Environmental Assessment Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Environmental

Assessment Snowbird Gad Valley United States Department of Improvements Agriculture

Salt Lake County, Utah U.S. Forest Salt Lake Ranger District, Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

March 2013

Prepared with the assistance of: Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC Logan, UT

For Information Contact: Steve Scheid 6944 South 3000 East Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121 [email protected] (801) 733-2689

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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Organization of Document ...... 3 1.3 Proposed Action ...... 3 1.4 Purpose and Need ...... 4 1.5 Decisions to be Made ...... 6 1.6 Planning Guidance ...... 6 1.6.1 Forest Plan ...... 6 1.6.2 Other Planning Guidance ...... 7 1.6.2.1 Wasatch Canyons Master Plan ...... 7 1.6.2.2 Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan ...... 8 1.6.2.3 Salt Lake County Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone ...... 8 1.6.2.4 Salt Lake City Title 17, Chapter 17.04, Watershed Areas ...... 9 1.6.2.5 Salt Lake Valley Health Department Regulations ...... 9 1.6.2.6 Snowbird Base Area Master Plan ...... 9 1.7 Scoping and Identification of Issues ...... 10 1.7.1 Issues to be Analyzed in Depth ...... 11 1.7.1.1 Watershed Resources...... 11 1.7.1.2 Vegetation ...... 11 1.7.1.3 Wildlife ...... 11 1.7.1.4 Recreation ...... 11 1.7.1.5 Heritage Resources ...... 12 1.7.1.6 Scenic Integrity ...... 12 1.7.1.7 Transportation ...... 12 1.7.2 Issues Considered but Not Analyzed in Depth ...... 12 1.7.2.1 Air Quality ...... 13 1.7.2.2 Watershed Resources...... 13 1.7.2.3 Transportation ...... 13 1.7.2.4 Utilities ...... 14 1.8 Required Permits and Authorizations ...... 15

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 17 2.1 Introduction ...... 17 2.2 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action ...... 17 2.2.1 Beginner Skiing Area ...... 17 2.2.2 Base Area Conveyor Lift ...... 21 2.2.3 Baby Thunder Yurt ...... 21 2.2.4 Night Skiing on Gadzoom ...... 21 2.2.5 Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation ...... 22

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

2.2.6 Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion ...... 22 2.2.7 Mountain Bike Trails ...... 23 2.2.8 Relocation of Lunch Run Summer Road ...... 23 2.2.9 Remodel of Mid Gad Restaurant ...... 23 2.2.10 Gad 2 Upgrade...... 23 2.2.11 Bananas Trail Modification ...... 24 2.2.12 Gad 2–Little Cloud Connector Trail ...... 24 2.3 Alternative Formulation ...... 24 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Depth ...... 25 2.4.1 Provision of Parking at the Baby Thunder Beginner Area ...... 25 2.5 Alternatives Analyzed in Depth ...... 26 2.5.1 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 26 2.5.1.1 Snowmaking (area wide) ...... 26 2.5.1.2 Cat Staging Area (Alt E) ...... 26 2.5.1.3 Creekside Lodge (Base C) ...... 26 2.5.1.4 Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade (Hidden A) ...... 28 2.5.1.5 Little Cloud Lift Upgrade (Gad O) ...... 28 2.5.1.6 Barrier Free Trail Extension (Gad D) ...... 28 2.5.1.7 Madam Annie’s Modification (Gad F) ...... 28 2.5.1.8 Skier’s Access to Upper Emma (Gad H) ...... 29 2.5.1.9 Blackjack Road Modification (Peru A) ...... 29 2.5.1.10 Peruvian Snowmaking/Utility Corridor ...... 29 2.5.2 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 29 2.5.2.1 Beginner Area ...... 30 2.5.2.2 Base Area Conveyor Lift ...... 33 2.5.2.3 Baby Thunder Yurt ...... 33 2.5.2.4 Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation ...... 33 2.5.2.5 Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion ...... 33 2.5.2.6 Mountain Bike Trails ...... 33 2.5.2.7 Other Elements ...... 34 2.6 Mitigation ...... 34 2.7 Summary and Comparison of Environmental Effects ...... 34

Chapter 3: Effected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 41 3.1 Introduction ...... 41 3.2 Disturbance Types and Areas ...... 41 3.3 Cumulative Actions ...... 49 3.4 Physical and Biological Environment ...... 51 3.4.1 Watershed Resources ...... 51 3.4.1.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 51 3.4.1.2 Affected Environment ...... 53 3.4.1.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 60 3.4.1.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 63 3.4.1.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 69 3.4.1.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 73 3.4.1.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 80 3.4.2 Vegetation ...... 84 3.4.2.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 84 3.4.2.2 Affected Environment ...... 84 3.4.2.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 85

ii Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.4.2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 86 3.4.2.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 86 3.4.2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 86 3.4.2.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 87 3.4.3 Wildlife ...... 88 3.4.3.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 88 3.4.3.2 Affected Environment ...... 88 3.4.3.2.1 Special Status Wildlife ...... 88 3.4.3.2.2 Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern ...... 90 3.4.3.2.3 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 91 3.4.3.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 91 3.4.3.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 91 3.4.3.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 94 3.4.3.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 97 3.4.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 100 3.5 Human Environment ...... 101 3.5.1 Recreation ...... 102 3.5.1.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 102 3.5.1.2 Affected Environment ...... 103 3.5.1.2.1 Capacity Overview ...... 103 3.5.1.2.2 Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality ...... 105 3.5.1.2.3 Gad 2 Pod Recreational Setting ...... 108 3.5.1.2.4 Beginner Facilities ...... 109 3.5.1.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 109 3.5.1.3.1 Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality ...... 109 3.5.1.3.2 Gad 2 Pod Recreational Setting ...... 120 3.5.1.3.3 Beginner Facilities ...... 121 3.5.1.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 122 3.5.2 Heritage Resources ...... 123 3.5.2.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 123 3.5.2.2 Affected Environment ...... 123 3.5.2.2.1 Lumber Industry ...... 124 3.5.2.2.2 Mining and Quarrying ...... 124 3.5.2.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 125 3.5.2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 125 3.5.2.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 126 3.5.2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 126 3.5.2.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 126 3.5.3 Scenic Integrity...... 126 3.5.3.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 126 3.5.3.2 Affected Environment ...... 126 3.5.3.2.1 Background ...... 126 3.5.3.2.2 Existing Conditions ...... 130 3.5.3.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 135 3.5.3.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 135 3.5.3.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 139 3.5.3.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 141 3.5.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 143 3.5.4 Transportation ...... 143 3.5.4.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 143

iii

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.4.2 Affected Environment ...... 143 3.5.4.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 145 3.5.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ...... 145 3.5.4.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action ...... 145 3.5.4.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ...... 146 3.5.4.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 146 3.6 Forest Plan Compliance ...... 146 3.6.1 Management Area Desired Future Conditions - Central Wasatch Management Area 146 3.6.1.2 Watershed Desired Future Conditions ...... 146 3.6.1.3 Biodiversity/Viability Desired Future Conditions ...... 147 3.6.1.3.1 Vegetation and Disturbance Processes ...... 147 3.6.1.3.2 Botanical Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protection/ Recovery ...... 148 3.6.1.3.3 Terrestrial, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protection/ Recovery ...... 148 3.6.1.3.4 Aquatic Conditions ...... 148 3.6.1.4 Roads/Trails/Access Desired Future Conditions ...... 149 3.6.1.5 Recreation Desired Future Conditions ...... 149 3.6.1.5.1 Recreation Activities and Developments within Ski Resorts ...... 149 3.6.1.5.2 Scenery Management ...... 150 3.6.1.5.3 Heritage Resources ...... 150 3.6.1.6 Social (non-recreation) Desired Future Conditions ...... 151 3.7 Other Disclosures ...... 151 3.7.1 Forest Plan Amendments ...... 151 3.7.2 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ...... 151 3.7.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 151 3.7.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 152 3.7.5 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 152 3.7.6 Energy Requirements ...... 152 3.7.7 Climate Change ...... 153 3.8 Consistence with Laws, Regulations, Policies and Procedures ...... 153 3.8.1 Endangered Species Act ...... 153 3.8.2 Clean Water Act ...... 153 3.8.3 Safe Drinking Water Act ...... 154 3.8.4 Persons with Physical Challenges ...... 154 3.8.5 USDA Civil Rights Policy ...... 154 3.8.6 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 - Protection of Floodplains and Wetlands ...... 154 3.8.7 Executive Order 13186 - Protection of Migratory Birds ...... 154 3.8.8 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice ...... 155 3.8.9 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land ...... 155

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination ...... 157 4.1 Pre-NEPA Phase ...... 157 4.2 Public Scoping ...... 157 4.3 Notice and Comment on the Proposed Action ...... 157 4.4 Other Consultation ...... 157

Chapter 5: List of Preparers ...... 159

iv Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Chapter 6: References ...... 161 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Design criteria and mitigation measures ...... 165 Appendix B – Response to Comments ...... 171 Appendix C – Watershed Figures ...... 217

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Other permits, approvals, and consultations that may be required for implementation of the Proposed Action or an action alternative...... 15 Table 2-1. Summary and comparison of environmental effects...... 35 Table 3-1. Typical disturbance dimensions1 by project type...... 41 Table 3-2. Proposed Action elements by disturbance area1 and type...... 42 Table 3-3. No Action Alternative elements by disturbance area1 and type...... 43 Table 3-4. Alternative 3 elements by disturbance area1 and type...... 44 Table 3-5. Disturbed landcover1 classes for the Proposed Action...... 45 Table 3-6. Disturbed landcover classes1 for the No-Action Alternative...... 47 Table 3-7. Disturbed landcover1 classes for the Preferred Alternative...... 48 Table 3-8. Cumulative actions considered in this analysis...... 49 Table 3-9. Soil units in the SUP area...... 55 Table 3-10. Wetland resources in Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch...... 57 Table 3-11. Length (miles) of Little Cottonwood Creek and tributaries in the SUP area...... 58 Table 3-12. CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – Proposed Action...... 66 Table 3-13. Proposed Action - Direct impact on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel...... 68 Table 3-14. CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – No-Action Alternative...... 70 Table 3-15. No-Action Alternative - direct impacts on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel. 72 Table 3-16. CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – the Preferred Alternative...... 75 Table 3-17. Preferred Alternative - Direct impacts on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel. .. 78 Table 3-18. Impervious Surface by Alternative...... 83 Table 3-19. Forest Service watch-list species assessed for the Snowbird Improvements project. 85 Table 3-20. Effect determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species...... 92 Table 3-21. Impact determinations for Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive wildlife species occurring on the UWCNF...... 92 Table 3-22. Rationale for no significant impact on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern...... 93 Table 3-23. Rationales for no significant impact on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern...... 96 Table 3-24. Effect determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species...... 97 Table 3-25. Impact determinations for Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive wildlife species occurring on the UWCNF...... 98 Table 3-26. Rationales for no significant impact on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern...... 99 Table 3-27. Gad Valley existing Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density...... 106 Table 3-28. Current Gad Valley food service seating, Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge...... 107 Table 3-29. Current Gad Valley restroom facilities and recommendations...... 108 Table 3-30. Gad Valley Proposed Action Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

density...... 110 Table 3-31. Proposed Action food service seating, Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge. 113 Table 3-32. Proposed Action restroom facilities...... 113 Table 3-33. Gad Valley No-Action Alternative Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density...... 115 Table 3-34. No-Action Alternative food service seating, Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge...... 117 Table 3-35. No-Action Alternative restroom facilities...... 117 Table 3-36. Gad Valley Preferred Alternative Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density...... 119 Table 3-37. Landscape Integrity Description and Landscape Integrity Attributes for the Resort Natural Setting Character Theme (SIO High)...... 130

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map...... 2 Figure 2-1. Proposed Action. On-mountain projects...... 18 Figure 2-2. Proposed Action – Gad Valley Base Area Detail...... 19 Figure 2-3. Proposed Action – Baby Thunder Beginner Area Detail...... 20 Figure 2-4. No-Action Alternative – On-mountain projects...... 27 Figure 2-5. Preferred Alternative – On-mountain Projects...... 31 Figure 2-6. Preferred Alternative – Gad Valley Base Area Detail...... 32 Figure 3-1. Wetland resources (Forest Service 1999a) and RHCA buffer areas (Forest Service 2003) located in and near the Snowbird SUP area...... 56 Figure 3-2. Measurements of dissolved zinc collected from Little Cottonwood Creek at four monitoring stations near the Snowbird SUP...... 59 Figure 3-3. Peak-day and design-day skier numbers at Snowbird, 2000 – 2012...... 105 Figure 3-4. Existing pump house...... 131 Figure 3-5. Existing vehicle maintenance shop...... 131 Figure 3-6. Existing Creekside Lodge...... 132 Figure 3-7. Existing Mid Gad Restaurant...... 133 Figure 3-8. Night skiing on Chickadee...... 134 Figure 3-9. Sky glow at Snowbird with Salt Lake City in the background...... 135 Figure 3-10. A typical yurt...... 136 Figure 3-11. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) on SR 210 through Little Cottonwood Canyon from 1997 to 2010...... 144

vi Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Salt Lake Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF), has received a proposal from Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort (Snowbird) to implement the Gad Valley area projects of their amended 2011 Master Development Plan (MDP; Snowbird 2010). MDPs are a requirement of Forest Service ski area special use permits (SUPs) and serve as a conceptual planning tool to outline the operators’ vision as to how ski areas will evolve over a 10-to-15-year planning horizon. They are intended to be dynamic documents, amended or revised periodically to reflect changes in operational opportunities and constraints, skier market demands, or agency administrative requirements.

Snowbird, located in Little Cottonwood Canyon about 25 miles southeast of Salt Lake City, UT (Figure 1-1), operates under a SUP issued by the USDA-Forest Service (Forest Service) and administered by the UWCNF.

The UWCNF approved projects detailed in Snowbird’s current MDP in 1999 as documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Snowbird Master Development Plan (1999 MDP EIS; Forest Service 1999a) and associated Record of Decision – Snowbird Master Development Plan Proposal (1999 ROD; Forest Service 1999b). Snowbird presented a proposed amendment to their current MDP on August 24, 2010 (Snowbird 2010). It included a number of elements within the resort’s existing SUP boundary as well as a possible expansion outside the current SUP boundary, which is described below.

The UWCNF responded on October 20, 2010, accepting elements of the amendment that were inside the existing SUP boundary but requesting additional information and time to consider the expansion (Forest Service 2010). The UWCNF accepted the proposal for expansion on April 5, 2011, and indicated their willingness to consider the options for expansion onto National Forest System (NFS) lands but also to look closely at alternatives involving private land or reduced amounts of NFS land. Acceptance of the proposal did not suggest support or ultimate approval of the expansion proposal (Forest Service 2011a).

The Gad Valley improvements are the first phase of the amended MDP and constitute the Proposed Action addressed in this analysis. The remaining phase of the amended MDP involves a proposed ski area expansion or land exchange in Mary Ellen Gulch and Mineral Basin, involving land outside of Snowbird’s existing SUP boundary in the American Fork drainage. This expansion is not within Snowbird’s initial planning cycle, has numerous administrative issues that have not been resolved, and will require a separate environmental analysis at later date. The potential expansion will be addressed as a cumulative action in the environmental analysis for the Proposed Action.

The environmental analysis of the Proposed Action will tier to the 1999 MDP EIS (40 CFR 1502.20) and document the potential impacts of implementing the Gad Valley Improvements. The 1999 MDP EIS will be incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21). It is available at the Salt Lake Ranger District, 6944 South 3000 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84121.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map. 2 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Salt Lake City requested and was granted “Cooperating Agency” status for the preparation of this environmental analysis, and that designation is detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding to provide for better cooperation and understanding between the City and the Forest Service regarding their respective responsibilities for the protection of watershed resources within and adjacent to the UWCNF.

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT The UWCNF has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Forest Service regulations regarding its implementation (36 CFR 220). This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows:

 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need: This chapter includes background information on this EA process, summarizes the Proposed Action and the purpose of and need it addresses, defines the decision to be made on the basis of this EA, identifies relevant higher level Forest Service plans, describes how the UWCNF informed the public of the Proposed Action and how the public responded, then list other permits and authorizations that may be necessary to implement the Proposed Action.  Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives: This chapter provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action, the alternative formulation process, the No-Action Alternative, and an action alternative. It concludes with a comparative summary of the anticipated environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives.  Chapter 3 – Effected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area, beginning with the environmental issues addressed in the analysis for that resource area.  Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination: This chapter identifies the agencies and other entities consulted during the development of this EA.  Chapter 5 – List of Preparers: This chapter identifies the UWCNF and contractor personnel involved in preparation of the EA.  Chapter 6 – References: This chapter lists the references cited in the text of this EA.  Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information supporting the analyses presented in this EA. Additional documentation, including the specialist reports prepared to address the major resource areas of concern, is available in the project record located at the Salt Lake Ranger District Office in Salt Lake City, UT.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes the following elements:

 Development of a beginner skiing area near the base of the Baby Thunder lift.  Installation of a conveyor lift to support Snowbird’s Mountain School and Wasatch Adaptive Sports programs in the Gad Valley base area.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 Construction of a yurt as a warming area, with hot beverages, for Mountain School participants and others in the Baby Thunder area.  Installation of lighting for night skiing from the top of Gadzoom lift, down Bassackwards and Big Emma trails.  Expanding the existing pump station in lower Gad Valley to accommodate the lift maintenance shop and offices (currently in Snowbird Center).  Expanding the existing Creekside Lodge to house the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program.  Expanding the mountain bike trail system with trails of varying difficulty from the top of the Tram down to Snowbird Center, via Peruvian Gulch and Gad Valley.  Relocation of the Lunch Run summer maintenance road in Gad Valley.  Remodeling of Mid Gad Restaurant.  Upgrading Gad 2 lift and modifying two trails to accommodate skier circulation in the pod (i.e., the ski lift and the trail network it supports).

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is to maintain or improve the quality of Snowbird’s recreational offerings, particularly in Gad Valley, and to provide improved opportunities for beginner and adaptive skiers. This in turn would improve the recreational opportunity provided on NFS lands by the ski area, consistent with agency management direction. All elements of the current Proposed Action were designed to align with this overarching purpose and need.

Since the 1999 ROD was issued, most of the major elements of Snowbird’s current MDP have been completed and others have been partially completed. Of the remainder, Snowbird intends to proceed with some while others are no longer under consideration. During that interval, a number of changes have occurred in the standards and preferences of the skier market, the land- use and regulatory setting of the lands on which Snowbird operates, and the climate. This, along with the natural aging of lifts and infrastructure, created a need for Snowbird to update their MDP and submit the Proposed Action to address those needs.

All elements of the Proposed Action are located in Salt Lake County and covered by the management direction in the Final Environmental Impact Statement – Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (2003 Forest Plan; Forest Service 2003).1 This direction includes the following Desired Future Conditions for recreation activities and developments within ski areas and watershed protection in the Central Wasatch Management Area. They constitute the purpose addressed by the Proposed Action.

 The ski resorts in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons will continue to serve as hubs of year-round outdoor recreation use on both private and public lands within the permit areas. Recreation opportunities offered on public lands within the resort boundaries will be complementary to and compatible with those that are allowed and/or emphasized on

1 The Mineral Basin portion of the ski area is located in Utah County and is covered by management direction in the 2003 Uinta National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. No elements of the Proposed Action are in Mineral Basin.

4 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

surrounding public lands outside the boundaries. Opportunities that build on the unique values of public land are featured over those that are focused on the constructed environment. Activities that facilitate public understanding, appreciation, and respect for land and natural resources will be encouraged (p. 4-160 – 161).  Lands and facilities within ski area permit boundaries will be managed with a primary emphasis on developed winter recreation while providing complementary summer recreation opportunities. The scope and scale of major facilities approved in past master development planning are expected to serve the general needs of the skiing and snowboarding public for the 10 – 15-year horizon of this forest plan. Additional development within that timeframe will generally involve the replacement and/or modification of existing facilities, modifications of existing ski runs, and adjustments to evolving technologies and user preferences. New resort developments on NFS lands will be confined to the permit boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though small-scale site-specific adjustments could be considered to address important management issues. Development and modifications at the resorts will continue to be designed to balance the comfortable carrying capacity within each resort, based on latest technologies, use patterns, and existing facilities, within the capabilities of the natural environment and transportation infrastructure. (p. 4-161.)  Development will be designed with a high level of attention to scenic integrity, within the context of overall resort development. Facilities will be designed and constructed to harmonize with the natural setting, rather than to contrast with that setting. While developments in base areas will be visually dominant, that dominance will decline on the mountainsides and new development on ridgelines, beyond the levels approved at the time of plan revision, will be minimal. Special attention will be given to the scenic integrity of views from backcountry and wilderness trails. Non-winter recreational opportunities provided in base areas will rely more heavily on constructed facilities, while those higher on the mountain will become increasingly oriented toward the natural setting. (p. 4-161.)  Given the importance of water coming from this area, watershed maintenance, protection and enhancement will be a primary consideration in all management decisions. Watersheds and streams will continue to provide high quality water supplies to the Salt Lake Valley. Various uses and developments (ski resort design and development, campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads and trails) will be designed to prevent or fully mitigate impacts, resulting in properly functioning conditions in these watersheds. Impacts from historic activities will be mitigated to the greatest extent that is economically feasible. (p. 4-154.)  In Little and Big Cottonwood Canyons the integrity of the stream corridor and side drainages will be an emphasis given the opportunity that public lands adjoining the stream here provides. Decisions responding to increasing recreation demands will give first consideration to desired water quality and riparian conditions, and the limited wildlife habitat here (p. 4-154).

The need for the individual projects comprised by the Proposed Action is addressed in the description of each in Chapter 2 under Alternative 1 – Proposed Action (section 2.2).

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE In consideration of the stated purpose and need and this analysis of environmental effects, the Responsible Official, the UWCNF Forest Supervisor, will review the Proposed Action and alternatives in order to make the following decisions:  Whether to authorize the Proposed Action or an alternative to it, all or in part;  What design criteria and mitigation measures to require for the actions authorized; and  What evaluation methods and documentation to require for monitoring project implementation and mitigation effectiveness.

1.6 PLANNING GUIDANCE

1.6.1 FOREST PLAN As noted above (section 1.4), the 2003 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan provides primary guidance for management of the land and resources on the Forest, including the portion of Snowbird on NFS lands in Salt Lake County. The Forest Plan indicates that Snowbird’s SUP boundary falls within the Central Wasatch Management Area and therefore is subject to both Forest-wide and Management Area-specific standards and guidelines pertinent to this type of proposal.

The Forest Plan provides management prescriptions that define the primary land use allocation for a given land area. Management prescription categories provide a general sense of the management or treatment of the land intended to result in a particular condition being achieved or set of values being restored or maintained. Each management prescription includes a set of standards and guidelines identifying activities that are not allowed and parameters within which activities that are allowed should be conducted. Management prescriptions for each category identify emphasis and focus, highlighting considerations that must be included in the harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, consistent with the definition of multiple-use. Management prescription 4.5 applies to ski areas on the WCNF (Forest Plan, 4-73):

Developed Recreation Areas: These areas include developed facilities such as campgrounds, trailheads, boat docks, and resorts under special use permit as well as adjacent areas associated with these sites. High levels of visitor interaction can be expected where sights and sounds of others are noticeable and there are moderate to high opportunities for social interaction. Access to these areas is primarily by motorized roads with some trails. Visitors can expect higher levels of regulation. Signs and visitor information are noticeable throughout the area. Site development tends toward the Roaded Natural to Rural end of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Facilities vary from rustic using native materials to facilities designed primarily for visitor comfort or convenience and built using synthetic materials. Visitor impacts can be noticeable. Impacts to natural resources are dealt with through various management techniques and regulations. Management visibility is high with managers focusing on public safety, service, education, user ethics, and enforcement. ADA level development is encouraged. Because of the large capital investments in these areas, site protection is paramount.

6 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Guidelines for this management prescription allow new recreational development and new trail construction for the purposes of providing public enjoyment, safety, and protection of site investments. Specific management standards and guidelines applicable to the Proposed Action are addressed as appropriate in the impact analysis documented in Chapter 3 of this EA.

1.6.2 OTHER PLANNING GUIDANCE CEQ guidance (question 23a, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations) stipulates that the Forest Service should inquire of other agencies whether there are any potential conflicts that could arise from the Proposed Action. If so, this EA must acknowledge and describe the extent of those conflicts. It is Forest Service policy to work with local governments and make every effort to comply with local land use plans and regulations, even though the agency is not legally required to do so. In this case, applicable plans include Salt Lake County’s Wasatch Canyons Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan. Applicable local ordinances and regulations include the Salt Lake County Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ), Salt Lake Valley Health Department Regulations no.11 (Water Systems), no.12 (Subdivisions), no. 13 (Wastewater Disposal), no. 14 (Watershed), and Salt Lake City Title 17, Chapter 17.04 (Watershed Areas).

1.6.2.1 Wasatch Canyons Master Plan Salt Lake County’s Wasatch Canyons Master Plan (Salt Lake County 1989) is intended to guide and coordinate land use and development in the seven major Wasatch Canyons, including Little Cottonwood Canyon. This plan is being revised, but relevant points from the current version can be summarized as follows.

Regarding water quality, the plan notes that “All stream segments within the plan area have been designated by the state under the Clean Water Act for antidegradation, which means canyon policies must prevent any water quality degradation. . . . All uses will be carefully reviewed by Salt Lake County with an initial determination of whether the activity after mitigation measures would adversely impact the watershed.” (p. 27)

With specific reference to ski areas and Snowbird, the plan states that:

 “The ski resorts must be able to adapt to changes in market size and composition and to innovations in equipment and physical facilities in order to compete in the national market.” (p. 36)  The largest use in Little Cottonwood Canyon is alpine skiing, including Alta and Snowbird ski areas. “The plan provides for existing Canyon roles to continue.” (p. 74)  For Little Cottonwood Canyon: “Ski resorts will be required to evaluate and mitigate project traffic impacts associated with proposals which would increase their use capacities.” (p. 77)

The plan also lists issues that “are requisite components of the review process to determine the short and long-term effect of a development:

1. Water quality, with primary attention to municipal watershed management; 2. Transportation, with assessments of predominant modes, qualification of impacts, and traffic mitigation strategies;

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3. Vegetation, including mountain wetlands; 4. Wildlife; 5. Other users of Canyon resources, including public recreation; 6. Visual impacts including signs; 7. Public health and safety; 8. Public infrastructure; 9. Cultural and historical impacts; 10. Other factors deemed important.”(pp. 101-102)

1.6.2.2 Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan Salt Lake City, a municipal public water supplier as defined by the Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Act, obtains a significant proportion of its culinary water from streams originating in the Wasatch Canyons, including Little Cottonwood Canyon. The purpose of the Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan (Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities 1999) is to protect this valuable watershed (p. 1). The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities is mandated to monitor and regulate any activities that may threaten water quality (p. 11).

Under Desired Future Conditions (p. 3), the plan states that:

Successful implementation of the ’99 Watershed Plan will achieve a desired future condition in the Wasatch Canyons that maintains excellent water quality and continues to strive for superior water quality. The management emphasis prioritizes water quality first and multiple use of the watershed second. The Wasatch Canyons are protected to maintain a healthy ecological balance with stable environmental conditions, healthy streams and riparian areas, and minimal sources of pollution. Existing and potential uses that could lead to the deterioration of water quality are limited, mitigated, or eliminated. To the extent that, in the reasonable judgment of the City, a proposed development or activity, either individually or collectively, poses an actual or potential impact to the watershed or water quality, Salt Lake City will either oppose, or seek to modify, manage, control, regulate or otherwise influence such proposed development or activity so as to eliminate or mitigate potential impacts.

This means that any impact on water quality as a result of the Proposed Action or other alternatives must be avoided or mitigated.

1.6.2.3 Salt Lake County Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone Areas of Salt Lake County that are located outside of municipal boundaries are desirable for residential and commercial development. Salt Lake County requirements related to building and development in unincorporated areas within the eastern and southeastern foothills and mountains of the county are included in FCOZ Chapter 19.72. This zoning ordinance regulates development in all canyon areas of Salt Lake County, including Little Cottonwood Creek. This ordinance is designed to protect many resources that are addressed in Chapter 3 below. Several purposes of FCOZ that are of interest to this EA include (§19.72.010 B):

8 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 Preserve the visual and aesthetic qualities of the foothills and canyons, including prominent ridgelines, which are vital to the attractiveness and economic viability of the county;  Encourage development that fits the natural slope of the land in order to minimize the scarring and erosion effects of cutting, filling, and grading related to construction on hillsides, ridgelines, and steep slopes;  Prohibit activities and uses that would result in degradation of fragile soils, steep slopes, and water quality;  Provide for preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and open space by encouraging clustering or other design techniques to preserve the natural terrain, minimize disturbance to existing trees and vegetation, preserve wildlife habitat, and protect aquifer recharge areas;  Reduce flooding by protecting streams, drainage channels, absorption areas, and floodplains from substantial alteration of their natural functions.

Municipal watersheds are recognized by this ordinance. Through the FCOZ ordinance, Salt Lake City is allowed to review all proposed developments in canyon areas to ensure compliance with the City’s watershed protection standards, prior to final approval and permitting by the County. FCOZ is currently under revision by Salt Lake County.

1.6.2.4 Salt Lake City Title 17, Chapter 17.04, Watershed Areas Salt Lake City has authority to protect its municipal watersheds outside of its municipal boundaries under the Utah Constitution (Article XI, Section VI) and state statute (Utah Code Ann. 10-8-15). Federal legislation was enacted in 1914 and 1934 (Public Laws 199 and 259) that recognized Salt Lake City’s authority. Salt Lake City has implemented state statutory authority for watershed protection through the adoption of ordinances under Title 17 of the Salt Lake City Code. Title 17 addresses all ordinances under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Chapter 17.04 contains ordinances for Salt Lake City’s watershed areas. Relative to ski area management in the watershed, Article IV governs water use and sanitary facilities. Some of the specific items contained in Article IV include rules and regulations (17.04.180), sanitary sewage disposal system requirements (17.04.210), garbage or human waste disposal - permit required (17.04.230), chemical toilets or privies (17.04.250), hauling of human waste required (17.04.280), and prohibited locations of toilet vaults (17.04.290).

1.6.2.5 Salt Lake Valley Health Department Regulations The Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) provides public health services, including environmental health, to the Salt Lake Valley community. SLVHD regulations applicable to development and use in the Wasatch Canyons, including Little Cottonwood Canyon, include Regulation No. 11, concerning water systems, Regulation No.12 concerning subdivisions, Regulation No.13 concerning wastewater, and Regulation No.14, concerning watershed health. Salt Lake City and the SLVHD have joint decision-making authority under Regulation No. 14.

1.6.2.6 Snowbird Base Area Master Plan The Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort Base Area Master Plan Update and Revision (Snowbird 2006) was submitted to the Salt Lake County Public Works Department on May 1, 2006. This plan states that:

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The facilities for lodging, food and beverage, and other visitor services comprised by the current base-area Village were generally adequate until recently, primarily because of the proximity of Salt Lake City and the range of services available there. However, the expectations of destination resort visitors have changed dramatically since the early 1970s, and greater depth and breadth of base-area visitor services and amenities are essential for Snowbird to remain competitive with other world class mountain resorts… [Additionally] various aspects of base-area capacity become limiting to overall resort utilization well before mountain capacity does. To meet the needs of local and destination skiers and optimize the recreational opportunities Snowbird offers, this imbalance needs to be rectified.

To address these concerns, Snowbird proposed expansion of Snowbird Center and construction of additional lodging for destination skiers. The plan also recognized the previously approved new Hidden Peak facility and its contribution to offsetting the deficit. While neither the Snowbird Center improvements nor the new lodging has been undertaken as of 2012, two elements of the Proposed Action addressed in this EA, namely the Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion (Sections 2.2.6 and 2.5.2.5) and the Remodel of Mid Gad Restaurant (section 2.2.9) both address the deficit of facility capacity relative to mountain capacity.

1.7 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES All opportunities for public involvement in this NEPA process are described in Chapter 4. The main purpose of the first solicitation was to get public input on the “scope” of the EA, the issues and concerns it addresses and the means it identifies to avoid or minimize adverse impacts (i.e., alternatives, design criteria, and mitigation measures). On June 27, 2011, the UWCNF issued a public scoping notice summarizing the Proposed Action and inviting comments regarding the scope of this EA. The notice was mailed to 127 agencies, organizations, and individuals on the UWCNF mailing list. The notice was also posted on the UWCNF website and made available on CD or in hard-copy form to anyone requesting it. An information workshop/open house was held July 13,2011, at Snowbird.

The 30-day scoping period closed on July 28, 2011. Comments were received from 8 agencies, 14 organizations, and approximately 100 individuals. A scoping report was prepared, identifying commenters, comments received, and the evaluation of those comments. The scoping notice, comments, and scoping report are included in the Project Record.

The Proposed Action and scoping results were reviewed in order to determine the environmental issues and alternatives to the Proposed Action (40 CFR 1508.25). Issue statements were formulated, organized by resource discipline, then reviewed and approved by the Responsible Official. They include issues to be analyzed in depth and those dropped from in depth analysis for various reasons (e.g., because they were beyond the scope of this environmental analysis, expressed opinions rather than raising issues, involved matters covered by other laws or regulations, or were too speculative to effectively analyze). Issues to be analyzed in depth may be used to formulate alternatives. These two categories of issues as they apply to this Proposed Action are as follows.

10 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

1.7.1 ISSUES TO BE ANALYZED IN DEPTH

1.7.1.1 Watershed Resources  How would the proposed projects affect water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek? The project area lies within Salt Lake City’s municipal watershed, so maintaining water quality is a management priority. Several of the proposed projects have the potential to contribute sediment from disturbance of soil surfaces during the construction period. Other pollutants may be associated with post-construction use of proposed buildings, including fuels and lubricants used in the relocated lift maintenance shop, and whether new facilities include adequate sanitary facilities during construction and for proposed use.

 How would the proposed projects affect wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains? The 2003 Forest Plan identifies Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) as important resource areas and provides recommendations for avoiding improvements in these areas. Several of the proposed projects are sited near RHCAs, specifically Little Cottonwood Creek or its tributaries and thus could affect riparian and floodplain functions. Other projects outside the stream corridors may impact isolated wetlands. These resources are key factors in maintaining the watershed.

1.7.1.2 Vegetation  How would the proposed projects affect special status plant species? While no plant species protected under the Endangered Species Act occur in the project area, some species listed as sensitive in the Forest Service’s Intermountain Region or otherwise identified as species of concern do occur and could potentially be affected by proposed activities. Clearing, grading, and construction associated with the proposed projects could affect individuals or populations of these species.

1.7.1.3 Wildlife  How would the proposed projects affect wildlife habitat and special status wildlife species? The project area supports a variety of wildlife species. While no federally protected species are known to occur, several species included on the Forest Service Intermountain Region’s sensitive species list and other species of concern may occur. The proposed activities would alter wildlife habitat, possibly reducing or eliminating key habitats, both terrestrial and aquatic. Habitat improvements are also possible. The disturbance associated with increased human activity during and after construction, including the proposed lighting for night skiing, could directly affect wildlife behavior and distribution.

1.7.1.4 Recreation  How would the proposed improvements collectively affect the overall capacity balance and functionality of Gad Valley? The proposed improvements would alter the current situation in Gad Valley in a number of ways. Night skiing would extend the timeframe within which the area is used. The addition of mountain bike trails would expand summer use. The Gad 2 upgrade would increase uphill capacity. The carpet lift would reduce open space at the base area. The Creekside Lodge expansion would increase the number of adaptive sports participants in the base area and

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

elsewhere in Gad Valley. Staging for those using the Baby Thunder beginner area would also use limited space in the base area. Improvements to the Mid Gad restaurant and Creekside Lodge would increase the services available. Collectively, these changes could result in some capacity imbalance and adversely affect the functionality of the area.

 How would the proposed upgrade of Gad 2 lift affect the recreational setting in the Gad 2 pod? The proposed upgrade would increase the lift’s capacity, delivering more skiers to the top of the pod’s trail system. The Gad 2 pod is favored by skiers seeking a less crowded experience which could be diminished by increased skier densities. Snowbird skiers also use the Gad 2 lift to access popular backcountry terrain in Scottie’s Bowl and White Pine Canyon. Any increase in use of this terrain could impact the recreational experience of backcountry recreationists.

 Are the sites proposed for the beginner area and adaptive skiing in the Gad Valley base area appropriate to their anticipated functions? The proposed Baby Thunder beginner area is about 2,000 feet from the Creekside Lodge, the point from which skiers would access it. The intervening terrain does not provide a continuous glide angle either to or from the area, and the anticipated users include people on skis for the first time as well as adaptive sports participants. As a result, a snow coach or other vehicle would be needed to transport skiers between the beginner area and the Gad Valley base. Introducing over the snow vehicles into the area could increase congestion. Staging for those using the Baby Thunder beginner area would use limited space in the base area. The conveyor lift would also reduce open space at the base area. This could reduce the effectiveness and utilization of the beginner area.

1.7.1.5 Heritage Resources  How would the proposed construction affect heritage resources potentially occurring in disturbance areas? Little Cottonwood Canyon has a rich mining history dating back to the late 1800s. The proposed construction activities could damage physical evidence of this heritage, particularly in the previously undisturbed sites of the Baby Thunder beginner area and the mountain bike trails.

1.7.1.6 Scenic Integrity  How would the proposed projects affect the scenic integrity of the project area? Vegetation alteration, new and expanded structures, and lighting for night skiing could affect the views experienced by Snowbird visitors, travelers on SR 210, and others that spend time in and around Snowbird.

1.7.1.7 Transportation  How would the proposed night skiing affect traffic on SR 210? Night skiing could increase traffic on the highway at night, after snow removal and avalanche forecasting typically stop for the day and conditions can become more hazardous.

1.7.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DEPTH Most of the issues in this category are associated with growth in skier visits to Snowbird. However, the purpose and need for the current Proposed Action have more to do with

12 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements maintaining the quality of Snowbird’s recreational offerings in order to meet the changing demands of the skiing public than with increasing visitor numbers per se.

In terms of addressing growth-related concerns such as the adequacy of various capacities, (e.g., SR 210 and Snowbird’s parking lots, utilities, etc.), the 1999 FEIS, to which this EA is tiered, is the starting point for this analysis. The FEIS assessed and established a comfortable carrying capacity (CCC) of 6,817 skiers under the selected alternative, based on the 11th percentile visitor day – the “design day.” As noted below in section 3.5.1.2, the highest actual design-day visitation from 2000 through 2011 was 5,755, indicating that the FEIS’ analysis of growth-related impacts remains adequate and that additional study of such issues is not warranted. If the current assessment suggests that this may not be the case, exceptions will be identified and addressed in the appropriate EA section.

The preceding discussion is relevant to most of the issues listed below. Additional information on why they are not being analyzed in depth follows each issue statement.

1.7.2.1 Air Quality  How would any increased traffic and construction associated with the proposed projects affect air quality in both Little Cottonwood and American Fork Canyons? Elements of the Proposed Action could increase emissions from mobile sources such as cars and buses and dust generated by construction activities.

Discussion: See the discussion above regarding growth-related effects; no increase in vehicle emissions beyond that identified in the 1999 FEIS are anticipated. In regard to construction related dust, the acreage of disturbance under the current Proposed Action would be minor, and pertinent BMPs required under the 1999 ROD have proven adequate in controlling this potential pollution source. SIP compliance is straightforward and does not require additional analysis.

1.7.2.2 Watershed Resources  How would the proposed construction affect soil productivity? Construction of the proposed improvements could adversely affect soil productivity by increasing erosion and compaction, and decreasing organic matter.

Discussion: Monitoring of past ground disturbing activities at ski areas on the WCNF indicates that proper implementation of standard erosion control BMPs has effectively mitigated potential effects on soil productivity. Consequently, potential impacts on soil productivity are not considered to be key issues in addressing the environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives, and no further analysis is necessary to determine the effects on soil productivity.

1.7.2.3 Transportation  How would the proposed bike trails affect summer traffic on SR 210? Adding to the summer recreational opportunities available at Snowbird by developing mountain bike trails could increase summer traffic on the highway.

Discussion: Peak traffic volumes on SR 210 have historically occurred during morning and, especially, evening access and egress periods for the ski areas during winter. Summer peaks are a small fraction of these volumes. No further analysis is needed to determine that the impact of mountain bike trails would be insignificant.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

1.7.2.4 Utilities  Would provision of culinary water and sewer services to the proposed buildings and building expansions be consistent with the current surplus water supply agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County? The proposed new buildings and upgrades of existing buildings would require culinary water and could increase sewage generation, resulting in impacts on area water supplies and sanitation infrastructure.

Discussion: Culinary water and sewer services at Snowbird are provided by Salt Lake County Service Area No. 3, and adequate capacity exists to meet any incremental increase in demand associated with the proposed projects. The Service Area currently uses only about one-third of their 1 million gallon per day (gpd) water contract, and roughly one-quarter of Snowbird’s 1.6 million gpd sewer allocation. Contracts in place stipulate the terms and conditions under which these services are provided. Under the Restated Surplus Water Supply Agreement contract (Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Service Area No. 3 2000, amended 2007), services are provided to all but one of the buildings that would be expanded under the Proposed Action or alternatives (i.e., to Hidden Peak, Mid Gad Restaurant, Creekside Lodge, and the vehicle maintenance shop, but not to the pump house). Water use records provided by Service Area No. 3 indicate that current water allocations to these buildings are well in excess of current use (Hanson 2011).

Beyond that, the State requires specific water source and storage volumes and adequate sewage services for facilities of various types, which must be demonstrated prior to issuance of building permits (see Table 1-1). No building permits would be issued and no construction would occur without contractual arrangements in place to provide these services. There are no resource impacts associated with this issue as it is an administrative rather than an environmental issue.

14 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

1.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS

Table 1-1. Other permits, approvals, and consultations that may be required for implementation of the Proposed Action or an action alternative. Agency Type of Action Description of Permit or Action Federal U.S. Army Corps Issuance of Clean Water Act, The COE issues permits required for the discharge of of Engineers Section 404 Permit dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S., (COE) including wetlands. Nationwide or individual permits may be involved. Environmental Review and comment Under NEPA, the EPA is required to review and Protection Agency regarding: comment on “major federal actions that have a (EPA) substantial impact on the human environment.” The EPA's responsibility and role is to provide scoping Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 comments, review EISs, and provide information and U.S.C.A. Section 7410-762 (PL appropriate technical assistance during and following the 95-604, PL 95-95) environmental analysis process. Specific environmental legislation for which the EPA is responsible and which Federal Water Pollution may be applicable to this Proposed Action is shown to Control Act, as amended by the the left. Administrative and enforcement responsibilities Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.A. have been delegated to the State of Utah for all three Section 1251-1376 (PL 92-500, acts. The EPA may be involved in 404 permitting in PL 95-217) association with the COE.

Safe Drinking Water Act, 452 U.S.C.A. Section 300F-300J- 10 (PL 93-523)

Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Act, If impacts on federally listed species are possible, the Service (FWS) Section 7 Consultation FWS will consult with the Forest Service, review a Biological Assessment (BA), and issue a Biological Opinion. The FWS also coordinates with the Forest Fish and Wildlife Coordination Service in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Act consultation Coordination Act and reviews Section 404 permit applications to avoid adverse impacts to federally listed Section 404 Permit species. consultation State of Utah Department of Review and comment The Air Quality Division’s review ensures that state and Environmental federal air quality standards are not exceeded. Approval Quality: Orders are required for certain stationary emissions Issuance of Approval Orders sources.

- Air Quality Section 401 certification Division

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1–1 (cont’d). Other permits, approvals, and consultations that may be required for implementation of the Proposed Action or an action alternative. Agency Type of Action Description of Permit or Action - Water Issuance of a construction The Water Quality Division’s review ensures that state Quality permit and federal water quality standards are not exceeded. Division Section 401 certification would be required for any point-source discharge and is obtained in conjunction with a Section 404 permit. Preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is a requirement for a construction permit. Department of Review and comment The Division of Wildlife Resources is responsible for Natural management and protection of state wildlife and fish Resources: resources.

- Division of Wildlife The Division of Water Resources is responsible for Resources determining adequacy of water supply and cumulative impacts on water supply. - Division of Water Resources State Engineer Issuance of Stream Alteration The State Engineer reviews plans and issues permits for Permit projects which alter streams and/or streambeds. State History Consultation on National The Division is responsible for protection of cultural Division Historic Preservation Act, resources. Section 106 compliance process Salt Lake County Planning Approval of building permits The Department and Commissioners are responsible for Department and building permit approvals. Planning The FCOZ includes slope, revegetation, and stream Commission setback requirements. Building Inspector Issuance of building permits The building inspector is responsible for issuance of building permits. Salt Lake Valley Approval of site plans, sanitary Site plans and revegetation and erosion control plans Health facilities, and revegetation and must be approved prior to construction, as will any Department, erosion control plans pursuant sanitary facilities, including those proposed for the Baby Environmental to regulations 11, 12, 13, and Thunder yurt. Health. 14. Salt Lake City Public Utilities Approval of culinary water The Department is responsible for determining whether Department supply and sewage facilities proposed projects fall within Salt Lake City’s surplus water supply agreement areas. Salt Lake City’s ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.04) prohibits the Approval of site plans and expansion of water supply agreements within the revegetation and erosion municipal watershed and requires adequate sanitary control plans. facilities. Stream setback requirements, site plans and revegetation and erosion control plans must be approved prior to construction.

16 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter details the Proposed Action, outlines the alternative formulation process, lists alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, describes the alternatives considered in detail, then summarizes the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives and associated design criteria and mitigation measures. 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action considered in this analysis is the first phase of proposed projects from Snowbird’s MDP amendment, accepted by the UWCNF on April 15, 2011. The original proposal has been modified since that date on the basis of public comments, ID Team review, and discussions between the UWCNF and Snowbird. The proposed deck at General Gritts has been dropped in favor of a smaller, tip-out style expansion that would involve no impact on NFS resources. Additionally, two new trail modification proposals for the lower Bananas ski run and the Little Cloud connector have been added to the Proposed Action to address existing congestion issues in the Gad 2 ski pod. Beyond that, initial descriptions of the proposed projects have been fleshed out with additional detail to allow assessment of their environmental effects. Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 illustrate the Proposed Action’s on-mountain elements, Gad Valley base area details, and Baby Thunder beginner area details, respectively.

2.2.1 BEGINNER SKIING AREA Snowbird is known for its more difficult terrain but lacks adequate developed beginner terrain. Chickadee is the only beginner area available, and its steep grade (approximately 30 percent) and lift height (25 to 30 feet above the snow surface) limit Chickadee’s suitability for beginning skiers. The Baby Thunder area would provide terrain that is appropriate for a true beginner area.

The beginner area would be developed on the north side of Little Cottonwood Creek directly across from the Baby Thunder pod. The 2.5-acre site has uniform 10-to-15-percent grades and sparse tree cover. It is anticipated that only selective tree removal would be required to create safe and appropriate skiing conditions, without any other disturbance of vegetation or soils.

Three 200-foot-long carpet-type conveyor lifts would be installed, requiring vegetation clearing and grading. The lifts would be installed on a raised berm on ties or concrete blocks. Access to the area would be via the existing access road from Gad Valley to Baby Thunder. At the Baby Thunder end, a new access road would diverge from existing road to the site of a bridge constructed to provide skier, construction/maintenance, and snowcat access to the beginner area.

As the access road from Gad Valley is about 0.4 mile long and does not have a consistent glide angle in either direction, some form of transportation would be supplied for beginner skiers to and from the area. Snowbird is considering a snow coach (i.e., a snowcat fitted with seats), and other options may be identified.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 2-1. Proposed Action. On-mountain projects. 18 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 2-2. Proposed Action – Gad Valley Base Area Detail.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 2-3. Proposed Action – Baby Thunder Beginner Area Detail. 20 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Snowmaking capability would be expanded to the site from the system in place at the base of Baby Thunder. Water and power lines would be installed, crossing the creek under the bridge, and continuing underground about 100 feet to a new hydrant. From that point, hoses would connect to portable snowmaking guns.

2.2.2 BASE AREA CONVEYOR LIFT The conveyor lift would provide first-time skiers the opportunity to get a feel for being on skis or boards, riding a lift, and sliding on a very mild grade – a “bunny hill.” The Gad Valley conveyor, a lift similar to those proposed in the beginner area, would be roughly 100 feet long. It would be installed in the area between the lower terminal of Gadzoom lift and the access road to Baby Thunder. This site is easily accessible from Creekside Lodge but relatively out of the way in the congested base area. An area around the lift, roughly 100 feet by 75 feet, would be graded to create a surface appropriate for those on skis for the first time. This transition is especially important for skiers with physical challenges, so the project would be consistent with relocation of Wasatch Adaptive Sports to the adjacent Creekside Lodge.

2.2.3 BABY THUNDER YURT Snowbird’s Mountain School youth programs use the Baby Thunder pod extensively. The Yurt is designed to make these programs more pleasant and effective and to provide young skiers a place to warm up and get a hot drink during lessons.

The yurt would be installed at the lower end of the Baby Thunder beginner area, adjacent to the turn-around area for the snowcat shuttle and near the bridge across Little Cottonwood Creek. Approximately 30 feet in diameter, the yurt would be installed on a graded pad, with a simple foundation (e.g., concrete pylons). Snowbird plans to leave the yurt on site year-round, though no summer activities there are anticipated.

The yurt would be accessible to visitors with physical challenges. Electrical power would be provided via a buried line connecting to the system in place at the base of Baby Thunder lift. Water would be delivered in containers by snowcat, and porta-potty-type toilets would be placed nearby then hauled out for disposal as necessary.

2.2.4 NIGHT SKIING ON GADZOOM Night skiing has become a very popular recreational opportunity and currently, Snowbird provides night skiing on its beginning Chickadee lift only. Night skiing on Gadzoom would meet a number of Snowbird’s needs and criteria for night use including:  The Creekside Lodge is a logical staging/service venue.  The Big Emma terrain park would be utilized.  There are no residences or lodges to be affected in Gad Valley.  Young participants in Snowbird Race Team would have the opportunity to train at night rather than just mornings, making the program much more effective.

Roughly 20 acres would be lit for night skiing, starting at the top of Gadzoom lift, down Bassackwards to Big Emma, then down to the base of Gadzoom lift. It would entail installation of about 80 light poles along the edges of the cleared runs, connected by about 2 miles of buried electrical lines. Appropriate lighting technology and design features (e.g., metal halide lights and

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

down-cast shields) would be employed to limit both direct visual impact and effect on night sky. Night skiing would generally begin an hour after the lifts shut down for the day, at 5 or 5:30, and run until 9:00 PM.

2.2.5 LIFT MAINTENANCE SHOP AND OFFICE RELOCATION The existing lift maintenance shop is on the second level of the Snowbird Center, which presents year-round operational problems. Expanding the existing pump station to accommodate the lift maintenance shop and offices would meet these needs:  It would shift the lift maintenance program away from the congested Snowbird Center to a more out-of-the-way location, decreasing conflicts with other guest services and operational functions.  It would entail expanding an existing structure rather than developing a new site.  Utilities including power, water, and sewer are already in place.

The expansion of the existing Gad Valley pump house would consist of a two-story addition abutting the existing structure to the east. The footprint would be about 100 feet long, aligned with the existing access road, and about 30 feet deep. The lower level would accommodate three shop bays supporting the lift maintenance program. The upper level would include office space and accommodations for crews when SR 210 is closed. Electrical, water, and sewer connections are available at the existing facility or nearby. The architectural style would match the established theme at Snowbird (i.e., buildings are predominantly concrete, wood, and glass with flat roofs and strong horizontal lines).

2.2.6 CREEKSIDE LODGE ADAPTIVE SPORTS EXPANSION Snowbird sponsors Wasatch Adaptive Sports, a charitable foundation established in 1977 to help fill the need for affordable recreational and educational programs for children and adults with special needs. The program has grown dramatically in terms of the range of activities it offers and demand for them. As a result, additional space is needed for program administration and implementation.

The 1999 ROD authorized a 12,500-square-foot structure, and Snowbird subsequently completed the first phase, about 8,500 square feet. Snowbird intends to complete build-out of this popular facility as approved, in terms of size and services provided, adding the approved 4,000 square feet (analyzed under the No-Action Alternative). The finished building would extend to the southwest, into an undeveloped area in the Little Cottonwood Creek RCHA. The Proposed Action includes an additional 7,500 square feet, expanding on the previously approved footprint and adding a level above it, to accommodate the adaptive sports program. The additional space would provide office, meeting/classroom, storage, and utility space.

Beyond the lodge expansion itself, the Proposed Action includes an accessible ramp, providing an alternative to the existing stairway to the snow front, from the southeast corner of the deck on the south side of the lodge. It would run about 80 feet eastward along the edge of the cleared and graded area surrounding the Gadzoom and Mid Gad lift terminals. Additional accessible parking would also be provided in the existing lot near the lodge. These improvements would complement the adaptive sports expansion and the conveyor lift described above, making most Gad Valley facilities accessible to beginning skiers and visitors with special needs.

22 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

2.2.7 MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS Snowbird proposes to build, in phases, various skill levels of bicycle trails. The trail system is designed to accommodate increasing participation in various forms of mountain biking as well as to address the growing local need for providing for an adequate trail system in a managed setting to address recreation and resource sustainability. Snowbird has developed several single-track trails, including a new one in 2012.

Snowbird would add about 10 miles to the existing 17-mile mountain bike trail system, phasing in trails of various skill levels starting at the Snowbird Center and running throughout Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch. Advanced trails on the higher slopes would have lift service from the top of the Tram. Trails would be constructed to applicable Forest Service trail standards. Note that the trail alignments shown in Figure 2-1 are preliminary. Final alignments would be refined during the final design process.

2.2.8 RELOCATION OF LUNCH RUN SUMMER ROAD Snowbird is proposing a sustainable new road alignment for a segment of existing road (approximately 1,500 feet) that accesses the top of Gadzoom lift and the base of Little Cloud lift. The existing road has been a problem for many years and its grade is very steep, with grades up to 75 percent, is highly erodible, difficult to maintain, and is often a hazard to drive up or down.

The relocation would shift this access road from its current location on the Lunch Run, to an alignment that would switchback across the mid Bassackwards ski run at several points. The new road segment would be about 0.5 mile long, and the finished surface would be about 16 feet wide, matching Snowbird’s existing service roads in terms of construction methods and surface quality.

2.2.9 REMODEL OF MID GAD RESTAURANT Mid Gad Restaurant is one of the original buildings constructed at Snowbird. Seating capacity is a major constraint on busy days, especially when there is inclement weather. The remodel addresses the capacity shortage by expanding the building within the same footprint and enclosing the open and deck area on the ground level.

Mid Gad Restaurant has two levels, with 6,400 square feet on the upper level and 3,200 square feet on the ground level. The top level has the kitchen and main dining area. The bottom level has bathrooms, a mechanical room, a small ski demo area, and an open deck. Under the Proposed Action, the building would be remodeled and updated and the 3,200 square feet of open deck space on the ground level would be enclosed, primarily for food service. All work would be within the current footprint, and the remodeling would retain Snowbird’s characteristic architectural style.

2.2.10 GAD 2 UPGRADE Gad 2 lift is 37 years old and is one of the first lifts installed at Snowbird. Maintenance and parts availability are becoming a concern. There are also clearance issues when Snowbird gets over 300 inches of snow and the top ramp is too long and steep, making it challenging to off-load and difficult to maintain adequate snow cover throughout the day. The proposal includes upgrading the lift from a fixed-grip double to a higher capacity lift designed to address the clearance and unloading ramp issues.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The existing Gad 2 lift would be replaced with a higher capacity fixed-grip or detachable chairlift. This analysis addresses a detachable quad lift with operating capacity sufficient to allow comfortable loading and unloading and maintain a good balance with the pod’s trail capacity. A loading carpet could be installed to facilitate lift loading. The new lift would be installed in the existing cleared corridor and the same upper and lower terminal sites would be used.

2.2.11 BANANAS TRAIL MODIFICATION Based on public comment and ID team review, a proposal to modify the Bananas ski run in the Gad 2 area has been added to the Proposed Action. The lower section of Bananas run would be graded to average out fall-line slopes to a gradient that is negotiable by intermediate-level skiers and grooming vehicles. The grading project would start at the 9,450-foot elevation of Bananas, just below the flats at the trail’s mid-section, and terminate at elevation 8,900 where Bananas merges with the access trail from Mid-Gad Restaurant (Bassackwards). The resulting run would have a width ranging from 100 to150 feet and a maximum gradient of about 45 percent. As part of this project, the flat section of Bassackwards just uphill from the base of Bananas/Gadzooks would be excavated to create a positive, skiable gradient. The material removed would be used for fill at the bottom of Bananas/Gadzooks. The area of disturbance for the entire project (including Bassackwards) could be up to 7 acres. The grading would increase the downhill capacity of the Gad 2 pod by improving a choke point, resulting in a better match with the uphill capacity of the proposed Gad 2 lift upgrade.

2.2.12 GAD 2–LITTLE CLOUD CONNECTOR TRAIL Currently, Upper Bassackwards is used for access from Gad 2 to the bottom of the Little Cloud lift. Upper Bassackwards is periodically closed for snow safety concerns, which compromises circulation from Gad 2 to Little Cloud. To improve circulation between these two lifts, a bypass would be constructed from the 9,650-foot elevation of Election ski run into the Little Cloud bottom terminal maze area. This project would require minor grading for slope averaging, disturbing about 1.3 acres.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION This section outlines the process and rationale for alternative formulation, while section 2.5 below describes the resulting alternatives. Analysis of the No-Action Alternative is required under NEPA (40 CFR 1508.25) to provide a baseline for assessing the impacts of the Proposed Action and action alternatives. In this case, no action would mean that the proposed Gad Valley improvements were not be approved. Snowbird would continue to operate under their current MDP, authorized in the 1999 ROD and subsequent decisions, which includes a number of approved but uncompleted projects. These constitute the No-Action Alternative, and their environmental effects are summarized from the 1999 MDP EIS or other environmental reviews in Chapter 3 of this EA. These previously approved projects are also reviewed for new information or changed circumstances, in accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures (FSH 1909, Ch. 10, 18.1). The projects included in the No-Action Alternative would also be implemented if either the Proposed Action or the Preferred Alternative were selected.

Action alternatives constitute alternative courses of action by which the purpose and need addressed by a Proposed Action could reasonably be achieved. For this analysis, three issues raised during scoping suggested the need to consider an action alternative. Those issues are:

24 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 How would the proposed projects affect water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek?  Are the sites proposed for the beginner area and adaptive skiing in the Gad Valley base area appropriate to their anticipated functions?  Would provision of culinary water and sewer services to the proposed buildings and building expansions be consistent with current contractual arrangements with Salt Lake City and County? Initial surveys completed for this analysis also indicated potential effects on special status plant species and heritage resources associated with the proposed mountain bike trail in Peruvian Gulch. These issues are addressed by Alternative 3 (section 2.5.2), which eliminates or modifies six Proposed Action projects including:

 Beginner Skiing Area  Gad Valley Conveyor Lift  Baby Thunder Yurt  Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation  Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion  Mountain Bike Trails

The environmental analysis addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, No Action, and Alternative 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in detail below (sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2). No other alternatives requiring in-depth analysis were suggested through scoping, comment on this Proposed Action, or initial analysis of environmental effects.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DEPTH

2.4.1 PROVISION OF PARKING AT THE BABY THUNDER BEGINNER AREA One alternative suggested by scoping commenters was provision of parking at the Baby Thunder beginner area. The basis for this suggestion was that the distance of the proposed beginner area from existing parking lots and skier services in Gad Valley would less an issue for beginning skiers if parking were provided near the beginner area.

The rationale for not carrying this alternative into detailed analysis is as follows. The accessibility of the Baby Thunder site is a valid concern, and this analysis addresses it. However, Salt Lake County and UWCNF regulations limit development of new parking at the Central Wasatch ski areas as a means of controlling vehicle numbers in the canyons. Beyond that limitation, space is limited at the site, and parking would require other associated facilities such as an access road and ticket sales. The resulting environmental impact, occurring in the Little Cottonwood Creek riparian corridor, would make this alternative infeasible.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

2.5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DEPTH

2.5.1 ALTERNATIVE 2 – NO ACTION As discussed above under Alternative Formulation (section 2.3), Snowbird’s current MDP includes a number of approved projects that constitute the No-Action Alternative. These projects are described below, and their locations are shown in Figure 2-4. The codes in parentheses after project names are those used to denote the projects in the 1999 MDP EIS and ROD to facilitate cross referencing.

2.5.1.1 Snowmaking (area wide) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to increase their snowmaking coverage from 70 acres to approximately 180 acres. Snowmaking water is to be taken directly from the Wasatch Drain Tunnel rather than from Little Cottonwood Creek. Up to 80 million gallons of water annually, available through contract with Salt Lake City, will be pumped directly from the drain tunnel to a cooling tower, then to the snowmaking pump house in Gad Valley, and then to the snowmaking system.

Since 1999, snowmaking has been expanded in a number of areas, including Bass Highway and areas such as Chip’s Face and Tower 1 Road. Upcoming priorities include Anderson Hill in Peruvian Gulch and Election trail in Gad Valley.

2.5.1.2 Cat Staging Area (Alt E) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to construct a staging area for over-the-snow vehicles on the south side of the parking lot road. The staging area will consist of an asphalt pad approximately 100 feet x100 feet, with lights, block heaters, and an above-ground fuel tank, all built in accordance with applicable standards. No trees will be removed for this project. Trees will be planted in areas surrounding the site not already lined with trees to add to the existing visual shield that surrounds the staging area.

To date, Snowbird has graded the site and an access road to it. They are still planning to pave it and put in the power line, and to move ahead with completion of the project as other priorities allow.

2.5.1.3 Creekside Lodge (Base C) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to construct a new building, accessible to all, that will provide food service (restaurant seating for 250), a transit staging area, ticketing, rentals, restrooms, limited retail space, and ski school functions at the base of Gad Valley. This building is limited to 12,500 square feet on two levels, with a large deck on the south side.

At this point, Snowbird has developed an 8,500-square-foot facility. Under the No-Action Alternative, they would add 4,000 square-feet within the approved footprint to complete the lodge as currently authorized.

26 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 2-4. No-Action Alternative – On-mountain projects. 27

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

2.5.1.4 Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade (Hidden A) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to construct a new facility on Hidden Peak that will not exceed 50,000 square feet in size. The following functions are approved: mountain operations/ski patrol activities, snowcat garage with fuel, food preparation and service, restrooms, interpretive programs, retail sales of small essential items, and maintenance, circulation, and mechanical/electrical space. Any design submitted by Snowbird will be subject to review and approval by Forest Service landscape architects and engineers.

On November 7, 2011, the UWCNF authorized Snowbird to begin preliminary site work on this project. Given the delay in implementation, the UWCNF completed the required review of the previous environmental analysis documentation and assessment of whether there was sufficient new information, technology, or changed conditions to warrant a new analysis and decision (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 11.23). That review was documented in a Supplemental Information Report (Forest Service 2011b).

Following the 2011 authorization, Snowbird completed the initial geotechnical and other site assessments and initial planning for the structure. Preliminary plans were submitted to the UWCNF early in 2012 and are currently being finalized. The new structure will be smaller than the upper approved limit of 50,000 square feet. The final design will be consistent with the 1999 ROD’s parameters and will reduce or avoid the primary operational and environmental issues (e.g., skier circulation and visual impact) identified in the 1999 EIS. There is sufficient space on Hidden Peak to accommodate the smaller structure and allow efficient skier circulation. Construction of the first phase (of two phases) is anticipated to begin in summer of 2013 and be complete by the beginning of the 2014 ski season.

2.5.1.5 Little Cloud Lift Upgrade (Gad O) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to upgrade the existing fixed-grip double lift to a fixed-grip or detachable quad lift, using the same base and top stations, most towers, and lift corridor. In 2004, Snowbird requested approval to shift the alignment slightly to facilitate off-loading at the top terminal. The Forest Service authorized that proposal in October 2004, following interdisciplinary review of the previous environmental analysis documentation and assessment of whether there was sufficient new information, technology, or changed conditions to warrant a new analysis and decision. That upgrade was not completed.

In November 2011, Snowbird requested authorization to implement the upgrade as originally approved during summer, 2012. Based on the original analysis in the 1999 FEIS and the 2004 review, the UWCNF determined that the original authorization remains valid. This project was completed in the late fall of 2012, and the lift began operation during the 2012/13 ski season.

2.5.1.6 Barrier Free Trail Extension (Gad D) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to connect the existing barrier-free trail with the existing access road to the top of Baby Thunder lift by building a 3-foot-wide unpaved trail across the Race Hill, Big Emma, and Lower Bassackwards ski runs. The trail will not meet the same accessibility standards of the existing trail. This project is not currently scheduled.

2.5.1.7 Madam Annie’s Modification (Gad F) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to widen a constriction at the top of West 2nd South ski run by removing a large knoll and grading the material down Madam Annie’s to create better skier

28 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements access from the top of West 2nd South to the base of Gad Valley. This project is not currently scheduled.

2.5.1.8 Skier’s Access to Upper Emma (Gad H) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird authorized to widen the existing road and ski access from the Mid Gad restaurant to the top of Big Emma ski run to ease congestion and increase safety. Excess fill from the road widening north of the Mid Gad restaurant will be used to fill the rocky, steep depression on the skier’s left at the top of Big Emma. This project is not currently scheduled.

2.5.1.9 Blackjack Road Modification (Peru A) The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to widen a narrow turn in the Blackjack Road from about 20 feet to 40 feet with another 20 feet of cut slope above, for approximately 300 feet. This will alleviate congestion and reduce the risk of skier collisions. This project is not currently scheduled.

2.5.1.10 Peruvian Snowmaking/Utility Corridor A July 2007 decision (Forest Service 2007a) authorized Snowbird to replace aging and outdated utilities, installing them underground in a corridor in Peruvian Gulch. The 1.7-mile corridor includes about 0.6 miles of NFS land, much of it on service roads or an abandoned mining road. At an average corridor width of 30 feet, this translates to about 6.2 acres of temporary disturbance, with about 2.2 acres on NFS land. The corridor extends from a tie-in with the Regulator snowmaking and utility line coming up Gad Valley just below Tram tower no. 4 down to the base of Peruvian Gulch.

Two projects remain to be completed. A snowmaking spur will branch off the main line from Middle Chips to Anderson Hill. The electrical line from the lower end of the Lower Men’s Downhill Chute down to the base will also be completed at a later date. It will be rerouted slightly to follow the Phone 3 road down to the Willows, joining the in-place snowmaking corridor there. Completion of this project is not currently scheduled.

2.5.2 ALTERNATIVE 3 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE As discussed above under Alternative Formulation (section 2.3), issues regarding potential water quality impacts, the siting of facilities for beginner and adaptive skiers, and provision of water and sewer services indicated the need for this alternative. To address these issues, this alternative eliminates or modifies five projects that would be located in the Gad Valley base area within the RHCA and in close proximity to Little Cottonwood Creek. Additionally, dropping the Peruvian Gulch portion of the proposed mountain bike trail system under Alternative 3 would eliminate or reduce potential effects on special status species and heritage resources. Modified or eliminated projects include:

 Beginner Skiing Area  Gad Valley Conveyor Lift  Baby Thunder Yurt  Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation  Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion  Mountain Bike Trails

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

In terms of water and sewer service, all new structures under Alternative 3 would share services in existing structures within the established limits for those structures, eliminating potential contractual issues.

In all other respects, Alternative 3 would be the same as the Proposed Action, including all the elements not specifically eliminated or modified as discussed below. Figure 2-5 shows an overview of these eliminated or modified projects, and Figure 2-6 shows the Gad Valley base area projects in detail. Note that these figures also show the other, unmodified elements of the Proposed Action that would also be implemented under this alternative.

Based on these considerations, the Responsible Official identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative.

2.5.2.1 Beginner Area This project, as described under the Proposed Action, would not be permitted. Instead, beginner facilities would be developed on about 12.5 acres of appropriate terrain around the Mid Gad lift midway station and at the top of the Mid Gad lift. Specific elements of this project include the following:

Lifts  The Mid Gad chairlift would be replaced with a high-speed, beginner and pedestrian friendly lift such as a gondola. The new Mid Gad lift would be configured with an unload station at or below the existing Mid Gad midway station.  A short chairlift, similar to the Chickadee lift (900 feet long by 190 feet vertical), would be installed in the midway area. The top terminal would be at the site of the existing Mid Gad midway station. The bottom terminal would be near the confluence of lower Bassackwards and Big Emma. This chairlift would serve nearly 11 acres of novice-level ski terrain on existing slopes.  One or two surface conveyor lifts, 100 – 200 feet long, would be installed adjacent to the Mid Gad midway station. The existing earthen half pipe would be removed. The proposed conveyors and slopes would provide nearly 1 acre of beginner terrain for first- time skiers and snowboarders.  Two surface conveyor lifts, 100 – 250 feet long, would be installed at the top of the Mid Gad lift, one above the Mid Gad top terminal and one extending from the Mid Gad top terminal down to the Mid Gad Restaurant. Trail/Terrain Modifications  Teaching platforms, beginner slopes, and possibly a kids’ terrain park or snowplay features, would be developed into the natural topography surrounding the conveyor lifts. The proposed conveyors and slope grading would disturb about 1.5 acres.  The next progression for learning skiers graduating from the Mid Gad beginners’ area would be the Baby Thunder lift. The West 2nd South trail currently provides skier access from Mid Gad/Midway to Baby Thunder but has two flat and slightly uphill sections that are very difficult to negotiate, particularly for small children. This difficult access plays a role in the current underutilization of Baby Thunder as a teaching lift.

30 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 2-5. Preferred Alternative – On-mountain Projects. 31

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 2-6. Preferred Alternative – Gad Valley Base Area Detail. 32 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

To improve access to Baby Thunder, the upper portion of West 2nd South would be shifted west by up to 200 feet to an alignment that maintains a constant downhill pitch of 8 – 12 percent, reconnecting with the original West 2nd South alignment on skiers’ left side of Lower Bassackwards. At this point, a grading project would eliminate the second flat section and reduce the pitch at the breakover onto Madam Annie’s run. The realignment of upper West 2nd South would involve the creation of 1,500 feet of new skiway that would be 20 – 25 feet wide (estimated 1.4 acre disturbance area based on 40-foot grading width). The area of disturbance for the grading project lower on West 2nd South would be approximately 2.3 acres.

2.5.2.2 Base Area Conveyor Lift This Proposed Action project would not be permitted. No alternative location would meet the needs for this facility.

2.5.2.3 Baby Thunder Yurt This project, element 3 under the Proposed Action, would be relocated outside of the RHCA, upslope in the Baby Thunder Family Area adjacent to the Bluebell and Alice Avenues trails.

2.5.2.4 Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation This Proposed Action project would be relocated outside the RHCA as an expansion of the existing vehicle maintenance shop located on the north side of the lower Gad Valley parking lot. The expansion would be smaller, roughly 60 feet long by 65 feet deep on two levels, adjoining the west end of the existing shop. The lower level would accommodate three bays and associated shop space. The upper level would house tram and lift operations offices. Crew space and restroom facilities in the existing shop would be sufficient to support both programs.

2.5.2.5 Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion This Proposed Action project would be modified. Rather than extending southwest into undisturbed land in the RHCA, as approved in the 1999 ROD (section 2.5.1.3), the approved 4,000-square-foot expansion of the lower level footprint would shift to the northwest, into the existing paved delivery area and parking lot. The additional 7,500 square feet proposed under the Proposed Action (section 2.2.6) would be built in three levels within this revised footprint, also avoiding undisturbed RHCA. The lower level expansion would comprise multi-purpose/ski school space. The main level expansion above it would house the adaptive sports program. The new third level over the existing lodge and expansion area would provide office, meeting/classroom, storage, and utility space.

The access ramp from the lower-level deck to the snowfront would be modified from the Proposed Action to include landings consistent with ADA. It would follow a similar alignment, running east between the edge of the riparian corridor and the heavily trafficked lift base area. Any new restrooms or kitchen facilities would be within the existing building footprint.

2.5.2.6 Mountain Bike Trails This Proposed Action project would be modified. The mountain bike trail from Hidden Peak, through Peruvian Gulch, to the intersection with the trail from Gad Valley to Snowbird Center, would not be authorized. The mountain bike trail system in Gad Valley would be developed as proposed.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

2.5.2.7 Other Elements Alternative 3 would also include all the unmodified projects comprised by the Proposed Action, specifically:

 Night Skiing on Gadzoom (section 2.2.4).  Relocation of Lunch Run Summer Road (section 2.2.8).  Remodel of Mid Gad Restaurant (section 2.2.9).  Gad 2 Upgrade, including the Bananas Trail Modification and the Little Cloud Connector (section 2.2.10).

2.6 MITIGATION Attachment 1 to the 1999 ROD lists mitigation measures required as a condition of approval of Snowbird’s current MDP. Those measures would remain in force regardless of which alternative was selected on the basis of this analysis. Appendix A lists mitigation measures from the 1999 ROD as well as any modifications or new design criteria and mitigation measures identified through this analysis that are specifically relevant to the alternatives considered in this EA.

2.7 SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Table 2-1 summarizes and compares the direct and indirect environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives.

34 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 2-1. Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Preferred Alternative Watershed Resources: - How would the Disturbance would impact 11.6 acres Disturbance would impact 27.4 acres Disturbance would impact 29.9 acres of land proposed through excavation and grading. through excavation, grading, and through excavation and grading. projects affect Creekside Lodge expansion would not thinning. Creekside Lodge Expansion would be relocated water quality in directly impact the Little Cottonwood Creekside Lodge expansion would away from stream channel and into a Little Creek stream channel. extend beyond the footprint under the previously disturbed area. Cottonwood Required design criteria and No-Action Alternative, impacting the Beginner area would be located to the Mid Gad Creek? mitigation measures from 1999 ROD stream channel. area, away from Little Cottonwood Creek, would eliminate or reduce impacts, Baby Thunder beginner area would reducing the potential for direct water quality resulting in no substantial water disturb land adjacent to Little impacts to the creek. quality impacts. Cottonwood Creek, and a bridge Use and transport of porta-potty-type sanitary would cross the stream channel. facilities from the Baby Thunder yurt to the Use and transport of porta-potty-type base area would not require crossing the creek, sanitary facilities from the Baby reducing the potential risk of water quality Thunder yurt across the proposed impacts compared to the Proposed Action. bridge to the base area would create a Required design criteria and mitigation low potential risk of water quality measures from 1999 ROD and this analysis impacts. would eliminate or reduce impacts resulting in Required design criteria and no substantial water quality impacts. mitigation measures from 1999 ROD and this analysis would eliminate or reduce impacts, resulting in no substantial water quality impacts.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 2-1 (cont’d) . Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Preferred Alternative - How would the Construction would impact less than Construction would impact 1.8 acres Construction would impact 2.7 acres of proposed 0.3 acres of wetland, 4.4 acres of of wetland, 13.5 acres of RHCAs, 337 wetland, 14.4 acres of RHCAs, 744 feet of projects affect RHCAs, 156 feet of intermittent feet of intermittent streams, and 478 perennial streams, and 551 feet of intermittent wetlands, streams, and 145 feet of perennial feet of perennial streams. streams. While greater than the Proposed riparian areas, streams. Creekside Lodge expansion would Action, these impacts would primarily occur in and Creekside Lodge expansion would impact 0.2 acre of riparian habitat and the Mid Gad area, away from Little floodplains? impact 0.1 acre of riparian habitat and 0.8 acre of RHCA adjacent to Little Cottonwood Creek. 0.6 acre of RHCA adjacent to LCC. Cottonwood Creek. The Creekside Lodge expansion would impact Required design criteria and The Baby Thunder beginner area and 0.1 ac riparian habitat and 0.7 acre of RHCA mitigation measures from 1999 ROD Creekside Lodge expansion would adjacent to the creek. would eliminate or reduce potential impact 0.1 acre of riparian habitat and The beginner area would be located outside of impacts, resulting in few permanent 2.4 acres of RHCA adjacent to Little the Little Cottonwood Creek riparian corridor impacts on these resources. Cottonwood Creek. and RHCA. It would impact 0.9 acre of Required design criteria and wetland/riparian habitat and 2.2 acres of RHCA mitigation measures from 1999 ROD adjacent to a tributary of the Gad Valley and this analysis would eliminate or stream. reduce potential effects, resulting in Required design criteria and mitigation few permanent impacts on these measures from 1999 ROD and this analysis resources. would eliminate or reduce potential effects, resulting in few permanent impacts on these resources. Vegetation: - How would the No impact on special-status plant Proposed mountain bike trail in upper Peruvian Gulch mountain bike trail would not proposed species. Peruvian Gulch passes through be constructed, avoiding any potential impact projects affect populations of two Forest Service on special status plant species. special status sensitive plant species, rockcress plant species? draba and Garrett’s fleabane. These species could be adversely impacted by construction of this trail.

36 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 2-1 (cont’d) . Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Preferred Alternative Wildlife: - How would the Federally listed species: No effect. Same as No-Action Alternative, Same as Proposed Action. proposed Forest Service sensitive species: May except an additional Forest Service projects affect impact individual boreal toads or their sensitive species potentially affected: wildlife habitat habitat, but would not likely May impact individual boreal toads and special contribute to a trend toward Federal and northern goshawks or their status wildlife Listing or cause a loss of viability to habitat, but would not likely species? the population or species. contribute to a trend toward Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to Partners in Flight Priority Species and the population or species. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern: No notable impacts. Management indicator species: No contribution to downward population trend Forest-wide. Recreation: - How would the Gad Valley lift capacity 7,125 pph, Lift capacity increased to 8,475 pph, Lift capacity increased to 10,350 pph, CCC to proposed CCC 2,430, overall density in Gad CCC to 2,510; overall density 2,680; overall and trail density same as improvements Valley 9 skiers/ac and trail density 4 unchanged from No-Action Proposed Action, well under industry collectively skiers/ac. All densities very low Alternative, but trail density less at 3 standards. affect the relative to industry standards. skiers/ac, still well under industry Mid Gad beginner area, replaces Baby Thunder overall capacity No beginner skiing area, Gad Valley standards. area and Peruvian Gulch bike trail dropped; in balance and base area conveyor lift, night skiing, Baby Thunder beginner area, base all other respects recreation opportunities the functionality of or new mountain bike trails, limiting area conveyor, night skiing, and new same as the Proposed Action. Gad Valley? these recreational opportunities in bike trails provide additional Gad Valley. recreational opportunities. Approved improvements in snowmaking, cat staging area, Little Cloud upgrade, barrier-free trail upgrade would improve functionality.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 2-1 (cont’d) . Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Preferred Alternative Skier services limited by lack of Baby Skier services enhanced by Baby Changing the siting of the lift shop relocation Thunder yurt, lift maintenance shop Thunder yurt, lift shop relocation, Mid and the Creekside Lodge expansion would not relocation, and Mid Gad Restaurant Gad Restaurant remodeling, and larger alter the benefits to skier services. Lack of a remodeling, but enhanced by smaller Creekside Lodge expansion. Food base area conveyor would hamper the transition Creekside Lodge expansion and service seating deficit reduced but still of first-time skiers and adaptive sports upgraded Hidden Peak structure. substantial. Restroom deficits minor. participants to the slopes. Substantial food service seating deficit in Gad Valley would remain, and minor deficit in restroom facilities. - How would the No Gad 2 upgrade or trail Gad 2 upgrade and trail improvements Same as Proposed Action. proposed improvements, so conditions would improve functioning of that pod. upgrade of Gad remain the same. Overall density in Overall skier density would remain at 2 lift affect the pod 7 skiers/ac and trail density 1 seven skiers per acre but trail density recreational skier/ac. would double to two skiers per acre – setting in the Bananas trail would still be a roughly 20 additional skiers on 65 ac. Gad 2 pod? circulation bottleneck, as would Marginally higher densities on access to Little Cloud lower terminal. Bassackwards and Lunch Run due to shared circulation from Gadzoom and Use of hike-to terrain inside or Little Cloud. outside the SUP boundary not affected. Trail improvements would alleviate bottlenecks on Bananas and improve access to Little Cloud. Higher lift capacity not likely to translate to more skiers using hike-to terrain in or out of the SUP.

38 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 2-1 (cont’d) . Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Preferred Alternative - Are the sites Dedicated beginner terrain would be Beginner area across the creek from Beginner area at midway and top of Mid Gad proposed for limited to Chickadee, which is steeper Baby Thunder would provide would provide appropriate terrain in a less the beginner and smaller than ideal. appropriate terrain and lifts, isolated isolated area, with easier access to skier support area and from other skier traffic, and providing services and no shuttle ride required. This adaptive skiing an easy transition to the logical next would require replacing Mid Gad lift with a in the Gad step up in difficulty in Baby Thunder beginner friendly, down-loadable lift. Valley base pod. Negatives include the need for a Baby Thunder terrain would be somewhat less area shuttle from Creekside to get there, accessible, but improvements to West 2nd appropriate to distance from lodge and skier support South facilitate transition. Congestion at their facilities, and added congestion Creekside Lodge snow front would be anticipated around Creekside Lodge snow front. unaffected. functions? Heritage Resources: - How would the No impact on heritage resources. Baby Thunder beginner area could Relocating beginner area to Mid Gad would proposed impact two isolated finds, and avoid potential impact on two isolated finds at construction Peruvian Gulch mountain bike trail Baby Thunder site. affect heritage could impact two archaeological sites Peruvian Gulch mountain bike trail would not resources and eight isolated finds. None of the be constructed, avoiding potential impact on potentially isolated finds are considered eligible the two archaeological sites and eight isolated occurring in for National Register of Historic finds there. disturbance Places; both archaeological sites are areas? considered eligible.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 2-1 (cont’d) . Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action Preferred Alternative Scenic Integrity: - How would the Buildings would be designed in Same as No-Action Alternative. Sky Same as Proposed Action. proposed accordance with the Forest Service’s glow from proposed night skiing not projects affect Built Environment Image Guide. visible from metro corridor or other the scenic All projects would be consistent with communities with the possible integrity of the the Resort Natural Setting theme and exception of the Blackjack/Hellgate project area? maintain a Scenic Integrity Level of community just west of Alta. High, assessed from viewpoints on SR 210. Minimal sky glow would result from base area lighting and night skiing on Chickadee, not visible from metro corridor or other communities. Transportation: - How would the No new night skiing, so no impact. Proposed night skiing is projected to Same as the Proposed Action. proposed night add up to 208 vehicles to down- skiing affect canyon traffic in the period after 6 traffic on SR p.m. when accident rates are higher. 210? This could result in a marginal increase in traffic accidents.

40 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

CHAPTER 3: EFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the baseline description of the existing environment in terms of the physical, biological, and human resources, and conditions which may be affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives to it. The description is structured by resource/discipline. This establishes the background for discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. The chapter is organized by resource discipline, starting with the physical and biological environment then shifting to the human environment. The chapter concludes with discussion of other disclosures required by NEPA or other agency regulations or policies. 3.2 DISTURBANCE TYPES AND AREAS Table 3-1 provides basic dimensions of disturbance associated with various projects. These dimensions were used in calculating the project-specific disturbance areas shown in consecutive Tables. Tables 3-2 through 3-4 show disturbance for each of the three alternatives. Tables 3-5 through 3-7 show acres of disturbance by vegetation class for each of the three alternatives. Details on impacts to wetland vegetation are addressed separately in section 3.4.1 Watershed Resources. Note that projects creating no additional disturbance (such as the remodel of the Mid Gad Restaurant) are not included in these tables.

Table 3-1. Typical disturbance dimensions1 by project type. Project Type Disturbance Dimensions Disturbance Type2 Access Roads 30-foot width Grading (tread width + 20 feet) Bridge 20-foot width Excavation Buildings and Other Footprint size plus 50-foot construction Excavation Infrastructure buffer Chairlifts Alignment Clearing 30-foot width Clearing Terminals 160-foot diameter circle Excavation Towers 28-foot diameter circle Excavation Conveyor Lifts 25-foot width Grading 4.5-foot width Grading Hiking Trail (1.5 x tread width) 6-foot width Grading Mountain Bike Trails (1.5 x tread width)

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-1 (cont’d). Typical disturbance dimensions1 by project type. Project Type Disturbance Dimensions Disturbance Type2 Night Skiing Light Poles 15-foot diameter circle Excavation Utility Lines 15-foot width Excavation Transformers 35 x 35 feet Excavation Ski Trails Actual acreage Grading Snowmaking Utility Lines 15-foot width Excavation Selective Tree Removal or Tree and Glade Skiing Actual acreage Glading Yurt Footprint size plus 20-foot construction Grading buffer

1These are the dimensions of construction-related disturbance, not the finished dimensions of projects. 2 Indicates maximum disturbance intensity (e.g. excavation disturbance also includes grading).

Table 3-2. Proposed Action elements by disturbance area1 and type. Project Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (ac) Disturbance Type Baby Thunder Beginner Area Bridge 20 45 < 0.1 Excavation Carpets (3 total) 25 220 0.4 Grading Cat Access 40 670 0.8 Grading Road Extension 30 135 0.1 Grading Tree Thinning varies varies 2.5 Selective Tree Removal Subtotal 3.8 Baby Thunder Yurt 70-foot diameter circle 0.1 Grading Conveyor Lift in Gad Valley 80 110 0.2 Grading Creekside Lodge Expansion ADA Ramp 15 70 < 0.1 Grading Lodge Expansion 160 220 0.8 Excavation Subtotal 0.8 Gad 2 Upgrade - Lifts Lift Terminals (upper and lower) 160-diameter circle 0.9 Excavation Lift Towers (est. 6) 28-foot diameter circle 0.1 Excavation Subtotal 1.0

42 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-2 (cont’d). Proposed Action elements by disturbance area1 and type. Project Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (ac) Disturbance Type Gad 2 Upgrade - Trails Bananas Trail Modification varies varies 6.9 Grading Gad 2 Little Cloud Connector varies varies 1.3 Grading Subtotal 8.2 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation Access Road 30 90 0.1 Grading Pump Station Expansion 120 170 0.5 Excavation Subtotal 0.5 Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation 30 2,530 1.7 Grading Mountain Bike Trails 6 46,650 6.5 Grading Night Skiing on Gadzoom Conduits 15 1,650 0.6 Excavation Light Poles (est. 79)2 15-foot diameter circle < 0.1 Excavation Power Line Trenches 15 10,760 3.7 Excavation Transformers (est. 9) 35 35 0.2 Excavation Subtotal 4.5 GRAND TOTAL (ac) 27.4 1 Project disturbance that overlapped other projects was only counted once. Priority was given to the project with the most intense disturbance (e.g. excavation had a higher priority than grading). Areas of disturbance resulting from the No Action Alternative were not counted under the Proposed Action. 2 Most disturbance from installation of Light Poles is accounted for in disturbance from Conduits or Power Line Trenches.

Table 3-3. No Action Alternative elements by disturbance area1 and type. Project Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (ac) Disturbance Type Snowmaking Phase 1 15 3200 1.1 Excavation Snowmaking Phase 2 15 2400 0.8 Excavation Snowmaking Phase 3 15 7200 2.5 Excavation Snowcat Staging Area (Alt E) 70 280 0.3 Grading Creekside Lodge Expansion (Base C) 0.6 Excavation Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade (Hidden A) 250 550 3.3 Excavation Barrier Free Trail Extension (Gad D) 4.5 2300 0.2 Grading

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-3 (cont’d). No Action Alternative elements by disturbance area1 and type. Project Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (ac) Disturbance Type Madam Annies Regrade (Gad F) 100 460 1.1 Grading Skier Access to Upper Emma (Gad H) Varies 0.5 Grading Blackjack Road Modification (Peru A) 40 360 0.2 Grading Peruvian Snowmaking and Utility Corridor 15 2400 0.8 Excavation GRAND TOTAL (ac) 11.6

1 Project disturbance that overlapped other projects was only counted once. Priority was given to the project with the most intense disturbance (e.g. excavation had a higher priority than grading).

Table 3-4. Alternative 3 elements by disturbance area1 and type. Project Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (ac) Disturbance Type Gad Valley Beginner Area - Lifts Conveyors (4 total) 25 230 0.5 Grading Lift Terminals (5 total) 160-foot diameter circle 2.2 Excavation Lift Towers (10 est.) 28-foot diameter Circle 0.1 Excavation Lift Clearing 30 200 0.1 Clearing Subtotal 3.0 Gad Valley Beginner Area - Terrain Beginner Area Upper varies varies 0.9 Grading Beginner Area Midway varies varies 2.3 Grading West Second South Realignment Varies Varies 3.1 Grading Subtotal 5.4 Baby Thunder Yurt 70-foot diameter circle 0.1 Grading Creekside Lodge Expansion ADA Ramp 15 70 <0.1 Grading Lodge Expansion 150 200 0.7 Excavation Subtotal 0.7 Gad 2 Upgrade – Lifts Lift Terminals (upper and lower) 160-diameter circle 0.9 Excavation Lift Towers (est. 6) 28-foot diameter circle 0.1 Excavation Subtotal 1.0

44 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-4 (cont’d). Alternative 3 elements by disturbance area1 and type. Project Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (ac) Disturbance Type Gad 2 Upgrade - Trails Bananas Trail Modification varies varies 6.9 Grading Gad 2 Little Cloud Connector varies varies 1.3 Grading Subtotal 8.2 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation 145 160 0.5 Excavation Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation 30 2,530 1.7 Grading Mountain Bike Trails 6 27,435 3.8 Grading Night Skiing on Gadzoom Conduits 15 1,650 0.6 Excavation Light Poles (est. 79)2 15-foot diameter circle < 0.1 Excavation Power Lines 15 10,760 3.7 Excavation Transformers (est. 9) 35 35 0.2 Excavation Subtotal 4.5 GRAND TOTAL (ac) 29.9

1 Project disturbance that overlapped other projects was only counted once. Priority was given to the project with the most intense disturbance (e.g. excavation had a higher priority than grading). Areas of disturbance resulting from the No Action Alternative were not counted under Alternative 3. 2 Most disturbance from installation of Light Poles is accounted for in disturbance from Conduits or Power Line Trenches.

Table 3-5. Disturbed landcover1 classes for the Proposed Action. Total Aspen Tall Forb Developed Spruce/Fir Short Forb Sparse Veg. Mixed Aspen

Mixed Conifer Mountain Brush Mountain Brush Conifer Parkland Conifer Parkland Krum. Spruce/Fir Baby Thunder Yurt Grading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 0 0 < 0.1 Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion Excavation < 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 < 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 Gad 2 Upgrade Excavation < 0.1 0.3 0.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 1 Grading 0.3 2.3 3.7 < 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0.9 8.22 Subtotal 0.3 2.6 4.1 < 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 1 9.3

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-5 (cont’d). Disturbed landcover1 classes for the Proposed Action. Total Aspen Tall Forb Developed Spruce/Fir Short Forb Sparse Veg. Mixed Aspen Mixed Conifer

Mountain Brush Conifer Parkland Conifer Parkland Krum. Spruce/Fir

Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation Grading < 0.1 0.4 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0.4 0 < 0.1 1.7 Mountain Bike Trails Grading 0.1 1.5 2.1 1 0.3 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 0.7 6.5 Night Skiing on Gadzoom Excavation < 0.1 0.6 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.5 0 0.2 4.5 Beginner Skiing Area < Excavation 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 Grading 0.1 < 0.1 0.5 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0.4 0 0 0 1.3 Thinning 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 1.5 0 0 0 2.5 Subtotal 0.1 < 0.1 0.6 0.9 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 2 0 0 0 3.8 Base Area Conveyor Lift Grading < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation Excavation < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 Grading 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 0.1 Subtotal < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 Grand Total 0.8 5.5 9.7 2.7 1 1.3 0.1 2.2 2.12 < 0.1 1.9 27.4

1 See section 3.4.1 Watershed Resource for impacts to wetland vegetation.

2 Row/column total discrepancy due to rounding. Totals are accurate.

46 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-6. Disturbed landcover classes1 for the No-Action Alternative. Total Aspen Tall Forb Developed Spruce/Fir Short Forb Sparse Veg. Mixed Aspen Mixed Conifer Mountain Brush Mountain Brush Conifer Parkland Conifer Parkland

Krum. Spruce/Fir Barrier Free Trail Grading < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 Blackjack Road Modification Excavation < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 Cat Staging Area Grading < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 0 0 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade Excavation 0.6 1.9 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 3.3 Skier Access to Upper Emma Grading < 0.1 0.2 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 0.5 Snowmaking Utility Corridor Excavation 1 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 4.4 Creekside Lodge Excavation < 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 Peruvian Utility Corridor Excavation 0.2 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 0.1 0.8 Madam Annie's Modification Grading < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 0.2 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 Grand Total 2.1 4.1 2.3 0.6 0.8 1.1 0 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 0.3 11.6

1 See section 3.4.1 Watershed Resource for impacts to wetland vegetation.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-7. Disturbed landcover1 classes for the Preferred Alternative. Total Aspen Tall Forb Developed Spruce/Fir Short Forb Sparse Veg. Mixed Aspen Mixed Conifer Mountain Brush Mountain Brush

Conifer Parkland Krum. Spruce/Fir Baby Thunder Yurt Grading 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 < 0.1 Creekside Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion Excavation 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 Gad 2 Upgrade Excavation < 0.1 0.3 0.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 1 Grading 0.3 2.3 3.7 < 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 1 0 0.9 8.22 Subtotal 0.3 2.6 4.1 < 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 1 9.3 Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation Grading < 0.1 0.4 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0.4 0 < 0.1 1.7 Mountain Bike Trails Grading < 0.1 0.4 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 0.2 3.7 Night Skiing on Gadzoom Excavation < 0.1 0.6 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.5 0 0.2 4.5 Beginner Area Clearing 0 < 0.1 0.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.3 1.1 Excavation 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 0 < 0.1 2.4 Grading < 0.1 1 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 0 < 0.1 0 0.2 5.9 Subtotal 0.3 1.7 3.4 1.3 1 0.6 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.5 9.3 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation Excavation 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 Grand Total 1 6.1 11.7 2.9 1.9 1.6 0.3 < 0.1 2.4 < 0.1 1.9 29.9

1 See section 3.4.1 Watershed Resource for impacts to wetland vegetation. 2 Row/column total discrepancy due to rounding. Totals are accurate.

48 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.3 CUMULATIVE ACTIONS The cumulative effects analysis area is defined as all of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Table 3-8 describes the cumulative actions considered within this analysis area.

Table 3-8. Cumulative actions considered in this analysis. Project Name Project Description Current Projects Alta Ski Area Location: Alta Ski Area. Adjacent to Snowbird on the east in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Summer Projects Description: Alta was authorized to complete three small projects during summer of 2012: 1) an 8x8x8-foot snowmaking strainer system building with a 40-foot-long by 4-foot-deep trench connecting the new building to the existing utility lines, 2) a 160 foot-long, 4-foot- wide earthen ramp for the Little Griz Conveyor to be installed on rather than the snow ramp used to date, and 3) repair of the existing sewer line that connects the Watson Shelter mid-mountain restaurant with the sewer in the Wildcat base area. Estimated Completion: The conveyor and sewer repair projects were completed at the end of summer, 2012. The snowmaking strainer is expected to be completed in the summer of 2013. UDOT Road Location: SR-210 in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Widening and Alta Description: Four miles of SR-210 eastbound shoulders are to be widened and repairs are Bypass Road Repair to be done on the Alta Bypass Road. Estimated Completion: Road Widening in late 2012 and Road Repair in summer 2013.

White Pine Trailhead Location: White Pine Trailhead, 0.75 mile west of Snowbird in Little Cottonwood Access Trail Canyon. Relocation Description: The UWCNF is proposing to remove and revegetate the existing ~200-foot paved access trail from the White Pine parking lot to the Little Cottonwood Creek bridge and to construct a new access trail beginning west of the bathrooms and connecting to an existing service road that will be upgraded to improve drainage. Estimated Completion: Completed September 2012. Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Snowbird Mary Ellen Location: Mary Ellen Gulch and Mineral Basin. Gulch Expansion Description: Snowbird is proposing an expansion into Mary Ellen Gulch by either a land exchange or expansion of the Snowbird SUP. This may involve a new low-capacity tram to the top of the American Fork Twins from Hidden Peak and a chair lift from the bottom of Mary Ellen Gulch to Sinners Pass (on the ridgeline between Mineral Basin and Mary Ellen Gulch). The Mineral Basin Express lift may also be extended by moving the lower terminal about 2,000 feet down the canyon. Alternatively, a fixed-grip double chair could be installed in the same alignment as the Mineral Basin Express extension. In order to facilitate snowcat and service access to Mary Ellen Gulch and Sinners Pass two new skiway/service roads may need to be constructed. One of these roads would connect the existing Path to Paradise with the miners’ road in Mary Ellen Gulch. The second would start at Sinners Pass and descend to the base of the extended Mineral Basin Express lift. Estimated Completion: Requires environmental review under NEPA; completion date unknown.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-8(cont’d). Cumulative actions considered in this analysis. Project Name Project Description Anna/Monte Cristo Location: Snowbird Base Area, North of SR 210 between Snowbird Entrys 3 and 4. Subdivision Description: Proposed 7-lot single-family residential subdivision on 7.49 acres; minimum 0.5-acre lot size. All construction is limited to slopes <30 percent per Salt Lake County FCOZ. Access is via an existing unimproved road, with limited re-grading at entry per FCOZ and UDOT requirements; approximately 650 feet of existing dirt road will be paved. Utility alignments will be buried along SR 210 and under access road. Minor grading only is anticipated around the homes. Estimated Completion: Infrastructure (utilities and road improvements) summer 2013. Wasatch Wilderness Location: Mill Creek Canyon, Parleys Canyon, Big Cottonwood Canyon, Little and Watershed Cottonwood Canyon. Protection Act Description: This Bill would designate approximately 15,541 acres of new Wilderness and 10,480 acres of Special Management Areas adjacent to the existing Lone Peak, Mount Olympus, and Wayne Owens Grandeur Peak/Mount Aire wildernesses. This bill also includes a land exchange between the UWCNF and Snowbird. The land exchange would transfer ownership of approximately 542 acres of privately owned land in exchange for an approximately equal acreage of lands currently belonging to the UWCNF. As one of the terms of the land exchange, Snowbird would transfer approximately 298 acres of privately owned land to a non-profit organization to manage under a conservation easement in perpetuity. Estimated Completion: The Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed Protection Act was introduced in the 2011 Congress, and again in the 2012 Congress. To date, it has not been reintroduced in the 2013 Congress. Grit Mill Area and Location: About 0.5 mile east of the parking lot near the mouth of Little Cottonwood Climbing Access Canyon. Projects Description: UWCNF, the Salt Lake Climbers Alliance, Snowbird, and the LDS Church are engaged in discussions to develop the area around the Grit Mill into a parking area and trailhead and entails planning, designing, and constructing a trail system to access climbing areas in lower Little Cottonwood Canyon. This would involve removal of the Grit Mill, trail/trailhead construction, parking lot construction, restroom construction, and watershed restoration projects. Estimated Completion: Documents indicate implementation could begin in 2014 but give no completion timeframe. UDOT Gaz-Ex Location: Three avalanche slide paths on the south facing slope of Little Cottonwood Avalanche Control Canyon across SR 210 from the Snowbird base area. Description: UDOT is installing permanent Gaz-Ex structures that use propane explosions to trigger avalanches. These structures are a large pipe that is anchored to the ground at one end and supported by another pipe which is anchored to the ground. Fuel tanks are installed outside the slide path and connected to the large pipe by fuel lines. Gas is ignited within the large pipe, transmitting energy to the avalanche starting zones. Estimated Completion: Six Gaz-Ex structures have been installed to date and three more are proposed to be installed in 2013.

50 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-8(cont’d). Cumulative actions considered in this analysis. Project Name Project Description Alta Master Location: Alta Ski Area. Adjacent to Snowbird on the east. Development Plan Description: Alta is proposing an update to their MDP. The MDP update includes: (MDP) Update proposals for renewable energy (small-scale hydroelectric turbines, solar panels, and wind turbines); some shifting of parking spaces between Albion base and Wildcat parking lots; alternatives to the use of military artillery and avalaunchers for avalanche control (snow fences, Gaz-Ex installations, and a new lift to the top of Mt. Baldy that would be used for avalanche control as well as skiers); several ski lift replacements (Albion, Cecret, Wildcat, Supreme, Lodge Tow, and Big Grizzly Tow); three new lifts (the previously mentioned Mt. Baldy lift, a lift from the bottom of Sugarbowl to the top of Collins lift, and a lift up Grizzly Gulch beginning in the Albion-Sunnyside area); several building projects (a community center for the town of Alta in the Wildcat base area, an addition to Alf’s Restaurant, an addition to the Watson Shelter, a yurt adjacent to the Challenger ski run, and a storage facility near the existing vehicle maintenance building); restoration of a drained lake at the top of Glory Hole for snowmaking water storage; a treatment facility of some sort for the Columbus Rexall mine water Discharge; several trail projects (Corkscrew/Nina’s Curve, Devil’s Castle Road, High Traverse off Collins lift, and Ballroom Traverse off Collins lift); and several snowmaking projects (Upper Corkscrew on Collins lift, Green Trail to Pitch 1 on Devil’s Elbow off Sugarloaf, Devil’s Elbow on Sugarloaf lift, Dipsey Doodle on Sunnyside lift, and Rock Garden on Collins lift). Estimated Completion: This MDP update provides long-term development direction, and it has not yet been accepted by the UWNF or reviewed in accordance with NEPA. Some projects may be completed in the 1 – 3 years following approval, while others may be pushed out several more years.

3.4 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT As outlined in sections 1.1 and 2.2, the Proposed Action includes the first phase of proposed projects from the MDP amendment accepted by the UWCNF on April 15, 2015. Under the Proposed Action or the Preferred Alternative, Snowbird would also implement several previously-approved projects that have either not been initiated or have yet to be completed. These projects are included in Alternative 2 – No Action (section 2.5.1). The effects of these projects would be additive with those of the Proposed Action or Preferred Alternative.

3.4.1 WATERSHED RESOURCES

3.4.1.1 Scope of Analysis Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effects addressed in this analysis:

Issue 1: How would the proposed projects affect water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek?

Background: The project area lies within Salt Lake City’s municipal watershed, and maintaining water quantity and quality is a management priority. Salt Lake City’s municipal watershed provides 60 percent of the culinary water to almost 400,000 people within Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Little Cottonwood Canyon provides approximately 11 - 15 percent of the water supply to Salt Lake City’s service area. In addition, Little Cottonwood Canyon is within Sandy

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

City’s municipal watershed and supplies a large portion of Sandy City’s culinary water supply. Several of the proposed projects have the potential to contribute sediment to the watershed from disturbance of soil surfaces during the construction period. Other pollutants may be associated with post-construction use of proposed buildings, including fuels and lubricants used in the relocated lift maintenance shop, and the adequacy of sanitary facilities during construction and ultimate use.

Indicators:

 Size, slope, soil type, intensity of disturbance, and distance to stream for each of the project elements.  The potential for other forms of contamination, (e.g., fuels, chemicals, and sewage) is assessed in qualitative terms.

Analysis Area: Analysis of direct impacts is focused on the area of disturbance associated with each project element and any receiving water bodies. Indirect and cumulative effects are assessed (as appropriate) for Snowbird’s SUP boundary and at the watershed level, respectively.

Issue 2: How would the proposed projects affect wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains?

Background: The 2003 Forest Plan identifies Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) as important resource areas and provides recommendations for avoiding improvements in these areas. Several of the proposed projects are sited within RHCAs. These RHCAs are located adjacent to Little Cottonwood Creek or its tributaries and thus the projects could affect riparian and floodplain functions. Other projects outside the stream corridors may impact isolated wetlands. These resources are key factors in maintaining the watershed.

Indicators:  How the Proposed Action and alternatives addresses riparian management objectives established for RHCAs in the project area.  Acres of RHCAs affected by projects.

Forest Plan guidance regarding RHCAs states that area-specific riparian management objectives must be established through interdisciplinary review. In regard to Snowbird, that review indicated three factors that should be reflected in these objectives: Salt Lake City’s municipal watershed, the Little Cottonwood Creek TMDL, and Snowbird ski area’s SUP. The resulting objectives in these RHCAs are:

 Maintain functions that help to filter pollution in order to support municipal water quality.  Support developed winter recreation, consistent with other riparian management objectives.  Maintain at least 40 percent pools habitat along RHCAs within project area.  Provide water temperatures that maintain trout habitat in the stream reach.  Maintain woody debris at or above current conditions.

52 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 Maintain 80 percent bank stability. A stable bank is one that is not sloughing into the channel.  Increase woody riparian vegetation adjacent to streams such as willows and sedges to at least 60 percent of the stream reach.  Enhance upland soil and vegetation conditions that will reduce pollution and sediment movement to streams.  Maintain wildlife habitat and corridors for wildlife.

Several of these objectives are based on riparian management objectives in the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH; Forest Service 1995a, 2004a) and indices from Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models (Raleigh et.al. 1984) for cold water fish species.

Analysis Area: Analysis is conducted at a spatial scale defined by the SUP boundary.

3.4.1.2 Affected Environment The affected environment as described here is generally Snowbird’s SUP area, with a focus on drainages and land areas that contribute surface runoff and potential sedimentation to Little Cottonwood Creek. A detailed review of existing conditions in the SUP area was provided in the 1999 FEIS (see section 3.1.2). The description provided here summarizes this information and identifies any meaningful changes that have occurred to resources in the project area since that time. Pertinent changes in legislation and regulatory process are also noted.

Two of the four sub-watersheds in the SUP area would be affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives, Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch. Both sub-watersheds were formed by recent (Pleistocene) glaciation that resulted in U-shaped valleys, rugged mountain spurs, cirques, scoured rocks, and moraines. Both areas have a north/northwest aspect and are drained by segments of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Total area for each sub-watershed is 992 acres and 702 acres for Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch, respectively. Geology in Little Cottonwood Canyon is highly mineralized and has supported historic mining development.

The overall watershed condition at Snowbird is considered good–vastly improved from the degradation caused by mining, logging, and grazing early in the last century. Past efforts to rehabilitate and revegetate disturbed portions of ski areas in Little Cottonwood Canyon and other locations on the UWCNF have relied on a multi-faceted approach that has been successful (Forest Service 2004b, Forest Service 2005a, Forest Service 2006b, Forest Service 2007b). In areas where reestablishing vegetation ground cover is difficult due to steep slopes or rocky soil, Snowbird has used additional measures to facilitate revegetation such as mulching, installing jute matting, and applying fertilizer. As a result, adequate ground cover has been achieved in most areas.

Field observations during preparation of the 1999 FEIS noted that the greatest sources of sediment to Little Cottonwood Creek were the Superior and Gad Valley parking lots as well as unpaved maintenance roads. Both parking lots have since been paved, and riparian zones have been revegetated, where possible, between the lots and Little Cottonwood Creek. Erosion and runoff from unpaved roads have been managed with BMPs designed to stabilize road surfaces and deflect surface flow to vegetated areas where sediment is trapped.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The Forest Service completed a rapid, coarse assessment of watershed conditions on all NFS lands in May 2011. Priority watersheds were then identified and Watershed Restoration Action Plans written to move the watershed toward a desired future condition. The upper Little Cottonwood Canyon watershed was classified as not functioning properly under this system due to elevated levels of zinc that limit the stream’s aquatic productivity. This impairment is reviewed below as part of the discussion of existing water quality conditions. Fish passage on Little Cottonwood Creek is limited by several culverts. Unauthorized hiking and biking trails near Little Cottonwood Creek are causing erosion and contributing sediment to the stream.

A watershed restoration plan was completed by the UWCNF in September 2011 that addresses many factors contributing to watershed impairment (Forest Service 2011c). The plan provides a list of 15 essential projects or opportunities to restore watershed resources. These opportunities are intended to improve the watershed condition class rating from 3 (low integrity) to 2 (moderate integrity). These projects are tentatively scheduled to be completed by 2017 and include several projects at Snowbird. No proposals or detailed planning has taken place in regard to these projects, and they do not appear on the Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA).

Soil resource information for the project area came from the 1973 soil survey completed for the Alta-Little Cottonwood area (Hortin et. al. 1973) and the Pleasant Grove soil survey (Lopez 1981). There are 22 soil types located in the SUP area and 11 soil types found in areas of the proposed projects. These soil types occur in various combinations based upon slope, glacial geology/landform, and micro-climate. The relationships between soil type and soil map unit and their distribution within the SUP are described in Table 3-9. Soil map units found in the SUP are shown in Appendix C, Figure 1).

Current soil quality is good within the area of Little Cottonwood Canyon occupied by Snowbird. Although much of the resort infrastructure is located near Little Cottonwood Creek and its tributaries, riparian soils affected by past construction activities have been effectively stabilized by re-establishing communities of natural vegetation (Forest Service 2004b, Forest Service 2005a, Forest Service 2006b, Forest Service 2007b). A couple of problem areas (e.g., the washed- out culvert near the base of Wilbere lift) are currently being addressed. Past projects constructed on steeper slopes, which have a high potential to result in detrimental soil erosion, have been stabilized effectively through BMPs such as cross-slope water bars, rolling dips on roads, and soil -protecting erosion-control blankets (Forest Service 2005a, Forest Service 2007b). Some wetland soils at the resort have been affected by the placement of fill, resulting in a long-term loss of function of these areas.

Approximately 97 acres of wetland and riparian areas have been mapped in the SUP area (section 3.13, 1999 FEIS). These areas can be classified into four different types including wetlands, streams, channels, and ponds. Each type can be classified separately based primarily on differences in species composition of the dominant vegetation. Although streams, channels, and ponds may not meet all the parameters of a wetland, they may also be protected under the Clean Water Act as waters of the U.S. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are used to protect habitat found in wetlands and in areas surrounding water features. These areas are defined by standards included in the Forest Plan and described in greater detail below. In Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch, there are approximately 90 acres of wetland and riparian areas, including shrub-scrub wetlands, riparian communities, and meadow wetlands (Figure 3-1, Table 3-10). Shrub-scrub wetlands are the most common wetland type found, followed by riparian communities, meadow wetlands, and ponds.

54 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-9. Soil units in the SUP area. (Bold text indicates soil types found in Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch.) Symbol Mapping Unit Name Area (acre) Salt Lake County Soils AhD Ah loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes. 257.8

AIG Aa gravelly loam, 40 to 70 percent slopes. 11.0

AJG Ah very cobbly loam, 45 to 70 percent slopes. 163.3

ARE Ah-rock outcrop association, 25 to 40 percent slopes, Ah very cobbly loam, 25 to 155.3 40 percent slopes, Rock outcrop. ARH Ah-rock outcrop association, 40 to 70 percent slopes, Ah very cobbly loam, 40 to 356.5 70 percent slopes, Rock outcrop. CaD Ca gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes. 11.2

CaE Ca gravelly loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes. 41.5

DaE Da loam, 25 to 40 percent slopes. 72.8

DRH Rock outcrop- Dh association, 25 to 80 percent slopes. Rock outcrop. Dh 445.9 extremely stony loam 25 to 40 percent slopes. Dh extremely stony loam, 40 to 70 percent slopes. R2 Rock land. 570.6

AIG Aa gravelly loam, 40 to 70 percent slopes. 11.0

Utah County soils GC1 Glacial canyon formation, Typic Cryoboroll; loamy-skeletal, mixed, north aspect. 1.3

GC2 Glacial canyon formation, Typic Cryoboroll; loamy-skeletal, mixed, south aspect. 95.3

GC3 Glacial canyon formation, Typic Cryorthent; loamy-skeletal over fragmental, 94.3 mixed. GC4 Glacial canyon formation, Rockland. 40.3

GC5 Glacial canyon formation, Typic Cryorthent; loamy-skeletal, mixed. 190

GC15 Glacial canyon formation, Lithic Cryorthent, loamy-skeletal, mixed 11.6

GSU1 Glacial sculptured uplands association, Pachic Argiboroll; clayey-skeletal, mixed. 13.9

GSU3 Glacial sculptured uplands association, Typic Cryochrept; loamy-skeletal, mixed. 0.8

GSU5 Glacial sculptured uplands association, Rockland. 17.6

GSU6 Glacial sculptured uplands association, Rockland. 20.7

GSU7 Glacial sculptured uplands association, small inclusions of Typic Cryoboroll; 6.9 loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 3-1. Wetland resources (Forest Service 1999a) and RHCA buffer areas (Forest Service 2003) located in and near the Snowbird SUP area.

56 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-10. Wetland resources in Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch. Type Area (acre) Meadow Wetlands 11.2 Shrub/Scrub Wetlands 54.3 Riparian Communities 22.4 Pond 1.6 TOTAL 89.6

The riparian corridor of Little Cottonwood Creek is designated as a Class I riparian area based on rating criteria for riparian resource values (Forest Plan Appendix VII) and high ratings for Water Quality and Special Administrative Designations categories. The less disturbed portions of the Little Cottonwood Creek riparian zone are dominated by a combination of upland and wetland plants, depending on the relationship between the topography of the specific site and the elevation of the stream. Channelization and other activities along portions of the stream have limited the extent of the riparian community and created hummocks within the riparian zone that support upland vegetation. Overall, the condition of the Little Cottonwood Creek riparian zone in the SUP area has improved relative to historic conditions, and the riparian zone is maintained in an environmentally and ecologically sound manner. This improvement in riparian zone condition is contributing to a positive trend towards meeting RHCA management objectives.

Ponds in Peruvian Gulch and Gad Valley typically have limited amounts of vegetation growing in submerged areas. Four perennial ponds are located in upper Gad Valley. Other ponds are full during the spring and early summer and dry up later during the year. Deposits of organic material or sediment are found on the bottom of most ponds. Wetlands may also be located near some ponds, supported by shallow groundwater.

Hydrology in the SUP area is typical of high-elevation areas in the Western U.S. Stream flow is primarily influenced by snowmelt during May, June, and July and sustained during other times of the year by groundwater discharge. Due to the canyon shape and shallow soils in the watershed, Little Cottonwood Creek is highly responsive to rainfall events and yields a high amount of water for its size. Major water bodies near proposed developments addressed in this report include Little Cottonwood Creek and stream channels flowing from Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch. Approximately 11 miles of stream channel that contribute flow to Little Cottonwood Creek have been mapped in the SUP area during previous field surveys and a recent GIS assessment (Table 3-11, Figure 3-1). This includes 4.7 miles of intermittent stream channel and 4.3 miles of perennial stream channel, including named and unnamed tributaries to Little Cottonwood Creek, and 0.6 miles of isolated/unnamed channel segments that are not connected to the creek.

Continuous flow measurements are available for Little Cottonwood Creek only near the mouth of the canyon and several miles below the SUP area. Instantaneous flow readings have been collected from the creek near Snowbird as part of Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) monitoring efforts. These measurements indicate that flows in Little Cottonwood Creek near the SUP from September through April are generally less than 10 cubic feet per second (cfs). During May, flows increase to more than 50 cfs at these locations and approach or exceed 100 cfs during

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

June. Flows typically diminish to less than 50 cfs in July and are less than 10 cfs at most locations in August. Flow measurements for Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch are very limited. A synoptic study completed by the USGS in September 1998 measured flows of 0.27 cfs and 0.83 cfs from Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch, respectively.

Table 3-11. Length (miles) of Little Cottonwood Creek and tributaries in the SUP area. Stream Intermittent Perennial Total Gad Valley 1.49 3.02 4.51 Peruvian Gulch 0.64 1.32 1.96 Little Cottonwood Creek 2.54 2.54 Unnamed channel segments 0.64 0.64 Unnamed tributaries to Little Cottonwood Creek 1.97 1.97 Total 4.74 6.88 11.62

Tributary stream channels to Little Cottonwood Creek are routed through culverts at a limited number of service road crossings. In large measure, tributary channel features remain undisturbed and maintain a natural balance of sediment transport and other processes necessary for channel stability. Some straightening of Little Cottonwood Creek has resulted from historic mining activities, and some efforts have occurred since that time to prevent bank erosion. In regard to aquatic habitat and support of desired aquatic species, Little Cottonwood Creek meets (or is trending toward meeting) RHCA objectives. Stream channel banks are considered stable and in good condition throughout the Snowbird SUP area.

Historic mine development has also resulted in a network of tunnels that concentrate groundwater flow and discharge to Little Cottonwood Creek through mine portals or open fissures. Flow contributions from this network had a significant seasonal influence on stream flow until a bulkhead was installed on the Wasatch Drain Tunnel, which allowed discharge to be managed according to concerns related to flow and water quality. Prior to construction of the bulkhead, winter stream flows in Little Cottonwood Creek would typically drop to near zero (section 3.12.2.3, 1999 FEIS).

Water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek is monitored closely by the DWQ and Salt Lake City because the creek is a significant water source for Salt Lake City, supports native aquatic species, and is important for recreation. Little Cottonwood Creek above the National Forest Boundary is classified as an antidegredation segment (High Quality Water - Category 1). This classification indicates that existing water quality is higher than state standards, and that the state is required by regulation to maintain this condition. Numeric water quality standards for all beneficial uses assigned to Little Cottonwood Creek are found in Section R317-2, Utah Administrative Code, Standards of Quality of Waters of the State (State of Utah 2012).

The DWQ is required by the Clean Water Act to publish a report every other year that describes the health of waters of the state. This report compares available monitoring data (i.e., chemical, biological, and physical parameters) to numeric standards, indicators, and narrative descriptions.

58 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The results of this assessment determine if water quality is sufficient to support the beneficial use assigned to each water body. If necessary, the water body is included on a list of impaired waters (303[d] list) that requires DWQ to provide a plan to restore water quality. Several water quality parameters have been a concern in Little Cottonwood Creek. These parameters are discussed below. All other parameters monitored by DWQ meet the desired level of water quality, support the assigned beneficial use of Little Cottonwood Creek, and contribute to meeting RHCA objectives for aquatic species.

Measurements of dissolved metals, sediment, coliform, and macroinvertebrates have been collected from Little Cottonwood Creek at many locations near the SUP during most months. The 1999 FEIS contains a summary of water quality concerns and results of monitoring and research (section 3.12.2.3.4). A substantial amount of water quality research has taken place in Little Cottonwood Creek since that time, due primarily to concerns regarding dissolved metals including zinc, copper, lead, and cadmium. In spite of natural mineralization that occurs in Little Cottonwood Canyon, monitoring data has shown that water quality standards for copper, lead, and cadmium are met.

Figure 3-2 shows measurements of dissolved zinc at four locations on Little Cottonwood Creek since 2002. Note the red lines around symbols in Figure 3-2 that indicate measurements which exceed the dissolved zinc standard for the Class 3A cold water fishery in Little Cottonwood Creek. These data indicate the majority of samples collected from Little Cottonwood Creek, below the Howland and Wasatch Drain tunnels down to Red Pine Creek, continue to exceed the dissolved zinc standard. However, water quality at monitoring locations below this point continues to meet standards for dissolved metals due to natural attenuation processes including adsorption and dilution.

1400

1200

1000

800

600 Dissolved Zinc Dissolved Zinc (mg/L) 400

200

0 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 Year 591880 LCC above Howland Tunnel 5918860 LCC below Howland Tunnel 5918890 LCC below Wasatch Tunnel 4993780 LCC above Red Pine Creek

Figure 3-2. Measurements of dissolved zinc collected from Little Cottonwood Creek at four monitoring stations near the Snowbird SUP. Symbols with red borders indicate measurements which exceed the dissolved zinc standard for the Class 3A cold water fishery

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

A good summary of dissolved metals information is presented in a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study for Little Cottonwood Creek (Utah DWQ 2002). This report was completed in response to the 303(d) list of impaired waters for Utah in 2000 that classified Little Cottonwood Creek (from the headwaters to its confluence with Red Pine Fork) as impaired due to elevated levels of dissolved zinc. The TMDL study identified major sources of dissolved zinc and pollutant load reductions for sources that would result in meeting water quality standards. Major pollutant sources included the Howland Tunnel, Wasatch Drain Tunnel (including the Snowbird cogeneration plant and bypass flows), surface runoff from storm water and snowmelt, and groundwater flow from springs, seeps, and fractures connected to mine workings (Utah DWQ 2002).

Zinc is found in a dissolved form in mine tunnel discharge and groundwater flow. Surface runoff could potentially include dissolved zinc but is more likely to include a non-dissolved (particulate) form of zinc that is adsorbed to eroding soil particles. This particulate form could potentially contribute to levels of dissolved zinc in Little Cottonwood Creek in some situations.

Based on previous studies, the TMDL report considered storm water runoff to be insignificant in regard to impairment and found groundwater flow (including natural background and nonpoint source loads) to account for roughly half of zinc loading to Little Cottonwood Creek. The remaining dissolved zinc loads were attributed to the Howland and Wasatch Drain tunnels. The TMDL report concluded with load allocations that would restore water quality and meet standards for Little Cottonwood Creek. Allocations for segments of Little Cottonwood Creek below the Howland and Wasatch Drain tunnels only accounted for reductions from mine tunnels. No reductions in loading were recommended for nonpoint pollutant sources (i.e., surface runoff and groundwater flow). Load allocations for the Howland Tunnel required that up to 57 percent of the flow be treated to a concentration of 0.1 mg/l. The TMDL report recommended use of flow management for the Wasatch Drain Tunnel to meet load allocations rather than reducing concentrations with water quality treatment. Based on this method, flow reductions from the Wasatch Drain Tunnel would range from 0 to 90 percent, based on the time of year (Utah DWQ 2002).

A major landslide occurred near Alta in 2010 that buried the Howland Tunnel portal and eliminated discharge from the mine for several months. Water currently emerges from the original flow path below where the portal used to be, but at a lower rate. It is assumed the landslide has diverted flow to the Wasatch Drain Tunnel although no increases in flow or zinc concentration have been noted there.

3.4.1.3 Environmental Consequences This section addresses potential environmental effects on water quality, riparian, and wetland resources associated with implementing the Proposed Action or its alternatives. The potential environmental effects are addressed using the indicators described above in section 3.4.1.1.

Environmental consequences for each alternative are described in detail in a Watershed Resources Technical Report (Cirrus 2012). The report also provides specific design criteria and mitigation measures that minimize or eliminate adverse environmental effects. The existing environmental conditions in the SUP have changed somewhat since 1999, and these changes are described above in section 3.4.1.2. Although changes have occurred, many of the methods used in the 1999 FEIS to assess impacts can accurately account for these changes and, where applicable, are used in this EA. New information guiding management of riparian and wetland

60 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements resources has occurred since the 1999 FEIS. Therefore, the technical report defines potential environmental effects on these areas according to guidelines included in the Forest Plan. This section summarizes detailed results provided in the technical report.

Design criteria and mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential environmental effects associated with each alternative have been selected from the 1999 FEIS or designed for this EA. These measures are discussed as appropriate for each resource and described in detail in Appendix A. Mitigation will primarily occur during construction and within 1 – 2 years following construction. Monitoring of mitigation success will be completed by the Forest Service as a normal part of ongoing SUP administration and long-term evaluation of maintenance of this area.

Effects on watershed resources can be either direct or indirect and can occur on a permanent or temporary basis. Direct permanent impacts occur when a building is constructed in a wetland, for example. Direct temporary impacts result from construction activities prior to site restoration, such as when ski trails are graded or widened, followed by restoration efforts to restore soil surfaces to a vegetated and stable condition. Indirect impacts are generally temporary, resulting from upland disturbances that impact water quality through erosion and sediment transport. Disturbance of protective buffer areas that surround wetlands, riparian habitat, ponds, and streams would be considered an indirect impact, while disturbance of the wetland or water feature itself would be considered a permanent or temporary direct impact.

Erosion and transport of sediment and other pollutants to receiving water bodies are key focus points in this analysis. Although the entire mountain undergoes continuous slow erosion from wind and water, erosion rates in disturbed areas can be over 100 times as great as those in undisturbed areas. The method used to assess erosion-caused sedimentation hazards identified potential pathways of erosion and sediment transport to receiving water bodies. This technique for identifying and finding solutions to sedimentation problems is called the connected disturbed area (CDA) approach (Forest Service 2006a). It involves (1) measuring the size and slope of disturbances, (2) characterizing the type of disturbance as well as the erosion hazard of the affected soil types, (3) determining the distance to the closest drainage channel or other runoff pathway (such as a road), (4) determining the relative erosion potential of the project element, and (5) suggesting mitigation to reduce erosion and sedimentation. The CDA approach prescribes “disconnecting” disturbed areas. By disconnecting the sediment sources from the “easy pathways” down the mountain, the total sediment yield to major streams can be greatly reduced (Forest Service 1998, Furniss et al 2000). The basis for the CDA approach is outlined in the watershed resources technical report and the 1999 FEIS.

The CDA analysis was the major analytical tool used to determine sedimentation impacts in response to watershed resource issues. Many of the indicators used to address environmental effects are incorporated into the CDA analysis, including disturbance area, slope, soil type, intensity of disturbance, and distance from a runoff pathway (e.g., drainage channel or road) or stream for each project element under each alternative. The intensity of disturbance is a measure of the severity and depth of soil disturbance, and is rated on a scale of 1 to 3. On this scale, 1 indicates little or no soil disturbance, 2 indicates shallow soil disturbance, and 3 indicates deep soil disturbance associated with earth-moving activities.

Project elements are assigned a rating of High, Medium, or Low risk for erosion and sedimentation. Generally, project elements are assigned a High risk rating for erosion and sedimentation if they have two or more of the following attributes: large disturbance area (greater than 1 acre), proximity to stream channels, proximity to a runoff pathway or stream, and steep

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

slopes (greater than 50 percent). However, other factors, such as the shape and type of disturbance are also considered when assigning risk ratings. Most of the proposed project elements received a High or Moderate risk rating due to slope and proximity to stream channels or roads. Note that these ratings are for erosion and sedimentation risk prior to implementation of design criteria and mitigation measures to reduce such risk.

Project elements are assigned a Moderate risk rating for watershed damage in the form of erosion and sedimentation if they have one of the following attributes: large disturbance area (greater than 1 acre), proximity to a runoff pathway or stream, and steep slopes (greater than 50 percent). Project elements are assigned a Low risk rating if they have one or more of the following attributes: limited soil disturbance (e.g., clearing only), low disturbance width (as would be the case for utility line installation), and not in close proximity to a runoff pathway or stream (e.g. > 1,000 feet).

In regard to wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains, impact analysis is guided by the 2003 Forest Plan guidelines regarding identification of RHCAs and establishment of riparian management objectives for them. RHCAs are defined by standards included in the Forest Plan. These standards categorize RHCAs into four categories based on the presence of fish, perennial or intermittent flow, wetlands, and ponds. Buffers are defined for each category and designed to protect the associated resource. A description of each category can be found in the watershed resources technical report or the Forest Plan.

The RHCA management objectives established for this analysis are listed above in section 3.4.1.1. Each alternative is evaluated according to whether (1) project elements prevent RHCA objectives from being met and (2) project elements contribute or detract from meeting RHCA objectives. Several objectives involve water quality needs of municipalities and aquatic species. These are addressed in detail under Environmental Effect 1 with the CDA approach as the main analytical tool.

Many conclusions can be drawn from that analysis in regard to projects that lie within RHCAs. These conclusions are interpreted in the discussion of impacts of each alternative and how they relate to RHCA objectives. The main variable that changes is the acreage of disturbance occurring within RHCAs, which correlates with the potential for sedimentation and thus with the potential for nonpoint source contributions of zinc to Little Cottonwood Creek. Other RHCA objectives are designed to specifically protect in-stream aquatic features and adjacent riparian habitat. These objectives can likewise be addressed with the acreage of disturbance occurring in RHCAs, stream channels, and wetlands and the subsequent potential impacts on stream shading, woody debris, bank stability, riparian cover, and wildlife habitat. One RHCA objective requires support of recreational use, which could result in limited disturbance. This part of the analysis focuses on the extent of such disturbance and whether or not it is consistent with other RHCA objectives. How the Proposed Action and alternatives support recreational use is addressed in the recreation section of the EA (section 3.5.1).

Acres of wetland resources have been identified in the SUP area with GIS mapping tools and verified with on-site field mapping. Acres of disturbance to these resources are defined for each project element and summarized for each alternative.

62 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.4.1.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action All projects included under the Proposed Action are described in detail in section 2.2. The environmental effects of each project are discussed here in terms of potential impacts on water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains.

Table 3-12 shows results of the CDA analysis for all elements of the Proposed Action. Note that all elements of the No-Action Alternative would also occur under the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative including expansion of the Creekside Lodge. Under the Proposed Action, the expansion would extend closer to Little Cottonwood Creek and would create a greater impact on watershed resources. Note also that one element of the Proposed Action, the Mid Gad Restaurant Remodel, will not involve any ground disturbance and is not discussed further in this analysis.

Most of the project elements under the Proposed Action would occur in soil types AhD (moderate erosion hazard), DRH (high erosion hazard), or R2 (low erosion hazard). Soil type AhD occurs at lower elevations in Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch (Appendix C, Figure 1). Soil type DRH is located on mid and upper slopes, while soil type R2 is typically located at higher elevations and extends to the watershed divide between Little Cottonwood Creek and Mineral Basin. Although soil type R2 is found on steep slopes, it is comprised largely of rock outcrops and talus slopes that provide minimal potential for soil erosion.

Project elements under the Proposed Action would disturb a total of 27.4 acres on slopes ranging from 5 to 185 percent. Elements located on the steepest slopes include installation of night skiing utilities and construction of mountain bike trails, both of which would disturb relatively small areas. Intensity of disturbance for most project elements is 3, as a result of excavation for buildings and tower footings, or grading. The size of individual disturbance areas ranges from 6.9 acres (Bananas Trail Modification) to less than 0.1 acre (bridge near Beginner Skiing Area).

All stream crossings (permanent and temporary) under the Proposed Action have been identified during the CDA analysis and are listed in Table 3-12. This assessment defines stream crossings as temporary disturbance associated with construction and/or permanent structures that pass above (bridges) or below (utility lines) the stream channel. Some stream crossings shown in Table 3-12 result from temporary disturbance only. Some crossings occur where the stream is in a culvert, resulting in no impacts on the channel.

Four project elements would involve stream crossings, resulting in permanent or temporary impacts. The largest permanent impact on streams would be a bridge over Little Cottonwood Creek as part of the proposed Baby Thunder Beginner Area. The proposed mountain bike trails would cross small perennial and intermittent stream channels at multiple locations. Direct temporary impacts on stream channels could occur during the Creekside Lodge Expansion, grading and modification of Bananas Trail and trench excavation to place power utility lines for night skiing.

Most project elements under the Proposed Action have a CDA risk rating (prior to mitigation) that is Moderate or greater and have the potential to contribute nonpoint source loads of sediment and zinc to Little Cottonwood Creek, contributing to the existing impairment. The risk rating for several of these projects is varied due primarily to the distance from streams or roads, and the soil type where individual components are located (e.g., trench segments for electrical conduits).

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-12 includes a brief description of design criteria and mitigation measures for each project element that are designed to minimize impacts on water quality, wetlands, and RHCAs, and to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and RHCA objectives. A more detailed description of these measures is included in Appendix A. Design criteria and mitigation measures are designed to reduce the CDA risk level for each of the proposed project elements to Low, avoiding substantial, short-term watershed impacts and assuring that long-term erosion, sedimentation of receiving waters, and degradation of wetland resources and RHCAs would not occur. Regulations enforced by Salt Lake County apply to ground-disturbing activities in the SUP and provide further assurance that potential impacts would be effectively mitigated.

The potential for other forms of water quality contamination (e.g., fuels, chemicals, and sewage) would exist under the Proposed Action. Automotive fluids and other hazardous chemicals would be permanently located inside the lift maintenance shop as a part of routine operations and entirely within the Little Cottonwood Creek RHCA. Construction of some project elements under the Proposed Action would also result in similar risks to RHCAs on a temporary basis (e.g., operation of heavy equipment). BMPs listed in Tables 3-12 and Appendix A, particularly AQU 1 and WAT 12, are designed to limit the potential risk of exposure and contamination during routine shop operations and temporary construction activities. Any increased accident frequency on SR 210 associated with night skiing (see section 3.5.4) could potentially result in fuel, oil, or other automotive contaminants reaching Little Cottonwood Creek, though containment of such contaminants is part of standard accident response protocol.

Snowbird would use existing infrastructure to convey effluent from SUP facilities to the main sewer line in Little Cottonwood Canyon for all elements except the Baby Thunder yurt. With recent upgrades (e.g., new lines from Hidden Peak that would also accommodate sewage from the remodeled Mid Gad Restaurant), no contamination issues associated with the existing sewer system are anticipated. However, the porta-potty-type facility proposed for the Baby Thunder yurt would pose an increased risk. The porta-potties would be hauled on snowcats back to the base area where sewage would be emptied and disposed of via the sewer system. While the likelihood of spills during transit would be small, as would be the volumes of sewage, the route back to the base area would be adjacent to Little Cottonwood Creek, even crossing it on the proposed bridge near the base of Baby Thunder lift. This proximity to the creek would increase the impact of a spill substantially.

Impacts on wetland features and RHCA resources under the Proposed Action are displayed in Table 3-13 and in Appendix C, Figure 2. Note that areas shown in Table 3-13 for RHCAs include a buffer as well as the wetland or stream channel that the buffer surrounds. As a result, these values are conservative and do not necessarily imply a direct impact on a wetland or stream feature. The buffer estimates the maximum potential disturbed area. In reality, disturbance of RHCAs would be less than this total amount under the Proposed Action. Impacts would occur on meadow wetland, shrub scrub wetland, and riparian wetland and would result in roughly 14 acres of total impacts on RHCAs. Project elements resulting in impacts of more than 0.5 acres include the Snowcat Staging Area, the Beginner Skiing Area, Night Skiing on Gadzoom, Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation, Creekside Lodge Expansion, Mountain Bike Trails, Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation, Gad 2 Upgrade - Lifts, and Gad 2 Upgrade – Trails.

Disturbance of RHCAs would occur primarily from grading of ski trails and bike trails. The Gad 2 Upgrade – Trails (Bananas Trail Modification) is the single largest impact (2.5 acres) on RHCA areas, most of which is surrounding a tributary to the Gad Valley stream. More than half of the disturbance associated with the Beginner Skiing Area would occur as tree thinning, so the acreage figure overestimates actual soil disturbance. Impacts on RHCAs from the Mountain Bike Trails

64 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements would occur at stream crossings. Although direct impacts would occur to RHCAs under the Proposed Action, none of the project elements would prevent RHCA objectives from being reached in the SUP. BMPs listed in Table 3-12 and Appendix A, particularly WAT 1, WAT 9, WAT 11, WAT 13, WET 3, WET 8, and WET 9 are designed to maintain or restore disturbed areas following construction impacts on RHCAs. Based on the past effectiveness of these BMPs, impacts on RHCAs would be eliminated, minimized, or mitigated, and overall progress towards RHCA objectives would continue in the SUP area.

Intermittent and perennial stream channels would be impacted by elements of the Proposed Action, including approximately 340 feet of intermittent stream channel and 480 feet of perennial stream channel. These values account for direct impacts on stream crossings and indirect impacts associated with construction in areas near stream channels. Most of these impacts would be temporary and result from several projects including Night Skiing on Gadzoom, Mountain Bike Trails, Bananas Trail Modification, and the Creekside Lodge Expansion. The bridge crossing Little Cottonwood Creek near the beginner area would result in 21 feet of direct permanent impacts.

Utility crossings would place pipe below the stream channel, allowing flows to pass over the buried line. Once the utilities were installed, material would be replaced in the trench in the order it was removed, and areas disturbed by the construction would be revegetated. Trench breakers and other BMPs listed in Table 3-12 and Appendix A, particularly WAT 8, WAT 9, WAT 13, WET 3, WET 8, and WET 9, would be employed to maintain stability and proper hydrologic function of these areas.

In terms of overall water quality and the RHCA management objectives, this analysis identifies similar conclusions described below for the No-Action Alternative. BMPs included in Table 3-12 and Appendix A would eliminate or reduce disturbance effects resulting in no substantial water quality impacts on waterbodies located downslope or downstream of projects included under either alternative. In regard to wetland and riparian habitat, none of the project elements under the Proposed Action would prevent RHCA objectives from being reached in the SUP. Impacts on RHCAs would be eliminated, minimized, or mitigated through proper application of BMPs listed in Table 3-12 and Appendix A and overall progress towards RHCA objectives would continue in the SUP area.

Some projects under the Proposed Action may not be in compliance with wetland and riparian ordinances enforced on private land, such as FCOZ or Salt Lake Valley Health Department watershed regulations. These projects include the lower Mid Gad Beginner Lift terminal, the lower portion of Bananas Trail Modification, and minor portions of Lunch Run Road and Mountain Bike Trails. Any compliance issues would be addressed during appropriate County review and permitting process.

One difference between the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative would be the use and transport of porta-potty-type sanitary facilities from the Baby Thunder Yurt. This would introduce a new potential water quality impact, but the risk of a spill is low.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-12. CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – Proposed Action.

Soil Type1/ Intensity of Max. Risk Rating Area Presence of a Runoff Project Element Erosion Disturbance Slope (prior to Mitigation (acres) Pathway/ Distance Hazard (1-3) (%) mitigation)

Baby Thunder Beginner Area Yes / stream crossing Obtain appropriate permitting from COE. Design bridge Bridge AhD / moderate. <0.1 3 10 High (LCC). crossing to accommodate 100-year flows. Minimize grading and utilize surface footings. Route surface runoff Carpets AhD / moderate. 0.4 2 28 Yes/ < 200 feet (LCC). Moderate from road and away from stream channel. Revegetate Cat Access AhD / moderate. 0.8 2 42 Yes/ adjacent (LCC). High road shoulders and disturbed soil immediately. Fell trees on snow cover to minimize surface disturbance. Road Extension AhD / moderate. 0.1 2 25 Yes/ < 50 feet (LCC). High Tree Thinning AhD / moderate. 2.5 1 48 Yes / <50 feet (LCC). Low Subtotal 3.8 Salvage existing topsoil and reapply during final grading. Conveyor Lift in Yes / road crossing, < AhD / moderate. 0.2 2 48 Moderate Reseed with a native seed mix. Improve existing water Gad Valley 150 feet (LCC). bars and install energy dissipaters. Minimize grading, use surface footings if possible. Trap Baby Thunder Yurt AhD / moderate. 0.1 2 21 Yes/ < 200 feet (LCC). Moderate sediment with double silt fence. Revegetate immediately. Night Skiing on Gadzoom Conduits DRH / high. 0.6 3 140 Yes / varies. High Avoid areas that are highly unstable. Build utility crossings perpendicular to water features. Apply standard Light Poles DRH / high. <0.1 3 154 Yes / varies. Moderate erosion control measures. Install light poles using existing Power Trenches DRH / high. 3.7 3 184 Yes / varies. High roads or helicopter. Transformers DRH / high. 0.2 3 155 Yes / varies. High Subtotal 4.5 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation Access Road AhD / moderate. 0.1 2 34 Yes / < 100 feet (LCC). Moderate Design, build, and maintain shop and surrounding areas to prevent surface runoff. Utilize standard BMPs during Pump Station AhD / moderate. 0.5 3 52 Yes / < 100 feet (LCC). High construction. Expansion Subtotal 0.5

66 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-12 (cont’d). CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – Proposed Action.

Soil Type1/ Intensity of Max. Risk Rating Area Presence of a Runoff Project Element Erosion Disturbance Slope (prior to Mitigation (acres) Pathway/ Distance Hazard (1-3) (%) mitigation)

Creekside Lodge Expansion

ADA Ramp AhD / moderate. <0.1 2 5 Yes / < 50 feet (LCC). Moderate Where possible, maintain an undisturbed buffer zone Yes/ stream crossing between lodge expansion and Little Cottonwood Creek. Lodge Expansion DaE / moderate. 0.8 3 79 High (LCC). Prevent runoff to creek. Subtotal 0.8 Yes / varies, stream and Avoid areas that are highly unstable. Build crossings Mountain Bike R2 / low. 6.5 1 185 road crossings (GVS, Low - Moderate perpendicular to water features. Route surface runoff Trails PGS, and tributaries). from trail. Install water berms along road. Reduce gradient of cut Lunch Run Summer Yes / varies, stream and DRH / high. 1.7 2 101 Moderate - High slopes. Revegetate cut and fill slopes immediately after Road Relocation road crossings. construction. Gad 2 Upgrade – Lifts

Lower Terminal DRH / high. 0.5 3 37 Yes / adjacent (GVS). High Utilize existing corridor and previous terminal and tower locations where possible. If new locations are needed, use Upper Terminal DRH / high. 0.4 3 46 Yes / road crossing. Moderate existing roads or helicopter for transport. Avoid areas Lift Towers DRH / high. 0.1 3 76 Yes / varies. Low - Moderate with water features and hydric soils. Subtotal 1.0 Gad 2 Upgrade – Trails

Bananas Trail Salvage existing topsoil and reapply during final grading. DRH / high. 6.9 3 106 High Modification Yes / stream and road Revegetate disturbed surfaces immediately. Reseed with crossings. approved native seed mix and install a reinforced straw mat erosion blanket. Improve existing water bars and Gad 2 Little Cloud DRH / high. 1.3 3 94 High install energy dissipaters. Connector Yes / < 50 feet (GVS). Subtotal 8.2 Grand Total 27.4

1Dominant soil type for a project element, other types are present, see (Cirrus 2012). 2 LCC = Little Cottonwood Creek, GVS = Gad Valley Stream, PGS = Peruvian Gulch Stream

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-13. Proposed Action - Direct impact on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel. Shrub Perennial Meadow Riparian Intermittent Pond Scrub RHCA Stream Project Element Wetland Wetland Stream (acres) Wetland (acres) Length (acres) (acres) Length (feet) (acres) (feet) Baby Thunder Beginner Area Bridge - - - <0.1 <0.1 - 21 Carpets - - - 0.2 - - Cat Access - - - <0.1 0.8 - - Road Extension - - - - 0.1 - - Tree Thinning - - - - 1.3 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 2.4 0 21 Conveyor Lift in Gad Valley - - - - 0.2 - - Baby Thunder Yurt - - - - 0.1 - - Night Skiing on Gadzoom Conduits - <0.1 - - 0.4 63 - Light Poles - - - - <0.1 - - Power Line Trenches - 0.2 <0.1 0.2 2.2 211 133 Transformers - - - - 0.1 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.3 <0.1 0.2 2.7 274 133 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation Access Road - - - - 0.1 - - Pump Station Expansion - - - - 0.5 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 Creekside Lodge Expansion ADA Ramp - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - Lodge Expansion - - - 0.2 0.8 - 178 Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0 178 Mountain Bike Trails - 0.1 0.2 <0.1 1.7 63 67 Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation - <0.1 0.2 - 1.0 0 0 Gad 2 Upgrade – Lifts Lift Terminal Disturbance Lower Gad 2 - 0.2 - - 0.5 - - Lift Terminal Disturbance Upper Gad 2 ------Gad 2 Towers - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0

68 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-13 (cont’d). Proposed Action - Direct impact on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel. Shrub Perennial Meadow Riparian Intermittent Pond Scrub RHCA Stream Project Element Wetland Wetland Stream (acres) Wetland (acres) Length (acres) (acres) Length (feet) (acres) (feet) Gad 2 Upgrade – Trails Bananas Trail Modification - 0.4 - - 2.5 - 79 Gad 2 Little Cloud Connector - - - - 1.0 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 0 79 GRAND TOTAL 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 13.5 337 478

3.4.1.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action Elements of the No-Action Alternative are described in section 2.5.1, and their impact on watershed resources is discussed in detail in the 1999 FEIS (section 4.12.3). They include projects approved in the 1999 ROD but not yet completed as well as previously approved installation of utility lines in Peruvian Gulch. Note that the Little Cloud Lift upgrade was completed in 2012 and will not be discussed further in this analysis.

Table 3-14 includes CDA results for all project elements under the No-Action Alternative, including the installation of utility lines in Peruvian Gulch. All elements in Table 3-14 would occur regardless of which action alternative was selected.

Most soil types that would be disturbed under the No-Action Alternative have a moderate erosion hazard. The No-Action Alternative would disturb 11.6 acres on slopes ranging from about 30 to 125 percent. Most projects have an intensity of disturbance rating of 3 resulting from excavation for building foundations and utility trenches or from surface grading and contouring. Stream crossings would take place in Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch.

Most project elements under the No-Action Alternative have a CDA risk rating prior to mitigation of Moderate or High resulting from potentially increased erosion during and immediately after the construction period and subsequent water quality impacts. This would constitute nonpoint source loads of sediment and zinc to Little Cottonwood Creek and contribute to the existing impairment. These impacts could take place over longer periods if revegetation efforts did not succeed and bare soil remained exposed. However, adequate construction planning, including maintaining undisturbed riparian buffer zones, proper implementation of sediment control BMPs, phasing of construction over time, and successful revegetation should effectively mitigate these potential effects.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-14. CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – No-Action Alternative.

Risk Soil Type1/ Intensity of Max. Area Presence of a Stream2/ Rating Project Element Erosion Disturbance Slope Mitigation (acres) Distance (Stream Name) (prior to Hazard (1-3) (%) mitigation)

AhD / Yes/ adjacent (LCC), road Snowmaking Phase 1 1.1 3 80 High moderate. crossing. Follow previously disturbed routes. Bury lines at stream Yes/ stream and road Snowmaking Phase 2 DRH / high. 0.8 3 75 High crossings in late summer during low flow. Reconstruct road crossings (tributary-GVS). drainage structures, and apply standard erosion control measures. Yes/ stream and road Snowmaking Phase 3 AJG / high. 2.5 3 90 High crossings (culvert-PGS). Snowcat Staging Area AhD / Salvage topsoil before regrading. Install a double silt fence 0.3 3 30 Yes/ < 100 feet (LCC). Moderate (Alt. E) moderate. between disturbed areas and stream. Revegetate immediately. Maintain undisturbed buffer zone between lodge and Little Creekside Lodge AhD / Yes/ stream crossing 0.6 3 30 High Cottonwood Creek. Use double silt fence. Establish a 15-foot Expansion (Base C) moderate. (LCC). wide buffer zone between day lodge and stream. Hidden Peak Facilities R2 / low; Yes/ adjacent to access Prevent sediment from traveling down roadways. Minimize 3.3 3 80 Low Upgrade (Hidden A) GSU5 / low. road. disturbed area and preserve topsoil. Revegetate immediately. Barrier Free Trail AhD / Yes/ stream crossing Install water turnouts at frequent intervals (every 30 feet is 0.2 1 40 Low Extension (Gad D) moderate. (culvert-GVS). suggested). Stream crossings would require bridges. Madam Annie Regrade AhD / Yes/ < 600 feet (GVS), Salvage existing topsoil and reapply during final grading. Reseed 1.1 3 125 Moderate (Gad F) moderate. road crossings. with a native seed mix, install reinforced erosion blanket. Upper Big Emma Yes/ stream crossing Install water berms along road. Avoid creating excessively steep DRH / high. 0.5 3 80 Moderate Access (Gad H) (tributary-GVS). cut slopes to improve stability and revegetation success. Blackjack Road Install water berms along road. Reduce gradient of cut slopes. Modification AJG / high. 0.2 2 64 Yes/ < 300 feet (PGS). High Install water bars and erosion control blankets on disturbed areas. (Peru A) Yes/ stream and road Follow previously disturbed routes. Bury lines at stream Peruvian Snowmaking ARE / 0.8 3 128 crossing (PGS and High crossings during low flow. Reconstruct road drainage structures, and Utility Corridor moderate. tributaries). and apply standard erosion control measures. Total 11.6

1Dominant soil type for a project element, other types are present, see (Cirrus 2012). 2 LCC = Little Cottonwood Creek, GVS = Gad Valley Stream, PGS = Peruvian Gulch Stream

70 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Based on past observations, vegetation density would return to pre-project levels in about 10 to 15 years on rehabilitated sites without mitigation. However, past experience has shown that dramatic improvements can be achieved through implementation of appropriate design criteria and mitigation measures, even in sensitive, high-elevation areas (Forest Service 2004b, Forest Service 2005a, Forest Service 2006b, Forest Service 2007b). Application of summer irrigation using the existing snowmaking system has proved very effective at Snowbird, resulting in re- establishment of dense stands in less than 5 years.

Design criteria and mitigation measures to minimize watershed impacts of each project element are summarized in Table 3-14. A more detailed description of these measures is included in Appendix A. With the suggested mitigation in place, it is expected that the CDA risk ratings for all project elements would fall to Low, and no substantial water quality impacts on the streams draining Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch or Little Cottonwood Creek would result from implementation of the No-Action Alternative. This expectation is based on several decades of experience and Forest Service monitoring of past development at Snowbird (Forest Service 2004b, Forest Service 2005a, Forest Service 2006b, Forest Service 2007b).

In addition to the design criteria and mitigation measures included in Table 3-14, Snowbird must also comply with Salt Lake County, SLVHD, and Salt Lake City regulations listed in Table 1-1. More specifically, the County would require that Snowbird prepare a grading and drainage plan for any disturbance that would displace more than 50 cubic yards of material. The plan would include specific design criteria and mitigation measures designed to minimize or reduce short- term impacts from erosion. Salt Lake County FCOZ regulations address long-term impacts on private land through requirements for rehabilitation and restoration of disturbed areas. FCOZ regulations also control development on slopes over 30 percent, and require stream setbacks of 100 feet for all structures. SLVHD also has a stream setback requirement of 50 feet for habitable structures. Furthermore, Utah DEQ requires that detailed erosion control plans (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPPs) be prepared for any disturbance greater than 1 acre in size. Salt Lake County can require a SWPPP for disturbance of any size that occurs within 100 feet of streams or wetland areas.

The potential for other forms of water quality contamination (e.g., fuels, chemicals, and sewage) would exist under the No-Action Alternative. Automotive fluids and other hazardous chemicals would be temporarily located inside RHCAs during construction of some project elements (e.g. heavy equipment operation) and permanently located upslope from RHCAs under other elements (e.g., fuel storage at the snowcat staging area). BMPs listed in Appendix A, particularly AQU 1 and WAT 12, are designed to limit the potential risk of exposure and contamination during and after construction activities.

Under the No-Action Alternative, all sewage would continue to be managed with existing infrastructure that conveys effluent from SUP facilities to the main sewer line in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The only new restrooms would be in the new Hidden Peak facility, and the sewer lines from Hidden Peak have been upgraded over the past 2 years. Overall, the potential for water quality impacts due to sewage would not increase under the No-Action Alternative.

Impacts on wetlands, riparian areas, RHCAs, and stream channels are shown in Table 3-15 and in Appendix C, Figure 3. Few direct impacts on wetland resources would occur under the No- Action Alternative with the exception of the expansion of the Creekside Lodge (Base C). This project element would impact 0.1 acres of riparian wetland adjacent to Little Cottonwood Creek through excavation of building foundations and construction site disturbance. Minor areas of

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

wetland (less than 0.1 acre) would be disturbed from trench excavation and installation of snowmaking lines.

Table 3-15. No-Action Alternative - direct impacts on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel.

Shrub Intermittent Perennial Meadow Riparian Pond RHCA Stream Stream Project Element Wetland Scrub Wetland (acres) (acres) Length Length (acres) Wetland (acres) (acres) (feet) (feet) Snowmaking Phase 1 - - - - 1.1 - - Snowmaking Phase 2 - - - <0.1 0.3 - 18 Snowmaking Phase 3 - - <0.1 - 1.0 - - Snowcat Staging Area (Alt E) - - - - 0.3 - - Creekside Lodge Expansion - - - 0.1 0.6 - 112 (Base C) Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade ------(Hidden A) Barrier Free Trail Extension - - - - <0.1 - - (Gad D) Madam Annie Regrade (Gad F) ------Skier Access to Upper Emma - - - - 0.3 67 - (Gad H) Blackjack Road Modification - - - - 0.1 - - (Peru A) Peruvian Snowmaking and - - - - 0.7 88 15 Utility Corridor GRAND TOTAL 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.2 4.4 156 145

Impacts on RHCAs would result from other projects under the No-Action Alternative although disturbance from several projects would be very minor (0.1 acre or less). The largest impacts on RHCAs would result from Snowmaking Phase I and Phase III, followed by the Peruvian Snowmaking and Utility Corridor and the Creekside Lodge Expansion. Impacts resulting from construction of the Creekside Lodge would be permanent within building footprints and temporary outside of these areas. Minor permanent impacts on RHCAs would result from road expansion, vehicle staging areas and hiking trails. Soil surfaces in RHCAs would be disturbed during trench excavation for snowmaking, although some of this disturbance would take place in existing road corridors.

In general, most of the impacts on RHCAs under the No-Action Alternative would be indirect and temporary, resulting from crossings by utility corridors that do not directly impact the wetland resource. BMPs listed in Tables 3-12 and Appendix A, particularly WAT 1, WAT 9, WAT 11, WAT 13, WET 3, WET 8, and WET 9 would be used to minimize impacts on RHCAs. None of the projects under the No-Action Alternative would prevent RHCA objectives from being achieved. Progress towards RHCA objectives would continue in the SUP area.

72 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Impacts on stream channels would occur under the No-Action Alternative, including approximately 160 feet of intermittent and 150 feet of perennial stream channels. All impacts would be temporary. They represent a conservative estimate of the intersection of potential disturbed areas and the stream channel and do not necessarily represent a stream crossing. For example, the estimated disturbance buffer surrounding the Creekside Lodge expansion includes 112 feet of Little Cottonwood Creek stream channel. However, for practical as well as environmental consideration, efforts would be made to avoid actual work in the stream channel during construction.

All stream crossings (permanent and temporary) under the No-Action Alternative have been identified during the CDA analysis and are accounted for in Table 3-15. Approximately 90 feet of intermittent stream channel and 35 feet of perennial stream channel would be impacted during stream crossings by utility corridors (Peruvian Snowmaking and Utility Corridor and Snowmaking Phase 2). Utility crossings would place pipe below the stream channel, allowing flows to pass over the buried line. Once the utilities were installed, material would be replaced in the trench in the order it was removed, and areas disturbed by the construction would be revegetated. Trench breakers and other BMPs listed in Table 3-14 and Appendix A, particularly WAT 8, WAT 9, WAT 13, WET 3, WET 8, and WET 9, would be employed to maintain stability and proper hydrologic function of these areas. No impacts on stream channels would prevent RHCA objectives from being met. The recommended BMPs would also restore disturbed areas and continue progress towards RHCA objectives.

Grading of the Upper Emma trail would occur on either side of a seasonal channel for a distance of about 70 feet. Implementation of BMPs listed in Table 3-14 and Appendix A (particularly WAT 1) would be critical to reduce the possibility or magnitude of impacts at this location.

In terms of overall water quality and RHCA management objectives, this analysis identifies potential increases in sedimentation, nonpoint source contributions of dissolved zinc, and releases of fuels, lubricants, or other contaminant under the No-Action Alternative. However, these potential effects would be eliminated or minimized through application of the identified design criteria and mitigation measures. No project under the No-Action Alternative would prevent RHCA objectives from being reached in the SUP. Impacts on RHCAs would be minimized or eliminated through proper application of BMPs listed in Table 3-12 and Appendix A and progress towards RHCA objectives would continue under the No-Action Alternative.

3.4.1.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative Discussion of impacts under the Preferred Alternative focuses only on those project elements not included in the Proposed Action. However, summary tables include all project elements that would occur under the Preferred Alternative, including many of the elements previously discussed under the Proposed Action. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Gad Valley Conveyor Lift and segments of the Mountain Bike Trail located in Peruvian Gulch would be eliminated, and four other project elements moved from RHCA to upland locations that result in fewer watershed impacts. Project elements that are relocated under the Preferred Alternative include the Beginner Skiing Area (including new lifts, upgraded lifts, and terrain modifications), Baby Thunder Yurt, Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation, and Creekside Lodge Expansion. Additional description of these projects can be found in section 2.5.

Note that all elements of the No-Action Alternative would also occur under the Preferred Alternative with the exception of the Creekside Lodge Expansion, which would occur in a

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

different configuration. Similar to the Proposed Action, general conclusions regarding impacts on water quality, wetlands, and RHCA resources under the No-Action Alternative would be applicable to the Preferred Alternative, but the magnitude of such impacts would change.

Table 3-16 shows the results of CDA analysis for all project elements that would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Most project elements are located on soil type DRH (high erosion hazard), AhD (moderate erosion hazard), and CaE (moderate erosion hazard). The Beginner Skiing Area would be relocated from the Baby Thunder area, primarily on soil types with moderate erosion hazard. Other project elements unique to the Preferred Alternative would also occur on soils with moderate erosion hazard, including soil types CaE and DaE.

The Preferred Alternative would potentially impact a total of 29.9 acres, approximately 2.5 more acres than the Proposed Action. Most new project elements under the Preferred Alternative would be located in areas with low or moderate slopes, with maximum slopes generally ranging from 20 to 75 percent. Intensity of disturbance for these projects would be mostly moderate or high due to excavation or grading. Some projects would occur in previously disturbed areas including the Creekside Lodge Expansion and the Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation. Segments of the Mountain Bike Trail in Peruvian Gulch would be eliminated, thus avoiding some disturbance in areas with steep slopes and moderate erosion hazard. Most project elements under the Preferred Alternative have a Moderate or High CDA risk rating prior to mitigation and have the potential to contribute nonpoint source loads of sediment and zinc to Little Cottonwood Creek and contribute to the existing impairment. Some components of the relocated project elements (e.g., midway lift clearing and Baby Thunder yurt) have a Low risk rating.

Design criteria and mitigation measures included in Table 3-16 (and described in detail in Appendix A) are similar or identical to those recommended for elements of the Proposed Action. Similar to the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, use of recommended BMPs would reduce CDA risk ratings to Low, avoid substantial, short-term impacts on watershed resources, and assure that long-term impacts and degradation would not occur. Salt Lake County, SLVHD, and Salt Lake City regulations listed in Table 1-1 would also apply to the Preferred Alternative and provide additional assurance that these potential impacts were effectively mitigated.

The potential for other forms of water quality contamination (e.g., fuels, chemicals, and sewage) would exist under the Preferred Alternative, but at a lower level than under the Proposed Action. The lift maintenance shop would be relocated outside of the Little Cottonwood Creek RHCA to the north side of the lower Gad Valley parking lot, adjoining the existing vehicle maintenance shop. Therefore, permanent risk of exposure to hazardous fluids and chemicals in RHCAs would not occur under the Preferred Alternative. However, construction of some project elements would result in risks to RHCAs on a temporary basis (e.g., operation of heavy equipment). BMPs listed in Table 3-16 and Appendix A, particularly AQU 1 and WAT 12, are designed to limit the potential risk of exposure and contamination during temporary construction activities.

Similar to the No-Action Alternative, Snowbird will use existing sewer infrastructure under the Preferred Alternative to convey effluent from SUP facilities to the main sewer line in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The exception would be the Baby Thunder Yurt, which would include porta-potty-type facilities. As under the Proposed Action, the porta-potties would be hauled to the base area for emptying and disposal on snowcats. Unlike the Proposed Action, the route would not cross Little Cottonwood Creek below the base area and would not parallel the creek for as long a distance. This would reduce the risk of a spill contaminating the creek to some degree.

74 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-16. CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – the Preferred Alternative.

Max. Intensity of Presence of a Risk Rating Soil Type1/ Area Slope Project Element Disturbance Stream2/ Distance (prior to Mitigation Erosion Hazard (acres) in area (1-3) (Stream Name) mitigation) (%) Gad Valley Beginner Area – Lifts Yes / <150 feet Conveyors Mid Beginner CaE / moderate. 0.2 2 21 Moderate (GVS). Conveyors Upper Yes / < 100 feet to Utilize existing lift corridor and previous terminal sites to DRH / high. 0.3 2 47 Moderate Beginner road. avoid disturbing new surfaces. Where needed, cut and remove trees in the new lift corridor over the snow to Mid Gad Towers AhD / moderate. 0.1 3 77 Yes / varies. Moderate - High reduce ground disturbance. Avoid placing towers in areas Yes / <150 feet with stream channel features, wetland vegetation or Midway Lift Clearing CaE / moderate. 0.1 1 32 Low (GVS). hydric soils. Utilize standard rehabilitation practices at terminal locations: install water bars and revegetate DRH / high; Yes / adjacent disturbed ground immediately, using straw mulch to Midway Lift Terminals 1.0 3 62 High CaE / moderate. (GVS), road crossing. protect seeds. Yes / adjacent Mid Gad Lift Terminals CaE / moderate. 1.2 3 56 High (GVS), road crossing. Subtotal 3.0 Gad Valley Beginner Area – Terrain Yes / adjacent to Beginner Area Upper DRH / high. 0.9 3 53 Moderate road. Salvage existing topsoil and reapply during final grading. Revegetate disturbed surfaces immediately. Reseed with Yes / <100 feet approved native seed mix. Improve existing water bars Beginner Area Midway CaE / moderate. 2.3 3 56 High (GVS) road crossing. and install energy dissipaters. Prevent loosened sediment from reaching dirt roads with hydrologic modification West Second South Yes / stream and road AhD / moderate. 3.1 3 140 High and sediment traps. Realignment crossings. Subtotal 6.4 Minimize grading, use surface footings if possible. Trap Yes / <500 feet Baby Thunder Yurt AhD / moderate. 0.1 2 84 Low sediment with double silt fence. Revegetate disturbed (intermittent stream). surfaces immediately.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-16 (cont’d). CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – the Preferred Alternative.

Max. Intensity of Presence of a Risk Rating Soil Type1/ Area Slope Project Element Disturbance Stream2/ Distance (prior to Mitigation Erosion Hazard (acres) in area (1-3) (Stream Name) mitigation) (%) Night Skiing on Gadzoom Conduits DRH / high. 0.6 3 140 Yes / varies. Moderate - High Avoid areas that are highly unstable. Build utility Light Poles DRH / high. <0.1 3 154 Yes / varies. Low - Moderate crossings perpendicular to water features. Apply standard Power Line Trenches DRH / high. 3.7 3 184 Yes / varies. Moderate - High erosion control measures. Install light poles using existing roads or helicopter. Transformers DRH / high. 0.2 3 155 Yes / varies. Moderate - High Subtotal 4.5 Build shop and surrounding areas in a manner that Lift Maintenance Shop Yes / adjacent to AhD / moderate. 0.5 3 58 Moderate prevents surface transport of pollutants away from the Relocation road. shop or groundwater contamination. Creekside Lodge Expansion Yes / < 50 feet ADA Ramp AhD / moderate. <0.1 2 5 Moderate (LCC). Where possible, maintain an undisturbed buffer zone between lodge expansion and Little Cottonwood Creek. Yes / stream crossing Lodge Expansion DaE / moderate. 0.7 3 79 High Prevent runoff to creek. (LCC). Subtotal 0.7 Yes / varies, stream Avoid areas that are highly unstable. Build crossings Mountain Bike Trails R2 / low. 3.75 1 185 and road crossings Low - Moderate perpendicular to water features. Route surface runoff (GVS). from trail. Install water berms along road. Reduce gradient of cut Lunch Run Summer Yes / varies, stream DRH / high. 1.7 2 101 Moderate - High slopes. Revegetate cut and fill slopes immediately after Road Relocation and road crossings. construction.

76 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-16 (cont’d). CDA analysis of the proposed project elements – the Preferred Alternative.

Max. Intensity of Presence of a Risk Rating Soil Type1/ Area Slope Project Element Disturbance Stream2/ Distance (prior to Mitigation Erosion Hazard (acres) in area (1-3) (Stream Name) mitigation) (%) Gad 2 Upgrade – Lifts Yes / adjacent Lower Terminal DRH / high. 0.5 3 37 High (GVS). Utilize existing corridor and previous terminal and tower locations where possible. If new locations are needed, use Upper Terminal DRH / high. 0.4 3 46 Yes / road crossing. Moderate existing roads or helicopter for transport. Avoid areas with water features and hydric soils. Lift Towers DRH / high. 0.1 3 76 Yes / varies. Low - Moderate Subtotal 1.0 Gad 2 Upgrade – Trails

Bananas Trail DRH / high. 6.9 3 106 High Salvage existing topsoil and reapply during final grading. Modification Yes / stream and road crossings. Revegetate disturbed surfaces immediately. Reseed with approved native seed mix and install a reinforced straw mat erosion blanket. Improve existing water bars and Gad 2 Little Cloud DRH / high. 1.3 3 94 High install energy dissipaters. Connector Yes / < 50 feet (GVS). Subtotal 8.2 GRAND TOTAL 29.9

1Dominant soil type for a project element, other types are present, see (Cirrus 2012). 2 LCC = Little Cottonwood Creek, GVS = Gad Valley Stream

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Impacts on wetlands and RHCAs under the Preferred Alternative are defined in Table 3-17 and Appendix C, Figure 4. Under this alternative, the beginner area would be relocated away from the Class I riparian corridor (Forest Plan Appendix VII) surrounding Little Cottonwood Creek, eliminating the risk of direct impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat in the creek. However, isolated wetlands are abundant in Gad Valley, and many of the direct impacts on wetlands under this alternative are associated with the Gad Valley Beginner Area. Impacts associated with construction of lifts and terrain modifications for this project element would result in temporary disturbance of roughly 0.5 acres of meadow wetland and 0.7 acres of riparian wetland. Total impacts on wetlands under the Preferred Alternative would be about 2.7 acres, about 0.9 acres more than under the Proposed Action. Note this is a conservative estimate; actual disturbance impacts would be somewhat less than this, based on local conditions that influence construction activities.

Table 3-17. Preferred Alternative - Direct impacts on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel.

Shrub Perennial Meadow Riparian Intermittent Pond RHCA Stream Project Element Wetland Scrub Wetland Stream Length (acres) (acres) Length (acres) Wetland (acres) (feet) (acres) (feet) Gad Valley Beginner Area – Lifts Conveyors Mid Beginner - - - - 0.2 - - Conveyors Upper Beginner ------Mid Gad Towers - - - - <0.1 - - Midway Lift Clearing - 0.1 - - 0.1 - - Midway Lift Terminals - 0.5 - 0.1 1.0 - 114 Mid Gad Lift Terminals - - - 0.3 0.9 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 2.2 0 114 Gad Valley Beginner Area – Terrain Beginner Area Midway - - - <0.1 1.7 229 - West Second South Realignment - - - 0.3 0.7 - 283 Beginner Area Upper - - - - 0.1 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.4 229 283 Baby Thunder Yurt - - <0.1 - 0.1 - - Night Skiing on Gadzoom Conduits - <0.1 - - 0.4 63 - Light Poles - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - Power Line Trenches - 0.3 <0.1 0.2 2.1 211 133 Transformers - - - - 0.1 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.2 <0.1 0.2 2.7 274 133 Lift Shop Expansion Lower Gad Valley Pump Station ------

78 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-17(cont’d). Preferred Alternative - Direct impacts on wetlands and RHCA or stream channel.

Shrub Perennial Meadow Riparian Intermittent Pond RHCA Stream Project Element Wetland Scrub Wetland Stream Length (acres) (acres) Length (acres) Wetland (acres) (feet) (acres) (feet) Creekside Lodge Expansion ADA Ramp - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - Lodge Expansion - - - 0.1 0.7 - 87 Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0 87 Mountain Bike Trails - 0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.24 48 49 Lunch Run Summer Road - <0.1 0.2 - 1.0 - - Relocation Gad 2 Upgrade – Lifts Lift Terminal Disturbance Lower - 0.2 - - 0.5 - - Gad 2 Lift Terminal Disturbance Upper ------Gad 2 Gad 2 Towers - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 0 Gad 2 Upgrade – Trails Bananas Trail Modification - 0.4 - - 2.5 - 79 Gad 2 Little Cloud Connector - - - - 1.0 - - Subtotal 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.5 0 79 GRAND TOTAL 0.0 1.4 0.3 1.0 14.4 551 744

Increased disturbance of RHCAs under the Preferred Alternative would also result primarily from construction of the beginner area. Construction of lifts and terminals would impact about 4.6 acres of RHCAs due to excavation and grading. The new location of the Creekside Lodge expansion would impact about 0.7 acres, although this area is currently a parking lot and would not result in a loss of riparian resources. Minor impacts would occur from the Baby Thunder Yurt, and no impacts on RHCAs would occur from the Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation. Impacts on RHCAs under the Preferred Alternative total about 14.4 acres, 0.9 acres more than under the Proposed Action.

Similar to the Proposed Action, BMPs listed in Table 3-12 and Appendix A would minimize or eliminate impacts on RHCAs. These measures include WAT 1, WAT 9, WAT 11, WAT 13, WET3, WET 8, and WET 9. Direct impacts on RHCAs under the Preferred Alternative would be both permanent and temporary. However, none of these would prevent RHCA objectives from being met in the SUP. Based on the past effectiveness of BMPs, impacts on RHCAs would be minimized or eliminated, and overall progress towards RHCA objectives would continue in the SUP area.

Stream channels impacted by new project elements in the Preferred Alternative would total about 550 feet of intermittent stream channel and 740 feet of perennial stream channel. In comparison to the Proposed Action, this is an increase of about 210 feet and 270 feet of impacts on intermittent and perennial stream

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

channels, respectively. Stream channel impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be primarily due to overlap of areas of potential disturbance with Gad Valley stream and its tributaries. Only one stream crossing would occur. This would take place during realignment of the West Second South trail. Note that impacts associated with the Creekside Lodge Expansion on wetlands, RHCAs, and stream channels would all decrease under the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the Proposed Action.

Similar to the Proposed Action, trench breakers and other BMPs listed in Table 3-16 and Appendix A, particularly WAT 8, WAT 9, WAT 13, WET 3, WET 8, and WET 9, would be employed to maintain stability and proper hydrologic function of stream channel crossings. No impacts on stream channels would prevent RHCA objectives from being met under the Preferred Alternative. The recommended BMPs would restore areas disturbed by stream channel crossings and allow progress to continue towards RHCA objectives.

In terms of overall water quality and RHCA management objectives, this analysis indicates that the same conclusions noted above for the No-Action Alternative would hold. Impacts on wetlands and riparian areas on private land would be the same for the Preferred Alternative as the Proposed Action. These projects are listed above under the Proposed Action. They may not be in compliance with ordinances enforced on private land, such as FCOZ or Salt Lake Valley Health Department watershed regulations. Any compliance issues would be addressed during appropriate County review and permitting process.

In regard to potential water quality impact, one difference would be the use and transport of porta-potty- type sanitary facilities from the Baby Thunder Yurt. This would introduce a new potential water quality impact. By avoiding the creek crossing at the base of Baby Thunder lift and shortening the transit route along Little Cottonwood Creek, the Preferred Alternative would reduce the risk of a spill relative to the Proposed Action.

3.4.1.3.4 Cumulative Effects The cumulative actions addressed in this section are located in the Central Wasatch, and most are in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Summarizing the direct and indirect effects identified through this analysis, increased potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts on streams would result from development in Gad Valley and Peruvian Gulch. These impacts would be reduced through mitigation such as application of standard BMPs. This has proven successful during similar activities at Snowbird and other ski areas in the UWCNF (Forest Service 2004b, Forest Service 2005a, Forest Service 2006b, Forest Service 2007b).Wetland and RHCA resources would also be impacted by several project elements included in the Proposed Action and alternatives. With suggested mitigation in place, such effects are anticipated to be minor.

The area defined by this cumulative effects analysis is Little Cottonwood Canyon. The cumulative effects analysis incorporates the 1999 FEIS by reference and updates it by assessing the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives combined with those of other projects in Little Cottonwood Canyon that were not foreseen in the 1999 analysis. These cumulative actions were obtained from the 2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the UWCNF and through interdisciplinary agency review. These actions and their anticipated cumulative effects are described in section 3.3. This table necessarily includes projects located outside of Little Cottonwood Canyon that are addressed by other resources.

Several projects in section 3.3 have the potential to effect watershed resources in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Some of these projects have potential to create positive impacts on watershed resources while other projects could potentially create negative impacts. The potential impacts associated with each project and the cumulative effect is described below. Projects listed in section 3.3 that are not located in

80 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Little Cottonwood Canyon would have no cumulative effect on watershed resources in the canyon and are not discussed further in this section.

Current projects that could affect watershed resources in a cumulative way include the Alta Ski Area Summer Projects, UDOT Road Widening and Alta Bypass Road Repair, and White Pine Trailhead Access Trail Relocation. Several of the Alta Ski Area Summer Projects were completed in late 2012 including the earthen ramp for the Little Griz Conveyor and repair of the existing sewer line between the Watson Shelter and the Wildcat base area. Both projects were completed entirely by September 2012 along with rehabilitation efforts to stabilize soil surfaces. Construction of the snowmaking strainer and buried utility line connection to the existing system will take place in mid-summer of 2013.

UDOT Road Widening from Tanners Flat Campground to the upper end of Little Cottonwood Canyon was completed in October 2012. Improvements were made to four miles of the eastbound shoulder of SR210 including road widening and laying utility lines. This edge of the road is located adjacent to the riparian corridor and Little Cottonwood Creek. Impacts on water quality and RHCA resources were minimized through use of appropriate BMPs during construction and followed by rehabilitation efforts to stabilize soil surfaces. Repairs to the Alta Bypass Road are planned by UDOT for summer 2013. This activity would result in impacts that are similar to UDOT Road Widening. Regulations enforced by Salt Lake County and the UWCNF would minimize construction-related impacts on watershed resources and prevent long-term degradation. Cumulative effects of this project would be minimal.

The White Pine Trailhead Access Trail Relocation was completed in September 2012. Approximately 200 feet of paved access trail were removed and revegetated between the parking lot and a bridge crossing Little Cottonwood Creek. A new access trail was constructed that improved trail efficiency and utilized an existing service road. Improvements were made to the service road to improve drainage. The cumulative effect of this project on water quality and watershed resources was positive.

Development of the Anna/Monte Cristo subdivision at Snowbird The Wasatch Wilderness Protection Act would This Bill would designate approximately 15,541 acres of new Wilderness and 10,480 acres of Special Management Area adjacent to the existing Lone Peak, Mount Olympus, and Wayne Owens Grandeur Peak/Mount Aire Wildernesses. This bill also includes a land exchange between the UWCNF and Snowbird which would transfer ownership of approximately 542 acres of privately owned land in exchange for an approximately equal acreage of lands currently belonging to the UWCNF, mostly outside of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Snowbird would also transfer approximately 298 acres of privately owned land to a non-profit organization to manage under a conservation easement in perpetuity. Potential future impacts on watershed resources in the canyon would be reduced by the decrease in the amount of private land available for development.

The Grit Mill Area Projects would result in minor, temporary disturbance during trail development and create impermeable surfaces during construction of parking lots and restrooms. Measures that route surface runoff away from runoff paths and receiving water would be used during construction and incorporated into the design and long-term function of each project. The potential for sedimentation and other water quality impacts on Little Cottonwood Creek would be minimal. Positive impacts would result from watershed restoration activities associated with this project as old unsustainable trails are closed and rehabilitated, and new sustainable trails are created to support recreational use in the area.

Climbing Trail Management would result in temporary disturbance during trail construction. BMPs would be used to manage surface runoff and prevent sedimentation impacts. User-created trails to climbing areas would be removed and foot traffic would be managed more effectively. This project

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

would have a positive long-term effect on watershed resources as old unsustainable trails are closed and rehabilitated, and new sustainable trails are created for recreational use.

Five Gaz-Ex avalanche control structures will be installed in slide paths and used to trigger avalanches on the south facing slope across from the Snowbird Base area. These devices are made of a large pipe connected to the ground at one end and supported by a second pipe at the other end. Fuel lines connect the large pipe to fuel tanks located outside of the avalanche paths. A controlled explosion is created in the large pipe to trigger avalanches. Based on distance to receiving water bodies and limited disturbance during the construction period, impacts on watershed resources would result in a minimal negative effect. Cumulative effects from this project would be negligible.

Potential impacts on soil and water quality would be associated with many project elements included in the Alta MDP update. These impacts would be addressed through the NEPA process and mitigated to the extent possible with approved BMPs. Improvements to ski-resort infrastructure are designed to meet recreational needs, land management objectives, and would potentially increase skier visits to the resort. Demands on power would be offset somewhat with renewable energy elements. Alternatives to avalanche control could potentially improve water quality by eliminating introduction of hazardous chemicals to snow and soil. Overall, the BMPs, site rehabilitation procedures, and other design criteria and mitigation measures that have proven successful at Snowbird and other UWCNF administered ski areas would likely avoid significant watershed effects. Due to the uncertain nature of several of the projects, an exact assessment of the effects that the Alta MDP update would contribute is not possible at this time. Based on past history and UWCNF experience with Alta, it is likely that cumulative effects would be adverse but minor.

Based on work that has been completed at Snowbird, project implementation is expected to occur over several years with few projects occurring in any one given year. This type of schedule reduces the amount of sedimentation in any one year and gives time for revegetation of disturbed areas. Climbing Trail Management is expected to improve long-term water quality. It is expected that BMPs would be implemented and cumulatively, very little increase in sediment and associated metals would enter Little Cottonwood Creek, Peruvian Gulch, or Gad Valley stream channels.

The incremental disturbance associated with each alternative is described in detail through CDA results in Tables 3-12, 3-14, and 3-16. Certain projects under each alternative will result in impervious surfaces that will add to the existing level of impervious surface in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Table 3-18 includes the amount of impervious surface for each alternative.

The amount of impervious surface is expected to increase throughout Salt Lake County as urban development occurs in previously undeveloped areas. The existing level of impervious surface was estimated as part of the Salt Lake County Water Quality Stewardship Plan (Salt Lake County 2009). The purpose of this assessment was to estimate the potential impact of future development on infiltration capacity. Results of the assessment are based on land use categories and percent impervious surface area values (NRCS 1986). A similar method was used in this EA to determine acres of impervious surface in the 17,158 acres of Little Cottonwood Canyon. This method estimated a total of 1,656 acres of impervious surface exhibited by features such as roads (paved and unpaved), parking areas, trails, campgrounds, buildings, sidewalks, etc. Based on this information, the contribution of each alternative to the total amount of impervious surface in the LCC subwatershed is less than 0.5 percent (Table 3-18).

This EA addresses impacts on watershed resources both incrementally (under Environmental Consequences) and cumulatively. The overall conclusion is that the effects of the Proposed Action or the Preferred Alternative would be minimized or eliminated through proper use of design criteria and

82 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements mitigation measures discussed above and in Appendix A and would not contribute in a cumulative way to impacts from projects listed in section 3.3. The cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative would be similar to, but slightly greater than, those under the No-Action Alternative due to their marginally increased direct and indirect effects.

Table 3-18. Impervious Surface by Alternative. No-Action Proposed Action Preferred Alternative Project Alternative (ac) (ac) (ac) Baby Thunder Beginner Area Bridge 0.02 Carpets (3 total) 0.06 Cat Access 0.25 Road Extension 0.05 Yurt 0.02 0.02 Conveyor Lift in Gad Valley 0.01 Creekside Lodge Expansion ADA Ramp 0.01 0.01 Lodge Expansion 0.18 0.10 0.10

Gad 2 Upgrade - Lift Terminals (upper 0.02 0.02 and lower) Lift Maintenance Shop Access Road 0.03

Pump Station Expansion 0.09 Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation 0.93 0.93 Mountain Bike Trails 2.14 1.26

Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade (Hidden 1.39 1.39 1.39 A)

Barrier Free Trail Extension (Gad D) 0.16 0.16 0.16 Gad Valley Beginner Area - Lifts Conveyors (4 total) 0.07 Lift Terminals (5 total) 0.05 Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation 0.06 Total Impervious Surface (ac) 5.36 1.65 4.08

Percent increase based on impervious area of 1,656 ac. calculated for Upper 0.32% 0.10% 0.25% Little Cottonwood Creek subwatershed.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.4.2 VEGETATION

3.4.2.1 Scope of Analysis Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effect addressed in this analysis:

Issue: How would the proposed projects affect special status plant species? Background: While no plant species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occur in the project area, some species listed as sensitive in the Forest Service’s Intermountain Region or otherwise identified as species of concern do occur and could potentially be affected by proposed activities. Clearing, grading, and construction associated with the proposed projects could affect individuals or populations of these species.

Indicators: Survey for federally listed, Forest Service sensitive, or other special status plant species in the project area and assessment of potential impacts on such resources.

Analysis Area: Analysis of direct impacts focuses on the area of potential disturbance associated with the proposal projects. No indirect impacts are anticipated, and cumulative impacts are addressed at the scale of Little Cottonwood Canyon.

3.4.2.2 Affected Environment Eleven vegetation/landcover types occur within the Snowbird project area. These types include: developed, sparse vegetation, short forb, tall forb, mountain brush, mixed aspen, mixed conifer, aspen, conifer parkland, krumholtz spruce/fir, and spruce/fir. These cover types range from those that result from and reflect a high degree of disturbance to those that are relatively natural. However, within the project area, human-induced disturbance has been a part of the landscape since the mining era. The area is currently managed as an intensive recreation area, and human disturbance continues to be a component of the landscape. As a result, general vegetation was not identified as an issue for this analysis. However, the landcover types provide the context in which special status plants exist, which is the topic of this issue statement.

One federally listed species Ute’s ladies tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as potentially occurring in Salt Lake County. It is addressed in the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for this project (Forest Service 2012a). In summary, the elevation range for this species is generally 4,200 to 5,900 feet, though it has been observed at 7,000) feet. Thus, this species would not occur in the project area based on elevation limitation, and there would be no effects on this species. It is not discussed further in this analysis.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) was also prepared for this project (Forest Service 2012b). This document assessed the presence of Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species in the project area and analyzed potential impacts on these species from project-related activities. Twenty-two sensitive plant species were included in that document. Based on the analysis in the BE, 13 species could potentially occur in the project area. Surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2012 on all disturbance sites within the project area to determine if any of these species were present. During these surveys, three species were found to be present within the project site areas. These species include:

 Rockcress draba (Draba globosa, syn. D. densifolia var. apiculata)  Garrett’s fleabane (Erigeron garrettii)  Wasatch jamesia (Jamesia Americana var. macrocalyx)

84 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Utah ivesia (Ivesia utahensis) is also present within the Snowbird area but does not occur within any of the project site areas that would be disturbed by this project.

In addition to the Forest Service sensitive plants, the UWCNF has identified other plant species of concern. While these species do not have the same protection provided sensitive species, these species are considered when assessing potential impacts. For this project, four watch-list species were considered. These species, a brief habitat summary, and a probability of occurrence analysis are presented in Table 3-19. These species were also included in the target list of survey species for this project. The surveys found one species, sand fleabane, to be present in the project area. This species occurs on rock outcrops and cliffs near project elements.

Table 3-19. Forest Service watch-list species assessed for the Snowbird Improvements project. Carried into Detailed Species Habitat Reason Analysis? Tower Mustard Aspen and aspen/maple No Elevation range listed communities in limestone for this species is sandy clay at elevations of below the elevation of Arabis glabra 5,200 to 6,300 feet.1 the project area. (var. furcatipilis) Wasatch rockcress Steep, rocky hillsides in Yes Suitable habitat is metamorphosed rocks, present. quartzite sands, and exposed Arabis lasiocarpa rocky areas between 5,700 (syn. Boechera lasiocarpa) and 9,500 feet elevation.1 Sand fleabane Crevices in limestone and Yes Suitable habitat is quartzite outcrops and cliffs, present. rarely in beach sand, oak- (Erigeron arenarioides) maple, mountain brush- white fir; (4,260–) 5,250– 9,500(–11,808) feet.2 Lesquerella utahensis Rocky ridges, gravel, Yes Suitable habitat is sagebrush hillsides, exposed present. limestone, granitic rock (Physaria kingii subsp. areas, sandy soils; 7,800- Utahensis) 11,150 feet.3

1 UNPS. 2012. Utah Rare Plant Guide. http://www.utahrareplants.org/rpg_species.html#All. 2 Flora of North America FNA Vol. 20 Page 260, 272, 286, 292. 3 Flora of North America FNA Vol. 7 Page 646, 647.

3.4.2.3 Environmental Consequences This section analyzes potential effects to the sensitive species and other special status species under each alternative.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.4.2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, there would be impacts on sensitive species, specifically, rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane. In the case of rockcress draba, a population that was located in 2005 was located again during the surveys completed for this project. Based on these surveys, this species is present within project footprint areas. Specifically, the bike tail alignments surveyed for the Proposed Action would cross through habitat occupied by rockcress draba.

Impact from bike trails would consist of grading and earthwork to create a narrow trail. The length of trail through habitat where this species occurs is approximately 400 feet long. Although the exact number of individuals that would be affected by the Proposed Action is not known, it is estimated at less than 50 individuals. Many additional individuals would remain unaffected within the occurrence that was estimated to contain as least 750 individuals in 2005 (Cirrus 2005). In addition, this species is known from eight other counties in Utah, as well as from four other states (NatureServe 2012a).

Garrett’s fleabane was also located during the surveys completed for this project. It was found in upper elevations of Peruvian Gulch and Gad Valley along the alignment for the proposed mountain bike trail. Individuals were found growing on protected cliff-rock habitat as well as alpine habitats. A complete inventory of this population was not completed. However, within upper Peruvian Gulch, this species appears to be locally common. Impact on Garrett’s fleabane would result from using hand tools and possibly a small excavator to create a narrow trail. The length of trail through habitat where this species occurs is approximately 1,500 feet. Although the exact number of individuals that would be affected by the Proposed Action is not known, it is estimated at less than 100 individuals, and most individuals in this population would remain unaffected. In addition, this species is known from four other counties in Utah (NatureServe 2012a).

Wasatch jamesia, which occurs in proximity to project elements, specifically the proposed bike trail, would not be affected under this alternative because it is located on low cliffs that would not be affected by trail construction.

Sand fleabane also occurs in proximity to project elements, specifically the proposed bike trail. This species was found growing on rock and cliff habitats. The location of these populations make it unlikely that they would be impacted. Final bike trail alignments would most likely avoid these rocky and difficult habitats due to costs and problems in constructing a bike trail through these areas.

3.4.2.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action Under the No-Action Alternative, a number of projects approved in the 1999 ROD would be implemented. Their potential impacts on special-status plant species were assessed in section 4.11.3 of the 1999 FEIS. Since that time, there have been changes in the special-status species listings, which constitute new information or changed conditions. As a result, these projects were re-surveyed in 2012 on the basis of current special-status species lists. None of these projects would be located in areas where sensitive or other special status plants occur. Thus, under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no impacts on special-status plant species.

3.4.2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would have no known impact on rockcress draba or Garrett’s fleabane. Elements of the proposed project that would have traversed habitat occupied by rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane were excluded from The Preferred Alternative in order to avoid potential impacts on these species. However, other potential habitat that is not occupied would be affected. Specifically, the

86 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements bike trail in upper Peruvian Gulch was removed from the Preferred Alternative to avoid impacts on these species.

Similarly, no impacts on Wasatch jamesia or sand fleabane would be anticipated under this alternative. Thus The Preferred Alternative would have no known impacts on sensitive or other special status species occurring in the project area.

3.4.2.3.4 Cumulative Effects The Snowbird Mary Ellen Gulch expansion, UDOT Gaz-Ex installations, and the Alta MDP update all have potential to impact rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane.

The Snowbird Mary Ellen Gulch expansion could impact rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane through construction of facilities, including roads and lifts. The exact impacts of this project are unknown since no specific plans have been made as to precisely which areas would be impacted. Proposed roads and lifts would likely go through potential Garrett’s fleabane habitat. Surveys for Garrett’s fleabane have not been completed. It is assumed that surveys would be completed prior to a land exchange, if warranted, should this project be developed through this option. If rockcress draba or Garrett’s fleabane were determined to be present, they would be taken into consideration as part of the land exchange process. Alternatively, if this project is developed through an expansion of the SUP boundary, impacts on rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane would be considered as part of the NEPA process. It is possible there were would be impacts on these species under either scenario, as a result of this project. The extent of impacts would depend on the species presence in the project area, and whether their distribution is such that they could be avoided through project design.

The UDOT Gaz-Ex avalanche control project, on private land, has potential to impact suitable habitat for rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane. However, the individual footprints that comprise this project are very small in terms of the area that would be disturbed. Thus, the potential impacts on rockcress draba or Garrett’s fleabane would be very small if a footprint was located within occupied habitat. Further, because of the nature of the projects, there would likely be flexibility to minimize or avoid the impact by locating construction away from occupied habitat.

The Alta MDP update proposes several actions on NFS and private lands that that have the potential to impact rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane: lift replacements, construction of new lifts, hydroelectric turbines, building projects, and the water treatment facility for Columbus Rexall mine discharge water. Surveys for rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane have not yet been completed, and the exact impacts of these actions are unknown since no specific plans have been made as to precisely which areas would be impacted. Even though the specifics are unknown, impacts would be minimized through design criteria locating roads, lift towers, lift terminals, and building projects outside of occupied habitat to the extent possible, and impacts on rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane would be considered as part of the NEPA process. However, there could still be impacts on these species if they are present in the areas of disturbance and the distribution is such that they cannot be avoided.

It is our determination that there will be no substantial cumulative effects on rockcress draba or Garrett’s fleabane for the following reasons: 1) the individual projects in the surrounding area are likely to have only small effects, if any, on Garrett’s fleabane; 2) the populations at Snowbird that may be affected by the Proposed Action or The Preferred Alternative would remain viable; and 3) other known populations exist that would not be affected.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.4.3 WILDLIFE

3.4.3.1 Scope of Analysis Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effects addressed in this analysis:

Issue: How would the proposed projects affect wildlife habitat and special status wildlife species?

Background: The project area supports a variety of wildlife species. While no federally protected species are known to occur, several species included on the Forest Service Intermountain Region’s sensitive species list and other species of concern may occur. The proposed activities would alter wildlife habitat, possibly reducing or eliminating key habitats, both terrestrial and aquatic. Habitat improvements are also possible. The disturbance associated with increased human activity during and after construction, including the proposed lighting for night skiing, could directly affect wildlife behavior and distribution.

Indicators: Surveys for federally listed, Forest Service sensitive, or management indicator species (MIS) in the project area and assessment of potential impacts on habitat for these species.

Analysis Area: Analysis of direct impacts focuses on the area of potential disturbance associated with the proposed projects. Indirect impacts may be addressed at larger scales as appropriate to the species, and cumulative impacts are addressed at the scale of Little Cottonwood Canyon.

3.4.3.2 Affected Environment 3.4.3.2.1 Special Status Wildlife There are four special status wildlife species with potential habitat in the project area: boreal toad, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, and Canada lynx. Forest Plan guideline G21 regarding minimizing impacts on sensitive species and habitats was taken into consideration in this analysis. Guidelines G26, G20, and G30 regarding big game seasonal habitat protection were also considered, but the habitats protected by these guidelines do not occur in the project area. Additional information and analysis of potential impacts on special status species may be found in the BA and BE completed for this project and included in the Project Record.

Boreal Toad The boreal toad is a Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species. Boreal toads are found in western North America from Alaska to Baja California, with their range extending as far east as Colorado. They are found at a wide range of elevations from sea level to more than 11,000 feet. Boreal toads can occur around any slow moving or still water in their range. They use shallow, slow moving portions of these habitats for egg laying which occurs in late spring or early summer, following snow melt in high elevation habitats. Eggs hatch in 3 – 12 days and metamorphose in 1 – 3 months, with shorter durations in warmer habitats and longer durations in colder habitats. While boreal toads are dependent on water they can travel several kilometers away from water to find new habitats. (NatureServe 2012b.)

Boreal toads are known to occur in Little Cottonwood Canyon and at Snowbird. They have been documented in Mineral Basin as well as in the Baby Thunder area. However no boreal toads were observed during 2011 and 2012 surveys.

88 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons, also a Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species, occupy a wide range of habitats. They are typically found in open country near rivers, marshes, and coasts. Cliffs are preferred nesting sites, although reintroduced birds now regularly nest on man-made structures such as towers and high-rise buildings (NatureServe 2012b). Peregrines may travel more than 15 miles from the nest site to hunt for birds. However a 5-mile radius around the nest is an average hunting area, with 60 percent of foraging occurring within this distance (Craig and Enderson 2004).

On the UWCNF all known peregrine nesting (current and historic) occurs along the Wasatch Front, with occasional sightings of birds in other areas. Nesting on the Forest is in rugged canyons on cliff faces. Nesting off of the Forest is also found on old artificial nest platforms and high-rise buildings. Potential nesting habitat for peregrine falcons exists on portions of the ski area (Mineral Basin area and the Hell Gate Cliffs), but not within the vicinity of the project area. There were no peregrine falcons detected during the surveys completed for this project.

Northern Goshawk The range of the northern goshawk, also a Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species, is circumpolar. In the West it is found from Alaska through the Rocky Mountains to New Mexico. It is also found in Washington, Oregon, and interior California. The goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety of forest ages, structural conditions, and successional stages. The goshawk preys on medium-to-large-sized birds and mammals, which it captures on the ground, in trees, or in the air. Three components of a goshawk's home range have been identified for the management of this species: the nest area, post-fledging-family area (PFA), and foraging area, as described by Reynolds et al (1992).

The nest area may include one or more nests. It is usually located on northerly aspects in drainages or canyons, and is often near streams. Nest areas contain one or more stands of large, old trees with a dense canopy cover. Most goshawks have two to four alternate nest areas within their home range; alternate nest areas are used in different years, but some nests may be used for decades. (Reynolds et al. 1992.) Forest Plan standard S12 prohibits vegetation treatments in nesting areas during the active nesting period.

The goshawk PFA surrounds the nest area within a home range. It includes a variety of forest types and conditions. The PFA appears to correspond to the territory (defended area) of a goshawk pair and represents an area of concentrated use by the family from the time the young leave the nest until they are no longer dependent on the adults for food (up to 2 months). Small openings, snags, downed logs, and woody debris are critical PFA attributes. (Reynolds et al. 1992.)

Foraging goshawks are more often than not confronted with a mosaic of forest types and conditions within their large home ranges. Observations of foraging goshawks show that they hunt in many forest conditions. This opportunism suggests that the choice of foraging habitat by goshawks may be as closely tied to prey availability as to habitat structure and composition. Selected goshawk prey includes squirrels, chipmunks, woodpeckers, jays, rabbits, and grouse. Specific habitat attributes used by these species include snags, downed logs, woody debris, large trees, herbaceous and shrubby understories, and a mixture of various forest vegetative structural stages. (Reynolds et al. 1992.) Forest Plan guideline G15 prescribes designing management activities to maintain, restore, and protect all types of goshawk habitat.

Goshawks are found throughout the UWCNF. Goshawks are present in the Snowbird area, and one was sighted within the resort boundary during a survey conducted in 1997. However, the nearest known goshawk nest is approximately 4 miles from the project area. No known goshawk territories have been identified in the vicinity of the ski area, and nesting habitat is limited. No goshawks were detected during the surveys completed for this project.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Canada Lynx The Canada lynx was listed as threatened in the contiguous U.S. under the ESA in March 2000. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Lynx occur throughout the boreal forests of Alaska and Canada, and can also be found in the Rocky Mountains, the northern Great Lakes region, and northern New England. In the West, they occur in subalpine conifer forests with cold, snowy winters (Ruediger et al. 2000). Lynx denning habitat is characterized by the presence of large woody debris and usually consists of older successional stands or mature stands (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx. Red squirrels are an important alternate prey species, particularly in more southern latitudes where snowshoe hare densities are lower. Early to advanced successional stands with a dense, multi-layered understory are optimal for snowshoe hares, and thus important as lynx foraging habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000). Older forests with a substantial understory of shrubs and small trees are also valuable to lynx, particularly in the Rocky Mountains, as they provide habitat to both snowshoe hares and squirrels (Ruggiero et al. 2000).

Lynx density is highly dependent on prey abundance. Their primary prey, snowshoe hares, are found throughout the UWCNF in suitable habitat. In the project area suitable habitat for snowshoe hares is found at the base area and in stringers of forest between ski runs. Snowshoe hares were detected by fecal pellets in 2011 surveys. However, only one pellet group was found indicating low abundance and density. This is to be expected given the fragmented nature of the habitat. Lynx tend to have larger home ranges in the southern portion of their range, where prey habitat tends to be of lesser quality and more patchy.

Threats to this species include habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation; competition from other predators, such as coyotes, mountain lions, or bobcats; and trapping. Increased recreational use in lynx habitat is also a concern. Roads, trails, and snow compaction may facilitate access of competitors and predators into lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Confirmed records of lynx in Utah are very rare (McKelvey et al. 1999). The majority of historical records are from the Uinta Mountains. Hair snare transects surveyed between 1999 and 2001 in suitable habitat did not detect any lynx on the UWCNF, although lynx hair was found on the Manti-La Sal National Forest in 2001. Some collared individuals from the reintroduced Colorado population have been documented in Utah, some of which have been in the vicinity of the project area (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2010). This is not unusual since lynx are known to disperse over long distances. Dispersal movements of several hundred miles have been recorded (Ruggiero et al. 2000).

3.4.3.2.2 Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Executive Order 13186 (66 FR 3853, January 17, 2001) details the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect bald and golden eagles and other migratory birds. Each agency was encouraged to immediately develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FWS and to begin implementing the conservation measures specified in Sec. 3 (e) of the Executive Order, as appropriate and practicable. There are a total of four Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern species for which habitat occurs at Snowbird.

Black Rosy-Finch The black rosy-finch is a Partners in Flight Priority Species that is fairly common at Snowbird. Black rosy-finches nest on cliffs above the tree-line and commonly forage on insects at the muddy margins of

90 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements persistent snowfields. There is a substantial amount of nesting habitat for black rosy-finches at Snowbird on the cliffs at the top of Gad Valley and Mineral Basin.

Brewer’s Sparrow The Brewer’s sparrow is a Partners in Flight Priority Species as well as a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Brewer’s sparrows are rarely reported at Snowbird. Brewer’s sparrows breed in sagebrush shrublands and are highly associated with sagebrush habitat which there is none of at Snowbird. There is potential habitat for a subspecies of the Brewer’s sparrow, the timberline sparrow, which is associated with krumholtz vegetation near the tree-line. However, the known southernmost extent of this subspecies is southern Alberta making their presence at Snowbird unlikely. Brewer’s sparrows are notoriously difficult to identify due to their nondescript appearance which lacks distinctive characteristics for identification. The facts that Brewer’s sparrows are difficult to identify, and that Snowbird is outside of the known range/habitat for this species, increases the likelihood that the few reported sightings are erroneous. Nevertheless, we will assume the reported sightings are accurate and represent an expansion of the timberline subspecies approximately 550 miles outside its known range.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird The broad-tailed hummingbird is a Partners in Flight Priority Species that is very common at Snowbird. Broad-tailed hummingbirds nest in aspen and coniferous forests at elevations up to 10,600 feet. Like all hummingbirds they are nectar feeders and require flowering plants from which to gather nectar. At Snowbird flowering plants are found primarily in the forb communities.

Golden Eagle The golden eagle is a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern that is common at Snowbird. In areas like Little Cottonwood Canyon, golden eagles nest on cliffs and hunt in open meadows. Suitable nesting habitat is available on the cliffs at the top of Gad Valley and Mineral Basin.

3.4.3.2.3 Management Indicator Species (MIS) There are four MIS for the Wasatch Planning Unit of the UWCNF: cutthroat trout (Bonneville and Colorado River), American beaver, Northern goshawk, and snowshoe hare. These species serve as indicators of management impacts on the habitats they represent. Cutthroat trout are the indicator for aquatic habitats. American beavers are the indicator for riparian habitat. Northern goshawks are the indicator for forested habitats: aspen, conifer, and mixed conifer. Snowshoe hares are also indicators for forested habitat with the addition of pole/sapling aspen habitats to conifer and mixed conifer habitats.

3.4.3.3 Environmental Consequences

3.4.3.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Federally Listed Wildlife Species The Proposed Action will have no effect on federally listed wildlife species. Table 3-20 gives determinations for these species occurring in Salt Lake County.

Of these species, only the Canada lynx has potential habitat in the project area. The no effect determination for Canada lynx is based on the facts that regional habitat connectivity for lynx would not be impacted, the project area is low quality lynx habitat due to low snowshoe hare density, and lynx are not known to have ever used habitat in the project area.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-20. Effect determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species. Species Status Determination Canada lynx Threatened No effect Lynx canadensis June sucker Endangered No effect Chasmistes liorus

Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species The Proposed Action may have impacts on Forest Service sensitive wildlife species. Determinations for these species are given in Table 3-21 below.

The determination for boreal toad was based on impacts of project elements on wetland habitat with potential for use by boreal toads. None of the impacted wetland habitat could be considered breeding habitat, and impacts would be minimized by design criteria and mitigation measures (WIL 1-7, 9, 21, 22; Appendix A).

The determination for northern goshawks was based on the removal of a small amount of forested habitat and temporary modification of foraging behavior due to avoidance of construction areas.

Table 3-21. Impact determinations for Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive wildlife species occurring on the UWCNF. Species Determination Amphibians Columbia spotted frog No Impact Boreal toad May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Birds American peregrine falcon No Impact Bald eagle No Impact Boreal owl No Impact Flammulated owl No Impact Three-toed woodpecker No Impact Great gray owl No Impact Columbian sharp-tailed grouse No Impact Northern goshawk May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

92 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-21 (cont’d). Impact determinations for Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive wildlife species occurring on the UWCNF. Species Determination Yellow-billed cuckoo No Impact Greater sage-grouse No Impact Mammals Townsend’s big-eared bat No Impact Rocky Mountain bighorn No Impact sheep Gray wolf No Impact Spotted bat No Impact North American wolverine No Impact Fish Colorado River cutthroat trout No Impact Bonneville cutthroat trout No Impact Northern leatherside chub No Impact Southern leatherside chub No Impact

Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern There are no notable impacts of the Proposed Action on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Rationales for each species are given in Table 3-22 below.

Table 3-22. Rationale for no significant impact on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Species Rationale Black rosy-finch No breeding habitat (cliffs) would be impacted by the Proposed Action. Brewer’s sparrow/ timberline No habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts on timberline sparrow habitat sparrow would be minimal. The Proposed Action would impact less than 0.01 percent of the krumholtz vegetation community at Snowbird. Broad-tailed hummingbird The Proposed Action impacts only 1.1 percent1 of the forested habitat that could be used by broad-tailed hummingbirds for breeding. Only 1.3 percent1 of the forb community landcover types would be impacted by the Proposed Action. Golden eagle No breeding habitat (cliffs) would be impacted by the Proposed Action.

1 See Table 3-5.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout – Aquatic habitats The Proposed Action would have no substantial impacts on aquatic habitats. The construction of a bridge over Little Cottonwood Creek would have the largest impact on aquatic habitats and even this impact would not affect Bonneville cutthroat trout due to how far downstream they occur. The impacts of the Proposed Action could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide, particularly since this species only occurs far downstream from the study area. For further details on impacts on aquatic habitats see the Watershed Resources Specialist Report (Cirrus 2012).

American Beaver – Riparian Habitat The Proposed Action would have no substantial impacts on riparian habitats. Less than 1 acre of riparian habitat resides within the estimated disturbance area for elements of the Proposed Action (Table 3-13). Not all of the estimated disturbance area will be directly impacted. The actual area impacted would be less due to mitigation (WAT 1; Appendix A). The small area coupled with the facts that the majority of potentially disturbed riparian areas surround streams with a slope too high (>15 percent) to be considered American beaver habitat, and no American beavers are known to occur in the study area indicate these impacts could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide. For further details on impacts on riparian habitats see the Watershed Resources Specialist Report (Cirrus 2012).

Northern Goshawk – Aspen/Conifer/Mixed Forests The Proposed Action would have no substantial impacts on aspen/conifer/mixed forests. A total of 6.3 acres of forested habitat resides within the estimated disturbance area for elements of the Proposed Action (Table 3-5). The 6.3 acres within the estimated disturbance area represents 1.1 percent of the forested habitat at Snowbird and a tiny fraction of forested habitat across the UWCNF. The relatively small area potentially impacted by the Proposed Action and the general absence of northern goshawks in the area, lead us to determine that the impacts of the Proposed Action could not be expected to contribute significantly to a downward trend for this species forest-wide. However, this minor impact would still be counter to Forest Plan guideline G15.

Snowshoe Hare – Sapling-Aspen/Conifer/Mixed Forests The Proposed Action would have no substantial impacts on sapling-aspen/conifer/mixed forests. Snowshoe hares are dependent on these forest types when they have dense understory. When forest habitat types occur without a dense understory component they cannot be considered snowshoe hare habitat. Much of the forested habitat at Snowbird falls into the category of forest without a dense understory component due, in part, to the rocky soil in many areas.

In addition to the 6.3 acres of trees that could potentially be impacted, the mountain bike trails would impact 1.3 acres of forest understory (Table 3-5). As previously indicated, all 7.6 acres do not represent potential snowshoe hare habitat. During surveys for this project only one snowshoe hare pellet group was found, indicating low snowshoe hare abundance and density in the project area. The effect of the Proposed Action impacting a conservative 7.6 acres of snowshoe hare habitat could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide.

3.4.3.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action The environmental consequences of the No-Action Alternative were assessed in the 1999 FEIS (section 4.14.3). Since that time the status of several wildlife species have changed but the 1999 analysis examined all current special status wildlife species present at Snowbird with the exception of Partners in

94 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Flight Priority Species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and MIS which are fully analyzed below.

Federally Listed Wildlife Species Effects of the No-Action Alternative on listed species, candidate species, and their habitats were fully analyzed and disclosed in the BA prepared for the 1999 FEIS and in section 4.14.3.1 of the FEIS itself. Since that time the American peregrine falcon and the bald eagle have been delisted but still appear on the Forest Service sensitive species list. The boreal toad was analyzed as a candidate species in the 1999 FEIS and currently appears on the Forest Service sensitive species list. The 1999 FEIS determined that there would be no effect on the remaining listed species, the Canada lynx (Forest Service 1999a).

Analysis of new information and changed circumstances indicates that the presence of lynx and the suitability of habitat for lynx in the project area have not changed since 1999. This leads us to determine that the No-Action alternative would have no effect on Canada lynx.

Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Effects of the No-Action Alternative on Forest Service sensitive wildlife species were fully analyzed and disclosed in the BE prepared for the 1999 FEIS and in section 4.14.3.2 of the FEIS document. Since that time the several species have been added to the Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species list; however, none of the species added since 1999 have potential to occur in the project area with the exception of the American peregrine falcon and the boreal toad. The 1999 FEIS determined that there could be minor impacts on the American three-toed woodpecker and the boreal toad with no impact on the remaining sensitive species (Forest Service 1999a).

Analysis of new information and changed circumstances indicates that the project area is no longer suitable for American three-toed woodpeckers and that the No-Action alternative would have no impact on this species due to low snag density and the lack of three-toed woodpeckers observed during surveys since 1999. The information and circumstances pertaining to the boreal toad have not changed since 1999. This leads us to concur with the determination from the 1999 FEIS that the No-Action Alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (Forest Service 1999a).

Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern There are no notable impacts of the No-Action Alternative on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Rationales for each species are given in Table 3-23 below.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout – Aquatic habitats The No-Action Alternative would have no substantial impacts on aquatic habitats. Most impacts on aquatic habitats would be temporary (construction related) and would be reduced or eliminated by design criteria and mitigation measures (WAT 1; Appendix A). These impacts could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide, particularly since this species only occurs far downstream from the study area. For further details on impacts on aquatic habitats see the Water Resources Specialist Report (Cirrus 2012).

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-23. Rationales for no significant impact on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Species Rationale Black rosy-finch No breeding habitat (cliffs) would be impacted by the No-Action Alternative. Brewer’s sparrow/ timberline No habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts on timberline sparrow habitat sparrow would be minimal. The No-Action Alternative would impact less than 0.01 percent of the krumholtz vegetation community at Snowbird. Broad-tailed hummingbird The No-Action Alternative impacts 0.2 percent1 of the forested habitat that could be used by broad-tailed hummingbirds for breeding. Only 0.3 percent1 of the forb community landcover types would be impacted by the No-Action Alternative. Golden eagle No breeding habitat (cliffs) would be impacted by the No-Action Alternative.

1 See Table 3-6.

American Beaver – Riparian Habitat The No-Action Alternative would have no substantial impacts on riparian habitats. Less than 1 acre of riparian habitat resides within the estimated disturbance area for elements of the No-Action Alternative (Table 3-15). Not all of the estimated disturbance area will actually be disturbed. The actual area impacted would be less due to mitigation (WAT 1; Appendix A). The small area coupled with the facts that the majority of potentially disturbed riparian areas surround streams with a slope too high (>15 percent) to be considered American beaver habitat, and no American beavers are known to occur in the study area, lead us to determine that these impacts could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide. For further details on impacts on riparian habitats see the Watershed Resources Specialist Report (Cirrus 2012).

Northern Goshawk – Aspen/Conifer/Mixed Forests The No-Action Alternative would have no substantial impacts on aspen/conifer/mixed forests. A total of 1.7 acres of forested habitat resides within the estimated disturbance area for elements of the No-Action Alternative (Table 3-6). Not all of the estimated disturbance area will actually be disturbed. The 1.7 acres within the estimated disturbance area represents 0.2 percent of the forested habitat at Snowbird and an extremely insignificant portion of forested habitat across the UWCNF. The relatively small area potentially impacted by the No-Action Alternative and the general absence of northern goshawks in the area lead us to determine that the impacts of the No-Action Alternative could not be expected to contribute significantly to a downward trend for this species forest-wide.

Snowshoe Hare – Sapling-Aspen/Conifer/Mixed Forests The No-Action Alternative would have no substantial impacts on sapling-aspen/conifer/mixed forests. Snowshoe hares are dependent on these forest types when they have dense understory. When forest habitat types occur without a dense understory component they cannot be considered snowshoe hare habitat. Much of the forested habitat a Snowbird falls into the category of forest without a dense understory component due, in part, to the rocky soil in many areas. Because of this general lack of understory all 1.7 acres do not represent potential snowshoe hare habitat. During surveys for this project only one snowshoe hare pellet group was found, indicating low snowshoe hare abundance and density in

96 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements the project area. The effect of the No-Action Alternative impacting a conservative 1.7 acres of snowshoe hare habitat could not be expected to contribute significantly to a downward trend for this species forest- wide.

3.4.3.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative Federally Listed Wildlife Species Effects of the Preferred Alternative on listed species and their habitats are fully analyzed and disclosed in the BA prepared for this project. The BA also provides a determination of effects of the Preferred Alternative on each federally listed species. These determinations are fully discussed in the BA along with the rationale for each. Table 3-24 summarizes those determinations.

Table 3-24. Effect determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species. Species Status Determination Canada lynx Threatened No effect Lynx canadensis June sucker Endangered No effect Chasmistes liorus

Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Impacts of the Preferred Alternative on Forest Service sensitive wildlife species are fully analyzed and disclosed in the BE prepared for this project. Determinations for these species are summarized in Table 3-25 below.

The determination for boreal toad was based on impacts of project elements on wetland habitat with potential for use by boreal toads. None of the impacted wetland habitat could be considered breeding habitat, and most impacts will be temporary (construction related) and minimized by design criteria and mitigation measures (WIL 1-7, 9, 21, 22; Appendix A).

The determination for northern goshawks was based on the removal of a small amount of forested habitat and temporary modification of foraging behavior due to avoidance of construction areas.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-25. Impact determinations for Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive wildlife species occurring on the UWCNF. Species Determination Amphibians Columbia spotted frog No Impact Boreal toad May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Birds American peregrine falcon No Impact Bald eagle No Impact Boreal owl No Impact Flammulated owl No Impact Three-toed woodpecker No Impact Great gray owl No Impact Columbian sharp-tailed grouse No Impact Northern goshawk May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Yellow-billed cuckoo No Impact Greater sage-grouse No Impact Mammals Townsend’s big-eared bat No Impact Rocky Mountain bighorn No Impact sheep Gray wolf No Impact Spotted bat No Impact North American wolverine No Impact Fish Colorado River cutthroat trout No Impact Bonneville cutthroat trout No Impact Northern leatherside chub No Impact Southern leatherside chub No Impact

Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern There are no notable impacts of the Preferred Alternative on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Rationales for each species are given in Table 3-26 below.

98 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-26. Rationales for no significant impact on Partners in Flight Priority Species and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Species Rationale Black rosy-finch No breeding habitat (cliffs) would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Brewer’s sparrow/ timberline No habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow. Impacts on timberline sparrow habitat sparrow would be minimal. The Proposed Action would impact less than 0.01 percent of the krumholtz vegetation community at Snowbird. Broad-tailed hummingbird The Preferred Alternative impacts only 0.8 percent1 of the forested habitat that could be used by broad-tailed hummingbirds for breeding. Only 1.6 percent1 of the forb community landcover types would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Golden eagle No breeding habitat (cliffs) would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative.

1 See Table 3-7.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout – Aquatic habitats The Preferred Alternative would have no substantial impacts on aquatic habitats. Most impacts on aquatic habitats would be temporary (construction related) and would be reduced or eliminated by design criteria and mitigation measures (WAT 1; Appendix A). These impacts could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide, particularly since this species only occurs far downstream from the study area. For further details on impacts on aquatic habitats see the Water Resources Specialist Report (Cirrus 2012).

American Beaver – Riparian Habitat The Preferred Alternative would have no substantial impact on riparian habitats. One acre of riparian habitat resides within the estimated disturbance area for elements of the Preferred Alternative (Table 3- 17). Not all of the estimated disturbance area will actually be disturbed. The actual area impacted would be less due to mitigation (WAT 1; Appendix A). The small area coupled with the facts that the majority of potentially disturbed riparian areas surround streams with a slope too high (less than 15 percent) to be considered American beaver habitat, and no American beavers are known to occur in the study area, lead us to determine that these impacts could not be expected to contribute to a downward trend for this species forest-wide. For further details on impacts on riparian habitats see the Watershed Resources Specialist Report (Cirrus 2012).

Northern Goshawk – Aspen/Conifer/Mixed Forests The Preferred Alternative would have no substantial impacts on aspen/conifer/mixed forests. Five acres of forested habitat resides within the estimated disturbance area for elements of the Preferred Alternative (Table 3-7). Not all of the estimated disturbance area will actually be disturbed. The 5 acres within the estimated disturbance area represents 0.8 percent of the forested habitat at Snowbird and an extremely insignificant portion of forested habitat across the UWCNF. The relatively small area potentially impacted by the Preferred Alternative and the general absence of northern goshawks in the area lead us to determine that the impacts of the Preferred Alternative could not be expected to contribute significantly to a downward trend for this species forest-wide.

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Snowshoe Hare – Sapling-Aspen/Conifer/Mixed Forests The Preferred Alternative would have no substantial impacts on sapling-aspen/conifer/mixed forests. Snowshoe hares are dependent on these forest types when they have dense understory. When forest habitat types occur without a dense understory component they cannot be considered snowshoe hare habitat. Much of the forested habitat a Snowbird falls into the category of forest without a dense understory component due, in part, to the rocky soil in many areas.

In addition to the 5 acres of trees that could potentially be impacted, the mountain bike trails would impact 0.7 acres of forest understory (Table 3-7). As previously indicated, all 5.7 acres do not represent potential snowshoe hare habitat. During surveys for this project only one snowshoe hare pellet group was found, indicating low snowshoe hare abundance and density in the project area. The effect of the Preferred Alternative impacting a conservative 5.7 acres of snowshoe hare habitat could not be expected to contribute significantly to a downward trend for this species forest-wide.

3.4.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects We have established potential impacts for boreal toads and northern goshawks. Effects of the cumulative actions (section 3.3) on these species are discussed below.

Boreal Toad The Snowbird Mary Ellen Gulch expansion, Anna/Monte Cristo subdivision, and the Alta MDP update all have potential to impact boreal toads.

The Snowbird Mary Ellen Gulch expansion could impact boreal toads through road or lift construction. The exact impacts of this project are unknown since no specific plans have been made as to precisely which areas would be impacted. Proposed roads and lifts may go through potential boreal toad habitat. Even though the specifics are unknown, we can assume that these impacts would be avoided through standard stipulations that roads and lift towers/terminals were not to be located in wetland areas. Where impacts on wetland areas were unavoidable, design criteria and mitigation measures would be implemented to restore or replace impacted habitat.

The Anna/Monte Cristo subdivision could impact boreal toads through development near an existing water source on the east end of the subdivision. The water source is a small stream that is fed by outflow from a mine portal, which is diverted down a section of road before turning south and flowing directly down the slope. The non-diverted section of this stream flows through an area with slopes between 24 and 67 percent which results in relatively swift flow that provides little to no breeding habitat for boreal toads.

The Alta MDP update proposes several actions that have potential to impact boreal toads: lift replacements, construction of new lifts, hydroelectric turbines, building projects, restoration of the drained lake, and the water treatment facility for Columbus Rexall mine discharge water. The restoration of the drained lake and the water treatment facility could have beneficial impacts on boreal toads, while the other proposed actions listed here are more likely to have detrimental impacts. The exact impacts of this project are unknown since no specific plans have been made as to precisely which areas would be impacted. Even though the specifics are unknown, we can assume that these impacts would be minimized through standard stipulations that roads and lift towers, lift terminals, and building projects were not to be located in wetland areas. Where impacts on wetland areas were unavoidable, design criteria and mitigation measures would be implemented to restore or replace impacted habitat.

100 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

It is our determination that there will be no substantial cumulative effects on boreal toads for the following reasons: 1) the individual projects in the surrounding area are likely to have only small effects on boreal toad habitat; 2) the areas where impacts would occur are already associated with or adjacent to existing development; 3) none of these projects would disrupt regional connectivity between boreal toad populations; 4) standard stipulations would be in place to minimize or avoid impacts on boreal toads.

Northern Goshawk The UDOT road widening, Snowbird Mary Ellen Gulch expansion, and Alta MDP update all have potential to impact northern goshawks.

The UDOT road widening project could remove forested habitat used by northern goshawks as foraging habitat. The widening of the road shoulder is being conducted on 4 miles of SR-210. While exact numbers are unavailable as to how much forested habitat will be removed, if we conservatively estimate that 10 feet of forested habitat needs to be removed along the entire 4 miles of shoulder to be widened, the result is a reduction of approximately 5 acres of forested habitat. Five acres represents a miniscule portion of the available northern goshawk foraging area available in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The nearest known goshawk nest to this project is approximately 4 miles away.

The Snowbird Mary Ellen Gulch expansion could impact northern goshawks by removal of potential foraging habitat through road construction. The road from Sinners Pass to the current base of the Mineral Basin Express lift would pass through approximately 0.15 miles of sparsely forested habitat in Mineral Basin. The nearest known goshawk nest to this project is approximately 4 miles away.

The Alta MDP update includes many projects with potential to impact northern goshawk nesting or foraging habitat. Discussion of specific impacts on northern goshawks is not possible given the lack of detail inherent in MDPs as well as the unknown likelihood of any particular element’s actual implementation. It is reasonable to assume that some forested habitat will need to be removed for the construction of three new lifts, particularly the lift and ski trails in Grizzly Gulch, which is a previously undeveloped area. Overall, Alta has relatively little forested area within its SUP boundary when compared with the areas that surround it. The rocky geology of the area precludes large contiguous patches of forested habitat and any forested habitat removed by the projects proposed in the MDP update would be low quality northern goshawk habitat consisting of widely spaced individual trees and small patches. The nearest known goshawk nest to this project is approximately 1.5 miles away.

It is our determination that there will be no substantial cumulative effects on northern goshawks for the following reasons: 1) the individual projects in the surrounding area are likely to have only small effects on northern goshawk habitat; 2) with the exception of Grizzly Gulch, the areas where impacts would occur are already associated with or adjacent to existing development; 3) none of these projects would disrupt regional connectivity between northern goshawk populations; 4) standard stipulations would be in place to minimize or avoid impacts on northern goshawks.

3.5 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT As outlined in sections 1.1 and 2.2, the Proposed Action includes the first phase of the MDP amendment accepted by the UWCNF on April 15, 2015. Under the Proposed Action or the Preferred Alternative, Snowbird would also implement several previously-approved projects that have either not been initiated or have yet to be completed. These projects are included in Alternative 2 – No Action (section 2.5.1). The effects of these projects would be additive with those of the Proposed Action or Preferred Alternative.

101

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.1 RECREATION

3.5.1.1 Scope of Analysis

Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effects addressed in this analysis:

Issue 1: How would the proposed improvements collectively affect the overall capacity balance and functionality of Gad Valley?

Background: The proposed improvements would alter the current situation in Gad Valley in a number of ways. Night skiing would extend the timeframe within which the area is used. The addition of mountain bike trails would expand summer use. The Gad 2 upgrade would increase uphill capacity. The carpet lift would reduce open space at the base area. The Creekside Lodge expansion would increase the number of adaptive sports participants in the base area and elsewhere in Gad Valley. Staging for those using the Baby Thunder beginner area would also use limited space in the base area. Improvements to the Mid Gad restaurant and Creekside Lodge would increase the services available. Collectively, these changes could result in some capacity imbalance and adversely affect the functionality of the area.

Indicators: Quantitative analysis of the balance among key capacities, including uphill (lift), downhill (terrain), food service, and restrooms.

Analysis Area: Gad Valley and ski area-wide; focus of analysis is Gad Valley, with consideration of ski area-wide capacities and circulation as necessary to address this issue.

Issue 2: How would the proposed upgrade of Gad 2 lift affect the recreational setting in the Gad 2 pod?

Background: The proposed upgrade would increase the lift’s capacity, potentially delivering more skiers to the top of the pod’s trail system. The Gad 2 pod is favored by skiers seeking a less crowded experience, which could be diminished by increased skier densities. Snowbird skiers also use the Gad 2 lift to access popular backcountry terrain in Scottie’s Bowl and White Pine Canyon. Any increase in use of this terrain could impact the recreational experience of backcountry recreationists.

Indicators: Quantitative analysis of lift and trail capacity, and qualitative assessment of other aspects of the recreational setting, including then type of experience offered and backcountry access.

Analysis Area: Gad Valley pod and access routes to Scottie’s Bowl and White Pine Canyon.

Issue 3: Are the sites proposed for the beginner area and adaptive skiing in the Gad Valley base area appropriate to their anticipated functions?

Background: The proposed Baby Thunder beginner area is about 2,000 feet from the Creekside Lodge, the point from which skiers would access it. The intervening terrain does not provide a continuous glide angle either to or from the area, and the anticipated users include people on skis for the first time as well as adaptive sports participants. As a result, a snow coach or other vehicle would be needed to transport skiers between the isolated beginner area and the Gad Valley base. Introducing over-the-snow vehicles into the Gad Valley base area could increase congestion and possible safety concerns. The conveyor lift would also reduce open space at the base area. This could reduce the effectiveness and utilization of the beginner area.

102 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Indicators: Space-use analysis of Gad valley base area, and skier circulation assessment.

Analysis Area: Gad Valley.

The term “skiers” in the context of this analysis refers to all guests using the mountain facilities at Snowbird, including alpine skiers, telemark skiers, and snowboarders.

3.5.1.2 Affected Environment

3.5.1.2.1 Capacity Overview The skiable terrain at Snowbird is currently served by a jig-back aerial tramway, 10 aerial chair lifts, and one surface tow for beginners. The hourly capacity of the lift system is 15,765 people per hour (pph). The hourly lift capacity has increased by 33 percent since the MDP was revised in 1999.

Skiable terrain within the Snowbird boundary (roughly 2,500 acres) encompasses a network of nearly 100 developed ski trails, covering approximately 1,000 acres. In addition to the developed ski trails, lift- served skiable terrain also includes tree skiing and naturally open slopes, chutes, and bowls. This off- piste terrain comprises about an additional 1,000 acres within the ski-area boundary. There is additional hike-to ski terrain within the ski-area boundary. Skier densities tend to be lower than industry standards in the off-piste terrain because access is often difficult, the level of difficulty is expert to extreme, and it is not groomed. The terrain at Snowbird accommodates the entire range of skier ability levels from beginner to expert and extreme.

The ski area’s lift and terrain system has the capacity to accommodate a finite number of visitors. This is expressed as the Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC), a planning term which is a calculated estimate of the number of visitors that can be accommodated on the mountain, given the amount of skiable terrain and the capacity of the lift system accessing it, while maintaining a quality skiing experience on a daily basis. Knowing their CCC allows the ski area to assess the size and location of skier support services needed to offer a balanced recreational experience, including food service seating, retail, sanitary facilities, and parking/transit. A good balance among on-mountain facilities and skier services results in uniform distribution of visitors throughout the ski area.

CCC is an estimate of the potential capacity of a ski area and does not represent actual visitation. For example, installing a higher capacity chairlift does not necessarily translate to a commensurate increase in the utilization of that chairlift. Beyond that, the skier market may demand high-capacity lifts or other updated facilities, so ski areas may be compelled to make capacity improvements in order to meet market expectations and simply maintain their clientele. While increased visitation may be an objective, upgrading facilities is also an important component in maintaining market share in a competitive environment

Snowbird’s current CCC is estimated to be about 6,100 skiers, and the CCC approved through their 1999 MDP revision is 6,817. The difference is due to deviations of various kinds during MDP implementation since 1999, such as changes in the actual capacity of new lifts relative to what was approved in the MDP. Actual skier visitation at Snowbird has historically been lower than the calculated CCC. Over the past 12 years, the peak or busiest day of the ski season has ranged between 5,400 and 7,100 skiers, averaging about 6,300 skiers per day. The 10th busiest day of the ski season, often considered the “design day” and thus comparable to the CCC, has ranged between 4,200 and 5,500 skiers, averaging 4,960 skiers, over the same time period. In short, actual use ski-area-wide is less than the currently analyzed and approved capacity.

103

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

As indicated in Figure 3-3, there has been no clear trend in Snowbird’s peak-day numbers. Design-day figures show a clearer trend of slow growth over 12 years, but they remain well below both the current and approved CCC.

It should be noted that ski-area improvements that boost CCC (e.g., new lifts, lift upgrades, and terrain development) are not necessarily implemented to accommodate more skiers and may not serve that function. There are several reasons for this:

 Demand in the skier market is finite at any given time, and the biggest influence on a ski area’s visitation figures by far is snow quality and timing. Improvements are generally undertaken to allow the ski area to capitalize on highly variable demand.  Skiers’ preferences change as new technology becomes the accepted norm. As a result, ski areas must stay up to date in order to maintain their clientele if not add to it.  Ski areas tend to specialize in marketing a particular type of recreational experience – perhaps uncrowded skiing on less developed terrain, or deluxe, state-of-the-art amenities. CCC may be secondary to these goals.  In the case of lift replacements, the reliability and repair costs of aging lift systems may drive replacement for both economic and skier satisfaction reasons.  CCC calculations are generally based on the “design capacity” of lifts – the maximum capacity they can be operated at. In practice, ski areas typically operate lifts at substantially lower speeds, often reducing capacity by 25 percent or more, in order to increase loading efficiency and decrease wear and tear on the machinery, reduce operating costs, and meet desired capacity balances of skiable terrain.

In this light, it is interesting to note that since the last MDP revision in 1999, Snowbird’s total, hourly lift capacity has increased by about 33 percent, while design-day visitation (i.e., 10th busiest day of the season) has increased by only 17 percent. Snowbird personnel have observed that the high-capacity lifts tend to have shorter lift lines, more people on the lifts themselves, and a slight increase in people on the trails. Before the advent of high-speed detachable chairlifts, a 10-minute lift line was considered an acceptable lift line wait, and that was the figure used in CCC calculations in the 1999 FEIS and current MDP. Since high-speed detachable lifts have become the norm, skier expectations have changed such that a 5-minute lift line is considered more acceptable in today’s skier market. The 5-minute figure was used in calculations for this analysis.

Currently, skier support services are provided at Snowbird Center, Mid Gad Restaurant, Creekside Lodge, and the Cliff Lodge. The 1999 FEIS and ROD highlighted the limited capacity of the skier support services, particularly food service seating, at Snowbird. The 1999 MDP addressed this gap primarily through development of a new facility on Hidden Peak and a larger Creekside Lodge than has been completed to date. Both of these projects are part of the No-Action Alternative considered in this analysis.

104 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 3-3. Peak-day and design-day skier numbers at Snowbird, 2000 – 2012.

3.5.1.2.2 Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality Mountain Facilities The Gad Valley ski pod is the westernmost of Snowbird’s three major pods. It contains six chairlifts, as shown in Table 3-27. The total hourly capacity of the Gad Valley lift system is 7,125 people per hour (pph), about 40 percent of the lift capacity of the entire ski area.

The current skiable terrain in Gad Valley encompasses a network of about 44 developed ski trails, covering approximately 277 acres. With the exception of a lack of true beginner terrain, these trails accommodate a range of skier ability levels from novice to expert. In addition to the developed trails, skiable terrain also includes lift-accessed off-piste terrain, including tree skiing, chutes and bowls, comprising an additional roughly 200 acres. Hike-to ski terrain on Thunder Ridge and Defiance Ridge is also accessible from Gad Valley (see section 3.5.1.2.3). Consistent with Forest Service policy, Snowbird has an open boundary policy, and the Gad 2 lift is utilized by some skiers seeking access to backcountry areas outside of the permitted boundary, including Scotty’s Bowl and lower White Pine.

105

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-27. Gad Valley existing Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density.

Acceptable Acceptable Hourly Developed Total Skiers on Lift Life Total Trail Capacity Terrain CCC Skiers* Trails** Name Type Density Density (PPH) (ac.) (Skiers/ac.) (Skiers/ac.) (Skiers/ac.) (Skiers/ac.) Fixed Mid Gad 1,025 20.4 420 21 39 5 11 Dbl. Gad- Det. 2,000 50.6 810 16 38 6 11 zoom Quad Fixed Gad 2 1,200 64.8 460 7 26 1 8 Dbl. Little Fixed 1,800 117.1 410 3 16 1 5 Cloud Dbl. Baby Fixed 1,100 24.1 330 14 35 5 10 Thunder Dbl. Total - 7,125 277 2,430 9 31 3 9 *Total number of skiers in the pod (in lift line, riding lift, skiing, milling, or occupying facilities). **Skiers actually on trails.

The CCC of the existing lift and terrain system in the Gad Valley is estimated to be 2,360 skiers. On a day with this number of skiers, the average number of skiers per acre in total (i.e., in lift lines, riding lifts, skiing, milling, or in skier support facilities) is about nine, with a trail density of two skiers per acre. This compares to a density based on accepted industry standards of about 31 skiers per acre overall and eight per acre on trails.

These low skier-density figures reflect low uphill or lift capacity relative to the amount of skiable terrain. Snowbird is known in the skier market for “big mountain” type skiing with uncrowded conditions, so maintaining low densities is a management objective. Gad Valley offers a recreational experience consistent with this area-wide character.

Skier Support Services Currently, skier support services in Gad Valley are provided by Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge. Gad Valley skiers also avail themselves of the skier services at Snowbird Center and to a lesser degree the Cliff Lodge, both some distance from Gad Valley. Generally speaking, and as concluded in the 1999 EIS, skier support services in Gad Valley have been undersized relative to skier demand. The 1999 MDP addressed this gap primarily through development of a new facility on Hidden Peak and a larger Creekside Lodge than has been partially completed to date. Both of these projects are part of the No-Action Alternative considered in this analysis.

Mid Gad Restaurant was constructed in 1971 and is one of the original buildings at Snowbird. The building has approximately 9,600 square feet of enclosed space on two levels. It exhibits the unique architectural style characteristic at Snowbird with heavy beam and glass construction providing dramatic views of Little Cottonwood Canyon. The restaurant is very popular and highly utilized during the ski season. However, many of the functions are substantially undersized and poorly laid out relative to skier

106 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements demand. Seating capacity is a major constraint, as discussed below. The restaurant is well-placed, with easy access but out of the mainstream skier flow.

Creekside Lodge opened in 2006. The 1999 ROD approved a 12,500-square-foot building, but its current size is 8,500 square feet. This represents the first phase of the building. The remaining 4,000 square feet would be developed under the No-Action Alternative. Creekside Lodge has proven to very popular with skiers at Snowbird. It offers full skier support services including ticketing, food service, seating, restrooms, rentals/retail, ski school, and lockers, reducing the need for skiers to go up to Snowbird Center for these services. At 8,500 square feet, the building and services are also undersized relative to the skier capacity of the Gad Valley lifts and trails.

Creekside Lodge is very close to the lower terminal and queue for Gadzoom lift. From the ski side of the restaurant, a relatively narrow pedestrian corridor accesses the deck and is only about 25 feet in width. On busy days skier circulation is somewhat constrained as a result of the limited space in this area. There is currently little space for other activities beyond circulation to and from Creekside Lodge.

Total square footage of the two skier service buildings is 18,100.

Seating and Restroom Facilities Food service seating capacity is determined by the number of available seats multiplied by the turnover rate (i.e., the number of people consecutively occupying each seat during a given serving period, typically lunch at ski areas). A turnover rate of three to five times is the standard range utilized in determining restaurant capacity. Guidelines established by the Forest Service recommend a seat turnover rate of three, and this rate was used in the 1999 FEIS and this analysis. Table 3-28 shows the current food service seating in Gad Valley.

A total of 290 indoor food service seats are provided at Mid Gad and Creekside Lodge. Note that another 50 outdoor seats are also provided at Creekside. Because these seats cannot be used on a consistent basis due to weather, they have not been factored into this analysis. However, the ski area also provides a certain amount of outdoor seating for occasions when warmer temperatures prevail.

Table 3-28. Current Gad Valley food service seating, Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge. CCC 2,360 Average Seat Turnover 3 Total Seats Required 787 Total Seats Available 290 Difference -497

Based on these figures, Gad Valley has a seating capacity of 870 skiers (i.e., 290 seats times a turnover rate of three). If daily skier visits reach the CCC of 2,360, a deficit of 497 seats would exist. Although Snowbird does not routinely reach or exceed their estimated CCC, the current utilization patterns indicate a substantial seating shortfall in Gad Valley. This deficit forces skiers who otherwise might stay in Gad Valley up to Snowbird Center, exacerbating existing skier circulation constraints and congestion at Snowbird Center.

107

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-29 outlines the existing number restroom facilities in Gad Valley. These are close to the standards recommended by the Forest Service, with a limited number of shortages. They appear to be adequate on typical ski day at Snowbird but would be somewhat undersized on days approaching CCC.

Table 3-29. Current Gad Valley restroom facilities and recommendations. Urinals Men’s Toilets Sinks Women’s Toilets Sinks Existing 8 8 9 15 8 Recommended 9 9 7 10 12 Difference -1 -1 2 5 -4

3.5.1.2.3 Gad 2 Pod Recreational Setting As discussed above, skier densities on Snowbird’s skiable terrain are intentionally low relative to industry standards, and this holds true for Gad Valley. As indicated by Table 3-27, trail density in the Gad 2 pod on a design-day is one skier per acre, lower than the industry standard of six and lower than any other Gad Valley pod except the adjacent Little Cloud pod. This low density attracts skiers who enjoy the uncrowded experience to Gad 2. High densities do occur around the convergence of Bananas and Bassackwards ski runs, above the lower lift terminal. The low capacity of Gad 2 lift (1,200 pph, but generally operated at less to facilitate loading and off-loading or for other operational reasons) may help limit skier density on the pod’s trail system.

Also as discussed above, skiable terrain at Snowbird and in Gad Valley includes hike-to areas and areas outside of the SUP boundary that are accessible from the ski area. From the Gad 2 lift, skiers can ascend a boot-pack trail up to Thunder Ridge. From the ridge they can access hike-to areas within the ski area boundary on the east side of the ridge and can also leave the ski area and drop into the adjacent White Pine Canyon on the west side or ski down the ridge to Scottie’s Bowl. Both of these areas are popular with backcountry users. Both White Pine Canyon and Scottie’s Bowl are also within Wasatch Powderbird Guides heli-ski permit area.

The upper slopes of Gad Valley, within the ski area boundary but generally not directly accessible from the lifts, comprise numerous avalanche starting zones which must be stabilized before the terrain below can be opened to the public. The boot-pack trail from the top of Gad 2 to Thunder Ridge traverses through such terrain. Snowbird closes the trail during periods of high avalanche hazard, until adequate control work can be completed. Snowbird does not conduct avalanche forecasting or control activities outside of their permit boundary.

Regardless of how they access it, skiers in White Pine Canyon and Scottie’s Bowl seek a backcountry recreation experience, including solitude and untracked snow. The solitude aspect may be more important to the recreational experience of those accessing these areas under their own power rather than via Snowbird or helicopter.

108 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.1.2.4 Beginner Facilities The 1999 FEIS and MDP recognize Snowbird’s shortage of true beginner terrain – lifts serving gentle slopes suitable for skiers’ very first outings and for skiers with physical challenges. Currently, the Chickadee pod, in the corridor between Snowbird Center and the Cliff Lodge, addresses this need. However, the area is small and relatively steep for first-timers.

Adaptive sports participants also need appropriate beginner facilities to introduce them to sliding sports, and such facilities should be near the indoor and outdoor space allocated to training and storage and mobilization of specialized equipment. Space for the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program hosted by Snowbird in the vicinity of Chickadee pod is extremely limited, particularly given the congestion in and around Snowbird Center on busy days.

3.5.1.3 Environmental Consequences

3.5.1.3.1 Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality Alternative 1 - Proposed Action

Mountain Facilities Under the Proposed Action, lift hourly capacity in Gad Valley would increase to 8,475 pph (19 percent over current conditions), as indicated in Table 3-30. Ski terrain would increase by about 3 acres, and the CCC would increase by about 150 skiers for a Gad Valley CCC of 2,510 (3 percent increase). Overall skier density would remain about the same at nine skiers per acre, but trail density would increase to three. In the Gad 2 pod, overall skier density would remain at seven skiers per acre but trail density would double to two skiers per acre. Specifics of this alternative are as follows.

Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area Developing a beginner skiing area at the Baby Thunder site would add approximately 2.4 acres of terrain and three surface conveyors dedicated to beginner and adaptive sports skiers. As indicated above, true beginner terrain at Snowbird is lacking, and it is an important component of a full-service ski-area experience. This beginner area would enhance the range of ability levels served at Snowbird and Gad Valley. A well designed and laid-out beginner area would help to promote and encourage skiing as a recreational activity on public lands.

The three conveyor lifts are anticipated to have a maximum capacity of about 25 to 50 skiers each. Typically, ski areas employ conveyors in the context of a lesson with and instructor. The capacity of the Baby Thunder Beginner Area would be dependent primarily on the capacity of the snow coach to transport beginner skiers back and forth between Creekside Lodge and the beginner area.

Impacts associated with siting the beginner area at the Baby Thunder location are discussed in section 3.5.1.3.3 below.

109

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-30. Gad Valley Proposed Action Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density.

Total Acceptable Acceptable Hourly Developed Skiers on Lift Skiers* Total Trail Lift Name Capacity Terrain CCC Trails** Type (Skiers/ Density Density (PPH) (ac.) (Skiers/ac.) ac.) (Skiers/ac.) (Skiers/ac.) Fixed Mid Gad 1,025 20.4 420 20 39 5 10 Dbl. Det. Gad-zoom 2,000 50.6 810 14 38 6 10 Quad Det. Gad 2 1,800 64.8 480 7 26 2 6 Quad Little Det. 1,800 117.1 410 3 16 1 4 Cloud Quad Baby Fixed 1,100 24.1 240 10 35 5 9 Thunder Dbl. Beginner Conv. Area 500 2.5 125 46 50 20 13 Conveyors (3) Base Area Conv. 250 0.2 25 50 50 20 13 Conveyor Total 8,475 280 2,510 9 34 3 8 *Total number of skiers in the pod (in lift line, riding lift, skiing, milling, or occupying facilities). **Skiers actually on trails.

Conveyor Lift in Gad Valley The conveyor lift in Gad Valley would complement the Baby Thunder Beginner Area in that it would provide a good learning environment for first-time skiers, including children and adaptive sports participants, before they venture to the more distant beginner area itself. The location is just southwest of the Gadzoom lift bottom terminal, out of the primary skier circulation patterns at the Gad Valley base. It could be fenced off from other skier traffic without compromising space for circulation. It is near Creekside Lodge and so provides easy staging for participants in Wasatch Adaptive Sports, which would be housed in the lodge. It would provide continued opportunities for beginner and adaptive skiers when low skier visits may not justify operation of the Baby Thunder Beginner Area.

Overall, the relationship between the conveyer lift and associated terrain, the Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area, Creekside Lodge, and the Gad Valley parking lot improves ease of access and could provide expanded learning opportunities for beginner skiers.

110 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Night Skiing on Gadzoom Night skiing would add a new element to the recreation experience offered at Snowbird. It would extend the experience for day skiers and overnight guests, and it would provide an opportunity for those unable to ski during day-time operating hours, including Wasatch Front students and working people. Night skiing is offered within Snowbird’s competitive market at Brighton and Park City Mountain Resort.

An important component of night skiing is the ability to accommodate race training. Currently race training is held early in the morning, prior to opening the ski area to the public. Night skiing would allow for operating the race program within an extended schedule.

Night skiing would require only installation of lights, as all remaining infrastructure requirements are in place. It would allow for increased utilization of Creekside Lodge. Night skiing would be susceptible to the same issues that impact day use, including avalanche hazards and road closures.

With a limit of 20 acres of skiable terrain for night skiing, evening utilization of this pod would be limited to about 500 skiers at one time, assuming acceptable skier densities.

Gad 2 Upgrade The installation of an upgraded, higher-capacity lift would increase the potential CCC of the Gad 2 pod. Current CCC is about 460 skiers at one time. With the lift upgrade CCC would increase to 480. This increase is based on the assumption that the increase in hourly capacity would not result in a commensurate increase in the skier utilization of this lift but would decrease lift lines consistent with market expectations. As indicated previously Snowbird has seen an average increase in daily skier visits of about 17 percent after capacity upgrade of 33 percent of their entire lift system since 1999. There is no reason to expect a change in that pattern of utilization with this lift upgrade.

Impacts of this lift upgrade on the recreational setting in Gad 2 pod are discussed in section 3.5.1.3.2 below.

Mountain Bike Trails Under the Proposed Action, Snowbird’s mountain bike trail network would increase by about 10 miles for a total of 27 miles, including hike/bike trails. The new trails would not affect Gad Valley capacity balance and functionality, as summer visitation and trail use is far below winter visitation and use, even with some visitor service facilities, including the Creekside and Mid Gad day lodges, closed during low-use periods. An expanded mountain bike trail system would broaden the range of summer recreation opportunities at Snowbird and increase summer utilization of the ski area. Since the new trails would be lift-served, there would be an increase in the utilization of lifts at Snowbird.

Skier Support Services The Proposed Action would increase the available space in both Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge from a combined total of 18,100 square feet to 32,800 square feet, an increase of 81 percent as discussed below.

Baby Thunder Yurt The Baby Thunder yurt would provide an important component in the ski experience at Baby Thunder pod, particularly given its isolation from other skier support services in Gad Valley. Typically, yurts range from 200 to 700 square feet in size, and this one would include hot and cold beverage services and porta-potty restrooms. However it would not add appreciably to the facility deficit defined in section 3.5.1.2.2 because it would only be accessible to the limited number of skiers in the Baby Thunder Beginner Area and adjacent Baby Thunder pod.

111

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation to Lower Gad Valley Pump Station The snowmaking pump house is adjacent to the Ski School Lane trail, which is the primary run for skiers from Snowbird Center to ski down to Gad Valley. Snowmaking operations at the pump house do not appear to appreciably impact skier circulation. There may be very limited conflicts with skiers and snowmaking personal on snow machines when operations take place during the ski day.

Lift operations and maintenance are proposed to be relocated from Snowbird Center to this location. Moving these functions from Snowbird Center would improve the efficiency of this important component of mountain operations, free up much needed space at Snowbird Center, and provide easy access to the mountain for lift maintenance personnel. Expansion of this facility to include lift operations would expand the footprint and frontage exposure along the ski trail by an additional 100 linear feet. There would be an increase in mountain operations activities with more employee and vehicular traffic, in particular when delivery of parts and equipment occurred. Increasing the intensity of mountain operations at this location has the potential to increase conflicts with skier traffic on Ski School Lane.

Creekside Lodge The 1999 ROD authorized Creekside Lodge to reach 12,500 square feet at build-out, 4,000 square feet beyond its current, Phase 1 size. Under the Proposed Action, the building would increase by an additional 7,500 square feet for a total of 20,000 square feet. The additional square footage would allow Creekside Lodge to accommodate a greater number of skiers, including additional seating as noted below, and generally provide a better balance between the mountain and base-area capacities. Further, the additional square footage would allow for relocation of the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program from Snowbird Center. This is an important program in providing recreational experiences for people with a range of physical challenges on NFS lands and is consistent with Forest Service direction in providing opportunities for all segments of society.

Locating the adaptive sports program in Gad Valley would improve the level of service offered by this program, as Creekside Lodge is located adjacent to the Gad Valley skier drop-off and parking, and transitioning from the lodge to the slopes is easier than at Snowbird Center. Finally, the variety of terrain offerings in Gad Valley is better suited to the adaptive sports program.

The increase in the building size would not compromise skier and pedestrian circulation around Creekside Lodge, as the expansion is not in the snow frontage area. However, the accessible ramp from the deck to the snow front would project into the primary circulation route on the slope side of the lodge. Currently the edge of deck is approximately 25 feet from the fenced Gadzoom lift queue. The accessible ramp is located in the direct skier pathway to the lodge and would consume some space used for circulation to the building. Skier circulation could be further inhibited by the staging of beginner skiers loading and unloading from the snow coach going to and from the Baby Thunder Beginner Area (see section 3.5.1.3.3).

Remodel of Mid Gad Restaurant The overall shortage of space for skier support services at Mid Gad is highlighted in section 3.5.1.2.2. Currently there is a notable lack of space and seating in this popular restaurant. The restaurant is proposed to be increased by 3,200 square feet, an increase of 33 percent. This would allow for much needed additional seating as noted below. The space utilized for the existing retail operation would be incorporated into the space needed for seating and a much smaller footprint for retail is proposed.

Increasing the square footage at Mid Gad would clearly improve the capacity balance between skier services in Gad Valley and the mountain facilities. The expansion is within the existing footprint and would not impact space for skier circulation.

112 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Seating and Restroom Facilities The Proposed Action includes expansions of both Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge. These expansions would provide an increase in food service seating, circulation, and other skier services. Food service seating has been identified as an important shortfall in Gad Valley (section 3.5.1.2.2) and is proposed to increase from 97 seats to 200 seats at Creekside Lodge and from 193 to 300 seats at Mid Gad for a total of 500 seats, as noted on Table 3-31. At a turnover rate of three, this indicates a capacity of 1,500 skiers.

Table 3-31. Proposed Action food service seating, Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge. CCC 2,510 Average Seat Turnover 3 Total Seats Required 837 Total Seats Available 500 Difference -336

While still indicating a deficit due in part to the increase in CCC under the Proposed Action, the added seating would provide a better balance between mountain capacity and skier support services capacity and help to retain skiers in Gad Valley.

Table 3-32 illustrates the increase in demand for restroom facilities in Gad Valley. Based upon the CCC of 2,510 skiers per day, certain restroom facilities would be slightly more undersized on days when skier visits reach or exceed CCC.

Table 3-32. Proposed Action restroom facilities. Urinals Men Toilets Sinks Woman Sinks Toilets Total Existing 8 8 9 15 8 Total Required 10 10 7 10 13 Difference -2 -2 2 5 -5

Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality Summary Overall, the Proposed Action would result in improved capacity balance between the mountain facilities and skier services in Gad Valley. Mountain facility capacity would increase from 2,360 to 2,510. Based on food service seating, the main limiting factor, skier support facility capacity would go from about 870 skiers to 1,500 skiers, an increase of about 72 percent, exclusive of the Hidden Peak facility. Skier circulation would be improved because the increase in Gad 2 lift capacity would effectively reduce lift line waits.

113

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The development of a beginner skiing and teaching area would broaden the range of skier ability levels accommodated in Gad Valley, offering a better match with the skier market. A beginner area in Gad Valley would also benefit overall skier and pedestrian circulation at Snowbird as it would reduce the number of skiers going up to Snowbird Center, which currently experiences congestion on busy days throughout the ski season.

On the limited days when skier visitation approached CCC, pedestrian and skier circulation on the snowfront side of Creekside Lodge would be somewhat constrained by the addition of the accessible ramp. Skier circulation would be further complicated by the staging area for skiers departing to and returning from the Baby Thunder Beginner Area. Staging for the adaptive sports program may further constrain skier circulation around Creekside Lodge. In the currently proposed location, the base area conveyor lift should not noticeably impede circulation.

Alternative 2 – No Action The Purpose and Need section of the 1999 FEIS (section 1.2.2) and the analysis of recreation impacts (section 4.7.3) address the recreational rationale and impacts of the projects included in this No-Action Alternative, including those associated with capacity balance and functionality in Gad Valley. New information and changed circumstances considered in this analysis include the partial implementation of the elements approved in the 1999 ROD and the actual trends in skier visitation observed since that time. These factors, as they relate to the recreation issues addressed in this analysis, are considered in this analysis of capacity balance and functionality in Gad Valley as well as in analysis of impacts on the recreational setting of the Gad 2 pod (section 3.5.1.3.2) and the siting of the beginner skiing area (section 3.5.1.3.3).

Mountain Facilities Under the No-Action Alternative, lift hourly capacity would remain at 7,125 pph as a result of the Little Cloud lift upgrade to a detachable quad (see Table 3-33). New ski terrain would not increase, and the CCC would remain at 2,430. Overall density in Gad Valley would remain essentially the same, at nine skiers per acre, but trail density would increase to four. Similarly, overall density in the Gad 2 pod would remain at seven skiers per acre with a trail density of one skier per acre.

The Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area would not be built under this alternative. The benefits of a dedicated beginner/teaching area with conveyors and terrain appropriate to beginner skiers would not be realized. The shortfall in appropriate, dedicated beginner facilities at Snowbird would continue to be a constraint.

The lack of a conveyor lift and beginner terrain adjacent to the Creekside Lodge would mean the benefits described under the Proposed Action would not be realized.

Night skiing would not be initiated in Gad Valley under this alternative, and the opportunity to extend skiing into the evening hours in Gad Valley would not be provided to the skier population, though night skiing would continue in the Chickadee area. The race team would maintain their current training schedule.

The Gad 2 Upgrade would not take place. On days approaching CCC, lift lines would continue to be similar to existing conditions, although the new, upgraded Little Cloud lift may shift limited skier pressure off of Gad 2. Under this alternative, skiers would continue to enjoy the relatively uncrowded skier experience of the Gad 2 pod.

114 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-33. Gad Valley No-Action Alternative Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density. Acceptable Total Acceptable Hourly Developed Skiers on Trail Lift Lift Skiers* Total Capacity Terrain CCC Trails** Density Name Type (Skiers/ Density (PPH) (ac.) (Skiers/ac.) (Skiers/ ac.) (Skiers/ac.) ac.) Mid Fixed 1,025 20.4 420 21 39 5 10 Gad Dbl. Gad- Det. 2,000 50.6 810 16 38 5 10 zoom Quad Fixed Gad 2 1,200 64.8 460 7 26 1 6 Dbl. Little Det. 1,800 117.1 410 4 16 1 4 Cloud Quad Baby Fixed 1,100 24.1 330 14 35 5 9 Thunder Dbl. Total - 7,125 277 2,430 9 31 4 8

*Total number of skiers in pod (in lift line, riding lift, skiing, milling). **Skiers actually on trails.

New mountain bike trails would not be built. The total trail length would remain at 17 miles, and Snowbird would not offer additional mountain biking opportunities for varying levels of users or varying types of uses, such as downhill and freeriding. There would not be an opportunity to increase summer lift utilization for mountain bike operations.

Regarding on-mountain projects that are included in the No-Action Alternative, some of the snowmaking system improvements would be in Gad Valley, with Election trail a priority. These improvements would not affect capacity balance but would increase the overall functionality of Gad Valley’s on-mountain infrastructure by reducing bottlenecks associated with inadequate snow cover in high-wear areas.

Completion of the Cat Staging would not have any major effect but would reduce snowcat crossings of the Gad Valley parking lot and road, improving circulation in those areas.

Upgrade of Little Cloud to a detachable quad chairlift with an hourly capacity of 1,800 pph was completed in fall of 2012. The lift serves about 120 acres of skiable terrain and also provides access to Mineral Basin, and thus to Hidden Peak. The capacity of Little Cloud, as a fixed double, yielded a pod CCC of 340 skiers. Skier densities were low at three per acre overall and one per acre on the ski trails. Increasing the pod’s uphill capacity increased CCC to about 410 skiers, an increase of 70 skiers and the resultant trail density is slightly higher than the existing average of one skier per acre, compared to an industry standard of four. This upgrade resulted in a slight increase in CCC but, as previously indicated, the primary benefits are reduced lift lines and time riding the lift as well as improved access to Mineral Basin.

115

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The Barrier Free Trail Extension is proposed to improve summer recreational opportunities for visitors with physical challenges and would not affect Gad Valley’s capacity balance or functionality in terms of skiing.

The Madam Annie’s Modification would increase a trail-width constriction leading to the top of West 2nd South and improve capacity and access through this area to the Gad Valley base. This would improve skier access and circulation in the Gad Valley.

The existing skier access from the upper elevation terrain in Gad Valley, culminating at Mid Gad, to the top of Big Emma has been an area of high traffic and congestion at Snowbird for many years. In places this skiway is only 25 feet in width and constrains the skier traffic from the upper mountain terrain to Big Emma and Snowbird base areas. The Skier’s Access to Upper Emma project would widen this trail and reduce skier, allowing for increased skier capacity and improving functionality in Gad Valley.

The Blackjack Road Modification and the Peruvian Snowmaking/Utility Corridor projects would not affect capacity balance or functionality.

Skier Support Services Under the No-Action Alternative, several skier-service projects would not occur. The Baby Thunder Yurt would not be built, and the opportunity to offer skier support services in this isolated ski pod would not be realized.

The Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation would not take place. Retaining these functions at Snowbird Center would avoid any potential impact on skier circulation in Gad Valley but would maintain current levels of congestion around the Center.

Mid Gad Restaurant of would not be remodeled. The existing seating shortfall and constraints to skier support services would continue in this area, causing circulation and crowding issues as skiers look for other skier-service options.

A couple of important improvements in skier support services would occur under the No-Action Alternative. The available space at Creekside Lodge would increase from 8,500 square feet to 12,500 square feet, as per the 1999 ROD, an increase of almost 50 percent. Restaurant seating and space for other skier services would be the same the Proposed Action, as the additional space under the Proposed Action would accommodate the adaptive sports program rather than general skier services. As a result, capacity balance would be improved by this project as described under the Proposed Action. The adaptive sports program would remain at Snowbird Center under more crowded and congested conditions.

Construction of the upgraded Hidden Peak structure approved in the 1999 ROD is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2013. It would offer a full range of skier support services in a building anticipated to be somewhat less than the authorized 50,000 square feet. This would improve the imbalances between mountain and skier-support services identified in the 1999 EIS and summarized above, and would improve skier circulation on the mountain. This new facility would likely become a destination in and of itself for visitors seeking the new experience and dramatic views afforded by this location.

The Hidden Peak facility would assist in reducing the capacity imbalances in Gad Valley in an indirect manner. None of the Gad Valley lifts access Hidden Peak directly, and the Hidden Peak structure would serve primarily skiers from the Tram and Mineral Basin lifts, as well as any who walk up from the Little Cloud lift. It can be assumed that some skiers would leave Gad Valley for the purpose of going to Hidden Peak to experience the opportunities outlined above, and many would leave the Hidden Peak facility to ski in Gad Valley.

116 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Seating and Restroom Facilities Expansion of Creekside Lodge would allow for an increase in seating, circulation, and other skier services. Restaurant seating, which has been identified as a constraint in Gad Valley, is proposed to increase from 97 seats to 200 seats at Creekside Lodge. Mid Gad Restaurant seating would remain the same, as indicated in Table 3-34.

Table 3-34. No-Action Alternative food service seating, Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge. Total Seating Gad Valley Total Visitor Capacity 2,430 Average Seat Turnover 3 Total Seats Required 810 Total Seats Available 393 Difference -417

The increase in seating would provide a much better balance between mountain capacity and skier- services capacity than currently exists. However, the capacity balance improvement would not be as extensive as the Proposed Action as the Mid Gad Restaurant would not be remodeled.

Table 3-35 illustrates that the static number of restroom facilities in Gad Valley would retain the same minor deficit as currently experienced. The slight increase in estimated CCC in this alternative suggests that demand for restroom facilities would further exceed the standards established for by the Forest Service.

Table 3-35. No-Action Alternative restroom facilities. Urinals Men Toilets Sinks Woman Sinks Toilets Total Existing 8 8 9 15 8 Total Required 10 10 7 10 12 Difference -2 -2 2 5 -4

Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality Summary Overall, the No-Action Alternative would result in a somewhat improved capacity balance between mountain facilities and skier services. CCC would increase slightly from 2,360 to 2,410 skiers, while skier services capacity would be increased from about 870 skiers to 1,179 skiers based on food service seating, an increase of about 35 percent, exclusive of the Hidden Peak facility.

117

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Expansion of the Creekside Lodge would improve the balance between mountain facilities and skier services. Constrained skier circulation between Gadzoom and the Creekside Lodge deck would remain the same as existing conditions. The lack of appropriate, dedicated beginner facilities at Snowbird would mean the ski area would not serve the full range of needs of the skier market.

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative

Mountain Facilities Under the Preferred Alternative, lift hourly capacity would be increased to 10,350 pph (45 percent over current conditions). As shown in Table 3-36, new ski terrain would be increased by 14 acres (0.1 percent), and the CCC would be increased to 2,680 skiers in Gad Valley (10 percent). Overall density in Gad Valley would remain at nine skiers per acre, but trail density would increase to three. Similarly, overall density in the Gad 2 pod would remain at seven skiers per acre but trail density would double to two.

The beginner skiing area, as discussed under the Proposed Action, would not be established across Little Cottonwood Creek from Baby Thunder pod. Instead, new beginner terrain and lifts would be developed in two areas adjacent to the Mid Gad chairlift as described below (see section 3.5.1.3.3) providing about 12.5 acres of beginner terrain. Two separate beginner areas would offer the benefits of accommodating a large number of beginner skiers, dispersing their impacts, and providing them a more varied experience.

The lack of a conveyor lift and beginner area adjacent to the Creekside Lodge would eliminate the potential for the benefits discussed for this project under the Proposed Action. There would be no base area facility to help first-time skiers and adaptive sports participants transition to the beginner areas higher in Gad Valley.

All other on-mountain improvement projects would be implemented as discussed under the Proposed Action with one exception. The roughly 5-mile Peruvian Gulch segment of the mountain bike trail would not be constructed. This would not affect Gad Valley capacity balance or functionality in the winter but could concentrate more use on the Gad Valley bike trails in the summer.

Skier Support Services Under the Preferred Alternative, the Baby Thunder yurt would be relocated across Little Cottonwood Creek to a mid-slope location in the Baby Thunder pod and would provide hot and cold beverage services and porta-potty restrooms. In this location, it would serve the needs of lower level skiers and the ski school program in Baby Thunder, which could improve utilization of this underutilized pod given its distance from other skier services in Gad Valley. Typically, yurts range from 200 to 700 square feet in size.

Under this alternative, the Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation to the lower Gad Valley pump station would not occur. These facilities would be incorporated into an expansion of the existing vehicle maintenance shop northeast of the Gad Valley parking lot. In this location, any potential circulation issues that could arise from the locating it adjacent to the snowmaking pump house would be eliminated.

Creekside Lodge and Mid Gad Restaurant would be expanded in a manner similar to the Proposed Action, although the Creekside Lodge footprint would be re-configured to avoid impacts on the Little Cottonwood Creek riparian corridor. Benefits to skier services, including food service seating and restroom facilities, would be the same as described under the Proposed Action. Some circulation constraints could occur as participants in the adaptive sports program exit Creekside Lodge and enter the general skier/ pedestrian circulation space between the lodge and the mountain.

118 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-36. Gad Valley Preferred Alternative Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier density.

Total Acceptable Acceptable Hourly Developed Skiers on Lift Skiers* Total Trail Lift Name Capacity Terrain CCC Trails** Type (Skiers/ Density Density (PPH) (ac.) (Skiers/ac.) ac.) (Skiers/ac.) (Skiers/ac.) Chon- Mid Gad 1,800 20.4 420 20 39 8 10 dola Det. Gad-zoom 2,000 50.6 710 14 38 5 10 Quad Det. Gad 2 1,800 64.8 480 7 26 2 6 Dbl. Fixed Little Cloud 1,800 117.1 410 3 16 1 4 Dbl. Fixed Baby Thunder 1,100 24.1 330 14 35 5 9 Dbl. Mid Gad Fixed 1,350 11.0 210 21 50 11 13 Midway Dbl. Mid Gad Conv. Midway 500 2.0 60 30 50 11 13 Conveyors (2) Mid Gad Top Conv. Con-veyors 500 2.0 60 30 50 29 13 (2) Total 10,350 291 2,680 9 36 3 9

*Total number of skiers in pod (in life line, riding lift, skiing, milling). **Skiers actually on trails.

Gad Valley Capacity Balance and Functionality Summary Overall, this alternative would result in an improved capacity balance between the mountain facilities and skier services similar to that described under the Proposed Action. Mountain facility capacity would be increased from 2,360 to 2,680, an increase of about 13 percent. Due to the Mid Gad Restaurant and Creekside Lodge expansions, skier services capacity would be increased from about 870 skiers to 1,500 skiers based on food service seating, an increase of about 72 percent, exclusive of the Hidden Peak facility.

Circulation constraints between Gadzoom and the Creekside Lodge deck may be exacerbated somewhat for the reasons discussed under the Proposed Action.

The benefits of developing a beginner/teaching area in Gad Valley would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action, and the two beginner locations, along with the replacement of Mid Gad chair with a user-friendly pulse lift, chondola (a hybrid lift offering detachable chairs and gondola cars) or

119

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

similar lift, would appear to allow Snowbird the opportunity to create a strong and dynamic skier education program in Gad Valley.

3.5.1.3.2 Gad 2 Pod Recreational Setting Alternative 1 – Proposed Action The additional skiers in Gad 2 pod resulting from the lift upgrade and trail improvements would increase the skier density on the trail system marginally, from one skier per acre to two (see Tables 3-17 and 3-30). However, the Gad 2 pod’s trail system offers skier densities that are substantially lower than accepted industry standards (i.e., two skiers per acres vs. a standard of six), and the possibility of adding only 20 skiers over the approximately 65 acres of skiable terrain in the pod would not notably alter the uncrowded nature of the skiing experience. It would however create a more efficient balance between lift and trail capacity.

Trails such as Bassackwards and Lunch Run would see higher densities than other trails in the Gad 2 pod because skiers exiting Gadzoom and Little Cloud pods would also ski Bassackwards or Lunch Run, thereby adding skiers to these trails as they proceed to other parts of the ski area. However, observations of skier circulation patterns on both trails do not indicate skier densities exceeding the industry standard of seven skiers per acre on these trails, based level of difficulty.

An additional circulation issue exists in the Gad 2 ski pod. The bulk of the terrain is expert. Skiers not of this ability level are often unable to negotiate this terrain comfortably. Snowbird attempted to rectify this problem by constructing Bananas trail which includes a series of switchbacks that reduce the grade of the trail, providing an “easy way down” for lower ability level skiers. However portions of Bananas are narrow, with limited line-of-sight, which has increased the congestion in those areas.

The increase in lift capacity due to the Gad 2 upgrade could have the effect of increasing this congestion. The proposed widening and slight straightening of these narrow portions of Bananas trail would facilitate skier circulation by effectively reducing skier density in this area. This would allow for improved skier flow as the wider trail would provide for greater skier comfort in negotiating the trail. Skiers would be less prone to stop or pause to view trail conditions. The trail would be widened from about 35 feet to approximately 100 feet, which would increase skier trail capacity by at least 50 percent.

With respect to backcountry access, higher lift capacity does not necessarily translate to more skiers hiking to undeveloped terrain in or out of bounds. The number of hiking skiers is not set by hourly capacity of a lift but by the number of skiers at Snowbird who seek backcountry terrain as part of their recreational experience. Skiers with the desire, capability, and equipment necessary to pursue this option are a fairly minor but growing component of the skier market, and increasing the hourly capacity of a chairlift does not directly translate to an increase in their numbers. Further, and as stated previously, the fact that a higher capacity lift is installed does not mean there would be a commensurate increase in skiers using the Gad 2 pod. Many factors other than lift capacity determine levels of use within a pod.

The Gad 2/Little Cloud Connector proposal would improve skier circulation through avoidance of a snow safety hazard. This would facilitate skier circulation from Gad 2 to other pods via Little Cloud lift which would reduce crowding and congestion and improve skier circulation in Gad Valley.

Alternative 2 – No Action Under the no-action scenario, the recreational experience provided by the Gad 2 pod would not change appreciably. Completion of the lift upgrade in the adjacent Little Cloud pod might attract some new

120 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements skiers to upper Gad Valley, some of whom would likely spend some time in Gad 2 pod as well. However, densities would remain far below industry standards.

Negotiating Bananas trail and moving from Gad 2 pod to the lower terminal of Little Cloud would remain difficult for skiers of lower ability level, particularly during less than ideal snow conditions.

The use of Gad 2 lift by skiers seeking access to backcountry terrain via the trail from the upper terminal would continue to increase marginally due to growth in the popularity of backcountry skiing.

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative Impacts on the recreational experience offered by the Gad 2 pod would be similar to those described above under the Proposed Action.

3.5.1.3.3 Beginner Facilities Alternative 1 – Proposed Action The Baby Thunder location for the proposed beginner skiing area is isolated from the base facilities at Snowbird. Most beginning skiers and adaptive sports participants using this area would have to use a snow-coach shuttle to travel to and from the Creekside Lodge staging area. This is less than ideal as beginner terrain should be readily accessible and have basic skier services reasonably close. However, the proposed location is positive in that beginners would be segmented from the rest of the skier population, which precludes the mixing of ability levels and provides a safe learning environment.

From a circulation standpoint, the fact that skiers would have to ride a snow coach would create a challenge to the operation of this pod of skiing. Skiers would need to load a snowcoach, be transported to the beginner area, unload, put on their ski equipment, and commence skiing. Logistically, it would take time to effectively load this pod of skiing. The space needed for skiers to stage and load the snow coach would add to congestion in the Creekside Lodge area. However, the snow coach would be in the Creekside area for only a short interval for pick-ups and drop offs, which would reduce the potential impact.

The establishment of this new beginner area would allow for an easy transition from the beginner area onto the Baby Thunder lift and trail system and realize better utilization of this pod, which is currently underutilized.

Alternative 2 – No Action Under this alternative, no new beginner skier facilities would be developed. Chickadee would continue to provide the only option for introducing beginners and adaptive ports participants to the sport. The shortcomings of this constraint are outlined above in section 3.5.1.2.4.

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative Under this alternative, beginner facilities would be developed within the existing Mid Gad pod. The Mid Gad lift would be replaced with a more beginner-friendly lift that was easier to load and off-load, such as a gondola, chondola, people-mover, or pulse-gondola, with a mid-way station similar to the existing lift. Much of this lift’s capacity would be dedicated to transporting skiers to and from the proposed beginner areas at the mid-way location and the upper location at the upper lift terminal. The terrain from the upper location to the base area is generally too steep for beginner skiers, so many would have to ride the lift down to the base area. Requiring beginners to ride a lift down from the beginner terrain is not an ideal situation regardless of the lift type installed.

121

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

A short chairlift, similar to Chickadee, would be located below the Mid Gad mid-way to serve an 11-acre area used for graduated teaching. The unload area would also contain two conveyor lifts near the site of the existing half-pipe, which would be removed. A second dedicated beginner area would be located at the top of the reconfigured Mid Gad lift in the treed meadow between the top terminal and Mid Gad Restaurant. This beginner terrain would comprise about 1 – 2 acres and be served by one or two conveyor lifts.

Locating this beginner infrastructure within the existing lift and trail system would have the benefit of resolving the access issues associated the isolated Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area, as described under the Proposed Action. Not having to accommodate the staging of beginner skiers with space required for a snow-coach shuttle would reduce the potential for conflicts with the existing skier and pedestrian circulation in the Creekside Lodge area.

The proposed relocation and grading of West 2nd South trail to improve access to the Baby Thunder pod would help integrate Snowbird’s beginner skiing/teaching facilities, as Baby Thunder is the logical next step from the new beginner area. The West 2nd South improvements would enhance the connection from the Gad Valley beginner area to the Baby Thunder pod.

Locating a beginner area at the Mid Gad mid-way area poses a potential mixing of skier ability levels, which should be avoided. However, the midway area is outside the main skier flow on Big Emma, and this risk would be further mitigated with appropriate signage and fencing (see mitigation measure REC 4, Appendix A). Development of this site would involve removal of the earthen super pipe currently at that location, eliminating that recreational opportunity at Snowbird.

The beginner area at the mid-way unload area does not offer skier services proximate to the teaching area, which could be a problem for some of these skiers. They would be required to take the lift up to the Mid Gad restaurant or down to Creekside Lodge for basic skier services, as the terrain between the mid way area and Creekside Lodge is too steep for beginner skiers.

The beginner area at the top of Mid Gad is located in an area completely out of the mainstream trail system and would be easy to isolate from the rest of the skier population. It would also be proximate to skier services at Mid Gad Restaurant and offer beginner skiers the experience of being in the upper mountain environment with the views afforded at Mid Gad.

In the event of a lift shutdown, skiers at the top of Mid Gad may be required to ski down terrain beyond their ability level or seek alternative means of transport. Similarly, skiers at the upper beginner area ready to transition over to more challenging terrain in the Baby Thunder area would need to get to the mid-way station in order to use the improved West 2nd South trail. In these cases, the ability to download the new Mid Gad lift would mitigate potential adverse impacts.

Overall, this option for development of beginner and adaptive sports infrastructure would be an improvement over the current situation, as well as the Baby Thunder option under the Proposed Action, for both functional and environmental reasons. However, the Mid Gad site’s distance from the base area, with lift access needed both to and from the area, is less than ideal. Given the limitations on appropriate terrain at Snowbird, this may be the most reasonable option.

3.5.1.3.4 Cumulative Effects The main cumulative action described in section 3.3 that has the potential to generate cumulative effects in terms of the recreation issues addressed here is Snowbird’s Mary Ellen Gulch expansion. While it is

122 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements part of Snowbird’s recently accepted MDP amendment, the details of the expansion have not been finalized at this time. Development of the Anna/Monte Cristo subdivision and implementation of Alta s MDP could also attract more visitors to upper Little Cottonwood Canyon.

To the extent that these projects generated increased skier visitation at Snowbird, they could result in higher levels of use in Gad Valley. This could put increased pressure on skier services and increase current and projected deficits in food service seating and restroom facilities, but construction of the new Hidden Peak structure (under the No-Action Alternative and both action alternatives) would likely offset any such impact.

Increased use of Gad Valley could also incrementally impact the recreational experience provided by the Gad 2 pod but, given the existing ratio of terrain to uphill capacity, skier densities would remain low. The Mary Ellen Gulch expansion would have no relevance to siting or function of the proposed beginner area.

3.5.2 HERITAGE RESOURCES

3.5.2.1 Scope of Analysis Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effect addressed in this analysis:

Issue: How would the proposed construction affect heritage resources potentially occurring in disturbance areas?

Background: Little Cottonwood Canyon has a rich mining history dating back to the late 1800s. The proposed construction activities could damage physical evidence of this heritage, particularly in the previously undisturbed sites of the Baby Thunder beginner area and the mountain bike trails.

Indicators: Survey and inventory of any cultural resources in the project area, including the built environment, that may be eligible for listing under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and assessment of potential impacts on such resources.

Analysis Area: Analysis of direct impacts focuses on the area of potential effect (APE) associated with the proposal projects. No indirect or cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Detailed analysis of potential impacts on heritage resources is available in the specialist report, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements Project, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah (Heritage Resources Report; Peart et al 2012), which is incorporated by reference and included in the Project Record. Background research for this project was completed at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Salt Lake City, Utah, and in the UWCNF GIS Historic Records database. That research determined that numerous cultural resource surveys had been previously conducted within a 1- mile search radius of the SUP area. The SHPO issued a letter of compliance with the findings of the Heritage Resources Report on November 1, 2012, and that letter is included in the Project Record.

3.5.2.2 Affected Environment The Snowbird Gad Valley Improvement Project is located in Little Cottonwood Canyon in an area that was used by Native Americans beginning about 8,000 years ago. They came into the upper reaches of the canyon on short-term forays to exploit seasonally abundant resources. This pattern of life continued until

123

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

the arrival of European-American settlers in the late 1840s. This resource-use pattern left few artifacts, and no Native American sites have been identified in or near the project area.

Little Cottonwood Canyon played an important role in the subsequent, historic development of the Salt Lake Valley. Economic resources including lumber, stone, and mineral resources first attracted Euroamerican exploration and use of the canyon beginning in early 1850s. For example, granite quarried from Little Cottonwood Canyon went to build both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Salt Lake Temple and the Utah Capitol Building. Additionally, lumber resources from the canyon were instrumental in the construction of buildings in Salt Lake City and the surrounding communities. These historic activities also included mining/prospecting, quarrying, logging, development projects, and recreation have all made a lasting mark within Little Cottonwood Canyon.

3.5.2.2.1 Lumber Industry The first commercial use of Little Cottonwood Canyon began in the late 1840s when early Mormon pioneers began to harvest lumber resources in the area (Keller 2001). Important lumbermen working in Little Cottonwood Canyon during the 1800s include William Crosby, Benjamin L. Clapp, Charles Drown, Jeter Clinton, Nathan Davis, and Bernard Snow. In 1851, the General Assembly (the then governing body of the region) granted Benjamin L. Clapp and Charles Drown the right to the timber resources of the Little Cottonwood Canyon to build sawmills, charge a toll for wood and poles, and to build roads. In 1853, the land grant was repealed and the ownership of the lumber resources was given to Jeter Clinton and associates. Clinton constructed a sawmill in the canyon by 1854, the same year he gave up his timber rights to Samuel Wooley. In 1868, to facilitate mining/quarrying in the canyon, Wooley constructed a steam-powered saw mill near where the town of Alta would later be built. Following 1851, lumber resources within Little Cottonwood Canyon were tied up by private ownership and, by the early 1900s, were managed by the Forest Service. Lumber from Little Cottonwood Canyon played an important role in the construction of the mining facilities within the Little Cottonwood Canyon Mining District and in the communities of the Salt Lake Valley (Keller 2001).

3.5.2.2.2 Mining and Quarrying Mining and prospecting in Little Cottonwood Canyon began during the early 1860s. Various accounts credit different persons with first discovering gold and other mineral resources in the canyon. One account suggests that Gen. Patrick E. Connor, then stationed at Fort Douglas, personally prospected and located ore in both Little Cottonwood and Big Cottonwood canyons in about 1864. Another account credits a group of solders lead by Lt. D.R. Firman, from the First Nevada Cavalry, as discovering a number of ore deposits on Emma Hill above Alta the same year. And yet another account, made by James Wall, credits Gen. Connor with allegedly sending soldiers from Fort Douglas to prospect Little Cottonwood Canyon.

Regardless, of who was the first to lay claim to the gold and other ore deposits in Little Cottonwood Canyon, it is clear that by the mid-1860s prospectors and miners worked many areas in the canyon (Keller 2001). Following the discovery of ore in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, miners organized into mining districts. These districts changed shape and size through the early years as prospectors located new ore deposits. The districts include the Wasatch Mountain Mining District (1863 to circa 1864), Mountain Lakes Mining District (1864 to 1871), Cottonwood Lakes Mining District (1868 to 1869), and finally Little Cottonwood Canyon Mining District (1869 to present; Keller 2001).

Dr. O.H. Congar established the first permanent mining community in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The camp was located adjacent to the first active smelter in the canyon and quickly became the base of early mining operations. By 1870 the camp became known as Galena City then later as Central City. By 1871,

124 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements the community of Alta was formed at the location of Samuel Wooley’s steam sawmill then owned by the Emma Silver Mining Company. The early community of contained hotels, general stores, tramways, bars, restaurants, and a newspaper. The town quickly became notorious for violence, prostitution, drinking, gambling, as well as for the numerous avalanche and mining disasters that plagued the community (Keller 2001).

Mining activities expanded in Little Cottonwood Canyon in 1871 when the Utah Central Railroad (between Ogden and Salt Lake City) built the Sandy Terminal. The following year the Wasatch and Jordan Valley Railroad Company began constructing a narrow-gauge railroad line connecting the Sandy Station to Little Cottonwood Canyon, specifically the Wasatch area. In 1873 the first locomotive use of the line began to transport granite from Little Cottonwood Canyon to the construction site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Salt Lake Temple (Keller 2001). In 1875, eastern investors purchased the Wasatch and Jordan Valley Railroad with the goal of continuing locomotive rail service to Alta. However, the route from Wasatch to Alta was too steep for locomotives of the day. The last leg of the rail line to Alta required the use of carts pulled by pack horses and mules. The railroad soon became so important to mining operations and the occupants at Alta, that beginning in 1876 a series of resilient wood snow sheds were built covering the tramway to protect the route from damages caused by the frequent avalanches (Keller 2001).

By 1913, the railroad from the Sandy Station to Wasatch was replaced by the Salt Lake and Alta Railroad Company’s railroad. The purpose of this new railroad was to transport granite for the Utah Capitol Building. In 1915, the Alta-Cottonwood Railroad Company began to replace the narrow-gauge railroad from Wasatch to Alta. This newly constructed railroad could handle locomotives, but could not handle heavy freight carts due to steep grades and sharp turns (Keller 2001). By 1928 the Alta-Cottonwood Railroad was out of service. Soon thereafter, in 1934, the Salt Lake and Alta Railroad Company’s railroad was abandoned. With the abandonment of railroad service coupled with the Great Depression mining activities effectively signaled the decline of the mining industry in the Little Cottonwood Canyon (Keller 2001).

A total of 93 acres were intensively pedestrian inventoried for this project in September 2011 and August 2012. This inventory identified 10 isolated finds (IF01-10) and two archaeological sites (42SL661 and 42SL662). IF01 and IF02 are both located within the Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area. IF03 through IF10 and the two archaeological sites are all located along the proposed Mountain Biking Trails, specifically the trail through Peruvian Gulch. No cultural resources were identified within the other project areas affected by the Proposed Action or Preferred Alternative.

3.5.2.3 Environmental Consequences

3.5.2.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action The beginner area would impact two of the isolated finds IF01 and IF02, neither of which are considered eligible for the NRHP. Under the current alignment of the mountain bike trails included in this alternative, two archaeological sites (42SL661 and 42SL662), and eight isolated finds (IF03 – IF10) would be impacted. None of the isolated finds are considered eligible for the NRHP. Both of the archaeological sites are considered eligible for the NRHP. Under design criteria and mitigation measures HER 1 and HER 2 the mountain bike trail would be rerouted to avoid the two archaeological sites and summer recreationists would be advised not to disturb mining sites they encountered.

125

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.2.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action All No-Action Alternative project sites were surveyed and impacts on heritage resources were evaluated in section 4.5 of the MDP EIS (Forest Service 1999a). It was determined that there were no impacts on NRHP eligible sites (Section 4.5.3; Forest Service 1999a). Since the 1999 analysis was completed there has been no new information or changed circumstances pertaining to heritage resources at Snowbird and as such we determine that the No-Action Alternative will have no impacts on heritage resources.

3.5.2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would have no impacts on heritage resources. All elements of the Proposed Action that would impact heritage resources have been relocated or removed in The Preferred Alternative.

3.5.2.3.4 Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action has the potential to directly impact two isolated finds in the Baby Thunder Beginner Area, as noted above. None of the cumulative actions described in section 3.3 have the potential to affect these finds, and therefore not potential for cumulative impacts. Neither the No-Action Alternative nor the Preferred Alternative would impact heritage resources, so they have no potential for cumulative effects.

3.5.3 SCENIC INTEGRITY

3.5.3.1 Scope of Analysis Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effect addressed in this analysis:

Issue: How would the proposed projects affect the scenic integrity of the project area?

Background: Vegetation alteration, new and expanded structures, and lighting for night skiing could affect the views experienced by Snowbird visitors, travelers on SR 210, and others that spend time in and around Snowbird.

Indicators: Adherence to the Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria (Forest Service 2012c); scenic integrity as measured by assessing the Scenic Integrity Level (SIL) relative to the assigned Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) from two viewpoints on SR 210; qualitative assessment of potential sky glow from night skiing as viewed by Snowbird visitors, other forest users in Little Cottonwood Canyon.

Analysis Area: Snowbird SUP area for architectural character and SIL; Little Cottonwood Canyon for sky glow.

3.5.3.2 Affected Environment

3.5.3.2.1 Background Built Environment Image Guide The Built Environment Image Guide for National Forest and Grasslands (BEIG; Forest Service 2001) was prepared by the Forest Service for a wide range of users, including landscape architects and architects. The BEIG is also intended to be used by everyone who participates in planning, designing, constructing, repairing, maintaining, and authorizing facilities on the National Forest.

126 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The better each of us understands the environmental, cultural, and economic context of each facility’s design, the better we will serve our customers and reflect a quality agency image. (BEIG, p. 4.)

An important aspect of the BEIG with regard to Snowbird is that it considers not only the natural environment, but it includes both the cultural and economic contexts:

The proper fit of Forest Service facilities into their natural, cultural, and economic contexts requires careful consideration of many aspects of design, including scale, proportion, and selection of building materials (BEIG, p. 5)…The built environment should reflect the context of its surroundings, including its physical setting, social context, and long-term economic effects. (BEIG, p. 6.)

The BEIG includes architectural character guidelines for the regions of the United States, including the Rocky Mountain Province, which includes Snowbird. Pertinent guidelines include the following:

 Use large-scale building materials (such as boulders at the base) to match the scale of the landscape.  Forms simplify with altitude.  Echo topography with the roofline.  Use alpine roofs with flatter pitch to avoid snow-shed problems.  In buildings designed for public use, express the structure by exposing wood beams, trusses, brackets, or framing.  Use stone, wood, heavy timber, and other natural materials when they are available and practical to use.  Analyze the local landscape for indigenous colors and materials.  Use color schemes that are inspired by rock outcrops, leaves or needles, tree trunks and bark, and colors found on the forest floor.  Dominate the palette with earth tones.  Integrate colors with natural materials where possible.  Use accent colors drawn from accents of the setting: the green or orange-rust of lichen, the red- brown of red-twig dogwood, the deep burgundy of willow stands, and the ivory of aspen bark.

Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria In April 2012, the UWCNF produced the Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria (Forest Service 2012c) as a site-specific supplement to the BEIG. This document recognizes the unique location of Little Cottonwood Canyon adjacent to the urban setting of Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front. The supplement is intended to document the character of the built environment in Little Cottonwood Canyon and to establish guidelines to ensure consistency with this character in future development.

Except for residential development at the mouth of the canyon, buildings are limited in most cases to the upper reaches of the canyon and are modern and functional in their architectural style. The harsh weather environment, avalanches, and limited developable terrain influence the siting and the use of materials for structures…The building style at the Snowbird resort has been developed under single ownership using a development

127

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

master plan. The buildings are modern in style and larger in scale…The structures in Little Cottonwood Canyon are dwarfed by the scale of the vertical landscape: even the 14-story Cliff Lodge is secondary to the surrounding environment. (Pp. 5 and 6.)

The supplement describes the influences that shape the character of the built environment, including:

 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for the Snowbird Resort is Urban in the base area and Rural for the rest of the mountain.  Heavy snowfall.  Visual geology, with an abundance of rock visible on the Earth’s surface.  The use of concrete in high-rise construction reflected nearby granite cliffs. Texture was created by shadow and light using recessed balconies finished with glass and wood.  Large, smooth finishes contrasted to the textured finishes much like the smooth granite faces juxtaposed to the craggy granite cliffs.  Flat roofs complimented the dedication to the environmental finishing of the building.  Winds blow snow from the flat roofs.

Scenery Management System In 1995, an updated landscape management system, the Scenery Management System (SMS), was introduced by the Forest Service. The SMS was developed to replace the Visual Management System (VMS) which preceded it; its principles and premises are based not only on research findings but on over 20 years of experience with implementing the VMS. In October 1996, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (Forest Service 1995b) was released to begin the transition to the SMS.

Conceptually, the SMS differs from the VMS in that it increases the role of constituents throughout the inventory and planning process and borrows from, and is integrated with, the basic concepts of ecosystem management. The SMS pertains primarily to the social/cultural dimension of ecosystem management but also has links to the biological and physical.

In the Forest planning process, the SMS is reflected in assignment of Landscape Character Themes and SIOs to specific portions of the Forest based on Desired Future Conditions, anticipated uses, and other factors. In the impact assessment process, baseline and projected SILs are assessed and compared to the assigned SIOs.

The baseline condition for assessing the achievement of SILs includes the valued attributes of the existing landscape character. In natural or natural appearing character, this is limited to natural or natural appearing vegetation patterns and features, water, rock and landforms. However, direct human alterations may be included if they have become accepted over time as positive landscape character attributes, as in a ski area, where the primary focus of the land is recreation.

Forest Plan Direction Management direction in the 2003 Forest Plan includes the following Desired Future Conditions for recreation activities and developments within ski areas in the Central Wasatch Management Area:

Development will be designed with a high level of attention to scenic integrity, within the context of overall resort development [emphasis added]. Facilities will be designed and

128 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

constructed to harmonize with the natural setting, rather than to contrast with that setting. While developments in base areas will be visually dominant, that dominance will decline on the mountainsides and new development on ridgelines, beyond the levels approved at the time of plan revision, will be minimal. Special attention will be given to the scenic integrity of views from backcountry and wilderness trails. Non-winter recreational opportunities provided in base areas will rely more heavily on constructed facilities, while those higher on the mountain will become increasingly oriented toward the natural setting. (P. 4-161.) The WCNF has used the SMS as a management tool to describe, allocate and provide direction for arranging, planning, and designing landscape attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in outdoor settings. SMS is one of four management direction elements with maps and descriptions in the Forest Plan, the others being Management Prescription Categories (MPC), Winter Recreation Classes and summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). SMS is applied in combination with other management direction such as desired future conditions, standards, guidelines, goals, and objectives to define expectations about management of a particular area of the Forest.

The Forest Plan describes five Landscape Character Themes, including landscape character descriptions and SIOs applied to the WCNF. These allocations are applied using the SMS framework and criteria in conjunction with adjustments for local management direction. For Management Prescription 4.5 – Developed Recreation Area, the Landscape Character Theme is “Resort Natural Setting”:

This landscape character theme is characteristic of developed recreation facilities such as ski resorts and recreation resort communities. In these areas, recreation amenities are the main attraction for people and why they come to an area. Facilities are designed and constructed to harmonize with the natural setting. While the form of the base areas facilities dominate the foreground views, it declines as it transitions into the mountain and becomes subordinate in the middleground and background views. Likewise, recreational opportunities provided in base areas rely more heavily on constructed facilities, while those higher on the mountain become increasingly oriented toward the natural setting. This landscape character is adjacent to Natural Evolving, Natural Appearing and Developed Natural Appearing landscape character themes and should draw from, complement and harmonize with these themes. (P. 4-99.)

The Forest Plan describes recreation amenities as the main attraction to the Resort Natural Setting. Development associated with ski areas has historically resulted in conflicts between VQOs under the VMS and the actual attainment of the VQOs in areas with buildings, parking lots, chairlifts, and ski trail clearings. By defining the baseline landscape character of the Resort Natural Setting, the Forest Plan incorporates the form and lines associated with ski area development, including the hard, dominant lines associated with the built environment, into the scenic character. In addition, the Forest Plan describes how the dominance of the built environment in the base area declinies and becomes more subordinate in the middleground and background views as the scene transitions up the mountain.

At Snowbird, in the Resort Natural Setting, the SIO is High as it pertains to the Resort Natural Setting Landscape Character Theme. On this basis, the SIO of High can be attained even in a developed base area, provided that development follows valued landscape character, which in this case includes the form, line, color, and texture that are harmonious with the natural environment and consistent throughout the resort setting (see Table 3-37).

129

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 3-37. Landscape Integrity Description and Landscape Integrity Attributes for the Resort Natural Setting Character Theme (SIO High). Landscape Integrity Description: Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Recreation amenities are designed and maintained so that they complement and harmonize with the natural appearing landscape. Landscape Landscape Integrity Attributes Elements Parking lots, roads, and travel ways appear to be part of the natural setting by eliminating the geometry of the built feature upon the landscape and bringing the contour of the existing Land Form landscape into the built structure. For example, road cuts do not slice through the landscape, but are shaped, contoured and constructed so that the landscape is only interrupted by the track of road. Ski runs and play areas draw from the forms, lines, colors, and textures found in the surrounding landscape. Parking lots with more than 20 spaces should have minimum of 10% of the interior parking area landscaped. Interior landscape area should be of such a size that the vegetation could Vegetation sustain itself without irrigation. Landscape areas should be dispersed throughout the parking area to effectively break up the expanse of the parking lot. Manage vegetation for properly functioning condition at landscape scale (see Revised Forest Plan Vegetation Landscape Structure and Pattern Types for Properly Functioning Condition Table). Water Form Detention and retention basin for water runoff, landscaped ponds and pools. Parking lots follow contours of the land and are visually broken to reduce their dominance. Ski trails are subordinate to adjacent LCT landscapes by repeating openings found in the surrounding landscape. Cultural Features Trams and ski lifts blend with vegetation or lines and colors found in the resort scene. Architecture harmonizes with the surrounding landscape visually and is in context with other structures found in the resort.

3.5.3.2.2 Existing Conditions Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria

Pump House The existing pump house was constructed using the design character described in the supplement to the BEIG. As shown in Figure 3-4, this building is located somewhat out of view of the casual observer and uses concrete as the dominant material in the walls, with broken lines and texture added by the brown garage door and reddish-brown wooden façade surrounding the windows and doors. Consistent with the supplement to the BEIG, the pump house also includes a flat roof.

130 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 3-4. Existing pump house.

Vehicle Maintenance Shop The existing vehicle maintenance shop provides nine maintenance bays and associated shop space on the lower floor and office space on the second floor (see Figure 3-5). Similar to the pump house, the maintenance shop uses exposed concrete and a flat roof, although the concrete is less massive than the pump house. The vertical columns between bays are exposed concrete and/or painted brown, which helps to soften the repeated pattern of the garage doors on the lower level. On the second level, the use of reddish-brown wood on the exterior wall adds a warm texture to the building, consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Figure 3-5. Existing vehicle maintenance shop.

131

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Creekside Lodge The existing Creekside Lodge was constructed to adhere to the architectural theme at Snowbird as described in the supplement to the BEIG. Located in the Gad Valley base area, the two-story building includes large beams/brackets, concrete, and reddish brown wood exterior walls to mimic the texture and color of the surrounding natural environment (see Figure 3-6). The use of large glass windows creates both depth – one can see into the building – and juxtaposition of smooth, glassy surfaces with the rough surfaces of the concrete and wood. The lines and form of this lodge, including the flat roof, are consistent with the more urban character of the lower elevations at Snowbird, while borrowing from the colors and texture of the surrounding landscape. As viewed from the ski slopes, the Creekside Lodge is partially screened by natural forest and topography along Little Cottonwood Creek, suggesting that the siting of the building was intended to harmonize with rather than dominate the site.

Figure 3-6. Existing Creekside Lodge.

Mid Gad Restaurant Located at middle elevation at Snowbird, the existing Mid Gad Restaurant conveys a more rural character due to the limited use of concrete and predominant use of large beams connected by metal braces as described in the BEIG and supplement to the BEIG (see Figure 3-7). The form of the building, including the over-sized beams and brackets, the flat roof, and the day-lighting of the first story on the downhill slope, suggests that it is designed for the harsh weather and heavy snowpack associated with the higher elevation. At the same time, the use of reddish-brown wood throughout the exterior is consistent with the colors found in the landscape surrounding the area, as described in the BEIG and supplement.

132 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure 3-7. Existing Mid Gad Restaurant.

Scenic Integrity The Forest Plan establishes a SIO for the Resort Natural Setting that corresponds to a SIL of High, where the valued landscape character appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident (see Table 3-37). The Forest Plan also describes current development at Snowbird as appearing more urban in the base areas and more rural to natural with elevation gain. Given Snowbird’s use of a consistent architectural theme and the natural patchiness of various textures (e.g., forest and meadow vegetation, smooth granite walls, and granite cliffs), Snowbird currently achieves a SIL of High.

The Proposed Action includes development in two primary locations at Snowbird: Gad Valley and Baby Thunder. In order to assess the effects on scenic quality in these areas, two viewpoints were evaluated for adherence to the assigned SIL under each alternative:

 Viewpoint 1 – SR 210 adjacent to Baby Thunder.  Viewpoint 2 – SR 210 adjacent to Gad Valley.

The Forest Plan direction cited above calls for scenic integrity to be assessed from backcountry and wilderness trails. The Lone Peak Wilderness lies west and south of Snowbird, but intervening terrain, particularly the American Fork Twin Peaks and the Gad Valley/White Pine Canyon ridge, screen the project area from Wilderness vantage points. The Twin Peaks Wilderness lies northwest of Snowbird, and some project elements would be visible from points within the wilderness. Since Viewpoints 1 and 2 offer a similar perspective but at a much closer range, assessment of impacts from these viewpoints represents a conservative estimation of impacts from Twin Peaks Wilderness vantage points. As a result, wilderness vantage points are not discussed further.

133

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Sky Glow The nearby Brighton ski area, located in Big Cottonwood Canyon and northeast of Snowbird, offers the largest night skiing program of any of the Cottonwood Canyon resorts. Brighton’s night skiing terrain includes the Explorer, Majestic and Crest Express pods. The Crest Express night lighting extends upslope to the crest of Pioneer Ridge between Big Cottonwood Canyon and Heber Valley. According to respondents at Alta (immediately east of Snowbird and adjacent to Brighton) and Snowbird, sky glow from Brighton is not visible from the two upper Little Cottonwood Canyon ski areas (Tunbridge 2012, Bonar 2012). This suggests that a modest night lighting program at the mid- to lower elevations at Snowbird would not be visible to the resorts in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Therefore, the analysis area for sky glow in this analysis includes only Little Cottonwood Canyon.

As described in the supplement to the BEIG, Snowbird is uniquely positioned near the Wasatch Mountain Front and the urban development of Salt Lake City and its neighboring communities. Snowbird currently offers a limited night skiing program on the Chickadee lift, located at the base area between the Snowbird Center and the Cliff Lodge. The light from the night skiing terrain blends with light generated in Snowbird Center and at the Cliff Lodge (see Figure 3-8). Alta currently offers no night skiing. Therefore, the Little Cottonwood Canyon resorts do not produce notable sky glow from on-mountain facilities. The urban character of the base areas and municipality of Alta does include lighting of buildings and public spaces such that travelers on SR 210 see a localized sky glow as they travel along the highway approaching Snowbird and Alta. In addition, several on-mountain facilities (e.g., chairlift/tram terminals, buildings) and activities (e.g., grooming, maintenance) result in localized light on the slopes that is visible for miles west of the ski areas and along the highway. The sky glow generated by Snowbird and Alta under the existing condition, however, is markedly less than the sky glow generated by Salt Lake City and the Wasatch Front as viewed from Snowbird or Alta (see Figure 3-9).

Figure 3-8. Night skiing on Chickadee.

134 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Source: Forest Service (2012) Figure 3-9. Sky glow at Snowbird with Salt Lake City in the background.

Regardless of the direction of travel, views from the SR 210 include sky glow that is consistent with the anticipated destination: one traveling west to Salt Lake City notes substantial sky glow generated by the city lights, particularly during cloudy conditions. Similarly, one traveling east, up the canyon toward the more urbanized Snowbird base area or Alta witnesses comparatively smaller sky glow generated by the base area and on-mountain facilities and activities.

3.5.3.3 Environmental Consequences

3.5.3.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria Under the Proposed Action, several built facilities would be constructed and should therefore be assessed for consistency with the Snowbird architectural theme as described in the supplement to the BEIG.

Baby Thunder Yurt The Baby Thunder Yurt would be a semi-permanent structure installed over a graded pad using concrete pylons. Under the Proposed Action, the yurt would be located in the new Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area immediately west of the proposed snowcat turn-around (see Figure 2-3).

The proposed yurt has not been designed to determine its exact color, although most yurts are either white, to blend with snow, or beige, to blend with earth and vegetation tones. As shown in Figure 3-10, while a yurt does not follow the lines, form, color and texture of the permanent buildings at Snowbird, a

135

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

yurt is suggestive of a “snow hut” and therefore would be consistent with a structure that one would expect to see at a ski area. Furthermore, the yurt would convey a more rustic feel than a comparable concrete building or even a log cabin, in an area of the mountain where one may not expect an urban setting. On this basis, the proposed yurt would be consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation Under the Proposed Action, the proposed Lift Maintenance Shop and Office Relocation would consist of a two-story addition to the existing pump house building. The architecture of the addition would match that of the existing pump house (see Figure 3-4) and would therefore remain consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Creekside Lodge Expansion Under the Proposed Action, Creekside Lodge would be expanded by 7,500 square feet beyond the 4,000 square feet added under the No-Action Alternative. The expansion would add three levels extending southwest of the existing lodge into the Little Cottonwood Creek riparian corridor. The expansion would follow the architectural theme of the existing building (see Figure 3-5) and would therefore be consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Mid Gad Restaurant Remodel The proposed remodel of the Mid Gad Restaurant would include modernization of the existing 6,400- square-foot upper level and 3,200-square-foot lower level, as well as enclosing the existing 3,200-square- foot open deck space to provide 6,400 square feet of space on each level. The proposed expansion would make use of large beams and brackets, similar to the existing building, and be consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Figure 3-10. A typical yurt.

136 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Scenic Integrity Under the Proposed Action, several projects are proposed that would affect scenic integrity through alterations to vegetation and or native ground contours. These projects are assessed from the two viewpoints described in section 3.5.3.2 – Affected Environment. Overall, the proposed facilities would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting, as defined in the Forest Plan.

Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area The proposed Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area would introduce a 2.5-acre area of thinned trees between Little Cottonwood Creek and SR 210. Similar to the existing Baby Thunder pod ski trails immediately across the creek from this area, the proposed beginner area clearing would include scalloped edges and retained tree islands to mimic the existing patchiness of the forest in the area (see mitigation measure SCE 13, Appendix A). The clearing, the three conveyor lifts, the access road/bridge, and the yurt would introduce a developed character into a portion of Snowbird that currently appears completely natural as viewed from Viewpoint 1. New lines would be introduced into the landscape from the clearing, and new developed facilities would be visible from Viewpoint 1.

These new facilities would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting landscape character as described in the Forest Plan (see Forest Plan Direction above). In addition, this new development would retain a rural character, compared to other areas of Snowbird at this elevation that convey an urban character. The proposed Baby Thunder Beginner Skiing Area would therefore retain a SIL of High under the Proposed Action, as viewed from Viewpoint 1. The Baby Thunder area would not be visible from Viewpoint 2.

Gad Valley Conveyor Lift The Gad Valley Conveyor Lift would be installed in the area between the bottom terminal of the Gadzoom lift and the access road to Baby Thunder (see Figure 2-2). Approximately 0.2 acre of existing ski trail would be graded and converted to first-time beginner terrain, requiring the removal of several individual trees from an existing tree island. This lift would be faintly visible from Viewpoint 2, although the existing Creekside Lodge, Mid Gad lift and Gadzoom lift would continue to dominate the foreground views from Viewpoint 2. The installation of the conveyor lift in this area would, therefore, retain an SIL of High as seen from Viewpoint 2. Retention of native vegetation (see mitigation measure SCE 6) and revegetation of disturbed areas (see mitigation measure SCE 9) would improve the scenic quality in the vicinity of the development over time. The Gad Valley Conveyor Lift would not be visible from Viewpoint 1.

Mountain Bike Trails The Proposed Action includes the installation of approximately 10 miles of mountain bike trails, with lift access via the Tram. As shown in Figure 2-1, the proposed mountain bike trails would emanate from the top terminal of the Tram and follow two main directions down to Snowbird Center. One route would descend Peruvian Gulch and the other would descend through Gad Valley. The trails would be built in a manner similar to the existing mountain bike trail network.

The new trails would introduce linear forms into the summer landscape, particularly at higher elevations where the trails switchback across the varied texture of the sparsely-vegetated mountain slopes. The most visible mountain bike trail would be in Peruvian Gulch, where the trail would be evident to Tram passengers as it made use of the existing Chips Switchbacks then left the work road to traverse northwest across the Cirque and under the Tram. This trail would introduce an obvious, long, linear feature into the texture of the high alpine cirque. This visual impact would be similar to the effect of existing mountain bike trails and mountain work roads throughout the SUP area. During the onsite layout of the trails, Snowbird would ensure that the mountain bike trails were sited in a manner that minimized the effect on

137

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

vegetation, including preservation of large trees to the greatest extent possible to provide screening for the trails (see mitigation measure VEG 13).

The Resort Natural Setting acknowledges that the primary focus of a ski area is developed recreation. Thus, the Forest Plan incorporates recreation facilities such as mountain bike trails into the setting, thereby allowing for an SIL of High to be maintained. The mountain bike trails would be only faintly visible at times as seen from Viewpoints 1 and 2, retaining an SIL of High.

Lunch Run Summer Road Relocation Relocation of the Lunch Run Summer Road would increase safety, improve road surface conditions, and decrease erosion from surface runoff and vehicle use on steeper sections of the road. The new road would be located in the same general vicinity as the existing road, although the new road would switchback under the Gadzoom lift. Visually, the new road would retain a similar appearance as the old road, although visible erosion problems would be less in the future as the old road prism was revegetated (see mitigation measure SCE 9). This road relocation would not be visible from Viewpoint 1 or 2 due to intervening terrain and distance. A SIL of High would be retained.

Gad 2 Lift Replacement and Trail Upgrades The Proposed Action includes a replacement of the existing fixed-grip, double Gad 2 lift with a detachable quad. The new lift would be installed in the same alignment as the existing lift and using roughly the same terminal sites. The detachable lift would require larger terminals and, therefore, would result in additional ground disturbance compared to the existing terminal sites. Revegetation of the disturbed area would improve scenic quality in the vicinity of the lift over time after construction (see mitigation measure SCE 9). The new lift would not be visible from Viewpoints 1 or 2 due to topography. The new lift would retain an SIL of High because the Resort Natural Setting landscape character includes the presence of chairlifts.

As part of the lift replacement project, the lower section of Bananas run would be graded so that the trail would be negotiable by intermediate-level skiers and grooming machines. The grading project would start at the 9,450-foot elevation of Bananas, just below the flats at the trail’s mid-section, and terminate at elevation 8,900 feet where Bananas merges with the access trail from Mid Gad Restaurant (Bassackwards). As part of this project, the flat section of Bassackwards just uphill from the base of Bananas/Gadzooks would also be excavated to create consistent gradient. This project would introduce approximately 7 acres of grading on an existing ski trail. A bypass route would also be constructed between Election run and Little Cloud lift, requiring minor grading for slope-averaging and disturbing about 1.3 acres. The graded soil would introduce a recently-disturbed texture to the existing scene, but revegetation of the disturbed area would improve scenic quality over time (see mitigation measure SCE 9). These projects would not be visible from Viewpoints 1 or 2 due to intervening terrain and distance. These projects would be consistent with the Resort Natural setting and would retain an SIL of High.

Sky Glow The Proposed Action includes new night lighting at Snowbird. Approximately 20 acres of existing terrain would be lit for night skiing, starting at the top of Big Emma run, all the way down to the base of Gadzoom lift (see Figure 2-1). Night lighting would require the installation of approximately 80 light poles along the edges of the ski trails. Low-glare, metal halide directional lights with down-cast shields would be installed to minimize sky glow (see mitigation measure SCE 12). Because of its location in the lower Gad Valley, the proposed night lighting terrain would be fairly well screened by topography to those on SR 210 to the east or west of Snowbird. The night lighting would be directly visible from Viewpoints 1 and 2, particularly along the lower portion of the ski trail, where the lights and the lit snow surface would be clearly visible. While dominating the night scene from dark until about 10 PM, this

138 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements night lighting is consistent with what one might expect to see at a ski area that provides overnight lodging with an active night life in the base area, including night skiing, as described in the Resort Natural Setting Landscape Character Theme. An SIL of High would be retained.

Traveling east beyond Snowbird, it is expected that the topographically protected night lighting terrain would not cast a sky glow visible from SR 210 or Alta because the proposed night lighting would not include higher elevations in the SUP area – no lights would be present near the ridge between Alta and Snowbird, as is the case at Brighton (see Existing Conditions discussion of sky glow). Some night glow might be visible from the Blackjack community, but it would be a minor, incremental increase given the Snowbird base area lighting in the middle ground.

While unrelated to sky glow, the light poles themselves would have some visual impact. Design of the system has not been completed, but the poles would most likely be roughly 15 feet high and painted or finished as approved by the Forest Landscape Architect (Appendix A, SCE 18). Located along the edges of the groomed runs, they would blend with adjacent trees to some degree. They would nevertheless have a minor visual impact both winter and summer, but would remain consistent with the SIL of High in the resort setting.

3.5.3.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action As discussed in section 2.5.1, this alternative is evaluated to provide a baseline for assessing the effects of the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative. The current MDP, which was authorized in 1999, includes projects that are currently under various stages of implementation or that have yet to be implemented. The following sections provide an updated analysis of the impacts on scenic integrity since the analysis that was conducted for the 1999 EIS.

Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria

Creekside Lodge Expansion Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing Creekside Lodge would be expanded by 4,000 square feet, as approved in the 1999 ROD. This alternative would not include the additional 7,500-square-foot expansions included in the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative. By constructing a two-story addition that would be nestled into a wooded area along Little Cottonwood Creek’s riparian corridor, this alternative would provide the least visually obtrusive expansion of the lodge because the lodge would be smaller than under the action alternatives and would be partially screened by vegetation, unlike the Preferred Alternative. As under the action alternatives, the expansion would follow the architectural theme of the existing building (see Figure 3-5) and would therefore be consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Hidden Peak The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to construct a new facility on Hidden Peak that would include no more than 50,000 square feet of floor space. In 2011, Snowbird completed the initial geotechnical and other site assessments and initial planning for the structure. A preliminary plan was submitted to the UWCNF early in 2012 and is being reviewed. The new structure is proposed to be less than the upper approved limit of 50,000 square feet. The final design would be consistent with the 1999 ROD’s parameters and would reduce or avoid the primary operational and environmental issues (e.g., skier circulation and visual impact) identified in the 1999 EIS.

There is sufficient space on Hidden Peak to accommodate the smaller structure and allow efficient skier circulation. The final design would incorporate elements of form, line, color, and texture from the natural surroundings as necessary to be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting. In addition, the siting of the

139

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

building would minimize the focus on the building by blending with the surrounding landforms and textures, such that this building would appear subordinate in the landscape as viewed from the middle and background, consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Scenic Integrity

Area-Wide Snowmaking Under the No-Action Alternative, Snowbird would continue to implement the previously approved snowmaking system improvements to provide coverage on up to 180 acres. The existing snowmaking areas have been incorporated into the Resort Natural Setting described in the Forest Plan, which established snowmaking as one component of the recreational focus of this setting. Therefore, the continued installation of the approved snowmaking would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting and would not detract from the SIL of High.

Cat Staging Area The No-Action Alternative includes completion of a snowcat staging area on the mountain side of Little Cottonwood Creek, south of the snowmaking pump house. Currently, Snowbird has graded the site and the approved access road. Snowbird plans to pave the site, add State-standard fueling facilities, and install screening trees, as approved in the 1999 ROD. With its focus on recreation, the Resort Natural Setting includes facilities such as this cat staging area. Completion of the staging area would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting and would retain an SIL of High

Little Cloud Lift Upgrade The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to upgrade the existing fixed-grip double lift to a detachable quad lift, using the same base and top stations, most towers, and lift corridor. In November 2011, Snowbird requested authorization to implement the upgrade as originally approved. Based on the original analysis in the 1999 FEIS and the 2004 review, the UWCNF determined that the original authorization remains valid, and the replacement was completed in Fall of 2012. This lift upgrade is consistent with the Resort Natural Setting and retains an SIL of High.

Trail Modifications The 1999 ROD authorized Snowbird to modify several trails, including the following projects described in section 2.5.1:

 Barrier Free Trail Extension,  Madame Anne’s Trail Modification  Skier’s Access to Upper Emma  Blackjack Road Modification

These projects would include grading to improve the four trails. The Forest Plan has incorporated these existing facilities into the Resort Natural Setting description, so the improvements to these facilities would also be consistent with the setting, with the same disturbed-site rehabilitation requirements in place. For the time immediately after construction, these projects would alter the natural texture through removal of ground cover and exposure of soil. Revegetation of these sites over time would improve the natural texture along the trails (see mitigation measure SCE 9). Following site rehabilitation, these trail improvements would likely not be visible from Viewpoints 1 or 2 and would retain the SIL of high.

Peruvian Gulch Utility Corridor Approved on 2007, the Peruvian Gulch Utility Corridor is included in the No-Action Alternative. The proposed snowmaking lines and utilities would be buried in areas that have been previously disturbed –

140 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements generally in service roads. Ground disturbance would introduce a disturbed texture to the area, but revegetation of the area after construction would improve the scenic quality in the area over time (see mitigation measure SCE 9). The Resort Natural Setting in the Forest Plan acknowledges the developed nature of the ski area, including the necessity of utilities and similar infrastructure. Therefore, the utility corridor would retain an SIL of High.

3.5.3.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative was developed to address issues identified through scoping and subsequent biological and heritage resource surveys of the project area (see sections 2.3 and 2.5.2). This alternative reflects revisions of the Proposed Action to address the noted concerns. Snowbird would also implement the projects described under Alternative 2 – No Action (section 3.5.3.3.2) under the Preferred Alternative. The effects of these projects, described in section 3.5.3.3.2, would also take place under this alternative. The following sections describe the additional visual and scenic effects of the Preferred Alternative.

Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria

Beginner Area Yurt As described under the Proposed Action, the Baby Thunder Yurt would be a semi-permanent structure that would be installed over a graded pad using concrete pylons. Under this alternative, the yurt would be re-located across Little Cottonwood Creek and upslope, outside of the RHCA (see Figure 2-5). The consistency of the yurt with the supplement to the BEIG would be as described for the Proposed Action.

Lift Maintenance Shop Relocation Under the Preferred Alternative, the expansion to accommodate the lift maintenance program would be moved away from the pump house, located within the Little Cottonwood Creek RHCA, to the existing vehicle maintenance shop located on the North Side of the lower Gad Valley Parking Lot (see Figure 2- 6). The proposed expansion would consist of a two-story addition to the existing maintenance shop.

In comparison to the Proposed Action, the Preferred Alternative would result in a more visually prominent location than the existing pump house. The expanded shop would continue to be visible from the ski slopes and the lower Gad Valley Parking Lot, whereas the Proposed Action location would be more hidden from view. However, the architecture of the addition under the Preferred Alternative would match that of the existing building (see Figure 3-5) and would therefore remain consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

Creekside Lodge Expansion The Preferred Alternative would expand the existing lodge to the northwest, into the area of the existing paved delivery zone and parking lot, rather than to the southwest, into the riparian corridor as under the Proposed Action. The expansion under this alternative would include the currently approved 4,000 square feet, as well as the additional 7,500 square feet described under the Proposed Action (see section 3.5.3.3.1).

By locating the expansion in an area that is contiguous with the existing parking lot, the Preferred Alternative would be more visually prominent than the Proposed Action, which would nestle the expansion in a wooded area along Little Cottonwood Creek. As with the Proposed Action, the expansion would follow the architectural theme of the existing building (see Figure 3-5) and would therefore be consistent with the supplement to the BEIG.

141

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Mid Gad Restaurant Re-Model The Mid Gad Restaurant remodel would not be altered under this alternative. It would be consistent with the supplement to the BEIG, as described for the Proposed Action (see section 3.5.3.3.1).

Scenic Integrity Under the Preferred Alternative, several projects from the Proposed Action are either omitted or are proposed in different locations to reduce impacts on the Little Cottonwood Creek RHCA and other resources. Similar to the Proposed Action, these projects could affect scenic integrity through alteration of vegetation and/or native ground contours. These projects are assessed from the two viewpoints described in section 3.5.3.2. Overall, the proposed facilities under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the Resort Natural Setting, as defined in the Forest Plan.

Beginner Area The Preferred Alternative would move the improvements for beginner skiers away from the Baby Thunder area to the Mid Gad area (see Figure 2-5). This location would result in no clearing of vegetation adjacent to SR 210 and Little Cottonwood Creek. Replacement of the Mid Gad lift, construction of the new beginner chairlift, and installation of up to four conveyor lifts would be consistent with the current lift infrastructure in developed portions of the ski area.

The Preferred Alternative would also include improvements to the West 2nd South ski trail to provide ready access to Baby Thunder pod. The grading would introduce a recently-disturbed texture to the existing scenery; however, revegetation of the disturbed area would mitigate the impact over time (see mitigation measure SCE 9). When viewed from Viewpoints 1 and 2, the beginner area development would be less noticeable than under the Proposed Action due to the additional distance and elevation from these viewpoints as compared to the Proposed Action. The Preferred Alternative would maintain an SIL of High.

Mountain Bike Trails The Preferred Alternative would eliminate one mountain bike trail from the Proposed Action – the trail traversing upper Peruvian Gulch from the Tram (see Figure 2-5). Exclusion of this trail would eliminate the most prominent new linear feature observable to summer Tram riders. As a result, the visual effect of the mountain bike trail system would be noticeably less as compared to the Proposed Action. The visual effect of the remainder of the mountain bike trail system would be as described for the Proposed Action.

Lunch Run Summer Road The effect of the Lunch Run Road re-location under the Preferred Alternative would be as described for the Proposed Action.

Gad 2 Lift Replacement and Trail Upgrades The visual effects of the Gad 2 replacement and trail upgrades would be as described for the Proposed Action (see section 3.5.3.3.1).

Sky Glow Under the Preferred Alternative, night skiing would be implemented in the same manner as under the Proposed Action, and the impacts on sky glow would be the same as outlined in section 3.5.3.3.1.

142 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.3.3.4 Cumulative Effects None of the projects identified in section 3.3 would impact scenery at the same time or in the same location as the proposed Gad Valley Improvements or improvements from the 1999 MDP. Therefore no cumulative effects on visual resources would result from the alternatives considered in this analysis.

3.5.4 TRANSPORTATION

3.5.4.1 Scope of Analysis Scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following environmental effect addressed in this analysis:

Issue: How would the proposed night skiing affect traffic on SR 210?

Background: Night skiing could increase traffic on the highway at night, after snow removal and avalanche forecasting typically stop for the day and conditions can become more hazardous.

Indicators: Assessment of the timing and amount of nighttime traffic generated by the proposed night skiing, relative to current highway use patterns.

Analysis Area: SR 210, from Snowbird to the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon.

3.5.4.2 Affected Environment A full description of the transportation affected environment in Little Cottonwood Canyon can be found in section 3.10 of the 1999 FEIS. The elements pertinent to analysis of this issue can be summarized as follows. The highest daily traffic occurs during ski season, December – March, with highest in January and February. Peak traffic day, coinciding with peak skier days, occur on holiday weekends, particularly Christmas/New Year’s Day and President’s Day weekend.

Winter season hourly traffic on SR 210 exhibits two distinct peaks: an uphill peak hour from 8 to 9 a.m., and a downhill peak hour from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. These peaks correspond with the opening and closing times of Snowbird and Alta ski lifts. During these peaks, traffic in the opposing direction of the peak flow is minimal. Traffic congestion tends to be worse during the downhill peak in the evening than during the uphill peak in the morning, as skiers leave the ski areas during a more condensed period than they arrive.

During the evening peak, the areas of worst congestion are Snowbird Entries 1 and 2 since vehicles exiting from these entries have to turn left, cross uphill traffic, and merge into already congested traffic flowing downhill from higher Snowbird entries and Alta. On peak days, the level of service (LOS) on SR 210 below these locations may drop to F for a brief period during this afternoon peak, indicating exceedance of capacity and a breakdown in vehicular flow. During the analysis period addressed in the 1999 FEIS, an LOS of F generally occurred more than 30 hours per year, the limit recommended in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The level of service was not degrading over the analysis period.

This description was completed in 1997, but since that time little has changed that would worsen this description. The primary changes that have occurred since 1997 have been improvements to SR 210 including widening of the shoulder and addition of acceleration/deceleration and passing lanes, development of additional parking lanes and turnouts, and implementation of a traffic metering program at Alta. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) on SR 210 has remained relatively stable with an average

143

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

percent change of -0.4 percent from 1997 to 2010 (most recent data available from Utah Department of Transportation; Figure 3-11). Peak-day skier numbers have also remained relatively consistent as shown in Figure 3-3 in section 3.5.1.2. The lack of change in AADT, relatively stable peak-day skier numbers, and the consistent operating hours of Snowbird and Alta indicate that the profile outlined in section 3.10 of the 1999 FEIS is still valid and likely conservative due to road improvements that have occurred since 1997.

Beyond that overall profile, two aspects of highway safety on SR 210 are relevant to this issue, avalanche forecasting and snow removal. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is responsible for both. UDOT’s avalanche control program includes forecasters in Little Cottonwood Canyon who issue 12-hour forecasts, implement highway closures during high-risk periods, manage avalanche control efforts (using measures such as helicopter bombing, military artillery sited at the ski areas, and most recently Gaz-Ex exploders), and coordinate avalanche rescue efforts. Closures occur any time that high-hazard conditions occur, before the highway can be made safe for public use. While aerial bombing and artillery are typically employed during daylight hours, typically in the morning, the new Gaz-Ex technology can be deployed at any time. The highway still needs to be cleared and swept prior to employing Gaz-Ex.

The UDOT snow removal program consists of a six-man crew that is responsible for SR 210 (Little Cottonwood Canyon), SR 190 (Big Cottonwood Canyon), and a section of I-215. In the winter these crews commonly work from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. clearing fallen snow and avalanche debris from the roadways through the canyons. However, when conditions exist that are dangerous to maintenance personnel, UDOT cautions that snow removal on SR 190 and SR 210 may be limited to daylight hours (UDOT 2012).

7000

6000

5000

4000 AADT 3000

2000

1000

Year

Figure 3-11. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) on SR 210 through Little Cottonwood Canyon from 1997 to 2010. (Blue line indicates AADT and dashed line indicates overall trend. Source: UDOT 20 Year AADT History 2010 – 1991). .

144 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.4.3 Environmental Consequences

3.5.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, night skiing would be introduced on a 20-acre portion of the Bassackwards and Big Emma trails, serviced by the Gadzoom lift. As indicated in section 3.5.1.3.1, the maximum night-skiing capacity would be 500 people at any given time, based on acreage and standard skier densities. At an occupancy rate of 2.4 people per vehicle (1999 FEIS, section 3.10.2.7), that would equate to 208 cars. Based on experience with Brighton’s night skiing program in adjacent Big Cottonwood Canyon, the majority of night skiers come to the ski area during the day and stay for night skiing, and thus do not add to the number of cars in the canyon. The smaller number of cars bringing skiers up the canyon in the evening specifically for night skiing do add to the total. In either case, this analysis focuses on the up to 208 cars that would be added to down-canyon traffic between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Any additional up-canyon traffic associated with night skiing would be minimal and would be traveling in the opposite direction from the congested, ski-area egress flow. These vehicles would not increase the congestion problems at Entries 1 and 2 since vehicles coming up for night skiing would be entering primarily at Entry 1 and therefore would not inhibit the ability of vehicles to exit eastbound down the canyon at Entries 1 and 2.

The reduction of up to 208 cars traveling down canyon during the downhill peak, after the lifts close for day-time skiing, would ease traffic volume somewhat during the worst period of congestion on SR 210. From that perspective, night skiing would marginally decrease congestion, with a parallel increase in safety during the most problematic period on this highway. Overall, removal of these cars would improve traffic flow during the PM peak slightly.

The primary concern is the potential for unsafe driving conditions and increased accidents in the evening when skiers are leaving the resort. Unsafe conditions could exist due to snow buildup throughout the day on the road and in avalanche slide paths, refreezing of the surface of SR 210 with lower nighttime temperatures, and potential lack of snow removal activity after dark (if dangerous conditions for maintenance personnel exist). Also, accidents could increase due to increased downhill speeds facilitated by lack of congestion. The danger posed by increased avalanche risk would be mitigated by measure TRA 12, which states that Snowbird will not open for night skiing when conditions indicate high avalanche risk (Appendix A).

Analysis completed for impacts of night skiing in section 3.1.5 of the 1999 FEIS for Brighton Ski Area Master Development Plan Update indicated that during the ski season only 8.4 percent of the traffic on SR 190 through Big Cottonwood Canyon occurs after 6 p.m., but 23 percent of the accidents occur after 6 p.m. This disproportionate distribution of accidents is likely due in part to the factors discussed above, which occur in both canyons. The other consideration is that accident rates overall, regardless of the roadway, are higher at night.

Given this higher accident rate, increased traffic after 6 p.m. due to night skiing at Snowbird would probably lead to an incremental increase in accidents in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Given the relatively low traffic volume involved, the number of potential accidents would be low.

3.5.4.3.2 Alternative 2 – No Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed night skiing would not be permitted and therefore no impacts could be expected.

145

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.5.4.3.3 Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative includes no changes to night skiing, and the impacts of this alternative would be identical to those discussed for the Proposed Action in section 3.5.4.3.1.

3.5.4.3.4 Cumulative Effects Three cumulative actions described in section 3.3 that have the potential to effect nighttime traffic and safety concerns on SR 210, the UDOT Road Widening and Alta Bypass Road Repair, the Anna/Monte Cristo subdivision, and the UDOT Gaz-Ex Avalanche Control. The roadway improvements have been completed and have improved the level of service and safety of SR 210, as discussed above (section 3.5.4.2). The Gaz-Ex project provides an effective option to current modes of managing avalanche hazard in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The cumulative effect of both projects on nighttime traffic and safety on SR 210 would be positive.

The Anna/Monte Cristo subdivision would likely contribute to nighttime traffic on SR 210, which could exacerbate any increase in accident frequency associated with night skiing. However, two factors would mitigate this issue: (1) with only seven lots, any added traffic would be minimal, and (2) night skiing traffic would be entering the highway from Entries 1 and 2, well below the subdivision access road, so merging would not be complicated. As a result, the cumulative effect would be negative but insignificant.

3.6 FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE As noted above (sections 1.4 and 1.6.1), the 2003 Forest Plan provides primary guidance for management of the land and resources on NFS portions of Snowbird. The area falls within the Central Wasatch Management Area and is subject to both Forest-wide and Management Area-specific direction pertinent to this type of proposal. Management prescription 4.5 – Developed Recreation Areas includes guidance to allow new recreational development and new trail construction for the purposes of providing public enjoyment, safety, and protection of site investments.

The degree to which the Proposed Action and alternatives comply with key elements of Forest Plan direction can be summarized as follows. Management direction at several levels is applicable to this project (e.g., standards and guidelines) as discussed in appropriate sections of this EA and other documentation in the project record. This discussion focuses on Desired Future Conditions specific to the Central Wasatch Management Area.

3.6.1 MANAGEMENT AREA DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS - CENTRAL WASATCH MANAGEMENT AREA

3.6.1.2 Watershed Desired Future Conditions

 The underlying premise of resource management in this Management Area is the need to provide long-term, high quality culinary water to the large urban population of the Salt Lake Valley.  Providing quality recreation opportunities within the framework of watershed protection will be an increasing challenge as the Wasatch front population and national and international destination use of the area continues to grow.

146 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 Given the importance of water coming from this area, watershed maintenance, protection and enhancement will be a primary consideration in all management decisions. Watersheds and streams will continue to provide high quality water supplies to the Salt Lake Valley. Various uses and developments (ski area design and development, campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads and trails) will be designed to prevent or fully mitigate impacts, resulting in properly functioning conditions in these watersheds.  In Little and Big Cottonwood Canyons the integrity of the stream corridor and side drainages will be an emphasis given the opportunity that public lands adjoining the streams here provides. Decisions responding to increasing recreation demands will give first consideration to desired water quality and riparian conditions, and the limited wildlife habitat here. Provisions will be made for a wide range of recreation uses including access and sanitation facilities that prevent deterioration of watershed conditions. (pp.4-153 – 154)

Discussion: Watershed issues, and particularly sustained production of high-quality culinary water, were central to the development of the Gad Valley Improvements Project and assessing its impacts. The third and fourth of these desired future conditions, along those addressed below under the heading of recreation (section 3.6.1.5.1) were identified as the purposes for action (section 1.4), guided planning specific projects (section 2.2), and determined a number of the issues addressed in the impact analysis (e.g., sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.3). As a result, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction. More detailed discussion of compliance with Forest Plan management direction for watershed resources is found in the specialist report prepared for this project (Cirrus 2012). Design criteria and mitigation measures in Appendix A address relevant watershed standards and guidelines.

3.6.1.3 Biodiversity/Viability Desired Future Conditions

3.6.1.3.1 Vegetation and Disturbance Processes  Some of the Forest’s healthiest and most beautiful tall forb (wildflower) communities occur in this management area. These healthy and recovering tall forb communities will be protected from uses that could cause undesirable changes in plant composition and abundance. Seed collection will occur in some of these plant communities to help revegetate disturbed areas. Seed collection will occur on a rotational basis (collecting in different areas from year to year) so that natural reproduction can continue to function across the entire area over time. Non-native plant species will be used for rehabilitation of disturbed areas only when native seeds and/or plants are unavailable.  Each of the permitted ski areas will be implementing vegetation management plans that meet resort needs while maintaining the health and vigor of native shrubs and trees.  Integrated pest management will be successfully employed to reduce noxious weeds. (p. 4-155) Discussion: While this analysis focuses on special status plants rather than vegetation communities (section 3.4.2), the full range of design criteria and mitigation measures stipulated in the 1999 ROD would remain in force regardless of the alternative selected on the basis of this analysis. Appendix A in this EA includes measures specific to this project from the 1999 ROD or identified based on this analysis. In short, these measures provide protection for tall forb communities (e.g., VEG 1 and VEG 2, 1999 ROD), stipulate revegetation requirements (e.g., VEG 7, 1999 ROD), underscore the requirement for vegetation management plans as a condition of SUP issuance (e.g., VEG 4), and update practices to reduce noxious weeds (e.g., VEG 14 and VEG 15, Appendix A, and VEG 5 – VEG 9, 1999 ROD). As a result, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction.

147

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.6.1.3.2 Botanical Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protection/Recovery  Rare plant habitats will be managed to maintain or restore populations of current and proposed Sensitive plant species. Riparian plant habitats and rare riparian species will be protected from trampling and the adverse effects of overuse and development.  Ski area management activities will be designed to maintain or restore habitat for species including sensitive species such as Wasatch Jamesia, Garrett's bladderpod, Utah Ivesia, and Utah bladderpod. Recreational rock climbing will be managed to protect cliff, crevice, and ledge habitats for the plants that grow there. Recreational activities in habitats for rare plants such as Wasatch shooting star, alpine pepperplant, Utah ivesia, and Garrett’s bladderpod, will be managed at a level that maintain individuals and habitat dynamics during key life stages including flowering and fruit production. Inventories will be conducted in known habitat for slender moonwort, a proposed threatened species that, based on historic collections, occurred on the Forest. (pp. 4-155 – 156) Discussion: The watershed resources section of this EA (section 3.4.1) identifies potential impacts on riparian habitats, and the vegetation section (section 3.4.2) as well as the BE prepared for this project document potential impacts on Forest Service sensitive species. The only impacts noted involve rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane, both of which could be affected by the Peruvian Gulch segment of the proposed mountain bike trail system (section 3.4.2.3.1). These potential impacts would be mitigated by including biologists in determining the final alignment of the trail (mitigation measure VEG 13), and the Preferred Alternative does not include this segment of the trail (section 2.5.2). As a result, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction, and the Preferred Alternative avoids any impact at all.

3.6.1.3.3 Terrestrial, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protection/Recovery  A number of species-at-risk occur within and/or have habitat within this Management Area.  In the Central Wasatch direction concerning linkage habitat for lynx from the Lynx Conservation Strategy will be implemented considering watershed priorities and constraints, established uses of the area, and wilderness. (p. 4-156) Discussion: The wildlife section of this EA (section 3.4.3) identifies potential impacts on special status wildlife species, summarizing the findings of the BA and BE prepared for this project. Section 3.4.3.3.1 states that the no effect determination for Canada lynx is based on the facts that regional habitat connectivity for lynx would not be impacted, the project area is low quality lynx habitat due to low snowshoe hare density, and lynx are not known to have ever used habitat in the project area. Section 3.4.3.3.1 identifies potential effects on two Forest Service sensitive species, the boreal toad and the northern goshawk. Potential impacts are minor and would not lead to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability for the affected population or the species. The analysis notes that the minor impact on goshawk habitat would be inconsistent with Forest Plan guideline G15. Based on these considerations, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction.

3.6.1.3.4 Aquatic Conditions  Fish Habitat: Aquatic habitats will be managed to maintain cool, clear water and well-vegetated stream banks for cover and bank protection. Instream flows and cover, in the form of deep pools and structures such as boulders and logs, will be maintained and their value recognized. Water temperature will be preserved through stable well-vegetated banks. Natural fish reproduction will be maintained through minimizing sediment input from roads, trails and campgrounds.

148 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 Amphibian and Invertebrate Habitat: Marshy edges of ponds or lakes and springs will be protected to allow for the development of in-water and riparian vegetation. Soils around water bodies will not be compacted and will allow for burrowing and over-wintering of amphibians.  Developed trails will be designed to minimize development in riparian habitat conservation areas (300 feet on each side of the stream channel). User-created trails will be modified or closed and rehabilitated to eliminate or significantly reduce impacts to the stream and to riparian vegetation. Springs will be protected and their value recognized. (p. 4-157) Discussion: The watershed section of this EA (section 3.4.1) addresses potential impacts on wetlands, streams, channels, and ponds, which comprise the fish, amphibian, and invertebrate habitat in the project area. Through the CDA approach it employs, the watershed analysis quantifies and rates potential impacts then identifies appropriate design criteria and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize them (see Tables 3-12 – 3-17 and Appendix A). Beyond that, the Preferred Alternative was formulated specifically to reduce potential impacts of the aquatic resources occurring within the RHCA associated with Little Cottonwood Creek. In terms of developed trails, mitigation measure WAT 9 calls for avoidance of channel crossings and use of perpendicular crossings when they cannot be avoided. VEG 13 specifies that biologists be involved in final alignment of the proposed mountain bike trails to further reduce impacts on biological resources, including aquatic habitats. Based on these considerations, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction.

3.6.1.4 Roads/Trails/Access Desired Future Conditions

 Protection of watershed conditions will be a primary factor in managing roads, trails and access. In the Tri-canyon area (Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons and Mill Creek) parking capacities of canyon parking lots (ski areas, summer use homes, developed and dispersed recreation sites) will be not exceed 2000 levels unless modification is needed for watershed protection or to facilitate mass transit. Mass transit will be commonly used during winter, reducing crowding and increasing safety for users of the canyons. The Forest Service will work actively with other parties to explore options for reducing private vehicular use within these Canyons. (p. 4-160)

Discussion: As outlined in Chapter 2, neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives include any additional parking. Completion of the Creekside Lodge under the No-Action Alternative would facilitate transit access to Gad Valley, and the additional expansions under the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative would not alter transit access. Beyond that, as discussed in section 1.7.2, the purpose and need for the current Proposed Action have more to do with maintaining the quality of Snowbird’s recreational offerings in order to meet the changing demands of the skiing public than with increasing visitor numbers per se. The CCC analyzed in the 1999 FEIS and approved in the 1999 ROD has not been approached by actual visitation, so the traffic analysis documented in the 1999 EIS remains valid, and the only transportation issue addressed in this EA is the possible highway safety impact of night skiing (section 3.5.4). Based on these considerations, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction.

3.6.1.5 Recreation Desired Future Conditions

3.6.1.5.1 Recreation Activities and Developments within Ski Resorts  The ski resorts in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons will continue to serve as hubs of year- round outdoor recreation use on both private and public lands within the permit areas. Recreation opportunities offered on public lands within the resort boundaries will be complementary to and compatible with those that are allowed and/or emphasized on surrounding public lands outside

149

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

the boundaries. Opportunities that build on the unique values of public land are featured over those that are focused on the constructed environment. Activities that facilitate public understanding, appreciation, and respect for land and natural resources will be encouraged.  Lands and facilities within ski area permit boundaries will be managed with a primary emphasis on developed winter recreation while providing complementary summer recreation opportunities. The scope and scale of major facilities approved in past master development planning are expected to serve the general needs of the skiing and snowboarding public for the 10 – 15-year horizon of this forest plan. Additional development within that timeframe will generally involve the replacement and/or modification of existing facilities, modifications of existing ski runs, and adjustments to evolving technologies and user preferences. New resort developments on National Forest System lands will be confined to the permit boundaries in effect at the time of revision, though small-scale site-specific adjustments could be considered to address important management issues. Development and modifications at the resorts will continue to be designed to balance the comfortable carrying capacity within each resort, based on latest technologies, use patterns, and existing facilities, within the capabilities of the natural environment and transportation infrastructure.  Development will be designed with a high level of attention to scenic integrity, within the context of overall resort development. Facilities will be designed and constructed to harmonize with the natural setting, rather than to contrast with that setting. While developments in base areas will be visually dominant, that dominance will decline on the mountainsides and new development on ridgelines, beyond the levels approved at the time of plan revision, will be minimal. Special attention will be given to the scenic integrity of views from backcountry and wilderness trails. Non-winter recreational opportunities provided in base areas will rely more heavily on constructed facilities, while those higher on the mountain will become increasingly oriented toward the natural setting. (pp. 4-160 – 161) Discussion: These desired future conditions, along those addressed above under the heading of watershed (section 3.6.1.2) were integral in developing the proposed Gad Valley Improvements Project. They were identified as the purposes for action (section 1.4), guided planning specific projects (section 2.2), and determined a number of the issues addressed in the impact analysis (e.g., sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.3). As a result, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction.

3.6.1.5.2 Scenery Management  The scenery of the area will continue to be a valuable and pleasurable natural backdrop for the urban area. Views up and within the canyons of natural and developed areas will be carefully managed to sustain scenic resources. Views from the Scenic Byways in Emigration, Big Cottonwood and Little Cottonwood Canyons will be managed for their recognized values. Guidelines for scenery management will be applied to project undertakings. The following landscape character themes will be found in the management area as mapped: Natural Evolving, Natural Appearing, Developed Natural Appearing, and Resort Natural Setting. (p.4-163) Discussion: Potential impacts on scenic resources are assessed in section 3.5.3 of this EA, which concludes that the Proposed Action and alternatives would be consistent with management direction for the Resort Natural Setting Landscape Character Theme and associated SIO.

3.6.1.5.3 Heritage Resources  Inventory efforts will continue to document the American Indian sites as well as the early European settlement of the area. Research and interpretive efforts will focus on developing the

150 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

mining and early ski industry history of the tri-canyon area. Active partnerships with ski resorts will foster better interpretations and value for the early history of the canyons. (p.4-163) Discussion: Potential impacts on heritage resources are addressed in section 3.5.2 of this EA. The analysis identifies several sites with artifacts of the canyon’s mining history that could be impacted by the Proposed Action. Mitigation to protect these resources is identified and included in Appendix A, and avoidance of these potential impacts was part of the rationale for developing the Preferred Alternative (section 2.3). Based on these considerations, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with this direction.

3.6.1.6 Social (non-recreation) Desired Future Conditions  The Central Wasatch Canyons will continue to enhance the quality of life for a large, diverse, urban population with stable watersheds, high quality water, scenery, and natural retreat opportunities within easy reach of the urban valley. (p.4-164) Discussion: As noted in the preceding discussions, the Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan management direction regarding watershed resources, water quality, and scenic resources, as well as biodiversity. However, ski area development in itself may be inconsistent with maintaining “natural retreat opportunities.” However, such development is limited to the upper end of the canyon, leaving more natural, less disturbed venues between the ski areas and the city. The Proposed Action and alternatives include no expansion of development beyond current ski area boundaries. As a result, they do not move the setting away from this Desired Future Condition.

3.7 OTHER DISCLOSURES

3.7.1 FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS No amendment of the Forest Plan would be required to authorize and implement the Proposed Action or the Preferred Alternative.

3.7.2 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Snowbird’s SUP allocates the NFS lands it comprises to provision of alpine skiing opportunities through the term of the permit. The existing permit would maintain that use until December 31, 2045. The question here is whether this land use justifies any loss in long-term productivity of the resources involved.

Through issuance of ski area SUPs, the Forest Service helps provide outdoor recreation for a high number of visitors on an extremely small proportion of our National Forest System lands. This analysis identifies and discloses a number of impacts associated with this land use, some positive and some negative. Few have important implications for the long-term productivity of the site. As a result, the recreational benefits of Snowbird’s resource use in the short term are substantial, while the potential impacts on the long-term productivity of the ski area’s SUP area are minimal. No important distinctions among the Proposed Action and alternatives can be drawn.

3.7.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Unavoidable adverse effects are impacts that cannot be avoided due to constraints in the Proposed Action or alternatives. Effects of this type do not have to be avoided, but they must be disclosed, discussed, and mitigated, if possible (40 CFR 1500.2[e]). Of the seven disciplines addressed in this analysis, unavoidable adverse impacts were identified for three.

151

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The first is watershed resources. This analysis identifies numerous potential adverse impacts on water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains. However, the design criteria and mitigation measures identified in the analysis would preclude any notable adverse effects. The one exception would be wetlands. As discussed in section 3.4.1.3, isolated wetlands and wetlands associated with drainage channels are abundant in Gad Valley. While the impacts of linear projects (e.g., bike trails and utility corridors) would be avoided through identified design criteria and mitigation measures, it is unlikely that other projects (e.g., the lower terminals of the upgraded Gad 2 lift and the new lift in the Mid Gad midway beginner area) could be completed without adverse impact on wetlands. The requirements of any associated Corps of Engineers permitting would mitigate but not avoid these impacts.

The second is vegetation, where under the Proposed Action the mountain bike trail in Peruvian Gulch would adversely impact individuals of two Forest Service sensitive species, rockcress draba and Garrett’s fleabane (section 3.4.2.3.1). However this impact would be avoided under the Preferred Alternative, which eliminates the Peruvian Gulch mountain bike trail (section 3.4.2.3.3).

The third is transportation. Section 3.5.4.3.1 notes that the night skiing under the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative would result in up to 208 vehicles descending SR 210 after 6 PM when accident rates could be higher. This would likely generate a marginal increase in traffic accidents in the canyon.

3.7.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES An irreversible commitment of resources results from a decision to use or modify resources that are irreplaceable or renewable only over an extremely long period. The actions described in this document would not cause an irreversible commitment of resources.

An irretrievable commitment of resources occurs when opportunities are foregone for the period of time of the commitment, such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or ski run. Under active management, irretrievable resource commitments are unavoidable, because managing resources for any given purpose necessarily precludes the opportunity to use those resources for other purposes. The Proposed Action would increase this commitment by 27.4 acres of temporary and permanent disturbance of vegetation and/or soil (from 11.6 to 39.0 acres) relative to the No-Action Alternative.

3.7.5 INCOMPLETE AND UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION No information necessary to appropriate analysis and disclosure of the environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives was incomplete or unavailable.

3.7.6 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Most visitors to Snowbird currently travel to the ski area in private vehicles or public transportation. As noted in section 3.5.4, average annual daily traffic on SR 210 has remained relatively constant over the past decade. Energy use to access recreational areas in Little Cottonwood Canyon will likely remain at existing levels or increase slightly in response to overall population growth on the Wasatch Front. Any future increase could be offset by public transportation or other options for mass transit as alternatives are continually being examined by UDOT.

Beyond that, implementation of the Proposed Action or the Preferred Alternative would increase energy demands marginally in the future in terms of construction vehicles and machinery. In the longer term, the additional ski lifts and buildings would consume energy, but the increase would be offset by removal of

152 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements less efficient, older facilities. Overall, the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative would not entail significant energy requirements.

3.7.7 CLIMATE CHANGE The Proposed Action and alternatives are neither of the scope nor scale to notably affect climatic conditions or potential climate changes. However, ongoing and predicted regional climate changes have the potential to affect the hydrologic regime of the Wasatch Mountain Range through factors such as increased year-round temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and greater magnitude and frequency of storm flows. With more winter precipitation falling as rain, snow packs will likely be reduced and spring melt may occur sooner, potentially reducing the duration of winter ski operations. Successful stormwater management and erosion control planning will be increasingly important if storm frequency and magnitude increase. Existing programs and practices are successfully managing stormwater and surface erosion and will be modified in the future to adapt to changing circumstances.

Salt Lake City is conducting a study in partnership with NOAA, Western Water Assessment, and others to understand watershed sensitivities under climate change scenarios. This research generally confirms the concerns with increased temperatures and snowpack and precipitation changes. Hydrological modeling under climate change scenarios for each of Salt Lake City’s Central Wasatch municipal watersheds, including Little Cottonwood Canyon, shows significant decreases in the supply of water to the streams as temperature increases and runoff timing changes. The result of these hydrologic changes will be future challenges in meeting water demand. Salt Lake City is exploring adaptation strategies to address these climate change impacts, including enhancing Salt Lake City’s current conservation efforts. The proposed action and alternatives have the potential to increase use at Snowbird and other commercial resorts in Salt Lake City’s municipal watershed, thereby increasing water consumption at these areas. This will incrementally and cumulatively add to water resource pressures associated with climate change impacts.

Vegetation changes and fire regime changes are also generally thought to be emerging issues as climate change impacts are felt. Not enough is known with respect to the Wasatch Mountain Range regarding these effects, so it is difficult to draw conclusions with respect to the role the Proposed Action and alternatives have associated with climate change impacts.

3.8 CONSISTENCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

3.8.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The objective of the Endangered Species Act is to safeguard plant and animal species identified under the terms of the Act as being at risk of extirpation or extinction. As discussed in sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.3.3 of this EA, no impacts on federally listed species are anticipated under the Proposed Action or alternatives.

3.8.2 CLEAN WATER ACT The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. in order to protect their state-assigned beneficial uses. Beneficial uses reflect resources or activities that would be directly affected by a change in water quality or quantity. As discussed in section 3.4.1.3, any water quality impact due to implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives would be minor and temporary, ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act.

153

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.8.3 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water. Under SDWA, the EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. SDWA was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. As discussed in section 3.4.1.3, any water quality impact due to implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives would be minor and temporary, ensuring compliance with the SDWA.

3.8.4 PERSONS WITH PHYSICAL CHALLENGES In accordance with Forest Service regulations, compliance with the accessibility guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to the design of structures proposed as part of this project. The ADA applies because Snowbird operates as a “public accommodation,” that is, it is a business open to the public. Section 504 applies because ski areas operate under special-use permits authorized by a federal agency, the Forest Service. Implementation guidelines for Section 504 that apply to recreation special-use permit holders are located in 7 CFR 15b.

UFAS of Section 504 and ADA accessibility guidelines were combined in November 8, 2005, and are now known as the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (ABAAS). The ABAAS replaces the former guidelines as the current standard for federal agencies, including the Forest Service. These guidelines are reflected in the Accessibility Guidebook for Ski Areas Operating on Public Lands – 2005 Update (Forest Service 2005b). UWCNF engineering review of construction plans prior to notification to proceed will ensure compliance with ABAAS.

3.8.5 USDA CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY The Proposed Action and alternatives would not result in any civil rights impacts on Forest Service employees, visitors to Snowbird, or the general public. All would be free from reprisal or discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, political beliefs, parental status, receipt of public assistance, or protected genetic information.

3.8.6 EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988 AND 11990 - PROTECTION OF FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS As discussed in the watershed resources analysis (section 3.4.1), floodplains and wetlands occur in the project area and are subject to minor, adverse effects as a result of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, was developed in large part to minimize such impacts by moving projects out of the Little Cottonwood Creek RHCA or eliminating them. Beyond that, suggested design criteria and mitigation measures and any permitting required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would preclude notable impacts and ensure compliance with these Executive Orders.

3.8.7 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186 - PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS Potential impacts on special-status migratory birds under the Proposed Action and alternatives are discussed in the wildlife analysis (section 3.4.3). That analysis concludes that the risk of such impacts is minor to nonexistent, indicating compliance with this direction.

154 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

3.8.8 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 - ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Proposed Action and alternatives would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated with the principles of environmental justice. No design criteria and mitigation measures to offset or improve adverse effects on these populations have been identified. All interested and affected parties will continue to be involved with the public involvement and decision process.

3.8.9 PRIME FARMLAND, RANGELAND, AND FOREST LAND The Proposed Action and alternatives do not include any use of prime farmland or rangelands, and the term “prime forest land” does not apply to the NFS lands. Under the Proposed Action and alternatives, NFS lands would be managed with sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.

155

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

This page is left intentionally blank.

156 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 4.1 PRE-NEPA PHASE As part of the process of developing their MDP amendment, including its first phase, the Gad Valley Improvements Project, Snowbird conducted an extensive public outreach program. They contacted officials at various levels of state, county, and local government as well as environmental and other special interest groups to outline the planned amendment and solicit input on it. They held open houses and offered tours at Snowbird. The MDP amendment submitted and subsequently accepted by the UWCNF, including the Gad Valley Improvements Project, reflects the input Snowbird received through this outreach effort. 4.2 PUBLIC SCOPING In June 2011, the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) issued a public scoping notice summarizing the proposed Gad Valley Improvements Project and inviting comments regarding the scope of the associated NEPA review. A public scoping notice was mailed to 127 agencies, organizations, and individuals on the UWCNF mailing list. The notices were also posted on the UWCNF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=36527 and made available on CD or in hard-copy form to anyone requesting them. An information workshop/open house was held from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. on July 13, 2011, at the Cottonwood Room in Snowbird Center.

The 30-day scoping period closed on July 28, 2011. Comments were received from 8 agencies, 14 organizations, and 100 individuals. A scoping report identifying commenters, comments received, and the disposition of those comments was prepared. The scoping notice, comment letters, and scoping report are included in the Project Record. 4.3 NOTICE AND COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ACTION In accordance with Forest Service notice and appeal regulations (36 CFR 215.5), the UWCNF prepared a Notice of Proposed Action addressing implementation of the Gad Valley Improvements Project and providing instructions for submitting comments. On May 7, 2012, the notice was sent to 126 agencies, organizations, and individuals on the project mailing list. The notice was also posted on the UWCNF website, and a legal notice was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on May 10, 2012, initiating the 30-day comment period.

Comments were received from 7 agencies, 18 organizations, and 93 individuals. A Response to Comments document identifying commenters, detailing the comments received, and providing UWCNF responses to substantive comments, was prepared in accordance with agency regulations at 36 CFR 215.6. The Notice of Proposed Action and comment letters are included in the Project Record. The Response to Comments document is attached as Appendix B to this EA. 4.4 OTHER CONSULTATION Other consultation completed in association with this EA process includes the following:

 Inclusion of Salt Lake City Corporation as a cooperating agency in this EA process through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed September 30, 2011. Based on the City’s jurisdiction over certain aspects of water and watershed resource management in the Central

157

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Wasatch, the MOU specified a role for the City in analysis of potential impacts on these resources.  Consultation with Utah’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on National Historic Preservation Act compliance (see section 3.2.5.1).  Consultation with the FWS was not required because no impact on federally listed plant or animal species is anticipated (see sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.3.3).

158 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS

Name Position Contribution Forest Service Team Catherine Kahlow District Ranger Project oversight. Project oversight and QA/QC Steve Scheid Environmental Coordinator review. Project management; ID team Pollyanna Popola Project Manager coordination. Initial input on watershed Paul Flood Forest Soil Scientist resources analysis. Karen Hartman Wildlife Biologist Review of wildlife analysis. Review of heritage resources Tom Flanigan Forest Archaeologist analysis. Stacey Weems Soil Scientist Review of watershed analysis. Kellie Whitton Fisheries Biologist Review of wildlife analysis. Jeremy Jarnecke Hydrologist Review of watershed analysis. Charlie Condrat Forest Hydrologist Review of watershed analysis. Review of scenic resources Dave Hatch Forest Landscape Architect analysis. Michael Duncan Forest Botanist Review of vegetation analysis. Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC Team Project management, NEPA Neal Artz Project Manager oversight, and QA/QC review. Preparation of watershed Eric Duffin Hydrologist analysis. Preparation of vegetation John Stewart Botanist and Wetland Specialist analysis. Preparation of wildlife and Matt Westover Wildlife Biologist transportation analysis. Preparation of recreation and Steve Schueler Landscape Architect and Planner scenic resources analysis. Director, USU Archaeological Preparation of heritage Ken Cannon Services resources analysis.

159

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

This page is left intentionally blank.

160 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES

Bonar, Bob. 2012 Pers. Comm. with Neal Artz, Cirrus Ecological Solutions.

Cirrus. 2005. Biological Assessment/Evaluation Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort Peruvian Lift Replacement. Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC. August 16, 2005

Cirrus 2012. Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements Project EA: Water Resources Specialist Report. November 8, 2012.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2010. Lynx Reintroduction Assessment. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Research/Mammals/ColoradoLynxRei ntroductionAssessment_090710.pdf. (Accessed: December 20, 2012).

Craig, G.R. and J.H. Enderson. 2004. Peregrine falcon biology and management in Colorado 1973-2001. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Technical Publication No. 43.

Forest Service. 1995a. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.

Forest Service. 1995b. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701.

Forest Service 1998. Biological Assessment for the Snowbird Ski Area Master Development Plan. August 28, 1998.

Forest Service 1999a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Snowbird Master Development Plan. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Uinta National Forest. November 1999.

Forest Service 1999b. Record of Decision – Snowbird Master Development Plan Proposal. USDA- Forest Service, Salt Lake Ranger District and Pleasant Grove Ranger District. December 10, 1999.

Forest Service. 2001. Built Environment Image Guide for National Forest and Grasslands. FS-710.

Forest Service 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision.

Forest Service. 2004a. Guide to Effective Monitoring of Aquatic and Riparian Resources. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-121. March 2004.

Forest Service. 2004b. Resource Monitoring from March 2003 to April 2004. Memo from Paul Flood to Melissa Blackwell. September 12, 2005. Uinta-Wasatch Cache National Forest.

Forest Service. 2005a. Field Report - Alta and Snowbird Ski Resorts. Charlie Condrat, Hydrologist. Uinta-Wasatch Cache National Forest. October 10.

161

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Forest Service 2005b. Accessibility Guidebook for Ski Areas Operating on Public Lands – 2005 Update.

Forest Service. 2006a. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook – FHS 2509.25. Forest Service Handbook, Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2), Denver CO. Amendment 2509.25-2006-1. Effective Date: May 5, 2006.

Forest Service. 2006b. Resource Monitoring from March 2005 to April 2006. Memo from Charlie Condrat and Paul Flood to Julie Hubbard. Uinta-Wasatch Cache National Forest. March 7.

Forest Service. 2007a. Decision Memo for Lower Men’s Downhill Chute Widening and Utility Corridor Construction, Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT.

Forest Service. 2007b. Wasatch-Cache National Forest/Salt Lake Ranger District Ski Area Summer Project Monitoring Form. Steve Scheid and Andy Smith. Uinta-Wasatch Cache National Forest. August 16.

Forest Service 2010. Response to proposed amendments to Snowbird’s current MDP. Wasatch Cache National Forest/Salt Lake Ranger District. October 20.

Forest Service. 2011a. Letter from Forest Supervisor Brian Ferebee to Snowbird President Bob Bonar. Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. April 5.

Forest Service. 2011b. Supplemental Information Report: Hidden Peak Skier Services and Mountain Operations Building, Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. October 28.

Forest Service. 2011c. USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework. FY2011 Transition Watershed Restoration Action Plan Uinta-Wasatch Cache National Forest.

Forest Service. 2012a. Biological Assessment for the Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements Project. Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest/Salt Lake Ranger District. Feb.

Forest Service. 2012b. Biological Evaluation for the Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements Project. Uinta- Wasatch-Cache National Forest/Salt Lake Ranger District. Feb.

Forest Service, 2012c. Snowbird Resort Architectural Design Criteria. Supplement to UDSA FS-710 Chapter 4.6 – The Rocky Mountain Province.

Furniss, M.J., S. Flanagan, and B. McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically-connected roads: an indicator of the influence of roads on chronic sedimentation, surface water hydrology, and exposure to toxic chemicals. USDA Forest Service, Stream Systems Technology Center, Stream Notes, July, 2000. Fort Collins, CO.

Hanson, Keith. 2011. Unpublished figures provided to Neal Artz, Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC. Dec. 14.

Hortin J.K., J.L. Harvey, N.R. Murray. 1973. Soil survey and interpretations of the Alta-Little Cottonwood Study Area, Salt Lake County, Utah. U.S. Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Salt Lake Soil Conservation District. March 1973.

162 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Keller, Charles L. 2001. The Lady in the Ore Bucket. A History of the Settlement and Industry in the Tri-Canyon Area of the Wasatch Mountains. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lopez, C. 1981. Pleasant Grove Soil Survey. USDA-Forest Service, Uinta National Forest, Provo, Utah.

McKelvey, Kevin S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 1999. History and Distribution of Lynx in the Contiguous United States. Pp. 207-264. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (eds.) Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Engineering Division. June 1986.

NatureServe. 2012a. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: September 8, 2012).

NatureServe. 2012b. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of live [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: November 14, 2012).

Peart et al 2012. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements Project, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah.

Raleigh, R.G., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: Rainbow trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10/60.

Reynolds, R.T., Graham, R.T., and M.H. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 p.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities 1999. Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan.

Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County Service Area No. 3. 2000. Restated Water Supply Agreement. Dec. 6. Amended 2007.

163

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Salt Lake County. 1989. Wasatch Canyons Master Plan. Salt Lake County Department of Public Works Planning Division. September 1989. 106 p. plus appendices.

Salt Lake County. 2009. Salt Lake Countywide Water Quality Stewardship Plan. Prepared for Salt Lake County, Division of Engineering and Flood Control, Salt Lake City, UT. Prepared by Stantec Consulting, Brown and Caldwell, Cirrus Ecological Solutions, Dan Jones and Associates, Sullivan’s Solutions, URS, and Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants.

Snowbird 2006. Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort Base Area Master Plan Update and Revision.

Snowbird 2010. Amended 2011 Master Development Plan. August 24, 2010.

State of Utah. 2012. Utah Administrative Code Rule R317-2. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. As in effect October 1, 2010. Available by download from: http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm

Tunbridge, Al. 2012. Pers. Comm. with Neal Artz, Cirrus Ecological Solutions.

UDOT 2012. Snow Removal. UDOT 06A-42. Revised January 17, 2012. Available at: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=10458927531084223. (Accessed: January 16, 2013).

Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Zinc in Little Cottonwood Creek. Prepared for Utah Division of Water Quality by Shepherd Miller, 3801 Automation Way, Suite 100, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Utah Native Plant Society (UNPS). 2012. Utah Rare Plant Guide. On line database updated Aug. 9, 2012. http://www.utahrareplants.org/rpg_species.html#All

164 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

APPENDIX A – DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES The design criteria and mitigation measures included in the following table were derived by reviewing those required under the 1999 MDP ROD, all of which remain in force, and determining which were applicable to the Proposed Action and action alternatives. This analysis indicated that some required modification and that, in some instances, new design criteria and mitigation measures were needed. The coding scheme used in the 1999 MDP ROD was maintained, and modified and new measures and features are identified.

165

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Selected mitigation measures from the 1999 ROD, as well as new measures, intended to minimize impacts of the Proposed Action or action alternatives. Impact Design criteria and mitigation measures Watershed Water quality impacts on Little AQU 1 (modified). Build and maintain the fueling tank and fueling area at the Cottonwood Creek resulting snowcat staging area and the lift maintenance shop and surrounding areas in from stormwater runoff and compliance with applicable UDEQ standards related to stormwater and spill potential spills of vehicle prevention. fluids (fuel, oil, etc.) WAT 12 (new). For each project or group of projects, develop a Spill Prevention and Response Plan as part of the construction documents. Do not discharge petroleum products into drainages or bodies of water or store fuels within RHCAs. Increased erosion and GEO 3. Revegetate cut-and-fill slopes as soon as possible disturbed areas. sedimentation of streams and Maintain soil productivity and potential for revegeta cut-and-fill slopes as soon as wetlands due to ground possible. disturbances. WAT 1. Implement all BMPs listed under the heading of Earthwork, Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control, and Permanent Erosion and Sedimentation Control in Appendix C, 1999 FEIS.

WAT 3. Phase construction of large disturbances over the life of the project

WAT 4. Install frequent water berms along roads and maintain proper ditch drainage.

WAT 5. Leave a buffer strip of natural vegetation adjacent to wetland and stream features. Where feasible, the strip should be at least 100 feet wide.

WAT 6. Time construction activities in and around wetlands and streams to avoid periods with a high probability of runoff (i.e., spring runoff and summer monsoon period).

WAT 7. Install lift towers at sites not accessible by roads or in other approved ground disturbance areas with helicopters. No ground equipment will be allowed with the following exception: a backhoe will be allowed to clear brush and dig holes for lift towers and terminals. All routes will be designated in advance by the Forest Service.

WAT 11 (new) Develop project-specific SWPPPs for each project or group of projects exceeding 1 acre of total disturbance and provide site-specific guidelines for erosion and sediment control, storage/disposal of overburden, phasing schedule, and monitoring protocols.

WET 5. Avoid disturbance in areas identified as having a high potential for erosion or mass failure.

VEG 8 (modified). Minimize suface grading in areas that are cleared to facilitate natural regrowth.

166 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Selected mitigation measures from the 1999 ROD, as well as new measures, intended to minimize impacts of the Proposed Action or action alternatives. Impact Design criteria and mitigation measures Habitat degradation due to WAT 8 (new). Design perennial stream crossings to accommodate 100-year crossing streams or wetlands. flows, debris, and fish passage. All channel modifications will be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service prior to disturbance.

WAT 9 (new). Avoid trail, road, and utility line crossings of stream channels where possible. Orient unavoidable crossings perpendicular to the stream channel.

WAT 13 (new). Preserve existing and future sources of large woody debris (LWD). Collect and stockpile coarse organic debris with topsoil when grading ski trails. Redistribute and stabilize organic debris by partial burial when re-dressing the site with topsoil. LWD may be removed from RHCAs only for safety reasons or to prevent further environmental impacts.

WET 8. Reroute utilities to avoid wetlands and streams as feasible.

WET 9. Follow construction practices outlined by the COE for temporary impacts associated with utility lines (i.e., installation of trench breakers, replacement of soil materials in wetlands in reverse of order removed).

Disturbance in wetlands and WET 3. Obtain a Section 404 Permit from the COE as required for wetland or stream corridors that invokes stream-channel related activities. regulatory process. Degredation of watershed WAT 10 (new). Monitor watershed processes according to the UWCNF health including water quality, Watershed Restoration Action Plan. riparian communities, and wetland habitat while providing for sustained recreation. Vegetation Impacts on sensitive plants. VEG 13 (new). Incorporate input from qualified biologists in determining the final alignment of the mountain bike trails in order to avoid sensitive plants as much as possible. Invasive weed introduction. VEG 14 (new). If any excavation or concrete equipment other than that owned by Snowbird is used, wash it prior to bringing it onto the Forest to help prevent the spread of noxious weeds. Do not wash concrete trucks onsite; wash only in Forest Service approved location.

VEG 15 (new). If needed and available, use fill from the resort or canyon. If local fill is not available, imported fill must be certified as weed free. Wildlife Loss of amphibian habitat. WIL 1. Identify all wetlands and vernal pools prior to clearing/grading operations and avoid them wherever possible, and comply with Section 404 permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act where ever avoidance is not possible.

167

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

WIL 3. Implement all BMPs listed under the heading of Earthwork, Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control, and Permanent Erosion and Sedimentation Control, in Appendix C of the 1999 FEIS.

WIL 4. Cut vegetation no shorter than 12 inches high in or near wetlands.

WIL 5. Avoid fertilizer contamination of wetlands.

WIL 6. Avoid activities which may lead to the temporary or permanent lowering of water levels in wetlands, streams, or ponds.

WIL 7. Avoid the removal of logs, stumps, or boulders located within 100 meters of wetlands. Direct impact on sensitive WIL 9. Provide summer visitor information in the form of brochures and signs species. along popular trails to educate visitors about the presence of sensitive species, explain that taking or interfering with sensitive wildlife (and plant) species is prohibited, and explain what they can do to reduce the spread of Chytrid fungus in the area (not get wet in downstream areas and then re-enter the water upstream or enter a different water body).

WIL 12. Where possible, locate trenched utility corridors in previously disturbed (treeless) areas.

WIL 21 (new). Incorporate input from qualified biologists in determining the final alignment of the mountain bike trails in order to avoid margins of talus slopes, thick understory, and wetlands as much as possible.

WIL 22 (new). Where wetlands cannot be avoided, construct raised bridges, or hardened (paved with stone) crossings to minimize direct impacts of bikes crossing the wetland. Recreation Construction and use of hiking REC 2. Build all hiking and biking trails, created or modified, to Forest Service and biking trails. standards. These standards include trail construction, signing, restoration, revegetation, and education opportunities.

REC 3. Develop and implement, with Forest Service cooperation, a mountain bike patrol and use-monitoring plan that will establish guidelines for user safety, contain bike use to designated trails and roads, and provide for emergency response procedures. Safety issues resulting from REC 4 (new). Install appropriate signage and barriers to separate skiers of more advanced skiers mixing differing ability levels at the Mid Gad midway beginner area. with beginners at the Mid Gad midway beginner area.

168 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Selected mitigation measures from the 1999 ROD, as well as new measures, intended to minimize impacts of the Proposed Action or action alternatives. Impact Design criteria and mitigation measures Heritage Resources Disturbance of sites reflecting HER 1 (modified). Design mountain bike trails to avoid close contact with mine Little Cottonwood Canyon’s tailing piles and structural remains. mining history. HER 2. Advise summer recreationists to respect mining sites in informational and interpretive materials.

HER 3. Notify the Forest Service archaeologist immediately if and when any historic or prehistoric resources are exposed during construction activities. Scenic Integrity Adverse impacts on the scenic SCE 1. Design the structures with an appropriate scale and form. integrity of the project area due to construction of SCE 2 (modified). Choose materials that blend with the colors and textures of the buildings, lifts, roads, and natural setting. trails.

SCE 3. Use non-reflective, reduced glare glass.

SCE 4. Blend lift terminal and towers blend with non-snow season's color pattern. Forest Service landscape architect must review and approve color design for chairlift chairs, towers, and terminals before ordering.

SCE 5. Use dull, non-reflective materials.

SCE 6. Retain as much vegetation as possible around towers and terminals.

SCE 7. Grade road surface to slant toward the uphill edge (inslope).

SCE 8. Provide a finished surface material that will blend with its surroundings.

SCE 9. Revegetate disturbed ground areas with native plants as soon as possible after construction to avoid high color and texture contrast with existing vegetation.

SCE 10. Revegetate disturbed ground areas with native plants as soon as possible after construction to avoid high color and texture contrast with existing vegetation.

SCE 11. Utilize innovative interior and exterior lighting design.

SCE 12 (modified). Use directed and shielded light fixtures for all exterior lighting including night skiing lighting.

SCE 1 (modified). Modify corridor width and tree removal procedures to make corridors appear more natural and comply with pertinent SIOs. As much as

169

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Selected mitigation measures from the 1999 ROD, as well as new measures, intended to minimize impacts of the Proposed Action or action alternatives. Impact Design criteria and mitigation measures possible, avoid linear openings in forested vegetation by feathering the edge of ski trails and lift corridors. Forest Service personnel will assist in designating trees to be removed.

SCE 14. Leave ski runs that require rock and stump removal in a ‘natural’ appearing state. Rocks and stumps are to be buried and vegetation re-established on the buried location. Any rocks that will be moved and not covered with soil must be placed in a natural manner, not placed at the edge of the trees in a linear pattern.

SCE 15. Bury hydrants and control boxes along mountain utility corridors and use dull, blending colors for covers to reduce their visual intrusion.

SCE 16 (modified). Utilize Forest Service guidelines to achieve SIO requirements. These same measures are suggested for mitigation of visual impacts on private lands. Refer to Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (Forest Service 1995b).

SCE 17 (modified). Apply development and architectural guidelines which respond to public concerns about consistency and quality of any new facilities. Such guidelines will address architecture, signage, site furnishings, lighting, and other elements of site design. The design must be reviewed by the Forest Service Landscape Architect for consistency with the SIOs and ROSs.

SCE 18(new). Paint or finish night lighting poles as appropriate to blend with the natural surroundings, as determined by the Forest Landscape Architect. Transportation Increased avalanche risk to TRA 12 (new). Snowbird will not offer night skiing on nights when weather vehicles on SR 210 due to conditions indicate high avalanche risk in Little Cottonwood Canyon at night. night skiing operations.

170 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

APPENDIX B – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

171

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

SNOWBIRD GAD VALLEY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ACTION

September 14, 2012

THE COMMENT PROCESS In accordance with Forest Service notice and appeal regulations (36 CFR 215.5), the Uinta-Wasatch- Cache National Forest (UWCNF) prepared a Notice of Proposed Action addressing implementation of the Gad Valley area projects included in Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort’s (Snowbird) 2011 Master Development Plan (MDP) amendment and providing instructions for submitting comments. This notice was part of the UWCNF’s environmental assessment (EA) process, being completed as directed in the agency’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures (36 CFR 220).

On May 7, 2012, the notice was sent to 126 agencies, organizations, and individuals on the project mailing list. The notice was also posted on the UWCNF website, and a legal notice was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on May 10. 2012, initiating the 30-day comment period. Comments were received from 7 agencies, 18 organizations, and 93 individuals.

This report identifies commenters, details the comments received, and provides UWCNF responses to substantive comments, in accordance with agency regulations at 36 CFR 215.6. RESULTS Table 1 lists each comment letter (including emails and other forms of communication), identifying the code number assigned to it, the name and address of the commenter, and the topic or resource area addressed by the commenter. In the results section that follows, each quoted comment is followed by a comment code, made up of the letter code (A = agency, O = organization, I = individual), and the number of that individual comment within the letter (e.g. A1-2 is the second comment in letter A1). All original comment letters are included in the Project Record and may be accessed digitally by clicking on the letter ID in column 1.

Table B-1. Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Jason Chaffetz, 3895 West 7800 South, Ste. Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad A1 United States 201 West Jordan, UT 84088 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Congressman James Hadfield, 51 East Main American Fork, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad A2 Mayor UT 84003 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing)

172 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Karen Morgan, Utah P.O. Box 145115 Salt Lake Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad A3 State Senator City, UT 84114 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Wayne Niederhauser, W1l5 State Capitol Complex Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad A4 Utah State Senator Salt Lake City, UT 84 114- Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) 5115 Jeff Niermeyer, City 1530 South West Temple Salt Process (Proposed Action, Baby Thunder Yurt, No- Engineer Lake City UT 84115 Action Alternative, Purpose and Need, Level of NEPA Review, Consistence with Applicable Laws and A5 Regulations, Growth Related Effects, Transportation, Utilities, Watershed Resources (General, Soils, Water Quality, Wetland, Riparian, and Floodplains ). Sandy City Council, 10000 Centennial Parkway Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad A6 Mayor and Sandy, UT 84070-4148 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Councilpersons James Winder, Salt 3365 South 900 West Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad A7 Lake County Sheriff Lake City, Utah 84119 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Michael Allegra, 669 West 200 South Salt Lake Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, O1 Utah Transit City, UT 84101 Safety) Authority Lane Beattie, Salt 175 E University Blvd, Ste. Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, O2 Lake Chamber of 600 Salt Lake City UT 84111 Economic Benefits) Commerce Scott Beck, The 90 South West Temple Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O3 Convention and Lake City, Utah 84101-1406 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade) Visitors Bureau Carolyn Blackwelder, 11630 Lawrence Dr. Caldwell, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O4 Iron Blosam Board ID 83607 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Jim Haslam, NGI [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O5 Glass Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Jennifer Kecor, Save None provided Process (Gad Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, No- Our Canyons Action Alternative, Purpose and Need), Watershed O6 Resources (General), Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Bike Trails) Maggie Loring, [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O7 Snowbird Mountain Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) School Director Peter Mandler, Snowbird Ski and Summer Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Gad Valley Wasatch Adaptive Resort Hwy 210, Little Day Lodge, Accessibility) O8 Sports Cottonwood Canyon Snowbird, UT 84092 William McCarvill, 1390 South 1100 East #103 Process (Miscellaneous), , Recreation, Watershed O9 Wasatch Mountain Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Resources (General), Comment Supporting Alternative 3. Club

173

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Peter Miller, 790 South Military Trail Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, O10 Strategic Database Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Need to Remain Competitive) Research Inc. Kevin O'Rourke, None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, O11 Wasatch Powderbird Conveyor Lift, Gad Valley Day Lodge, Bike Trails, Gad Guides 2 Upgrade, Need to Remain Competitive) Stanley Parrish, 9350 South 150 East #580 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O12 Sandy Area Chamber Sandy, Utah 84070 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) of Commerce Roger Parsell, Sysco [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, O13 Economic Benefits) J. Leroy Peck, Peck 1046 W 500 N Centerville, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, O14 Painting UT 84014 Economic Benefits) Nathan Rafferty, Ski 150 West 500 South Salt Lake Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O15 Utah City, UT 84101 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Canyon Tourism Canyon Tourism Committee, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad Committee, Sandy Ste. 231 10000 South Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) O16 Little Cottonwood Centennial Parkway Sandy, Canyon Tourism Utah 84070 Jackie Tripp, Tram Snowbird Resort Snowbird, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad O17 Club Utah 84092 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Roberts Wood, Sure 925 Jefferson St. Salt Lake Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Economic O18 Commerical Flooring City, UT 84101 Benefits) Michael Adler 2338 W 13100 S Riverton, UT Process (Proposed Action), Comment Supporting the I1 84065 Proposed Action (General, Accessibility) Ronald and Judith PO Box 324 Puunene HI Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I2 Aikawa 96784 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Economic Benefits) Raylene Albertson [email protected] Not a comment applicable to Proposed Action or I3 alternatives Dave Andreas 1266 E. Shadow Ridge 9Q Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I4 Midvale, UT 84047 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Economic Benefits) I5 Charles Ayers [email protected] General Comments Opposing the Proposed Action Martin K Banks, 201 S. Main Street. Suite 1100 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I6 Stoel Rives Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 Need for Developed Recreation, Economic Benefits) D Steven Brewster, None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I7 Millcreek Coffee Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Economic Benefits) Calvin Burgart [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Need to I8 Remain Competitive)

174 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Brian Buse 1760 South 2500 East Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I9 Lake City, UT 84108 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Need to Remain Competitive) Tiernae Buttars 492 Canyon View Circle Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I10 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade) Ahren Castledine [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I11 Conveyor Lift, Night Skiing, Bike Trails, Gad 2 Upgrade) Robert Chimento 6765 Wildlife Road Malibu, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I12 CA 90265 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Marc Thomas Colier [email protected] General Comments Opposing the Proposed Action, I13 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Bike Trails) Christina Coronado 1632 North 4625 West West Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I14 Point, UT 84105 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Troy Crane, Bolt 20 West Louise Avenue Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I15 Center Lake City, Utah 84115 Night Skiing, Gad Valley Day Lodge, Bike Trails, Gad 2 Upgrade, Economic Benefits, Safety) Cindy Dal Soglio, PO Box 218 Midvale, Utah Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I16 Dal Soglio Inc. 84047 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Vince Desimone 168 Mountain Top Road Park General Comments Opposing the Proposed Action I17 City, UT 84068-6601 Mark and Raani 5058 South 1045 East Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I18 Erekson Lake City, UT 84117 Accessibility, Need to Remain Competitive, Safety, [email protected] Water Quality) Steve Firestone 2610 Manhattan Ave. Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I19 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Economic Benefits) [email protected] Russell Gallegos, None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I20 Divine Inc. Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Economic Benefits) Rick Gates 7165 South 2825 East Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I21 Lake City, UT 84121 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Economic Benefits) John Gelb, At Peace 1117 E. Putnam Ave. #246 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) I22 Media LLC Riverside, CT 06878 [email protected] John Gurr 380 West 400 South, #603 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I23 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Beginner Area, Night Skiing, Bike Trails, Gad 2 [email protected] Upgrade) Denise Gwilliam None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action ( Gad Valley I24 Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) I25 Randy Hamburger [email protected] Transportation

175

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Paul Harmon, None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I26 Mountain Tools Inc Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) David Hartmann 260 Old Mill Road Pittsburgh, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I27 PA 15238. Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Jim Haslam [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I28 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Bryan Holbrook [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I29 2 Upgrade) Jennifer Hunter 2167 South 1450 West Woods Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I30 Cross UT 84087 Valley Day Lodge) Michael Jaffe [email protected] Process (Scenic Integrity), Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Beginner Area, Conveyor Lift, Gad I31 Valley Day Lodge, Bike Trails, Mid Gad Remodel, Gad 2 Upgrade) Michael Jones [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I32 Beginner Area, Gad Valley Day Lodge) I33 Jim Kanaley [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) Dennis Keller, One Tower Lane, Suite 2350 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I34 DeVry, Inc. Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181- Beginner Area, Conveyor Lift, Gad Valley Day Lodge, 4633 [email protected] Bike Trails) George Kolbenschlag 4950 East Hwy. 210 Wasatch Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I35 Resort #15 Sandy, UT 84121 Accessibility, Economic Benefits) Tom and Nancy 8016 S Sunnyoak Circle Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I36 Kronthaler Lake City UT 84121 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Accessibility) Ted Kunkel [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Bike I37 Trails) Jason LaBeach 1011 S. West Temple #G205 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Beginner I38 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Area, Economic Benefits, Safety) Michelle LeBaron 2896 South Florence Cir Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I39 Lake City, UT 84109 Economic Benefits) Chad Lewis, 336A SAB Provo, UT 84602 Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) Associate Athletic chad lewis@byu,edu Director - I40 Development, Brigham Young University Keith Liefer, Christy 800 Weiss Dr. Unit D Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I41 Sports Steamboat Springs CO 80487 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) I42 Luis Eduardo Lopez [email protected] No substantive comment.

176 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Jean Luckey, Wells None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Gad Valley I43 Fargo Insurance Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Safety) Services USA, Inc. Chris Markham, Best christopherpmarkham@yahoo. Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) I44 Cheer Stone, Inc. com Tim Martin, 8184 Highland Drive Building Process (Proposed Action), Transportation I45 ExtenData C2 Sandy, UT 84093 I46 Allen Maxwell [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) Jim Maxwell 2154 Browning Avenue Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I47 Lake City, Utah 84121 Accessibility, Need to Remain Competitive, Backcountry Preservation) Chaun McCardell, 50 West 3900 South Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I48 LoneRock Clothing Lake City, Utah 84107 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Company Inc. Marvin Melville 2816 Etienne Way Sandy, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I49 Utah 84093 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade) Steve Miller, Larry H 301 W. South Temple Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I50 Miller Tour of Utah Lake City, UT 84101 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Mr M T (unreadable) None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I51 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Accessibility) Brian Mullin 1762 Notchbrook Rd. Stowe, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I52 Vermont 05672 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Need to Remain Competitive) Ted Neff, Iron [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I53 Blosam Lodge Accessibility, Backcountry Preservation) Rand Norton None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I54 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Richard Olney III PO Box 194 Prides Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I55 Crossing,MA 01965 Need to Remain Competitive) John Ostrowski 4867 Littlefield Ln. South Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) I56 Jordan, UT 84095 Tom Patton 4434 Park Hill Dr. Salt Lake Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I57 City Utah, 84124 Valley Day Lodge, Need to Remain Competitive, Economic Benefits) Michael Persinger 2034 Rocklin Drive Sandy, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I58 UT 84092 Valley Day Lodge, Backcountry Preservation) Chris Peterson Christina.peterson1@comcast. Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I59 net Beginner Area, Gad Valley Day Lodge) Tim Petrick, Box 981060 Park City, Utah Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I60 Rossignol 84098 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing)

177

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Gary Pettit [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I61 Economic Benefits) F Scott Pierpont 2428 E Campus Drive Salt Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I62 Lake City, UT 84121 2 Upgrade, Accessibility, Need to Remain Competitive, Need For Developed Recreation) Amelia Praggastis, P.O. Box 929000 Snowbird, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad Wasatch Adaptive Utah 84092-9000 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) I63 Sports, Snowbird Corporation David Primrose [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I64 Need to Remain Competitive) Kim and Bud Raymer 3861 Silver Spur Circle Park Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I65 City, Utah 84098 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Economic Benefits) Joe Remes 375 Woodland Dr. Park City, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I66 UT 84098 Need to Remain Competitive) Santos Rodriguez None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I67 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Accessibility) Richard Schlesinger 14 West Lane Pound Ridge, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I68 NY 10576 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) George Schabes [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I69 2 Upgrade) Peter Schory PO Box 920010 Snowbird, UT Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I70 84092 Need to Remain Competitive, Economic Benefits) Nancy Searle 92 Woodley Road Winnetka, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I71 Illinois 60093 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Greg Sherry 2082 East 9800 South Sandy, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I72 UT 84092 Safety) I73 David Shick [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) Brad Silverberg P.O. Box 3831 Bellevue, WA Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I74 98009 2 Upgrade, Bike Trails, Beginner Area, Mid Gad Remodel, Need to Remain Competitive) Kevin Simon, PO Box 1800 Park City, Utah Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I75 Strachan Strachan & 84060-1800 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Simon, P.C. Bob Skeen None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I76 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Accessibility) Travis Skinner [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I77 Safety)

178 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Table 1 (cont’d). Comment log. ID Name Address Topic(s) Raised Rich Smith [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, I78 Accessibility) Rob Sogard, P.O. Box 929000 Snowbird, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Gad 2 I79 Snowbird Mountain Utah 84092-9000 Upgrade, Gad Valley Day Lodge, Night Skiing, Need to School Remain Competitive) Harry A Stillwell 970 Maplecrest Drive Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I80 Minnetrista, MN 55364 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade) Spencer Storm None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I81 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Ponch Thompson 9979 South City Lights Circle Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I82 South Jordan, UT 84095-9097 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Accessibility) I83 Kevin Tolton [email protected] Process (Baby Thunder Yurt). Marguerite Van None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I84 Komen Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade) Joseph VanderKelen 610 Pondview Drive Midland, Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I85 MI 48640 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Edmond Verbeke, 5 Waccabuc River Lane South Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I86 TNG Worldwide Salem, NY 10590 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) [email protected] Christy Wall [email protected] Process (Proposed Action), Watershed Resources (Water I87 Quality), Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) Jerome Wallace 15202 Johnstone Lane Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I88 Mitchellville MD 20721 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) Tait Wardlaw None provided Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I89 Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing) I90 Jonathan Webber [email protected] Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General) Neil and Paola 3724 S Desert Willow Drive – Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I91 Weedon B Salt Lake City UT 84119 Valley Day Lodge, Accessibility) Mary Anne Wood, 500 Eagle Gate Tower 60 East Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (General, Gad I92 Wood Balmforth South Temple Salt Lake City, Valley Day Lodge, Gad 2 Upgrade, Night Skiing, Need to LLC UT 84111 Remain Competitive) Gael Yonnet, 729 Arapeen Drive Salt Lake Comment Supporting the Proposed Action (Gad Valley I93 University of Utah City, UT 84108 Day Lodge, Accessibility)

PROCESSING OF COMMENTS Methodologically, a key step in the comment process is determining which comments are substantive and which are not. Regulations at 36 CFR 215.2 define substantive comments as those that are:

179

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

 within the scope of the proposed action,  are specific to the proposed action,  have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and  include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.

Substantive comments on the EA must be responded to (36 CFR 215.6[3][iii]). Non-substantive comments may be considered by the Responsible Official, but no response is required. Substantive comments and responses to them are provided below.

Note that two or more comments may be addressed by a single discussion. Several comments were received which address multiple components of the analysis in the same comment. For example, a single comment may address the soil and water quality components. Such comments have been categorically placed with whichever component appears to be the primary subject of the comment. RESULTS

Process Comments under this heading deal with various aspects of the NEPA process rather than specific environmental effects, which are addressed later in this report.

Proposed Action SLC feels strongly that all projects in the proposed MDP Amendment are legally connected pursuant to CEQ regulations and court interpretations and should be evaluated in relation to each other. This evaluation will help all stakeholders better understand the impacts of the Gad Valley and Expansion Projects and reduce the possibility of underestimating the impacts of these projects. The determination to portion Snowbird's MDP Amendment into separate environmental evaluation processes that do not consider the connectedness of all of the MDP Amendment projects does not meet the intent of NEPA and CEQ requirements because (1) the Expansion Projects are part of the same proposed MDP Amendment, and Snowbird is actively advancing the Expansion Projects forward; (2) the Expansion Projects are supported by Snowbird's existing and proposed infrastructure and amenities, including the proposed Gad Valley Projects, as well as LCC Road, parking, water, sewer, and lodging, and are interconnected in this regard; (3) the Expansion Projects and Gad Valley Projects are interconnected in their impacts to the LCC watershed given the shared use of existing and proposed infrastructure and amenities in the LCC watershed; and (4) the Expansion Projects are reasonably foreseeable actions. Segregating the MDP Amendment projects from each other also sets precedent for underestimating impacts associated with other future foreseeable proposals within SLC's municipal watershed. NEP A does not allow these interdependent parts to be piecemealed to avoid significant impacts. 40 C.F.R. § l508.27(b)(7). This EA for the Gad Valley Projects must analyze the effects of the Expansion Projects because they are foreseeable and connected actions and indirect effects of the Gad Valley Projects. (A5-1)

The impacts of the Expansion Projects should be analyzed in the EA because they are foreseeable and are connected actions and/or indirect impacts of the Gad Valley Projects… Snowbird submitted the Gad Valley Projects and Expansion Projects in one MDP Amendment proposal. Snowbird is currently seeking revisions to the Utah County land use ordinance to allow for activities such as horseback riding trails, "zip lines, alpine slides, mountain coasters and similar recreational oriented amenities for a four season resort, and mountain resort related retail and food and beverage facilities." Snowbird is pursuing all of the MDP

180 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Amendment projects at the same time. The EA must address the impacts of all the projects proposed by Snowbird because the Expansion Projects are foreseeable and are connected actions and/or indirect impacts of the Gad Valley Projects. (A5-3)

There are those who seem to be against any expansion in the canyons for any reason and in my opinion these people are incredible selfish. …I also fully support the proposed expansion to Mary Ellen Gulch. Snowbird has demonstrated continued responsibility in developing resources. I believe allowing skiers and snowboarders access to that area would help spread out the skiers and enhance everyone’s experience. They already have lifts in that area and I see no reason not to allow them to develop this resource. (I1-3)

Despite the fact that this proposal does not include ski area expansion, I would like to express that I vehemently oppose expansion of any of the Wasatch ski resorts outside their current boundaries. (I87-3)

Response: Connected actions are defined by NEPA (40 CFR 1508.25) as actions which:

(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.

The two MDP phases, the current Proposed Action and the proposed Mary Ellen Gulch expansion, were reviewed according to the three criteria cited above to determine if they were connected actions. Our finding was that neither phase automatically triggered the other, that neither phase depended on previous or concurrent implementation of the other, and that neither phase depended on any larger, unifying action. Based on this review, the two phases are not connected actions.

Beyond that, the rationale for a phased approach to MDP implementation and supporting NEPA analysis has several aspects. Ski area MDPs, a requirement of the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, are intended to demonstrate a long-term view of a permittee’s plans and capabilities to provide recreational opportunities on National Forest System lands. They are “accepted” by the Forest Service to meet that administrative requirement, but acceptance does not authorize implementation of anything on the ground. Actual implementation requires agency authorization and, since implementation has the potential to affect the human environment, this triggers NEPA review. Thus, implementation is where the separate master planning and NEPA processes cross.

To serve their designated purpose, MDPs must reflect a relatively long planning horizon. Given the technical, social, and economic variables that affect ski area decision making, these plans typically become less definitive as they extend farther in time. Consequently, NEPA review of MDPs in their entirety, as practiced in the past, has proven to be infeasible; plans naturally evolve over time to the point that they no longer align with the original NEPA review. As a result, NEPA-based authorizations either become an impediment to improved planning or have to be revised, based on new analysis, to address updated planning. Either scenario is inefficient and costly.

Recognizing the fact that MDPs are inherently dynamic, the Forest Service has adopted a phased approach to NEPA review, focusing on initial phases of MDPs that are ripe for review, approval, and implementation. Subsequent MDP phases are considered as appropriate to provide context for the current phase and provide a basis for analysis of cumulative effects. This approach has proven to be more

181

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

practical and efficient. It has been opposed in some instances for reasons similar to those expressed in these comments. However, when this approach was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Ark Initiative et al. v. U.S. Forest Service et al.; case 1:06-cv-02418-WDM-MJW; 8/18/10), the Court found in favor of the Forest Service, concluding that acceptance of a ski area MDP had “absolutely no on-the-ground effect” and was not the “final agency action under the [Administrative Procedures Act].” In short, MDP acceptance per se does not trigger environmental review.

The overall approach to conducting NEPA review of MDPs described above, including the criteria defining connected actions, was the basis for our decision to initiate NEPA review of the current Proposed Action and defer review of the proposed Mary Ellen Gulch expansion until it was ripe for review and decision-making.

Supervisor Ferebee’s April 15, 2011, letter accepting the MDP amendment, which is cited in these comments, went beyond the connected actions issue in distinguishing these MDP phases. The letter was clear in regard to the separation between the current Proposed Action (the Gad Valley Improvement Projects) and the proposed Mary Ellen Gulch expansion. He noted that in a previous, October 20, 2010, letter he had accepted the current Proposed Action but required more information on the expansion before considering acceptance of that proposal. He also noted results of the screening process for the expansion leading to the determination that an LRMP amendment would be necessary. He also responded to Snowbird’s request that a land exchange be considered as an alternative to a permit boundary expansion, noting that Snowbird would need to develop and submit a formal exchange proposal that met stipulated criteria. He also noted that the proposal would be reviewed to determine if it was in the public interest, and that the land exchange alternative would “add complexity and extend the process.” In short, beyond the fact that they are not connected actions, there are practical reasons to process these two MDP phases separately.

At this point, we recognize that the initial steps have been taken by Snowbird and the agency to see if a land exchange option is feasible. From that perspective, the Mary Ellen Gulch expansion is reasonably foreseeable. That determination, coupled with the fact that the expansion is included in an accepted MDP amendment, dictates that we address the expansion as a cumulative action in this EA. Note also that this EA is be tiered to the 1999 FEIS on Snowbird’s current MDP, bringing past and pending actions from that plan into the analysis as well. Creekside Lodge Snowbird makes it clear the proposed expansion [Alternative 1 – Proposed Action] would extend into Little Cottonwood Canyon Creek RHCA. Based on this information alone, the project should be located in an alternate location. Is it still feasible to propose that the footprint be shifted to the northwest instead of southwest? According to the 1999-ROD, they already have an approval for that location. This project would have detrimental effects on LCCC, and any efforts to keep development out of the RHCA zone should be taken. Potentially even relocating the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program to another location, so as to minimize impacts to LCCC and the RCHA. (O6-6)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, under Alternative 3, the building footprint would shift to the northwest and into the existing paved delivery area and parking lot. Impacts on the RHCA and Little Cottonwood Creek are disclosed in applicable sections of the EA. Baby Thunder Yurt Snowbird's proposal does not state whether restrooms will be provided in the beginning ski area. The nearest restrooms are at Creekside Lodge. The EA should evaluate the impacts of not having restrooms at the beginner ski area or of installing restrooms. If Snowbird will be

182 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

installing restrooms, the EA should analyze whether Snowbird can provide water to the area under its water supply contract and the impacts of doing so. (A5-17)

Will the Yurt be used year round? (A5-23)

The EA should address whether the yurt will have a water supply. It appears that the yurt will be outside of the boundaries of Snowbird's water supply contract. The EA should analyze whether Snowbird can provide water to the yurt under its water supply contract…Snowbird should provide more information on the yurt in order for SLC to provide more detailed comments. How much grading will be required to construct the yurt? Will it have running water? (A5-25)

It is unclear whether the yurt will contain restrooms [under Alternative 3], and if not, where those using the yurt will use the restroom. The EA should analyze the effects of having porta- potties or constructing restrooms, if the yurt will have them…The EA should address whether the yurt will have a water supply. It appears that the yurt will be outside of the boundaries of Snowbird's water supply contract. The EA should analyze whether Snowbird can provide water to the yurt under its water supply contract. (A5-47)

Yurts are a great idea for the ski areas, and for the backcountry generally. …Permanent toilets, however, should be built in the area not only for the people using the yurts but also for hikers and skiers in the area who are often going to the bathroom on the ground and contaminating the watershed with raw untreated human waste... (I83-1)

The human waste issue is huge and an issue which SLC has been ignoring and simply hoping would go away. …The Health Department, SLCPU, and the FS should get together and solve the human waste hazard in the canyons. The numbers of people using the canyons is going to increase exponentially in the future, not get smaller. … Now is the time to address yurts and the badly needed sanitary facilities in the more remote areas of the canyons of the Wasatch. (I83- 2)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, a yurt and porta-potty-type facilities would be installed within the bounds of the beginner area, water containers would be hauled in by snowcat, and no summer activities involving the yurt are anticipated. Permanent toilets were not considered for water quality reasons. While Alternative 3 would shift the location of the yurt and associated facilities up slope, other aspects of the yurt would not change. The impacts of these facilities, including grading disturbance, are addressed in appropriate sections of the EA. Contractual arrangements for water are, in themselves, an administrative rather than environmental concern. Gad 2 Upgrade With the lift in need of an upgrade we would only support this project if the existing fixed-grip double were to be replaced with a fixed -grip double. At this time Snowbird is not simply seeking an upgrade of an existing lift due to age, maintenance and limited availability of parts. Snowbird wants higher capacity. Well, in order to accommodate higher capacity with a new lift, they will need to expand the scope of this project. This project now includes a loading carpet and two additional trail grading projects in order to meet the needs of a new higher capacity lift. (O6-9)

Save Our Canyons would like Snowbird to maintain the feel and character of Gad Valley. Changing the lift to a higher capacity would significantly change the upper Gad Valley and the areas backcountry access. This upgrade would alter the landscape and change the area forever.

183

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The scope of this project is beyond upgrading a lift. The Forest Service should conduct further study on the impacts increased capacity would have on Gad Valley. (O6-10)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, the type of lift to be installed and its operational capacity has not been determined, rather, “Actual operating capacity of whatever lift is selected would be determined through experience, with the objectives of comfortable loading and unloading and maintaining a good balance with the pod’s trail capacity.” The Notice of Proposed Action also identified the following issue addressed in the EA’s Recreation section:

 “How would the proposed upgrade of Gad 2 lift affect the recreational setting in the Gad 2 pod?

The proposed upgrade would increase the lift’s capacity, delivering more skiers to the top of the pod’s trail system. The Gad 2 pod is favored by skiers seeking a less crowded experience which could be diminished by excessive skier density. There is also a circulation bottleneck where ski trails join a cat track, resulting in localized congestion. Snowbird skiers also use the Gad 2 lift to access popular backcountry terrain in Scottie’s Bowl and White Pine Canyon. Increased use of this terrain could impact the recreational experience of backcountry recreationists and affect snow safety.” Miscellaneous In general the improvements should meet best practices for disturbances during and after construction. (O9-1)

I am supportive of the proposed actions, Alternative One in this MDP, as long as …proper watershed, scenic and land use guidelines are observed. (I45-1)

Response: The EA identifies any applicable management direction, best management practices, and other design criteria or mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce identified potential impacts.

A roller Coaster is Not at all acceptable in Little Cottonwood Canyon. It's our source if water. People can go to Lagoon if they want a Coaster. This is an abuse if public lands. Snowbird employs too many people from other Countries to be using the US resources. They actively recruit outside of the US for employees. We have a over 20% unemployment rate among youth. A roller Coaster is out of the question. (I3-1)

Response: The Proposed Action and alternative do not include a coaster of any kind. Snowbird proposed a mountain coaster on private land that was turned down by the County last year, and this year they submitted a proposal for a similar ride at an alternative location, on private land at the base of Peruvian Gulch, which was subsequently approved by the County. Construction began in September 2012, and this project is considered as a cumulative action in this EA. Otherwise, it is outside the scope of this analysis.

No-Action Alternative At the time of Snowbird’s 1999 Master Development Plan, the 1999 ROD was issued under the previous Forest Service Plan. We understand that there is no statute of limitations on Forest Service approvals, however is any additional analysis being conducted on these projects? Are the cumulative impacts being reanalyzed? Do the current proposed actions fit within the guidelines and objectives of the current Forest Plan? (O6-2)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, the No-Action Alternative in the EA addresses all previously approved projects that are still pending in Snowbird’s MDP. In accordance with NEPA and

184 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements agency regulations on its implementation, these projects are analyzed in the same manner as elements of the Proposed Action and action alternatives. The 1999 FEIS to which this EA is tiered has been reviewed, and any changed conditions or new information, including the Forest Plan revision, are considered as appropriate to determine if the conclusions in the 1999 FEIS remain valid.

This [No Action] alternative should not analyze the impacts of projects that were approved in the 1999 ROD that Snowbird has no plans of ever constructing. (A5-42)

Response: The projects listed under the No-Action Alternative in the Notice of Proposed Action are those that Snowbird intends to complete. The UWCNF requested that Snowbird screen the previously approved projects and include the updated list in their amendment proposal, and that was done.

Purpose and Need If the expanded [lift maintenance] shop is being constructed to handle the increased number of ski-lifts in Snowbird's proposal (new American Fork Twin Peaks tram, new Mary Ellen Gulch ski-lift, Mineral Basin Express extension), then the EA must analyze the impacts of the lift expansion that this expanded maintenance shop is making possible. (A5-30)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, the primary reason for relocating the lift maintenance shop is to move it out of the congested Snowbird Center area. The additional lifts in this Proposed Action or in Snowbird’s accepted MDP amendment are not part of the stated purpose and need for the facility. The EA addresses the impacts of all lift-related projects under the Proposed Action and alternatives. See discussion under comments A5-1, A5-3, and I87-3 (Process – Proposed Action) regarding treatment of the proposed Mary Ellen Gulch expansion in this EA.

Has Snowbird worked with the Forest Service on measuring the impacts of an expanded mountain bike trail system? What impact would Snowbird’s trail system have on mountain biking outside the resort setting? Would Snowbird’s proposal really address growing local need, is the need for a trail system in a managed setting what the market demands? (O6-8)

Response: The Notice of Proposed Action summarizes the purpose and need for the proposed mountain bike trails. Lift served mountain biking at ski areas is enjoying a rapid and well documented increase in popularity. The layout of the proposed mountain bike trails was developed by a firm with an established record of designing popular and successful trail systems. Based on experience at Snowbird and elsewhere, there is demand for the proposed trails. The degree to which the trails would offset local demand for unmanaged mountain biking is impossible to assess, but it would hopefully reduce the impacts of illegal and improper use of non-designated trails outside of the resort as an indirect effect.

Level of NEPA Review The USFS must prepare an EIS if the EA shows that Snowbird's proposal has the potential to "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." … The significance of an action cannot be avoided by dividing the action into smaller parts…Whether the project may significantly affect the environment is a matter of context and intensity.. The context of Snowbird's MPD Amendment proposal here should include, at least, the entire LCC watershed and the American Fork watershed as both areas will be affected by the proposed MDP Amendment... In analyzing the intensity on Snowbird's expansion proposal, the EA should address, at least, public health, the unique watershed characteristics for the entire watershed at issue, the degree of controversy surrounding the project, the precedent setting effect of the Project, the cumulative impacts of the Project, and whether the action is consistent with state and local environmental protection laws.. The more sensitive the context, the less intense the

185

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

impact needs to be for an EIS to be required. Here, the Proposed Action is occurring in a very sensitive context and an EIS, even for just the Gad Valley Projects, is likely required. (A5-2)

With regard to the intensity of the project, it should be noted that the expansion elements of the proposal, which are connected to the other elements of the proposal, have the potential to set significant precedence if they result in amending the existing Forest Plans. This is especially important because the 2003 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan currently prohibits ski-area expansion and other ski-resort expansion plans have been proposed and are foreseeable within SLC's municipal watershed. (A5-4)

The EA should address the community support for this project. The community seems deeply divided over the MDP Amendment proposal as a whole and the EA should address this when it discusses the social impacts of the project. FSH 1909.15, Zero Code, p. 5; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8, .14, and .27 (b) (4). (A5-9)

Response: The Forest Supervisor, who is the Responsible Official in this case, will decide whether the environmental effects identified in the EA are significant and will also consider cumulative effects in determining whether the selected alternative would have a significant environmental effect. Either of these actions could necessitate preparing an EIS. In terms of context, see response to comments A5-1, A5-3, and I87-3 (Process – Proposed Action) regarding treatment of the Mary Ellen Gulch expansion in this EA. Beyond that, no public health issues beyond basic water quality effects have been identified, and unique watershed characteristics are addressed to the degree that they are subject to direct or indirect impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Based on scoping and comment on the Proposed Action, the projects are not particularly controversial, in fact they are favored by a strong majority of commenters. The Proposed Action has little precedent-setting potential, and compliance with state and local environmental protection laws are assessed as appropriate.

The EA should address cumulative impacts in determining whether the project will significantly affect the human environment…In analyzing cumulative impacts, the EA must consider "past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non- federal) or person undertakes such actions."…The cumulative impacts analysis must describe "the effects that overlap in time and space for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (activities), regardless of ownership, that may combine with effects of the proposed activities ... cumulative effects can be additive or synergistic ... "…A significant effect on the environment "exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment" even if the proposed action individually will only have minor impacts…Under this standard, the EA should analyze the cumulative effects of Snowbird's Expansion Projects and other Wasatch ski-resort expansion plans described above that are foreseeable, within the same region, and within the UWCNF planning area. Considering the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the foreseeable expansion projects, it is reasonable to anticipate a significant impact on the environment, requiring an EIS. (A5-5)

Response: See discussion under comments A5-1, A5-3, and I87-3 (Process – Proposed Action). The Responsible Official will consider cumulative effects in determining whether the selected alternative would have a significant environmental effect, necessitating preparation of an EIS. Other expansion projects are considered if and as appropriate.

Tiering is appropriate in situations where the analysis is performed on the broad level and then later applied in a site specific analysis...Here, the USFWS proposes to tier off of the 1999 MDP to analyze an expansion of the MDP. The EA is not analyzing a smaller project that was previously analyzed, but is analyzing an expanded version of a previously analyzed project that

186 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

increases environmental impacts and is occurring 13 years after the original EIS. Tiering is only appropriate here to analyze issues, if any, that have not changed in the last 13 years. (A5- 15)

Response: As indicated in the scoping notice and the notice and comment document, the Proposed Action is part of the 2011 amendment to Snowbird’s MDP. As such, it is appropriate to tier this project- specific EA to the 1999 FEIS addressing the MDP as a whole. However, a fundamental aspect of this analysis is a review of pertinent portions of the 1999 FEIS to make sure that changed conditions or new information has not invalidated its conclusions.

Consistence with Applicable Laws and Regulations The EA must consider how the Proposed Action complies with applicable local regulations and environmental protection laws.. Here, such regulations include, but are not limited to: Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan (November 1999), Salt Lake City watershed protection and zoning ordinances (Salt Lake City Code Title 17); Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulations (Regulation No. 14); Salt Lake County Wasatch Canyons Master Plan (1989) and Foothills and Canyon Overlay Zone, the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta Forest Plans (which prohibit new commercial ski resort development outside existing permit areas), the Utah County Zoning Ordinances, and federal law which direct the Secretary of Agriculture to administer the Wasatch canyons in cooperation with Salt Lake City "for the purpose of storing, conserving, and protecting from pollution the said water supply." The EA should analyze this issue in depth. (A5-7)

Response: Compliance with the cited laws and regulations are addressed as appropriate in pertinent sections of the EA.

GROWTH RELATED EFFECTS The proposed Gad Valley Projects are designed to increase the number of Snowbird visitors year-round. Snowbird should determine and the EA should analyze the expected increase in visits from the Gad Valley and Expansion Projects, including transportation impacts that will occur on the roads and highways that serve Snowbird, parking impacts, and the increased demand for public services (water, sewer, power, lodging). Demand will be from the increased users of Snowbird and the increased worker base necessary to accommodate the proposed expansion. (A5-6)

The EA should address the impacts of increased users at Snowbird from constructing the beginner ski area. (A5-19)

The EA should address the impacts of increased users at Snowbird from constructing the conveyer lift. (A5-21)

Snowbird proposes to add night skiing in order to expand its offerings and attract more users. An increase in users will have direct impacts from increased demand for water and sewer services and increased traffic on State Highway 210. (A5-26)

Construction of mountain bike trails is part of Snowbird's goal to increase the number of users at its resort, specifically summer users. Snowbird should provide more detail on how many more users it anticipates will visit Snowbird because of the new facilities. (A5-35)

187

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Upgrading the Gad 2 lift to a quad-chair will allow Snowbird to accommodate more users at its resort. Snowbird should provide additional information regarding how many additional users it anticipates because of this upgrade. The EA should address the impacts from these additional users. (A5-40)

Response: See discussion under comments A5-1, A5-3, and I87-3 (Process – Proposed Action) regarding treatment of the proposed Mary Ellen Gulch expansion in this EA. Beyond that, the purpose and need for the current Proposed Action have more to do with maintaining the quality of Snowbird’s recreational offerings than with increasing visitor numbers per se. In terms of the adequacy of various capacities, including those of SR 210 and Snowbird’s parking lots, utilities, etc., the 1999 FEIS addressing the current MDP is the starting point in this analysis. The FEIS established a comfortable carrying capacity of 6,817 skiers under the selected alternative (based on the 11th percentile visitor day), with projected annual visitation of 529,300. If anticipated visitation under this proposal falls within that limit, current capacities should remain adequate. If not, any imbalance will be identified and addressed in the appropriate EA section. It is not feasible or useful to try to assign an increment of increased visitation due to adding a conveyor lift or upgrading a lift, as such capacities are strictly hypothetical and not relevant to the resort’s overall capacity (determined more by parking capacity than any other single factor). Actual visitation depends on the overall attractiveness of the resort’s recreational offerings coupled with a host of unpredictable variables in recreation industry, the climate, and the society and economy at large.

Because Snowbird's expansion has the potential to affect air quality, public services (water, sewer, power, etc.), human health, and land use planning, these categories should be added to and analyzed in the EA. Water quality and watershed health should be addressed directly within the "watershed and soil resources" category. (A5-8)

Response: See discussion under comments A5-1, A5-3, and I87-3 (Process – Proposed Action) regarding treatment of the proposed Mary Ellen Gulch expansion in this EA, and A5-6 (Growth Related Effects), regarding the potential for increased visitation. Beyond that, the issues of air quality, public services, and land use planning will be addressed if further analysis indicates potential impacts in those areas. Water quality and watershed health are addressed under Watershed Resources in the EA.

RECREATION We have specific concerns about the additional skier capacity for the replacement of the Gad 2 chair and potential increase in backcountry use in White Pine. We would like to see the ski area boundary managed so that backcountry use does not exceed current levels. White Pine sees high use both summer and winter and additional spill over from Snowbird will seriously impact local skiers, snowshoers and hikers. (O9-2)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, the Recreation analysis in the EA addresses the following issue:

 “How would the proposed upgrade of Gad 2 lift affect the recreational setting in the Gad 2 pod?

The proposed upgrade would increase the lift’s capacity, delivering more skiers to the top of the pod’s trail system… Snowbird skiers also use the Gad 2 lift to access popular backcountry terrain in Scottie’s Bowl and White Pine Canyon. Increased use of this terrain could impact the recreational experience of backcountry recreationists and affect snow safety.”

188 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

However, the Forest Service’s ski area boundary management regulations and policies preclude limiting public access to public lands. Analysis of this issue may well indicate increased backcountry use, reflecting both increased demand and increased access.

SCENIC INTEGRITY With our young racers, we would utilize night skiing but would not want the lights on too late nor would we want it to be open every night. (I31-7)

Response: As stated in the Notice of Proposed Action, night skiing would begin at 5 or 5:30 and run till 9:00 or 10:00 PM. As no limitation on operating days has been proposed, the assumption in the this EA is that night skiing will be available on all days Snowbird is open for skiing. Visual impacts of proposed night lighting are addressed in the Scenic Integrity section of the EA.

TRANSPORTATION The EA should address the impacts from… increased traffic on State Highway 210 [due to the new mountain bike trails]. (A5-36)

Response: As indicated in the Scoping Report, this issue was considered, but it was ultimately not carried into in-depth analysis because any capacity issues on SR 210 are associated with the peak volumes occurring in winter during the ingress and egress peak hours of ski area operations. Summer traffic volumes are much lower and more diffused, so further analysis is not needed to confirm that the mountain bike trails would not generate significant traffic issues.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the need (regardless of the outcome of this action) for real progress on transportation issues in the canyons of the Wasatch Front – specifically Big and Little Cottonwood canyons. (I45-2)

I would like the following comments to be considered for the changes proposed by Snowbird:  Expand support for the existing bus service to reduce canyon traffic.  Offset any increases in canyon traffic with contributions by Snowbird to permanent open space that cannot be developed in the future.  Install automated avalanche control equipment to limit canyon closures. Why pull more people to the canyons so they can wait at the base?  Develop a long term plan to link the Parleys and Cottonwood resorts that limits backcountry impact, open space development, and canyon traffic.  Initiate a study for light rail in the canyon to limit canyon traffic.  Consider charging a traffic toll to subsidize mass transit projects. (I25-1)

Response: See response to comment A5-6 (Growth Related Effects) above, particularly regarding the assumption that the Proposed Action will not notably alter traffic in the canyon. Beyond that, implementing programs to manage large-scale transportation concerns and fund mitigation measures is beyond the scope of this decision.

UTILITIES The EA should analyze whether the expanded maintenance shop may receive water under the water supply contract. (A5-28)

189

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The expansion of Creekside Lodge will increase the number of patrons and thereby increase Snowbird's demand for water and sewer services. Currently, Salt Lake County Service Area #3 provides water to Creekside Lodge under a contract between Salt Lake County Service Area #3, Salt Lake City, and Snowbird. The contract limits the amount of water that Snowbird can use at the Lodge. The EA should analyze whether the expanded Creekside Lodge is authorized to receive water under the water supply contract. The EA should also address the impacts from increased sewer demand. (A5-33)

The remodel of the MidGad restaurant will also increase Snowbird's demand for water. Currently, Salt Lake County Service Area #3 provides water to Mid Gad restaurant under a contract between Salt Lake County Service Area #3, Salt Lake City, and Snowbird. The contract limits the amount of water that Snowbird can use at the restaurant. The EA should analyze whether the remodeled restaurant is authorized to receive water under the water supply contract. (A5-39)

This [No Action] alternative should include analysis related to contractual limitations on water quantity for projects that include snowmaking and facilities. Snowbird has continued to request additional snowmaking water during individual years. (A5-43)

Response: The contractual arrangements for water delivery are an administrative matter rather than an environmental one. They are addressed only to the degree that they are associated with additional construction or other impact on the physical or biological environment.

In the recent past, the MidGad restaurant has experienced sewer issues that have necessitated shutting down the bathrooms and installing porta-potties. A remodel to the restaurant will allow for additional patrons and will increase pressure on the restaurant's sewer system. The EA should address the effects of increased pressure on the existing sewer system and, if a new sewer line is necessary, the impacts of installing a new sewer line. (A5-38)

Sewer infrastructure should operate adequately for facilities expansions. In particular, the Hidden Peak Facilities Upgrade [under the No Action Alternative] should carefully analyze the need for, and impacts related to, sewer line upgrades as this particular sewer line has malfunctioned in the past. (A5-44)

Response: This year Snowbird completed a major upgrade of the sewer line from Hidden Peak to the base of Gad Valley, ensuring adequate, reliable capacity for the upgraded Hidden Peak and Mid Gad facilities. The EA notes this improvement.

WATERSHED RESOURCES

General The Proposed Action identified watershed resources as one of the "Issues to be Analyzed in Depth." SLC feels strongly that the question regarding "Watershed Resources" is too narrowly defined ("How would the proposed projects affect water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek? "). Protecting water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek is critical, and must be included. The analysis should not just include Little Cottonwood Creek, but also the entire LCC watershed. FSH 1909.12 Ch. 10 § l3.llc. (A5-10)

SLC requests that the EA analyzes, cumulatively and incrementally, additional components regarding "Watershed Resources", including the net increase in ground disturbance, land cover

190 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

disturbance, roads, impermeable surfaces, and overall projected use associated with the Proposed Action and the Alternatives. (A5-12)

Response: Water quality in Little Cottonwood Creek is both an indicator of overall watershed condition and the focal point of Salt Lake City’s regulatory interest in the Little Cottonwood Creek watershed. That is why the issue statement is worded as it is. Planning guidelines referenced in the above comment (FSH 1909.12 Ch. 10 § l3.llc) refer to the need, when pertinent, to evaluate certain aspects of water resources at the 3rd or 4th field watershed scale. The entire LCC watershed is defined by two 6th field watersheds. Little Cottonwood Creek is a tributary to the Jordan River, whose watershed boundary is considered a 4th field watershed. Addressing impacts of the Proposed Action at such a large scale would not be feasible or necessary to an adequately informed decision by the Responsible Official.

The Connected Disturbed Area (CDA) method is being used to assess the potential impacts of each project element on water quality prior to mitigation. As a result, impacts are addressed both for individual projects and cumulatively for each alternative in the EA. Some of the factors considered in the CDA method include area of disturbance, intensity of disturbance, erosion hazard, slope, and distance to a receiving water body. This approach addresses the key variables noted in the comment. Given the nature of the proposed projects, no notable increase in impervious surfaces would occur, so this variable is not addressed. The CDA method was used in the 1999 FEIS, so using it in the EA allows for ready comparison of the results of the two analyses. Using this method, direct and indirect effects are restricted to Snowbird’s permit area while cumulative effects are assessed at the watershed level as appropriate. Also see response to comments A5-13 and A5-14 below.

The EA should refer to the Watershed Condition Framework assessment that was completed by the USFS for the LCC watershed, and assess incremental and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternatives using the parameters outlined in the Watershed Assessment. The EA should also analyze the availability of resources to enforce best management practices (BMPs) in construction and mitigation. (A5-13)

Response: The Watershed Condition Framework is primarily “a comprehensive approach for proactively implementing integrated restoration on priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands. The WCF proposes to improve the way the Forest Service approaches watershed restoration by targeting the implementation of integrated suites of activities in those watersheds that have been identified as priorities for restoration” (FS-977, May 2011). The Little Cottonwood Canyon watershed has been classified as Class 3 – Impaired due to a Utah 303(d) listing and water quality impairment from excessive levels of dissolved zinc. The EA addresses the potential of each alternative to effect loading to Little Cottonwood Creek and compliance with the existing TMDL.

SLC is concerned that a piecemeal approach in analyzing projects and their impacts, whether on the scale of single ski resort, or on a watershed scale, will not adequately capture cumulative impacts. For this project, and others within the UWCNF, significant consideration should be given to quantifying and analyzing the incremental and cumulative impacts associated with increases in land cover habitat losses, ground disturbance (including trails and roads), and impermeable surfaces. Additional development and use will further stress the already limited watershed management resources of both the UWCNF and SLC, and create additional watershed vulnerabilities associated with enforcement of permits, BMPs, and operational issues. (A5-14)

We understand that the Forest Service jurisdiction is for federal public lands. However, the Wasatch consists of a patchwork of various managing agencies in the area. The Wasatch serves as a municipal watershed and is managed by Salt Lake City. We hope that the Forest Service

191

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

considers the cumulative impacts the Snowbirds MDP proposal may have on the Salt Lake City Watershed. (O6-1)

Response: While this EA incorporates cumulative actions as appropriate (i.e., for specific resources subject to direct or indirect impacts under the Proposed Action or alternatives), we should be clear that it does not provide a comprehensive analysis of watershed conditions in Little Cottonwood Canyon or on the UWCNF. That would far exceed the requirements of NEPA.

In addition to a number of other variables included in the CDA analysis (see response to A5-10 and A5- 12 above), net and cumulative soil disturbance including trails and roads, and impermeable surfaces, are considered and quantified as necessary to allow identification of significant effects. Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats are addressed in the Wildlife section of the EA. As discussed above in response to comments A5-6 – A5-40, projected human use falls within the limits analyzed in the 1999 FEIS, and such use does not require further analysis.

We also feel that development should not occur in close proximity to Little Cottonwood Creek. The proposed beginner area on the north side of the creek within the ski area boundary will have a number of impacts on the creek. The location detailed in Alternative 3 where the beginner area is located on the Big Emma run makes more sense to us in terms of not impacting the creek. Baby Thunder is underutilized; expanding beginner territory in that area may also be unsuccessful. (O9-3)

The project is proposing a new access road; a bridge spanning LCC and conveyor lifts. The scope of these projects seems significant considering the location. It is mentioned that a new access road would diverge from the existing road to the site of a bridge constructed to provide construction/maintenance. Snowmaking capabilities would be expanded from the base of Baby Thunder. Will in stream flow determinations be required prior to approving this project? What types of disturbances would these actions have on Little Cottonwood Creek? (O6-3)

The beginner skiing area would require tree removal and the other additions to this project would require further vegetation removal and grading, all within a RHCA area and Little Cottonwood Canyon Creek. How does Snowbird plan on mitigating the impacts? …Under Chapter 4 Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, Section Soil and Water Resources, Guidelines for Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitat Health, the Forest Plan stresses …G12 Locate new actions such as recreation facilities, roads and improvements) outside of RHCA’s. …G9 Avoid soil-disturbing activities... in riparian, wetlands, floodplains, wet meadows, and alpine areas. …None of the proposed beginner projects are in line with those guidelines. Has the placement of this proposed project been selected to minimize impacts to Little Cottonwood Canyon Creek and the RCHA? We feel this project should not be permitted in this area. (O6-4) The EA should evaluate the impacts of the beginner ski area on LCC during construction and operation should [be evaluated]. (A5-16)

Watershed impacts of the operation and construction of the yurt [under the Proposed Action] should be evaluated. Construction of the yurt will likely cause several impacts including grading to construct it and garbage generated during its use. The EA should analyze the effects of placing and servicing porta-potties at the yurt. (A5-22)

Because the [lift maintenance] shop will be constructed next to Little Cottonwood Creek, the EA should analyze the impacts to Little Cottonwood Creek from construction and operation of the shop. Construction next to Little Cottonwood Creek has the potential to discharge sediment and other materials into the creek and affect wetlands. The footprint of the shop should be

192 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

quantified in terms of net increase of impermeable area. Operation of the shop after construction creates the potential for grease, oil, and other chemicals to enter the creek, especially during high flows. The EA should address all these impacts and how to mitigate them. The EA should also address whether construction of the shop complies with set-back requirements of applicable watershed regulations and land use ordinances. (A5-29)

The EA should analyze the impacts of constructing a new [Lunch Run access] road at Snowbird and how such impacts will be mitigated, such as soil disturbance and sediment runoff into LCC. The net increase of disturbed area this new road reflects should be quantified. Snowbird should provide additional information about its restoration plan for the current road alignment. (A5- 37)

Analysis should include the characteristics of and quantify the disturbed area proposed in the terrain modifications [for Alternative 3 – Beginner Ski Area], including land cover 'type and proximity to waterways. The analysis should also determine whether development would occur outside the 50 foot setback from streams as defined in the SL VHO Regulation 14. (A5-45) The EA should evaluate the watershed impacts of constructing and operating the yurt [under Alternative 3]. Construction of the yurt will likely cause several impacts including grading to construct it and garbage generated during its use. (A5-46)

Response: Impacts on Little Cottonwood Creek and other resources projected to occur as a result of developing the beginner area and other elements under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 (formulated specifically to reduce impacts within the RCHA) are discussed in the Watershed Resources section and other applicable sections of the EA.

The incremental grading area (8.3 acres) [from the Gad 2 upgrade] should be added to the cumulative amount of disturbed area from each of the additional projects. (A5-41)

Response: Under the CDA approach (see response to comments A5-10 and A5-12 above), the disturbance area of individual projects as well as the cumulative area under each alternative, is included in the EA’s Watershed Resources analysis.

What justification does Snowbird have for locating this conveyor lift in the RHCA? This proposed project is also not in line with the Guidelines for Watershed, Riparian and Aquatic Health. (O6-5)

Response: The rationale for each proposed project under each Alternative was stated in the Notice of Proposed Action which states, “This site is easily accessible from Creekside Lodge but relatively out of the way in the congested base area.” Note that the conveyor would not be built under Alternative 3, as no alternative location outside the RHCA would meet the stated purpose and need.

Soils The EA should analyze the impacts of constructing the conveyer lift, such as soil disturbance. (A5-20)

Additional trails will cause ground disturbance, which should be analyzed in the EA in the context of watershed resources. Trail design, method of construction and management/maintenance feasibility should be analyzed. Who will maintain the trails to control erosion or the construction of additional trail spurs? (A5-34)

193

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Response: These issues are addressed in the Watershed Resources section of the EA.

The EA should describe and analyze whether any access roads are necessary to install and maintain the night-skiing lights. It should describe and analyze whether there will be any soil disturbance to install the lights and install a power supply for the lights. (A5-27)

Response: No additional roads are proposed to service the proposed night skiing. Soil disturbance associated with lighting installation is addressed in the Watershed Resources section of the EA.

Water Quality I think the changes seem to make sense (although on a personal level, I'm sad to see the old Gad 2 go), provided that construction is done in a way that does not negatively impact water quality, particularly at the base of Baby Thunder and the Gad Valley pump station expansion, where the construction will be so close to Little Cottonwood Creek. (I87-2)

"Water quality" should be better defined to specify the water quality metrics that will be used in the analysis, and should include aquatic health. (A5-11)

Response: Alternative 3 was developed in response to water quality concerns regarding projects close to Little Cottonwood Creek. The EA addresses water quality impacts, and specifies the metrics used, in the Watershed Resources section. The Wildlife section addresses aquatic health.

What maintenance activities will occur in the [lift maintenance] shop and at what frequency? What chemicals does Snowbird anticipate using in the shop? (A5-31)

Response: The potential water quality impacts of fuel and other chemicals used in the proposed lift maintenance shop is addressed in the Watershed Resources section of the EA.

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Areas The EA must evaluate the impacts of the bridge Snowbird proposes to construct to access the beginner ski area and whether the bridge will impact wetlands in the vicinity of LCC. (A5-18) Will [the yurt’s] construction impact wetlands in LCC? (A5-24)

Expansion of the Creekside Lodge has the potential to impact wetlands in LCC. The EA must evaluate these impacts. Snowbird should perform a wetland delineation as part of the EA. The EA should also address whether expanding Creekside Lodge to the West, towards LCC, complies with set-back requirements of existing local watershed regulations and land use ordinances. (A5-32)

Response: These issues are addressed in the Watershed Resources section of the EA. Jurisdictional wetland delineations will be completed at the appropriate time, in accordance with the requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

GENERAL COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ACTION The following comments express opinions regarding the Proposed Action without an associated issue or concern. No response to these comments is necessary. Some comments were either duplicated or nearly duplicated (i.e., contain minor variations in content, grammar or sentence structure) between commenters. Comments shown below with multiple commenters capture the general intent of all commenters.

194 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

… writing today in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan…. Snowbird has proven over the last four decades to be a responsible steward of the land and water within Little Cottonwood Canyon. (A1-1, A2-1, A4- 1, A6-1, A7-1, O3-1, O4-1, O5-1, O7-1, O13-1, O15-1, O16-2, I2-1, I7-1, I9-1, I10-1, I12-1, I14-1, I20-1, I21-1, I26-1, I28-1, I32-1, I36-2, I41-1, I48-1, I49-1, I50-1, I51-1, I53-3, I58-1, I59-1, I60-1, I61-1, I63-1, I65-2, I67-1, I68-1, I70-1, I71-1, I72-1, I74-1, I75-1, I82-1, I84-1, I85-1, I86-1, I88-1, I89-1, I91-1)

Snowbird's ongoing commitment to clean water is reflected in their efforts to work with the Forest Service to develop alternative plans for proposed projects in critical watershed areas. (A1-2, A2-2, A4-3, A6-5, A7-2, O3-2, O4-2, O5-2, O7-2, O12-2, O13-2, O15-2, O16-3, I7-3, I9-2, I12-2, I14-2, I26-2, I28-2, I36-3, I41-2, I48-2, I50-2, I51-3, I60-2, I63-2, I67-3, I68-2, I71-2, I75-2, I76-2, I82-2, I84-4, I85-2, I86-2, I88-2, I89-2, I91-3)

…this letter is to let you know that I am supportive of these changes. (A3-1)

I represent approximately 95,000 people in the Sandy and Little Cottonwood Canyon area. Many of my constituents are regular patrons at Snowbird. As I talk to them, I find that there is overwhelming support for these improvements. (A4-2)

I am writing to encourage Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest to consider Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan, which will improve facilities and infrastructure within the existing Special Use Permit boundary located in the Gad Valley. (O1-1)

Snowbird has a long history of acting as responsible stewards of our natural resources in Little Cottonwood Canyon. We applaud their continued work to improve water quality and reduce traffic in Little Cottonwood Canyon. Their request continues this commitment. … On behalf of Utah's business community, we encourage you to approve the amendments to Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's Master Development Plan. (O2-1)

…we ask you that you approve and support the Snowbird Master Plan. …We certainly understand the importance of the environment and we also know of their strong belief and commitment that they have shown by instituting "GREEN" initiatives throughout the resort and the community, well before it was the thing to do. (O10-1)

On behalf of Wasatch Powderbird Guides I would like to express our support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort’s proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. Snowbird provides important recreation opportunities to a diverse and growing community of people. The amendments they propose will allow them to make improvements that will give people a better overall experience at the resort. …We understand that the proposed improvements are all within the existing ski area boundary and will not have any impact on Wasatch Powderbird Guides use of currently permitted helicopter ski terrain (O11-1)

I am writing today in behalf of the Greater Sandy Area Chamber of Commerce to support Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. Snowbird is a good corporate citizen and has proven over the last four decades to be a responsible steward of the land and water within Little Cottonwood Canyon. (O12-1)

195

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

I am writing today in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. … Snowbird always implements the least environmental impact as possible with every project we have worked on. (O14-1)

Members of the Sandy Little Cottonwood Canyon Tourism Committee are writing in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed improvements to Gad Valley as described in its proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. (O16-1)

As a small independent business owner at the resort, I am writing today in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. (O17-1)

I am writing in support of Snowbird Ski & Summer Resorts proposed expansion. Snowbird has always been an excellent steward of the land they use whether it was the clean up of the tailings in Mineral Basin, sponsoring the clean up of the canyon or responsible expansion of the resort. (I1-1)

I don't foresee any projects that are being proposed that will present significant impacts to the environment. Snowbird, in my opinion has always worked diligently to minimize their impact on the environment and has adjusted their plans accordingly when legitimate concerns are raised. It is in their best business interest to offer an environment that respects the natural area they operate in as that is one of the values that their guests base their experience on when visiting the resort. (I4-4)

I am writing to comment on and endorse Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort's proposed projects which will provide continued and additional recreational opportunities, not only for my family, but for many other groups and individuals who have enjoyed the Resort for many years. I anticipate significant advantages for the Resort, the U.S. Forest Service, and most importantly, for the general public (I6-1)

I would like to personally express my interest and support for the many changes that Snowbird Ski Resort is proposing. (I11-1)

Please accept this letter in support of Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort's proposed amendments to their Master Development Plan. … The personnel aspire to a higher standard than any other when it comes to operations and maintenance of this world class resort. They are proud of their accomplishments, they strive for excellence and it shows. … In my opinion Snowbird has been extremely successful in addressing the ecological challenges that come with creating a mega recreational all season resort. (I15-1)

Snowbird's award winning track record over the past 40 years speaks for itself when it comes to addressing environmental issues with backcountry users, protecting wilderness areas and zealously maintaining the source of Little Cottonwood Canyon's superior water quality. (I15-7)

We are writing this letter to show our support for proposed amendments to Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's Master Development Plan. … Our company has had a good working relationship with Snowbird since 1985 and in that time we have found they have been concerned about any footprint they leave on the environment. They have an ongoing commitment to clean water and continue to work with the Forest Service to achieve these goals. (I16-1)

196 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

This letter is to support the Snowbird expansion and improvement projects which are part of the Snowbird Master Plan. … Snowbird has always respected and appreciated the environment and the beauty of the mountains. They wouldn't do anything to change that. (I18-1)

This letter is in support of the Snowbird proposal to upgrade facilities. … A relatively small development in Little Cottonwood Canyon, Snowbird enables mountain sports enthusiasts as well as nature lovers to experience the splendor of the Wasatch Mountains. … Snowbird's proposals simply enhance existing facilities with no detrimental consequences enhancing the experience of all visitors. (I19-1)

I am in favor of allowing Snowbird to improve and upgrade it's facilities. (I21-1)

I’ve been a lifelong skier, and have skied at many resorts throughout the USA. However, I would say without hesitation that it’s Snowbird, far more than any other ski resort, that has grown while maintaining enormous respect for the natural environment. At Snowbird I have always felt, and I still feel that I’m out in the wilderness, far away from the sights and sounds of civilization. …So, I want to lend my voice to others who may be writing you, to say that I fully support the thoughtful master plan Snowbird has put forward for the further development of this beautiful resort. (I22-1)

My family and I have been and are active users of the Snowbird area since its inception and believe the requested changes are not only reasonable but necessary. (I-22)

I fully support their petition and urge you to do the same. …I have been coming to Snowbird annually for almost twenty years. … The first reason is the consistent, predictable conditions for skiing in the Wasatch front. …Second is the impressive beauty of the location. …The final reasons are the employees which I have met over the years at Snowbird. …the changes which Snowbird seeks to make are intended to expand the facility’s ability to expose more people to the majesty of Little Cottonwood canyon without compromising safety or the environment. Given the past history of responsible stewardship of the natural resources in the canyon, I am confident that they will continue to do so in the future. (I27-1)

I am writing to represent the six members of our family who strongly support the improvements and development proposed in the Gad Valley at Snowbird. Please approve those changes for the enjoyment of all who spend time enjoying the slopes at the Bird. (I29-1)

Please approve Snowbirds proposed enhancements for new ski lift so we can enjoy this mountain as much as we enjoy other ski areas that have newer facilities! (I33-1)

The primary purpose of this letter is to put in a good word for the hoped for expansion of skiing at Snowbird. … I hope that the Forest Service will continue to work with Snowbird for the betterment of the Wasatch recreational resource for people from all walks of life and from all around the world. (I34-1)

As a homeowner in the canyon, I support Snowbird’s plan to provide an opportunity for others to enjoy the public land that I too enjoy. (I35-3)

Just writing to voice my support for Snowbird's proposed improvements…(I37-1)

Because the projects currently listed in the Master Development Plan will not negatively impact the environment, I would like to request your approval of improvements that will be enjoyed and

197

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

appreciated by the thousands of local individuals, families and out of town visitors each year. (I39-1)

I would like to let you know that I fully support the proposed action that Snowbird wants to do in the Gad Valley. …. I also appreciate that they are excellent stewards of the land up Little Cottonwood Canyon. … I love the fact that Snowbird has done a great deal of work on their own to clean up the mining mess in American Fork Canyon. …I could not be happier with the their vision for the environment and also how committed they are to getting people up into the mountains, I am grateful for companies that are willing to act responsibly in nature… (I40-1)

I support the proposed plan by Snowbird for the development plan submitted. The plan improves the existing area without effecting water quality or air quality. It also will not effect back-country wilderness areas. (I44-1)

I am all for the proposed expansions and improvements to the Snowbird Gad Valley infrastructure. They sound great and I can't wait to take advantage of them! (I46-1)

I would like to submit…support for Snowbird's proposed amendments…Snowbird has a proven record of responsible management of the land and water… a commitment to preserve the back country areas …[and]to providing quality recreational experiences to visitors of all ages. (I47- 1)

I am writing in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments … I have always been impressed by the level of importance the Snowbird Management seems to place on their stewardship of their area. (I52-1)

All of the … projects are within the existing Snowbird permit area and do not conflict with backcountry skiing. …I request that you approve each of the … projects … Improving existing, managed recreation sites helps preserve the vital backcountry wilderness areas by concentrating use in these improved, maintained sites. (I53-2)

My wife & I are totally supportive of Snowbird's Master Development now ready for review. … I have been a member of the Appalachian Mountain Club (greater New England), the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and supported other conservation organizations over the years so [I] don't take lightly what Snowbird plans for any future expansion. Thus this letter is submitted after carefully reviewing the Master Development Plan. (I55-1)

I just read about Snowbirds plan for improvements in the Gad Valley area and think this is a great approach to open the area up to a broader range of people and activities. …I'm in full support of their plans, and am asking you kindly support it as a representative of the Forest Service. (I56-1)

I also feel that Snowbird resort has an excellent track record with improvements to canyon water quality and other environmental concerns showing they are a responsible steward of our public lands under your jurisdiction. (I57-2)

I believe that Snowbird is a world class resort within Utah’s tourism community and updating Snowbird’s master development plan will help preserve our vital backcountry wilderness while improving the existing managed recreation sites. (I58-2)

198 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Snowbird has proven to many of our friends and neighbors of Sandy, Utah to be a responsible steward of the land, water and backcountry within Little Cottonwood Canyon while at the same time providing important recreation to our growing community. (I58-4)

Snowbird has been very responsible over the years for maintaining the wilderness feel, and yet allowing many people to experience the Wasatch. I endorse their current efforts. (I59-4)

The Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort continues to be the leader in responsible resort management in Utah. The current Mountain Master Development Plan proposed amendments are in line with the resort's planning and vision. A carefully planned resort is crucial for the public who use this land Snowbird has certainly demonstrated in the past that they are responsible and pro-active stewards of the land which they lease. (I62-1)

Hello I have been skiing at Snowbird for over 37 years now. I have read their proposal for changes in Gad Valley. I fully support this plan. (I64-1)

Snowbird's consistent regard to the environment in each phase of development is evident in the physical structures, as well as daily operations and systems. . . . Snowbird's history of respect for the environment and the attention to detail in all past/current development phases are why we support the proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. (I65-1)

As an avid skier in UT I would like to support the changes/upgrades Snowbird has proposed... I believe anything that would help ensure Snowbird's success is in the best interest of all of us who live here. (I66-1)

The Snowbird resort particularly has accomplished environmentally conscious development of its properties and has encouraged the responsible use of the Wasatch Cache National Forest consistently over that period. . . . We ask that you rule favorably on Snowbird’s planned resort revisions. (I69-1)

I support these improvements at Snowbird. . . . All of these projects are within the existing Snowbird permit area and do not conflict with backcountry skiing. (I73-1)

I think all people should be able to enjoy the beautiful mountains, forest and scenery that Little Cottonwood Canyon has to offer. For example, Snowbird’s Master Development Plan will open the door for more people, like physically challenged or beginner skiers, to enjoy the mountains in the winter; not just the advanced skier. (I76-6)

I would like to express my personal Support in regards to Snowbird’s proposed amendments to their development plan. . . . I have full confidence in Snowbird’s leadership to balance their proposed development with minimal environmental impact. Above all I believe these proposed amendment will provide needed positive change for our community and the resort.

Please note: This is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the Unified Police Department. (I77-1)

I wanted to add my support to Snowbird’s Gad Valley Improvements. Snowbird has been a good steward of the land they currently own and lease. … If Snowbird can address the watershed issues and maintain the scenic beauty of the Gad Valley it is a win-win for the area. (I78-1)

199

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

I support Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposal to amend it's Master Development plan, and I strongly encourage you to support said plan as well... I speak from experience having spent over seven hundred days since 1979 enjoying the Snowbird area. Also, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Iron Blosam Board of Directors since 2007. During all of these experiences I have witnessed that Snowbird's Management has demonstrated insightful, careful, responsible coexistence within little Cottonwood Canyon ... my early training as an Eagle Rank Boy Scout makes me sensitive to matters such as these. I have complete confidence in Snowbird’s Management to responsibly execute the proposed improvements. (I80-1)

I am writing you today to express support for Snowbird Ski and Summer Resorts' proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. …Snowbird is a responsible steward of the land and water within Little Cottonwood Canyon. This commitment has been demonstrated and reflected over many years and in their efforts to work efficiently with the Forest Service. (I81- 1)

I have just read through the Notice of Proposed Action, and would like to express my support. (I87-1)

I am an Alta season passholder and frequent summer user of LCC. I would like to offer my support for the Snowbird upgrades proposed in Gad Valley. (I90-1)

Please accept this letter into the public record of support for Snowbird's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. They deserve the support of the community and neighbors more than anyone else because they help people with disabilities who wouldn't otherwise be able to have access to recreational activities. (I91-3).

Improved beginning skier offerings, renovations to restaurant operations, and -road improvements will enhance guest experiences and safe guard the mountain's terrain. (O16-6)

COMMENTS SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE 3 The following comments express opinions regarding Alternative 3 without an associated issue or concern. No response to these comments is necessary.

We find the preferred alternative acceptable if the beginner ski area is moved to Big Emma and a way is found to limit additional use of White Pine. (O9-4)

COMMENTS SUPPORTING SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The following comments express opinions regarding elements of the Proposed Action without an associated issue or concern. No response to these comments is necessary.

Beginner Area When we have visitors that are beginning skiers, we usually have to go to another resort because of the lack of beginner terrain. The area being proposed would allow us (and of course others) to bring these visitors to the place we love, and to experience the beauty of Little Cottonwood Canyon rather than the more ordinary landscape of the Park City area. (I23-2)

I strongly support Snowbird…[b]etter utilizing terrain for lower level skiers and night skiing in Gad Valley. …We suffer though beginner terrain that is too steep. (I31-3)

200 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Expanding the beginner facilities in and around the Baby Thunder lift base area (including the proposed conveyor) will improve mountain safety for all who use the Snowbird facilities in the winter, since it will provide a much improved learning area for first-time and beginning skiers. (I32-2)

…Snowbird’s plan to better utilize some of its terrain in Gad Valley for intermediate and new skiers will be very helpful for that group. (I34-3)

The popularity of our mountain draws many expert level skiers and riders. Often with friends and family with little or no experience on the mountain. When not in the care of a professional instructor, these beginners often advance to terrain too quickly because there is a lack of beginner and green level runs. The new plan would give them safer options whether they have an instructor or not. (I38-2)

One criticism of Snowbird has always been that there are not enough runs for beginners, and some of the improvements address that. When I used to take my children when they were little, even the green runs had stretches that were difficult for beginners. (I59-3)

Conveyor Lift We strongly support installing a conveyor lift for the Wasatch Adaptive Sport program to provide additional opportunities for people with disabilities. Snowbird has an impressive history of providing recreational opportunities to disabled people from all walks of life including America’s veterans and these efforts should be supported. (O11-2)

The Wasatch Adaptive Sports program is an amazing way to help disabled skiers on the mountain. If they were to build a conveyor lift, this program would be even more stellar for years to come! (I11-4)

I strongly support Snowbird…[i]nstalling a conveyor lift for our Wasatch Adaptive Sport program. (I31-5)

Snowbird also hopes to install a conveyor lift for the Wasatch Adaptive Sport program, which is so fulfilling and exciting for all of the fortunate non-handicapped skiers to witness. (I34-4)

Night Skiing Night skiing provides a great opportunity for local groups such as Scout and church groups to access the mountain in the evening hours when they typically meet, as well as for students who may not have other free time to ski. (A1-5, A2-5, A6-4, A7-5, O4-5, O5-5, O12-5, O15-6, O16- 7, I7-6, I9-6, I12-5, I14-5, I20-5, I24-3, I26-5, I28-5, I36-6, I41-5, 151-6, I54-2, I60-5, I63-5, I68-5, I71-5, I75-5, I76-5, I81-4, I85-5, I86-5, I88-5, I89-5, I92-6)

I know many families that ski at night because of day and weekend commitments. All my children learned to ski at night. This will be a great addition for our community. (A4-6)

As the Snowbird Mountain School Director, I support adding night skiing and expanding the options for beginning and intermediate skiers and riders. This will enhance our ability to create lifelong mountain enthusiasts and encourage more people to love and protect the mountains for future generations. (O7-5)

201

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

There is a great interest for night skiing and biking trails at the resort by tourists and locals. I have been asked many times if and when these activities would be offered at Snowbird. (O17-5)

The expansion of Snowbird's Night Skiing program will obviously benefit any users whose recreate at the resort in the evening hours. Among these would be students and groups (Scouts, Church) whose schedule would otherwise allow them no free time to ski, snowboard, or participate in other winter sports activities. (I2-5)

Offering night skiing presents an excellent means to help reduce the traffic congestion as it will spread out the arrival and departure times of day use guests along with expanding the opportunity to use the mountain outside of the traditional operating hours. (I4-5)

Night skiing is also a great opportunity, for those who work 9 to 5 and can only ski on the weekends, to get out and get some fresh air and exercise during the week. (I9-7)

Being able to add more accessible skiing and night skiing to Gad Valley will bring in families who might not have wanted to come due to the lack of green runs on the mountain. (I11-2)

The addition of night skiing makes the area more accessible to those who are unable to ski during the day and a perfect time for group outings where a more intimate setting would be favorable as there is always less of a crowd at night. (I15-5)

Since not all skiers are able to hit the slopes during the day, night skiing provides a recreational opportunity to many facets of the community, and allows a unique experience for those unable to ski during the day. (I16-4)

Expanding night skiing is another project that should be allowed. (I21-5)

…while night skiing is perhaps not the choice of "locals", visitors and perhaps students under different time restraints often find it to be an enjoyable extension of the ski time. (I23-3)

Night skiing in Utah is a most attractive activity and would allow the local people to use Snowbird's facility instead of traveling to Park City or any other area that offers this sport and allow church groups or other groups the same opportunity. (I43-4)

One issue close to my heart is the need for better night skiing. This will give better and more opportunities to our local church and scout groups as well as for the students that don't have a lot of free time during the day time to ski. (I48-5)

Night skiing is a great alternative for people to ski or snowboard that wouldn't otherwise be able to because of work, school, or other daily obligations. Snowbird is only about 18 minutes from my home, and night skiing is a great opportunity for my family to spend time on the mountain together. (I50-4)

I believe night skiing in this area is also a positive plan for the Snowbird area. …the SLC area population has soared… To better serve this growing population … night skiing should be considered. A positive of having it in this location is that there seems to be little residential use to be affected and the lights would be rather low on the slopes of the mountain and less visible. (I52-5)

202 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The ability to offer night skiing answers the strong need from a variety of organizations for access to recreation at night. Night skiing would make recreation possible for groups that are not able to recreate during daytime hours such as church, scout, youth and educational organizations. (I65-5)

The proposed Night skiing in Gad Valley will also support our efforts to bring the mountain experience to the local Salt Lake community. Currently there are very limited options for groups and guests who cannot schedule time at the resort during normal daylight hours. With minimal impact, the additional opportunity would be significant to expanding the mountain experience to all. (I79-4)

It is also an attractive feature for destination travelers with a potential for day of arrival skiing thereby enhancing and expanding the recreation and ski vacation experience. (I88-6)

Gad Valley Day Lodge Adaptive Sports Expansion Expanding the Creekside Lodge will have a major, positive impact on the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program, which provides recreational opportunities not only for people with disabilities but also for America's veterans who are returning from combat with mental and physical injuries sustained serving our country. (A1-3, A2-3, A6-3, A7-3, O4-3, O5-3, O7-3, O12-3, O15-3, O16-4, O17-2, I7-4, I9-3, I10-3, I12-3, I14-3, I20-3, I26-3, I28-3, I32-3, I36-4, I41-3, I49-2, 151-4, I60-3, I68-3, I71-3, I75-3, I76-3, I81-2, I82-3, I84-3, I85-3, I86-3, I88-3, I89-3, I92-4)

I wholly support the efforts Wasatch Adaptive Sports. They are enriching the lives of our disable citizens and our veterans. The miracles they bring about every year are amazing. (A4-4) Expanding the Creekside Lodge will have a major, positive impact on the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program. As a father of a severely handicapped daughter I have seen first hand the positive impact on my daughter of experiencing the outdoors as a skier, and as a family we have found a way to connect our daughter with the outdoor winter environment that we love so much. I have also seen firsthand the impact of this unique recreational opportunity for America's veterans who are returning from combat with mental and physical injuries sustained serving our country. (O3-3)

I am writing in support of the Creekside expansion project at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort...Wasatch Adaptive Sports is one of the premier adaptive sports programs in the nation providing therapeutic recreational activities to children, adults and veterans with special needs. The growth of our program has been tremendous. (O8-1)

Wasatch Adaptive Sports is hoping to expand our facilities from our current location at the Snowbird Center at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort to Creekside in lower Gad Valley. We provide approximately 2000 year-round lessons out of an office 10’ x 20’. We share the conveyor lift and Chickadee lift at the base of the Snowbird Center with the Snowbird Mountain School; on an average skier day there is always a huge wait on both lifts. At this point Chickadee is too crowded and there is not enough office space to operate efficiency. By moving to Creekside we would have appropriate space for our wounded warrior programs and adult and children’s programs. Many of our participants have a hard time in close corridors, especially our veterans. Our Creekside office would offer a much larger, private facility, with meeting room space for consultation, a lounge for our veterans and students to relax in a comfortable and non-stressful environment, sufficient storage area for our growing list of equipment, a non-threatening, less crowded, staging area for our conveyor lift accessed

203

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

beginners area, and sufficient beginner terrain that does not have to be accessed through intermediate terrain. (O8-2)

Expanding the Creekside Lodge and remodeling the Mid Gad restaurant will improve the food and beverage experience. Snowbird is currently busy enough that their restaurant facilities are often crowded. They need space and modern equipment to handle the demand they have. (O11- 5)

I have spoken to many veterans who have been able to ski or snowboard after being disabled and they are very grateful for being able to return to the sport that they love. (O17-3)

More opportunities will also be available to the disabled, to whom Snowbird has demonstrated a commitment for many years. …As an example of the later, the Creekside Lodge expansion project will directly benefit the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program, which has expanded its scope of activities to provide recreational opportunities for American veterans as well as civilians with disabilities. (I2-3)

The Creekside Lodge is a major focal point for the resort and in particular for day users and the proposed improvements will assist in enhancing the guest experience. Their dedication to the expansion of the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program also adds to the importance of the need to make improvements to the Creekside Lodge. (I4-2)

I have witnessed fantastic results from what Snowbird Adaptive Sports has done for my son but for others as well…. Please help provide a place for him to be a success for many more years to come. … I would be greatly disappointed to not see more people enjoy what skiing has to offer by not allowing for this expansion. (I10-2)

Expansion of Creekside Lodge would also be a great improvement and would be very beneficial to Wasatch Adaptive Sports which provides therapeutic and recreational activities for veterans and people with disabilities. (I15-4)

The Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program will benefit from expansions to the Creekside Lodge and installation of a conveyor life by providing recreational opportunities for people with disabilities and combat Veterans returning from service with mental and physical injuries. (I16-2)

The Wasatch Adoptive Sports Program has grown incredible over the years. I think it is wonderful that they now are also including America's veterans who are returning from combat with mental and physical injuries. Snowbird should be allowed to expand the Creekside Lodge to help with the growth of this wonderful program. (I21-4)

I truly support expanding the Creekside Lodge. It will have a major, positive impact on the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program allowing more opportunities for those with disabilities and their families. …The experiences that Wasatch Adaptive Sports has offered our son are immeasurable. We are thrilled to see him participate in activities that otherwise would be inaccessible to him. We have dreams of skiing as a family now. The opportunity to expand this facility would bless lives of so many that struggle in a world that they really don't fit into. …As a parent, Wasatch Adaptive Sports has also supported me as a parent of a child with disabilities with kindness and caring. They have nurtured my son as well as myself in the process. (I24-1)

204 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

My child is part of Wasatch Adaptive Sports program. He has Cerebral Palsy and this program gives him the freedom that you and I have naturally. Watching his face as he comes down the mountain brings tears to my eyes. I see the greatness of what Wasatch Adaptive Sports does every day. Doing this project will give the kids and veterans more opportunities to have these experiences. (I30-1)

I strongly support Snowbird…[e]xpanding the Creekside Lodge and ski lift maintenance facilities. … We avoid Creekside Lodge- because the food is overpriced and bad and it is too crowded. (I31-4)

Creekside Lodge, which would be expanded, has already provided a great deal of convenience and enjoyment to Snowbird skiers using the lifts that originate right next to the lodge. (I34-2)

It would be great to expand the Creekside Lodge plus it would have a positive impact on the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program that provides recreational opportunities for people with disabilities and to give our veterans and adults with special needs the opportunity to enjoy the programs they offer and to bring them relief of the every day routine of their lives. (I43-2)

The Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program… provides recreational opportunities for people with disabilities. Expanding Creekside Lodge will have a huge positive impact on this program. (I48-3)

The proposed expansion of the Creekside Lodge to better serve the growing Adaptive Sports programs in the area is laudable!! I live in Stowe Vermont and through firsthand experience see the importance of offering these experiences to people with disabilities. (I52-4)

We strongly support the opportunity for Snowbird to provide a better overall on-mountain experience for people with disabilities by improving their facilities. (I58-3)

The Creekside Lodge was a huge improvement as it used to be you had to take a shuttle to the main plaza to do anything beyond use the restroom. I think further improvements are necessary as the area is frequently too crowded to be comfortable. (I59-2)

For the last 3 years I have had the opportunity to work with Wasatch Adaptive Sports and have a firsthand experience at how this program has touched so many lives. I have witnessed Wasatch Adaptive Sports make the impossible possible for so many individuals with special needs. This program allows people who have lost so much gain a meaningful activity which in turn increases their quality of life. Expanding the Creekside Lodge will amplify the lives touched by Wasatch Adaptive Sports. It will have a major, positive impact on this remarkable program. (I63-3)

These improvements will be significant in Snowbird's ability to provide additional recreational opportunities for those with disabilities and to provide a continued improvement to the on- mountain experience at the resort. Snowbird's ability to expand the Creekside Lodge will have a strong impact on the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program. (I65-3)

The expansion of the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program will benefit me by giving me more opportunities to reach my goals and experience this fine resort more independently than before. (I67-4)

205

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

…the expansion of the Creekside lodge will also allow us to more effectively accommodate our local program guests, school group programs, and the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program, all of which provide a great service our local Salt Lake community. (I79-3)

Specifically, the Creekside Lodge expansion will provide better access and additional recreational opportunities for people with disabilities, including our wounded veterans. (I80-2)

We support the plan of expanding the Creekside Lodge o any other plan that will benefit Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program. (I91-1)

The population of people with disabilities continues to increase in size and WAS’ current office space is limited and has become insufficient to enable this organization to optimally fulfill its purpose. An expansion of WAS’ operating facilities is urgently needed to meet the growing need of the community. The improvements proposed by Snowbird Resort will enable WAS to continue to grow by offering a variety of necessary and convenient accommodations. (I93-2)

Bike Trails Adding to the mountain biking trail system and expanding night skiing opportunities makes Snowbird a more diverse resort and gives people an opportunity to recreate during non traditional times. Mountain biking in particular is becoming more and more popular and by expanding their trail system Snowbird can capitalize on this increasing popularity. (O11-6)

As for summer, right now Snowbird is falling behind in their mountain biking business. The terrain already exists so let's get on the mountain during the summer by adding biking trails. I know I would be up here all summer as would most people from SL Valley. (I11-5)

The only part I do support is an expansion of trails for recreational activities such as mountain biking and hiking. (I13-2)

The addition of mountain biking trails would alleviate general stress and erosion to the areas under the tram used by mountain bikers now. (I15-6)

Finally, the creation of additional mountain bike trails would be a great enhancement to summer recreation. As an avid mountain biker of 22+ years, having additional trails would increase the level of interest in not only local bikers, but visitors as well. (I23-5)

I strongly support Snowbird…[a]dding mountain biking trails...We avoid riding mountain bikes in LLC because the existing trails are too steep. (I31-2)

This would enable more use of the mountain in the summertime, and would reach out to a whole new constituency to enjoy the Wasatch National Forest. (I34-5)

Certainly the expansion of mountain biking at Snowbird is long overdue! (I37-2)

We also look forward to the mountain biking trails. Each year we contemplate buying a home in Little Cottonwood Canyon - and becoming property tax-payers - because we love the area so much, but one reason we have not bought so far is the lack of summer activities. (I74-6)

We commend Snowbird’s proposal for expanding mountain bike trails within their resort, offering up additional mountain bike trails to supplement summer activities is exactly what the

206 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

resort needs to build its summertime activities. Proposing an adequate system in a managed setting could potentially alleviate some of the pressures on illegal mountain bike use within Little Cottonwood Canyon. (O6-7)

Mid Gad Remodeling I strongly support Snowbird…[r]emodeling the Mid Gad restaurant. (I31-6) Similarly, the improved mid-Gad restaurant is honestly a necessity. The on-mountain dining at Snowbird is pretty awful, to be candid; it's way behind other resorts. (I74-4)

Gad 2 Upgrade Replacing the Gad 2 chairlift is a much-needed improvement that, along with the Little Cloud replacement this summer, directly addresses many of the skiers' and snowboarders' concerns about the aging lifts on the upper mountain. (A1-4, A2-4, A6-2, A7-4, O3-4, O4-4, O5-4, O7-4, O12-4, O15-4, O16-5, O17-4, I7-5, I9-4, I10-4, I12-4, I14-4, I20-4, I24-2, I26-4, I28-4, I36-5, I41-4, 151-5, I60-4, I67-5, I68-4, I71-4, I75-4, I81-3, I82-4, I85-4, I86-4, I88-4, I89-4, I92-5) This will be a big improvement to the skiing experience at Snowbird. (A4-5)

The existing Gad 2 lift is an old lift and replacing it will be a long overdue improvement and will bring that lift up to the current industry standard. The proposed Gad 2 trail work to remove bottlenecks will ease skier congestion. Both of these improvements will help provide a better on mountain experience for people. (O11-3)

I believe these chairlift upgrades will provide a huge improvement in the eyes of the snowriding public, adding to Snowbird’s already incredible ski terrain. (O15-5)

Regarding the Gad Valley improvements: The Gad 2 and Little Cloud lifts are aged and are many years over-due for replacement. Modern equipment will be safer, more efficient and make this part of the Snowbird Mountain Experience more appealing to winter sports enthusiasts of all types. (I2-4)

I believe that upgrading the Gad-2 lift is essential for Snowbird to continue to offer the mountain experience that guests expect from a first class Utah ski resort. (I4-3)

Gad II is one of my personal favorite areas of the mountain and with a new lift, I could access more faster, as could everyone else! (I11-3)

The proposed amendment to replace the Gad 2 lift would be a huge improvement and relief to many who ski the upper mountain. … The proposed amendment to replace the Gad 2 lift would be a huge improvement and relief to many who ski the upper mountain. (I15-3)

Improvements to aging lifts will address concerns of skiers and snowboarders, as well as enhance the overall appeal of the resort. (I16-3)

With Gad 2 being 40 years old and Little Cloud over 30 years old it is time that Snowbird is allowed to upgrade these lifts. (I21-3)

The Gad 2 lift upgrade with accompanying trail modifications is way overdue. Can anyone disagree with replacing a 37 year old lift? Not only is it a slow lift, but it is a long lift and upgrading to a higher capacity lift would certainly enhance the overall experience of skiing Snowbird and bring it up to its high level of expectation from visitors. (I23-4)

207

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

At very minimum, the Gad 2 and Little Cloud lifts are in acute need of replacement upgrades. (I29-2)

I am writing today in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. … Everyone should have the right to experience the meaningful memories made here at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. (I30-1)

I strongly support Snowbird. … [r]eplacing the old Gad 2 lift and removing some bottlenecks in the Gad 2 trail network. …We avoid GAD2 because the lift is old, uncomfortable and slow. (I31-1)

In replacing the Gad 2 chairlift would continue to insure the safety of their equipment and to keep everything on an up-to-date basis and enable Snowbird to continue to receive safety awards. (I43-3)

Many skiers and snowboarders have had concerns about the aging lifts on the upper mountain. Replacing Little Cloud this summer is a great start but if Gad 2 Chairlift is replaced that would be a great improvement as well. (I48-4)

Replacing the chairlifts is a much-needed improvement that addresses many of the skiers' concerns regarding utilizing the upper mountain more efficiently. (I49-3)

Replacing this chairlift (Gad-2 upgrade) is a much-need improvement that will address not only my concerns, but also the concerns of many other skiers and snowboarders. (I50-3)

The proposed lift improvements while increasing uphill capacity, are still only replacing existing lifts and not pressing into undisturbed areas. When viewed in the context of what other resorts do around the country, Snowbird's plan appears very reasonable (152-3)

Replacing the Gad 2 chairlift and the Little Cloud chairlift are much needed improvements. This will address many of the skiers’ and snowboarders’ concerns about the aging lifts on the upper mountain. (I54-1)

I believe that Snowbird should replace their aging lift infrastructure. That is the responsible thing to do. (I62-3)

I have noticed a crowd issue at the resort. Lines have become tremendously long due to lift capacity and speed. Not only is it a much needed replacement for an aging lift, replacing the Gad 2 chairlift, along with the Little Cloud replacement this summer, will ease the crowd issue by servicing both skiers' and snowboarders more rapidly and efficient. (I63-4)

The replacement of the Gad II Chairlift will address the need to replace aging chairlifts on the upper part of the mountain. (I65-4)

The planned development of the Gad valley area, taking place within the assigned forest land, will accomplish needed upgrades of facilities to improve safety on the slopes and within the lift system. It will greatly enhance accessibility for more intermediate skiers and riders and will further promote Snowbird/Alta as the prime ski destination in the Rockies. (I69-2)

208 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

The upgrades to the Gad2 chairlift, along with the Little Cloud replacement this summer, are much needed . (I74-3)

Of particular interest to the Mountain School and our staff, the lift improvements to Gad 2 and Little Cloud will update existing areas of the Mountain which have become a question of reliability and service, as they are nearing 40 years of age. (I79-2)

The Gad 2 Chairlift improvement and the Night Skiing proposal will reduce congestion on the mountain, enhance safety, and will provide opportunities to serve guests and groups that traditionally meet in the evening hours. (I80-3)

The improvement of the Gad II and Little Cloud chairlifts are a much needed. The lifts are original to the first couple years Snowbird, and the upgrades will directly address some of the raising concerns about the aging lifts on the upper mountain by many of our skiing and snowboarding public. (I84-2)

COMMENTS SUPPORTING SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The following comments express opinions regarding the Proposed Action without an associated issue or concern. No response to these comments is necessary.

Accessibility Our main focus is accessibility for all and the new facility we are proposing at Creekside would provide an equal access for our veterans, children and adults and their families with special needs. (O8-3)

The handicap access trail provides a unique opportunity to those with limitations to experience nature and the wonderful scenery along its path. I believe Snowbird is the perfect place for such expansion to take place within the established boundaries. I think we should feel lucky that they provide support and the infrastructure for a program like Wasatch Adaptive Sports. This program assists those with various challenges to experience the canyon in a variety of ways. … The wilderness is vast and I think it is prudent to allow companies like Snowbird to develop, in a responsible manner, assets that will benefit the larger community. We have a responsibility as a community to help those less fortunate than ourselves and Snowbird has a history with the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program of doing that in a exemplarily manner. (I1-2)

These improvements would also enhance Snowbird's adaptive skier program. It would make sports more available 'for children and adults with special needs. This would enable more individuals to enjoy a skiing experience. (I18-5)

I would consider myself an environmentalist, my perspective of the world is very much influenced by the experiences that wild places provide to me and to my family. … As the Wasatch Front becomes more populated, it will become imperative that places exist for everyone to experience their natural surroundings. I believe that access to public lands should

209

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

not be exclusive to those with the physical means to visit them. Snowbird has a history of good stewardship of the land. Planned development has given many individuals access to areas of Little Cottonwood Canyon that would otherwise be inaccessible to them. (I35-1)

We are writing today in support of Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposed amendments to its Master Development Plan. …The support that Snowbird has given to the adaptive and disabled community reaches far beyond any other ski resort and should be commended for the commitment to those with special needs. (I36-1)

It also provides new opportunities for recreational opportunities to special groups through their Adaptive Sports Programs. (I47-3)

These improvements will increase accessibility to the canyon and provide additional opportunities for people with disabilities to enjoy our beautiful mountain peaks. (I51-2)

These developments are not only intended to improve various facilities but also have a positive impact on the Wasatch Adaptive Sports Program and make them more accessible to those with disabilities. … I believe that as they make these developments, Snowbird and other facilities will do all that they can to improve the environment, protect the natural resources and make it more accessible to those with limitations. (I53-1)

Providing additional opportunities for the adaptive community will greatly enhance the ability to participate in a high alpine environment. (I62-2)

Snowbird is not a resort just for the physically peaked individual. However, it is my Mountain, and I have a right to participate and enjoy this resort despite any disability that I might have. . . . Snowbird is considered to be a world class resort, let’s continue to keep it world class for individuals of any ability level. Everyone should have the right to experience the meaningful memories made here at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. (I67-2)

To continue to improve the recreational experience of visiting the UWCNF, Snowbird is improving the ski accessibility of the area for a broader range of skiers and mountain bikers. (I78-2)

The expansion of the Wasatch Adaptive Sports program will benefit my family by giving me more opportunities to reach my goals and experience this resort even more independently than before. I have a son who has been able to use the program and has been very beneficial to him. …Snowbird is considered to be a world class resort. 1 would vote that we continue to keep it world class for individuals of any ability level. Everyone should have the right to experience the meaningful memories made here at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. (I82-5)

We want to thank Snowbird and Wasatch Adaptive for providing recreational activities for our children Monica and William. Through their skiing program both of my children have been able to enjoy an activity and discover a talent which without their kindness and help would have been a complete impossibility. … We are indeed very grateful for the many great benefits connected with participation in the Wasatch Adaptive Program. (I91-2)

210 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

As a spinal cord injury survivor and a rehabilitation physician and Fellow of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, I feel that I fully understand the need of people with special needs. … Wasatch Adaptive Sports (WAS), located at Snowbird Resort, Utah, is a Charitable Foundation that has been helping to fill the need for affordable mountain based recreational and educational programs for children and adults with special needs for several decades. … I have been fortunate to be able to refer a wide spectrum of patients to Snowbird for recreation which is an integral part of community integration in the rehabilitation process. I have referred children with cerebral palsy, spinal cord injuries or traumatic brain injuries, Veterans returning from Afghanistan or Iraq where they suffered physical or mental injuries, patients having sustained strokes or patients with Multiple Sclerosis to Snowbird and can personally attest to the fact that all have benefited from their involvement with WAS (I93-1).

Need to Remain Competitive Snowbird understands the balance of keeping the majestic feel of the environment, but also recognizes that in order to keep up with the competition throughout the country it is necessary to make these enhancements, upgrade the facilities and keep their guests happy as well as create a healthy experience and most importantly through these initiatives help keep jobs. As a business that continues to work with Snowbird, we understand the concern it represents, but we also recognize the need to make these changes and help make more activities available for those with special needs without compromising the environment and staying competitive with the competition. We believe that Snowbird is respectful of the environment and would never compromise its beauty. (O10-2)

This will help Snowbird remain competitive against other ski resorts and could attract more skiers to Utah. (O11-4)

I believe the proposed updates to the master are appropriate and desirable to maintain the resort at a level to attract new skiers and adaptive skiers. (I8-1)

Snowbird needs to be able to upgrade its lifts and facilities to remain competitive in the ski industry. I believe a competitive ski industry in Utah is a great boon to the state financially. (I9-5)

These improvements will help support Snowbird in remaining competitive in the marketplace. (I18-2)

The proposed changes are important that it allows Snowbird to grow and be competitive with other resorts. (I47-2)

There is no two ways about it, but in this day and age, ski resorts continue to develop to enhance guest experiences all over the country. To maintain their top status, Snowbird must do the same. (152-2)

It is our strong opinion that Snowbird like any resort must upgrade its facilities and overall plant in order to handle the changing conditions of skiing & boarding as well as other activities demanded by today's vacationers--plus the expanded population of greater Salt Lake City (I55- 2)

211

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

I consider the improvements listed in the preliminary proposals to be vital to Snowbird both in remaining a competitive business and in providing all guests with the quality experience we have all come to expect. (I57-1)

There have been several changes over the past 35 years which greatly affect uphill transportation. The public demands lifts that are more comfortable, decrease the riding time, allow the end user to ski more in less than the current ride time of tile existing Little Cloud and Gad 2 chairs, and to remain competitive with both Snowbird's neighbors in the Wasatch and in Colorado. (I62-4)

Salt Lake valley is so big and growing that improvements like these are critical to give the best resort skiing experience to local people, and it will allow Utah to compete with Colorado and Whistler and the many other places that destination skiers go. (I64-2)

Since these changes seem to be proposed within the resort boundaries I don't see a reason why we shouldn't encourage Snowbird to make changes which will enhance its' appeal to Snowbird's customer base. (I66-2)

The improvements listed in the preliminary proposal are necessary for Snowbird and our guests as we move forward in this competitive market. (I70-2)

We have a challenge convincing friends and family to come to Snowbird sometimes because the facilities at Snowbird simply are not at the level of competing destination resorts. (I74-2)

As a 24 year employee of the resort, it is important to our guests, employees, and the community to keep Snowbird’s infrastructure and services current and competitive. The proposed improvements to the facilities, will allow the resort and it’s employees to provide the services which today’s resort guests have become accustomed. (I79-1)

Snowbird is a great resort for locals and tourists. It needs to be maintained and upgraded to continue to be a valuable resource. (I92-2)

Need for Developed Recreation The proposed modifications will provide better recreational opportunities, and will bring in added tourism as well. (I6-2)

I believe that the Forest Service should encourage Snowbird to provide recreational opportunities within their established permitted boundaries. Little Cottonwood Canyon is located in a very unique geographical area, and it is imperative that Snowbird and the Forest Service work together in a harmonious partnership to ensure the sustainability of recreation on Public Lands for future generations. (I62-5)

Economic Benefits We support these amendments because of their benefits for our state's economy. … The Salt Lake Chamber has long supported Utah's ski industry. This support started in the 1930s when business leaders raised $10,000 to build the nation's second chair lift at Alta, Utah. That initial investment has paid off and today the Utah ski industry contributes $1.2 billion to the Utah economy. Our commitment to promoting Utah as a winter sports capital continues today as we ask you to support Snowbird's request. (O2-2)

212 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Sysco Intermountain has had the pleasure of being the primary foodservice provider for Snowbird for over 30 years. Snowbird has played a role in the success of our business. We have also used Snowbird for many of our company events and have had great experiences with their on hand staff, restaurants and have always accommodated our requests. Because of their great level of service and "putting the customer first" attitude, we (will) be (using) Snowbird again (in) our upcoming end of year celebration this July. (O13-3)

Our experiences with Snowbird have been on a business level. We have had a great working relationship with them for 25 years. (O14-2)

The Experience we've had working with Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort has been an Outstanding one. Their commitment and priority of the water conservation and of the water Quality is commendable. It is our belief that they are responsible caretakers of the National Forest in Little Cottonwood Canyon and Mountain sides by their planting approximately 1,500 Native Species seedlings every summer with Tree Utah sic[. W]e can appreciate their efforts. We Are proud to have worked with them and hope to do so in the near future. (O18-1)

We strongly feel that the improvements detailed in this plan will allow Snowbird to attract more clients, thus increasing revenue both to the Resort and to the community. (I2-2)

I have reviewed the proposed changes and believe that they will provide a strong benefit to the guests who come to our state and in particular to Snowbird to enjoy some of the best skiing in the world. (I4-1)

These proposed projects will undoubtedly benefit the economy and will enhance recreational opportunities as well. (I6-3)

In addition, these improvements and related increase in revenue help all the local business working with Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort. (I7-2)

The proposed amendments to Snowbird's Master Development Plan should be approved as the result will enhance the environment and tourist appeal bringing in new travel dollars, create jobs, alleviate some growing pangs and better utilize the land. (I15-8)

These improvements will help Snowbird improve its facilities, attract more tax-paying tourists to Utah, provide additional opportunities for people with disabilities, and provide a better overall on-mountain experience. (I19-2)

I am sure that these changes will bring more tax-paying tourist to our wonderful state of UT, With the opportunities for all people with disabilities as well to enjoy all there is to enjoy at Snowbird. (I20-2)

It is important especially during these economic times that they are allowed to improve their product. I believe these upgrades will bring in more tax revenue to the state of Utah and the Federal government. (I21-2)

Better ski area facilities in the canyon will also help to keep the associated businesses competitive and profitable, as well as provide more tax revenue to the local governments. The purposed projects in Snowbird’s Master Development Plan will help to provide year round jobs

213

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

to local residents, stimulating the local economy and contributing to healthier local communities. (I35-2)

Due to the resort’s ski school reputation, we get the lion’s share of local programs at our mountain. Nearly 1,000 kids a season come to us from just from the county parks & rec programs alone. These kids often have families with season passes to Brighton, Solitude, etc. but come to us for the professional instruction. When we get them hooked on winter sports, the whole area benefits. … For many of my clients, Snowbird is the reason they come the Utah, but they often take a day or two to visit other resorts. Upgrading one of the premier ski and snowboard destinations in the country would only increase the visibility (and business) for the other resorts in the area. (I38-3)

Without this local and out-of-state business demand during the summer and winter months, hospitality jobs are lost and, out of town groups comparing resorts around the country will elect to go elsewhere instead of Utah. These decisions that impact our local economy should include careful consideration of the environment. If the environment is not negatively impacted then these private monies used to improve facilities for the general public should be applauded. (I39-2)

In a broader sense I also feel it is important to the local and state economy for a major destination resort such as Snowbird to be able to grow and improve their product so as to continue to bring in the tourist business so vital to Utah. (I57-3)

Snowbird is a responsible corporate citizen for our state, both in terms of the environment and job opportunities. (I60-2)

The improvements outlined in the proposed amendments will enable Snowbird to make improvements to the facilities on property resulting overall to an increase in the number of tourists visiting the State of Utah. (I65-2)

These improvements with help local and state economy and provide more opportunity for our guests from around the world. (I70-3)

Safety Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has worked closely with Snowbird for many years to provide transit service to Little Cottonwood Canyon during the winter ski & snowboard season. Snowbird has been steadfast in their partnership with UTA to develop best practices for transit service within Little Cottonwood Canyon. (O1-2)

With Utah's growth rate doubling the national average and ski, visitors to Utah up almost 40% since the 2002 Olympics the need for expansion and upgrade of aging equipment has become a major concern. (I15-2)

All of these improvements will enhance the efficiency of the resort as well as assure the safety of guests. … for people to enjoy all that the resort has to offer, it needs to have some improvements for safety. They, like all other resorts, need to continually upgrade their facilities. (I18-3)

The improvements outlined in the plan will have a positive impact well beyond the resort’s bottom line. It will make the mountain safer, by providing an appropriate area for beginners to learn. I(I38-1)

214 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Within the insurance industry Snowbird has received numerous awards for their safety regulations. Every year the facilities are loss controlled by their insurance carriers and to date have never had any recommendations to where they need to improve on their current safety policies or on any other project that Snowbird has entered into. This in itself is a huge statement from the insurance industry. (I43-1)

Unlike other ski resorts in remote areas in the USA, Snowbird is fast becoming a metropolitan ski area. The population of Salt Lake City is growing. With this growth congestion within the ski area is creating hazards and must be expanded to insure the safety of the participants. (I72-2)

I have worked with Snowbird on many difficult issues relating to public safety in Little Cottonwood Canyon. I can assure you they have always taken the high road when making decisions that affect the public.

I believe this dedication to doing the right thing for public safety is in direct relation to doing the right thing with their development. (I77-2)

Water Quality Snowbird has a history of improving the water quality by monthly testing of the water and was instrumental in cleaning up many of the mine tailings which were in the area. (18-4)

The water quality improvements Snowbird has made since it was established show how effective they have been. (I53-4)

COMMENTS OPPOSING THE PROPOSED ACTION The following comments express opinions regarding the Proposed Action without an associated issue or concern. No response to these comments is necessary.

I'm writing to state my opposition to expanded Gad Valley operations by Snowbird ski resort. As a frequent visitor to the canyons of the Wasatch, I find the ski resort operations here to be overly large and invasive as they are. (I5-1)

In regards to Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort's proposal I would like to express my opposition to the Ski resorts plan. … Aside from these activities [hiking and biking trails] I oppose every other aspect of their proposal. (I13-1)

I oppose any expansion of Snowbird resort activity in the Gad Valley area. The impacts of the proposal will result in significant environmental degradation. Recreation activity by non- Snowbird generated people would be negatively affected. Gad Valley is a scares [sic] natural resource that should not be expoited [sic] for commercial purposes at the expense of the general public. (I17-1)

215

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

This page is intentionally left blank.

216 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

APPENDIX C – WATERSHED FIGURES

217

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure C-1. Soil resources in the Snowbird SUP including areas of Salt Lake County (Hortin et. al. 1973) and Utah County (Lopez 1981).

218 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure C-2. Impacts on wetland resources and RHCAs under the Proposed Action.

219

Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure C-3. Impacts on wetland resources and RHCAs under the No-Action Alternative.

220 Environmental Assessment: Snowbird Gad Valley Improvements

Figure C-4. Impacts on wetland resources and RHCAs under the Preferred Alternative.

221