bowl culverts) Creek

Large-woody NA Diminished Diminished Robust Robust Robust Robust Diminished* NA Debris

Residual Pool NA At-risk Diminished Robust At-risk Robust Robust Robust Robust Depth

Substrate Diminished Robust Robust Diminished Diminished Diminished At-risk Robust Robust

Trout Density NA Diminished Diminished NA NA Diminished Diminished NA Robust (MIS) Macro- invertebrate Diminished NA NA Diminished Diminished NA NA NA Robust Communities (MIS) NA = data not available *The lack of LWD is comparable to the natural condition.

In summary, both physical habitat and biological measures indicated diminished stream health for Gore Creek, as well as Mill Creek and its tributaries. Two Elk Creek and Sun Down Bowl Creek were both found to be in a relatively un-impaired condition.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct impacts or benefits to large river endangered fish species downstream in the Colorado River system. The resort would continue to make snow on approximately 442 acres with a yearly depletion of 105 AF.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-102 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Region Two Sensitive Fish Species

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would include the continuation of existing land management activities on the Vail. Vail would be required to adhere to conditions in the annual operating plan as required under their special use permit. No additional snowmaking, tree clearing and construction of ski runs, or new or expanded buildings (maintenance shed, restaurants) or lifts would be constructed.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout The No Action Alternative would result in the continuation of existing land management activities on Vail. Ongoing ski area maintenance activities in the Mill Creek drainage would continue to result in altered flow regimes causing bank instability and extirpation of spawning gravels, macroinvertebrates, and CRCT from Mill Creek. Sediment deposition would be expected to continue in the middle to upper reaches of Mill Creek within the SUP boundary, which may limit production of both aquatic macroinvertebrates and salmonids. Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat in Mill Creek would continue to be fragmented by culverts above the confluence with Gore Creek, and at a crossing at 8,770 feet, limiting availability of flood refuge habitat. Mill Creek CRCT populations and habitat would remain similar to that described above under the Existing Condition section.

Riparian and instream habitat in Two Elk Creek would continue to fully support robust populations of brook trout. Due to the presence of non-native brook trout, CRCT populations would only be maintained by occasional stocking. Minimal effects related to ongoing ski area management would continue. There would be no new construction activities, and therefore no effects to CRCT.

Gore Creek aquatic habitats would continue to be impacted by sediment as a result of eroding ski slopes in the Golden Peak area (see Mill Creek above) as well as from other areas on the front or north side of Vail and urbanization in the watershed (refer to the Cumulative Effects analysis). The Gore Creek stream channel would continue to exhibit degraded or missing habitat components (e.g., pools and clean gravels for spawning) important to CRCT downstream of the project area. Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities would continue to exhibit signs of sediment deposition within and downstream of the project area. Sediment deposition and the presence of non-native species in Gore Creek would continue to be the main limiting factor for CRCT. A trend toward continuing degradation of Gore Creek CRCT habitats would be expected.

Bluehead and Flannelmouth Suckers No direct or indirect effects to flannelmouth and bluehead sucker habitat are expected as a result of the No Action Alternative. Potential habitat downstream of the project area would remain in a somewhat degraded state due to existing sedimentation, although existing algae abundance may benefit bluehead suckers.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-103 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Boreal Toad and Northern Leopard Frog Under the No Action Alternative, no construction of new lifts, buildings or ski runs would occur, and therefore no additional risk of crushing dispersing individuals would be expected. Breeding habitat would continue to be limited in the project area, however riparian habitats along Two Elk Creek would remain in a robust condition. No effects to boreal toad or northern leopard frog would be expected as a result of the No Action alternative.

Management Indicator Species

Under the no action alternative, stream health metrics as displayed in Table 3F-3 would remain unchanged over time. Trout populations in Mill Creek would remain suppressed or absent, and macroinvertebrate communities in Gore Creek would reflect the impacts of urbanization and sediment deposition. No measurable effects to Forest-wide trends in MIS would be expected. The implementation of Alternative 1 would neither inhibit nor contribute towards meeting Forest-wide objectives for aquatic MIS.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

The activities discussed in this document have the potential to impact endangered fish species downstream in the Colorado River system as a result of water depletions caused by water retention and evaporative losses. However, the increase in snowmaking would not degrade water quality by any measurable amount downstream in the Colorado River where the four endangered fish species occur (outside project area).

Under the Proposed Action, Vail would increase snowmaking coverage from approximately 442 acres to approximately 520 acres. This would subsequently increase the yearly water depletion over the No Action Alternative from 105 AF to 120 AF, resulting in a 15 AF yearly increase (see Table 3F-4). Snowmaking water is diverted from Gore Creek, at the Gore Creek/Eagle River confluence, and from a well. Consultation has previously been conducted on these water sources and various augmentation sources (see Consultation History and Table 3F-1) totaling 1,316 AF of diversions and depletions (most previous consultation documents assumed 100 percent depletion). Existing and proposed water depletions are outlined in Table 3F-4.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-104 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Table 3F-4: Vail Gore Creek (Colorado Watershed) Depletions Snowmaking Snowmaking Depletionsb Alternative Diversionsa Acreage (AF) (AF) Existing Conditions 442 477 105 Alternative 2 520 546 120 Alternative 3 475 508 112 a Calculated Assuming a diversion rate of 0.94 AF of water per acre of snowmaking terrain. Includes an allowance of approximately 60 AF of diversions to support special terrain features such as a half-pipe and terrain parks. b Utilizes a depletion percentage of 22%, corresponding to the highest average-year depletion rate within the Colorado Ski Country USA snowmaking consumptive use methodology specific to the Vail Ski Area. Since Vail is not currently using the diverted water to extinction, the snowmaking depletion is used to quantify effects.

Consultation has been completed on 1,316 AF of diversions and depletions from the Colorado River watershed (see Consultation History and Table 3F-1). The 120 AF of total depletions (20 AF of new depletions associated with this project) proposed in Alternative 2 do not exceed the snowmaking depletions previously consulted on, and therefore Alternative 2 has been determined to have “No (additional) Effect” to Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and humpback chub.

Region Two Sensitive Fish Species Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Activities proposed under Alternative 2 that may increase water yield or peak runoff, and/or sediment deposition would further impact CRCT habitat in Mill Creek. These include the race course construction and snowmaking on Golden Peak. Impacts to CRCT individuals or reproductive success assume that some remnant fish are left in Mill Creek in areas not surveyed, or that populations could be reestablished by stocking or from emigration from other areas.

Further development of Golden Peak would contribute to existing erosion from ski trails with insufficient vegetative cover on Golden Peak or other runs, degrading water bars, localized landslide or slumps, runoff from roads within and outside of the ski area SUP boundary, and Mill Creek bank erosion in upper reaches as a result of hydrological changes, however most sediment deposition would occur downstream in Gore Creek. Less infiltration due to tree clearing would result in increased runoff into Mill Creek. The severity of the effects of elevated runoff on reproductive success of CRCT would depend on the timing and intensity of spring to early summer flooding. However, most of the additional water would be routed to the lowest reaches of Mill Creek that appeared to contain stable, armored banks. For a full analysis of runoff increases see Section K – Water Resources.

A Drainage Management Plan (DMP, Appendix A) and other steps outlined in the Water Resources section would help to minimize these effects over the long-term. However there is a risk of additional

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-105 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species erosion due to adding snowmaking, clearing, and grading for construction of the race venue to a highly modified and altered area. Therefore, the success of the DMP features in stabilizing the existing Golden Peak area is difficult to predict.

Activities included within the Proposed Action that are analyzed for potential effects to CRCT habitat in the Two Elk Creek drainage include the installation of the new Sun Down Express and associated grading near the existing Chair 5 base terminal, upgrade of Chair 5, and grading at the top terminal of Chair 5.

The existing Chair 5 base area, where the new Sun Down Express base terminal would be located, would require grading for the lift pad, as well as the installation of the new lift terminal, and would be within the WIZ of the unnamed Two Elk Creek tributary (hereafter referred to as “Sun Down Bowl Creek”). In the short-term, it is likely that sedimentation to CRCT habitats would result from grading and extension of a culvert in the Chair 5 base area. Sedimentation would be minimized by implementing standard best management practices (e.g., clean water bypass, silt fence) during construction. In addition, the current Chair 5 base area is relatively flat to the top of the inner gorge of Sun Down Bowl Creek. While riparian vegetation is an important component to CRCT habitat in maintaining shade, stream temperature, and terrestrial aquatic insect inputs, interaction between Sun Down Bowl Creek and the vegetation that would serve these functions and that is proposed to be removed are minimal. These effects would not result in measureable impacts to CRCT individuals.

The restaurant and grading activities proposed Mid Vail would not be constructed within any WIZs related to intermittent or perennial stream channels, and therefore would not impact any CRCT habitat or individuals.

In addition to indirect sedimentation effects from the Golden Peak race venue discussed above, 33 acres of new snowmaking on the Simba trail may result in indirect effects to trout habitat in Gore Creek. Snowmaking on the front or north side of Vail may increase erosion of ski slopes during snowmelt, and could result in sedimentation downslope in aquatic habitats in Gore Creek. However, sediment derived from erosion of the Simba trail would be deposited in vegetated filter strips, and would not likely lead to CRCT habitat in Gore Creek.

Implementation of Alternative 2 (mostly related to Golden Peak projects) would exacerbate existing detrimental impacts to CRCT habitat in the Gore Creek watershed by increasing peak flow intensity and sedimentation. The proposed activities would not be consistent with Forest-wide Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Standard 1, and various other directives for maintaining or improving stream health.114 Nevertheless, other conservation populations within the cumulative effects analysis area would remain viable and would not be effected by the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 may adversely impact

114 FSH 2509.25 chapter 10, Management Area 8.25 Standard 3

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-106 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Bluehead and Flannelmouth Sucker Activities included in Alternative 2 that may impact flannelmouth and bluehead sucker individuals or habitat in the Gore Creek drainage include the Simba trail snowmaking and Golden Peak race venue construction and snowmaking. Effects to bluehead and flannelmouth sucker related to the Simba trail snowmaking are similar to those described for CRCT above regarding increased sedimentation.

Occurrences of neither of the native sucker species have been recorded in Gore Creek, although they may move into the stream during spawning movements from the Eagle River. These species would be considered a rare occurrence in Gore Creek. Minimal measurable direct or indirect effects to flannelmouth or bluehead suckers would be expected in Gore Creek as a result of the Alternative 2 proposed projects.

Increased sedimentation is expected to alter physical habitat or food resources for flannelmouth and bluehead suckers. However, streams potentially impacted by the Vail Improvement Project are likely at the periphery of these species’ range, or perhaps used only seasonally. Therefore, Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for bluehead sucker and flannelmouth sucker.

Boreal Toad and Northern Leopard Frog The use of heavy equipment adjacent to amphibian habitat can result in crushing of dispersing individuals, and could also introduce disease and other pathogens that are believed to be responsible for the extirpation of many amphibian populations in Colorado (e.g., amphibian chytrid fungus; reviewed in Muths et al., 2008). Activities included in Alternative 2 that may directly or indirectly effect boreal toad and northern leopard frogs includes construction of the Golden Peak race venue, the restaurant and maintenance building, as well as the Chair 5 base area grading and Sun Down Express installation.

The construction of the Golden Peak race venue would require extensive logging and ground disturbance by heavy equipment on fairly steep slopes with no aquatic habitats (wetlands, seeps, springs, streams) to which disease could be introduced to by equipment. Although upland habitat is used for dispersal of boreal toad adults, dispersal through the Golden Peak race venue site would be unlikely or infrequent due to extreme slopes between the East Vail breeding site as well as the golf course, roads, and other urban developments that would likely act as barriers to dispersal. Similar to the site proposed for the Golden Peak race venue, the restaurant, and the snowcat maintenance garage sites are all far from breeding areas and aquatic habitats. Dispersal of adult boreal toads or northern leopard frogs through those areas during construction would be expected to be extremely low, and therefore, there would be a low risk of crushing mortality to individuals related to those activities.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-107 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

The installation of the proposed Sun Down Express and Chair 5 base area grading would require equipment to work in close proximity to aquatic habitats. However, in this case the risk of direct mortality is extremely low since equipment access and construction near the Chair 5 base terminal would be operating in areas that would not be considered preferred terrestrial habitat based on published telemetry studies for boreal toad. Equipment would not be working within wetlands, and therefore no disease/fungal introduction would be expected.

Aquatic habitats that may be affected by sediment include those related to Mill Creek, Two Elk Creek, and Gore Creek. However, for the most part, due to steep slopes or fast-flowing streams found in the Mill Creek and Gore Creek drainages, which would receive excessive sedimentation from the Golden Peak race venue and snowmaking on Simba Trail, would likely not contain suitable boreal toad or northern leopard frog breeding habitat. Two Elk Creek, downstream of the Chair 5/proposed Sun Down Express base area may contain suitable breeding habitat. Some sedimentation of potential breeding areas may be affected by the lift installation or grading, however best management practices would minimize these indirect effects, and the effects would be considered short-term in nature.

In summary, direct effects to the boreal toad or northern leopard frog related to Alternative 2 would be unlikely, although there would be a chance of crushing an dispersing individual boreal toad by increased used of equipment on Golden Peak. Indirect effects may occur due to downstream sedimentation related to the grading of the Chair 5 base area and installation of the Sun Down Express.

Heavy equipment use proposed for both Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Vail Mountain Resort Master Development Plan – Phase I improvement project would increase the risk of direct mortality of dispersing boreal toads. Alternative 3 would pose less of a risk, since much less heavy equipment use would be required with the exclusion of the Golden Peak race venue from consideration. Risks are low in either case since known breeding sites are slightly beyond normal dispersal zones, and are potentially separated by developed areas. Due to the risk of crushing, Alternative 2 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas).

Since northern leopard frogs would not be expected to disperse long distances across dry terrain from breeding sites, and no occurrence records or breeding sites are known for the species within or near the project area, Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Vail Mountain Resort Master Development Plan – Phase I improvement project would have no impact to northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) individuals or habitat.

Management Indicator Species

Several aspects of the proposed action, Golden Peak, Chair 5 base area and Sun Down Express are likely to have either short- and long-term effects to aquatic habitats and MIS. The proposed action may alter

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-108 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species water yield and runoff regimes, increase sediment loading to streams, and impact riparian vegetation. The restaurant and maintenance facility would not be constructed within any WIZ related to intermittent of perennial stream channels, and therefore would not impact stream health or aquatic MIS species.

Trout Indirect effects to aquatic MIS, including total trout density, would be expected with construction of the Golden Peak race venue. Increases in water yield would add to already unfavorable conditions that may limit trout populations from becoming established in lower Mill Creek. While observable increases in fine sediment deposition in lower Mill Creek would not be expected, higher levels of sediment transport, and increases in the frequency of disturbance to macroinvertebrate communities related to sediment saltation would occur. These effects may be short- or long-term in nature, depending on the success of drainage management improvements that would be implemented.

As a consequence of increased sediment supply and deposition in Gore Creek as a result of construction and tree removal at the Golden Peak race venue, residual pool depths and consequently overwintering habitat for trout would be expected to be reduced. Increased sedimentation would also impact trout reproduction by smothering developing eggs or fry.

Some riparian vegetation would be removed as a result of the Chair 5 base area construction and Sun Down Express installation, however few if any trees would be removed. While riparian vegetation is an important component to trout habitat in maintaining shade, stream temperature, and terrestrial aquatic insect inputs, interaction between Sun Down Bowl Creek and the vegetation that would serve these functions and that is proposed to be removed, are minimal. It is unlikely that long-term changes in trout populations or habitat would result from the Chair 5 base area construction or Sun Down Express installation.

Macroinvertebrate Communities Since no construction is proposed in the Mill Creek WIZ, no direct effects to aquatic habitat, including macroinvertebrates, are expected to Mill Creek as a result of Alternative 2 activities. However, increased water yield would be expected as an indirect effect of snowmaking and tree clearing.

Interstitial habitat for macroinvertebrate communities in Gore Creek would be impacted by sediment deposition, and therefore, Alternative 2 would result in further reductions in sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa as a result of expected erosion due to the Golden Peak race venue construction.

Because substrate composition and residual pool depths are unlikely to be affected by the Chair 5 base area construction or Sun Down Express installation, no long-term impacts to macroinvertebrate communities are expected as a result of the Chair 5 base area construction or Sun Down Express installation.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-109 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Stream Health Within the Mill Creek drainage, an additional 40 acres of ski trail clearing, grading, and snowmaking, as well as DMP provisions, are proposed under Alternative 2. In addition a snowcat maintenance facility would be constructed within the drainage. Since no construction is proposed in the WIZ, no direct effects to aquatic habitat, including MIS, are expected to Mill Creek as a result of Alternative 2 activities. However, given the amount of slope erosion that is currently occurring as a result of vegetative clearing, grading, and snowmaking on the ski slopes in Golden Peak, there is a high risk that additional construction activities would result in indirect effects to the Mill Creek aquatic habitat, primarily increased water yield, despite the DMP activities proposed.

Gore Creek would be subjected to both short- and long-term indirect effects of a nature similar to Mill Creek caused by the construction of the Golden Peak race venue. However, effects would differ from those expected for Mill Creek in that sediment deposition would be expected to be observed in Gore Creek. Erosion that would occur in existing unstable areas of Golden Peak as well as that which would result from the Golden Peak race venue construction would likely cause sediment to be routed through Mill Creek and into Gore Creek.

The addition of Simba trail snowmaking in Alternative 2 may result in some short-term erosion until water management strategies described in Appendix A are stable and carry additional snowmaking water yield to filter strips successfully. However, since the existing water management provisions are for the most part functional, the risk of sedimentation to Gore Creek is unlikely.

Short-term sedimentation may occur as a result of the earthwork and culvert replacement at the Chair 5 base area. Sedimentation would be minimized by implementing standard best management practices (e.g., clean water bypass, silt fence) during construction. Some permanent loss of vegetation would occur within the WIZ (within 100 feet of the stream), however few if any trees would be removed. It is unlikely that long-term changes in stream health would result for the Chair 5 base area construction of Sun Down Express installation.

MIS Determination With the implementation of Alternative 2 a trend towards degradation of aquatic MIS habitat would be expected within and downstream of the project area. Therefore, these proposed Alternative 2 activities would not contribute towards meeting Forest-wide aquatic MIS objectives of improving habitat quality or availability within 15 years. While negative effects to physical habitat quality would be expected for trout and aquatic macroinvertebrates at the project scale, no change in populations would be expected due to Alternative 2 at the Forest-wide scale.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-110 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is composed of all elements described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of the Sun Down Express installation and the proposed Golden Peak race area. Impacts to threatened and endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species are summarized below.

Threatened and Endangered

Effects to endangered fish species in the Colorado River related to Alternative 3 are similar to those that would be expected under Alternative 2. As indicated in Table 3F-1, the Forest Service has consulted on 1,316 AF of diversions and depletions from the Colorado River watershed. The 112 AF of total depletions (7 AF of new depletions associated with this project) proposed in Alternative 3 do not exceed the snowmaking depletions previously consulted on, and therefore Alternative 3 has been determined to have “No (additional) Effect” to Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and humpback chub.

R2 Sensitive Species

Alternative 3 includes activities that may result in slight short-term sedimentation and minimal reductions in LWD recruitment to water influence zones. However, these impacts would be more than offset in the long-term by improvements in the WIZ completed by VMSR upstream of the Chair 5 base area (see cumulative effects). No other measurable impacts would be expected, and therefore no impacts to Colorado River cutthroat trout are expected with the implementation of Alternative 3

No proposed activities under Alternative 3 are expected to effect bluehead and flannelmouth sucker habitat. Therefore, no impacts of Alternative 3 are expected for bluehead sucker or flannelmouth sucker.

Alternative 3 would pose less of a crushing risk than Alternative 2 since much less heavy equipment use would be required with the exclusion of the Golden Peak race venue from consideration. Risks are low since known breeding sites are slightly beyond normal dispersal zones, and are potentially separated by developed areas. Nevertheless, crushing risks remains; Alternatives 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for boreal toad.

Since northern leopard frogs would not be expected to disperse long distances across dry terrain from breeding sites, and no occurrence records or breeding sites are known for the species within or near the project area, Alternatives 3 would have No Impact to northern leopard frog individuals or habitat. See Table 3F-5 for a summary of the determinations for sensitive species by alternative.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-111 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Table 3F-5: Determination of Effects on R2 Sensitive Fish Species

Common Name, Determination of Effects Scientific Name Status No Action Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, RFSS No Impact MAII No Impact Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Bluehead Sucker, RFSS No Impact MAII No Impact Catostomus discobolus Flannelmouth Sucker, RFSS No Impact MAII No Impact Catostomus latipinnis Boreal Toad, RFSS No Impact MAII MAII Anaxyrus boreas boreas Northern Leopard Frog, RFSS No Impact No Impact No Impact Lithobates pipiens Mountain Sucker, RFSS No Impact No Impact No Impact Catostomus platyrhynchus Roundtail Chub, RFSS No Impact No Impact No Impact Gila robusta Note: Summary of determinations for sensitive aquatic species expected for the Vail Mountain Resort Master Development – Phase I project alternatives. RFSS = Regional Forester Sensitive Species; MAII = May adversely impact individuals.

Management Indicator Species

After removing several components of the proposed action, activities included within Alternative 3 that may affect aquatic habitat includes the implementation of the Simba terrain snowmaking, as well as the Sun Down Express terminal grading. No activities are proposed under Alternative 3 within the Mill Creek drainage, so effects that would be expected to Mill Creek would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative. The direct and indirect effects to Gore Creek related to the Simba snowmaking would be the same as described under Alternative 2.

Although Alternative 3 does not include construction of the Sun Down Express, required grading at the bottom terminal location of Chair 5 would be almost identical to that included in Alternative 2. Sediment control activities, such as the use of silt fence and other standard erosion control measures would minimize indirect sediment-related effects to aquatic habitats in Sun Down Bowl Creek. However, minimal long-term effects to LWD recruitment may occur, similar to Alternative 2.

The implementation of Alternative 3 would neither inhibit nor contribute towards meeting Forest-wide objectives for aquatic MIS.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-112 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species part of ongoing resort operations or recently-approved current projects (e.g., annual summer construction projects).

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

The ongoing management maintenance activities and winter operations on Vail would be considered the baseline, and would be continued in the future. Extensive modification of both riparian and instream aquatic habitat has occurred within the Gore Creek watershed; construction, operation and maintenance of I-70, development activities, municipal wastewater treatment plants have contributed to sediment, pollutant and nutrient inputs effecting water and habitat quality.115 Additionally, excessive erosion of forest roads along Spraddle, Red Sandstone, and Mill Creeks has greatly increased sediment deposition in aquatic habitats causing reductions in sensitive macroinvertebrates. Sedimentation combined with other impacts related to urbanization have resulted in increased algae blooms and other changes in physical and biological components of streams. Future projects such as the recently approved Black Lakes enlargement may alter runoff regimes in tributaries, while the Basin of Last Resort sediment control project is expected to minimize sediment deposition caused by Vail Pass traction sanding operations for at least two to three years. Sheep grazing on Vail may hinder revegetation and increase sediment in Mill Creek. Increased water yield is expected in all of the project area watersheds as a result of lodgepole pine mortality.

Threatened and Endangered

The proposed action would result in a total water depletion of approximately 142 AF of water per year, and Alternative 3 would result in a loss of 132 AF from the Colorado River System. Water depletions included in both Alternatives would result in “May Affect, and Likely to Adversely Affect” determinations for Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, razorback sucker, and humpback chub. Providing adequate flows for these species is a primary component of their recovery. These water depletions, along with others throughout the Upper Colorado River basin, particularly trans-basin diversions, would contribute towards the decline of this species and are counter to recovery efforts and contribute to adverse cumulative effects.

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

In the Upper Eagle River and Two Elk Creek watersheds land management activities including non- native trout stocking have impacted water quality and increased loss of CRCT. CRCT populations that were found within the Upper Eagle River watershed in the 1970s were completely replaced by non-native salmonids by 2003. While activities proposed under Alternative 2 within the Two Elk Creek drainage may result in relatively minor, short-term sediment inputs and minimal long-term loss of LWD from the WIZ, these effects were offset by improvements made to the Sun Up road in 2008.

115 Refer to the Cumulative Effects analysis of Section K. Water Resources for information on CDOT’s maintenance activities for I-70.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-113 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Aquatic Species

Cumulative effects to Bluehead and Flannelmouth Sucker would be expected to be similar to those described for CRCT in the Gore Creek watershed. However, it is unclear how future changes in the watershed would impact bluehead and flannelmouth sucker food resources, reproduction, or habitat. It is likely that activities that modify sediment, flow, or temperature regimes, such as the Basin of Last Resort or construction along Gore Creek would lead to changes in native sucker habitat.

No cumulative effects are expected to the northern leopard frog since no direct or indirect effects are expected.

Management Indicator Species

When these projects are considered cumulatively with Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 projects, existing water quality impacts within the Gore Creek watershed would be exacerbated by additional sediment deposition under Alternative 2. Physical habitat quality would be degraded for all trout and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. There is a relatively high risk of long-term negative effects to trout or aquatic macroinvertebrate physical habitat as a result of the proposed project components in Alternative 2, but the effects may not be measurable at the Forest-wide scale for aquatic MIS.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-114 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation

G. VEGETATION SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The project area considered herein consists of Vail’s 12,590-acre SUP area, designated as an 8.25 Management Area (Ski Areas – Existing and Potential), which is intensively managed for downhill skiing opportunities and opportunities for non-motorized recreation.116 A wide variety of habitats occur in the project area. These habitats include spruce/fir, lodgepole, lodgepole pine mix, grass/forbs, and aspen forest types, as well as, upland meadows. To appropriately evaluate potential project effects of varying scale on different botanical species, different analysis areas are considered, depending on the species.

A Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) were prepared for this project. Both documents are part of the project file (at the Holy Cross Ranger District) and are incorporated herein by reference.117

Disturbance Areas

Disturbance areas represent the smallest quantitative analysis areas and the immediate areas of physical habitat modifications (i.e., habitat conversion). For the purpose of keeping this vegetation analysis succinct, the specific areas proposed for disturbance are discussed here.

The proposed Sun Down Express is primarily located within an open bowl grass-forb community, with some portions of the alignment in spruce-fir, lodgepole pine and aspen stands.

Chair 5 is located in a spruce-fir stand.

The proposed restaurant at Mid Vail would occur in primarily a grass-forb community, with small groups of lodgepole pine and spruce-fir.

Existing front-side trails proposed for snowmaking infrastructure are composed of grass-forb communities.

The proposed maintenance building is located within a grass-forb and lodgepole community in the Eagle’s Nest area at 10,280 feet in elevation.

The proposed addition to the Golden Peak race venue would be located within mature, closed canopy, aspen with patches of lodgepole pine at 8,700 to 10,100 feet in elevation. A portion of Golden Peak has been developed for ski terrain.

116 USDA Forest Service, 2002a,b 117 USDA Forest Service, 2008b,c

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-115 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

Listed or candidate plant species that were initially considered for this analysis include those identified by the USFWS as potentially occurring on the Holy Cross Ranger District or potentially affected by management activities. Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from numerous sources: USFWS recovery plans; CNHP data base maps and reports; CDOW habitat mapping; personal knowledge of the Forest Service wildlife biologist; various scientific studies and reports; correspondence with USFWS biologists; and an extensive compilation of information contained in the BA for the Proposed Revision of the 2002 Forest Plan. Additional information on threatened and endangered species in contained in the BA.

Penland Alpine Fen Mustard

Federally threatened Penland alpine fen mustard is found downslope from persistent snow fields that provide moisture all summer long. Often, the Penland eutrema plants are associated with mosses or other tiny plants, making eutrema difficult to spot. Most populations are threatened by their proximity to active mines or mining claims. In Colorado known individuals and populations occur above 12,000 feet on the leeward side of the crest of the Mosquito Range, from Hoosier Pass to Mount Sherman. There have been no individuals or populations of this species found within the proposed project areas. Therefore, this species was dropped from further consideration.

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species

The Forest Service Region 2 (R2) 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.118 The updated R2 Sensitive Species List was refined by the WRNF to produce a subset of sensitive species, including 31 plants, that may be present or potentially present on the WRNF after an analysis of all sensitive species on the overall updated R2 list (refer to Table 3G-1).119 Determination of risks to population of sensitive plants takes into account the size, density, vigor, habitat requirements, locations of the population, and consequence of adverse effects on the species as a whole within its range and within the WRNF.

Information on R2 sensitive species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from CNHP database maps and reports, Natural Diversity Information System (NDIS) species mapping, personal knowledge from Forest Service botanists, various scientific studies and reports, field surveys conducted for the Proposed Action (described below), and an extensive compilation of information contained in the 2002

118 USDA Forest Service, 2003a 119 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-116 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation

Forest Plan.120 In 2007 and 2008 botanical surveys were conducted for federally listed and R2 sensitive plants through all project areas associated with Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 that could potentially support such species. Additionally, two surveys of the Mid Vail project area were conducted in 2009. The purpose of the survey was to gain a better understanding of the nature of the action(s), identify and characterize habitat types, structural stages, and plant communities affected by Alternatives 2 and 3, and search for the plant species considered in this document. As noted in Table 3G-1, only two of the 31 R2 sensitive plant species that are known or expected to occur on the WRNF were associated with the habitat or were identified within the project areas. Specific habitat associations and occurrence information for fork leaf moonwort and slender moonwort can be found below the table. Additional information on R2 sensitive species in contained in the BE.

Table 3G-1: Checklist of R2 Sensitive Plant Species that occur on the WRNF Common name, Scientific name Rational for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) Sea pink, Armeria maritima ssp. sibirica No habitat (Wet sandy alpine slopes >12,250’) Park milkvetch, Astragalus leptaleus No habitat (Wet meadows/aspen; Gun. Basin, Middle Park) Wetherill milkvetch, Astragalus wetherillii No habitat (Eroding shale bluffs 5,250–7,400’) Smooth rockcress, Braya glabella No habitat (Sparse. calcareous alpine gravels >12,000’) Trianglelobe moonwort, Botrychium ascendens No habitat (Montane riparian willow communities) Fork leaf moonwort, Botrychium furcatum Habitat Present (Upper subalpine, historically disturbed) Slender moonwort, Botrychium lineare Habitat Present (Medium height grass along forest edge) Lesser panicled sedge, Carex diandra No habitat (Subalpine swamps, wet meadows, w. carrs) Livid sedge, carex livida No habitat (Fen or floating peat mats) Rocky Mountain thistle, Cirsium perplexans No habitat (Adobe and barren shale slopes 4,500–7,000’) Clawless draba, Draba exunguiculata No habitat (Granitic alpine fellfields 12,000–14,000’) Gray’s Peak whitlow-grass, Draba grayana No habitat (Gravelly alpine slopes 11,500–14,000’) Round leaf sundew, Drosera rotundifolia No habitat (poor and intermediate poor fens or floating mats) Eriogonum exilifolium, Slender buckwheat No habitat (Open, sparsely vegetated habitats 6,900–8,600’) Altai cotton-grass, Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum No habitat (Peat wetlands >9,600’, San Juan & Elk Mtns.) Russet cotton-grass, Eriophorum chamissonis No habitat (High elevation peaty wetlands) Slender cotton-grass, Eriophorum gracile No habitat (Peaty wetlands & saturated soils 6,900–8,000’) Hall fescue, Festuca hallii No habitat (Montane and subalpine meadows and forest edge) Colorado tansy-aster, Machaeranthera coloradoensis No habitat (Sparsely vegetated sandy soils 8,100–7,800’) Kotzebue’s grass-of-Parnassus, Parnassia kotzebuei No habitat (Edges of stand. water bodies 10,000–12,400’) Harrington penstemon, Penstemon harringtonii No habitat (Open sagebrush, pinyon-juniper habitats) De Beque phacelia, Phacelia scopulina var. submutica No habitat (Clay barrens) Porter feathergrass, Ptilagrostis porteri No habitat (Peaty soils in willow-tuft. hairgrass >10,000’) Ice cold buttercup, Ranunculus karelinii No habitat (Ridge/Mtn. top rock, scree, <12,700’) Dwarf raspberry, Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis No habitat (Wetland species, 8,600–9,700’) Hoary Willow, Salix candida No habitat (Calcareous fens and willow thickets on histic soils) Autumn Willow, Salix serissima No habitat (Fens 7,800–9,720’)

120 USDA Forest Service, 2002c

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-117 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation

Table 3G-1: Checklist of R2 Sensitive Plant Species that occur on the WRNF Common name, Scientific name Rational for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) Sun-loving meadowrue, Thalictrum heliophilum No habitat (Steep oil shale slopes 6,300–8,800’) Peat Moss, Sphagnum angustifolium No habitat (Nutrient poor fens, 9,600–11,483’) Baltic bog moss Sphagnum balticum No habitat (Wet portions of acidic peatlands, iron fens) Lesser bladderwort, Utricularia minor No Habitat (Basin fens in shallow water subalpine ponds) Note: Other R2 plant 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, and Alternative 2 would have no impact on the species. Potential pre-field survey occurrence on the project area and habitat affinity is summarized for each species. Plants are listed alphabetically by scientific name after USDA Forest Service (2003a, 2005a). Source: USDA Forest Service (2003a, 2005a) and Western Ecosystems, Inc.

Fieldwork and Surveys

Forest Service botanists surveyed the proposed Mid Vail area for rare plants and found several species of “common moonworts (Botrychium sp.)” in two aggregations overlapping the proposed restaurant’s footprint. Because moonworts occur in genus communities that may support unexpressed R2 species, records of all prior plant surveys at Vail were searched and additional moonwort surveys were conducted in the vicinity of the Mid Vail restaurant.

Seven moonwort aggregations containing at least 80 individuals of four to five species were documented in habitat surrounding the proposed Mid Vail restaurant. One aggregation would likely be within the restaurant impact area. None of the other aggregations would be within the restaurant impact area. No R2- listed moonworts (or other R2 plants) were located. Aggregations ranged in size from 3 to 37 individuals and contained one to four species.

In addition to the two 2009 surveys, thirteen prior plant surveys within the Vail SUP area were conducted between July 2001 and June 2004. Extrapolating 2009 survey results in a relatively small, suboptimal, sub-treeline portion of Vail and results of prior plant surveys at Vail where moonworts were detected, the Vail SUP area supports hundreds to thousands of acres of suitable moonwort habitat that is likely occupied. The relatively small area of occupied moonwort habitat that would be permanently removed for development and use of the Mid Vail Restaurant would affect three of fifteen documented moonwort aggregations, 23 of 246 to 346 documented individuals, and two of four to five species documented within Vail’s SUP area. As at other Eagle and Summit County ski areas, virtually all of the moonwort habitat below treeline is the result of ski trail development, because moonworts do not occur below closed-canopy forests in Colorado.

Fork Leaf Moonwort

The fork leaf moonwort appears to be endemic to the southern Rocky Mountains. Little is known about the biology, habitat requirements, population trend or distribution of fork leaf moonwort.121 The rarity of

121 Popovich, 2008

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-118 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation the species makes it vulnerable to extirpation due to random events and stochasticity. This moonwort species has been shown to colonize in the upper subalpine zones in areas that were historically disturbed but are now stabilized such as roadside cut, meadow trailheads, and on rocky slopes of earthen dams. Potential habitat at Vail would include developed trails, road shoulders and cuts, skid trails, and alpine tundra and open meadows that may or may not be disturbed. There are currently no documented occurrences of fork leaf moonwort on the WRNF and none were found as a result of the field reconnaissance specific to this project.

Slender Moonwort

The slender moonwort exists across a variable range from sea level to over 10,000 feet in Colorado. Preferred habitat includes grassy slopes among medium height grasses and along edges of streamside forests; however, slender moonwort has been identified in subalpine grasslands, loose gravel within roadside cutbanks and on steep forest trails. There are currently no documented occurrences of slender moonwort on the WRNF and none were found as a result of the field reconnaissance specific to this project.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Determination of risks to populations of sensitive plants considers the size, density, vigor, habitat requirements, locations of the population, and consequence of adverse effects on the species as a whole within its range and within the WRNF.

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS land (other than those previously-approved, yet to be implemented mountain improvements). Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been considered in prior documents and were considered in the Affected Environment.

The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct or indirect impacts or benefits to the plants and habitats addressed in this document (see Table 3G-1). Furthermore, Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on any federally listed or R2 sensitive plant species.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – The Action Alternatives Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would result in permanent and short- to long-term disturbances (i.e., before reclamation restored areas to pre-disturbance conditions) to 55.5 acres of habitat within Vail’s SUP area (including 47.5 acres of tree clearing associated with Golden Peak, the Chair 5 upgrade, the new Sun Down Express, the new restaurant at Mid Vail and the maintenance facility). This also includes approximately 5.7 acres

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-119 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation of grading non-forested areas. The reader is referred to Table 3G-2 for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage associated with various project components.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would result in permanent and short- to long-term disturbances to 8.8 acres of habitat within Vail’s SUP area (including 1.9 acres of tree clearing associated with the Chair 5 upgrade, the new restaurant and the maintenance facility). This also includes approximately 2 acres of grading non-forested areas. The reader is referred to Tables 3G-2 for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage associated with various project components.

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

Botanical surveys were conducted through proposed disturbance areas in summer 2007 and 2008 when Penland alpine fen mustard and other sensitive alpine plant species would have been most detectable. While the proposed disturbance areas extend into the alpine, neither Alternatives 2 nor 3 would not have any direct or indirect impacts on Penland alpine fen mustard or on any other listed or proposed plant species. No portion of the project area has been designated critical plant habitat by the Secretary of the Interior.122

Region Two Sensitive Plant Species

The proposed Mid Vail restaurant would be constructed within suitable habitat for the fork leaf moonwort and the slender moonwort. Although neither of these species has been documented at this site, because habitat is present, the proposed projects may adversely impact individuals of each species, but would not result in a loss of viability of these species within the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or loss of species viability range-wide.

Both Action Alternatives would be consistent with all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to plants. Alternatives 2 and 3 should have no indirect impacts on any R2 sensitive plant species.

122 PL-93-205, Section 4, 1978

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-120 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Vegetation

Table 3G-2: Comparison of Overstory Vegetation Disturbance by Alternative OverstoryVegetation Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Project Type Disturbance (acres) Disturbance (acres) Aspen 37.69 0 Grass/Forbs 1.36 0 Golden Peak Lodgepole Pine 6.48 0 Total Disturbance 45.53 0 Grass/Forbs 1.1 .91 Lodgepole Pine 0.21 .21 Chair 5 Upgrade Spruce/Fir 0.32 .32 Aspen 0.05 .05 Total Disturbance 1.68 1.48 Grass/Forbs 0.28 0 Lodgepole Pine 0.14 0 Sun Down Express Spruce/Fir 0.44 0 Aspen 0.8 0 Total Disturbance 1.67 0 Grass/Forbs 1.0 1.0 Restaurant Lodgepole Pine mix 0.4 0.4 Total Disturbance 1.4 1.4 Grass/Forbs 0 0 Maintenance Building Lodgepole Pine mix 0.94 0.94 Total Disturbance 0.94 0.94 Simba Snowmaking Grass/Forbs 4.84 4.84 Pipeline Total Disturbance 4.84 4.84 Total Tree Removal 47.47 1.92

Total Ground 55.46 8.66 Disturbance Note: Due to differences in rounding, the vegetation disturbance numbers in this table differ slightly from the Comparison of Project Elements by Alternative Table 2-1.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities have been identified that, in conjunction with proposed projects at Vail, have potential to cumulatively affect vegetation resources.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Tree removal related to Golden Peak, the Chair 5 upgrade, the Sun Down Express, the restaurant at Mid Vail and the maintenance facility would represent an irretrievable effect to vegetation resources within the SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because vegetation is a renewable resource.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvement Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-121 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health

H. FOREST HEALTH

Prompted largely by growing recreational demands, encroaching development, pathogen/insect epidemics, and the threat of wildland fires, concern about the health of managed forests (federal, private, and state) has increased significantly over the previous 20 years. Land managers, tasked with balancing forest values (i.e., aesthetic, recreation, timber harvest, watershed protection) with the overall, long-term physical condition of the forest itself, are situated squarely within the crossroads of the complex, ever- changing interface between the biotic environment and human society.

A term not consistently defined within the research literature, forest health can be viewed as:

“…a condition of forest ecosystems that sustains their complexity while providing for human needs.”123

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

Vail’s existing, developed ski terrain is located on the north and south slopes of Vail Mountain, the south slopes of Red Peak, the north and southeast slopes of Game Peak, and the north slope of Battle Mountain. Ski area elevations range between approximately 8,200 feet at the base area and 12,000 feet at the summit of Red Peak. Forest cover is composed of mature and late successional Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies bifolia), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stands that have been fragmented and/or substantially altered by human management over the previous 150 years.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The project area is characterized by continuous stands of mature, even-aged lodgepole pine, aspen and mixed conifer. Similar vegetative conditions are found on adjacent NFS and non-federal land.

Using the definition of “forest health” provided above, and within the context of the current mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic, present day forest health and vitality in the Vail Valley could be classified as stressed and experiencing significant change. Currently, Eagle County is experiencing heavy mortality in mature lodgepole pine forested areas due to an MPB epidemic. Beetles attack over-mature, densely spaced lodgepole pines in the Vail Valley. Over 90 percent of the lodgepole pines in the area are 80 years

123 O’Laughlin, 1994

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-122 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health or older. Trees that are stressed from drought, dwarf mistletoe and root diseases are also more susceptible to MPB infestation. Some younger lodgepole pine trees have also been attacked by these beetles.

Field and aerial surveys indicate that MPB populations are increasing within the project area. Based on this information and the continual spread of lodgepole pine mortality, there was sufficient evidence to recommend to the Forest Supervisor that an epidemic of MPB exist in the Vail valley. In February of 2006, the WRNF Forest Supervisor (Maribeth Gustafson) documented that a MPB epidemic exists and that there are threats to ecosystem components throughout the Vail Valley. The Deputy Regional Forester declared a MPB epidemic (July 2007) in all areas of the White River National Forest. Up to 95 percent of mature lodgepole pine stands are expected to die on federal and non-federal lands within the next 3 to 5 years.

Visual estimates in August 2006 of dead and red-needled trees in the majority of the lodgepole pine treatment areas were 40 percent or higher. Dead standing and red-needled lodgepole pine vary between 40 and 200 trees per acre. Lodgepole pine stand densities range between 100 and 800 trees per acre.

Local officials and private landowners have expressed concern regarding the MPB epidemic, resulting loss of lodgepole pine stands and risk of wildfire. In efforts to suppress MPB infestations and reduce hazardous fuels, municipal governments and private landowners have treated lodgepole pine stands on their properties. They have also requested that the federal government treat adjacent National Forest System lands to suppress insect populations and reduce hazardous fuels across a broad landscape.

The WRNF, in conjunction with the Town of Vail, Colorado State Forest Service, Eagle County, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District responded with the initiation of the Vail Valley Forest Health Project in 2005. Through this ongoing effort, approximately 2,200 acres of forest treatments have been prescribed throughout 58,000 acres of national forest lands in an effort to manage future MPB risk, promote aspen regeneration, and reduce fuel loads near communities. To date, over 9,000 hazardous trees have been removed and a 90-acre fuel break has been created around West Vail.124 Project work is anticipated to continue through 2012.

Golden Peak Race/Training Venue

The area of proposed development on Golden Peak is composed of mature, closed canopy, lodgepole pine and aspen trees. The elevation ranges from 8,700 to 10,100 feet. The mountainside upslope from the Riva Bahn access road to the summit of Golden Peak exhibits a predominantly west-facing aspect with a shallow (2.5 feet deep) soil.

124 Town of Vail, 2008b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-123 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health

Sun Down Bowl

Sun Down Bowl ranges from 9,400 to 11,250 feet with a prevailing south-facing aspect. Vegetation is dominated by grass-forb communities that are interspersed with stands of lodgepole pine, spruce/fir, and aspen.

Guest Services Facility

The location of the proposed restaurant at Mid Vail is comprised mostly of grass-forb communities with some lodgepole pine cover type. The site is located on the northeast facing slope at an elevation of 10,180 feet.

Maintenance Facility

The location of the proposed maintenance facility in the Eagle’s Nest area on Vail’s Front Side is comprised mostly of grass-forb with a small complement of the lodgepole pine cover type. The site exhibits a north-facing aspect at an elevation of 10,280 feet.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Under all alternatives, the MPB epidemic will continue to persist, eventually affecting all lodgepole pines throughout NFS and private lands in Eagle County. The resulting loss of lodgepole pine stands and risk of wildfire will undoubtedly increase in the future. Additionally, as trees succumb to the MPB epidemic an increase in exposed surface soils will result in increased erosion and sediment transport within watersheds. Loss of bank stabilizing vegetation also contributes fine sediment to stream channels. Sediment transport within the stream network of the watershed can impact stream health by decreasing the diversity of habitat types and water quality, which can impact wildlife species.

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS land (other than those previously-approved, yet to be implemented mountain improvements from the 2006 Vail Ski Area Proposed West Lionshead Lift Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice, and FONSI). Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been analyzed in prior documents and are considered herein.

Plant communities would continue their succession: ski trails toward more diverse, native meadows and forests toward more spruce-dominated, mature and senescent structural stages. The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct impacts or benefits to the forested cover types within Vail’s SUP area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 would result in permanent disturbance to approximately 47.5 acres of overstory vegetation within Vail’s SUP area. This includes the clearing of aspen, lodgepole pine, and spruce/fir forest types,

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-124 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health although all lodgepole pines are expected to be lost to the MPB epidemic in the near future. The reader is referred to Table 3H-1 for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage associated with various project components by alternative.

Table 3H-1: Acres of Tree Removal Associated with the Alternatives Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Project Vegetation Disturbance (acres) Disturbance (acres) Aspen 37.69 0 Golden Peak Lodgepole Pine 6.48 0 Total Tree Removal 44.17 0 Lodgepole Pine mix 0.4 0.4 Restaurant Total Tree Removal 0.4 0.4 Lodgepole Pine 0.21 .21 Spruce/Fir 0.32 .32 Chair 5 Upgrade Aspen 0.05 .05 Total Tree Removal 0.58 0.54 Lodgepole Pine 0.14 0 Spruce/Fir 0.44 0 Sun Down Express Aspen 0.8 0 Total Tree Removal 1.38 0 Lodgepole Pine mix 0.94 0.94 Maintenance Building Total Tree Removal 0.94 0.94 Total Tree Removal 47.47 1.9

Under each Action Alternative, the vast majority of tree removal would be ski trails and lift corridors that would function as mountain grassland following successful reclamation and succession. Proposed trail development after tree removal would largely retain the existing forest understory, whose vegetative community would then succeed toward an artificial meadow affected by ski area management. The majority of disturbances to grass-forb communities involve temporary disturbances to existing trails, which would again function as mountain grassland following successful reclamation and succession.

Golden Peak Race/Training Venue

Development of the race/training terrain would require the clearing of approximately 37.69 acres of aspen and 6.48 acres of lodgepole pine on Golden Peak. While reducing the overall forest cover on Golden Peak, the proposed trail corridors would create fragmented forested openings that are consistent with their overall pattern and distribution throughout the SUP area.

Chair 5 Upgrade

The Chair 5 upgrade would require approximately 0.21 acre of lodgepole pine, 0.32 acre of spruce/fir forest and 0.05 acre of aspen along the lift corridor and at the top and bottom terminals.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-125 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health

Sun Down Express

Clearing of the forested cover types for the Sun Down Express corridor/terminals would affect 0.14 acre of lodgepole pine and approximately 0.44 acre of spruce/fir. Spruce/fir clearing is associated with the proposed lift corridor alignment through the trees immediately south (down slope) from the summit of Vail Mountain. Lodgepole pine clearing would result from development of the lower terminal area.

Guest Services

The new restaurant at Mid Vail would require approximately 0.4 acre of lodgepole pine and spruce/fir removal.

Maintenance Facility

The proposed maintenance facility in the Eagle’s Nest area would necessitate the removal of less than 1 acre of lodgepole pine.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is composed of all elements described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of: Sun Down Express installation and Golden Peak terrain additions. The reader is referred to Table 3H-1 for a comparison of tree-clearing acreage by alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Eastern Eagle County was heavily logged to support mining and related railroad activities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century mining era, from around 1870 through 1910. Trees were removed for utilization as lumber, and also sometimes burned to open areas for livestock forage or to expose mineral deposits. As a result, the forest landscape is occupied primarily by dense, relatively even-aged forest between 90 to 130 years of age, dominated by lodgepole pine, a comparatively short-lived, disturbance-dependent species. These widespread single-species forests have reached an end-stage of development where they increasingly succumb to insect infestation, disease, and fire due to size, age, and homogeneity. Forest health treatments within the Upper Eagle River and Gore Creek sub-watershed have occurred, and will continue to occur, to address: public safety related to wildfires, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat capabilities.

In general, the cumulative effects of potential forest health treatments such as vegetation thinning or prescribed burns, in combination with the landscape scale successional changes associated with the mountain pine beetle epidemic have short- and long-term effects on forest health (e.g., wildlife hazards, aesthetics, and biodiversity).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-126 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Vail Category III Ski Area Development Record of Decision, August 1996

2006 Vail Valley Forest Health Project Records of Decision

Development of the Vail Valley Forest Health (VVFH) Project began in 2000. Its goal was to emphasize vegetation management actions, including green tree removal, sanitation and salvage, felling in place, pile and broadcast burning, pruning, and chipping, that would improve forest health and reduce the accumulation of fuels near communities in the Vail Valley. A variety of techniques would be used to improve stand structure and species diversity, and consequently, forest health in the Vail Valley while meeting Forest Plan guidance. The techniques used would provide for the adaptive management of this area, as the mountain pine beetle outbreak moves across the landscape and conditions change rapidly.

In February 2001, the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Town of Vail, Colorado State Forest Service, Vail Associates, and Gunnison Forest Health Management Service Center. The objective of the MOU was to develop a framework for all parties to work cooperatively in support of improving forest health and reducing wildland fire risk in the wildland urban interface. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the VVFH Project was published on October 23, 2003.

The VVFH Project is located along the I-70 corridor between Vail Pass and Avon. The project analysis area contains 57,598 acres of NFS lands, 13,726 acres of privately owned lands, and 1,081 acres of state- owned lands, for a total of 72,405 acres in all ownerships. The project activities will only be conducted on NFS lands.

Approximately 3,000 acres of vegetation management was approved. However, this acreage estimate may vary by as much as 15 percent, and it is estimated that 2,500 to 3,500 acres of treatments could be implemented. Lodgepole pine treatment units will not involve inventoried roadless areas as identified in the Forest Plan. The aspen and mixed shrubland units will involve inventoried roadless areas. No permanent or temporary road construction or commercial timber harvest is proposed in inventoried roadless areas.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-127 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health

Vail Ski Area West Lionshead Lift Decision Notice, June, 2006

The Decision Notice approved construction of either a high-speed detachable chairlift or a Gondola, with a maximum hourly capacity of 2,600 people per hour, out of the western side of Lionshead to the base of Chair 26. The approved lift will be approximately 3,678 feet in length and gain approximately 1,150 feet in elevation. Approximately 3.5 acres of overstory vegetation on NFS, and 0.5 acre of vegetation on private land, will be removed as a part of this approved project. The majority of the lift corridor is through lodgepole pine tree islands on the west side of Simba. The area where tree clearing is approved on NFS and private lands was previously subject to selective timber removal as port of a pine beetle removal project.

To date, this project has not been implemented.

Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain

Developments worth over $1 billion dollars related to future developments at Battle Mountain in Minturn, CO include a private ski hill, a golf course, lake, and 1,700 exclusive slope side homes. Originally conceived of by the Ginn Company, the future entitlement of this project is uncertain, and the timeline or extent of these developments is unknown. Therefore, cumulative impacts to forest health are unquantifiable at this time.

2008 Draft Vail Mountain Vegetation Management Plan.

A Draft Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared for Vail Resort. The VMP addresses the MPB infestation in lodgepole pine-dominated forest areas within Vail’s SUP area, and describes treatments options for future forest management projects. Species composition, mortality percentage and understory components were considered, with silvicultural prescriptions applied to 113 units. The desired future condition is a healthy and sustainable forest within Vail’s SUP area.

Vail Beetle Tree Salvage Project Decision Memo, June 2009

The Decision Memo approved removal of dead and dying lodgepole pine infested with mountain pine beetles on approximately 26 acres of National Forest System Land distributed throughout Vail’s SUP area. As approved, the project includes salvaging timber in the following locations: Vista Bahn (Chair 16) and Avanti (Chair 2) lift lines. Dead and dying trees will be removed up to 90 feet on either side of chairlifts.

Forest-Wide Hazard Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction, September 2009

Due to the widespread MPB infestation, which is resulting in the loss of mature lodgepole pine trees on the WRNF, the Forest Service proposed to remove or fell hazardous trees in compliance with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The MPB infestation has resulted in a high rate of mortality of pine trees in the WRNF. In association with the growing numbers of dead pine trees is also the growing future risk of falling trees.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-128 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Forest Health

In September 2009 the WRNF Supervisor signed a Decision Notice approving removal of hazard trees located within 110 percent of the height of the tallest tree from the edge of roads, trails, trailheads, administrative sites, recreation sites, and heritage resource sites on the Forest. Implementation is expected to occur on a site-by-site basis over the next ten years in order to fully address the current and expected high incidence of hazardous trees on the Forest.

The analysis area for the project includes portions of WRNF lands in Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, and Summit counties in central Colorado. The analysis area consists of a total acreage of 1.2 million acres which are managed as part of the WRNF. Approximately 160,000 acres of lodgepole pine dominant stands have been delineated. According to estimates that were developed through aerial surveys that were performed by the USFS in 2008 and years prior, approximately 256,424 acres of the lodgepole pine inclusive stands have been infested by MPB.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

All of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects noted previously will affect forest health in the Vail Valley as the MPB epidemic moves through different stages. As noted in the Affected Environment section, 95 percent of mature lodgepole pine stands on federal and non-federal lands are expected to eventually succumb to this epidemic. Vail’s draft Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) was designed in direct response to the MPB epidemic. The VMP focuses on asset protection, visual quality, and reforestation throughout the SUP area.

Cumulatively, these projects alter vegetative cover types and patterns while creating a developed, altered landscape in the Vail Valley. The Action Alternatives represent an incremental addition to the overall trend of forested landscape alteration and is not anticipated to detrimentally affect forest health at Vail.

Considering the anticipated benefits and effects from the proposed project in a cumulative context of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the proposed project meets WRNF management standards and guidelines for biodiversity and insects/disease.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Tree removal related to the project components (Golden Peak addition, Chair 5 upgrade, maintenance building construction, and Sun Down Express development) would represent an irretrievable effect to vegetation resources within the Vail SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because vegetation is a renewable resource.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-129 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality

I. AIR QUALITY SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

This air quality analysis focuses on Vail’s SUP area (NFS lands), and private lands in the adjacent base area. In addition, there are three geographically proximate Class I and II airsheds to Vail. The Eagle’s Nest Wilderness Area (Class I) is approximately 4 miles to the east of Vail, the Ptarmigan Wilderness Area (Class II) is located to the east of the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness (and is approximately 16 miles from Vail), and the Holy Cross Wilderness Area (Class II) is located approximately 4 miles to the southwest of Vail.

REGULATORY DIRECTION

The goal for air quality on NFS lands in Colorado is to manage emissions generated in or near Federal land management areas such that air quality will meet the National Clean Air Act and Colorado State air quality requirements. Specific requirements can be found in the Forest Service Air Quality Program, Colorado Smoke Management Program Memorandum of Understanding (SMP MOU), and Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 9.125 In addition, National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM10) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) increment for Class I and II areas must be met.

Air Quality Regulations Federal

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended numerous times from 1963 through 1990 to address reductions in vehicular and stationary source emissions and to establish national air pollution concentration limits. It also established several programs, including: NAAQS, which limited air pollution concentrations to protect public health and welfare; the New Source Performance Standards, which set emission standards for major sources; and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) procedures, which were designed to bring areas that exceeded NAAQS levels (non-attainment areas) to within the standards. In addition, the PSD program was established to help protect attainment areas of the country (Class I & II areas). The PSD program established allowable concentration increases from all major sources that could potentially exceed the NAAQS. The PSD program also included protection of National Parks and Wilderness areas greater than 10,000 acres (Class I areas). Finally, the PSD program established visibility impairment restrictions on major sources impacting the Class I areas.

Together, traffic and construction activities are responsible for 78 percent of national CO emissions. High levels CO can effect human health and increase smog ground level ozone. Air quality effects of greatest concern as related to the project area are particulate matter emissions from fires and construction activities (as evidenced by Eagle County air quality burn and construction permitting and regulations),

125 USDA Forest Service, 2000

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-130 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality and emissions related to vehicle traffic.126 The CAA promulgated NAAQS for particulate matter less than

10 microns and 2.5 microns (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and a PSD TSP increment for Class I and II areas.127 Table 3I-1 lists the NAAQS and Class II PSD increment values for particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3).

Table 3I-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments Class II PSD Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS Increments (microgram/m3) 24-Hour 150 µg/m3 30 PM 10 Annual 50 µg/m3 17 24-Hour 65 µg/m3 -- PM 2.5 Annual 15 µg/m3 -- 1-Hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) -- CO 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) -- 1-Hour 0.12 ppm -- O 3 8-Hour 0.075 ppm -- Source: 40 CFR 50

The CAA identifies two air quality designations that receive different levels of protection. Class I areas generally include national parks, federally-designated wilderness areas that are in excess of 5,000 acres and that were created prior to 1977, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional value. Class I designation warrants the highest level of protection afforded to an area. Class II designation typically applies to non-Class I areas.

Class I and II areas are either designated as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable areas. Unclassifiable designations apply where pollution is not anticipated to exceed national standards and where insufficient information is available to either substantiate or reject this assumption. Unclassified areas generally have little, if any, industrial development and comparatively sparse populations. The low likelihood of air quality problems makes these areas a lower priority for expensive monitoring programs.

In addition to the NAAQS discussed above, the EPA has promulgated regulations to protect and enhance air quality. The PSD regulations are intended to help maintain good air quality in areas that attain the national standards and to provide special protections for national parks, federally designated wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historical value.128 These regulations stipulate that new sources must not cause a decline in ambient air quality and must use best available control technology to limit emissions. PSD

126 Eagle County, 2008a; Traffic is discussed in detail in the Traffic and Parking Section. 127 USEPA, 2008 128 42 USC 7470-7479

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-131 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality permits are required for, “major emitting facilities” which emit, or have the potential to emit, 100 tons or more per year of any air pollutant.129 EPA regulations specifically list the sources that are considered “major emitting facilities”—this list does not include ski areas.130 However, the regulations note that the term “major emitting facilities” also includes “any other source with the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant.”131 A PSD permit is not required for Vail because ski areas are not classified as stationary sources and Vail does not have the potential to emit over 250 tons of any regulated air pollutant.

In an effort to eliminate or minimize the severity and number of exceedances of the NAAQS and to achieve expeditious attainment of these standards, the EPA promulgated the Conformity Rule in 1993. Conformity regulations apply to federal actions and environmental analyses in non-attainment areas completed after March 15, 1994. The conformity regulations do not apply to Eagle County or to the Vail area because they are classified as attainment areas or as unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants.

State

The EPA retains oversight authority but has delegated enforcement of the CAA to the states. In Colorado, the Air Pollution Control Division of the Department of Public Health and Environment acts as the lead agency. The state is required to develop and administer air pollution prevention and control programs; state standards must be either the same as, or more stringent than, Federal CAA standards. In Colorado, the state has adopted all federal ambient air quality standards as reflected in the CAA with an additional particulate standard; the standard for total suspended particulate emissions is 75 micrograms/cubic meter over 24 hours and 260 micrograms/cubic meter annually.

Forest Plan Direction

While the 2002 Forest Plan contains no specific air quality related standards or guidelines specific to the 8.25 Management Area; Forest-wide standards require that activities “[c]omply with local, state, and federal air quality regulations and maintain conformity with the State Implementation Plan.”132 Ski area projects on Forest land should be designed to meet state and federal standards, or employ mitigation to meet these regulations.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Since August 2006 Vail has been offsetting 100 percent of its energy use by purchasing wind energy and renewable energy credits. Each credit reduces approximately 1,400 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, in summer 2008 solar power will be installed to power and light several buildings at the top of Vista Bahn gondola.

129 42 USC 7475[a] and 7479[1] 130 42 USC 7479[1] 131 Ibid. 132 USDA Forest Service, 2002a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-132 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality

Climate

Eagle County experiences a typical mid-continental, high-elevation climate with cool summers and cold winters. Humidity is low and diurnal temperature fluctuations are high. Prevailing winds are generally from the southwest, west, and west-northwest, and the region receives the majority of its precipitation from Pacific storms.133 Precipitation is generally higher in the winter than in the summer. Winter precipitation occurs as abundant snowfall, while summer precipitation often occurs as localized thunderstorms. Vail’s average annual snowfall totals approximately 348 inches.134 However, snow accumulation varies within the ski area due to wind loading, scouring, the shadowing effect of peaks and ridges, as well as differences in elevation. Wind speeds on the mountain are generally higher than winds experienced within lower elevations of Vail Valley. Within the Valley, lower wind speeds can reduce dispersion, which could potentially increase the likelihood of temperature inversions in the area.

The Eagle’s Nest Wilderness Area, the only Class I airshed near the project area, is downwind of several major emitters, including seven coal power plants in Colorado and Utah, as well as some minor emitters. Lacking baseline testing, the effect of these emissions is unknown. Due to prevailing wind direction, west, southwest and south, Eagle’s Nest Wilderness Area is sheltered from most pollutant sources.135 The Holy Cross Wilderness and Ptarmigan Wilderness areas are Class II airsheds and are not subject to the same level of protection as Class I airsheds, but are managed as wilderness and as such are managed for their natural conditions.136

Because average wind direction as measured at Vail is predominantly from the west, it is unlikely that any emissions generated directly or indirectly by Vail’s operations currently affect the Holy Cross Wilderness.137

Air Quality Monitoring and Control Measures

Eagle County highly values good air quality and remains in attainment by being proactive. Air quality testing during the 1970’s and 1980’s showed air quality in Eagle County was better than the established standards. In 1990 the County implemented regulations restricting wood burning devices in new construction to one per unit, and requiring new devices to meet or exceed emission standards from the EPA for new technology. Open burning and ground disturbing development requires permitting as well as controls and abatement plans. ECO (Eagle County) transit provides public mass transit commuting opportunities. Additionally, an Air Quality Forum was established to include the mining industry and local governments to develop higher standards for Eagle County air quality.138

133 USDA Forest Service, 1998 134 Vail Resorts, 2008a 135 USDA Forest Service, 1998 136 Ibid. 137 CDOT, 2004 138 CDPHE, 2007

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-133 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality

While in the Vail area windblown dust, resulting from the dry climate, construction activities, and sand and gravel mining contributes to PM10, monitoring conducted by Eagle County from 1993 through 2001 139 indicated that the 24-hour and annual average standard for PM10 was never exceeded.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

Currently, and under the No Action Alternative, the Town of Vail operates two parking structures, one in Vail Village and the other in Lionshead, with a total of 2,350 spaces available between them. There are ten other areas that are also used for public and employee parking throughout Vail. The two parking garages, combined with the ten other areas that are used for public and employee parking, provide a total of 3,031 parking spaces. Parking at Vail therefore limits the amount of skier-related traffic on I-70.

Under the No Action Alternative, it is likely that skier visits will continue the 0.5 percent annual growth experienced over the last decade. Vail is averaging approximately 11,000 skiers per day, and has received over 1.5 million visitors annually for the last five ski seasons. Vehicle traffic trends indicate that average daily traffic is estimated to increase 50 percent by 2025 due to a projected increase in future and ongoing commercial and residential growth within Eagle County and independent of activities at Vail. However, due to existing regulations, climate, and topography, future exceedances of NAAQS would be unlikely. It is probable that Eagle County would continue to be classified as an attainment area for all monitored criteria pollutants and no additional air quality issues would be anticipated. Incremental increases in emissions would be unlikely to violate PSD regulations for criteria pollutants.

Any change in emissions would be extremely unlikely to adversely affect air quality in the Eagle’s Nest, Holy Cross, or Ptarmigan Wilderness areas. The Holy Cross Wilderness Area is upwind of Vail during the predominant south and southwest winds and associated Class II airsheds.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – The Action Alternatives

Neither of the Action Alternatives is intended to, or projected to, increase Vail’s skier visitation and Vail’s Manage-To number would remain at 19,900. Skier-related traffic on I-70 would continue to be limited to available parking within the Town of Vail. Skier visits and vehicle traffic are projected to increase at the same rate as projected under the No Action Alternative. The incremental increase in the number of vehicles on this route associated with Vail skier visitation would be insignificant in comparison to the general rate of traffic increase along the I-70 corridor due to regional population growth. Thus, the impacts of vehicular traffic associated with the Action Alternatives is not expected to have an appreciable effect on air quality.

139 CDOT, 2004

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-134 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Air Quality

Construction of the Action Alternatives would require an open burn permit from Eagle County and a fugitive dust permit (developers disturbing over 25 acres) from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. BMPs would be employed to remain in compliance with local, state, and federal air quality regulations, particularly during construction to minimize impacts to air resources. Short-term impacts related to construction would include exhaust emissions, dust generation and slash burning a portion of the removed vegetation. Table 2-2 provides BMPs designed to reduce idling time of construction machinery, as well as to reduce fugitive dust generated. Additional air resource BMPs would include: installing site improvements promptly in order to reduce the potential for dust emissions; keeping areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities to a minimum at all times, allowing improvements to be implemented in phases; and watering grading areas as necessary and practical to prevent excessive amounts of dust (Table 2-2).

Given that Alternative 2 includes approximately 47.5 acres of overstory vegetation removal and Alternative 3 includes approximately 1.9 acres of vegetation removal, some assumptions can be made regarding the amount of slash that could be generated and potentially burned. Merchantable trees would be hauled off, with limbs and branches removed and left on-site. This material, along with smaller, non- merchantable trees, would be consolidated into piles, approximately 12’x12’x12’ (1,728 cubic feet) and either chipped or burned. This material would be burned over the course of roughly five years. In the short-term, dust generated from construction would be dispersed by typical diurnal wind currents. In the long-term, no changes to current trends in air quality/climate are anticipated to result from implementation of the Action Alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions that have impacted air quality in the area include: resort development, mining, power plants, forest management, population changes within Eagle County, and construction of the I-70 corridor. Residential and commercial growth within Vail valley, and the increased visitation associated with such development, including but not limited to the I-70 expansion and potential development of a four-season resort at Battle Mountain in Minturn, is more likely to impact air quality than impacts associated with ski area projects. County building codes include requirements to reduce air quality impacts. As such, with the required mitigation measures applied, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of the Proposed Action or Alternative 3.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of resources in relation to air quality have been identified in association with either alternative analyzed in this document.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-135 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Geotechnical Analysis

J. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The study area for this analysis focuses on geologic and soil resources within the Gore Creek, Mill Creek and Two Elks watersheds on NFS lands within, and adjacent to, Vail’s SUP area. The study area includes areas directly disturbed by, and slopes adjacent to, proposed projects on Golden Peak, Vail’s Front Side, and Sun Down Bowl.

This geological summary is based on a review of published and unpublished literature, principally the U.S. Geologic Survey map MF-2375, Subsurface Investigation – Proposed Sun Down Express Return Terminal, and an unpublished Forest Service report that summarizes geological work conducted for the Vail Valley forest health project in 2002-2003.140 GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. completed an examination of stereo aerial photographs and existing field mapping, and conducted a site visit specifically at Golden Peak and at the Chair 5 bottom terminal area in July 2008. The full GEO-HAZ technical report covering the site-specific review the Golden Peak and Chair 5 project areas is contained in its July 2008 report: Geology and Geologic Hazards of 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements, available in the project record.141

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Geology

Golden Peak

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.

In most places near the Golden Peak access road, slopes are covered with colluvium no more than 2 to 3 feet thick; in other places (such as directly upslope of the turn station of the Riva Bahn Express Lift) the colluvium is thin to non-existent and bedrock lies at the surface. On the steepest slopes above the existing access road, there is some evidence of soil creep on both natural and disturbed slopes, and of very small- scale soil slumping on disturbed (cleared) slopes where they exceed roughly a 30 degree slope angle (a very small percentage of the project area).

140 Kellogg, 2003; Koechlein, 2007; Moser, 2008 141 McCalpin, 2008a,b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-136 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Geotechnical Analysis

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.

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 Vail 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.

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.

Chair 5

The Chair 5 bottom terminal site is underlain by the Minturn and Belden Formations. In-place bedrock lies only a few feet below the surface. The existing cut into the hillslope west of the Chair 5 terminal exposes angular boulders of a quartz-pebble conglomerate of the Minturn Formation. The cut face on the south side of Sun Down Cat Walk is failing in small slumps along almost its entire length, no bedrock outcrops were observed along this face.

Unconsolidated 26- to 54-foot thick colluvium deposits beneath the bench landform appear to be from the Minturn Formation upslope. This thickness is not anomalous in a montane unglaciated drainage, where the products of glacial-age mass wasting and frost wedging accumulated during several glacial cycles.

Southwest of the Chair 5 terminal above the bench and its backscarp is a hummocky zone of topography and a large (50 m by 100 m) flat meadow with sparse trees. This meadow appears to be a large area for infiltration of snowmelt into the shallow subsurface. There is a relatively sharp line separating two types of slope micromorphology. On the “wet’ side of the line, there were many small slump scarps, hummocky and irregular microtopography, and vegetation indicating abundant soil moisture (aspens). On the “dry” side of the line, the microtopography was much smoother and dry grasses prevailed along with lodgepole pines. The line could be traced all the way east to the seep area just west of the existing Chair 5 bottom terminal, at the base of the cut face; the seep area lay on the “wet” side of the line, as did all the small failures of cuts for the Sun Down Cat Walk. In contrast, none of the cuts on the “dry” side of the line show any signs of failure.

It is possible that the dry/wet line marks the southern limit of a band of shallow (possibly perched) seasonal groundwater flow, probably associated with the spring snowmelt. This band clearly emanates

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-137 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Geotechnical Analysis from infiltration of snowmelt in the large meadow referred to previously. The seasonal perched water has triggered several small slumps during the spring snowmelt period.

Slope Stability

Golden Peak

Two issues influence slope stability on Golden Peak. First, thin shale beds underlie much of the lower ski area west and southwest of Mill Creek. These beds have been involved in slope failures in the past. Second, the Minturn Formation bed dips in the same direction as the ground slope over much of the proposed trail area, which is conducive to landslides. Based on the published bedrock mapping and dips measured by Moser and Kellog, the existing landslide risk on this slope for translational bedrock landsliding appears to be low to (possibly) moderate.

Another issue is potential failure of the colluvial layer that lies above the bedrock. On natural forested aspen slopes, slopes gentler than about 27 degrees do not show any evidence of colluvium movement (landsliding or soil creep). On slopes between 27 degrees and 35 degrees (the steepest noted), the trunks of small aspen trees are curved at the base due to downslope movement within the soil column near the surface (soil creep), usually within the upper 1 to 2 feet. However, there was no visible micromorphology on the slope suggestive of discrete landsliding (detachment) of the colluvial layer.

Within the cleared path of the old lift line on Golden Peak, which is now revegetated with young aspens, slope processes appear to be more active than in the adjacent forest. In the cleared path, slopes steeper than roughly 20 degrees began to show evidence of curved trees or accelerated creep. Note that this is 7 degrees less than the slope angle threshold observed in the natural forest. Slopes from 20 to 30 degrees in the old lift line showed extensive curving of young aspens, while trees of the same age in the adjacent natural forest remained straight. On slopes steeper than 30 degrees, small slump-type landslides began to appear in the cleared path. These slumps were 6 to 8 feet long and an estimated 1 to 2 feet thick, indicating they were slides restricted to the colluvial layer (i.e., did not involve the underlying bedrock). Such slumps were not observed anywhere on the natural forested slopes, regardless of slope angle.

Chair 5

The bench landform immediately west of the existing Chair 5 bottom terminal constitutes the toe of a large landslide complex. This slide complex was mapped utilizing historic geologic maps in combination with re-examination of stereo aerial photography which reveals an older upper part, an intermediate-age middle part, and a younger lower part. The Chair 5 bottom terminal is at the toe of the lower, younger part of this complex. For a more detailed discussion of this landslide complex, including mapping, the reader is referred to the geotechnical specialist’s report available in the project administrative record.142

142 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-138 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Geotechnical Analysis

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, no new ground disturbance would occur on NFS lands within the project area. Currently in the Golden Peak area, the geometry is not favorable for dipslope bedrock slides. On the steepest slopes above the existing access road, there is some evidence for soil creep on both natural and disturbed slopes, and for very small-scale soil slumping on disturbed (cleared) slopes if they exceed about a 30 degree slope angle (a very small percentage of the project area). Based on the bedrock and dips, the local landslide risk on this slope for translational bedrock landsliding appears to be low to (possibly) moderate.

As indicated, the bench landform immediately west of the existing Chair 5 bottom terminal constitutes the toe of a large landslide complex. It is important to note that, even under the No Action Alternative (in which no disturbance would occur at this location), reactivation of the landslide could occur associated with natural processes.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

Golden Peak

In the Golden Peak area, there are no signs of geologically recent bedrock landsliding in the project area. The Minturn bedrock dips slightly more steeply west than the ground surface, so the geometry is not favorable for dipslope bedrock slides. The probability of bedrock landsliding resulting from the proposed actions appears to be low.

Research on Golden Peak shows overstory clearing depresses slope angle thresholds at which accelerated creep and small soil slumps begin to occur, by about 7 degrees (see existing conditions discussion above). However, the prospect of the proposed actions initiating large, damaging colluvial landslides (large soil slumps, soil slides, or debris slides/flows) is less clear. It is reasonable to assume that additional snowpack associated with proposed snowmaking would additionally depress the slope angle thresholds to lower values than tree clearing alone. Such a threshold reduction would not pose a slope stability hazard unless the threshold between small soil slumps, and larger damaging slumps/slides/debris flows, is exceeded. Slopes do not exhibit any morphologic evidence of such larger failures. Since the colluvium is relatively thin (maximum of 2 to 3 feet) on the west slope of Golden Peak above the access road, and even thinner on the bedrock ridge where the lower trail is proposed, sliding that may occur in exceptionally wet years would be unlikely to dislodge towers by the movement of 2 to 3 feet of soil. Thus, as long as lift towers are sited well into the Minturn bedrock, they would not be adversely affected by movement of approximately 2 to 3 feet of colluvium.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-139 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Geotechnical Analysis

Chair 5 and Sun Down Express

The lower terminal location of both the existing Chair 5 and the proposed Sun Down Express is at the toe of the lower, younger part of an identified landslide complex. Because reactivation of this small slump at the base of the landslide complex could lead to further destabilization of the entire landslide complex, which extends upslope a total of 500 vertical feet above the proposed terminal, project design criteria would need to incorporate measures to decrease or eliminate any negative effects on the stability of this young slump. In order to install the Sun Down Express, Vail Resorts would be required to submit project designs for WRNF review and approval that are at minimum “stability neutral” with respect to their impact upon the geotechnical Factor of Safety (FS) for the landslide zone. In this context, a stability neutral design means that the proposed project activities would not be permitted to decrease the Factor of Safety for the landslide toe below the existing baseline value of 1.14 (or the most current estimated value at the time of project design and implementation). The methodologies used to calculate the Factor of Safety for the landslide complex are described in more detail in the geotechnical report. The geotechnical specialist’s report recommends avoidance of any cut into the toe of the landslide complex. However, if avoidance cannot be achieved, minimization of any cut into the landslide toe, in combination with engineered slope reinforcements, possible modification of lift terminal designs within the disturbance footprint, and management of groundwater influences would be necessary to maintain a stability neutral effect upon the Factor of Safety.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 no new clearing or snowmaking would occur on Golden Peak. Removal of the Golden Peak expansion reduces the potential for snowmelt to infiltrate the steeper cliffs on the eastern slope of Golden Peak where slope failures are more common. No impacts to soils on Golden Peak would occur as a result of Alternative 3.

Although the Sun Down Express would not be constructed under Alternative 3, a similar disturbance footprint to the Proposed Action would be incorporated to facilitate the larger bottom terminal of Chair 5. In terms of ground disturbance, the geotechnical impacts at the Chair 5 bottom terminal area remain approximately the same as described for Alternative 2. Therefore, any disturbance in the vicinity of the toe of the bench would be required to be maintain a “stability neutral” design, per the constraints outlined above for the Proposed Action.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

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

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-140 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences J. Geotechnical Analysis

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 area infrastructure. Nonetheless, ground disturbance associated with past development/construction activities at Vail 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.

Evidence of soil creep and small-scale slumping is present at Golden Peak and the Chair 5 bottom terminal due to overstory clearing for trails and lift lines developed over the past several decades. Over time, pine trees on NFS and private lands throughout the Vail Valley (primarily below the 9,800-foot elevation level) will continue to succumb to the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Mountain pine beetle mortality, in conjunction with approved treatment practices (see the Forest Health analysis in Section 3H), may affect slope stability. Overstory vegetation removal proposed in conjunction with Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are related to clearing for trails and lift corridors; however, pine tree mortality and approved treatments will further reduce the number of standing (live and dead) pine trees in the project area. Thus, the overstory vegetation removal proposed in the Action Alternatives must be considered in the context of historic and future mountain pine beetle mortality as well as approved practices that will undoubtedly alter the vegetative structure of the area. In short, the project area’s slope stability may change in the near future regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources in relation to soils and geology has been identified in association with either of the alternatives analyzed in this document.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-141 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

K. WATER RESOURCES SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The scope of the analysis of water resources focuses on watershed resources within the Vail Resort SUP area, extending to Gore Creek, including on-mountain watershed resources on NFS lands at Vail Resort.

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION

Pursuant to the Forest Plan, as amended, stream health standards and design criteria are mandated by the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH).143 The WCPH contains several Management Measures of relevance regarding stream health and water resources effects:

Applicable WCPH Management Measures

1. Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.

3. In the water influence zone (WIZ) next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.

5. Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats maintain or improve long-term stream health.

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

8. Manage water use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams.

The Forest Plan also outlines specific Forest-wide and Management Area 8.25 watershed standards, outlined as follows.

Forest-Wide Standards

1. In each stream currently supporting a self-sustaining fish population, ensure that projects maintain sufficient habitat, including flow, for all life history stages of native and desired non- native species. Management Area 8.25 – Ski Areas

3. Snow management, including snow farming, will be conducted in a manner that prevents slope failures and gully erosion, as well as bank erosion and sediment damage in receiving waters.

143 USDA Forest Service, 2002a and 2005c

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-142 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Stream Health Definitions

The Forest Plan refers to the WCPH for direction on projects that affect water resources. The WCPH mandates several Management Measures of relevance regarding stream health and water resources effects. To facilitate the evaluation of stream health compliance in the context of the WCPH Management Measures, the WCPH outlines several key definitions relevant to the quantification of stream health.144

Stream Health: The condition of a stream versus reference conditions for the stream type and geology, using metrics such as channel geometry, large woody debris, substrate, bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry, and/or aquatic biota.

Stream Health Class: A category of stream health. Three classes are recognized in the Rocky Mountain Region: Robust, At-risk and Diminished. These classes are recommended to be used for assessing long- term stream health and impacts from management activities.

Robust Stream Health: Stream exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition. For a quantitative analysis, high integrity is indicated by conditions that are 74 to 100 percent of a reference condition…Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that State assigned water quality (beneficial designated or classified) uses are supported.

In classifying the status of stream health, the EPA examines a continuum of both biological and habitat conditions as a percentage of reference conditions, in order to evaluate overall attainment of the beneficial use for aquatic life.145 The WRNF assigns a stream health classification using habitat criteria. The classifications are assigned based on the observed habitat condition as a percentage of reference, or expected, conditions. Reference conditions are described by the EPA as follows:

[Proper evaluation]…of reference conditions is critical to the interpretation of biological surveys…Regional reference conditions…consist of measurements from a population of relatively unimpaired sites within a relatively homogeneous region and habitat type, and therefore are not site-specific.146

Inasmuch as the reference condition is characterized by a population of available data, for the purposes of evaluating conditions in comparison to WCPH standards, the reference value is defined by the value corresponding to the 85th percentile of the reference population. The following table outlines the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)/EPA habitat stream health conditions as a function of observed percentage of reference conditions:

144 USDA Forest Service, 2005d 145 USEPA, 1999 146 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-143 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Table 3K-1: Habitat Stream Health Classes Habitat Condition Habitat % of Reference Condition Class 74–100 Robust 59–73 At-Risk < 59 Diminished Source: USDA Forest Service, 2005b

Throughout this document, analysis of stream health is conducted according to the definitions of stream health classes outlined in Table 3K-1. In order to characterize the existing status of stream health, the WRNF engaged in intensive field stream sampling surveys during the 2002–2004 field seasons, utilizing a Forest Service Region 1/Region 4 survey methodology for measuring and quantifying specific stream health metrics.147 The WRNF collected data for 21 project streams at six ski areas, and 21 reference streams across the Forest. The WRNF utilizes a stream sampling survey methodology for measuring and quantifying specific stream health metrics, including fine sediment, large woody debris frequency, residual pool depth, undercut banks, and unstable banks. Reference stream reaches (exhibiting a lesser degree of human impact, with similar morphometry, geology, aspect and slope) were surveyed to provide an analytical control against which to compare the conditions evident in response reaches. Concurrently, response stream reaches were surveyed in areas (usually within lower elevations of affected watersheds) that were judged to reflect the effects caused by management and project activities. Procedurally, reference and response reaches were sampled at a minimum third-order watershed scale.

Management Effects to Stream Health Metric: Unstable banks: A streambank showing evidence of the following: 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 (the 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.148

Causal Mechanism(s): Channel Network Extension: Additional roadside drainages frequently connect directly to the stream channel and result in a net increase in the length of the existing channel network within the watershed. This increases the efficiency of flow routing within the watershed, increasing peak flows and subsequent erosion and sediment transport. The WCPH outlines the following Design Criterion: ―In each 3rd order and larger watershed, limit connected disturbed areas so that the total stream network is not expanded by

147 Overton et al., 1997 148 USDA Forest Service, 2005b

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-144 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources more than 10 percent. Progress toward zero connected disturbed area as much as feasible.‖ Forest roads are usually a primary source of channelized connection between disturbed soils (the road surface) and the stream channel. Because roadside drainage ditches provide an efficient mechanism for capturing runoff, and frequently drain directly to a stream system, a direct link between the road-generated sediment source and the stream system is easily created. A second potential source of connected disturbance could be sparsely vegetated ski trails with drainage waterbars that connect directly to the stream system.

Connected Graded Terrain: In terms of the effect of proposed management activities upon bank stability conditions in affected stream reaches, ultimately the area of disturbance and/or snowmaking that is directly connected to the stream system is the variable of management concern. As discussed above, the WCPH defines CDA as follows: ―High-runoff areas like roads and other disturbed sites that discharge surface runoff into a stream or lake.‖ Based on field observations of high surface flows emanating from graded ski trails during runoff conditions, where ski trail drainage and waterbars route snowmelt flow directly to the stream, these graded areas meet the WCPH definition of a connected disturbed area.

The WCPH clearly documents the relationship between the connection of disturbed areas and effects to peak flows. Likewise, the effect of channel network extension and the increased efficiency of hydraulic routing upon peak flows and stream health is well documented by Wemple 1994, as well as several other studies referenced in the Zero Code of the WCPH.149

Other Changes in Hydrology: Vegetation removal for ski trail construction, input of additional water for snowmaking, high road densities. All of these disturbance mechanisms alter the hydrologic processes within the watershed, increasing peak flows and exacerbating issues with streambank stability.

Metric: Channel Sedimentation (Percent Fines and Residual Pool Depth): The effect of land disturbances such as roads, roadside drainages, ski trail waterbars, and utilities corridors within forested watersheds tend to cause an increase in exposed and compacted surface soils and therefore increased erosion and sediment transport. Sediment transport within the stream network of the watershed is often indicated by higher percentages of fine-grained particles within the channel substrate. Fine sediment deposition can diminish habitat by aggradation, or filling in, of pool systems. Pools are important components of habitat for many fish species and other aquatic organisms. Filling by fines affects pool habitat by reducing volume, particularly during low flow conditions, and by filling interstitial spaces and reducing oxygenated spawning gravels.

Causal Mechanism: Connected Disturbed Area (CDA): High-runoff areas like roads and other disturbed sites that have a continuous surface flow path into a stream or lake. Hydrologic connection exists where overland flow,

149 Burroughs and King, 1989; Troendle and Olsen, 1994

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-145 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources sediment, or pollutants have a direct route to the channel network. CDAs include roads, ditches, compacted soils, bare soils, and areas of high burn severity that are connected to the channel system. Ground disturbing activities located within the water influence zone should be considered connected unless site-specific actions are taken to disconnect them from streams. CDA provides a measure of the extent to which a stream reach is influenced by direct, channelized connections between disturbed soils and the stream network itself.150

Metric: Wood Frequency: Sustainable woody debris recruitment in the stream channel is recognized as an important riparian function in mountain channels. Coarse woody debris has several important functions:

Coarse woody debris maintains channel structure by storing sediment and encouraging pool scour. It helps reduce stream energy by interrupting the continuous slope of channel beds and creating turbulence.

In streams supporting fisheries, coarse woody debris also helps provide stable fish habitat by retaining spawning gravel and by serving as rearing cover.

Causal Mechanism(s): Vegetation Removal in Water Influence Zone (WIZ): Recruitment of coarse woody debris is dependent upon maintenance of riparian vegetation structure and function. Removal of vegetation within the WIZ has been demonstrated to have a negative impact upon maintenance of adequate wood frequency. In addition, culverts located along project area streams present an obstacle to woody debris transport within the stream system. Because these culverts must be periodically cleared of obstructions caused by large and small woody debris, they constitute sites of net woody debris loss from the stream system.

Existing Stream Health Conditions Within the Vail SUP, the WRNF has surveyed stream health for several response reaches on Mill Creek, Two Elk Creek, and Sun Down Bowl Creek.151 The gross geology for project area streams is sedimentary, with a sub-geology dominated by the Minturn formation.

On Mill Creek, two response reaches were surveyed:

East Mill Creek Below Culverts: A relatively steep class A reach located on the eastern branch of Mill Creek below the double-culverts located at the access road crossing on lower Golden Peak. The reach commences just above the culvert intake where the east branch of Mill Creek is

150 Id. 151 At the box culvert where East and West Mill Creek branch, Vail operates a head gate to control flow. West Mill Creek is shut off to flows during spring runoff when snowmaking snowmelt is at its highest. Because East Mill Creek receives all of the snowmaking runoff flows, it was selected as the response reach for stream health evaluation.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-146 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

conveyed in a pipeline under base area private lands to Gore Creek. The reach extends approximately 200 meters upstream from this location and ends at the double culverts.

Mill Creek Above Culverts: An Aa+ class reach located above the split in Mill Creek, commencing immediately above the double culverts and extending approximately 100 meters upstream ending in the vicinity of the Golden Peak snowmaking pump house.

One response reach was surveyed on Sun Down Bowl Creek:

Sun Down Bowl Creek Response: An Aa+ reach extending for approximately 200 meters downstream of the existing Chair 5 lower terminal.

Based on the reference values evaluated for the available data population of streams surveyed by the WRNF, the following table outlines the stream health classifications for various metrics:

Table 3K-2: WRNF Stream Health Categories Residual Pool Wood Fine Sediment Unstable Banks Class Depth Frequency (%) (m) (%) (pieces/100m)

CLASS AA+ Robust < 24 > 0.16 < 14.0 > 11 At Risk 24–27 0.13–0.16 14.0–15.8 8–11 Diminished > 27 < 0.13 > 15.8 < 8 CLASS A Robust < 24 > 0.19 < 14.0 > 8 At Risk 24–27 0.15–0.19 14.0–15.8 6–8 Diminished > 27 < 0.15 > 15.8 < 6 Source: USDA Forest Service, 2006a

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-147 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

WRNF stream health survey results for the project area response reaches are outlined in the following table:

Table 3K-3: Project Area Stream Health Conditions Residual Pool Unstable Fine Sediment Wood Frequency Reach Depth Banks (%) (m) (%) (pieces/100m) East Mill Creek Below Culverts 2.9 0.17 5.6 1.5 Health Class Robust At Risk Robust N/A, Diminisheda Mill Creek Above Culverts 4.6 0.0 3.0 2.0 Health Class Robust Diminished Robust Diminished Sun Down Bowl Creek 10.2 0.24 4.5 < 1 Health Class Robust Robust Robust N/A, Diminishedb a Reach is below double-culverts which represent a point of woody debris loss. b Nearly entire reach of stream is located in narrow, steep meadow valley with very few opportunities to recruit wood

As shown in the table above, the data collected for the Mill Creek response reaches indicate Robust stream health with respect to fine sediment and unstable banks. The lower channel, below the culverts, is generally well-armored against high flows, and has been heavily modified via rip-rap placement. Fine sediments in channels this steep are likely flushed downstream to be deposited in lower-gradient zones of Gore Creek. The residual pool depth variable, which is At Risk for the lower reach and Diminished for the upper reach, speaks to the heavily-modified character of the riparian habitat within the lower area of Golden Peak—flowing primarily through cleared ski trails. The double-culverts act as a point of net woody debris loss from the system, and contribute to the lack of wood recruitment in this vicinity.

In addition to the project-specific surveys outlined above, several reaches within the Mill Creek sub- watershed were surveyed in 2002–2003 as part of the Vail Valley Forest Health Project. Surveys were completed on two reaches in the main channel (Mill Creek R2 and R3), at locations higher in the watershed than the project response reaches described above. One reach was surveyed along Ptarmigan Creek. The Mill Creek reaches exhibit At Risk and Diminished stream health due to unstable banks, while Ptarmigan Creek exhibits Diminished stream health with respect to unstable banks. Ptarmigan Creek and Mill Creek R2 are Diminished due to deposition of fine sediment. Mill Creek has a high density of connected roads in the upper watershed that is a source for fine sediment. Erosion from unstable banks also contributes a large amount of sediment.

The response reach for the Golden Peak analysis sub-area, while receiving the effects from the project proposal, is not truly reflective of the integrated watershed effects of management effects occurring higher in the sub-watershed. Many effects of bank instability are evident higher up in the watershed, at the sub-drainage scale. Meanwhile, fine sediments are flushed downstream where they are deposited in

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-148 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources slower water zones of Gore Creek. Effects of fine sediment deposition from various sources upon aquatic biota in Gore Creek are evident as shown in a 2007 WRNF report:

“…[A statistical comparison of]…aquatic insect numbers in Gore Creek to other healthy streams in the area and [reveals] that Gore Creek flowing through Vail is in poor condition compared to healthy reference sites and to data collected in past monitoring by USGS in 1998.”152

For Sun Down Bowl Creek, the stream health survey data indicate Robust stream health for all metrics except for coarse wood. Nearly the entire reach of stream in this area is located in a narrow, steep meadow valley with very few opportunities to recruit wood. Like Mill Creek, the high gradient of Sun Down Bowl Creek means that it is transport-dominated, with fine sediments being flushed downstream. It should be noted that the WRNF also conducted a pebble count upstream of the Sun Down Bowl Creek response reach, below a culvert which takes in large volumes of runoff from the mountain access road in the vicinity. The pebble count at this location exhibits 30 percent fine sediment, with the result that the health classification with respect to fine sediment at the slightly upstream location is Diminished. The effects of management activities that have contributed to the existing stream health conditions are described below.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Watershed Project Area Description

Vail Resort is situated within the upper Eagle River watershed (HUC 14010003) between Gore Creek and the Eagle River, in Eagle County, Colorado, and occupies elevations ranging from 8,200 to 12,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Average annual precipitation at Vail Resort ranges from 25 to 30 inches at the lower elevations, and from 35 to 40 inches per year at the higher elevations.153 Roughly 50 percent of annual precipitation occurs in the winter months of November through March. Mean high temperatures in winter months (November through March) range from approximately 25 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit. Mean high temperatures in the summer months (June through August) range from 66 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

To the south and west, Vail Resort is bounded by the Highway 24, beyond which lies the Holy Cross Wilderness Area. Gore Creek, to which the front side of Vail mountain is tributary, starts in the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness Area to the east of the Town of Vail, and north of the summit of Vail Pass. The headwaters of the Eagle River, to which Vail’s Back Bowls drain, are located near the continental divide on Tennessee Pass, north of Leadville, from which the river flows north and west approximately 60 miles to its confluence with the Colorado River above Glenwood Canyon near Dotsero.

152 USDA Forest Service, 2007a 153 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-149 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

For evaluation and management purposes, the WRNF typically evaluates and analyzes stream health at a scale of at least a third-order or larger channel network. A summary of the sub-watersheds containing third-order or larger streams that reside within the Vail SUP area is shown in the following table.

Table 3K-4: Vail Project Area Third-Order Sub-watersheds Area Subwatershed (acres) Game Creek 2,703 West Vail 1,599 Mill Creek 4,904 Two Elk Creek 10,109

Due to the large areal extent of the Vail SUP, in order to evaluate hydrologic effects of land management at the scale of the ski area operational area, the analysis focuses on several smaller-scale drainages (see Table 3K-5).

Table 3K-5: Vail Project Area Analysis Drainages Area Drainage (acres) Golden Peak 331 Mountain Front 932 Cascade Village 445 Sun Down Bowl Creek 1,385

The analysis sub-watersheds and drainages are portrayed in Figure 3-2. The watershed analysis for this document focuses primarily on the Golden Peak and the Sun Down Bowl Creek drainages, in which most of the proposed project activities would occur. The proposed snowmaking on Simba would occur primarily in the Cascade Village drainage.

Snowmaking Water Rights

Snowmaking coverage at Vail is currently provided on approximately 442 acres of skiing terrain. There are two sources of raw water supply for snowmaking at Vail:

1. A surface water diversion facility located on Gore Creek below the Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant and above the mouth of Red Sandstone Creek

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-150 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

2. An infiltration gallery and surface water diversion located at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River.154

Snowmaking water is diverted at these locations under the following water rights and contracts:

Snowmaking water is diverted from Gore Creek under a decreed plan of augmentation (Case No. 82CW328) that provides for the diversion of 603 AF of water with augmentation from Green Mountain Reservoir. The use of Green Mountain Reservoir augmentation water is authorized under Contract No. 9-07-60-W0408 between the United States and the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District.

Snowmaking water diverted at the Gore Creek/Eagle River confluence is authorized under an augmentation plan that provides for the use of 1,100 AF of water at both the Vail and Beaver Creek Ski Areas (Case Nos 89CW296 and 94CW279). Augmentation water from Green Mountain Reservoir is provided under Contract No. 5-07-60-W0404 between the Bureau of Reclamation and Vail Associates, Inc. In addition, up to 268.5 AF from Homestake Reservoir, and up to 1,100 AF from Eagle Park Reservoir are available for augmentation of diversions at the Gore Creek/Eagle River confluence and at the diversion facility for the Beaver Creek and Arrowhead Ski Areas.155

As described above, several of the water supply and stream flow augmentation sources are available for snowmaking at Vail and Beaver Creek, including Green Mountain Reservoir, Black Lakes, Eagle Park Reservoir and Homestake Reservoir. These sources have been designed to provide the flexibility necessary to enable snowmaking water to be shifted between these areas according to needs and other factors such as instream flow constraints. Vail’s water diversion points and sources of augmentation are summarized in Table 3K-6. It is important to note that augmentation water available from Eagle Park and Homestake Reservoirs may be allocated to uses other than snowmaking at the discretion of Vail Associates.

154 AMEC, 2008 155 Ibid.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-151 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Table 3K-6: Vail Ski Area Snowmaking Water Supply Sources Diversion Supply Augmentation Supply Point of Augmentation Contract/Case Rate Yield Amount Source Diversion Sources Ref. Numbers (cfs) (AF/year) (AF/year) Above Red Bureau of Rec. Gore Green Mountain Sandstone 4.46 603 670 9-07-60-W0408 Creek Reservoir Creek 82CW328 Eagle Bureau of Rec.a River/ At mouth of Green Mountain 9-07-60-W0404 4.5 450d 1,100 Gore Gore Creek Reservoir 89CW296 Creek 94CW279 Eagle Park Storage 450d Reservoir/Sept. 1,100 98CW203 2007b Homestake Storage 107.4d 268.5 98CW270e Reservoirb Total 8.96 1,610.4 3,138.5c Notes: a Augmentation water from Green Mountain Reservoir under this contract is available for snowmaking at the Vail and Beaver Creek ski areas. The allocation of this water between the ski areas will vary from year to year depending on local needs and conditions. b Augmentation water in the amounts shown for Eagle Park and Homestake Reservoirs is available for snowmaking at the Vail, Beaver Creek and Arrowhead ski areas. The allocation of this water between the ski areas will vary from year to year depending on local needs and conditions. c This figure represents the total amount of water rights and stream flow augmentation that can be made available for diversions, depletions and instream flow enhancement associated with snowmaking at the Vail Ski Area. d The water supply yields for these augmentation sources are based upon the assumption that an average of about 40% of the supply will be used at the Vail Ski Area and 60% will be used at Beaver Creek and/or Arrowhead. e Water stored in Homestake Reservoir is augmented by Green Mountain Reservoir and therefore included in the Bureau of Reclamation contract amounts show above for the snowmaking diversion facilities. Source: AMEC, 2008

Annual snowmaking diversions for 2003–2007 seasons are portrayed in the following table.

Table 3K-7: Vail Snowmaking Water Diversions Total Snowmaking Year Water Use (AF) 2003–2004 477.7 2004–2005 477.1 2005–2006 264.5 2006–2007 432.1 2007–2008 355.8 Average 401.4

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-152 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

On average, at Vail’s elevation and climate regime, approximately 18 to 22 percent of water diverted for snowmaking is consumptively used via sublimation, evapotranspiration, wind scour, and other watershed loss processes, depending on trail aspect and shading.156

Water Quantity Instream Flows From 1995 through 2008, the USGS has operated a gauging station (Site ID USGS 09066510 Gore Creek at Mouth, Near Minturn, CO) on Gore Creek located near the confluence with the Eagle River, capturing flows from a 102-square mile area. The mean daily flow for all records averaged over the station history typically reaches a maximum during late May to early June and reaches approximately 777 cfs. Late fall to winter mean daily flow values average approximately 18 to 20 cfs. Immediately downstream of the project area, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) holds a fall/winter minimum instream flow for 8 cfs with a 1977 priority on Gore Creek, extending from its confluence with Red Sandstone Creek to its confluence with the Eagle River. On the Eagle River, the CWCB holds a 1978 winter instream flow water right of 20 cfs on the reach from Cross Creek to its confluence with Gore Creek. Downstream of the confluence with Gore Creek, the CWCB holds a 35 cfs minimum flow water right with a 1980 priority. A detailed analysis of the flow regime of Gore Creek in relationship to CWCB instream flow water rights, as well as flow requirements for fisheries habitat, is outlined in the Black Lakes No.1 Enlargement Project Environmental Assessment, available for review in the project administrative record.157

Water Yield The creation of openings for ski runs involves tree harvest and, as a result, increases the amount of water potentially available for streamflow. The mechanisms for this include: 1) decreasing the amount of evapotranspiration (use of water by plants) through tree removal; 2) decreasing snow loss associated with interception (the trapping of snow in the forest canopy until it is sublimated or evaporated to the atmosphere); 3) increased solar exposure that accelerates runoff (more rapidly removing water from the forest thereby reducing the amount available on-site for plant use); and 4) increasing deposition in openings (reducing airborne snow particle ablation and loss).158 In addition, in the case of groomed ski trails, it is theorized that snow grooming may affect water yield through modifications in snowpack density by grooming equipment and skiers.

Runoff hydrographs for existing average-year conditions were developed using water balance techniques and snowmelt modeling as outlined in detail in two publications: An Approach to Water Resources

156 Colorado Ski County USA, 1986 157 USDA Forest Service, 2007b 158 Ablation is the mechanical destruction of snow and ice particles.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-153 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) and the Water Management Research Project Handbook.159

Present water yields from these watersheds are affected by the existence of the skiing trail system currently in place, as well as the input of additional water in the form of existing snowmaking. Determining existing runoff requires an estimation of the amount of runoff generated from forested and open areas under pre-developed conditions, and a subsequent determination of the relative change produced by the trail system and snowmaking.

To accomplish this, a water balance is computed that determines the amounts of precipitation and evapotranspiration associated with each contributing area, the remainder being water potentially available for runoff. A computer model, called the Subalpine Water Balance Simulation Model, has been developed by the Forest Service to analyze these processes.160

In concept, the model takes seasonal precipitation applied to a locale that is defined in terms of vegetation type/density and aspect and then subtracts the evapotranspiration demands of the vegetation to compute the amount of water potentially available for runoff. To reflect changes in vegetation due to tree removal, the model modifies evapotranspiration demands to reflect altered vegetation density, defined as basal area or cover density.

The Subalpine Water Balance Model was used to develop a procedure and a set of nomographs to aid analysts in making non-point source pollution assessments; this procedure formed WRENSS.161 The numerous detailed data inputs required by the model were reduced in the WRENSS procedure by making a large number of model runs and using the results to develop the above-mentioned nomographs. This simplification and the use of evapotranspiration modifier coefficients facilitate the analysis while not significantly diminishing the value of the output.

The water balance of the WRENSS model is coupled with a snowmaking hydrology computation process developed as a result of the 1986 study, commissioned by Colorado Ski Country USA. This study assessed water consumption attributable to snowmaking uses. The study found that initial losses, those essentially occurring at the snowmaking gun, average approximately 6 percent.162 Additional watershed losses include sublimation, evaporation, and evapotranspiration, and occur as a function of aspect, elevation, and vegetation.

The water balance computed via the WRENSS model is modified to reflect the contributions of snowmaking water computed via the above procedures. Together these calculations allow estimates for

159 Colorado Ski Country USA and Wright Water Engineers, 1986 160 Leaf and Brink, 1973a,b 161 Troendle and Leaf, 1980 162 Colorado Ski Country USA and Wright Water Engineers, 1986

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-154 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources water yield hydrographs typical of subalpine mountain watersheds.163 It is important to note that this computational process does not account for routing of runoff water through the watershed to the stream system. Basin-wide stream flow routing is very complex in subalpine forested watersheds. Nonetheless, once the soil mantle has been saturated, the snowmelt water is frequently realized as direct stream flow in watersheds with distinct stream channels. In the case of watersheds which have a distinct stream channel systems, the resultant hydrographs may be conceptualized as streamflow. However, in the case of basins lacking distinct channel systems, it is important to keep in mind that the water yield hydrographs do not represent streamflow per se, but rather basin-wide water yield to the receiving waters. In all cases it is important to recognize that the hydrographs and yield calculations are computed as a basin-wide effect, and do not account for localized effects to streamflow or excess runoff.

The following table outlines acreages for the estimated trail clearing and snowmaking by drainage and sub-watershed:

Table 3K-8: Existing Trails and Snowmaking Trail Total Snowmaking Area Name Construction Snowmaking Diversions (acres) (acres) (acres) (AF)

DRAINAGE Golden Peak 331.0 119.0 89.2 129.2a Mountain Front 932.4 425.0 206.5 209.9b Cascade Village 444.7 44.9 3.5 3.3 Sun Down Bowl Creek 1,384.6 77.8 0.0 0.0 Total 3,092.7 666.7 299.1 342.4 SUBWATERSHED Game Creek 2702.5 179.9 11.1 10.5 West Vail 1599.4 469.9 212.4 215.5 Mill Creek 4903.9 1,002.9 218.2 251.0 Two Elk Creek 10,109.2 594.6 0.0 0.0 Total 19,315.0 2,247.3 441.7 477.0 a Includes approximately 45 AF for half-pipe and terrain features b Includes approximately 15 AF for terrain features

Current water yields and peak flows are summarized in Table 3K-9, which outline model-estimated yields and flows for both pre-developed and existing conditions for the average year. For the purposes of this table and the following discussion, the baseline is assumed to be watershed characteristics (peak flow, yield, etc.) reflective of fully-forested conditions in the relevant watersheds before any ski-resort related development. Throughout the Water Resources section of this document, yield and/or flow values are for existing or proposed conditions are compared against baseline conditions. In addition, all flow and yield

163 A Hydrograph is a plot of the variation of discharge with respect to time. Discharge is the volume of water flowing past a location per unit time (usually in cubic feet per second).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-155 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources values are modeled results. All modeling was conducted for climate variables reflective of average annual conditions. Although model analyses were not performed for dry-year or wet-year conditions, a qualitative description of effects under these climatic extremes is possible. During dry-years, peak flow volume and duration would be reduced relative to average-year conditions, with correspondingly lower flow velocities and therefore reduced potential for stream channel and bank erosion effects. During wet years, snowmaking runoff would be a relatively minor component of the overall streamflow volume, and the effects of artificial snowmelt would be not as evident as a component of the runoff hydrograph. However, application of snowmaking water within a watershed could be interpreted as effectively increasing the frequency with which wet year runoff conditions occur.

Table 3K-9: Hydrograph Characteristics Existing Conditions Baseline (Un-developed) Existing Conditions Conditions Name Peak Flow Yield Peak Flow Yield (cfs) (AF) (cfs) (AF)

DRAINAGE Cascade Village 7.2 1,134 7.7 1,155 Golden Peak 5.6 923 7.3 1,076 Mountain Front 15.3 2,315 20.5 2,658 Sun Down Bowl Creek 27.4 3,458 28.7 3,485 SUB-WATERSHED West Vail 24.5 3,151 31.3 3,519 Mill Creek 77.2 9,468 83.1 10,081 Game Creek 43.5 4,896 44.5 4,972 Two Elk Creek 156.2 17,468 159.7 17,676

The following table reflects the changes in flow characteristics when compared to baseline conditions for the relevant watersheds.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-156 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Table 3K-10: Changes in Yield and Peak Flow Current vs. Baseline Peak Flow Increase vs. Yield Increase vs. Baseline Name Baseline (AF) (%) (cfs) (%)

DRAINAGE Cascade Village 20.9 2 0.5 7.4 Golden Peak 153.3 17 1.6 29.2 Mountain Front 343.5 15 5.3 34.5 Sun Down Bowl Creek 27.3 1 1.3 4.8 SUB-WATERSHED West Vail 367.6 12 6.9 28.1 Mill Creek 613.6 6 5.9 7.6 Game Creek 76.1 2 1.0 2.3 Two Elk Creek 208.8 1 3.5 2.3

Flow hydrographs reveal runoff characteristics that reflect yield changes caused by the current trail system and snowmaking applications. In general, snowmelt hydrographs influenced by vegetative clearing and snowmaking have higher intensity peak flows of shorter duration as compared to pre- developed conditions, as a result of increased solar radiation due to the clearing of forested canopy, and the effects of added snowmaking water inputs. These hydrograph characteristics are also influenced by changes to watershed conditions before the development of the ski area, that reflect influences of tree clearing associated with logging activities, roads, as well as other human-related changes in land use and cover.

As shown in Table 3K-10, the greatest changes in yield and peak flow have occurred in the Golden Peak and Mountain Front drainages, and are primarily due to the historic tree removal to create the ski trail system, paired with intensive snowmaking. It is important to recognize that the WRENSS runoff hydrographs represent integrated average behavior developed on the basis of many station-years of record from a number of experimental forest plots. In general, predictions of yield are more accurate than peak flow. The model tends to be more sensitive to peak flow changes for higher energy watershed aspects. In particular, the model predictions do not capture the more intense peak flow regime created by the heavy amount of grading and stream channel alteration present on Golden Peak and the Mountain Front.

Road Network Connected Disturbed Area WRNF field crews conducted CDA surveys within the Vail SUP area as part of the Vail Valley Forest Health project from 2003–2004. These surveys provide an estimate of the extent to which the disturbed road surfaces route flows directly to the stream system, within each third-order and larger watershed. The

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-157 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

CDA measurement process was performed for the Mill Creek and Game Creek sub-watersheds. The following table outlines measured CDA within these sub-watersheds:

Table 3K-11: Project Area CDA Percent Increase Connected WCPH Threshold of Channel Disturbed Area Criterion Watershed Length (acres) (%) % Game Creek 4.3 46 10 Mill Creek 20.7 119 10

Table 3K-11 reveals that Game Creek and Mill Creek both exhibit an existing level of channel network extension that is above the 10 percent maximum threshold identified in the WCPH. This measured change in the channel system provides supportive evidence of enhanced flow routing, increasing peak flows and stream energy during runoff.

Connected Graded Area and Resulting Management Effects WRNF field crews conducted surveys of graded areas within ski area SUPs across the Forest during the summer of 2005. The field crews utilized GPS surveys to document the extent and connectedness of graded areas to the stream channel network. Although the connected graded area surveys did not include field review within the Golden Peak drainage, it is possible to discuss on-the-ground conditions from a qualitative standpoint.

Golden Peak

Specifically, Golden Peak, within the Mill Creek sub-watershed, exhibits a number of drainage management concerns and issues. Nearly all of the skiing terrain on Golden Peak has been heavily graded. Near the bottom of Golden Peak, substantial volumes of compacted fill has been placed in recent years associated with the dispensation of excess fill from Vail Resorts private-lands construction activities. Some of this fill was used to construct the skier-egress tunnel that conveys beginner skiers safely under the racing terrain near the eastern boundary of lower Golden Peak.

The effect of this connected graded terrain is to increase direct surface flows to the stream system, thereby increasing peak flows. In 2005, snowmelt eroded a large amount of the compacted fill material near the base of Golden Peak, resulting in the delivery of sediment into Mill and Gore Creeks. Since that time, Vail has improved vegetative cover on lower Golden Peak, and re-constructed a number of failed water bars. Drainage issues on Golden Peak persist, however, as documented by the field review component of the Drainage Management Plan included as Appendix A of this document.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-158 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Sun Down Bowl

Little to no grading of ski terrain has occurred within the Sun Down Bowl Creek drainage, however the Chair 5/17 access road descends a very steep cross slope towards the bottom of Chair 17, and parallels the stream channel along the valley bottom between Chair 17 and Chair 5. The road system in this area contributes large quantities of sediment to the channel, as evidenced by the Diminished fine sediment results shown in the pebble count. During the summer of 2008, Vail worked with the WRNF to develop and implement a road drainage improvement plan in this area, including the following elements:

Improved road drainage: constructed rolling dips, sediment ponds, etc. to disconnect road surface from stream

Re-surfacing of the road

Re-route of an eroded road switch-back away from the stream

It will require several seasons of observation to document conditions as a result of the implemented road drainage improvements, allowing stabilization of the re-constructed road segments, before it is possible to confirm benefits to the stream system in this area.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative – No Action

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Vail without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS land (other than those previously approved, yet to be implemented mountain improvements). Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been considered in prior documents. The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts or benefits to watershed resources or riparian habitats as addressed in this document. Alternative 1 would not be expected to alter stream health or aquatic habitat conditions.

Alternative 2 Water Quantity Snowmaking Under the Proposed Action, Vail would increase the amount of terrain with snowmaking coverage from the existing 442 acres to a proposed total of approximately 520 acres (not accounting for approximately 15 acres of additional terrain that can be covered, when necessary, by stretching flexible hoses from trails with snowmaking infrastructure). Most of the increase, roughly 45 acres, would be in support of the proposed racing terrain on Golden Peak.164 The remaining 33 acres would occur in the Mountain Front

164 Approximately 40 acres of proposed snowmaking would occur in the Mill Creek drainage, with the remaining agreage in the East Vail drainage.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-159 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources and Cascade Village drainages to provide coverage on Simba. This increase in snowmaking coverage would increase Vail’s annual snowmaking water use from approximately 477 AF to a total of approximately 546 AF per season. Vail holds sufficient water rights to accommodate this usage.

Instream Flows Vail would continue to derive its snowmaking water supply from its diversion points on Gore Creek. Vail holds water rights that typically would utilize via exchange to replace any out-of-priority diversions during snowmaking. During conditions when minimum streamflow could be a constraint, Vail also holds several storage water rights that are located at high elevation within the Gore Creek and Upper Eagle River watersheds, such as Black Lakes and Homestake reservoirs. These can be used to physically augment flows in affected reaches. Thus, increased utilization of either of Vail’s points of diversion should not substantially affect instream flows during low-flow conditions.

Water Yield Implementation of the Proposed Action would include new snowmaking coverage on an additional 73 acres. Of this new coverage, the largest increases would occur in the Golden Peak sub-drainage. On the front-side, the new snowmaking would occur in the Mountain Front sub-drainage (19.8 acres), and Cascade Village (13.2 acres) to support snowmaking on Simba. In addition to increased snowmaking coverage, implementation of the Proposed Action would involve trail construction involving clearing of vegetation on approximately 38.4 acres on Golden Peak.165 The following table outlines the distribution of proposed tree removal and snowmaking by drainage and sub-drainage.

165 Specifically for this Water Resources Analysis, a GIS query was generated that divided proposed projects among sub-watersheds and sub-drainages across Vail’s SUP area. Therefore, acres of disturbance (tree removal and grading) by project displayed in this Water Resources Analysis are displayed by sub-watershed and sub-drainage, and thus do not appear consistent with information displayed in Table 2-1, or with similar information for other resource analyses (e.g., Aquatic Resources, Forest Health, and Wildlife Resources). However, final totals for acres of disturbance are consistent across all resources.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-160 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Table 3K-12: Proposed Action Trail Construction and Snowmaking Snowmaking Proposed Proposed Total Water use Area Tree New Sub-Drainage Snowmaking within Sub- (acres) Removal Snowmaking Acreage Drainage (acres) (acres) (AF)

DRAINAGE-SCALE Golden Peak 331.0 38.4 40.2 129.3 167.1a Mountain Front 932.4 0.0 19.8 226.3 228.6b Cascade Village 444.7 0.0 13.2 16.6 15.7 Sun Down Bowl Creek 1,384.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 3,092.7 40.2 73.1 372.2 411.4 SUBWATERSHED-SCALE Game Creek 2,702.5 0.0 0.0 11.1 10.5 West Vail 1,599.4 0.0 32.9 245.3 246.6 Mill Creek 4,903.9 39.5 40.2 258.4 288.9 Two Elk Creek 10,109.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 19,315.0 41.3 73.1 514.8 546.0 a Includes approximately 45 AF for half-pipe and terrain features b Includes approximately 15 AF for terrain features

The proposed activities would affect the watershed hydrology in the study area. The application of snowmaking alters the volume and timing of snowmelt runoff, while trail clearing affects the water balance by decreasing the amount of water removed via evapotranspiration, thus increasing the quantity of water available for runoff. Interception and evaporation losses from the forest canopy would be reduced. Vegetation removal would affect the infiltration characteristics of the watershed, generally resulting in quicker runoff generation. Changes in vegetative cover also can affect the solar energy balance of the watershed, permitting increased solar radiation and therefore earlier and faster snowmelt. Together these changes would cause water yield increases and changes in hydrograph timing.

The water balance simulation model was used to provide estimates of expected changes in the volume and distribution of water due to the Proposed Action. The runoff derived from the water balance methodology was distributed over time utilizing the WRENSS nomographs. Summaries of the anticipated hydrologic changes for the average water year are outlined in the following tables:

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-161 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Table 3K-13: Proposed Action Flow and Yield Characteristics Existing Proposed Action Sub-Drainage Peak Flow Yield Peak Flow Yield (cfs) (AF) (cfs) (AF)

DRAINAGE Cascade Village 7.7 1,152 7.8 1,165 Golden Peak 6.5 971 8.0 1,122 Mountain Front 19.2 2,488 20.7 2,673 Sun Down Bowl Creek 28.7 3,485.4 28.7 3,486.1 SUB-WATERSHED West Vail 29.9 3,342.2 31.6 3,544.0 Mill Creek 81.2 9,519.2 83.3 9,772.1 Game Creek 44.5 4,972.5 44.5 4,972.5 Two Elk Creek 159.7 17,676.3 159.7 17,677.5

The following table reflects the changes in flow characteristics when compared to baseline conditions for the relevant watersheds:

Table 3K-14: Changes in Yield and Peak Flow Proposed Action vs. Baseline Peak Flow Increase vs. Yield Increase vs. Baseline Baseline (AF) (%) (cfs) (%)

DRAINAGE Cascade Village 31.0 3 0.6 8.3 Golden Peak 199.5 22 2.4 43.1 Mountain Front 358.6 15 5.4 35.3 Sun Down Bowl Creek 28.0 1 1.3 4.9 SUB-WATERSHED West Vail 393.0 12 7.1 29.0 Mill Creek 304.6 3 6.1 7.9 Game Creek 76.1 2 1.0 2.3 Two Elk Creek 210.0 1 3.5 2.3

Within the Golden Peak drainage, yield increases would bring the Golden Peak drainage to over 43 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions, for peak flow. As noted in Chapter 10 of the WCPH, hydrologic effects (development and/or expansion of channelized flow, increases in peak flows in existing channels) in associated with tree clearing start to become measurable when 25 percent or more of the basal area has been removed. Under existing conditions, 36 percent of the forested area on Golden Peak

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-162 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources has been cleared. Proposed conditions would bring this percentage to nearly 48 percent, nearly twice the threshold at which hydrologic effects first start to become evident.

Meanwhile adding snowmaking to Simba would result in peak flow conditions reaching 35 percent above baseline conditions. On the back-side, the small areas of proposed tree removal would result in no measurable change to flow conditions in Sun Down Bowl Creek.

Stream Health The fact that a particular piece of graded ski trail is hydrologically connected to the stream network means it has the ability to quickly route water and potentially contribute to increased peak flows and subsequent channel adjustments. Watershed disturbance from urban development and mining have known relationships between total impervious area and stream channel stability.166 Shanley and Wemple suggest that soil disturbance at ski areas creates impervious surfaces with hydrologic effects similar to those in urban areas.167 Their research shows that increased overland flow at ski areas can cause an increase in the magnitude and frequency of peak discharges during summer rainstorms. Logically, this phenomenon would be equally applicable to spring snowmelt.

The routing of overland flow to the stream network has been shown to be an important factor controlling the magnitude of floods, stream power, and the physical and biological condition of streams.168 Wemple describes a mechanism by which road ditches can affect flood peaks by hydrologically connecting areas of overland flow with stream channels.169 Hydrologic connection also provides a conduit for the transport of sediment and other pollutants into streams. This process has been observed at ski areas that have a dense network of waterbars and ditches on ski trails and roads.170 Generally, the effect of ditches on flood peaks becomes negligible when they are disconnected by routing flow to permeable soils rather than into stream channels.171

Due to the importance of the connectedness of areas of proposed snowmaking to the stream system, for management purposes, the area of proposed connected snowmaking is the variable of concern in relationship to effects to peak flow and subsequent stream health consequences. Thus, it would be possible to implement, without mitigation, snowmaking within terrain that is already disconnected (e.g., exhibits an intact soil profile and is distant from stream channel), and yet maintain stream health conditions. This is because although new snowmaking terrain introduces additional water yield to the watershed, when not directly connected to the stream system, runoff from areas of snowmaking infiltrates and routes through soil and shallow groundwater before being realized as streamflow. This process delays

166 Touysinhthiphonexay and Gardner, 1984; Booth, 1990 167 Shanley and Wemple, 2002 168 LaMarche and Lettenmaier, 2001; Bledsoe and Watson, 2001; Walsh, 2004; Wang et al., 2001 169 Wemple et al., 1996 170 Markart et al., 1998; Shanley and Wemple, 2002 171 Tague and Band, 2001; LaMarche and Lettenmaier, 2001

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-163 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources and lags the snowmelt flows so that the effect to peak flow associated with disconnected areas of snowmaking is not sufficient to result in negative stream health consequences.

Because of the importance of terrain connectedness upon flow routing, peak flow regimes, and channel stability, it is informative to examine the breakdown of proposed snowmaking terrain and grading in terms of its connectedness to the stream network. Recognizing that connection of snowmaking or graded terrain results in accelerated flow routing for both natural and artificial water inputs, a methodology for debiting areas of new connection according to the depth of natural or existing artificial snow on each parcel was developed. With these pieces of information in hand, it is possible to assess the status of the proposed snowmaking with respect to the WCPH requirement to maintain or improve stream health.

The connectedness of proposed project components was assessed via GIS analysis by intersecting areas of proposed snowmaking and grading with the water influence zone (WIZ), a buffer around streams and water bodies that is the greater length of 100 feet, or the mean height of mid-seral riparian vegetation. In practice, a 100-foot buffer was developed around streams as a conservative approximation of the WIZ. Areas of proposed grading and snowmaking that occur within the WIZ are assumed to be hydrologically connected to the stream system.

Utilizing the above assumptions, the following table was compiled, which assesses the proposed snowmaking and grading in terms of its connectedness to the stream system:

Table 3K-15: Proposed Connected Snowmaking and Grading

Proposed Proposed Connected Drainage Connected Snowmaking (acres) Grading (acres) Golden Peak 0.0 0.0 Cascade Village 4.9 0.5 Mountain Front 0.0 0.0 Sun Down Bowl Creek 0.0 0.9a a The 0.9 acre of proposed connected grading represents that portion of new connected graded area. Of the total of 2.1 acres of grading proposed within the WIZ of Sun Down Bowl Creek, 1.2 acres would occur within the previously graded footprint of the Chair 5 lower terminal pad.

Thus, in order to maintain compliance with WCPH requirements, Alternative 2 would require the development of either or both of the following:

1. Techniques to disconnect proposed grading and/or snowmaking from the WIZ, or;

2. Mitigation measures that offset, or disconnect, a commensurate area of graded/impacted terrain from the WIZ.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-164 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Compliance status and strategies for each of the drainages outlined above are discussed below.

Golden Peak

While none of the proposed grading or snowmaking on Golden Peak would be in areas that connect to the WIZ, the proposed racing terrain would occur in a drainage that is heavily impacted by both grading and snowmaking impacts. This is reflected by the fact that the proposed trail construction and snowmaking would bring the Golden Peak drainage to a peak flow level of 43 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions. All 40 acres of proposed racing terrain would be graded in addition to receiving snowmaking water inputs. This contributes additional impacts to an already heavily-impacted drainage system.

While the stream health metrics of the response reaches on Mill Creek do not necessarily reflect adverse effects with respect to fine sediment or unstable banks, the lack of quantifiable evidence of impacts is due to the heavily altered and transport-dominated nature of lower Mill Creek. The rip-rapped channel in the lower Mill Creek subwatershed is resistant to bank erosion from higher peak flows. Meanwhile, fine sediment, due to the steepness of the channel, tends to be routed on down to Gore Creek, where deposition and embeddedness are evident and compounded by impacts due to I-70 traction sand that is flushed down from Vail Pass by Black Gore Creek. Meanwhile, trail drainage conditions on Golden Peak are clearly degraded, as evidenced by water bar and slope failures, poor but improving vegetation cover, and other factors documented in Appendix A. The concern is that although the proposed snowmaking and grading is not in areas currently connected to the WIZ, the risk is very high that the new terrain and snowmaking would compound existing drainage problems in this heavily-impacted zone and result in additional degradation and fine-sediment loading. Contributing to this concern is that due to the levels of existing impact from grading and tree clearing on Golden Peak, there is limited opportunity to disconnect areas of proposed grading and snowmaking.

The surface drainage issues on Golden Peak are serious enough that it is unreasonable to expect that the strategies outlined in Appendix A could provide a complete solution to these issues without needed field adjustments over time. The Drainage Management Plan for Golden Peak would reduce, but not eliminate, the risk that the new terrain would result in additional detrimental watershed impacts. Unless existing drainage conditions could be improved so as to rectify degraded surface drainage conditions, the proposed Golden Peak racing terrain could not be implemented while maintaining stream health conditions for lower Mill Creek and downstream on Gore Creek, as required by the WCPH.

Simba

The 4.9 acres of proposed connected snowmaking and 0.5 acre of connected grading within the Cascade Village drainage would be in support of snowmaking coverage on Simba. However, existing drainage conditions on this trail are not problematic with the exception of several areas noted and discussed in Appendix A. With implementation of the drainage management provisions outlined in Appendix A, the

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-165 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources proposed snowmaking on Simba could be successfully disconnected from the WIZ and implemented while maintaining stream health in affected channels.

Guest Services and Maintenance Facility

The 0.4 acre of tree clearing and 1 acre of ground disturbance associated with the Mid Vail restaurant and 0.9 acre of treeclearing and ground disturbance associated with the maintenance facility would occur outside the WIZ, and would have negligible impacts on water yield or stream health. Surface drainage health will be maintained via a grading and drainage plan for the facility, which Vail will be required to develop and submit to Forest Service resource specialists for review and approval prior to construction of any approved facilities.

Sun Down Bowl Creek

The response reach on Sun Down Bowl Creek exhibits Robust stream health with respect to both bank stability and fine sediment, although fine sediment impacts are evidently higher in the drainage near the stream segments that parallel the Chair 5 access road. The concern related to the proposed Chair 5 lift replacement and new lower terminal for the Sun Down Express is the proximity and amount of heavy earth-moving both within and in close proximity to the WIZ. Detailed design plans for the project activities at the bottom of Chair 5 would include a specific erosion control and stormwater management plan that would be reviewed and approved by WRNF resource specialists.

From the standpoint of stream health, in order to offset the effects of additional grading within the WIZ to support the proposed lift terminal construction, several mitigation opportunities were identified:

1. Improved cross-drainage on the access road extending from Tea Cup bowl road to the bottom of Chair 17: 0.9 acre of disconnect

2. Closure and restoration of road segment that crosses Sunup Bowl Creek, used during original construction of Chair 5: 0.1 acre disconnect

3. Disconnect of graded terrain within Sun Down Bowl Creek: 0.2 acre disconnect

The total available disconnection credits outlined via the above projects is 1.2 acres, which exceeds the 0.9 acre of proposed new graded impact within the WIZ. Even conservatively assuming that the proposed disconnect mitigations are not 100 percent effective, there is sufficient mitigation credit, paired with the implementation requirements outlined above, that the proposed Chair 5 lower terminal upgrade and the installation of the new Sun Down Express lower terminal, could be completed while maintaining stream health conditions on Sun Down Bowl Creek. Drainage designs for the area should include a diversion channel above any cut into the toe of the slope to reduce runoff onto the disturbed slope face.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-166 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Although the footprint of new impacts within the WIZ would be relatively small at 0.9 acre, the total earth displacement to install the lower terminals of the proposed quad-chair lifts could be relatively large. As noted in the geotechnical report, the lower terminals for both Chair 5 and the proposed Sun Down Express are located at the toe of an identified landslide zone. The disturbance footprint impacts the mapped landslide zone. Design criteria for installation of these lift terminals require them to maintain geologic stability within this area. The watershed-related risk of causing movement of the landslide would include potential blockage of Sun Down Bowl Creek by landslide material, and subsequent watershed-scale effects to stream channel morphology.

Alternative 3

Only those categories whose Alternative 3 analysis differs from the Proposed Action are discussed following.

Water Yield Due to concerns regarding the existing state of drainage conditions on Golden Peak, Alternative 3 would not include any development of racing terrain or associated grading and snowmaking on Golden Peak. There would be no changes in the runoff water yield component to Mill Creek since the snowmaking, tree removal and grading associated with construction of the racing terrain would not occur for Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, water yield for the Golden Peak sub-drainage and the Mill Creek sub-watershed, would be identical to the No Action alternative. Meanwhile, yield conditions for all of the remaining analysis areas would be the same as under Alternative 2

Stream Health Unlike the Proposed Action, due to the lack of project activities on Golden Peak, Alternative 3 would satisfy WCPH requirements to at minimum maintain stream health. The following discussion outlines the project differences between Alternative 3 and the Proposed Action pertaining to watershed resources.

Golden Peak

The elimination of the proposed racing terrain on Golden Peak would eliminate new direct impacts to the heavily-impacted lower Golden Peak trails. On-going drainage improvement projects that would be required by the WRNF as part of annual operations and maintenance in cooperation with Vail Resorts would facilitate enhancement of drainage conditions on Golden Peak, satisfying the WCPH requirements to improve drainage conditions in degraded systems within the next planning period.

Sun Down Bowl Creek

Alternative 3 would reduce to 0.7 acre the proposed footprint of new impact within the WIZ of Sun Down Bowl Creek, in comparison to the 0.9 acre under the Proposed Action, since the Sun Down Express would not be constructed. The same design criteria and mitigation measures would be required for

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-167 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Alternative 3. With successful implementation of these project requirements, Alternative 3 could be implemented while maintaining stream health on Sun Down Bowl Creek.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The spatial bound for this cumulative effects analysis extends outward from the Vail SUP to the scale of the Upper Eagle River and Gore Creek watersheds. The cumulative influence of the Vail SUP sub- watersheds generally is insignificant beyond the scale of the Upper Eagle Watershed, which encompasses roughly 60,000 acres above the confluence with Gore Creek near Dowd Junction. The Gore Creek watershed, likewise, has an area of approximately 65,000 acres, which is an order-of-magnitude greater than the scale of the project-area drainages.

Past Actions

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. 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 Resort

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

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-168 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

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.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects include:

Vail Resorts drainage improvement projects

Forest Health and beetle-salvage projects

Grazing Activities

Dispersed Recreation

Private Lands development and recreational facilities

CDOT Interstate 70 drainage improvements

Black Lakes Reservoir Enlargement

Each of the above projects categories is described in more detail below under the watershed resource category which it may affect.

Water Quantity Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain Developments worth over $1 billion dollars related to future developments at Battle Mountain in Minturn, CO include a private ski hill, a golf course, lake, and 1,700 exclusive slope side homes. Originally conceived of by the Ginn Company, the future entitlement of this project is uncertain, and the timeline for these developments is unknown. While impacts to Eagle County traffic are expected, at this time, they are not quantifiable.

In early 2008, the Town of Minturn approved annexation of the land associated with the development. The project is currently in the process of additional analysis and further review pursuant to Eagle County and Federal requirements under the Endangered Species Act. A detailed analysis of cumulative effects associated with this project is outside the scope of this analysis, however, the additional water usage to support snowmaking and residential demand associated with a project of this scale would be anticipated to reduce streamflows on the Upper Eagle River.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-169 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

Black Lakes Reservoir Enlargement Elsewhere within the Gore Creek watershed, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has approval to enlarge Black Lake No. 1 (located on Black Gore Creek near the summit of Vail Pass on Interstate Highway 70). This project would involve modifications to the dam spillway to raise the reservoir surface elevation by approximately 4 feet and increase the maximum storage capacity from 362 AF to 469 AF. Reservoir operations would be modified to accommodate year-round water demand changes. These include the protection and enhancement of instream flows for fisheries, scenic values, boating and water quality and other recreational and economic components. Water uses within Eagle County have changed from historic agriculture and mining diversions, primarily during the summer growing season, to new summer uses for lawn and golf course irrigation practices and winter season uses to support recreation, tourism and increased domestic uses associated with the ski industry.

The overall project purpose is to meet additional water demands for domestic and snowmaking purposes and augment water diversions when streamflows in Gore Creek (between the Black Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek tributaries) are at or below the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) instream flow water right level requirements. The Black Lake expansion project would benefit water users, while helping to maintain flow levels in Gore Creek during the critical low-streamflow winter months. Reservoir operation changes would be modified to also accommodate summer and fall water demand changes. More specifically, these changes include water rights augmentation, the protection and enhancements of instream flows for fisheries, scenic values, boating, and water quality and other recreational and economic components.

Stream Health and Water Quality Vail Resorts Drainage Improvement Projects As part of its ongoing annual operations and maintenance activities and requirements, Vail Resorts will be working cooperatively with the WRNF to improve drainage conditions in various areas throughout the SUP, including Golden Peak and the Chair 15 terrain pod in the vicinity of Eagle’s Nest. Immediate needs on Golden Peak include reconstruction of failed water bars, addressing inadequate cross-drainage on the access road, and development of improved drainage infrastructure to handle intense snowmelt flows on heavily graded and compacted terrain near the base of Golden Peak. Similar drainage improvements are needed within the Chair 15 pod. Elements of the Drainage Management Plan found in Appendix A of this document may be included as appropriate in ongoing drainage improvement projects. These projects are a necessary part of satisfying WCPH requirements to at minimum maintain stream health conditions.

Forest Health and Beetle-Salvage Projects Eastern Eagle County was heavily logged to support mining and related railroad activities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century mining era, roughly from around 1870 through 1910. Trees were removed for utilization as lumber, and also sometimes burned to open areas for livestock forage or to expose mineral deposits. As a result, the forest landscape is occupied primarily by dense, relatively even-

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-170 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources aged forest between 90 to 130 years of age, dominated by lodgepole pine, a comparatively short-lived, disturbance-dependent species. These widespread single-species forests have reached an end-stage of development where they increasingly succumb to insect infestation, disease, and fire due to size, age, and homogeneity. The Forest Service may in the future undertake forest health treatments within the Upper Eagle River and Gore Creek sub-watershed to improve biodiversity, wildlife habitat capabilities, and fire resiliency.

In general, the cumulative effects of potential forest health treatments such as vegetation thinning or prescribed burns, in combination with the landscape scale successional changes associated with the mountain pine beetle epidemic could have short term and long-term effects on stream health by affecting water yields and water quality in affected watersheds.

However, in general, forest health prescriptions would be timed to minimize environmental impacts by spreading the effects over time, and would be accompanied by re-vegetation and planting of young trees including Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or appropriate mixes. The growth of new vegetation and increased species diversity would be expected to improve forest structural and species diversity, and resistance to disturbance. In general, by project design, and by meeting WCPH Management Measures, long-term stream health would be expected to improve as a result of future forest health treatments.

Development of a Four-Season Resort at Battle Mountain As mentioned above, there is a proposal to develop an exclusive private ski resort and residential properties near Minturn. While it would be anticipated that such development would be subject to County, State, and Federal stormwater regulations mandating effective stormwater control and water quality protection measures, land use changes associated with development of a new ski resort, residential and commercial real estate, as well as summer amenities such as golf courses, would be anticipated to result in sediment and urban contaminant-related water quality cumulative effects accruing to the Upper Eagle River. These would be counter-balanced by water quality improvements that would be anticipated to result from reclamation activities conducted upon mining-impacted lands associated with the Gillman mine site.

Grazing Activities On-going activities associated with livestock (primarily sheep) grazing leases in the vicinity would continue to cause changes to the vegetation regime. Further, there exists the potential for detrimental impacts to stream channels where livestock have access to surface water.

CDOT Interstate 70 Drainage Improvements Approximately 4,000 tons of coarse sand and fine gravel is washed into Black Gore Creek (the major tributary of Gore Creek that parallels I-70) each year due to application of traction materials to Interstate

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-171 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

70 during winter driving conditions.172 While suspended-sediment concentrations are low in Black Gore Creek, bedload-transport rates of as much as 4 tons per day have been measured.173 Black Gore Creek does not support its designated beneficial uses due to this sediment loading, and is currently on the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) list of impaired water bodies (the 303[d] list), and is undergoing the process of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development.

Impacts to macroinvertebrate communities are evident in Black Gore Creek. According to the both the WRNF and the USGS:

The macroinvertebrate community in Black Gore Creek indicate[s] adverse effects from sediment deposition. Macroinvertebrate abundance [is] considerably reduced at the two sites where streambed sediment [is] more prevalent; however, differences in abundance also may [be] related to differences in habitat and availability of food resources.174

Meanwhile, the importance of aquatic habitat in Gore Creek mainstem, including the reach through the Town of Vail, is highlighted by its designation as a Gold Medal fishery in recognition of the strong recreational value of the abundant brown trout community.175 The CDPHE has classified Gore Creek from its confluence with Black Gore Creek to the confluence with the Eagle River for the following beneficial uses:

Aquatic Life Cold 1

Recreation 1a

Water Supply

Agriculture

Stakeholder interest in the management of the resources of the Gore Creek watershed is strong. According to the USGS:

To manage water resources, local entities are interested in better understanding water quality and its relation to land uses and natural factors in the Gore Creek watershed. In response to these concerns, the Town of Vail, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Vail Associates, and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority created the Gore Creek Watershed Management Program in 1996. The goal of this program is to

172 Id. 173 Id. 174 USDA Forest Service, 2007; USGS, 2001 175 Id.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-172 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences K. Water Resources

provide information for the management and protection of water quality and aquatic life in the watershed.176

Currently, water quality monitoring of the Black Gore and Gore Creek occurs amongst the aforementioned stakeholders in conjunction with the Eagle River Watershed Council.

The Colorado Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the State Water Quality Control Division and the WRNF, is in the midst of a multi-year process to implement improved drainage management on the I-70 corridor along West Vail Pass. This includes construction of additional sediment ponds, armoring of flow channels, flow routing improvements, and removal of accumulated sediments in areas of particularly acute sediment deposition. While on-going, this project is expected to improve water quality conditions on Black Gore Creek as well as downstream on Gore Creek through the Town of Vail.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

Although the proposed snowmaking on Simba and the lift projects in Sun Down Bowl would be compliant with watershed management direction, due to the proposed addition of 40 acres of new skiing terrain and associated grading and snowmaking on Golden Peak, an area that currently exhibits degraded surface drainage conditions, the Proposed Action would be anticipated to result in detrimental cumulative effects to watershed health. Therefore it would not maintain stream health as required by the WCPH and would not satisfy Forest Service management direction when combined with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in a cumulative context.

Because Alternative 3 eliminates any new development within the heavily-impacted Golden Peak drainage area, combined with the ongoing Vail Resorts drainage improvement projects anticipated as a reasonably foreseeable future action, Alternative 3 would likely avoid additional cumulative watershed impacts and would thereby meet WRNF watershed management direction.

In summary, considering the project effects in a cumulative context on top of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the proposed project, including all mitigation, project design criteria, and restoration plans, Alternative 3 would meet Forest Service management objectives for projects on Forest Lands to maintain or improve stream health, per the requirements of the WCPH. The Proposed Action would not satisfy Forest Service watershed management objectives.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

There would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of watershed resources anticipated to result from any of the alternatives.

176 Id.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-173 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

PREPARERS

FOREST SERVICE TEAM

The following people participated in initial scoping, were members of the Interdisciplinary Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this EIS.

Scott Fitzwilliams White River National Forest Supervisor, Deciding Officer

Brian Lloyd Holy Cross District Ranger, Line Officer

Roger Poirier ID Team Leader, Winter Sports Program Manager, SO

Don Dressler Winter Sports Administrator, Holy Cross RD

Mark Weinhold Hydrologist, SO

Elizabeth Roberts Wildlife Biologist/Botanist, SO

Donna Graham Landscape Architect, SO

Christine Hirsch Fisheries Biologist, SO

Cary Green East Zone Timber Management Assistant, Eagle/Holy Cross RD

Andrea Brogan Archaeologist, SO

CONSULTANT TEAM

SE GROUP - Frisco, CO

Jason Marks Project Manager

Jim Testin Landscape Architect

Mark Williams Senior Hydrologist

Kelly Owens Environmental Analyst

Paula Samuelson Production Specialist

Metcalf Archeological Consultants – Eagle, CO

Anne McKibben Principal Investigator

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

GEO-HAZ Consulting – Crestone, CO

James P. McCalpin Geotechnical Engineer

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Environmental Protection Agency

US Fish and Wildlife Service

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT

Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Ute Indian Tribe

Ute Mountain Indian Tribe

STATE GOVERNMENT

Colorado Department of Transportation

Colorado Department of Natural Resources

Colorado Division of Water Resources

Colorado Division of Wildlife

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Eagle County Community Development

Town of Vail

Eagle County School District

Eagle County Community Development Department

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Colorado Wild

Forest Guardians

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

Ski and Snowboard Club Vail

Sports Club International

INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DEIS

Alison Christopher John Obourn

Barbara Christopher Jon Silver

Bobby Bank Kate Cocchiarella

Brad Ghent Leslie Strate

Cathy Anderson Marlene Luczkow

Cindy Monell Mary and Rodgers Dockstader

Dan Leever Monica Crews

David Goldstein Pamela Smith

Eileen Shiffrin Patricia Batchelder

Ellen O'Rourke Paul Kendall

Fred Hibberd Peter Hart

George and Charlene Strate Peter Seibert

James Cahill Phil Hoversten

James Harding Randy Braden

Jody Swoboda Richard Yost

Joe Gold Robert Kendall

John McMurtry

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 Chapter 5: References

5. REFERENCES

16 USC 497. 1999. 64 FR 8681-8690. National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 – as adopted in 1999. February 22.

36 CFR 60.4. 2004. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., and E.O. 11593.

40 CFR 1500-1508.28. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended July 1, 1986.

42 USC 7470-7479. Public Health and Welfare.

59 Federal Register 7629. 1994. Environmental Justice.

Allender, T. 2008. Personal Communication between SE GROUP and Vail Resorts Planner. 28 May.

AMEC. 2008. Vail Resort Water Rights Summary. Electronic correspondence from Bob Weaver to SE GROUP.

Bledsoe, B.P. and C.C. Watson. 2001. Effects of urbanization on channel stability. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 37, no. 2:255-270.

Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-264. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2008. Colorado Jobs by Sector NAICS Based. http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog_webapps/jobs_sector_naics.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2007. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. Report to the Public 2006-2007, pp. 33.

Colorado Department of Transportation. 2004. I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Executive Summary. http://www.i70mtncorridor.com/.

———. 2008a. I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 1. http://www.i70mtncorridor.com/

———. 2008b. Traffic Data http://www.dot.state.co.us/app_DTD_DataAccess/Traffic/index.cfm?display=true.

Colorado Ski Country USA and Wright Water Engineers. 1986. A Final Report on the Colorado Ski Country USA Water Management Research Project.

Colorado Ski Country USA. Skier Visits 1997-98 through 2006-07.

Colorado State Demography Office, 2006 State Demography Office. 2006. Colorado Demography Section. http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog/PopulationTotals.cfm.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 Chapter 5: References

———. 2007. Table 4b. Population Estimates for Counties 2000-2006. http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/demog/population/estimates/table4b-06final.pdf.

Denver Business Journal. 2008. Colorado Sets Tourism Record with 28M Visitors in 2007. 24 June.

Eagle County. 2003. Master Plan Update September 2003. Eagle County Community Development. Eagle, Colorado

———. 2005. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. Air Quality http://www.eaglecounty.us/uploadedFiles/commDev/Eagle_County_Master_Plan/Eagle_County_ Comprehensive_Plan.pdf.

———. 2005b. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. Economic Resources.

———. 2008. Eagle County Local-Resident Housing Guidelines May 16, 2008 http://www.eaglecounty.us/uploadedFiles/housing/Planning_Documents/Guidelines%20FINAL(1).pdf.

———. 2008a. Air Quality in Eagle County. http://www.eaglecounty.us/envHealth/air.cfm.

———. 2008b. Eagle County Road and Bridge Maintenance. http://www.eaglecounty.us/road/summer.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. 2004. I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 1. http://www.i70mtncorridor.com/Webready/PEIS/1.0_Chapter_1.pdf

———. 2008. I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Traffic Data. http://www.i70mtncorridor.com/I70_home.asp\.

Federal Register. 1994. Environmental Justice. 7629.

Green, C. 2008. Eagle and Summit County 2007 Forest Health Monitoring (memo). White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, CO.

Interstate 70 Coalition. 2008. Colorado’s solution for a better I-70. http://www.i70solutions.org/.

Kellogg, K.S.; B. Bryant; M.H. Redsteer. 2003. Geologic map of the Vail East quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: US Geological Survey map MF-2375, scale 1:24,000.

Kingery, H.E. (ed.). 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Denver, Colo. 636 pp.

Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2007. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers: Subsurface Investigation Proposed Sun Down Bowl Chair Return Terminal. Vail Mountain, Eagle County, CO. Job No. 07-102B.

Kolb, T.E. et al. 1995. Forest Health From Different Perspectives. In L.G. Eskew (Ed.), Forest Health Through Silviculture (Vol. RMGTR-267, pp. 5-13). Mescalero, NM: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

LaMarche, J.L. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2001. Effects of forest roads on flood flows in the Deschutes River, Washington. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-2 Chapter 5: References

Leaf, C.F., and G.E. Brink. 1973a. Computer Simulation of Snowmelt Within a Colorado Subalpine Watershed. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-99, 22p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Leaf, C.F., and G.E. Brink. 1973b. Hydrologic Simulation Model of Colorado Subalpine Forest. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-107, 23p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2003. Intermountain TPR Transit Element Final Report.

Mauriello, D. 2006 Vail’s on the Right Track. Vail Daily July 2, 2006.

McCalpin, J. 2008a. Geology and Geologic Hazards of 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Proposal, Eagle County, CO (Golden Peak and Chair 5 Areas). July 10, 2008.

———. 2008b. Geology and Geologic Hazards of 2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Proposal, Eagle County, CO (Addendum, Chair 5 Areas). December 10, 2008.

McKibbin, A. 2008. Letter referencing finding of ―no historic properties affected for proposed projects.‖ Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. June 25.

Moser, E. 2008. Electronic correspondence to Troy Wineland, SE Group. Frisco, CO. March 28, 2008.

Markart, G., B. Kohl, G. Poscher, W. Wanker, and I. Schnetzer. 1998. Assessment of runoff characteristics in a torrent catchment area. Austrian Institute for Avalanche and Torrent Research, FBVA, Innsbruck. http://www.iahr.org/membersonly/grazproceedings99/doc/000/000/190.htm

National Ski Areas Association. 2007. 2006/07 Economic Analysis of United States Ski Areas Final Report. RRC Associates, Lakewood, CO.

North America Snow. 2008. 2007-2008 Guide to US and Canadian ski resorts. http://www.northamericansnow.com/usa_ski_resorts/colorado/vail-ski-resort.htm.

———. 2008. Vail Skier Numbers. northamericasnow.com

O'Laughlin, J.R., L. Livingston, R. Thier, J. Thornton, D.E. Toweill and L. Morelan. 1994. Defining and Measuring Forest Health. Journal of Sustainable Forestry- 2: 65-85.

Overton, C.K., S.P. Wolrab, B.C. Roberts and M.A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain Regions) fish and fish habitat standard inventory procedures handbook. USFS General Techcnical Report INT-GTR-346.

Perry, J.K. 2007. Sizing up Battle Mountain ski Resort. Vail Daily. January 31, 2007. http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20070131/NEWS/70131023.

Rocky Mountain News. 2005. Gilman as Minturn’s New Dawn? Cliff Thompson, March 1, 2005.

———. 2007. Extreme ski makeover Resorts spending billions to improve lifts, lodging, homes Joanne Kelley, Saturday, October 6, 2007.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-3 Chapter 5: References

Rogers, P. 2002. Using Forest Health Monitoring to assess aspen forest cover change in the southern Rockies ecoregion. Forest Ecology and Management (Vol. 155, pp. 223-236). Elsevier Science B.V.

RRC Associates. 2002. Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update 2002. http://www.eaglecounty.us/uploadedFiles/housing/Planning_Documents/HsgAssmt2001%20_final_.pdf

———. 2007. Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment. RRC Associates http://www.eaglecounty.us/uploadedFiles/housing/Planning_Documents/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

Ruediger, B., et al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA For. Serv., USDI Fish & Wildl. Serv., USDI Bur. Land. Manage. and USDI Nat’l. Park Serv. FS Publ. #R1-00-53. Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Shanley, J.B. and B.Wemple. 2002. Water quality and quantity in the mountain environment. Vermont Law Review, vol. 26:717, 717-751.

Shenk, T.M. 2005. CDOW Lynx Research Report.

———. 2007. CDOW Lynx Research Report.

Tague, C. and L. Band. 2001. Simulating the impact of road construction and forest harvesting on hydrologic response. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26:135-151.

Texas Department of Transportation. 2008. Level of Service. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/aus/mis/i35mis/i35gloss.htm#L.

Touysinhthiphonexay, K.C.N. and T.W. Gardner. 1984. Threshold response of small streams to surface coal mining, bituminous coal fields, Central Pennsylvania. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, vol. 9:43-58.

Town of Vail. 2004. State of the Town Spring 2004. http://ci.vail.co.us.

———. 2005. Town Code. Zoning Regulations (Ord. 29 (2005) § 16: Ord. 8(1973) § 1.000). Sections 12-23- 2 and 12-24-2. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/CO/Vail/.

———. 2006. Land Use Plan, An element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Adopted November 18, 1986. Updated March 23, 2006.

———. 2007. Press releases. Free Parking at Wendy’s site. November 21, 2007. http://ci.vail.co.us/release.asp?r_id=3696&type=.

———. 2008a. Vail Sales Tax up in 2007, News Release April 4, 2008. http://ci.vail.co.us/release.asp?r_id=3904&type=.

———. 2008b. State of the Town Report March 2008. http://www.vailgov.com/docs/dl_forms/2008_SOTT.pdf.

———. 2008c. LionsHead Parking Structure http://www.vailgov.com/subpage.asp?page_id=752.

———. 2008d. Vail Parking Task Force Meeting Minutes, April 22, 2008.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-4 Chapter 5: References

———. 2008e. Housing Regulations. http://vailgov.com/subpage.asp?page_id=766.

———. 2008f. Forest Service Personnel. Don Dressler Snow Ranger.

Troendle, C.A. and W.K. Olsen. 1994. Potential effects of timber harvest and water management on streamflow dynamics and sediment transport. In: Convington, W.W.; De Bano, L.F., cords. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management, July 1993, Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. tech. Rep. RM-247. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Res. Stn.

United States Census Bureau. 2006. Population Data. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html.

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Commission and the Colorado Department of Transportation. 2004. I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(f) Evaluation. Chapter 3.1-Climate and Air Quality, 3.1.2.2 Eagle County.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers; Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. 2nd edition. Office of Water depletion. USEPA, Washington, D.C. EPA 841-B-99-002.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Vail Ski Area Category III Expansion Conference Opinion. Ecological Services, Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, CO. 91 pages plus attachments. (This report was confirmed as a Biological Opinion following the listing of lynx as threatened in 2000).

United States Geology Survey. 2001. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4270. Gore Creek Watershed, Colorado-Assessment of Historical and Current Water Quantity, Water Quality, and Aquatic Ecology, 1968-98. By Kirby H. Wynn, Nancy J. Bauch, and Nancy E. Driver

———. 2008. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Scenery Management System Handbook. AH 701-f.

———. 1998. Air Resources Management Plan, White River National Forest, 1998 Revision. Rocky Mountain Region.

———. 2000. Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG), Phase I Report. USFS, Air Quality Program; National Park Service, Air Resources Division; and USFWS, Air Quality Branch.

———. 2001. Forest Health Monitoring in the Interior West. A baseline summary of forest issues, 1996–1999. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-75. Rocky Mountain Research Station.

———. 2001. Built Environmental Image Guide. Rocky Mountain Region.

———. 2002a. White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.

———. 2002b. Final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, for the White River National Forest land and resource management plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-5 Chapter 5: References

———. 2002c. Land and resource management plan-2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs. CO.

———. 2003. White River National Forest revised sensitive species list Nov. 4, 2003. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO. (Filed under 2670_tes/TES_list/final_new_sensitive_spp_list_11042003.doc).

———. 2005a. Environmental Assessment for the Chairs 10 & 14 Replacement Proposal. August. (West Lionshead Lift EA).

———. 2005b. Revised Sensitive Species List. Regional Forester’s 2670 memo to Forest Supervisors. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, CO. April 28.

———. 2005c. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12.33 Environmental Policy and Procedures.

———. 2005d. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25. Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.

———. 2006. Final environmental impact statement, Vail Valley Forest Health Project. White River National Forest, Holy Cross Ranger District. Minturn, CO.

———. 2007a. Gore Creek Macroinvertebrate and Stream Health Monitoring Report: 2004-2006 Monitoring. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest.

———. 2007b. Black Lake No. 1 Enlargement Project Environmental Assessment. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest.

———. 2008a. Air Resources Management. http://www.fs.fed.us/air/technical/class_1/wilds.php?recordID=20#aqrv.

———. 2008b. Biological Assessment. WRNF Wildlife Biologist L. Roberts and Fisheries Biologist B. Healy. November 2008.

———. 2008c. Biological Evaluation. WRNF Wildlife Biologist L. Roberts. November 2008.

———. 2008d. Management Indicator Species. WRNF Wildlife Biologist L. Roberts. November 2008.

———. 2008e. Biological Evaluation. WRNF Wildlife Biologist B. Healy. December 2008.

———. 2008f. Management Indicator Species. WRNF Wildlife Biologist B. Healy. December 2008.

———. 2009a. Golden Peak Snowmaking and Race Course Improvements Don Dressler. Summer 2009.

———. 2009b. Vail Beetle Tree Salvage Project Decision Memo. Don Dressler. Summer 2009.

Vail Resorts. 2007. Vail Resort Master Development Plan Update. August 2007.

———. 2008a. http://www.vailresorts.com/Corp/info/vail.aspx.

———. 2008b. Vail Facts. http://www.snow.com/.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-6 Chapter 5: References

———. 2009. Biological Assessment. WRNF Wildlife Biologist L. Roberts. August 2009.

Veblen, T.T. 1998. Disturbance Patterns in Southern Rocky Mountain Forests. In R.L. Knight et al (Eds.), Forest Fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Island Press.

Walsh, C. 2004. State Ski Industry a Peak Producer. Rocky Mountain News. April 1.

Wang, L.P., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management, vol. 28, no. 2:255-266.

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 32, no. 6:1195-1207.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5-7 Chapter 6: Figures

6. FIGURES

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2-1: EXISTING CONDITIONS

FIGURE 2-2: PROPOSED ACTION

FIGURE 2-2A: PROPOSED ACTION - BACK BOWL PROJECTS

FIGURE 2-2B: PROPOSED ACTION - FRONT SIDE PROJECTS

FIGURE 2-3: ALTERNATIVE 3

FIGURE 2-3A: ALTERNATIVE 3 - BACK BOWL PROJECTS

FIGURE 2-3B: ALTERNATIVE 3 - FRONT SIDE PROJECTS

FIGURE 2-4: EXISTING - EGRESS

FIGURE 2-5: PROPOSED ACTION - EGRESS

FIGURE 2-6: ALTERNATIVE 3 - EGRESS

FIGURE 3-1: PROPOSED ACTION VISUAL SIMULATION – RED SANDSTONE ROAD

FIGURE 3-1A: PROPOSED ACTION VISUAL SIMULATION – I-70 VAIL VILLAGE EXIT

FIGURE 3-2: DRAINAGES AND WATER INFLUENCE ZONE

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 6-1 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 Alternatives: Any alternative that includes upgrading and/or expansion of existing winter and summer recreational development within the area.

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.

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.

Class I airsheds are areas designated for the most stringent degree for protection from future degradation of air quality.

Class II airsheds are areas where a moderate amount of development could occur.

Class III airsheds are areas where significant development could occur as long as National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not exceeded.

Alternative: One of several conceptual development plans described and evaluated 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.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE): The federal agency charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act by regulation of dredge and fill activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands.

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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-1 Chapter 7: Glossary

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 (USFS), candidate (USFS), or other special designations.

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.

CDPHE: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The State of Colorado Department responsible for overseeing water quality regulation within Colorado.

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).

Comfortable carrying capacity (CCC): Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) 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.

Consumptive use: Use of a resource that reduces the supply.

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.

Cover Density: Forest cover density is an index which theoretically ranges from zero to less than one. It references the capability of the stand or cover to integrate and utilize the energy input to transpire water. Cover density represents the efficiency of the three-dimensional canopy system to respond to the energy input. It varies according to crown closure, vertical foliage distribution, species, season, and stocking.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-2 Chapter 7: Glossary

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.

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.

Demand: The quantity of goods or services called for, given a price of other combinations of factors.

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. See individual entries.

District Ranger: The official responsible for administering the National Forest System lands on a Ranger 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.

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 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 effect the quality of the human environment.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-3 Chapter 7: Glossary

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.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document that is prepared if the agency finds, in an environmental assessment, that the proposed action will not significantly affect the human environment. It must set forth the reasons for such a decision.

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. The SJNF Forest Plan was approved in 1992.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-4 Chapter 7: Glossary

High Scenic Integrity Level: See Scenic Integrity Objective.

Hydric soils: Soils characterized by, or requiring an abundance of moisture, used in the identification of wetlands.

Impacts: See Effects.

Indicator species: An animal species used to represent a group of species that utilize the same habitat. For monitoring purposes, the well being 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.

Low Scenic Integrity Level: See Scenic Integrity Objective.

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

Management indicator species (MIS): A representative group of species that are dependant of a specific habitat type. The health of an indicator species is used to gauge function of the habitat on which it depends.

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

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 and avoid piecemeal decision making.

Middleground: The landscape area visible to a viewer from 0.5 mile to about 3 to 5 miles.

Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or rectify the adverse environmental impacts associated with the implementation of an alternative or a portion thereof.

Moderate Scenic Integrity Level: See Scenic Integrity Objective.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-5 Chapter 7: Glossary

Modification: See Visual Quality Objectives.

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.

Partial retention: See Visual Quality Objectives.

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

Permit area: See Special Use Permit Area.

Pod: The area comprising a lift and associated trails.

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

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-6 Chapter 7: Glossary

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: Specific measures designed to minimize or avoid impacts anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. PDC are required components of specified action alternatives.

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

Revegetation potential: The ability or capacity of a site to be revegetated after a disturbance, which often depends on the quantity and quality of topsoil remaining in place.

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).

Scenic Integrity: State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation fro 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).

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

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-7 Chapter 7: Glossary

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.

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.

Skiers-at-one time (SAOT): A term used to measure recreation capacity which means the number of skiers that can use a facility at one time. See also Comfortable Carrying Capacity.

Special Use Permit (SUP): A legal document, similar to a lease, issued by the U.S. 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.

Special-use permit area: That area of National Forest lands encompassed within the permit boundary held by Durango Mountain Resort and designated for recreational use (e.g., downhill skiing and Nordic skiing). Excludes private land.

Special-use permit boundary: The extent of the special use permit area, within which Durango 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.

Study area: The geographical area that was analyzed to predict the possible effect that may be associated with proposed alternatives. This area varies depending on the resource, but often coincides with the special use permit boundary.

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.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-8 Chapter 7: Glossary

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources.

Unacceptably Low Scenic Integrity Level: See Scenic Integrity Objective.

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.

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

Very High Scenic Integrity Level: See Scenic Integrity Objective.

Very Low Scenic Integrity Level: See Scenic Integrity Objective.

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 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 Rights: The legal right to use water.

Water Supply: A State of Colorado water quality standard (defined as …waters …suitable or intended to become suitable for potable water supplies. After receiving standard treatment (defined as coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection with chlorine or its equivalent) these waters will meet Colorado drinking water regulations and any revisions, amendments, or supplements thereto.)

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

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

WEPP: Water Erosion Prediction Project. A computer erosion model developed by the USDA Agricultural Research service (ARS) in cooperation with the Forest Service to model the physical processes involved in soil erosion mechanics, to produce erosion estimates.

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-9 Chapter 7: Glossary

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.

WIZ (Water Influence Zone): 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.

WRENSS: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Handbook An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS).

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 7-10 Chapter 8: Index

8. INDEX

EPA B Chapter 3 ...... 131–133, 143 Back Bowls erosion Chapter 1 ...... 3, 9 Chapter 1 ...... 12 Chapter 2 ...... 4, 15, 17, 18 Chapter 2 ...... 12, 14, 20, 24 Chapter 3 ...... 5, 7–9, 11, 16, 18–21, 23, 27–29, Chapter 3 ...... 105, 106, 109–113, 124, 51, 52, 84, 149 136, 142, 144, 145, 156, 165, 166, 168 Biological Assessment Chapter 3 ...... 66, 67, 87, 89, 92, 115, 116 G Biological Evaluation Chapter 3 ...... 66, 80, 89, 115, 117 groundwater Chapter 3 ...... 137, 140, 163 C I CDPHE Chapter 3 ...... 133, 135, 143, 172 instream flow Chapter 2 ...... 20 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Chapter 3 ...... 151–153, 160, 170 Chapter 3 ...... 95, 96, 103, 105–107, 112–114 Connected Disturbed Area Chapter 3 ...... 145, 157, 158 L consumptive use landslide Chapter 3 ...... 105 Chapter 2 ...... 11, 24 Council on Environmental Quality Chapter 3 ...... 105, 138–140, 167 Chapter 2 ...... 1 lynx Chapter 3 ...... 1 Chapter 1 ...... 6 Clean Air Act Chapter 2 ...... 8, 9, 15, 21 Chapter 3 ...... 130 Chapter 3 ...... 66–69, 77–80, 84, 86, 87 cultural resource Chapter 1 ...... 13 M Chapter 2 ...... 17 Manage-To Critical Habitat Chapter 1 ...... 2, 9 Chapter 3 ...... 77, 89–91 Chapter 2 ...... 1, 2, 4, 10 Chapter 3 ...... 3, 12, 15, 39, 42, 62, 134 D Management Indicator Species Chapter 1 ...... 10 density Chapter 2 ...... 21, 22 Chapter 1 ...... 9 Chapter 3 ...... 66, 74–77, 83, 85–87, Chapter 2 ...... 8, 13, 14, 18 89, 99, 100, 102, 104, 108–114 Chapter 3 ...... 6, 7, 11, 17, 19, 20, 25, 28, 72, 80, 86, 99, 100, 109, 116, 119, 148, 153, 154 Master Development Plan Chapter 1 ...... 2 Chapter 3 ...... 6, 26, 108 E mitigation egress Chapter 1 ...... 8 Chapter 1 ...... 3 Chapter 2 ...... 12, 21 Chapter 2 ...... 2, 4, 5, 9, 17 Chapter 3 ...... 54, 56, 132, 135, 163, 166, 167, 173 Chapter 3 ...... 7–9, 11, 16–19, 21, 23–26, 29–31, 32, 35, 36, 158 O elk Chapter 2 ...... 22 operational boundary Chapter 3 ...... 75, 76, 83–87 Chapter 2 ...... 3, 6 Chapter 3 ...... 3, 16, 36, 50 endangered species Chapter 3 ...... 116

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-1 Chapter 8: Index

P Sun Down Bowl Chapter 1 ...... 3, 4, 7, 9 parking Chapter 2 ...... 2–4, 8, 9, 17, 18 Chapter 1 ...... 2, 9, 10, 14 Chapter 3 ...... 4–8, 16–20, 26–29, 32, 51, 52, 54, 57, Chapter 2 ...... 15, 19 96, 100, 102, 106, 109, 112, 124, 136, 146–150, 155– Chapter 3 ...... 38–45, 50, 134 157, 159, 161– 164, 166, 167, 173 particulate matter Chapter 3 ...... 130 T PDC Chapter 1 ...... 8 terrain distribution Chapter 2 ...... 1, 11 Chapter 3 ...... 6, 28 Chapter 3 ...... 53 Total Maximum Daily Load project design criteria Chapter 3 ...... 172 Chapter 1 ...... 8 transportation Chapter 2 ...... 1, 11, 19, 24 Chapter 3 ...... 43, 45, 168 Chapter 3 ...... 53, 140, 173 U R U.S. Army Corps of Engineers riparian habitat Chapter 1 ...... 13 Chapter 2 ...... 20 Chapter 3 ...... 90 Chapter 3 ...... 104, 148, 159, 168 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chapter 1 ...... 15 S Chapter 3 ...... 66–68, 86, 89–92, 116 Section 106 Chapter 1 ...... 13 V sediment Visual Management System Chapter 1 ...... 12 Chapter 3 ...... 56 Chapter 2 ...... 8, 24 visual quality Chapter 3 ...... 95–97, 100–14, 124, Chapter 3 ...... 129 141–149, 158, 159, 163–173 VMS sensitive species Chapter 3 ...... 56 Chapter 3 ...... 66, 69, 80, 86, 94, 99, 101, 111, 116 skier visit Chapter 2 ...... 20 W Chapter 3 ...... 4, 15, 16, 40–44, 59, 61, 134 Water Influence Zone skiers-at-one-time Chapter 2 ...... 8 Chapter 3 ...... 6, 9, 10, 15, 23, 27, 31, 32 Chapter 3 ...... 106, 109–111, 113, 142, 146, 164–167 Special Use Permit water rights Chapter 1 ...... 2, 4, 8–13 Chapter 3 ...... 44, 64, 90, 151–153, 160, 169, 170 Chapter 2 ...... 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 17 water yield 19, 20, 23, 24 Chapter 2 ...... 20, 153–155, 161, 163, 166, 167, 171 Chapter 3 ...... 2–4, 15, 33, 35, 43, 46, Watershed Conservation Practices 47, 50–57, 63,67, 69, 77, 79, 85, 88, 92, 103, 105, 112, Chapter 3 ...... 142 114, 115, 118–130, 136, 140–142, 146, 150, 157, 160, 168, 170 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Chapter 3 ...... 142–145, 158, 162, 164, 165, stream health 167, 170, 171, 173 Chapter 1 ...... 11, 12 Chapter 2 ...... 6, 8, 20, 21 wilderness Chapter 3 ...... 99–110, 124, 142–150, 159, 163–173 Chapter 3 ...... 131, 133 Streamflow, minimum winter range Chapter 3 ...... 153 Chapter 3 ...... 76, 106, 109–111, 113

2007 Vail Ski Area Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 8-2