Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Environmental Statement

SKI AREA PROJECTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FEBRUARY 2019

USDA Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Gunnison Ranger District In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

This institution is an equal opportunity provider. ABSTRACT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CRESTED BUTTE MOUNTAIN RESORT SKI AREA PROJECTS GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO

FEBRUARY 2019

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Chad Stewart, Acting Forest Supervisor Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest

For Information Contact: Aaron Drendel, Program Lead Gunnison Ranger District 216 N. Colorado Street Gunnison, CO 81230 (970) 641-0471

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the estimated environmental effects of projects proposed at Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR). CBMR is located on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) in Gunnison County, Colorado, and operates in accordance with the terms and conditions of a special use permit (SUP) that is administered by the United States Forest Service. The Proposed Action includes the following elements: expansion of the SUP boundary by approximately 500 acres to encompass the Teo Drainage area; installation of two new chairlifts (Teo Park chairlift and Teo Drainage chairlift), and replacement and realignment of one existing chairlift (North Face chairlift); development of additional ski terrain, including developed ski trails and glades, in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas; expansion of ski patrol operations and construction of a ski patrol/warming building; terrain access improvements in areas of existing terrain; installation of 32 acres of new snowmaking coverage; and construction of approximately 15 miles of additional mountain biking trails. Components of the Proposed Action are detailed in Chapter 2.

This Final EIS discusses the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action; alternatives to the Proposed Action; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing each alternative; and project design criteria. Two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this Final EIS: Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Important Notice: A draft Record of Decision accompanies this Final EIS. Only those who submitted timely and specific written comments have eligibility to file an objection under 36 CFR § 218.8. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting timely and specific written comments must have either signed the comment or verify identify upon request. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to object must meet the information requirements in the 36 CFR § 218.25(a)(3). Any objections received will be made publicly available on the Forest’s project website. Under the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR § 219.51, the included plan amendment is not subject to objection because no substantive formal comments on it were received. Summary

SUMMARY

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

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Final EIS contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Forest Service policy. It discloses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result with implementation of the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action. Additionally, it is intended to ensure that planning considers the environmental and social values of the project area and that potential resource conflicts are minimized or avoided. A. SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The overall purpose of the proposed projects at Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) is to address the existing constraints and conditions and further improve the skiing and mountain biking experience. The projects would meet the following needs:

• Meet increased public demand for developed intermediate and expert ski terrain by developing the Main Mountain at CBMR;

• Increase the total amount of developed and undeveloped terrain and ski pods, with an emphasis on intermediate, advanced, and expert ability levels in order to improve the skiing opportunities for guests, and thereby extend their length of stay;

• Provide an expanded offering of additional recreational activities for year-round utilization of existing facilities, consistent with summer use impact zones in the 2013 Master Development Plan (MDP);

• Continue to increase the quality of the facilities to meet the ever-increasing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets; and

• Improve skier circulation and opportunities by realigning the North Face chairlift, improving access to the North Face and Spellbound Bowl, and adding snowmaking infrastructure.

The full description of the project’s Purpose and Need is stated in Chapter 1.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement S-1 Summary

B. SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THIS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In addition to the Proposed Action, the required No Action Alternative is analyzed within this Final EIS. Refer to Chapter 2 for a full description of alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades to existing conditions as a result of this NEPA analysis. The No Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 1.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes the following elements, each of which are further defined in Chapter 2. All components of the Proposed Action are depicted in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.

Special Use Permit Boundary Adjustment and Forest Plan Amendment

 CBMR’s SUP boundary would be increased by approximately 500 acres to encompass the Teo Drainage area. While the overall goals and objectives of the Proposed Action were determined to be consistent with the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), the proposed boundary adjustment would require converting areas identified as Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation and 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition, to 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. This Management Area conversion would require a significant, Forest-wide Forest Plan amendment, which is described in greater detail in Appendix B.

Chairlifts

 The Teo Park chairlift would be installed within the existing SUP boundary. The top-drive chairlift would be constructed as a fixed-grip triple chairlift with a slope length of approximately 3,050 feet and a capacity of 1,200 people per hour (pph).  The Teo Drainage chairlift would be installed within the proposed adjusted SUP area. The top- drive chairlift would be constructed as either a fixed-grip or high-speed detachable triple or quad chairlift with a slope length of approximately 6,000 feet and a capacity of 1,200 pph.  The existing North Face surface lift would be replaced by a fixed-grip quad chairlift and realigned, with the top terminal remaining in its approximate location and the bottom terminal shifting north near the base of the Paradise Express chairlift. The North Face chairlift would be constructed with a slope length of approximately 5,414 feet and a capacity of 1,800 pph.

Additional Ski Terrain

 Over 500 acres of additional ski terrain would become lift-served, including 89 acres of developed ski trails and 434 acres of glades, in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement S-2 Summary

Snowmaking

 A total of 32 acres of new snowmaking coverage would be installed on Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails.

Ski Patrol Building/Warming Hut

 Ski patrol operations would be expanded to account for the incorporation of the Teo Drainage area into the developed lift and trail network.  A ski patrol building/warming hut would be constructed at the top of the proposed Teo Park and realigned North Face chairlifts.

Terrain Access Improvements

 Five terrain access improvement projects would be constructed in areas of existing terrain. These terrain access improvements include a 10-foot-wide and 180-foot-long graded trail between the North Face and Spellbound Bowl areas. The second improvement would be a 10-foot-wide and 410-foot-long benched trail to Spellbound Bowl from Hawk’s Nest. Finally, three benches, all approximately 6 feet in width, would be constructed at the following trails: 190 feet in length on Banana, 140 feet in length on Funnel, and 40 feet in length on Flat Iron.

Mountain Biking and Multi-Use Trails

 Approximately 15 miles of multi-use and mountain biking trails would be constructed within the existing SUP area and private lands in the base area. Trails would generally be between 24 and 48 inches wide, with some variation depending on the type of trail (downhill versus cross-country), steepness of the terrain, intended user group, and proximity to streams and water bodies. C. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A scoping notice, dated October 28, 2015, was mailed to 72 community residents, interested individuals, government officials, public agencies, and other organizations. The scoping notice provided a brief description of the proposal, the Purpose and Need for action, and two illustrative maps. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the proposal. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2015. During the scoping period, two public open houses were held by the Forest Service: the first on November 18, 2015 in Gunnison, Colorado at the Fred R. Field Western Heritage Center; and a second on November 19, 2015 at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, which is located at CBMR. Additional information was available on the project website (www.crestedbutte-eis.com) and comment submissions were accepted via this website. Comments were accepted from the following sources: email, web submission, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone.

During the scoping period, the Forest Service received 77 comment submittals. All of the submittals were reviewed, and comments were extracted and categorized by resource or topic. The interdisciplinary team used comment disposition codes to identify issues and to formulate potential alternatives to the Proposed Action in response to external (public and agency) and internal (GMUG) concerns. The issues are addressed in Chapter 3.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement S-3 Summary

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2018, initiating the Draft EIS comment period that remained open until May 10, 2018. Additional information was available on the Forest Service project website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46904) and comments were accepted through this website. Comments were also accepted from the following sources: email, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone. During the Draft EIS comment period, the GMUG received 95 comment submittals. All comment letters were reviewed for substantive comments, and contact information for each commenter was entered into a master database. One of these comments was received following the close of the comment period. This comment was reviewed and processed; however, the commenter would not have standing to object as their comments were received outside of the 90-day comment period as initiated by the publication of the NOA in the Federal Register. D. SUMMARY OF RESOURCE ISSUES ADDRESSED Based on the results of public scoping, the Forest Service identified specific areas of concern. Each of the following issue statements includes a list of indicators (refer to Chapter 1), which were identified as a means of measuring or quantifying the anticipated level of impact on a particular resource.

THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Recreation Proposed projects within CBMR’s current and proposed SUP area have the potential to affect the recreational experience at the ski area in both summer and winter seasons.

Scenery Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, may be visible from State Highway (SH) 135, and/or other relevant viewpoints.

Noise Construction of the proposed projects, including timber removal, has the potential to affect noise levels in CBMR’s SUP area and adjacent areas.

Social and Economic Resources Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter certain socioeconomic characteristics of Gunnison County or the Town of Crested Butte.

Traffic Implementation of proposed projects may generate increases in daily/seasonal visitation, thereby affecting traffic on SH 135 and parking at CBMR.

Land Use Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter land use patterns within CBMR’s SUP boundary and surrounding areas.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement S-4 Summary

THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Air Quality and Climate Change Construction and operation of the proposed projects (including short-term construction-related activity, burning, and transportation related to timber removal) could result in localized impacts to air quality, as well as GHG emissions.

Vegetation Plant communities (including Proposed, Threatened or Endangered and/or Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive [PTES] species, Species of Local Concern [SOLC], overstory vegetation, and the presence of invasive and noxious weeds) may be altered as a result of the proposed projects.

Fish and Wildlife Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, could affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for PTES fish and wildlife species, Management Indicator Species, migratory birds, and SOLC.

Watershed Implementation of proposed projects has the potential to affect stream and riparian health.

Wetlands Identified wetlands and other waters of the U.S. throughout project area could be temporarily and/or permanently affected by construction and implementation of proposed projects. E. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 2-4 in Chapter 2 includes a summary comparison of environmental consequences, by resource, for the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. Detailed information on affected environment and environmental consequences for each resource considered in this analysis can be found in Chapter 3.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement S-5 Summary

This page intentionally left blank.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement S-6 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1 A. Introduction ...... 1 B. Background ...... 2 C. Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals ...... 3 D. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 3 E. Summary of the Proposed Action ...... 5 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 6 F. Interagency Coordination ...... 6 G. Public Involvement ...... 6 Public Scoping ...... 6 Public Comment ...... 7 H. Relevant Changes to the Proposed Action Since Project Scoping ...... 7 I. Issues and Indicators ...... 7 Issues Selected for Detailed Analysis ...... 8 Issues/Resources Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ...... 13 J. Scope of the Analysis ...... 13 Actions...... 14 Alternatives ...... 14 Impacts ...... 14 K. Consistency with Forest Service Policy ...... 15 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ...... 15 2011 Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act ...... 16 Forest Service Manual 2343.14 ...... 17 L. Decision to be Made ...... 18 M. Other Necessary Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation ...... 18 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 19 A. Introduction ...... 19 B. Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 19 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 19 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 20 C. Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Proposed Action ...... 25 D. Alternatives and Design Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 36 Road to Bush Creek ...... 36 Teo Drainage Chairlift Extending to Bush Creek/Valley Floor ...... 36 Mountain Biking Trails Connecting CBMR’s Trail Network with Public Trail Networks beyond the Special Use Permit Boundary ...... 36 Installation of Backcountry Access Points into Teo Drainage Instead of Lift-served Skiing ...... 36 Surface Lift from the Bottom of Teo 2 Bowl to the Top of Fredo’s Instead of the Proposed Teo Park Chairlift ...... 37 No Teo Drainage Chairlift and No Special Use Permit Adjustment ...... 37 No Additional Mountain Biking Trails ...... 37 Retain Existing North Face Surface Lift ...... 37 Snowmaking Storage Tanks or Ponds ...... 38 E. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 38 F. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 40 G. Identification of the Preferred Alternative ...... 67

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement i Table of Contents

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 69 Scope of the Analysis ...... 69 Affected Environment ...... 69 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 69 Cumulative Effects ...... 69 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 70 A. Recreation ...... 70 Scope of the Analysis ...... 70 Affected Environment ...... 70 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 79 Cumulative Effects ...... 86 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 89 B. Scenery ...... 90 Scope of the Analysis ...... 90 Forest Plan Direction ...... 90 Affected Environment ...... 93 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 94 Cumulative Effects ...... 98 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 99 C. Noise ...... 100 Scope of the Analysis ...... 100 Affected Environment ...... 100 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 102 Cumulative Effects ...... 104 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 105 D. Social and Economic Resources ...... 105 Scope of the Analysis ...... 105 Affected Environment ...... 106 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 112 Cumulative Effects ...... 115 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 116 E. Traffic ...... 117 Scope of the Analysis ...... 117 Affected Environment ...... 117 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 121 Cumulative Effects ...... 125 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 127 F. Land Use ...... 127 Scope of the Analysis ...... 127 Forest Service Direction ...... 128 Affected Environment ...... 128 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 132 Cumulative Effects ...... 136 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 137 G. Air Quality and Climate Change ...... 137 Scope of the Analysis ...... 137 Federal, State, and Local Policy and Guidance ...... 138 Affected Environment ...... 139 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 141 Cumulative Effects ...... 143 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 145 H. Vegetation ...... 145 Scope of the Analysis ...... 145 Affected Environment ...... 146 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 151

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement ii Table of Contents

Cumulative Effects ...... 156 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 157 I. Fish and Wildlife ...... 158 Scope of the Analysis ...... 158 Affected Environment ...... 158 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 172 Cumulative Effects ...... 181 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 183 J. Geology and Soil Resources ...... 184 Scope of the Analysis ...... 184 Forest Plan Direction ...... 184 Affected Environment ...... 186 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 193 Cumulative Effects ...... 199 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 200 K. Watershed ...... 200 Scope of the Analysis ...... 200 Forest Plan Direction ...... 201 Affected Environment ...... 204 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 213 Cumulative Effects ...... 220 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 222 L. Wetlands ...... 223 Scope of the Analysis ...... 223 Forest Plan Direction ...... 223 Affected Environment ...... 224 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 228 Cumulative Effects ...... 230 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 231 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 233 A. Preparers ...... 233 Forest Service Team ...... 233 Consultant Team ...... 233 B. Agencies, Organizations, Tribal Governments, and Persons Contacted ...... 235 Federal Government ...... 235 Tribal Government ...... 235 State Government ...... 235 Local Government ...... 236 Local Media ...... 236 Other Organizations ...... 236 Individuals Who Commented During Scoping or Who Have Participated in the NEPA Process 237 5. REFERENCES ...... 239 6. FIGURES ...... 247 Vicinity Map Figure 1. Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Figure 2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Proposed Winter Projects Figure 3. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Proposed Mountain Bike and Multi-Use Trails Figure 4. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Proposed Timber Removal Plan Figure 5. Existing Conditions from Highway 135 Viewpoint Figure 6. Visual Simulation from Highway 135 Viewpoint Figure 7. Project Area Water Resources

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement iii Table of Contents

7. GLOSSARY ...... 249 8. INDEX ...... 261 APPENDICES Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the Draft EIS Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement iv Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Trails Proposed for Snowmaking under Alternative 2 ...... 23 Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices...... 26 Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives ...... 39 Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 40 Table 3A-1. Developed Terrain Network Distribution by Ability Level – Existing Conditions ...... 72 Table 3A-2. Existing Space Use Compared to Industry Average – Resort Total ...... 74 Table 3A-3. Existing Summer Trails ...... 77 Table 3A-4. Developed Terrain Network Distribution by Ability Level – Proposed Conditions ...... 80 Table 3A-5. Proposed Summer Trails ...... 85 Table 3C-1. Noise Levels for Common Sources...... 100 Table 3D-1. Historic Gunnison County Population Totals for the Period of 1985 to 2015 ...... 106 Table 3D-2. Projected Gunnison County Population Totals for the Period of 2015 to 2050 ...... 106 Table 3D-3. CBMR Baseline Employment ...... 106 Table 3D-4. Minority Populations of the Study Area, Period Estimate 2011 to 2015 ...... 111 Table 3D-5. Percentage of Population Below the Poverty Level, 2011 to 2015 ...... 111 Table 3D-6. New Positions at CBMR due to the Proposed Action ...... 114 Table 3E-1. Winter Traffic Generated by CBMR – Existing Daily Vehicle Trips ...... 119 Table 3E-2. Main Parking Lot Usage Numbers – Existing Conditions ...... 120 Table 3E-3. Parking Capacity – Existing Conditions ...... 121 Table 3E-4. Winter Traffic Generated by CBMR – Proposed Daily Vehicle Trips ...... 123 Table 3E-5. Construction Trips for Tree and Debris Removal – Proposed Action ...... 124 Table 3F-1. Forest Plan Management Areas within the Project Area ...... 128 Table 3F-2. Management Area Change on the GMUG under the Proposed Action ...... 132 Table 3H-1. Vegetation Types within the Project Area ...... 146 Table 3H-2. Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the GMUG ...... 148 Table 3H-3. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Non-Native Plants in the Project Area ...... 150 Table 3H-4. Overall Disturbance by Vegetation Type – Proposed Action ...... 153 Table 3I-1. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Wildlife Species ...... 159 Table 3I-2. Gothic LAU Existing Habitat Statistics ...... 161 Table 3I-3. Existing Lynx Habitat within the Project Area ...... 162 Table 3I-4. Region 2 Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species...... 165 Table 3I-5. GMUG MIS Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species ...... 169 Table 3I-6. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province ...... 170 Table 3I-7. PIF Priority Species of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province ...... 172 Table 3I-8. Total Proposed Water Use Under Existing and Proposed Conditions at CBMR ...... 173 Table 3I-9. Net Acreages of Lynx Habitat Affected Within the Project Area – Proposed Action ...... 174 Table 3I-10. Updated Lynx Habitat Statistics for the Gothic LAU – Proposed Action ...... 175 Table 3I-11. Effects to Region 2 Sensitive Species Analyzed – Proposed Action Determination Summary ...... 179 Table 3I-12. Impacts to PIF Priority Species of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province by Habitat Type ...... 181 Table 3J-1. Acreages of Map Units within the Project Area ...... 189 Table 3J-2. Organic Matter Levels and Thicknesses of Surface Horizons (A and E Horizons) and Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) by Map Unit ...... 190 Table 3J-3. Organic Matter Levels and Thicknesses of Surface Horizons (A, A/E and E if at Surface) and Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) by Proposed Project ...... 191 Table 3J-4. Ski Area Development Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areas ...... 192

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement v Table of Contents

Table 3J-5. Disturbances Types – Proposed Action ...... 194 Table 3J-6. Acreages of Map Units and Disturbance – Proposed Action ...... 195 Table 3J-7. Disturbance Acres of Proposed Projects for under the Proposed Action ...... 196 Table 3J-8. Direct Impacts to Soil Resource from the Proposed Action ...... 197 Table 3K-1. Study Watersheds – Baseline vs. Existing Conditions ...... 206 Table 3K-2. WRENSS Model Output for Baseline and Existing Conditions (Average Year) ...... 207 Table 3K-3. Comparison of ER-4 Watershed Yield and Peak Flows Dry (2004), Average Conditions, and Wet (1982) Conditions ...... 208 Table 3K-4. SVAP Stream Condition Ratings ...... 209 Table 3K-5. Stream Health – Metrics and Causal Mechanisms ...... 209 Table 3K-6. CDAs within the Study Watersheds – Existing Conditions ...... 211 Table 3K-7. Forested Acreage in the WIZ – Baseline vs Existing Conditions ...... 211 Table 3K-8. Snowmaking Diversions, Depletions, and Return Flows (in acre feet) ...... 212 Table 3K-9. Forested Acreage in the WIZ – Baseline versus Existing and Proposed Conditions ...... 214 Table 3K-10. Snowmaking Coverage and Associated Water Demands – Existing vs Proposed ...... 215 Table 3K-11. Computed Water Yield and Estimated Change Relative to Existing Conditions ...... 216 Table 3K-12. Computed Peak Flows and Estimated Change Relative to Existing Conditions ...... 216 Table 3L-1. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S...... 225 Table 3L-2: Wetland Impact Summary – Proposed Action ...... 229

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement vi Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic GMUG Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and ABA Architectural Barriers Act Gunnison National Forest ACS American Census Survey HU Human Use ADA American Disabilities Act ID Team Interdisciplinary Team ADT Average Daily Traffic IMBA International Mountain Bicycling ANSI American National Standards Association Institute IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate AVO average vehicle occupancy rate Change BA Biological Assessment LAU Lynx Analysis Unit BCP Bird Conservation Plan MAII May Adversely Impact Individuals BE Biological Evaluation MCBWSD Mt. Crested Butte Water and BEIG Built Environment Image Guide Sanitation District BMP Best Management Practices MDP Master Development Plan BO Biological Opinion MIS Management Indicator Species CAA Clean Air Act MM Management Measure CBMR Crested Butte Mountain Resort MOU Memorandum of Understanding CCC Comfortable Carrying Capacity NCDC National Climatic Data Center CDA connected disturbed areas NEPA National Environmental Policy Act CDOT Colorado Department of NFMA National Forest Management Act Transportation NFS National Forest System CDPHE Colorado Department of Public NI No Impact Health and Environment NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service CE Categorical Exclusion NOA Notice of Availability CEQ Council on Environmental Quality NOI Notice of Intent CFR Code of Federal Regulations NRCS Natural Resource Conservation CFS Cubic Feet per Second Service CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife NRHP National Register of Historic Places CSCUSA Colorado Ski Country USA NSAA National Ski Areas Association CWA Clean Water Act PAB Palustrine Aquatic Bed CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board PDC Project Design Criteria DBH diameter at breast height PEM Palustrine Emergent DEIS Draft Environmental Impact PFO Palustrine Forested Statement PIF Partners in Flight DWR Division of Water Resources PS Primary Suitable EA Environmental Assessment PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub EIS Environmental Impact Statement PTES Proposed, Threatened or EPA Environmental Protection Agency Endangered and/or Sensitive ER East River PU Primary Unsuitable ESA Endangered Species Act RMBL Rocky Mountain Biological FEIS Final Environmental Impact Laboratory Statement ROD Record of Decision FSH Forest Service Handbook RTA Rural Transportation Authority FSM Forest Service Manual SAROEA Ski Area Recreational Opportunity GHG Greenhouse Gas Enhancement Act of 2011 GIS Geographic Information Systems SCS Soil Conservation Service SH State Highway

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement vii Acronyms and Abbreviations

SMS Scenery Management System SNOTEL Snow Telemetry SO Supervisors Office SOLC Species of Local Concern SRLMD Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction SS Secondary Suitable SUP Special Use Permit SVAP Stream Visual Assessment Protocol USA United States of America USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VMS Visual Management System VQO Visual Quality Objective WBID Water Body Identification WCPH Water Conservation Practices Handbook WG Washington Gulch WIZ Water Influence Zone WMP Watershed Management Plan WRCC Western Regional Climate Center WRENSS Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement viii Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

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

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Final EIS contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Forest Service policy. It discloses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result with implementation of the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action. Additionally, it is intended to ensure that planning considers the environmental and social values of the project area and that potential resource conflicts are minimized or avoided. The document is organized into eight chapters and two appendices:

• Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need: Includes information on the history of the project proposal, the Purpose of and Need for the project, and the proposal for achieving that Purpose and Need. Chapter 1 also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 1 further describes issues raised through the scoping process.

• Chapter 2 – Description of Alternatives: Provides a detailed description of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). This discussion also includes alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis and project design criteria (PDC). Finally, Chapter 2 provides a summary table of the environmental consequences anticipated with each alternative.

• Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Provides a description of the affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) by resource area and describes the environmental effects of implementing the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Chapter 3 is organized by resource topic.

• Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination: Provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this Final EIS. This includes federal, tribal, state, and local governments, as well as local media and other organizations. Additionally, individuals who commented during scoping or who have participated in the process will be included in this chapter.

• Chapter 5 – References: Provides complete references for documents cited within this Final EIS.

• Chapter 6 – Figures: Provides the maps, figures, and perspectives used throughout this analysis.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 1 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

• Chapter 7 – Glossary: Provides a definition of technical and non-technical terms used throughout this Final EIS.

• Chapter 8 – Index: Provides a list and page number of frequently used terms throughout this Final EIS.

• Appendices: Includes: (A) Cumulative Effects Projects, (B) Forest Plan Amendment Analysis, (C) Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the Draft EIS, and (D) Response to Comments on the Draft EIS.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project administrative record located at the Gunnison Ranger District office of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). B. BACKGROUND Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) is located immediately adjacent to the Town of Mt. Crested Butte, and proximate to the Town of Crested Butte, both in Gunnison County, Colorado (refer to the Vicinity Map in Chapter 6). CBMR operates under a Forest Service Ski Area Term Special Use Permit (SUP). CBMR’s SUP encompasses 4,350 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands across two mountains separated by privately owned lands: Crested Butte Mountain (also referred to as the Main Mountain) and Snodgrass Mountain. The portion of the SUP on the Main Mountain is approximately 2,890 acres; this acreage does not include approximately 165 acres of developed ski terrain and the base area on land owned by CBMR as part of the Vail Resorts corporate family, within the Town of Mt. Crested Butte’s jurisdictional boundaries. The portion of CBMR’s SUP on Snodgrass Mountain is approximately 1,460 acres and is currently undeveloped. There is no component of the Proposed Action within the Snodgrass Mountain portion of CBMR’s SUP area. Refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3 in Chapter 6 for the locations of proposed projects within or adjacent to the portion of the SUP area on the Main Mountain.

CBMR’s SUP requires the development of a Master Development Plan (MDP), which identifies management direction and opportunities for future management of the portion of the ski area on NFS lands. The Forest Service accepted CBMR’s MDP in 2013 (2013 MDP). Forest Service acceptance of the 2013 MDP does not constitute approval for individual projects; rather, the implementation of individual projects identified in the 2013 MDP is contingent upon subsequent site-specific analysis/approval in accordance with the NEPA process such as is being conducted here. All the projects analyzed in this Final EIS were initially addressed in the 2013 MDP; however, not all of the projects included in the 2013 MDP are being brought forward in this Final EIS for review.

As previously stated, this Final EIS analyzes several projects identified in the 2013 MDP including: adjustment of the SUP boundary; construction of two new chairlifts; replacement and realignment of one chairlift; development of additional ski terrain, including developed ski trails and glades; expansion of ski patrol operations, including construction of a ski patrol/skier services building; terrain access improvement projects, additional snowmaking coverage; and additional mountain biking trails. Chapter 2 provides a full description of these projects (refer to Alternative 2 – Proposed Action).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Contingent upon this NEPA review process, implementation of any approved projects could potentially begin as early as fall 2018. C. RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS This Final EIS is consistent with, and incorporates by reference, several documents that are related to the management of CBMR on NFS lands, including:1

• 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (Forest Plan)

• 1998 Crested Butte Mountain Resort Environmental Assessment

• 2006 Crested Butte Main Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment

• 2013 Crested Butte Mountain Resort Master Development Plan (2013 MDP) D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The Forest Service is responding to an application submitted under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 and the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 (SAROEA) by CBMR to implement projects from the 2013 MDP. In the 2013 MDP, CBMR identified a deficiency in developed intermediate/advanced terrain compared with CBMR’s skier and rider market. It also noted a slight deficit of developed expert terrain. The 2013 MDP also identifies a need to enhance summer recreation activities, consistent with SAROEA, in order to meet increasing guest expectations and provide year- round opportunities.

The Forest Service, through acceptance of CBMR’s 2013 MDP, has identified the need to:

• Meet increased public demand for developed intermediate and expert ski terrain by developing the Main Mountain

• Provide an expanded offering of additional recreational activities for year-round utilization of existing facilities, consistent with summer use zones in the MDP

• Continue to increase the quality of the facilities to meet the ever-increasing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets

• Improve skier circulation and opportunities by realigning the North Face chairlift, improving access to the North Face and Spellbound Bowl, and adding snowmaking infrastructure

1 These documents are part of the project file for this Final EIS and are available for review at the Gunnison Ranger District office in Gunnison, Colorado.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 3 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

1) Meet increased public demand for developed intermediate and expert terrain ski terrain by developing the Main Mountain. While CBMR has been rated as one of the most challenging ski areas in the county, the majority of CBMR’s skier market is comprised of intermediate and advanced ability levels. A terrain distribution analysis conducted for CBMR’s developed terrain reveals there is a notable deficit of intermediate terrain. In addition, there is a deficit of developed expert terrain—a fact that is often overlooked due to the quantity and quality of CBMR’s off-piste Extreme Limits terrain.2 Although Extreme Limits provides expert terrain, this terrain is only available under certain snow conditions; therefore, there is a need for additional developed terrain for expert guests. Providing a more diverse selection and quality of terrain, with an emphasis on intermediate and developed expert terrain, is necessary to meet the needs of GMUG visitors.

2) Increase the total amount of developed and undeveloped terrain and ski pods, with an emphasis on intermediate, advanced, and expert ability levels in order to improve the skiing opportunities for guests, and thereby extend their length of stay. In terms of a resort’s ability to retain guests, both for longer durations of visitation as well as repeat visitation, one of the more important factors has proven to be variation in terrain. This means having a wide array of developed runs of all ability levels, some groomed on a regular basis and some not, as well as mogul runs, bowl skiing, tree skiing, in-bounds backcountry style (hike-to) skiing, and terrain parks and pipes. CBMR’s off-piste, the Extreme Limits terrain is truly expert-only undeveloped terrain with the exception of a few trails. There is a need for undeveloped terrain that intermediate skiers can experience, which can also be used by expert skiers seeking additional variety.

CBMR is well known for its Extreme Limits terrain; however, developed runs represent the baseline of the terrain at ski resorts, as these runs are where the majority of guests ski. Developed terrain is usually the only place to ski during the early season, periods of poor or undesirable snow conditions, avalanche closures, and certain weather conditions. Advanced and expert level skiers typically use terrain outside of the developed network predominately during periods when snow conditions are most desirable, and use developed terrain when off-piste conditions are less desirable. As such, the developed terrain network represents a more accurate reflection of acreage used by the average skier on a consistent basis, as well as the terrain used by virtually all skiers and ability levels during the aforementioned conditions. In this regard CBMR has a deficit of terrain acreage for expert ability level skiers, even though ample amounts of undeveloped expert terrain are present. The total acreage of the developed terrain network and the ability level breakdown must be sufficient to accommodate the full skier capacity of the resort. As a destination resort, CBMR experiences a severe disadvantage in total developed terrain acreage, especially when compared to other Colorado destination ski areas.3

2 “Piste” is a term borrowed from French vernacular meaning skiing terrain that provides a traditional, groomed, prepared sliding surface. “Off-piste,” therefore, refers to skiing terrain that is left in a natural alpine snow condition, receives very infrequent grooming (if any), and presents natural, variable surface conditions and textures. 3 CBMR, 2013

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 4 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

3) Provide an expanded offering of additional recreational activities for year-round utilization of existing facilities, consistent with summer use zones in the MDP. The towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte, as well as the overall region of the Upper Gunnison Valley, provide for a variety of summer activities. The number of activities available in the region, combined with the scenery, atmosphere, and altitude, draw visitors during the summer months; however, expanded and improved summer activities are needed to meet visitor expectations.

Mountain biking trails at CBMR have gained in popularity in recent years and demand remains high for additional diversity, connections, and trail options. Particularly, guest preferences have shifted toward beginner and intermediate ability level trails over the past several years. To continue meeting the demands of guests, and to provide opportunities for exploration of the GMUG, there is a need to continue developing additional summer trail opportunities.

4) Continue to increase the quality of the facilities to meet the ever-increasing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets. With the proposed adjustment of the SUP boundary, ski patrol operations and skier services also need to be expanded to provide adequate safety coverage and respond to guest needs, such as a place to keep warm in adverse weather conditions. There is also a need for additional snowmaking coverage on the front side of the Main Mountain to provide consistent snow coverage on key areas. There is no snowmaking proposed within the SUP adjustment area; however, snowmaking would occur on the existing Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails to facilitate use of proposed intermediate terrain in the Teo Drainage area.

5) Improve skier circulation and opportunities by realigning the North Face chairlift, improving access to North Face and Spellbound Bowl, and adding snowmaking infrastructure. Currently, CBMR’s intermediate and advanced ability level guests utilize terrain in the Paradise Express and East River Express pods on northern portions of the mountain. While this terrain is well-used and usually provides a quality skiing experience, it becomes overcrowded on peak weekends and holidays, and at times experiences inconsistent and insufficient snow conditions that inhibit skier traffic flow. There is need to relieve pressure from the Paradise Express chairlift and enable better circulation of guests to both the existing and proposed terrain. E. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The projects analyzed in this Final EIS are designed to address the Purpose and Need described above. This Final EIS was assembled to enable the Responsible Official to determine whether all, portions of, or alternatives to the Proposed Action will be approved for implementation on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area.

A summary of the action alternatives is provided here, with a detailed description presented in Chapter 2. Project components are also detailed on Figure 2 through Figure 4.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 5 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action includes the following individual projects:

• Adjustment of CBMR’s SUP boundary by adding approximately 500 acres to encompass the Teo Drainage area (refer to Figure 2). While the overall goals and objectives of the Proposed Action were determined to be consistent with the Forest Plan, the proposed boundary adjustment would require converting areas identified as Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation and 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition, to 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. This Management Area conversion would require a Forest Plan amendment, which is described in greater detail in Appendix B.

• Installation of two new chairlifts (Teo Park chairlift and Teo Drainage chairlift), and replacement and realignment of one existing chairlift (North Face chairlift).

• Development of additional ski terrain, including developed ski trails and glades, in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas.

• Expansion of ski patrol operations, including construction of a ski patrol/skier services building, to account for the incorporation of the Teo Drainage area into the developed lift and trail network.

• Construction of terrain access improvement projects in areas of existing terrain including the North Face and Spellbound Bowl areas, as well as trails Banana, Funnel, and Flat Iron.

• Installation of 32 acres of new snowmaking coverage on Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails.

• Construction of approximately 15 miles of additional mountain biking trails.

As previously mentioned, a detailed description of these projects and additional information about the Forest Plan amendment are detailed in Chapter 2. F. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION In accordance with regulatory direction, and in furtherance of cooperative management among federal agencies charged with oversight of environmental and natural resources; federal, state, local, and tribal entities with a likely interest and/or jurisdiction in the Proposed Action were sent scoping notices and/or consulted prior to and throughout the NEPA process. G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC SCOPING A scoping notice, dated October 28, 2015, was mailed to 72 community residents, interested individuals, government officials, public agencies, and other organizations. The scoping notice provided a brief description of the proposal, the Purpose and Need for action, and two illustrative maps. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the proposal. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2015. During the scoping period, two public open houses were held by the Forest Service: the first on November 18, 2015 in Gunnison, Colorado at the Fred R. Field Western Heritage Center; and a second on November 19, 2015

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 6 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, which is located at CBMR. Additional information was available on the project website (www.crestedbutte-eis.com) and comment submissions were accepted via this website. Comments were accepted from the following sources: email, web submission, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone.

During the scoping period, the Forest Service received 77 comment submittals. All of the submittals were reviewed, and comments were extracted and categorized by resource or topic. The interdisciplinary team used these comments to identify issues and to formulate potential alternatives to the Proposed Action in response to external (public and agency) and internal (GMUG) concerns.

PUBLIC COMMENT A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2018, initiating the Draft EIS comment period that remained open until May 10, 2018. Additional information was available on the project website and comments were accepted through this website. Comments were also accepted from the following sources: email, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone. During the Draft EIS comment period, the GMUG received 95 comment submittals. All comment letters were reviewed for substantive comments, and contact information for each commenter was entered into a master database. One of these comments was received following the close of the comment period. This comment was reviewed and processed; however, the commenter would not have standing to object as their comments were received outside of the 90-day comment period as initiated by the publication of the NOA in the Federal Register. H. RELEVANT CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION SINCE PROJECT SCOPING Following the close of the public scoping period, the Forest Service modified the Proposed Action. The modifications were made in response to information gained during scoping and through additional planning and field visits to the project area. These changes included a revised description of glading projects, a revised alignment for the North Face chairlift, two new projects to facilitate skier circulation, and realignment of proposed mountain biking trails. Additional information regarding these revisions is provided in Chapter 2. I. ISSUES AND INDICATORS Based on the results of public scoping, specific areas of concern have been identified and classified as being either “resources/issues selected for detailed analysis” or “resources/issues dismissed from detailed analysis.” Issues may warrant the generation of an alternative, can be addressed by PDC or mitigation, or require in-depth analysis and disclosure. Resources/issues dismissed from detailed analysis are beyond the scope of the project, are already decided by law, regulation or policy, are not relevant to the decision, or are conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The use of issues to frame environmental analyses under NEPA is outlined in the Forest Service and CEQ regulations (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 1909.15 Section 11.5, Section 12.4, Section 15.24, 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1501.7 and 1500.4). This guidance directs the Forest Service to focus the analysis on key issues and include brief rationale for other topics not analyzed in detail.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 7 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

ISSUES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS Each issue includes a list of indicators, which were identified as a means of measuring or quantifying the anticipated level of impact on a particular resource. While some indicators are necessarily qualitative in nature, every effort was made to utilize indicators that are quantitative, measurable, and predictable.

The Human Environment Recreation Proposed projects within CBMR’s current and proposed SUP area have the potential to affect the recreational experience at the ski area in both summer and winter seasons. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area Indicators: • Quantification of existing and proposed terrain acreage (including gladed areas) by ability level and discussion of skier density

• Quantitative analysis of existing and proposed Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) and skier visitation, including discussion of existing guest service space and other amenities

• Quantitative analysis of existing and proposed summer recreation activities, including mileage and acreage of mountain biking trails by ability level

• Discussion of user/guest demand that currently exists in the area for summer recreation activities, including safety

• Discussion of season of use for each activity

• Discussion of potential use conflicts with proposed projects (e.g., potential conflicts with hunting in the Teo Drainage)

Scenery Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, may be visible from State Highway 135 (SH 135), and/or other relevant viewpoints. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area as visible from identified viewpoints Indicators: • Discussion of the existing visual quality of the CBMR SUP area and proposed boundary adjustment area, and potential changes to this condition

• Compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for scenery management within the SUP area and from established viewpoints by meeting Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs)

• Compliance with the intent of the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) for all proposed structures. Structures should meet Forest Plan scenery guidelines for materials, colors, and reflectivity

• Narrative description of how proposed projects imitate landscape character

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 8 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

• Discussion of the identified viewpoint on northbound SH 135 looking northeast towards the project area

Noise Construction of the proposed projects, including timber removal, has the potential to affect noise levels in CBMR’s SUP area and adjacent areas. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area and adjacent NFS and private lands Indicators: • Narrative discussion of existing noise levels in the study area

• Narrative description of potential noise-related impacts associated with the construction of the proposed projects

• Discussion of the helicopter flight plan and its potential to increase noise levels in the study area

Social and Economic Resources Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter certain socioeconomic characteristics of Gunnison County or the Town of Crested Butte. Study Area: Gunnison County, Colorado Indicators: • Qualitative analysis of potential effects to socioeconomic indicators in Gunnison County, including population, employment, town/county tax revenue, tourism, and visitor spending

• Qualitative and quantitative discussion of available housing, including designated employee housing, in Gunnison County during both summer and winter seasons

• Narrative discussion of existing summer tourism levels and potential increases as a result of the proposed projects

• Disclosure of economic impacts to permit holders, whose business is separate from CBMR operations

• Disclosure of compliance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Traffic Implementation of proposed projects may generate increases in daily/seasonal visitation, thereby affecting traffic on SH 135 and parking at CBMR. Study Area: SH 135 between Gunnison and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte Indicators: • Estimate of baseline and future traffic volumes on SH 135, as related to CBMR’s operations during summer and winter months

• Estimate of traffic generated by timber removal and construction activities

• Quantification of parking capacities and demands at CBMR during summer and winter months

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 9 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Land Use Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter land use patterns within CBMR’s SUP boundary and surrounding areas. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area and adjacent NFS and private lands Indicators: • Narrative description of existing land uses within and around CBMR’s proposed SUP boundary

• Discussion of potential impacts to members of the public and other permit holders within CBMR’s SUP boundary, including livestock grazing, outfitter/guide, and research permit holders, both during implementation and following implementation of the proposed projects

The Physical and Biological Environment Air Quality and Climate Change Construction and operation of the proposed projects (including short-term construction-related activity, burning, and transportation related to timber removal) could result in localized impacts to air quality, as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Study Area: GMUG’s surrounding airshed Indicators: • Narrative description of existing air quality in the study area, including population centers and Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity

• Discussion of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding air quality

• Estimate of daily increase in number of vehicles associated with the increased annual visitation

• Estimate of traffic and emissions associated with construction of the proposed project, including timber removal

• Narrative discussion of timber removal techniques (e.g., burning) and their potential effect on air quality in the region

• Discussion of the impact of climate change on the operations of CBMR and the proposed projects

• Discussion of potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed projects and potential contributions to climate change

Vegetation Plant communities (including proposed, threatened or endangered and/or Forest Service Region 2 sensitive [PTES] species, Species of Local Concern [SOLC], overstory vegetation, and the presence of invasive and noxious weeds) may be altered as a result of the proposed projects. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area Indicators: • Identification and disclosure of impacts to any federally listed threatened and endangered species, Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species, and SOLC present in the area

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 10 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

• Narrative discussion of timber removal techniques, including mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize presence of spruce bark beetle and potential for attack

• Quantification (acreage) of proposed ground disturbance and overstory vegetation removal effects by vegetation type

• Identification of PDC and BMPs (including noxious weed design features) to avoid the spread of noxious or other undesirable weed species and to manage existing populations toward eradication or acceptable levels when eradication is not realistic

Fish and Wildlife Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, could affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for federally listed PTES fish and wildlife species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), migratory birds, and SOLC. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area and adjacent NFS lands Indicators: • Identification of federally listed, MIS, Forest Service Region 2 sensitive wildlife species and migratory birds potentially present in the habitats of the project site and conduct field studies (as needed) to determine the presence or absence of these species

• Quantification (acres) and qualification of existing wildlife habitat and proposed alteration, fragmentation, or removal of wildlife habitat, by species. Include specifically lynx habitat, broken down by primary suitable habitat, secondary suitable habitat, primary unsuitable habitat, and non- habitat.

• Description of the existing environmental baseline by quantifying current use in the project area (operating lifts, existing backcountry skiing, summer activities, etc.) and compared to proposed conditions

• Disclosure of effects to terrestrial PTES, MIS, and migratory birds

• Identification of and effects within immediate and adjacent Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs)

• Quantification and qualification of compensatory mitigation for impacts to lynx or other relevant species habitat, if necessary

• Assessment of lynx habitat and potential impacts through the use of Coverboard surveys

• Evaluation of consistency of alternatives with Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (SRLMD)

• Identification of impacts to avian species as a result of tree removal

• Identification of impacts to aquatic species, in particular the four Colorado Big River Fish species, from effects to water quality and stream health

• Discussion of the operational season for the proposed projects

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 11 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Geology and Soil Resources Ground disturbance, including tree clearing and grading, associated with construction and operation of proposed projects has potential to increase erosion/soil compaction and lead to a loss of soil organic matter. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area Indicators: • Inventory and discussion of soil organic matter pre- and post-implementation of any project components involving grading or grading/clearing; identify and analyze organic matter transects to field verify the depth of organic-rich horizons for Mineral A and/or Organic O horizons

• Identification and estimated quantification (acres) of temporary and permanent ground disturbance according to high/moderate/low erodibility soils classes and slope stability concerns, in particular to the cut and fill process need for the mountain biking trails

• Analysis of increased erosion hazard due to temporary and permanent ground disturbance

• Inventory of erodible soils by soil map unit and field verification of these properties

• Identification of BMPs to reduce soil erosion

Watershed Implementation of proposed projects has the potential to affect stream and riparian health. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area, including streams tributary to East River Indicators: • Identification of anticipated temporary and permanent changes in water yield (acre feet) and peak flows (cubic feet per second [cfs]), and subsequent watershed effects

• Discussion of existing stream health conditions and water influence zone (WIZ) impacts, within the context of the following stream health metrics: bank stability, fine sediment, residual pool depth, wood frequency, and macroinvertebrates. Evaluation of compliance with Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH; FSH 2509.25) and Forest Plan requirements

• Qualitative and quantitative discussion of existing surface drainage conditions

• Development and analysis of drainage management measures to maintain or improve stream health

• Quantification (acres) of impacts to the WIZ

• Quantification (acres) of connected disturbed areas (CDA)

• Quantification of in-channel network extension (length of connected channel)

• Quantification (acres) of ground disturbing activities located on highly erodible soils as it pertains to stream health

• Identification of any Clean Water Act (CWA) impaired or threatened waterbody segments in the study area

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 12 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

• Quantification of existing and proposed snowmaking operations and potential effects to the East River and surrounding watershed, including discussion of compliance with applicable minimum bypass flow requirements

Wetlands Identified wetlands and other waters of the U.S. throughout the project area could be temporarily and/or permanently affected by construction and implementation of proposed projects. Study Area: CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area Indicators: • Quantification of area of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. existent within the project area (acres/linear feet)

• Disclosure of wetland functions and values within the project area

• Narrative description of wetland communities, classifications, and disclosure of anticipated temporary and/or permanent impacts (acres/linear feet)

• Description of compliance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

ISSUES/RESOURCES DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS Cultural A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory was completed for the proposal in 2015.4 The total inventory area included 785.06 acres, 123.87 acres of which were not surveyed during the current project due to prior inventory coverage. Two cultural resources were discovered as a result of this inventory: the foundation remnants of a historic gondola lift (site 5GN6245.1) and a prehistoric isolated find (5GN6246). Because the entirety of the gondola lift was not explored, the overall linear site is recommended as eligible for inclusion on the National Register. However, segment 5GN6245.1 is recommended as not supporting the potential National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligibility of the overall resource due to a lack of physical integrity. The isolated find is also recommended as not eligible. Accordingly, a finding of no historic properties affected is recommend, and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office concurred in a letter dated February 29, 2016. No further cultural resource work is recommended for this project. J. SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered within this Final EIS. Furthermore, it includes the spatial and temporal boundaries associated with the actions, alternatives, and impacts as the scope of the analysis relates to the Purpose and Need. Individual project elements are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and illustrated in the alternative maps. A detailed scope of this environmental analysis is presented at the beginning of each resource section in Chapter 3. The study area is determined by individual resource analyses presented in Chapter 3 (e.g., the Watershed analysis study area is spatially different from the Fish and Wildlife analysis study area). Contingent upon

4 Metcalf, 2016

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 13 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

approval, construction of proposed projects could begin as early as fall 2018. It is important to note that implementation of the projects could occur jointly, individually, and/or at different points in time.

The CEQ has regulations for implementing NEPA that require federal agencies to consider the following types of actions, alternatives, and impacts in an environmental document.5

ACTIONS 1. Connected Actions: Actions that are dependent on each other for their utility. 2. Cumulative Actions: Actions which, when viewed with other proposed actions, have cumulatively significant impacts and should, therefore, be discussed in the same impact statement. 3. Similar Actions: Actions which, when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences.

ALTERNATIVES 1. No Action. 2. The Proposed Action. 3. Other reasonable courses of action identified in response to substantive issues. 4. Mitigation measures (not in the Proposed Action).

IMPACTS 1. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 2. Indirect impacts are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the life of the project). 3. Cumulative impacts are the result of the incremental effects of any action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over an extended period of time.

5 40 CFR § 1508.25

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 14 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

K. CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE, AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CBMR’s operations on NFS lands must comply with management direction provided in the Forest Plan.6 The Forest Plan includes twenty separate Management Areas for different portions of the forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and anticipated future conditions. CBMR’s current SUP boundary is contained in Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports, which directs: “Existing winter sports sites. Management integrates ski area development and use with other resource management to provide healthy tree stands, vegetation diversity, forage production for wildlife and livestock, and opportunities for non-motorized recreation.” The SUP boundary adjustment into the Teo Drainage area, as included in the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), would expand CBMR into Management Areas 2A – Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities, and 6B – Livestock Grazing.

Management Area 2A directs: “Semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities in a natural appearing environment. Range management will reduce conflicts between recreation and livestock. Vegetation treatment will enhance plant and animal diversity.” Management Area 6B directs: “Livestock grazing. Rangeland will be maintained at or above a satisfactory condition. Semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural recreation opportunities will be provided. Vegetation treatment will enhance plant and animal diversity.” As previously stated, adjusting the ski area SUP boundary into these management areas would require a management area conversion. It may be necessary, therefore, to complete a Forest Plan amendment if the Forest Supervisor identifies the Proposed Action as the Selected Alternative in a future Record of Decision (ROD). A Forest Plan amendment would convert those portions of Management Area 2A and 6B within the proposed SUP boundary adjustment area to Management Area 1B (approximately 500 acres in total). Ultimately, the determination of the need for a Forest Plan amendment would be made in the ROD. Appendix B of this Final EIS provides documentation of the amendment’s consistency with Forest Service NEPA procedures (36 CFR § 219.13(b)(3)), compliance with the 2012 Planning Rule (§ 219.13(b)), and other required disclosures. Effects to public and permitted use of NFS lands that would be converted from Management Area 2A and 6B to Management Area 1B under the Proposed Action are detailed in Chapter 3, Section F – Land Use. This discussion includes the uses of hunting and livestock grazing on NFS lands.

6 USDA Forest Service, 1991

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 15 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

2011 SKI AREA RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT ACT Most of the 122 ski areas operating on NFS lands in the U.S. are authorized under SUPs per the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (the 1986 Act) (16 U.S.C. § 497b). As originally enacted, the 1986 Act authorized Nordic and alpine skiing at ski areas on NFS lands. In November 2011 Congress enacted the SAROEA, which amended the 1986 Act to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of NFS lands subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes.

The purpose of SAROEA was to amend the 1986 Act in two ways: 1. To enable snow-sports (other than Nordic and alpine skiing) to be permitted on NFS lands subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986; and 2. To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to permit appropriate additional seasonal or year-round recreational activities and facilities on NFS lands subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986.

SAROEA amended the 1986 Act by striking specific references to ‘‘Nordic and alpine” ski areas, facilities, operations and purposes and inserting more general language regarding “ski areas and associated facilities’’ and ‘‘skiing and other snow sports and recreational uses authorized by this Act.’’ However, for the purposes of this analysis, the most important amendment to the 1986 Act is an insertion to section 3 regarding “Other Recreational Uses.”

Per SAROEA, subject to the terms of a ski area permit, the Secretary may authorize a ski area permittee to provide such other seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreational activities and associated facilities (in addition to skiing and other snow-sports) on NFS lands subject to a ski area permit as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

Importantly, each activity and facility authorized by the Secretary shall: (A) encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature; (B) to the extent practicable: i) harmonize with the natural environment of the NFS lands on which the activity or facility is located; and ii) be located within the developed portions of the ski area; (C) be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and (D) be authorized in accordance with: i) the applicable land and resource management plan; and ii) applicable laws (including regulations).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 16 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

Inclusions identified in SAROEA Activities and facilities that may, in appropriate circumstances, be authorized include: 1. zip lines; 2. mountain bike terrain parks and trails; 3. frisbee golf courses; and 4. ropes courses.

The Secretary may not authorize any activity or facility if the Secretary determines that the authorization would result in the primary recreational purpose of the ski area permit to be a purpose other than skiing and other snowsports.

FOREST SERVICE MANUAL 2343.14 On April 17, 2014, the Forest Service released its Final Directives for Additional Seasonal and Year- Round Recreation Activities at Ski Areas. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2343.14 includes this final direction and criteria to help authorized officers determine whether proposals for these activities are consistent with SAROEA. FSM 2343.14(1) includes criteria for evaluating additional seasonal and year- round recreation activities and associated facilities that may be authorized at ski areas. These activities and associated facilities must:

• Not change the primary purpose of the ski area to other than snow sports;

• Encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature and provide natural resource-based recreation opportunities;

• To the extent practicable, be located within the portions of the ski area that are developed or that will be developed pursuant to the master development plan;

• Not exceed the level of development for snow sports and be consistent with the zoning established in the applicable master development plan;

• To the extent practicable, harmonize with the natural environment of the site where they would be located by: 1. Being visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area’s existing facilities, vegetation and landscape; and 2. Not requiring significant modifications to topography to facilitate construction or operations;

• Not compromise snow sports operations or functions; and

• Increase utilization of snow sports facilities and not require extensive new support facilities, such as parking lots, restaurants, and chairlifts.

FSM 2343.14(2) identifies seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may meet these criteria. FSM 2343.14(3) identifies seasonal or year-round recreation activities and associated facilities that may not be authorized. Additional seasonal and year-round recreation activities and

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 17 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

associated facilities that are not specifically precluded in FSM 2343.14(3) will be evaluated case-by-case based on applicable regulations and directives. L. DECISION TO BE MADE Based on preliminary internal Forest Service and external public scoping, and evaluation of the context and intensity factors contained in 36 CFR § 1508.27, the Forest Service determined that an EIS was necessary to review, analyze, and document the potential impacts to the human and biological environment anticipated to result from the implementation of the proposed projects. This Final EIS is a disclosure rather than a decision document and its purpose is to provide sufficient environmental analysis to support a subsequent ROD, which will be released in conjunction with this Final EIS.

Based on the analysis documented within this Final EIS, the Forest Supervisor for the GMUG as the Responsible Official will decide whether to select the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative. The Forest Supervisor is not required to exclusively choose either the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative described herein, but may select components from the Proposed Action. In addition to determining which alternative (or portions of the Proposed Action) to select, the Forest Supervisor will also determine any required PDC, mitigation measures, and BMPs. The Forest Supervisor may require additional PDC, mitigation measures, and/or BMPs not discussed within this document. The Forest Supervisor may also require monitoring of PDC.

In compliance with FSH 1909.15 Chapter 18, the Forest Service will continually review the relevancy of the analysis and subsequent decision for new and changed conditions as any approved projects are advanced for implementation. M. OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION7 The Forest Service decision would apply only to NFS lands analyzed within this Final EIS. However, other federal, state, and local entities may also have jurisdiction. Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this Final EIS. While the Forest Service assumes no responsibility for enforcing laws, regulations, or policies under the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies, Forest Service regulations require permittees to abide by applicable laws and conditions imposed by other jurisdictions. In addition to requisite Forest Service approvals, consultation with the following entities, or permits, may be required to implement any approved projects:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Section 404 of the CWA Permit

• State of Colorado, Stormwater Management Plan

• State of Colorado, Burn Permit

• Gunnison County Construction Permits

7 Per 40 CFR § 1502.25(b)

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 18 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes the alternatives considered within this environmental analysis and briefly summarizes the environmental consequences anticipated to result with the implementation of each. As required by the CEQ, the alternatives considered are presented in comparative form.8 This chapter also identifies PDC and BMPs designed to lessen or avoid impacts anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.

NEPA requires that an environmental analysis examine a range of alternatives, which are reasonably related to the purpose of the project.9 Both CEQ Regulations and FSH direction emphasize that alternatives must meet the “reasonableness” criteria in order to warrant detailed analysis. Alternatives that were considered within the analysis process, but were determined not reasonable, were eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the rationale for their elimination.10

The issues raised during the scoping process (detailed in Chapter 1) were utilized as the basis for determining the need for alternatives to the Proposed Action. B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL In addition to the Proposed Action, the required No Action Alternative are analyzed in detail within this Final EIS.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE As required by NEPA, a No Action Alternative has been included in this analysis for review alongside the action alternative.11 The No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. Adjustment of the SUP boundary, chairlift construction and replacement, ski terrain development and improvements, snowmaking, and mountain biking trail construction would not be approved under the No Action Alternative. Detailed descriptions of existing on-mountain facilities, operations, and opportunities relative to the Proposed Action are provided in Chapter 3, Section A – Recreation. Projects at CBMR that have been previously-approved, but not yet implemented are analyzed in the Cumulative Effects sections of Chapter 3 and are detailed in Appendix A. The No Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 1.

8 40 CFR Part 1502 9 FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 12.33 10 40 CFR § 1502.14(a) 11 40 CFR § 1502.14(d)

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 19 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION The projects included in the Proposed Action are designed to improve the quality of guest services, increase operational efficiencies, and enhance the recreation experience for all skier ability levels in a manner that is consistent with the Forest Service direction of providing natural resource-based recreation. The proposal includes the following elements:

• SUP boundary adjustment

• Two new chairlifts and one chairlift replacement and realignment

• Development of additional ski terrain, including developed ski trails and glades

• Expansion of ski patrol operations, including construction of a ski patrol/skier services building

• Terrain access improvement projects

• Additional snowmaking coverage

• Additional mountain biking trails

Proposed winter projects are depicted on Figure 2 and proposed mountain biking trails are depicted on Figure 3. Figure 4 depicts the locations of construction helicopter landing zones and fueling areas, as well as timber staging areas.

Special Use Permit Boundary Adjustment and Forest Plan Amendment The development of lift-served ski terrain in the Teo Drainage area would require an approximately 500-acre SUP boundary adjustment (refer to Figure 2). According to the Forest Plan, this proposed boundary adjustment would be located in areas identified as Management Area 2A – Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation (approximately 100 acres), and 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition (approximately 400 acres).

A Forest-wide Forest Plan amendment would permanently convert those portions of Management Area 2A and 6B within the proposed SUP boundary adjustment area to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. Ultimately, the determination of the need for a Forest Plan amendment would be made in the ROD. Appendix B of this Final EIS provides documentation of the amendment’s consistency with Forest Service NEPA procedures (36 CFR § 219.13(b)(3)), compliance with the 2012 Planning Rule (§ 219.13(b)), and other required disclosures. Effects to public and permitted use of NFS lands that would be converted from Management Area 2A and 6B to Management Area 1B under the Proposed Action are detailed in Chapter 3, Section F – Land Use. This discussion includes the uses of hunting and livestock grazing on NFS lands.

Chairlifts The proposal includes two new chairlifts, Teo Park chairlift and Teo Drainage chairlift, and replacement and realignment of the existing North Face surface lift (refer to Figure 2). The Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts would provide access to new developed ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park portion of the CBMR SUP area, as well as in the adjusted SUP boundary.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 20 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

The Teo Park chairlift would be a fixed-grip triple chairlift serving Teo Park and providing an egress from Teo Drainage back to the Main Mountain. The chairlift would have a slope length of approximately 3,050 feet and a vertical rise of just over 500 feet. The capacity is proposed to be 1,200 people per hour (pph). The chairlift would provide access to a variety of terrain, including intermediate ski trails in Teo Park, advanced and expert ski trails and glades on the northern side of Teo Park, and the North Face, Spellbound Bowl, Phoenix Bowl, and Third Bowl terrain areas. The Teo Park chairlift would be a top- drive chairlift, with power coming from an existing source at the top terminal of the existing North Face surface lift (or, potentially, up Schofield Road).

The Teo Drainage chairlift would either be fixed-grip or high-speed detachable triple or quad chairlift and would serve the lower portions of the adjusted SUP boundary. This chairlift would have a slope length of nearly 6,000 feet, a vertical rise of approximately 1,625 feet, and a capacity of approximately 1,200 pph. The chairlift would provide access to the new ski terrain, and would provide egress from numerous north- facing glades. The Teo Drainage chairlift would also be a top-drive chairlift. Power would be buried in a proposed road originating from the existing Schofield Road, which would also serve as a service road in snow-free months (refer to the discussion under Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Access).

The North Face surface lift would be realigned and upgraded from a surface lift to a fixed-grip quad chairlift with a slope length of 5,414 feet, a vertical rise of 1,595 feet, and a capacity of 1,800 pph. The realigned North Face chairlift would provide enhanced access and connectivity from northern portions of CBMR. The chairlift’s bottom terminal would be located near the intersection of the Daisy and Lower Canaan ski trails adjacent to the Paradise Restaurant. The chairlift’s top terminal would be located near the top terminal of the existing North Face surface lift.

Additional Ski Terrain The Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas are located on the northeastern side of the Main Mountain (refer to Figure 2). A portion of the area is already skied, including the Teo 1 and Teo 2 Bowls. While Teo Park is located completely within CBMR’s existing SUP boundary, the Teo Drainage area is beyond the SUP area. The entirety of this area is characterized by rugged terrain and mixed forest types. Portions of the Teo Drainage area are used for hunting in the fall, but overall, the area is infrequently accessed.

Lift-served ski terrain would be developed in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas, and would be served by two proposed chairlifts—Teo Park chairlift and Teo Drainage chairlift. Developed ski terrain would total approximately 89 acres across two low-intermediate ski trails, three intermediate-level ski trails, three advanced-intermediate ski trails, and four expert ski trails. These ski trails would be “groomable glades,” meaning that vegetation would not be cleared entirely from edge-to-edge and some natural features would be maintained. This would provide a more natural, gladed experience while still being appropriate for intermediate and advanced level guests.

In addition to developed ski trails, approximately 434 acres of advanced and expert glades would become skiable within the Teo Drainage and Teo Park areas. Where practical, these glades would be located in areas where natural glades already exist in order to minimize tree clearing requirements. Tree stand density varies significantly within the area, thus tree removal could range from approximately 10 to 50 percent depending on the stand density of a particular area selected for glading. Attempts would be made

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 21 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

to prioritize removal of dead and dying trees, in order to address skier safety, operational concerns, and forest health. Thus, with the installation of two chairlifts, over 500 acres of developed and undeveloped terrain would become lift-served.

Limited spot grading would be expected to occur, as appropriate, to improve skier circulation and eliminate obstacles. As mentioned above, the creation of “groomable gladed” ski trails would not only provide a unique guest experience, but would lessen the amount of vegetation removal required. No snowmaking is proposed in the Teo Park or Teo Drainage areas, as prevailing winds and weather patterns would provide sufficient snow coverage throughout the season.

To exit the new terrain, guests would ride the Teo Park chairlift to the top of the existing North Face surface lift to access Rachel’s and Shep’s Chute, into Paradise Bowl.

Ski Patrol Building/Warming Hut CBMR proposes to expand its ski patrol operations, as necessary, to account for the incorporation of the Teo Drainage area into the developed lift and trail network. A ski patrol/skier services outpost is proposed at the top of the proposed Teo Park and realigned North Face chairlifts, and snow safety activities would be expanded to accommodate new terrain in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas. This building would provide a centralized location within the newly developed area to accommodate the needs of ski patrol and serve as a warming hut for skiers. It is anticipated that the footprint of the proposed ski patrol building/warming hut would not exceed 6,000 square feet.

Terrain Access Improvement Projects Five terrain access improvement projects are proposed in order to facilitate access to existing terrain in the North Face, Spellbound Bowl, and the Extreme Limits terrain (refer to Figure 2). The first improvement project would occur near the North Face Notch. Located at the High Notch entrance from Avery ski trail, skiers currently negotiate a vertical rock garden below the North Face cliffs to access Hawk’s Nest and Spellbound Bowl. This negotiation tends to slow access to this terrain. CBMR would construct a graded trail, approximately 10 feet wide and 180 feet long, to provide safer skier access.

The second terrain access project would improve the existing access to Spellbound Bowl from Hawk’s Nest via the Million Dollar Highway ski trail. A “benched” trail approximately 10 feet wide and 410 feet long would be constructed to provide reliable and safe access from Hawk’s Nest into Spellbound Bowl.

Additionally, three other benches would be constructed to improve access into the Extreme Limits terrain on the west side of the mountain. These benches would all be approximately 6 feet in width and 190 feet in length on Banana, 140 feet in length on Funnel, and 40 feet on Flat Iron. Like the other terrain access improvement projects, current entry conditions into these trails exposes guests to unnecessary dangers as they must ski over exposed rocks before beginning their decent.

These terrain improvement projects would be constructed primarily by hand crews; however, rock blasting and the use of track machinery (e.g., spider excavator) is analyzed as a precautionary measure to ensure that unforeseen impacts do not occur should this type of machinery be required.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 22 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Snowmaking As described in the 2013 MDP, CBMR and MDP planners reviewed the inventory of existing snowmaking trails in the 2006 Mountain Improvements Plan and discovered that 32 acres of previously listed snowmaking coverage were on trails that do not have snowmaking. The trails that would use the 32 acres of previously listed snowmaking and are now proposed for snowmaking are listed in the Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Trails Proposed for Snowmaking under Alternative 2 Trail Name Acres Championship 9.3 Black Eagle 8.9 Lower Gallowich 5.2 Rachel’s 4.6 Shep’s Chute 3.9 Total 31.9

As a result of this finding, corrections were made to the snowmaking inventory in the 2013 MDP. The 32- acre correction was applied to the Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails (refer to Figure 2). Beyond the 32 acres which were corrected and accepted by the Forest Service, the Forest Service would require construction of a snowmaking pond for additional snowmaking. As such, approximately 32 acres of additional snowmaking is proposed on Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails (refer to Figure 2). This additional snowmaking would provide adequate early and late season coverage on these trails, as well as sufficient coverage during low-snow years.

Proposed snowmaking would require the burial of air, water, and power lines within these ski trails. The exact location of these lines would be determined during final design; however, these lines would connect with existing snowmaking infrastructure efficiently, so as to limit ground disturbance and costs. While no changes to pumping capacity are proposed, and thus the rate of instantaneous withdrawal of water would not change as a result of the proposed snowmaking, the duration of snowmaking would increase by approximately one additional week.

Mountain Biking and Multi-Use Trails Approximately 15 miles of multi-use and mountain biking trails are proposed within the existing SUP area and extending to private lands in the Prospect area (refer to Figure 3). Trails would be constructed by hand as well as with the assistance of machines, with hand-built methods being used in sensitive areas to minimize erosion concerns and to provide different user experiences. Trails would generally be between 24 and 48 inches wide, with some variation depending on the type of trail (downhill versus cross-country), steepness of the terrain, intended user group, and proximity to streams and water bodies. Construction methods would follow accepted Forest Service guidelines to shed water, prevent erosion, and provide for a quality experience for multiple user groups.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 23 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Access Construction and maintenance access to the top of the proposed Teo Park and realigned North Face chairlifts would be provided by the existing Schofield Road. Approximately 930 feet of this road would be rerouted/improved to address erosion concerns and provide adequate access for chairlift maintenance. Construction, maintenance, and utility access to the top terminal of the Teo Drainage chairlift would be provided by a proposed 1,900-foot-long service road that would leave Schofield Road at the Paradise Bowl saddle, and contour through lower portions of Teo 1 Bowl (refer to Figure 2). Utility lines would be buried in this road to provide power to the Teo Drainage chairlift. Additionally, this service road could serve as a ski patrol egress route from the proposed Teo Drainage area. Both the Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts are proposed to be constructed without need for permanent road access to their respective bottom terminals. A spider excavator could be used for the excavation of tower footers.

Construction, maintenance, and utility access to the bottom terminal of the proposed North Face chairlift would utilize existing service roads between the bottom of the Paradise Express and the top of the East River Express chairlifts. Tree Removal Tree removal for all projects is proposed to be accomplished primarily via helicopter with skidding to centralized areas for transport when applicable. Burning, chipping and/or lop-and-scatter would also be utilized depending on specific site conditions and accessibility. It is anticipated that hand-felling would be necessary in areas that are excessively steep. The terrain of the Teo Drainage area precludes the use of out-hauling via trucks.

Developed ski trails would be clear cut during the summer months and the timber would be disposed of by pile burning, chipping, or helicopter logging on steeper slopes. Additionally, low-impact machinery (e.g., a spider excavator) may be walked down steep terrain to assist in tree removal. A masticator may be used on a spider excavator. While removed vegetation would be primarily flush-cut, there may be minimal treatment of stumps, including treatment with a mastication implement or spider excavator, that might otherwise pose a safety risk to skiers. In steeper areas and those areas where trees would be retained for a gladed skiing experience, hand cutting would be utilized and the vegetation would be burned in smaller piles along the trails within openings cleared for skiing.

Pile burning of cleared timber must adhere to the State of Colorado Burn Permit regulations. Prior to burning timber, CBMR must consult with the GMUG on size and timing of burning.

Trees removed in the Teo Drainage area would be flown via helicopter to an identified landing zone (refer to Figure 4) just above the existing Brush Creek trailhead parking lot where they would then be taken off- site via truck. Grading and clearing of sagebrush vegetation would be necessary to accommodate this landing zone. A designated timber staging area near the bottom of the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift would double as a future evacuation zone for the new ski terrain. Also identified are eight staging areas, which includes the lower terminal of the realigned North Face chairlift (refer to Figure 4). These areas would be cleared during construction of the proposed trails or are already free of vegetation and provide logical sites for skidding timber and pickup if needed. Helicopter refueling would occur in an existing

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

open area adjacent to the Ten Peaks event site (refer to Figure 4). The refueling zone would be on private lands in the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. Fuel may be brought to this site on public roads and would not require the use of NFS lands. C. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED ACTION In order to minimize potential resource impacts from construction and implementation of any approved projects, PDC would be incorporated into the Proposed Action. Table 2-2 lists the anticipated PDC for this project. Additional PDC may be identified during the development of the Final EIS.

PDC are devised in the pre-analysis and analysis phase to reduce potential environmental impacts and ensure compliance with law and/or regulations. They include, but are not limited to, BMPs, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and standard operating procedures. PDC come from federal, state, and local laws, regulations and policies; forest plans; scientific research; and from experience in designing similar projects. The bulk of the PDC are considered common practices that ski area managers have historically used in alpine and sub-alpine environments to prevent or decrease potential resource impacts. They are highly effective methods that can be planned in advance and adapted to site conditions, as needed.

PDC would be designed by the Forest Service and specialists involved in this analysis. The potential effects of implementing the Proposed Action are analyzed with these PDC applied.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 25 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices Recreation All improvement projects will follow Forest Service accessibility guidelines as outlined by the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines, Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines for Ski Resorts, and Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines. Scenery Construct structures and lift components with materials which blend with the landscape character, as is practicable, and meet FSM 2380 policy for color and reflectivity, which is 4.5 on the Munsell neutral value color scale. Building designs will be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval. Follow FSM guidelines (Section 2380) and BEIG guidelines: • The scenic character will be protected through appropriate siting of buildings and the use of low-impact materials and colors (e.g., indigenous construction materials, such as stone and wood, as well as low-reflective glass and roofing materials). • Remain in context with the landscape (i.e., rustic, craftsman, and country lodge styles). • Architecture, materials, and colors should follow the Forest Service’s BEIG. Additionally, FSH No. 617, “National Forest Landscape Management for Ski Areas, Volume 2, Chapter 7,” refers recommended colors for ski areas on page 37 of that handbook. The colors are darker colors; greens, browns, navy blue, grays and black. Avoid straight edges where removing trees. The edges of lift-lines, trails, and structures, where the vegetation is removed, need to use a variable density cutting (feathering) technique applied to create a more natural edge that blends into the existing vegetative. Edges should be non-linear, and changes in tree heights along the edges of openings should be gradual rather than abrupt. Soften hard edges by selective removal of trees of different ages and heights to produce irregular corridor edges where possible. Cut stumps as low as possible to the ground to avoid safety hazard and to meet scenery objectives. Regrade to restore a natural terrain appearance. Blend site grading disturbance into the existing topography to achieve a natural appearance and minimize cuts and fills at the transition with proposed grading and existing terrain. Revegetate all disturbed areas after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. Repeat seeding until satisfactory re-vegetation is accomplished. Reseed with a native seed mixture using a variety of native seed grasses, wildflowers and forbs. Meet reflectivity guidelines when constructing facilities or structures, including buildings, lift terminals and chairs. This includes any reflective surfaces (metal, glass, plastics, or other materials with smooth surfaces), that do not blend with the natural environment. They should be covered, painted, stained, chemically treated, etched, sandblasted, corrugated, or otherwise treated to meet the solar reflectivity standards. The specific requirements for reflectivity are as follows: Facilities and structures with exteriors consisting of galvanized metal or other reflective surfaces will be treated or painted dark non-reflective colors that blend with the forest background to meet an average neutral value of 4.5 or less as measured on the Munsell neutral scale. Land Use Should issues arise between the operations of existing livestock, specifically cattle, and grazing permit holders and CBMR, CBMR will cooperate with the Forest Service and livestock and grazing permittee and take measures, including but not limited to, the installation of vegetative buffers and fencing to protect the interests of both permit holders as directed by the Forest Service. Any installation costs of vegetative buffers or fencing would be borne by CBMR.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 26 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices Cultural Resources Although site-specific surveys have been conducted, if undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are located during ground disturbing activities or planning activities associated with approved construction activities, address as specified in 36 CFR § 800.11 concerning Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking. Air Quality To the extent feasible, promptly install site improvements to reduce the potential for dust emissions. Keep the area disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities to a minimum at all times, allowing improvements to be implemented in sections. Water, as necessary and practicable, grading areas, including lift terminal areas, to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In the absence of natural precipitation, watering of these areas should occur, as practicable. Forest Health Prior to construction, identify and flag trees meeting the definition of a legacy tree (refer to Chapter 7). Preserve these trees to the greatest extent practicable. Vegetation and Forest Health If any previously undocumented or unknown occurrences of threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plants are encountered within the project area prior to or during project implementation, the GMUG shall be notified. GMUG shall develop suitable mitigation measures to ensure there is no loss of viability of the species within the planning area. To the most practicable extent possible, minimize and avoid impacts to habitat occupied by SOLC moonwort species (Botrychium spp.), as these areas can provide habitat for Region 2 sensitive moonworts. Construction fencing and other barriers should be identified and used to delineate occupied moonwort habitat and prevent impacts to these areas. Follow the general silvicultural recommendations in the 1995 CBMR Vegetation Management Plan for the tree removal in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas, unless newer information is provided. Manage project activity areas to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff. Ground cover, as a combination of revegetation, pine needle cover, surface rocks, and mulch, will be 60 to 70% following reclamation activities to minimize erosion. Revegetation success and ground cover effectiveness would be determined in consultation with the Forest Service resource specialists. For projects that involve logging operations, ground skidding shall be avoided on slopes steeper than 40%. If slash disposal is conducted by pile and burn, implement the following PDC to minimize impacts: • If possible, conduct pile burning over a protective layer of packed snow and/or frozen ground. • If snow/frozen ground is not present at the time of pile burning, soil organic matter and topsoil should be scraped and stockpiled prior to pile construction and re-spread after pile burning; and till/scarify after burning to promote recovery by breaking up water repellent layers, increasing water infiltration, and mixing in organic material.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 27 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices Where chipping or mastication is used for slash disposal, implement the following PDC to minimize impacts: • Spread out wood chips to a depth not to exceed 2 inches. • Distribute chips in discontinuous patches that do not result in a continuous chip mat (<40% of surface covered by 2 inches of chips). • Do not bury or mix the chips in with the soil. If slash is to be lopped and scattered, depth shall not exceed 24 inches. If logging over the snow, snow depth should be a minimum of 1 foot, continuously packed (i.e., not patchy) and sufficient enough to prevent vehicles from breaking through. If logging over frozen ground, a minimum of 3 inches of continuous frozen ground should be present. CBMR will revegetate disturbed areas to attain cover densities that would control erosion and prevent sedimentation consistent with Forest Plan Standards. Prior to ground-disturbing activities, CBMR must submit for review a Post-Construction Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan. The plan will contain: • A list of materials to be used for site stabilization and revegetation (i.e., soil amendments, seed mixes, erosion control products). Seed mixtures and mulches will be certified to be free of noxious weeds and must be approved by the Forest Service botanist or other Forest Service qualified personnel prior to purchase. Seed test results for each seed lot will be made available to the Forest Service prior to purchase. If weed seed is present that is listed as a Colorado noxious weed, or a noxious weed seed as identified by the current Colorado Weed and Colorado Weed Seed Acts, or if any other weed species is present that the Forest Service deems potentially harmful to local ecosystems, the seed may be rejected by the Forest Service at the permittee’s expense. Mulches will also be certified to be noxious weed free. Masticated wood chips, wood straw, coconut husk products, Excelsior products (shredded aspen), bonded fiber matrix (hydromulch), and other materials not containing seeds are preferred for erosion control in the Teo Drainage and Teo 1 and Teo 2 Bowls. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non-native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials become established. • Revegetation techniques including the proposed timing and method of application for seed, mulches, and erosion control products. • A monitoring protocol for vegetative cover standards that will be implemented for a minimum of three years following seeding. Monitoring will document the plant species present, their likely origin (i.e., seed mix, colonizer, residual), the presence of invasive non-native plants and noxious weeds, and any problems with erosion or sedimentation. Recommendations for site improvements, if necessary, will also be provided. To prevent an increase and buildup of spruce bark beetle populations, adhere to the following relating to live Engelmann spruce felled in conjunction with glading, trail construction, and other improvements: • Where live Engelmann spruce are felled and left in place, limb entire tree to a 6-inch top diameter, peel or strip bark from bole of tree on 70% or more of the surface area of the tree. • Where live Engelmann spruce greater than 8-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) are piled for burning, complete burning within one season of felling/piling trees. • Where feasible, remove all live Engelmann spruce greater than 8-inch DBH from CBMR’s SUP area for processing into lumber or biomass within the same season of felling. Trees should not be left to overwinter. • Live Engelmann spruce trees may also be bucked into small pieces (less than 4 feet long) and placed in a non-shaded area to dry, or they may be buried. Noxious Weeds Continue to follow guidance in the 2005 CBMR Invasive and Noxious Weed Standards and BMPs. Pretreatment of existing infestations with approved herbicides within the project area shall be conducted prior to project implementation. Herbicide choices and application rates for treatment are available from the District/Forest Weed Program Manager.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 28 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices To minimize risk of noxious weed introduction and spread, require all equipment used for ground-disturbing activities (not including service trucks or other vehicles that remain on roadways) to be clean, i.e., free of mud, dirt, plant parts, and seeds, or other debris that could contain or hold plant parts or seeds, prior to entering the project area, and prior to leaving a weed-infested project area. Equipment will be considered free of soil and other debris when a visual inspection does not disclose such material. The Forest Service reserves the right to inspect equipment prior to equipment staging or use on NFS lands. Closely monitor all equipment cleaning areas for weed establishment. Minimize travel through weed-infested areas or restrict travel to periods when seed spread is least likely. Treat noxious weeds along travel routes prior to and during project construction. Travel routes include ski area access roads, not county-administered roads. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, identify and locate all equipment staging areas on NFS lands. Locate and use weed-free project staging areas. When this is not possible, treat existing noxious weeds in these areas prior to the staging of any equipment, or relocate staging areas if deemed necessary by the Forest Service. Noxious weed and other invasive non-native plant infestations should be monitored and treated for three years after project completion or until weed populations are eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. Comply with Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Order No. 02-2005-01 requiring use of certified weed-free hay, straw, or mulch in all activities on NFS lands. The Forest Service reserves the right to inspect hay, straw, or mulch and to review inspection certificates. Local, Colorado-sourced weed-free material is preferred by the Forest Service to minimize introduction of out-of-state and West Slope weeds. To best ensure use of weed-free mulch, preference will be given to use of non-agricultural mulch products such as wood straw, coconut husk products, Excelsior products (shredded aspen), bonded fiber matrix (hydromulch), and other materials not containing seeds. Wildlife All food and garbage will be secured in a bear proof manner on site and not left on site overnight. No food products or food containers can be thrown in the larger roll-off type dumpsters. Confine all construction activities to daylight hours, excluding emergencies.

Construction workers are prohibited from bringing dogs on site during construction.

Store/keep no food/drink in construction worker vehicles. Keep all windows closed and doors locked on all vehicles to prevent wildlife entry. Direct mortality to spruce-fir Partners in Flight (PIF) priority species adults on nests and eggs or young within nests will be eliminated by implementing a seasonal restriction on clearing and grubbing of vegetation within the proposed project construction areas between March 14 and July 15, where feasible. To the extent possible, construction in the proposed Teo Drainage area would take place outside of elk calving season (May 15 – June 15). Efforts to minimize disturbances during this time shall be taken. To protect fish eggs and spawning gravels, work on stream crossings and ground disturbance areas approaching the WIZ should be restricted to the relatively low flow construction season period between August 1 and September 31. Re-vegetate any loss of riparian vegetation caused by construction activities immediately after construction with native vegetation, willow cuttings, and/or native, certified, weed free seed.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 29 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices Canada Lynx Design the Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts as top drives to avoid the need to construct a road down to the lower lift’s base terminal and to minimize summer maintenance in and adjacent to potential lynx diurnal security habitat at the relatively isolated bottom terminal.

Do not propose and discourage summer recreational facilities and activities, including organized recreational activities, in the Teo Drainage and Teo Park areas to minimize further habitat loss and summer disturbance to lynx habitat.

The winter operational boundary/SUP boundary surrounding Teo Drainage terrain will be roped and marked with signs to discourage skier use below and outside of those areas. Signs will indicate the operational boundary and will direct skiers back to the Teo Drainage chairlift. All ropes will be removed at the end of the ski season to prevent bull elk antler entanglement. To minimize impacts to lynx and their nocturnal movements, regular snow grooming and snowcat operations within the Teo Park and Teo Drainage terrain (below treeline) should be focused outside the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. It is anticipated that CBMR will need to conduct grooming during this period on an infrequent basis throughout the ski season for skier safety measures. The annual winter operating plan will consider this measure on an annual basis and may be adjusted over time as knowledge of grooming practices are better understood, with the consideration of minimizing impacts to lynx and skier safety. Unauthorized hiking and biking trails developed by third parties shall be promptly deconstructed and reclaimed the season that they are discovered. Geology and Soil Resources During construction, maintenance and operations, stockpile top soil to the extent possible to maintain organic matter. Prior to construction, soil surveys and measurements of thicknesses of A or organic horizons were completed within the disturbance area to ensure no net loss of soil organic matter. Prior to construction, a detailed site erosion control plan will be prepared. This plan shall include the following components: • Silt fences, straw bales, straw wattles, and other standard erosion control BMPs shall be employed to contain sediment onsite. • Jute-netting or appropriate erosion-control matting on steep fill slopes (i.e., land with a slope angle of 35% or greater) will be utilized to protect soils and enhance conditions for vegetation re-establishment. • Promptly revegetate disturbed areas. Seed mixtures and mulches will be free of noxious weeds. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non-native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials become established. The Forest Service must approve the seed mixtures prior to implementation, unless previously approved seed mixes are employed. Prepare detailed site plans for concentrated use sites. Design sites to be resilient to increased foot traffic and other intended uses. Incorporate existing soils and native vegetation into site plans. Reclaim disturbed areas promptly when use ends to prevent resource damage and invasion of noxious weeds. Ensure proper drainage, rip compacted areas, and apply a Forest Service-approved seed mix and fertilizer to facilitate revegetation. Use existing roads unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Reconstruct for long-term soil and drainage stability. Vegetative buffers will be maintained adjacent to intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands, to the extent possible. Where avoidance of the vegetative buffer is not possible, disturbance will be minimized.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 30 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices In all areas where grading or soil disturbance will occur, a reassessment of the quantity (depths) of soil A and/or organic ground cover would be made to ensure no net loss of this material. Reports will be submitted as specified in the Construction Plan. Soil-disturbing activities will be avoided during periods of heavy rain or excessively wet soils. Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity. When logging over the snow, conditions should allow for 1 foot of packed snow to be continuous (i.e., not patchy) and competent enough so that wheeled or tracked vehicles do not break through. When logging over frozen ground, a minimum of 3 inches of continuous frozen ground should be present. Ground cover, as a combination of revegetation, organic amendments and mulch applications, will restore depths of soil A and/or organic ground cover. Install cross drains on roads to disperse runoff into filter strips. Install drain dips on mountain biking trails, especially near stream crossings. To protect slope stability in the vicinity of all proposed beginner-level mountain biking trails, trails will be constructed to follow International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) guidelines for sustainable trail building, including: • The trail tread grade shouldn’t exceed half the grade of the hillside or sideslope that the trail is traversing. • An overall trail grade of 10% or less is sustainable. However, there may be steep places where this grade cannot be achieved. Trail head grades can be as high as 15% as long as the trail’s overall grade doesn’t exceed 10%. Begin flagging the route with conservative grades under 8%. • As the trail contours across a hillside, the tread should tilt slightly away from the high side. This tilt, called outslope, ensures that water will sheet across the trail. Trail tread should have a subtle tilt (3 to 5%) in the direction of the fall line. • Throw excavated topsoil several feet downhill, away from the trail. If topsoil is left near the edge, it can settle and become a berm that interrupts sheet flow, causing water to puddle or flow down the trail. • A well-built trail has gentle trail grades, and outsloped trail head and grade reversals. As the trail snakes across a hillside, a subtle left or right turn creates rolls or undulations (grade reversals that help divert water off the trail). A contour trail on a steep slope may need grade reversals every 20 to 50 feet, depending on soil type and rainfall. The steeper the grade, the more grade reversals you should have. A rolling grade dip is an unobtrusive way to divert water off the side of a trail by altering the grade. Water is pulled from the trail, not forced off abruptly. • Proper transitions are essential when open and flowing sections are combined with tight and technical sections. Transitions should occur gradually or be atop hills. Abrupt transitions are likely to make cyclists brake hard and skid, resulting in braking bumps, and in some cases forcing users off the trail. • When possible, excavate down and into the hillside to put the entire tread width on mineral soil, rather than half cut/half fill. This is called full bench tread construction. To protect slope stability in the vicinity of intermediate and advanced-level trails, trails will be constructed so that the distance between drainage diversion outfalls (such as rolling dips or culverts), does not become longer than 50 to 100 feet. Water Resources Prior to implementation, submit grading plans for projects greater than 1 acre and for all new temporary and permanent roads for review and authorization by the Forest Service. At a minimum, these documents should meet the basic requirements for stormwater permitting through the State of Colorado Stormwater Management Program. Prior to construction, clearly flag tree clearing and/or grading limits.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 31 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices Avoid soil disturbing activities during periods of heavy rain or excessively wet soils. Make cuts, fills, and road surfaces strongly resistant to erosion (refer to WCPH MM-9). For ground-disturbing activities near perennial and intermittent streams and ephemeral draws, CDA should be minimized by draining roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams and ephemeral channels. Drainage from disturbed areas should be modified as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, ditch relief culverts, etc., to disconnect disturbed areas from streams. Trees should be felled into inter-trail islands, as practicable, to improve large woody debris density. In areas adjacent to a WIZ, tree should be felled in a way that protects vegetation in the WIZ. For projects involving excavation and/or grading, stockpile topsoil so that it may be used for revegetation projects. Ground disturbances adjacent to streams/wetlands would occur during baseflow conditions to protect water quality and minimize impacts to wetland soils/vegetation, and with sufficient time to revegetate before the winter season. Construction practices and operations should not introduce soils, debris, or other pollutants into streams, channels, swales, lakes, or wetlands. BMPs adequate for erosion and sediment control should be installed before ground-disturbing activities begin. If natural or biodegradable materials are not used and left on site, all non-natural and non-biodegradable materials should be removed at the end of construction.

Grade lift terminals to drain surface runoff into well vegetated areas and away from stream channels.

Properly compact fills (refer to WCPH MM-11).

Where appropriate, revegetate disturbed terrain (including staging areas, log landings, skid trails, etc.) immediately after completion of grading using Forest Service-approved, native seeds. Install temporary BMPs for sediment and erosion control until planted vegetation provides erosion control (refer to WCPH MM-11). Where necessary, import certified weed-free topsoil or organic amendments (based on approval by the Forest Service soil scientist) to re-establish an O-horizon capable of supporting plant growth. Monitor and manage these areas for weeds. Revegetation monitoring: CBMR shall review with the Forest Service the success of project revegetation and site restoration annually for the first five years following construction. Details of the revegetation plan shall be adjusted in response to any deficiencies identified in follow-up monitoring Areas compacted by construction activities will require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity.

Where possible, utilize existing roads and trails to access construction sites.

To the extent possible, avoid operating heavy equipment on slopes steeper than 30%.

Excavated material should not be stored in the WIZ.

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

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 32 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices

Implement BMPs for erosion and sediment control during installation of snowmaking infrastructure. Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent erosion and failure (refer to WCPH MM-10). Install road-relief culverts or road waterbars at a spacing adequate for the road slope and ditch characteristics (refer to WCPH MM-10). Design, implement, and maintain standard sediment control BMPs (e.g., sediment traps) at the discharge of road-side ditches and culverts. Where possible, discharge runoff into well vegetated areas, away from ephemeral and intermittent channels. Construct roads to avoid down-road flow and ponding by cross sloping road surface 2 to 4%. Out-slope cross sections of service roads.

Inspect and maintain mountain road BMPs a minimum of twice annually: (1) in the spring, as soon as conditions allow; and (2) in the fall season, before snow covers the ground. To minimize potential stream health impacts associated with the construction of a proposed mountain biking trail across the ER-4 channel and in the vicinity of the WG-3 streams: • Construct stream crossing as perpendicular to flow as possible (refer to WCPH MM-4). • Design and construct stream crossing to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep streambeds and banks resilient (refer to WCPH MM-4). • Construct stream crossing during periods of low stream flow, typically late summer or early fall. • Keep construction equipment out of streams, except if specifically authorized by the Forest Service or if protected by 1 foot of packed snow minimum. This measure sustains stream integrity (refer to WCPH MM-3). If construction equipment is required to access the stream channel for construction of the proposed crossing, CBMR will obtain all necessary local, state, and federal permits. To minimize potential stream health impacts associated with construction of proposed projects that require tree clearing, including ski and mountain biking trails: • Prior to ski trail construction, clearly flag tree clearing limits. • To the extent practicable, trail waterbars must be designed and constructed to discharge surface runoff originating within the proposed ski trails away from the WIZ and into well vegetated areas, effectively disconnecting disturbed areas from the stream network. • In instances where, due to terrain conditions, waterbars discharge within 100 feet of a stream channel, the downstream end of waterbars will include BMPs for sediment separation and dispersion of flow, such as sediment traps. • Waterbars and associated BMPs must be installed immediately after construction of the trail. • Inspect waterbars and other BMPs during the first snowmelt season following construction to ensure surface runoff is being conveyed and discharged adequately. Repair, maintain and/or modify BMPs as necessary. To improve existing drainage conditions: • Evaluate improving service road and road-ditch at the crossing of Lower Treasury ski trail, to properly convey runoff; include BMPs for erosion and sediment control (e.g., line road ditch and install sediment traps at ditch discharge points). • Evaluate improving drainage conditions on skiers left of Lower Twister just below Uley’s Ice Bar Restaurant. • Evaluate repairing or replacing culvert on service road just below the Paradise Express chairlift. • Evaluate improving road ditch on “Aspen Tunnel” service road. • Evaluate improving service road, road-ditch, and road cut slope on the service road below Silver Queen Express chairlift alignment and in the vicinity of proposed snowmaking.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 33 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices To disconnect existing CDAs: • Disconnect 0.6 acre of the mountain road that travels from CBMR’s base area to the bottom terminal of Painters Boy chairlift, in the WG-3 watershed. Runoff flowing on this road and its road-side ditch discharges directly into the stream. Implementing proper BMPs for sediment control would prevent road sediment from flowing into the channel and would effectively disconnect these areas from the stream network. Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed will vary by different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the site (refer to WCPH MM-2). For ground-disturbing activities near perennial and intermittent streams and ephemeral draws, connected disturbed areas (CDA) should be minimized by draining roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams and ephemeral draws. Drainage from disturbed areas should be modified as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, ditch-relief culverts, etc., to disconnect disturbed areas from streams (refer to WCPH MM-1) Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, and emergence periods (refer to WCPH MM-3) Locate new concentrated-use sites outside the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) if practicable and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion (refer to WCPH MM-3). Vegetative buffers should be maintained adjacent to intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands. Where avoidance of the vegetative buffer is not possible, disturbance should be minimized (refer to WCPH MM-3). Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams or lakes only if such action maintains or improves stream and lake health. Leave rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or banks to prevent channel scour and maintain natural habitat complexity (refer to WCPH MM-5). Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative. If roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to sustain flow patterns. Set crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet meadow surfaces. Avoid actions that may dewater or reduce water budgets in wetlands (refer to WCPH MM-6). When practicable, keep buried utility and pipelines out of wetlands. If such a line must enter a wetland, use measures that sustain long-term wetland function. (refer to WCPH MM-6). In order to prevent the proposed snowmaking and drainage pipelines from dewatering wetlands, clay-cutoff walls or a similar type structure will be installed in the pipeline trench. Such cutoff walls shall be installed where the excavated pipeline trench encounters high groundwater adjacent to or in the direct vicinity of wetland(s) (refer to WCPH MM-6). To the greatest extent possible, the disturbance width for temporary snowmaking and other utility lines would be a maximum of 20 feet wide through wetlands and other aquatic resources (refer to WCPH MM-6). All wetlands within the vicinity of any ground disturbing activities or tree felling should be clearly delineated and flagged by a qualified individual prior to construction (refer to WCPH MM-6). As required, obtain USACE and state permits when installing stream and wetland crossings and ensure they meet permit requirements (refer to WCPH MM-6).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 34 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices Where trail crossings would require the use of boardwalks and bridges to minimize wetland impacts, every effort shall be made to elevate these structures and provide spacing between boards to reduce the negative effects of shading on wetland functions. Conduct snow management, including snowmaking and snow-farming, in such a manner that prevents slope failures and gully erosion on the hillslopes and prevents adverse impacts, such as bank erosion and excessive sediment, in receiving streams (refer to WCPH MM-8). Utilize BMPs to prohibit sediment migration from ground disturbances into wetlands or streams (refer to WCPH MM-9). Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40% and on moderate to severely burned sustained slopes greater than 30%. Conduct logging to disperse runoff as practicable (refer to WCPH MM-9). Locate and construct log landings in such a way to minimize the amount of excavation needed and to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Design landings to have proper drainage. After use, treat landings to disperse runoff and prevent surface erosion and encourage revegetation (refer to WCPH MM-9).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 35 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

D. ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS The following design options were considered by the ID Team but were eliminated from further analysis.

ROAD TO BUSH CREEK Under this design option, a road would be constructed from the proposed bottom terminal of the Teo Drainage chairlift down to Brush Creek Road. This road would facilitate construction of the chairlift, vegetation removal within the area, and ease emergency access. This design option was eliminated from detailed analysis because construction of a road in this steep area, which is relatively undisturbed, presents evidence of geotechnical instabilities that would result in greater resource impacts (e.g., erosion, watershed, geotechnical, and wildlife resources).

TEO DRAINAGE CHAIRLIFT EXTENDING TO BUSH CREEK/VALLEY FLOOR Under this design option, the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift would extend below the current proposed bottom terminal to the floor of the Brush Creek valley. This chairlift alignment could provide additional access to the ski area, as this chairlift could become a second entry point or “base area.” This alignment would provide limited additional terrain past the proposed bottom terminal location for the Teo Drainage chairlift. This design option was eliminated from detailed analysis because it would result in impacts to numerous resources. In particular, the steepness of the terrain below the proposed bottom terminal location poses risks to watershed and soil resources, exhibits geotechnical constraints. Additionally, the bottom portion of the chairlift would be visible from the Brush Creek area and SH 135, affecting visual resources. Land ownership and access are not conducive to support this option. Additionally, this option would extend the skiing terrain to an elevational range that would require adequate snowmaking coverage to remain consistently skiable. Extending CBMR’s snowmaking coverage capabilities to this distal area would be very difficult and presents technical challenges that CBMR in not interested in undertaking.

MOUNTAIN BIKING TRAILS CONNECTING CBMR’S TRAIL NETWORK WITH PUBLIC TRAIL NETWORKS BEYOND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOUNDARY This design option would include purposely linking the proposed mountain biking trails, located within CBMR’s SUP boundary, to existing mountain biking trail networks around the Crested Butte area on private and other public lands. This design option was eliminated from detailed analysis because the trails would extend beyond CBMR’s SUP area and would, therefore, not be a portion of resort operations. Additionally, the GMUG is not able to authorize CBMR to develop trails outside of their SUP area or beyond NFS lands.

INSTALLATION OF BACKCOUNTRY ACCESS POINTS INTO TEO DRAINAGE INSTEAD OF LIFT-SERVED SKIING This design option would not provide lift-served skiing in the Teo Drainage area, but would instead establish backcountry access points to provide access to the terrain. No ski trails would be developed in the area. This design option may have reduced impacts to resources, but would not meet the Purpose and Need to provide additional developed terrain, particularly for intermediate skiers.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 36 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

SURFACE LIFT FROM THE BOTTOM OF TEO 2 BOWL TO THE TOP OF FREDO’S INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED TEO PARK CHAIRLIFT This design option would utilize a surface lift from the bottom of Teo 2 Bowl, eliminating the need for the Teo Park chairlift. While this design option would still improve guest circulation throughout the Teo 1 and Teo 2 Bowls it was determined that a realignment of the North Face chairlift and construction of the Teo Park chairlift would be more capable of achieving the necessary skier circulation and lift capacities throughout these areas and the resort as a whole.

NO TEO DRAINAGE CHAIRLIFT AND NO SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADJUSTMENT Under this design consideration, the Teo Drainage chairlift would not be constructed and there would be no adjustment to the SUP boundary, thus limiting the area of proposed new developed terrain. This alternative would result in reduced vegetation removal and fewer impacts on surrounding permittees (including livestock grazing and outfitter/guides) in the area proposed for development under the Proposed Action. This design option was eliminated from further analysis because planned PDC would minimize conflicts with existing surrounding permit holders. The proposed development within the adjusted SUP area would not preclude existing permit holders from using this area as currently authorized. Additionally, this design option does not meet the Purpose and Need of the project to provide additional skiing terrain.

NO ADDITIONAL MOUNTAIN BIKING TRAILS Under this design option, no new mountain biking trails would be constructed within CBMR’s existing SUP boundary. The front side of CBMR has localized areas of geotechnical instability, and this design option would reduce the amount of disturbance in the areas of concern. With the incorporation of PDC, additional field-design, and review with a qualified geotechnical scientist, the risks associated with these trails would be minimized. Thus, this design option was eliminated from detailed analysis. Additionally, this design option would not meet the Purpose and Need to increase the variety of mountain biking trails for improved year-round utilization of existing facilities.

RETAIN EXISTING NORTH FACE SURFACE LIFT Mountain and lift system planners assessed the feasibility of retaining the existing North Face surface lift in its current location with the addition of the proposed North Face chairlift. Although technically feasible, the planning effort identified a variety of factors that would make this configuration less than desirable for CBMR’s operations and the experience CBMR intends to provide. These factors include the inability to adequately locate both lift terminals consistent with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) code without substantial grading or realignment of the existing surface lift; tower heights that would be required for the proposed chairlift to cross the existing surface lift would present issues in the form of exposure to wind, ride experience, and evacuation scenarios; and installation and operation costs of any of the technically feasible configurations would outweigh the benefits of retaining both lifts. As a result of these factors it was determined that the retention of the existing North Face surface lift is not desirable, and this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 37 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

SNOWMAKING STORAGE TANKS OR PONDS In response to comment received on the Draft EIS, an alternative was considered to construct storage tanks or snowmaking ponds as part of the mountain’s snowmaking system. Construction of tanks or ponds would have allowed CBMR to continue snowmaking operations during periods when the East River streamflows fall below 7 cfs or 6 cfs in November and December, according to existing junior bypass flow agreements. CBMR would be required by their junior bypass flow agreements to cease diversion for snowmaking when the river is below the threshold, which does occasionally occur.

However, adding water storage would also result in resource impacts including vegetation clearing, grading, pipeline connections, and other disturbances. Adding storage would also increase CBMR’s consumptive effect on the East River by expanding consumptive use of water from the East River. The current limiting factor for withdrawals from the East River is the intake, which does not allow the ski area to withdraw more than its water right to make snow. The river is then monitored with a regression formula, and during dry periods snowmaking ceases altogether due to the bypass agreement. Terms of the existing protections and agreements would not change under the Proposed Action. Thus, given that CBMR did not propose adding additional water storage facilities or features, the Forest Service did not have a compelling reason to analyze additional affects to watershed and fisheries.

Dismissal of this alternative in the Final EIS does not preclude CBMR’s ability to construct a water storage tank or storage pond(s) in the future; these actions would require separate NEPA review and approval. E. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2-3 provides a comparison of project elements associated with each alternative.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 38 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2

No Action Proposed Action SUP Area on Main Mountain (acres) Proposed SUP Adjustment 0 500 Total SUP Area 2,890 3,390 Total Guest Capacity (guests per day) CCC 5,940 7,830 Terrain (acres) Proposed Developed Terrain (named, defined, 0 89 lift-serviced, maintained runs at the resort) Total Developed Terrain Network 638 727 Proposed Undeveloped Terrain (tree, bowl, open 0 434 park skiing, and glades) Total Undeveloped Terrain Network 909 1,955 New Chairlift Specifications 2 (Teo Park chairlift and Teo Number of New Chairlifts 0 Drainage chairlift) 3 (Teo Park) Carrier Capacity (people per chair) N/A 3 (Teo Drainage) 1,200 (Teo Park) Uphill Capacity (pph) N/A 1,200 (Teo Drainage) 3,050 (Teo Park) Length (slope length in feet) N/A 6,000 (Teo Drainage) Chairlift Upgrade Specifications Number of Chairlift Upgrades 0 1 (North Face chairlift) North Face Carrier Capacity (people per chair) Surface Lift 4 North Face Uphill Capacity (pph) 1,000 1,800 North Face Length (slope length in feet) 1,448 5,000 Access Roads Proposed Access Road Reroute/Improvement 0 930 (feet) New Access Road (feet) 0 1,900 Snowmaking (acres) Proposed Snowmaking Coverage 0 32 Increase in Snowmaking Coverage 0 0* Multi-Season Activities Proposed Mountain Biking Trails (miles) 0 15 Mountain Biking Trails (miles) 20 35 Notes: * The proposed 32 acres would replace 32 acres erroneously identified as having existing snowmaking.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 39 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

F. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Per direction provided in 40 CFR § 1502.14, Table 2-4 provides a comparison of environmental impacts by alternative.

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Recreation Proposed projects within CBMR’s current and proposed SUP area have the potential to affect the recreational experience at the ski area in both summer and winter seasons. Indicator: Quantification of existing and proposed terrain acreage (including gladed areas) by ability level and discussion of skier density The following breakdown depicts the acreage of terrain by skier ability level The following breakdown depicts the acreage of terrain by skier ability level for the developed trail network as well as the distribution of the active skier for the developed trail network as well as the distribution of the active skier population at CBMR. population at CBMR. Beginner: 4.1 acres (2%) Beginner: 4.1 acres (2%) Novice: 95.8 acres (25%) Novice: 96.2 acres (23%) Low-Intermediate: 143.9 acres (29%) Low-Intermediate: 155.3 acres (28%) Intermediate: 198.7 acres (28%) Intermediate: 245.8 acres (32%) Advanced-Intermediate: 132.4 acres (13%) Advanced-Intermediate: 124.4 acres (11%) Expert: 63.4 (3%) Expert: 108.1 (4%) CBMR would continue to operate at an average density of 5 skiers per acre, Under the Proposed Action, trail density and skier circulation would remain which is 50% lower than the industry standard of 10 skiers per acre. This is a similar to the existing conditions. Additional trail acreage associated with the desirable situation and is reflective of the style and quality of skiing experience groomable glades in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas would maintain an that CBMR is trying to create. average trail density at CBMR of 5 skiers per acre. Overall, the proposed conditions depict a positive recreational experience, as lower skier/rider densities correlate to a higher quality recreational experience.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 40 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Quantitative analysis of existing and proposed CCC and skier visitation, including discussion of existing guest service space and other amenities Under the No Action Alternative, visitation to CBMR would continue to In total, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in an additional reflect baseline trends and the CCC at CBMR would remain at 5,940 guests 95,696 skier visits over the course of five seasons following project per day. The current configuration of facilities and guest services at CBMR, implementation and CCC at CBMR would increase to 7,830 guests per day. including ski patrol, would continue to accommodate the existing and Under the Proposed Action, CBMR would expand its ski patrol operations and projected levels of visitation that would occur under the No Action Alternative. a ski patrol/skier services outpost would be constructed within the proposed Teo Drainage area. This facility would accommodate the needs of ski patrol and serve as a warming hut for skiers. There are no additional facilities or guest service components included in the Proposed Action; however, CBMR would be able to accommodate the increase in CCC through its existing surplus of space.

Indicator: Quantitative analysis of existing and proposed summer recreation activities, including mileage and acreage of mountain biking trails by ability level Under the No Action Alternative, multi-season recreational activities at CBMR Under the Proposed Action, approximately 15.1 miles of multi-use and would continue to reflect the current offerings on NFS lands. No additional directional mountain biking trails would be constructed within CBMR’s mountain biking or hiking trails would be constructed, the existing summer existing SUP area, increasing CBMR’s summer trail acreage to 40.6 acres. trail network would continue to consist of 33,3 miles of trail broken down by Table 3A-5 depicts the proposed trail specifications and ability levels. Aside the ability levels depicted in Table 3A-3. from the proposed mountain biking and hiking trails there are no additional multi-season recreation components of the Proposed Action.

Indicator: Discussion of user/guest demand that currently exists in the area for summer recreation activities, including safety No additional mountain biking or hiking trails would be constructed under the It is anticipated that when added to the existing trail network available on No Action Alternative. Demand for mountain biking opportunities would CBMR and adjacent NFS lands, the proposed mountain biking and hiking likely continue to grow, consistent with the trends of recent years and the trails would more adequately address the needs of different user groups than is industry as a whole. Additionally, climate change may increase the number of done by the No Action Alternative, by increasing terrain variety and visitors who undertake multi-season recreational opportunities, and may extend connectivity for a range of ability levels. the season for non-snowsports at CBMR.

Indicator: Discussion of season of use for each activity Under the No Action Alternative, no additional activities would be Under the Proposed Action, only the proposed mountain biking and hiking implemented at CBMR and existing activities would continue operation within trails are anticipated to be used outside of the winter season. There is no their current season of use. proposed summer use in the Teo Drainage area.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 41 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Discussion of potential use conflicts with proposed projects (e.g., potential conflicts with hunting in the Teo Drainage) Under the No Action Alternative, the implementation of proposed projects Upon implementation of the Proposed Action, there could be a perceived would not occur and thus there would be no potential for new use conflicts. impact to the existing hunting recreation experience in the Teo Drainage area. There are no existing conflicts between hunting and CBMR operations that Incorporation of this area into CBMR’s SUP area could degrade the hunting occurs within the CBMR SUP area and the adjacent Teo Drainage area. experience in this area, and potentially displace big game species; however, there are no trails or other multi-season uses planned in the Teo Drainage area and it would not be necessary to prohibit hunting following implementation of the Proposed Action as there are no anticipated user conflicts.

Scenery Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, may be visible from SH 135, and/or other relevant viewpoints. Indicator: Discussion of the existing visual quality of the CBMR SUP area and proposed boundary adjustment, and potential changes to this condition The combination of trails, lifts, and facilities that exist at CBMR results in an Implementation of the Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to the altered scenic character, distinguished by vegetation patterns typical of cut ski developed character of CBMR’s SUP area. Proposed projects would be located trails. Ski area-related facilities dominate the landscape, with certain trails within the existing developed trail network or otherwise near existing ski area exhibiting sharply-defined edges and uniform widths. A number of facilities, infrastructure. Visual impacts are anticipated to be similar to the existing ski including lifts, restaurants, service buildings, and snowmaking infrastructure trails and lift infrastructure in terms of line, form, color, texture, and scale. that exist across the SUP area are also visible from the ski area and adjacent Projects in proposed SUP boundary adjustment area would introduce private lands. developed ski area infrastructure to previously undeveloped landscapes, The proposed SUP boundary adjustment area currently exists in its natural including lift components and tree clearing for ski trail development and state, which is broadly defined by above-treeline bowls and ridgelines, and glading. This would constitute a new visual impact to these areas. forested below approximately 11,500 feet, depending on topography.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 42 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for scenery management within the SUP area and from established viewpoints by meeting VQOs Existing facilities and ski area clearings within the CBMR SUP area are With adherence to PDC, identified in Table 2-2, the proposed projects within consistent with the currently assigned VQO of Modification and other Forest the existing CBMR SUP area are not expected to increase visual resource Plan standards and guidelines for visual resources management. impacts such that those areas would not meet the assigned VQO of While the Forest Plan specifies that Management Areas 2A and 6B, which Modification. includes the proposed boundary adjustment area, are to be managed for the Incorporating the proposed 500 acres of Management Areas 2A and 6B into adopted VQO, VQOs were not established for these Management Areas. CBMR’s SUP area would change the Management Area of these 500 acres to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. The SUP boundary adjustment area would acquire the desired condition, general direction, standards, and guidelines of Management Area 1B. In addition, the SUP boundary adjustment area would be assigned a VQO of Modification. With adherence to PDC, identified in Table 2-2, the proposed projects are not expected to increase visual resource impacts to the character of the area, such that it would not meet the new VQO designation of Modification. Indicator: Compliance with the intent of the BEIG for all proposed structures. Structures should meet the Forest Plan scenery guidelines for materials, colors, and reflectivity. Existing infrastructure complies with the BEIG. Lift towers and terminals are New facilities would comply with the BEIG. Architectural designs for all of non-reflective materials and colors. Colors of buildings are painted to blend proposed buildings would be submitted to the Forest landscape architect for with the surrounding landscape. final review and approval to ensure effectiveness of the design. Indicator: Narrative description of how proposed projects imitate landscape character There are no projects proposed under the No Action Alternative. Lift terminals and the ski patrol building/warming hut would be colored (in summer colors) to blend with the surrounding landscape. Ski trail edges would be feathered or scalloped to provide a variable line, thereby minimizing linear cuts in overstory vegetation. Mountain biking trail features would be constructed appropriate in size and design for the setting, to visually blend in with the site, and would be constructed of natural materials. Additional PDC for scenery resources are detailed in Table 2-2. Indicator: Discussion of the identified viewpoint on northbound SH 135 looking northeast towards the project area From identified Critical Viewpoint 1, existing visible infrastructure is limited A simulation prepared from identified Critical Viewpoint 1 displays the to sparse residential development on private lands in the foreground. No Proposed Action in context as seen by the casual observer travelling CBMR infrastructure is visible. northbound on SH 135. A small amount of cleared area associated with ski trail development in the Teo Drainage area is visible. Scenic impacts would be minimal and likely indiscernible.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 43 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Noise Construction of the proposed projects, including timber removal, has the potential to affect noise levels in CBMR’s SUP area and adjacent areas. Indicator: Narrative discussion of existing noise levels in the study area In general, winter operations have higher noise levels than summer operations Same as for the No Action Alternative. at CBMR. Within the base area, guests would expect to hear noises from people gathering, dining facilities, ticket offices, retail and rental shops, concerts or music, and nearby traffic. Noise levels for this area could range from a conversation (50 dBA) to heavy traffic (70 dBA). Existing noise levels within the SUP area and away from the base area can range from a level similar to a quiet rural area (25 to 30 dBA) in the expansive undeveloped extents of the terrain network, to a level similar to a snowmobile at a distance of 25 feet (100 dBA) in areas where heavy equipment including snowmobiles, snowcats, and chairlifts may dominate the soundscape for short periods of time. Characteristically, noise levels in the SUP area are closer to the low end of the 25 to 100 dBA range. Indicator: Narrative description of potential noise-related impacts associated with construction of the proposed projects Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed projects would not be approved The noises and noise levels of projects and activities that would be added to the and there would be no associated noise-related impacts. existing SUP area are characteristic of noise and noise levels that are currently heard in the SUP area. Upon implementation of the Proposed Action and construction of lift-served skiing in the SUP boundary adjustment area, which currently exhibits noise levels similar to a quiet rural area or quiet residential area, it is anticipated that the soundscape would more closely resemble that which is currently associated with the existing SUP area. Construction-generated noise would generally be a short-term impact, as it would cease upon completion of the project. Noise from construction-related activities would include construction equipment (i.e., diesel trucks, log skidders, helicopter), construction of the proposed activities (e.g., falling logs and pouring concrete), and transporting materials for construction.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 44 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Discussion of the helicopter flight plan and its potential to increase noise levels in the study area Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed projects would not be approved Trees removed in the Teo Drainage area would be flown via helicopter to an and there would be no noise-related impacts from helicopter use. identified landing zone just above the existing Brush Creek trailhead parking lot where they would then be taken off-site via truck. It is anticipated that this location would likely experience the greatest noise impact from helicopter use as NFS users are most likely to be within audible range. The entirety of the flight path is well beyond 850 feet away from population centers and residential areas; therefore, it is anticipated that noise associated with the helicopter would be comparable to heavy traffic, and only isolated users of NFS lands in closest proximity to timber staging areas and the landing zone would experience loudness within the 80 dBA to 100 dBA range.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 45 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Social and Economic Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter certain socioeconomic characteristics of Gunnison County or the Town of Crested Butte. Indicator: Qualitative analysis of potential effects to socioeconomic indicators in Gunnison County, including population, employment, town/county tax revenue, tourism, and visitor spending Population: The population of Gunnison County has been steadily growing Population: Under the Proposed Action, no changes or modifications would for the past thirty years. The population of Gunnison County increased by 55% be approved that would directly or indirectly affect population trends in between 1985 and 2015, growing from 10,390 to 16,145. The Colorado State Gunnison County. Population would be expected to grow consistent with the Demography Office has projected a strong growth trend for the next thirty-five baseline conditions. years, but not as substantial as has been observed since 1985. Between 2015 Employment: Under the Proposed Action, New employees at CBMR would and 2050, population in Gunnison County is projected to increase by 46%, account for approximately 3 full-time year-round employees, 20 full-time growing from 16,145 in 2015 to 23,575 in 2050. seasonal employees (16 during winter and 4 during summer), and 20 part-time Employment: Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed projects on NFS seasonal employees (16 during winter and 4 during summer). lands would not be constructed and CBMR would continue to employ Economy: Visitation to CBMR during both the summer and winter seasons is approximately 537 full-time employees and 333 part-time employees in the expected to increase under the Proposed Action. While this could increase winter, and approximately 240 full time employees and 72 part-time tourism during the winter months, generating visitor spending and tax revenue, employees in the summer it is not anticipated to do so in a way that exceeds current trends of growing Economy: 35% of all employment in Gunnison County is related to travel and tourism for the foreseeable future. tourism operations and CBMR largest employer within the travel and tourism industry. The Town of Crested Butte experienced a 23.2% increase in sales tax from 2011 to 2014, the Town of Mt. Crested Butte a 19.5% increase in sales tax, and Gunnison County a 15.4% increase in sales tax. These trends indicate that travel and tourism would likely continue to be a major component of Gunnison County’s economy, generating employment, visitor spending, and tax revenue for the foreseeable future.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 46 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Qualitative and quantitative discussion of available housing, including designated employee housing, in Gunnison County during both summer and winter seasons Housing availability in the Gunnison Valley and the Town of Crested Butte is The Proposed Action is not anticipated to measurably affect the housing an ongoing issue and there is a shortage in the supply of housing that is markets of Gunnison County. Although the Proposed Action would increase affordable for Gunnison Valley residents. CBMR currently owns and/or the number of positions at CBMR, the additional employees would not impact manages eight units that are rented exclusively to CBMR employees. These housing markets beyond the existing conditions. include 3 units at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, one unit in the Paradise Condos, three units in the Plaza Condos, and one unit in the Crested Mountain North Condos. In total, CBMR’s employee housing units can accommodate a maximum of 18 employees, depending on the configurations of each unit. Additionally, CBMR built six lots/units upon the Homestead Development (deed restricted, affordable multi-family housing) in 2006 that were sold to CBMR employees at the time. There are also 22 buildable lots/units still available in the Homestead Development (11 owned by CBMR and 11 owned by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte); CBMR and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte are currently in negotiations to develop the remaining 22 lots/units via a third party developer. Indicator: Narrative discussion of existing summer tourism levels and potential increases as a result of the proposed projects Summer visitation to CBMR has experienced consistent growth over the past Summer visitation to CBMR is anticipated to increase under the Proposed decade and is currently at its height. Summer visitation to CBMR is generated Action. The proposed recreational activities offered on NFS lands at CBMR by the activities and events that exist not only at CBMR, but also in the Town may attract locals and those already visiting the area, but generally do not of Crested Butte and Gunnison County as a whole. Few visitors are coming to generate visits to Gunnison County in-and-of themselves. Therefore, the CBMR solely for the recreational activities offered on NFS lands. Proposed Action would not impact the economy of Gunnison County, particularly as it relates to existing tourism levels.

Indicator: Disclosure of economic impacts to permit holders, whose business is separate from CBMR operations Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to CBMR Under the Proposed Action, there would be no changes in grazing allotments, operations that would have the potential to impact permittees operating in close seasons, total days, or animal units; therefore, there would be no economic proximity or within the existing CBMR SUP area. Specifically, this includes effect to grazing permittees. Similarly, the Proposed Action would not alter the grazing permittees on the front side of CBMR and in the Teo Drainage area, boundary, seasons, or services permitted to the hunting outfitter, nor would any and a hunting outfitter operating in close proximity to the Teo Drainage area. proposed project directly overlap this outfitter’s permit boundary; therefore, there would be no economic effect to the hunting outfitter permittee.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 47 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Disclosure of compliance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations Per Executive Order 12898, minority and low-income populations were No changes or modifications would be approved under the Proposed Action examined in the project area. No minority populations, as defined by CEQ, that would directly or indirectly affect minority or low-income populations in have been identified in the project area, which is defined as Gunnison County. Gunnison County; therefore, the Proposed Action would be compliant with Gunnison County does have a higher percentage of people below the poverty Executive Order 12898. level than the nationwide poverty rate of 13.5% (2015); however, there are no communities or groups of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals that experience common conditions of environmental exposure or effect, identified as having potential to be affected by the proposed projects at CBMR.

Traffic Implementation of proposed projects may generate increases in daily/seasonal visitation, thereby affecting traffic on SH 135 and parking at CBMR. Indicator: Estimated baseline and future traffic volumes on SH 135, as related to CBMR’s operations during summer and winter months Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed projects would be Under the Proposed Action, the percent of AADT related to CBMR visitation approved in either the winter or summer season that would drive additional would increase from the existing conditions for all three visitation scenarios visitation to CBMR beyond current trends. The percent of AADT on SH 135 (typical winter day, CCC day, and Peak Day). The percent of AADT related to related to CBMR visitation would remain similar to current conditions for the CBMR visitation would increase by 1% for a typical winter day, 4% for a CCC near future, which is estimated at 18% for a typical winter day, 38% for a CCC day, and 4% for a peak day. Under each of the scenarios traffic generated by day, and 48% for a peak day; however, overall AADT on SH 135 would CBMR only accounts for a portion of the vehicles on SH 135, resembling continue to increase. By 2024 SH 135 is projected to have an AADT of 7,799, existing conditions. reflecting a 16% increase from current conditions. This projected increase in Traffic associated with increased summer visitation at CBMR would not have traffic volumes is attributable to increasing population and development a measurable effect on summer traffic on SH 135; however, there would be a throughout the Gunnison Valley and represents the baseline trend. measurable increase in traffic volumes during the summer months associated CBMR would continue to have no measurable effect on summer traffic, as with construction vehicles needed to implement projects included in the summer recreation activities at CBMR are a minimal component of summer Proposed Action. As construction traffic would occur during the summer tourism in Gunnison. months, prior to increases in winter traffic that would occur subsequent to project implementation, the impact of construction represents a separate short- term impact, rather than an additive impact to the long-term effect increases in winter visitation would have on SH 135.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 48 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Estimated traffic generated by timber removal and construction activities Under the No Action Alternative, timber removal and construction activities Under the Proposed Action, 758 truck trips are anticipated for timber removal would not occur; therefore, there would be no impacts to traffic from the from CBMR. An additional 2,000 truck trips are anticipated for construction proposed projects. and staging of projects. The construction of infrastructure included in the Proposed Action is planned to take place starting in the summer of 2018. Between 2018 and 2020 it is estimated that approximately 1,000 truckloads (2,000 one-way trips) would be necessary to bring needed equipment and materials to CBMR. Most construction would take place on summer weekdays, where an anticipated additional 10 to 30 trips per day for construction workers may also occur. This would result in a less than a 1% increase in AADT on SH 135 during the summer months.

Indicator: Quantification of parking capacities and demands at CBMR during summer and winter months Under the No Action Alternative, CBMR would not change its current parking Under the Proposed Action, it is likely that the percentage of day skiers configuration. Although visitation is anticipated to increase, there would compared to total skiers would decrease and that the existing surplus of continue to be a surplus of parking for the foreseeable future. In particular, it is parking would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in day skiers. anticipated that the main lot would remain underutilized. Separate from the Proposed Action there is planned parking at the Prospect at Mt. Crested Butte development that could occur at some point in the future. These additional parking options would easily accommodate any future change in these assumptions, including any possible changes in use of the Town lots.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 49 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Land Use Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter land use patterns within CBMR’s SUP boundary and surrounding areas. Indicator: Narrative description of existing land uses within and around CBMR’s proposed SUP boundary Existing land uses within and around CBMR generally correspond their The Proposed Action would affect land use through densification of summer existing Management Area emphasis. As CBMR is located within recreational opportunities in currently developed areas of the existing CBMR Management Area 1B, it is managed primarily for downhill skiing and a range SUP area. This could negatively impact livestock grazing by increasing of similar natural resource based activities that occur throughout the year. likelihood for direct interactions between recreationists and livestock. The Livestock grazing is the primary land use, other than recreation, on NFS lands Proposed Action would also affect land use through the development of ski within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area. Grazing occurs within the existing terrain and glades that would that would result in vegetation modification CBMR SUP boundary in Management Area 1B and on adjacent NFS lands to within approximately 500 acres of previously undeveloped land. Vegetation the south and east within Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B. modification associated with the development of ski terrain and glades in the The entirety of the project area (including NFS lands within CBMR’s SUP Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas would affect livestock grazing by increasing area) is open to the public for hunting and the Teo Drainage area, overlapped available forage for livestock. The increase of available forage may result in by Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B, is a productive Elk changes to grazing patterns, which has potential to result in both overgrazed Hunting ground. In the past, this area has provided both guided and unguided and underused areas for livestock grazing currently occurring within this area. opportunities for members of the public. In terms of hunting, vegetation modification associated with the development of ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas could increase Additional land uses on adjacent NFS lands range from off-highway vehicle the available forage for game species. This could be a benefit to big game use to dispersed non-motorized recreation. species from the perspective of available forage; however, when considered with the increased presence of ski area infrastructure and human activity it would not outweigh the negative effects that the Proposed Action would have on hunting opportunities. The current recreation experiences within the portions of Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B that would be converted to Management Area 1B in the Teo Drainage Area would likely be lost with the addition of ski terrain and infrastructure in this area.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 50 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Discussion of potential impacts to members of the public and other permit holders within or adjacent to the project area, including livestock grazing, outfitter/guide, and research permit holders, both during implementation and following implementation of the proposed projects Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to CBMR Under the Proposed Action there would be no changes in grazing allotments, operations that would result in direct impacts to members of the public and seasons, total days, or animal units for either the North Butte or South Butte other permit holders within or adjacent to the project area. livestock grazing permittees; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to livestock grazing permittees in the project area. Additionally, the Proposed Action would not alter the boundary, seasons, or services permitted to the hunting outfitter, nor would any proposed project directly overlap this outfitter’s permit boundary; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to the hunting outfitter and guide permittee operating on NFS lands adjacent to the Teo Drainage area. Indirect impacts to livestock grazing permittees and the hunting outfitter would correspond with impacts to their respective land uses (e.g., densification of summer recreation and vegetation removal related impacts) as discussed under the previous indicator.

Air Quality and Climate Change Construction and operation of the proposed projects (including short-term construction-related activity, burning, and transportation related to timber removal) could result in localized impacts to air quality, as well as GHG emissions. Indicator: Narrative description of existing air quality in the study area, including population centers and Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity Six Class I areas are within 15 to 105 miles of CBMR. Air quality in two Same as for the No Action Alternative. nearby Class I areas, Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness and Weminuche Wilderness, improved significantly between 2000 and 2015, and is higher than the national average. Class II areas include all other areas of the GMUG and other nearby National Forest areas not specifically designated as Class I or Class III. The Forest Plan describes air quality over most of the GMUG as “good.” Air quality in Gunnison County has ranged from “good” to “moderate,” with more days categorized as “moderate” in the past decade than in prior years. On the National Air Toxics Assessment, the Town of Crested Butte is ranked in the lowest category for cancer risk and respiratory hazards, and achieved a general air quality score of 98 out of 100.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 51 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Discussion of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding air quality There would be no change in compliance with air quality regulations under the The Proposed Action would comply with federal, state, and local air quality No Action Alternative. The CBMR SUP area would continue to be in regulations, including state burn permits for pile burning. compliance with these regulations. Indicator: Estimate of daily increase in number of vehicles associated with the increased annual visitation Annual visitation and background traffic is projected to increase in future The Proposed Action would result in 258 additional vehicles per day, including years, consistent with current trends. Refer to Chapter 3, Section E – Traffic employee traffic, in addition to increases attributable to baseline trends. Refer for more information. to Chapter 3, Section E – Traffic for more information. Indicator: Estimate of traffic and emissions associated with construction of the proposed project, including timber removal Construction activities associated with the proposed projects would not occur Construction-related traffic would include operation of trucks and other heavy under the No Action Alternative; therefore, there would be no traffic and machinery, estimated at approximately 2,800 trips, and these trips would emit associated emissions associated with construction. GHG. Indicator: Narrative discussion of timber removal techniques (e.g., burning) and their potential effect on air quality in the region Timber removal associated with the proposed projects would not occur under The use of helicopters and heavy equipment would result in GHG emissions the No Action Alternative; therefore, there would be no associated effects to for the duration of construction. Pile burning of vegetation and felled timber regional air quality. would also release GHG during the duration of burns. Pile burning would adhere to State of Colorado Burn Permit parameters. These emissions could have short-term effects to air quality in the region during construction. Indicator: Discussion of the impact of climate change on the operations of CBMR and the proposed projects It is anticipated that CBMR would continue to experience changes in the CBMR would continue to experience the effects of climate change, consistent timing and amount of precipitation that falls as snowpack; the timing and with current and projected trends. The proposed projects are not located in duration of the winter season and snowmelt/runoff; and changes to minimum climatically marginal areas, with respect to climate change, and are generally and maximum temperatures due to climate change. Current air quality trends not considered at unreasonable risk. Diversification of ski area operations to and climate-induced effects would be expected to continue under the No include summer and multi-season activities is generally considered an adaptive Action Alternative, and could affect snowmaking capacity, visibility, measure. visitation, and operations at CBMR. Indicator: Discussion of potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed projects and potential contributions to climate change The proposed projects would not be implemented under the No Action The Proposed Action would result in the emission of GHG during Alternative; therefore, there would be no associated additional GHG emissions. construction, timber removal, and operation phases. In the context of other local and regional GHG sources, potential contributions are expected to be negligible.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 52 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Vegetation Plant communities (including PTES species, SOLC, overstory vegetation, and the presence of invasive and noxious weeds) may be altered as a result of the proposed projects. Indicator: Identification and disclosure of impacts to any federally listed threatened and endangered species, Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species, and SOLC present in the study area PTES: No federally listed or proposed plant species are known or suspected in PTES: There would be no impacts to federally listed, proposed species under the project area. the Proposed Action. Region 2 Sensitive Species: One population of the Region 2 sensitive Paradox Region 2 Sensitive Species: For Region 2 sensitive species it is anticipated moonwort (Botrychium paradoxum) occurs within the existing SUP area. that the direct and indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Action would SOLC: Most of the plant SOLC identified for this project include a variety of be localized and not of sufficient intensity or scale to cause a significant effect. moonworts that occur in 85 different locations and encompass 1.44 acres. A determination of may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result Species include: Botrychium echo, B. furculatum, B. hesperium, B. in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal lanceolatum var. lanceolatum (red-stem phenotype), B. neolunaria, B. listing (MAII) is warranted for Botrychium ascendens and B. paradoxum minganense, and B. pinnatum. In addition, one occurrence each of fairy slipper SOLC: There would be a total of 0.36 acre of impacts to occupied SOLC orchid (Calypso bulbosa) and stiff clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum) were moonwort (Botrychium spp.) habitat due to grading and removal of overstory identified. vegetation.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 53 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Narrative discussion of timber removal techniques, including mitigation measures and BMPs to minimize presence of spruce bark beetle and potential for attack No timber would be removed for project-related activities under the No Action Tree removal for all projects is proposed to be accomplished primarily via Alternative. helicopter with skidding to centralized areas for transport when applicable. Burning, chipping and/or lop-and-scatter would also be utilized depending on specific site conditions and accessibility. It is anticipated that hand-felling would be necessary in areas that are excessively steep. The terrain of the Teo Drainage area precludes the use of out-hauling via trucks. The following PDC (refer to Table 2-2) would be implemented to minimize the potential for spruce bark beetle attack: • Where live Engelmann spruce are felled and left in place, limb entire tree to a 6-inch top diameter, peel or strip bark from bole of tree on 70% or more of the surface area of the tree. • Where live Engelmann spruce greater than 8-inch DBH are piled for burning, complete burning within one season of felling/piling trees. • Where feasible, remove all live Engelmann spruce greater than 8-inch DBH from ski area SUP for processing into lumber or biomass within the same season of felling. Trees should not be left to overwinter. • Live Engelmann spruce trees may also be bucked into small pieces (less than 4 feet long) and placed in a non-shaded area to dry, or they may be buried.

Indicator: Quantification (acreage) of proposed ground disturbance and overstory vegetation removal effects by vegetation type There would be no ground disturbance or impacts to vegetation under the No There would be a total of 33.7 acres of ground disturbance associated with the Action Alternative. Proposed Action (both grading and vegetation clearing/grading). In addition, 91.3 acres would have 100% overstory vegetation removal and 434.0 acres would be subject to 50% tree removal for glading. Approximately 75% of the overstory vegetation removed would be to spruce-fir forest, with lesser amounts to lodgepole pine (1%), and aspen forest (3%). Most of the spruce-fir forest affected by grading and vegetation removal including glading is mature with a closed canopy.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 54 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Identification of PDC and BMPs (including noxious weed design features) to avoid the spread of noxious or other undesirable weed species and to manage existing populations toward eradication or acceptable levels when eradication is not realistic Under the No Action Alterative, CBMR would continue to comply with their Under the Proposed Action, CBMR would continue to comply with their existing weed management plan. existing weed management plan. In addition, several project-specific PDC have been developed including: pretreatment of weed infestations, cleaning of construction/logging equipment, locating staging areas in weed free areas, monitoring and treatment of new weed infestations for a minimum of three years, and using weed free mulches.

Fish and Wildlife Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, could affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for federally listed PTES fish and wildlife species, MIS, migratory birds, and SOLC. Indicator: Identification of federally listed, MIS, Forest Service Region 2 sensitive wildlife species and migratory birds potentially present in habitats of the project site and conduct field studies (as needed) to determine the presence or absence of these species PTES: Federally listed species determined to be potentially present in the Same as for the No Action Alternative. project area include the four Colorado big river fish and Canada lynx. Region 2 Sensitive Species: Region 2 sensitive species determined to be potentially present in the project area include American marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, white-tailed ptarmigan, flammulated owl, boreal (western) toad, and northern leopard frog. MIS: MIS determined to be potentially present in the project area include Rocky Mountain elk, American marten, northern goshawk, and brook trout. Migratory Birds: Migratory Birds (birds of conservation concern priority species) determined to be potentially present in the project area include the Blue (Dusky) grouse, Williamson’s sapsucker, Boreal owl, Olive-sided flycatcher, and Hammond’s flycatcher.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 55 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Quantification (acres) and qualification of existing wildlife habitat and proposed alteration, fragmentation, or removal of wildlife habitat, by species. Include specifically lynx habitat, broken down by primary suitable habitat, secondary suitable habitat, primary unsuitable habitat, and non-habitat Most of the project area (60.2%) is classified as lynx habitat. Total lynx habitat The Proposed Action would present impacts to Canada lynx in the form of includes 1,988.2 acres (including private land), 59.7% of which is considered habitat modification, both within the project area at CBMR and the greater suitable habitat. The effectiveness of most lynx habitats in the project area is Gothic LAU. Vegetation clearing and grading associated with the Proposed diminished due to year-round by habitat fragmentation; negative effects on Action would convert 401.3 acres of primary suitable lynx habitat, 21.3 acres hares that reduce or eliminate hare presence; diurnal skiing activity and diurnal of secondary suitable habitat, and 10.2 acres of primary unsuitable habitat into and nocturnal maintenance, such as snowmaking and grooming, during the 432.8 acres of non-habitat. The majority of habitat conversion would occur on winter; and diurnal recreation and maintenance during the summer. The habitat NFS lands (99.7%) compared to private lands (0.3%). in and around the Teo Drainage area, which is outside of the current SUP area but would be included in the proposed SUP area boundary adjustment, is currently functional as lynx habitat; however, it is unlikely that this habitat and the remaining forest on CBMR would be part of an established home range because of travel inefficiencies to and from sufficient surrounding habitats. The habitat is functional for transient and dispersing lynx, and potentially including use as diurnal security habitat, and could facilitate broad scale habitat connectivity. Under the No Action Alternative there would be no impacts to existing lynx habitat. Indicator: Description of the existing environmental baseline by quantifying current use in the project area (operating lifts, existing backcountry skiing, summer activities, etc.) and compare to proposed conditions With the exception of the terrain that would be developed outside of the The Proposed Action would adjust the SUP area of CBMR to include the Teo existing SUP area in the Teo Drainage area, all terrain proposed for Drainage area, a large, currently undeveloped and unused area, while also development is currently being skied to some extent. All terrain associated increasing use in a moderately-large, largely undeveloped, currently skied, and with proposed Teo Park development is currently skied as part of Headwall, naturally fragmented area that exists in the Teo Park and associated upper Peak, and Teo 1 and Teo 2 Bowls. During the 2015/16 ski season, it was bowls. New and increased skier use would result in the permanent degradation estimated that approximately 22% of High surface lift riders would enter Teo 1 of habitat values for certain species and could result eventually in the Bowl, resulting in 35 skiers per hour or approximately 210 skiers per day. The elimination of functional habitat values. proposed Teo Drainage terrain outside of the current SUP boundary is not All other proposed terrain upgrades within the existing operations area should currently skied. have little additional effects on wildlife because existing habitat fragmentation With exception of lift-served mountain biking and hiking, use of summer and levels of year-round human activity within the current CBMR operations activities is centralized in the base and Prospect areas. Mountain biking and area likely cause species to avoid the area. hiking use is dispersed over 20 miles of existing trails for mountain biking and The Proposed Action is not expected to result in any increased skier use of 5 miles of “hiking only” trails that span the CBMR SUP area and adjacent undeveloped habitat blocks outside of the adjusted SUP area into the Teo private lands. Drainage area that could have further adverse effects on wildlife occupying these areas.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 56 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Disclosure of effects to terrestrial PTES, MIS, and migratory birds The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and PTES: For terrestrial PTES an effects determination of may affect, likely to management practices at CBMR without changes, additions, or upgrades on adversely affect is warranted for Canada Lynx under the Proposed Action. NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area. There would be no impacts to MIS: For terrestrial MIS, which include the Rocky Mountain Elk, impacts terrestrial PTES, MIS, and migratory birds potentially present in the project were determined to be insignificant and discountable. area. Migratory Birds: For all PIF priority species potentially present in the project area and one of the birds of conservation concern determined to occur within the project area (Cassin’s finch) it was determined that the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide (MAII).

Indicator: Identification of and effects within immediate and adjacent LAUs The project area is contained within the 68,300 plus-acre Gothic LAU. The No As a result of the habitat conversion that would occur under the Proposed Action Alternative would not result in effects within this LAU. The Gothic Action, suitable lynx habitat in the Gothic LAU would decline by 0.6% to LAU is non-functional because of the large percentage (56.4%) of naturally 42.9%, which is further reduced from the minimum 70% functionality occurring non-habitat associated primarily with alpine habitat, but also threshold. This would further impair the current non-functional condition of including broad, graminoid-dominated valley bottoms. Suitable lynx habitat in the Gothic LAU, largely as a result of naturally occurring non-habitat the LAU is 43.5%, far below the minimum 70% functionality threshold. associated primarily with alpine habitat and broad, graminoid-dominated valley bottoms.

Indicator: Quantification and qualification of compensatory mitigation for impacts to lynx or other relevant species habitat, if necessary As the No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and The Proposed Action includes PDC (refer to Table 2-2) that would avoid, management practices at CBMR without changes, additions, or upgrades on minimize, or mitigate project effects to lynx and lynx habitat. There may be NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area there would be no impacts to lynx or additional lynx-related conservation measures, including compensatory other relevant species that would require compensatory mitigation. mitigation, developed during the ESA Section 7 process that may be considered by the decision maker in the ROD to further avoid, minimize, or mitigate project effects that would be vital or necessary to meeting the overall intent of the Forest Plan and SRLMD. Further, compensatory mitigation would not be required for any other species with habitat impacts that would occur under the Proposed Action.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 57 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Assessment of lynx habitat and potential impacts through the use of Coverboard surveys Coverboard surveys were used to sample the winter cover of habitats The Proposed Action would result in vegetation removal and new and potentially affected within the Teo Drainage, Teo Park, and realigned North increased skier use that would result in the permanent degradation of Face chairlift areas. The objective was to determine whether multi-storied functional year-round lynx habitat values (i.e., snowshoe hare habitat) and stands provide winter snowshoe hare cover above a threshold value of 35%. could result eventually in the elimination of functional winter lynx habitat Stands above 35% represent suitable snowshoe hare foraging habitat; stands values. It is likely that a lower abundance of snowshoes hares would persist in below this value represent habitat that is lacking in snowshoe hare foraging tree skiing terrain during the summer months when human disturbance is habitat. Of the 25 plot locations for which data were collected, 84% met or minimal. There should be a natural tendency for hares to attempt exceeded the 35% cover value, indicating that most of the proposed new and recolonization of the terrain from undisturbed and unused peripheral habitats. upgraded ski terrain represents suitable snowshoe hare winter foraging habitat. Red squirrels should persist in the tree skiing terrain year-round, but at a lower The average winter cover density for those 21 locations meeting or exceeding abundance. the 35% cover value was 52.5%.

Indicator: Evaluate consistency of alternatives with SRLMD As there would be no vegetation clearing or grading authorized on NFS lands The direct and indirect effects of Proposed Action would be inconsistent with within the CBMR SUP area under the No Action Alternative, and thus there five objectives and four guidelines of applicable SRLMD. The Proposed would be no effect on Canada lynx and its habitat. The No Action Alternative Action would not be consistent with Human Use Project Objectives HU O1, would be consistent with all applicable SRLMD. O2, O3, O4, and O5 and Human Use Project Guidelines HU G3, G10, and G11 because it would adjust the existing SUP area into approximately 500 acres of undeveloped, mostly high-quality lynx habitat and develop most of that acreage for tree skiing terrain by removing up to 50% of the existing trees. That entire 500-acre boundary adjustment area would become snow-compacted and the current effectiveness of the lynx habitat (at whatever functional value of potential winter foraging, snowshoe hare, and diurnal security habitat is present) would not be maintained in most of that area.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 58 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Identification of impacts to avian species as a result of tree removal Under the No Action Alternative there would be no tree removal and thus there Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the loss of 426.8 acres would be no impact to avian species. of potentially suitable mixed conifer/spruce-fir PIF priority species nesting and foraging habitat. As a result, a determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide for all PIF priority species listed in Table 3I-12. The same determination was also provided for Cassin’s Finch, a bird of conservation concern determined to occur within the project area. The tree removal associated with the Proposed Action would have No Impact to Region 2 sensitive avian species, which include the northern goshawk and flammulated owl.

Indicator: Identification of impacts to aquatic species, in particular the four Colorado big river fish species, from effects to water quality and stream health The No Action Alternative would result in no additional water diversions or The Proposed Action would increase water diversions and depletions that depletions; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the would result in a loss of water to endangered fish downstream that is likely to federally listed four Colorado big river fish or their habitat. Additionally, the adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, No Action Alternative would result in no additional water diversions or and bonytail chub (four Colorado big river fish). These impacts could be depletions; therefore, there would be no impacts to brook trout (MIS). compounded by the impacts of climate change on the greater Colorado River watershed, which are expected to include changes in air and water temperature, evaporation, timing of rain and snow events and snowmelt, and the quantity of water found in the watershed.

Indicator: Discussion of the operational season for the proposed projects There are no proposed projects included in the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, only the proposed mountain biking and hiking Operations at CBMR would continue to resemble their existing conditions trails are anticipated to be used outside of the winter season. Upon its without changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP incorporation into the CBMR SUP area, the Teo Drainage area would be area. operational during the winter season consistent with the timing of existing winter operations, and as conditions allow. There is no proposed summer use in the Teo Drainage area.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 59 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Soils/Geology Ground disturbance, including tree clearing and grading, associated with construction and operation of proposed projects has potential to increase erosion/soil compaction and lead to a loss of organic soil matter. Indicator: Inventory and discussion of soil organic matter pre- and post-implementation of any project components involving grading or grading/clearing; identify and analyze organic matter transects to field verify the depth of organic-rich horizons for Mineral A and/or Organic O horizons Since there would be no ground disturbances under the No Action Alternative, The Proposed Action would disturb 30.8 acres of soil by grading within the thicknesses of mineral A and/or organic O horizons would continue to increase project area. Thicknesses of mineral soil surface and/or organic layers in these or decrease at existing rates. areas would be impacted by mixing and displacement from grading and vegetation clearing. On-site assessment of thicknesses of the soil A and organic layers were made in areas of proposed grading. Estimates of thicknesses of mineral soil surface and/or organic layers are provided in Table 3J-2 and Table 3J-3.

Indicator: Identification and estimated quantification (acres) of temporary and permanent ground disturbance according to high/moderate/low erodibility soils classes and slope stability concerns, in particular to the cut and fill process need for the mountain biking trails Since there would be no temporary or permanent ground disturbances under The Proposed Action would disturb 30.8 acres of soil by grading within the the No Action Alternative, soil stability concerns would be as they current project area, of which 10.9 acres would be in soils having very high (0.6 acre) exist. or high (10.3 acres) erosion hazard, 16.6 acres of grading would be in soils having moderate erosion hazard, and 3.3 acres would be in soils having slight erosion hazard.

Indicator: Analysis of increased erosion hazard due to temporary and permanent ground disturbance Since there would be no ground disturbances under the No Action Alternative, The Proposed Action would disturb 30.8 acres of soil by grading within the soil erosion losses would continue to occur at existing rates. project area. Grading actions would increase the risk of erosion, especially in soils having very high (0.6 acre) and high (10.3 acres) erosion hazards. Within the proposed graded acres, about 13.4 acres would later be reclaimed following construction, 16.0 acres would be permanently compacted from multi-use trails, and about 1.4 acres would be permanently lost to roads and structures. Indicator: Inventory of erodible soils by soil map unit and field verification of these properties Soil erosion hazards are described in Table 3J-4. Approximately 669 acres in Same as for the No Action Alternative. the project have slight erosion hazard, 1,174 acres have moderate erosion hazard, 825 acres have high erosion hazard, and 318 acres have very high erosion hazard.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 60 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Identify BMPs to reduce soil erosion Since there would be no ground disturbances under the No Action Alternative, The Proposed Action includes PDC and BMPs to reduce soil erosion. A BMPs to reduce soil erosion are not necessary. complete list of PDC and BMPs related to soil resources can be found in Table 2-2. The following BMP specific to the reduction of soil erosion is included Table 2-2. Prior to construction, a detailed site erosion control plan will be prepared. This plan shall include the following components: • Silt fences, straw bales, straw wattles, and other standard erosion control BMPs shall be employed to contain sediment onsite. • Jute-netting or appropriate erosion-control matting on steep fill slopes (i.e., land with a slope angle of 35% or greater) will be utilized to protect soils and enhance conditions for vegetation re-establishment. • Promptly revegetate disturbed areas. Seed mixtures and mulches will be free of noxious weeds. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non- native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials become established. The Forest Service must approve the seed mixtures prior to implementation, unless previously approved seed mixes are employed. Watershed Implementation of proposed projects has the potential to affect stream and riparian health. Indicator: Identification of anticipated temporary and permanent changes in water yield (acre feet) and peak flows (cfs), and subsequent watershed effects Under the No Action Alternative, the study watershed yields and peak flows Water yields and peak runoff flow rates originating from the study watersheds would continue to resemble the baseline and current conditions. Any under Proposed Action conditions would increase, on average, by variability to watershed yield or peak flows would be a result of natural approximately 3% relative to existing condition. Several of the study conditions and climate change, and would not be driven by projects at CBMR. watersheds would experience negligible and unmeasurable increases due to the small amount of tree clearing that would result from implementation of the proposed projects in these watersheds. These potential changes in water yields and peak flow rates are a consequence of the proposed tree removal and additional snowmaking coverage. Removal of trees within the watershed reduces the amount of water intercepted, stored, and transpired by the forest; therefore, a volumetric increase in water yield may be expected as a result of tree clearing. These impacts may be exacerbated by climate change, which could alter air and water temperatures as well as the timing and duration of precipitation as rain or snow. Introduction of snowmaking water into the watersheds further increases the water yield.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 61 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Discussion of existing stream health conditions and WIZ impacts, within the context of the following stream health metrics: bank stability, fine sediment, residual pool depth, wood frequency, and macroinvertebrates. Evaluation of compliance with WCPH and Forest Plan requirements. Under the No Action Alternative, ER-4 (the only watershed a formal stream Increases in yield and peak flows associated with the Proposed Action are condition assessment was only conducted for) is expected to remain in “good relatively modest and should not cause the stream condition of ER-4 to condition.” No removal of vegetation, terrain grading, and/or implementation deteriorate. The effects of climate change on stream health and watershed of additional snowmaking would occur on NFS lands with selection of the No condition as described under the No Action Alterative would also be expected Action Alternative; therefore, any impacts to the stream health of ER-4 would under the Proposed Action. Climate change may affect the temperature normal be a result of natural and/or human induced factors. Climate change may affect and extremes as well as the patterns, timing, duration, and amount of the temperature normal and extremes as well as the patterns, timing, duration, precipitation that falls as rain or snow. These possible impacts from climate and amount of precipitation that falls as rain or snow. These possible impacts change may introduce impacts to the watershed such as timing of peak from climate change may affect the timing of the peak hydrograph, create hydrograph, variable snowpack and snowmelt, and effects on water quantity variable snowpack and snowmelt conditions, and change the overall quantity within the East River and Washington Gulch watersheds. of water within the East River and Washington Gulch watersheds. Disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would result in Impacts to the WIZ would continue to resemble existing conditions. There is approximately 0.4 acre of tree removal in the WIZ of the ER-4 and WG-3 no tree clearing or grading on NFS lands associated with the No Action watersheds, near perennial and intermittent streams. PDC in Table 2-2 have Alternative. been designed for the proposed projects involving the removal of trees in the WIZ to avoid or minimize potential impacts and maintain or improve stream health. Implementation of the Proposed Action with associated PDC (refer to Table 2-2) would be consistent with Forest Plan and WCPH direction.

Indicator: Qualitative and quantitative discussion of existing surface drainage conditions. Generally, roads and mountain biking trails at CBMR were found to be in fair Same as for the No Action Alternative. condition; however, there exist sections of roads and trails where evidence of drainage flowing into the creek was observed. As a result, these sections were classified as CDA.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 62 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Development and analysis of drainage management measures to maintain or improve stream health The development and analysis of drainage management measures would not PDC (refer to Table 2-2), that would be implemented with the Proposed occur under the No Action Alternative. Action include processes to improve existing drainage conditions. These include: • Evaluate improving service road and road-ditch at the crossing of Lower Treasury ski trail, to properly convey runoff; include BMPs for erosion and sediment control (e.g., line road ditch and install sediment traps at ditch discharge points). • Evaluate improving drainage conditions on skiers left of Lower Twister just below Uley’s Ice Bar Restaurant. • Evaluate repairing or replacing culvert on service road just below the Paradise Express chairlift. • Evaluate improving road ditch on “Aspen Tunnel” service road. • Evaluate improving service road, road-ditch, and road cut slope on the service road below Silver Queen Express chairlift alignment and in the vicinity of proposed snowmaking. Indicator: Quantification (acres) of impacts to the WIZ There is no disturbance proposed in the No Action Alternative; therefore, there Disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would result in would be no impacts to the WIZ associated with the No Action Alternative. approximately 0.4 acre of tree removal in the WIZ of the ER-4 and WG-3 watersheds, near perennial and intermittent streams. The proposed tree removal in the WIZ is associated with “linear” projects (multi-use summer trails), meaning that the Proposed Action would remove selected trees in the WIZ, as necessary, within an area rather than clear-cut the entire area itself. Indicator: Quantification (acres) of CDA Under the No Action Alternative, the length of roads and trails that are Tree removal and terrain grading projects included in the Proposed Action connected to streams in the study watersheds would remain at approximately have the potential to increase the acreage connected to the stream and impact 0.1%. The duration of snowmelt (e.g., how long it takes for the snowpack to stream health, particularly in the ER-4 and WG-3 watersheds where there is melt each spring) may affect the conditions of trails and roads if warm proposed tree removal in the WIZ; however, PDC included in Table 2-2 would temperatures and snow conditions result in faster snowmelt, leading to soil ensure that the proposed projects would not result in additional acreage erosion into streams. connected to the stream and would avoid or minimize potential impacts and maintain or improve stream health. Further, the Proposed Action would reduce the existing quantity of CDAs as PDC included in Table 2-2 would disconnect 0.6 acre of the mountain road that travels from the base area to the bottom terminal of Painter Boy chairlift, in the WG-3 watershed.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 63 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Quantification of in-channel network extension (length of connected channel) Under the No Action Alternative, the length of mountain biking trails and Additional channel network extensions would not occur under the Proposed roads that are connected to the stream would remain at approximately 50,155 Action. feet, which represents an 18% increase over the length of the natural stream channel network (including perennial and intermittent streams) of all of the study watersheds. Indicator: Quantification (acres) of ground disturbing activities located on highly erodible soils as it pertains to stream health. Under the No Action Alternative, ground disturbing activities would not occur. The Proposed Action would disturb 30.8 acres of soil by grading within the project area, of which 10.9 acres would be in soils having very high (0.6 acre) or high (10.3 acres) erosion hazard; adherence to PDC would ensure that these activities would not result in adverse impacts to stream health. Indicator: Identification of any CWA impaired or threatened waterbody segments in the study area No cause of impairment has been identified for streams in the project area. All As classified uses for these the study watersheds are Agriculture, Aquatic Life streams have been classified under Category 1 (attaining water quality Cold 1, Recreation E, and Water Supply, the utilization of East River water standards for all classified uses). supplies for snowmaking operations by CBMR would not impact the water quality of the study watersheds and they would remain classified as Category 1 under the Proposed Action. Indicator: Quantification of existing and proposed snowmaking operations and potential effects to the East River and surrounding watershed, including discussion of compliance with applicable minimum in-stream flow requirements Under the No Action Alternative, additional snowmaking would not be Under the Proposed Action, improvements planned for CBMR’s snowmaking implemented at CBMR. No additional diversions for snowmaking purposes system would result in a direct impact CBMR’s snowmaking operations and from the East River would occur and it can be expected that diversions would water rights as CBMR would provide snowmaking water supplies to an resemble the average 266.4 acre feet per year CBMR currently diverts. additional 32 acres of trails. The additional 32 acres of snowmaking coverage As part of CBMR’s 1981 water court proceedings, CBMR entered into two would result in CBMR diverting an additional 28.7 acre feet of water for bypass flow agreements regarding diversions from the East River, one with the snowmaking purposes. From the 28.7 acre feet of additional water diverted for State of Colorado dated June 22, 1981 and one with the Forest Service dated snowmaking, approximately 6.8 acre feet (23.7%) would be lost to June 25, 1981. The terms and conditions regarding CBMR’s snowmaking evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses operations under its 1981 water right were similar in each of the two assuming average temperature conditions during the snowmaking period. The agreements. Generally, the agreements established a minimum bypass flow remaining 21.9 acre feet (76.3%) would return to Washington Gulch and the requirement in the East River. East River as snowmelt during the ensuing spring and summer months. To ensure compliance with the established bypass flow requirements, CBMR maintains a streamflow monitoring program approved by the Forest Service.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 64 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Wetlands Identified wetlands and other waters of the U.S. throughout the project area could be temporarily and/or permanently affected by construction and implementation of proposed projects. Indicator: Quantification of area of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. existent within the project area (acres/linear feet) There are approximately 78.7 acres of wetlands within the project area, Same as for the No Action Alternative. including 53.3 acres within the Washington Gulch watershed and 25.4 acres within the East River watershed. There are approximately 52,708 feet of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams within the project area, including 23,806 feet within the Washington Gulch watershed and 28,902 feet within the East River watershed.

Indicator: Disclosure of wetland functions and values within the project area Isolate Spring/Seep Wetlands: These wetlands are rated very low for Same as for the No Action Alternative. groundwater recharge function and low to moderate for wildlife values. These wetlands do not provide water quality functions. Overall, these wetlands are functioning at or near reference standard. Wetlands along Stream Channels: These wetlands are rated high for flood peak and erosion protection functions, low to medium for groundwater recharge function, high water quality function, and high wildlife habitat function. Overall, most of these wetlands are functioning at or near the reference standard. Streams without Wetlands: These streams are rated very low for flood peak reduction and have no groundwater discharge/recharge or water quality functions. The wildlife habitat value is generally low. Overall, most of these streams are functioning at or near the reference standard. Wetlands on Ski Trails: The functions of these wetlands vary depending on whether they occur as isolated springs/seeps or if they occur along small streams. Overall, most of these wetlands appear to be function at or near the reference standard, but some wetlands are likely functioning below the reference standard.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 65 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

Table 2-4. Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator: Narrative description of wetland communities, classifications, and disclosure of anticipated temporary and/or permanent impacts (acres/linear feet) Some minor indirect impacts to wetlands are likely occurring within the There would be no direct, permanent wetland impacts under the Proposed CBMR SUP area as a result of ongoing ski area operations (i.e., forest Action. Proposed snowmaking lines would have temporary impacts to overstory removal, snow compaction, increased hydrologic budgets from 0.09 acre of wetlands in four locations based on a 40-foot-wide disturbance snowmaking); however, there are no new anticipated effects to wetlands or corridor; however, with the implementation of avoidance and minimization other waters of the U.S. under the No Action Alternative. PDC identified in Table 2-2, it is likely the disturbance corridor width would be reduced to 20 feet through wetlands, lessening the temporary wetland impacts to 0.04 acre. Indirect impacts from mountain bike and multi-use trail crossings, which total 0.30 acre, could potentially include a decline in wetland vegetation due to shading; however, the overall functional condition of wetlands is not anticipated to be adversely affected.

Indicator: Description of compliance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands There are no proposed projects associated with the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands wherever possible. For example, the bottom of the proposed North Face chairlift was relocated from its original proposed location to avoid impacting wetlands, and PDC would be implemented to field-fit proposed trails to minimize wetlands crossings. Where avoidance is not feasible, boardwalks on environmentally friendly pier foundations or bridges would be utilized for wetland crossings. No wetland fens would be directly or indirectly affected by proposed project activities.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 66 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

G. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative is the alternative which the agency believes would best fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. At this time, considering the environmental impacts to public lands and the opportunities for use of those lands that would benefit the most people over the longest term, the Responsible Official has identified the Proposed Action as the Preferred Alternative.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 67 Chapter 2. Description of Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 68 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION CEQ regulations direct agencies to succinctly describe the environment that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration.12 As such, Chapter 3 describes the existing physical, biological, social, and economic components of the project area that have potential to be affected by implementing any of the alternatives (i.e., the Affected Environment). Each Affected Environment description is followed by an Environmental Consequences discussion that provides an analysis of the potential effects of implementation of each of the alternatives.

Chapter 3 is organized by resource area, and follows the organization of issues and resources requiring further analysis (and indicators) as presented in Chapter 1. Each resource section in this chapter is organized in the following order: Scope of the Analysis, Affected Environment, Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Cumulative Effects, and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.

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

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

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This discussion provides an analysis of direct and indirect environmental effects of implementing each of the alternatives, according to the issues or resources requiring additional analysis and indicators identified in Chapter 1. Cumulative effects are discussed separately.

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

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

12 40 CFR § 1502.15

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 69 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES An irreversible commitment is a permanent or essentially permanent use or loss of resources; it cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long term. Examples include minerals that have been extracted or soil productivity that has been lost. An irretrievable commitment is a loss of production or use of resources for a period of time. One example is the use of timber land for a logging road. Timber growth on the land is irretrievably lost while the land is a road, but the timber resource is not irreversibly lost because the land could grow trees in the near future. The Forest Service recognizes the fact that certain management activities would produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. A. RECREATION SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The scope of this analysis of recreational opportunities extends to winter and summer uses at CBMR on NFS lands within the ski area’s current, and proposed, SUP boundary. With the exception of private lands in the base area and the Prospect area (including Prospector chairlift, Gold Link chairlift, and Painter Boy chairlift), the entirety of CBMR’s existing lift, trail, and infrastructural network operates on public lands administered under a SUP from the GMUG. This analysis defines the existing recreational opportunities within the CBMR SUP area, and provides an analysis of potential changes to the recreational resource anticipated with proposed projects. In particular, this analysis discusses the proposed adjustment of the existing SUP boundary into the Teo Drainage area, existing and proposed ski terrain and lift network, skier circulation and density, multi-season recreation opportunities, and user experiences both within and adjacent to the existing SUP area during the summer and winter seasons.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CBMR is a destination resort that attracts regional and out-of-state visitors of all ability levels. Since its inception as a ski area in 1961, CBMR has gained recognition for its challenging and extreme terrain; however, the current terrain distribution, including the undeveloped terrain network, at CBMR disproportionately caters to upper ability level guests (e.g., advanced-intermediate and expert ability levels). Further, CBMR generally lacks an adequate amount of developed terrain to accommodate the full range of ability levels. As a result, CBMR’s ability to meet public demand for certain terrain types and attract new visitors to the GMUG is limited. Without additional developed terrain that suits a greater range of ability levels, CBMR would continue to be challenged to provide the type of recreation experience consistent with guest expectations. Improvements to ski area infrastructure, facilities, and other components are also needed to address ever-changing guest expectations.

In addition to winter operations, growing numbers of summer visitors to Gunnison County and the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte have resulted in increased interest in multi-season recreation opportunities at CBMR.

Terrain Network CBMR has unique terrain distribution and variety in that the natural topography within the SUP area favors undeveloped terrain over developed, formalized terrain. The undeveloped terrain at CBMR is highly desirable and provides terrain variety that is sought by many skiers; however, it is also limiting

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 70 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

factor, as CBMR is deficient in its total amount of developed terrain available within its SUP area. The natural topography and tree cover of CBMR lends itself to glade skiing, accounting for approximately 367 acres of gladed terrain between, and around, the existing developed runs.13 Within the undeveloped terrain network there are two main areas of Extreme Limits terrain, the area off the High Lift surface lift and the area off the existing North Face surface lift, which, when combined, offer 542 acres of expert ability level terrain.14 While the current terrain variety and distribution at CBMR serves a niche for challenging and extreme terrain, there is only a limited portion of the public that can safely and enjoyably recreate in this more advanced type of terrain.

The developed, or formalized, terrain network at CBMR consists of the named, defined, lift-serviced, maintained runs at the resort. Most of these runs are groomed on a regular basis, although some are intentionally left ungroomed. Despite the importance of undeveloped, alternate style terrain, formalized runs represent the baseline of the terrain at any resort. Developed terrain is where the majority of guests ski, and they are usually the only place to ski during the early season, periods of poor or undesirable snow conditions, avalanche closures, and certain weather conditions. The developed trail network represents a true reflection of acreage used by the average skier on a consistent basis, as well as that used by virtually all skiers during the aforementioned conditions; therefore, the total acreage of the developed terrain and the ability level breakdown must be sufficient to accommodate the full skier capacity of the resort. CBMR’s developed ski trail network accommodates beginner- through expert-level guests on 83 lift- served named trails spanning approximately 638 acres.15

In addition to traditional, cleared, ski trails, the developed terrain network does provide some terrain variety for various ability levels. Open bowl skiing in Paradise Bowl (which is groomed), the Headwall and Rachel’s represent a unique recreation experience within the defined, developed terrain network. Because of their topography and elevation, these bowls generally have ideal snow conditions for intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and expert ability level skiers. Terrain parks located throughout the CBMR SUP area also provide variety within the developed terrain network and are designed to cater to a range of ability level guests. Combined with the undeveloped terrain network, there over 1,547 acres of skiable terrain at CBMR.16

Table 3A-1 illustrates the distribution of terrain by skier ability level for the developed trail network, as well as the distribution of the active skier population at CBMR. The terrain distribution is compared to the industry market norm. Based on the rationale presented in the preceding paragraph, and for the purposes of this analysis, only the developed trail network is applied to the trail acreage calculations, skier classification breakdown, trail capacity, and density formulas. Were this analysis to account for terrain outside of the developed trail network, it would have a misleading effect on calculations; however, as previously discussed, terrain outside of the developed network is very important to terrain variety and the overall quality of the guest experience.

13 CBMR, 2013 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 71 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3A-1. Developed Terrain Network Distribution by Ability Level – Existing Conditions Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Skier Skier/Rider Ability Level Area Capacity Distribution Market (acres) (guests) (%) (%) Beginner 4.1 121.7 2 5 Novice 95.8 1,724.1 25 15 Low-Intermediate 143.9 2,014.9 29 25 Intermediate 198.7 1,987.1 28 35 Advanced-Intermediate 132.4 927.1 13 15 Expert 63.4 190.1 3 5 Total 638.3 6,965 100 100 Source: CBMR 2013

Table 3A-1 shows a surplus of low-intermediate terrain and novice terrain, a deficit of beginner and advanced-intermediate terrain, and a notable deficit of intermediate terrain. The effect of the deficit of intermediate terrain is increased by the surplus of low-intermediate terrain. When considered together, these two categories would cancel each other out and appear to balance well with the market. However, since there is more low-intermediate terrain capacity than intermediate, the implication of this is that much of that terrain does not have sufficient grade to hold the interest of true intermediate skiers. Additionally, there is a deficit of developed expert terrain. This fact is often overlooked, due to the high quantity and quality of alternate, backcountry style terrain; however, during periods of low snow or poor snow conditions, it is important to have sufficient developed terrain for the expert guests.

Skier Circulation CBMR has an average density of 5 skiers per acre, which is 50 percent lower than the industry standard of 10 skiers per acre.17 This is a desirable situation and is reflective of the style and quality of skiing experience that CBMR is trying to create. Lift uphill hourly capacities are intentionally kept low to avoid overcrowding the terrain; however, the low-density numbers also highlight an under-utilization of the existing terrain, indicating that there may be more skiers than necessary waiting in long lift lines (not a frequent occurrence at CBMR) or on slow lifts. These factors can indicate an opportunity to upgrade existing lifts and/or install new lifts within the existing boundaries of the Main Mountain, without creating undesirably high skier densities.

In addition to the trail densities reflected in comparing the number of guests on the trails to the amount of trail area available, there are also observed conditions that create circulation inefficiencies. In its existing state, the North Face surface lift is a surface lift that serves as the primary access point to the North Face and Spellbound Bowl. The current configuration of the North Face surface lift puts pressure on the Paradise Express chairlift, as it does not allow for repeat skiing and requires users to take the Paradise Express chairlift to return to the North Face and Spellbound Bowl areas. The current alignment of the

17 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 72 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

North Face surface lift poses a challenge for circulation across the resort as the Paradise Express chairlift is used by a variety of ability levels to repeat ski the popular developed terrain it directly serves.

Due to the topographic nature of CBMR, which is a very steep and rocky mountain, variable snow years can pose a challenge for skier circulation as poor snow coverage can limit the ability of guests to move throughout the SUP area. CBMR presently provides snowmaking coverage on approximately 297 acres of terrain, which is accommodated by CBMR’s existing snowmaking water rights.18 As described in the 2013 MDP, the 2008 Mountain Improvements Plan erroneously identified 32 acres of snowmaking coverage on trails that did not actually have snowmaking.19 Applying this additional snowmaking coverage is necessary to improve skier circulation that can be hindered by years with below average snowfall.

Visitation and Crested Butte Mountain Resort Capacity Annual skier visitation to CBMR during the winter season has been steadily increasing over the past five years, ranging from 297,173 skier visits during the 2011/12 season and 384,758 skier visits during the 2016/17 season.20 During this five-year period CBMR experienced annual growth rates as high as 20 percent; however, CBMR has been recovering from sustained declines in skier visits since the 1997/98 season, which had record skier visits of approximately 550,000.21 Much of this decline can be attributable to the fact that following the record 1997/98 season, no major mountain upgrades or improvements were pursued and only approximately 35 acres of developed terrain have been added since the 1994/95 season. Future growth is projected to stabilize at approximately 2 percent per year.22

The daily carrying capacity of a resort is described as the CCC. CCC does not indicate a maximum level of visitation, but is rather a planning tool defined as the number of daily visitors a resort can comfortably or efficiently accommodate at one time without overburdening the resort’s infrastructure. The CCC is derived from the resort’s supply of vertical transport (the combined uphill hourly capacities of the lifts) and demand for vertical transport (the aggregate number of runs demanded multiplied by the vertical rise associated with those runs). The CCC is calculated by dividing vertical supply (vertical transport feet/day) by vertical demand. In addition to chairlift and terrain capacity, all other related skier service facilities can be evaluated and planned based on the proper identification of CCC. Under existing conditions, CBMR’s current CCC is calculated at 5,940 guests per day. It is not uncommon for ski areas to experience peak days during which skier visitation exceeds the CCC by as much as 25 percent; however, from a planning perspective, it is not recommended to consistently exceed the CCC due to the resulting decrease in the quality of the recreational experience, and thus the resort’s market appeal.

18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 CBMR, 2017a 21 CBMR, 2013 22 CBMR, 2017a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 73 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Annual summer visitation at CBMR remains much lower than annual winter visitation, reaching its peak in recent years (2016) with an estimated 31,746 visits.23 CCC is not calculated for summer operations as winter infrastructure and facilities provide surplus of accommodations for visitation that occurs in the summer months.

Facilities and Guest Services Sufficient guest service space should be provided to accommodate the existing CCC of 5,940 guests per day. The CCC should be distributed between each guest service facility location according to the number of guests that would be utilizing the lifts and terrain associated with each facility.

Based upon a CCC of 5,940 skiers, Table 3A-2 compares the current space use allocations of the visitor service functions to industry standards for a resort of similar market orientation and regional context as CBMR.

Table 3A-2. Existing Space Use Compared to Industry Average – Resort Total Recommended Range Service Function Existing Total Low High Ticket Sales/Guest Services 2,800 2,140 2,610 Public Lockers 7,350 3,850 4,700 Rentals/Repair 8,866 8,130 10,160 Retail Sales 12,641 2,330 2,850 Bar/lounge 5,123 3,490 4,270 Adult Ski School 4,044 1,920 2,350 Kid’s Ski School and Daycare 6,864 3,640 4,440 Restaurant Seating 13,993 22,470 24,900 Kitchen/Scramble 12,685 8,420 9,340 Restrooms 5,073 4,780 5,290 Ski Patrol 3,745 2,290 2,740 Administration 15,645 6,400 7,820 Employee Lockers/Lounge 4,371 2,130 2,610 Total (square feet) 103,200 71,990 84,080 Source: CBMR 2013

23 Estimate is based on data provided by CBMR (2017). Total summer lift scans in 2016 were 41,845 and total Summer Adventure Park scans were 21,650. As, some people ride the lift and use the Summer Adventure Park while others use one or the other, an average was taken for these two data points, estimating summer visitation at roughly 31,746. It is important to note that other guests use neither the lift served summer activities or the Summer Adventure Park but still visit CBMR by hiking up, biking up, stay in lodging, eating at restaurants, etc. The visitation discussion only discusses the ticketed guests of CBMR, treating non-ticketed users as visitors to NFS lands.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 74 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As illustrated in Table 3A-2, there is currently an overall surplus of space at CBMR, and notable surpluses of retail and administration space. The slight surplus of bar/lounge space offsets the deficit of restaurant seating space since there is also food service provided at these locations. On-mountain ski patrol and first aid operations are headquartered in a station near the top terminal of the Silver Queen Express chairlift, with two satellite patrol stations located in the Gold Link chairlift and Painter Boy chairlift outposts and the East River Express chairlift area. These facilities are well positioned to adequately accommodate the existing terrain and emergency needs of guests. While the information contained in Table 3A-2 isn’t reflective of how individual guest service locations are related to the guest experience, it highlights that in its existing state CBMR’s guest service space and other amenities are capable of accommodating the existing CCC.

Multi-Season Recreation Since the inception of the Summer Adventure Park at the base area in 2009, CBMR has experienced growing demand for summer resort activities and visitation. In 2005 the only summer activities available to guests were scenic lift rides to the top of the Silver Queen Express chairlift and limited mountain biking and hiking trails off the Red Lady Express chairlift. CBMR now offers a variety of summer recreational activities including lift supported mountain biking and hiking, zip line tours, climbing wall, bungee trampoline, mini-golf, disc golf, archery, nature viewing, and public access to the summit of CBMR. With the exception of mountain biking and hiking, the remaining activities are located on private lands in the base area. Beyond the climbing wall in the base area, rock climbing is also offered by CBMR and other outfitter guide permittees within other locations of the SUP area. Additionally, the Adaptive Sports Center operates a ropes course located at the top of the Red Lady Express chairlift. Hang gliding from the summit of the resort is authorized with prior permission, although not offered as a formalized activity. These activities are available in conjunction with the operation of both the Silver Queen Express chairlift and Red Lady Express chairlift, which operate for most of the summer season. The current suite of summer activities on public and private lands at CBMR is reflective of the guest demand for summer recreation activities in the area, which has grown from 5 percent of CBMR’s business in 2005 to a projected 30 percent of business in 2017.24

Although within the CBMR SUP area, Snodgrass Mountain exists in an undeveloped state and offers no formalized public recreation from CBMR during the summer months. All developed recreation opportunities operated by CBMR are located on the Main Mountain. Current public uses of Snodgrass Mountain include dispersed recreational activities such as hiking, mountain biking, trail running, wildflower viewing, backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing. Access to these recreational opportunities is provided by Gothic Road via an trailhead and parking area located just north of the Main Mountain. From this trailhead, guests can access the summit of Snodgrass Mountain via the Snodgrass Mountain road, or connect to other trails on private and NFS lands.

The location and setting of CBMR draws a significant number of tourists to the area. Other regional summer recreational activities and special events in the area include the Wildflower Festival, U.S. Pro Cycling Challenge, tennis, golf, swimming, fishing, rafting, mountain biking, hiking, climbing and

24 CBMR, 2013

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 75 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

camping on private and public lands in and around Gunnison County. Hunting is also a very popular multi-season activity on the GMUG for visitors and locals alike, and draws hunters from across the country to southwestern Colorado and the GMUG. The major big-game species present in the GMUG are mule deer, elk, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, moose, black bear, and mountain lion. Game bird species that are hunted include turkey, blue grouse, mourning dove, and various waterfowl species. As the Teo Drainage area currently exists as NFS lands, hunting is permissible to the public in this portion of the GMUG. Although the area is seldom accessed, portions of the Teo Drainage area are used for hunting in the fall.

In addition to publicly accessible hunting opportunities on NFS lands within the Teo Drainage area there is a hunting outfitter guide that operates under a SUP of their own and adjacent to CBMR. This outfitter provides both guided and unguided hunting trips in all seasons of the year for a fee to users. The permit area of this outfitter was recently amended in 2016 and no longer overlaps the proposed Teo Drainage area. For a complete discussion of land use associated with the hunting outfitter operating adjacent to CBMR, refer to Section F – Land Use.

Mountain Biking and Hiking Trails at CBMR are designated as multi-use or mountain bike only. Within both of these designations, there are also different degrees of difficulty that include beginner, intermediate, and expert. All multi-use trails are also open to hikers and bikers; however, mountain bike only trails are specifically for mountain bikers. The summer road system is also open to hiking but biking is discouraged on these roads due to potential for conflict with mountain operations/maintenance vehicles. CBMR has stated that a goal for the continued development of trails is to remove all mountain bike traffic off the road system to reduce user conflict with vehicular traffic.25

Currently, there are over 20 miles of existing trails for mountain biking and 5 miles of “hiking only” trails at CBMR. From the Silver Queen Express chairlift, two “hiking only” trails are available. The Summit/Peak trail is designated as a NFS trail, leads to the summit of CBMR, and is one of the more popular hiking trails in the Gunnison Ranger District of the GMUG. The Silver Queen trail follows the Silver Queen road from the top terminal of the Silver Queen Express chairlift to the top of the Red Lady Express chairlift and then continues to the base area. Existing multiple-use, hiking, and mountain biking trails are illustrated on Figure 3.

The Evolution Bike Park at CBMR is a comprehensive facility that promotes the sport of mountain biking through an extensive trail network, chairlift access, rental and demo programs, as well as lessons and guided rides. The core of the Evolution Bike Park is the network of trails that offer a wide selection of trails with varying difficulty and design. Chairlift access via the Red Lady Express chairlift opens the sport of mountain biking to a much larger audience including kids and outdoor enthusiasts who may love riding a bicycle but do not have the ability to pedal a bike uphill at 10,000 feet above sea level.

25 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 76 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Modern trail design has also advanced mountain biking to appeal to a larger audience. The trails contained in Evolution Bike Park are typically constructed using machinery and are reflective of flow or hybrid trail styles. Flow trails are wider and incorporate features that allow riders to develop a rhythm with little pedaling or braking, while hybrid trails blend elements of single track and flow trail configurations. Because single tracks are narrower, they often present a greater challenge when designed for downhill and all-mountain/enduro riders. Features such as jumps, rock elements, bridging, and berms are added to these trails to increase the difficulty, but can be done in a controlled manner that supports a learning progression among users. The Evolution Bike Park now has a number of these flow and hybrid trails ranging from beginner trails on smoother, lower gradient terrain to highly technical trails for expert riders only.

The Crested Butte area, beyond the CBMR SUP area, has also been recognized for many years for the quality traditional cross-country single-track in the area. These narrower trails are also included in the Evolution Bike Park, and wind their way through the natural terrain of the mountain, and in several areas connect to other trails that lead off of the resort and further into public lands.

Table 3A-3 lists the existing mileage of mountain biking and hiking trails at CBMR by ability level. Table 3A-3. Existing Summer Trails Trail Name Ability Level Length Multi-Use Painter Boy Easiest 1.4 miles Primer Easiest 0.8 mile Columbine Intermediate 1.6 miles Deer Park Intermediate 0.3 mile Meander Intermediate 0.7 mile Lower Meander Intermediate 2.5 miles Prospector Intermediate 1.7 miles Happy Hour Advanced 0.7 mile Upper Westside Advanced 1 mile Westside Advanced 1.4 miles Lower Westside Advanced 1.1 miles Directional Mountain Biking Trails Awakening Easiest 0.7 mile Lower Awakening Easiest 0.3 mile Downtime Easiest 0.8 mile Hotdogger Easiest 1.4 mile Five Way Intermediate 0.2 mile Frequency Intermediate 0.8 mile Luge Intermediate 1 mile Sharpshooter Intermediate 0.4 mile Teaser Intermediate 0.4 mile Avery Advanced 1.1 miles Boulder Mason Advanced 0.2 mile

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 77 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3A-3. Existing Summer Trails Trail Name Ability Level Length Crusader Advanced 0.9 mile Timeline Advanced 0.7 mile Time Table Advanced 0.4 mile Wood’s Trail Advanced 0.7 mile Captain Jack’s Expert 1.1 miles Psycho Rocks Expert 0.5 mile Directional Mountain Bike and 2-Way Hiking Trails Up and Away Easiest 0.7 mile Hiking Trails Upper Mountain Access Trail -- 0.3 mile Peak Trail Advanced 0.8 mile Yellow Brick/Silver Queen Road Intermediate 2.3 miles Connector/Miscellaneous Trails Upper Loop Trail -- 2.6 miles Miscellaneous Connector Trails -- 1.8 miles Total 33.3 miles Source: CBMR 2013

In recent years Evolution Bike Park has experienced an increasing trend in ridership that parallels the growing popularity of bike parks across the industry as a whole. Within the last three years bike park usership as steadily increased, growing approximately 18 percent since 2014.26 Downhill and all- mountain/enduro riders both fall into the category of gravity riders, a category that has a greater emphasis on riding trails that require less pedaling and utilize natural elevation change and features to travel at higher speeds. Much of this growth in popularity is attributable to advances in bike technology, in which longer travel suspension systems are utilized to absorb much bigger terrain features and obstacles than the mountain bikes tailored to cross country travel. Trail networks and bike parks that cater to gravity style riders have been largely successful at ski areas, as existing infrastructure, namely chairlifts and cleared ski trails that exist with adequate elevation change, can be utilized to provide a highly desirable experience for visitors. Trestle Bike Park at Winter Park and the Whistler Mountain Bike Park are examples of the ski areas that have utilized their existing ski area infrastructure to create mountain bike parks that draw additional visitors to the ski area through multi-season recreation opportunities. Similar opportunities exist for CBMR and the GMUG, especially when considered with the vast existing traditional cross- country trail network that already attracts visitors to NFS lands in the area.

26 Feier, 2017a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 78 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Terrain Network Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to CBMR’s skiing terrain network. The terrain network would continue to include 1,547 acres of skiable terrain, including approximately 909 acres of undeveloped and characteristically challenging terrain contained in the glades and Extreme Limits terrain, as well as approximately 638 acres of formalized, developed ski trails. The deficit of developed intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and expert ability level terrain, compared with market characteristics, would persist.

Skier Circulation Skier circulation would not change from the existing condition. Repeat skiing of the North Face surface lift would continue to be impossible under the current configuration, and pressure on the Paradise Express chairlift would continue to contribute to skier circulation issues. Additionally, certain areas of the Main Mountain would continue to experience inadequate snow coverage in years of variable snowfall as unimplemented but approved snowmaking would not be implemented.

Visitation and Crested Butte Mountain Resort Capacity Visitation to CBMR would continue to reflect baseline trends, reaching a steady annual growth rate of approximately 2 percent for the next five seasons. Projected growth under the No Action Alternative is not anticipated to surpass the record 550,000 skier visits of the 1997/98 season. The CCC at CBMR would remain at 5,940 guests per day. Under the No Action Alternative, ongoing expected impacts of climate change may affect the timing of visitation and the numbers of visitors during the winter season compared to summer, as well as the spring and fall “shoulder” seasons. Changes in the onset and duration of natural snowfall and the ability of CBMR to make snow may alter the spectrum and seasonality of recreational opportunities at the resort.

Facilities and Guest Services The current configuration of facilities and guest services at CBMR, including ski patrol, would continue to accommodate the existing and projected levels of visitation that would occur under the No Action Alternative.

Multi-Season Recreation Under the No Action Alternative, multi-season recreational activities at CBMR would continue to include lift supported mountain biking and hiking, zip line tours, a climbing wall, a bungee trampoline, mini-golf, disc golf, nature viewing, and public access to the summit of CBMR. The Adaptive Sports Center would continue to operate a ropes course located at the top of the Red Lady Express chairlift and hang gliding from the summit of the resort would continue to be authorized with prior permission. Climate change may affect the number of visitors who undertake multi-season recreational opportunities, and may extend the season for non-snowsports at CBMR.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 79 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mountain Biking and Hiking No additional mountain biking or hiking trails would be constructed under the No Action Alternative. Demand for mountain biking opportunities would be expected to continue to grow, consistent with the trends of recent years and the industry as a whole.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Terrain Network Under the Proposed Action, lift-served ski terrain in the Teo Drainage area would be made accessible through a 500-acre SUP boundary adjustment (refer to Figure 2). The adjusted SUP area would be served by the Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts, which would provide access to 89 acres of developed ski terrain across two low-intermediate level ski trails, three intermediate level ski trails, three advanced- intermediate ski trails and four expert ski trails (refer to Figure 2). These ski trails would increase both terrain distribution and variety for a range of ability levels. Terrain variety would be enhanced through the creation of “groomable glades,” meaning that vegetation would not be cleared entirely from edge-to-edge and some natural features would be maintained on trails. This would provide a more natural, backcountry experience while still being appropriate for intermediate and advanced level guests, and expanding upon the developed terrain available to expert ability level guests. Providing an experience that replicates the natural and backcountry style of skiing available elsewhere in the CBMR SUP area supports a learning progression as guests become more comfortable with the extensive undeveloped terrain network. Providing variety within the developed terrain network is crucial to holding the interest of intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and expert ability level skiers, which correlates to increased length of stay as the guest experience is enhanced through greater opportunities within their ability level.

Table 3A-4 describes the impact the proposed trails in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas would have on terrain distribution throughout the terrain network.

Table 3A-4. Developed Terrain Network Distribution by Ability Level – Proposed Conditions Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Skier Skier/Rider Ability Level Area Capacity Distribution Market (acres) (guests) (%) (%) Beginner 4.1 121.7 2 5 Novice 96.2 1,732.5 23 15 Low-Intermediate 155.3 2,173.6 28 25 Intermediate 245.8 2,458.5 32 35 Advanced-Intermediate 124.4 870.6 11 15 Expert 108.1 324.3 4 5 Total 733.9 7,681.1 100 100 Source: SE Group 2017a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 80 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As detailed in Table 3A-4, the distribution of intermediate terrain at CBMR would increase to 32 percent, substantially reducing the deficit in intermediate terrain depicted in Table 3A-1 that presently accounts for 28 percent of skier/rider distribution. Also included in Table 3A-4 is a decrease in the acreage of advanced intermediate terrain, which is attributable to two of the proposed intermediate trails (refer to trails A-1 and A-2 on Figure 2) changing the ability level of the existing Rachel’s and Shep’s Chute ski trails. The proposed trails that overlap the existing Rachel’s and Shep’s Chute ski trails would change the ability level of the existing trails from advanced-intermediate to intermediate by widening the entrances and reducing the average slope of these existing trails by incorporating adjacent terrain that is less steep. When coupled with proposed snowmaking (refer to the Skier Circulation discussion for greater detail), Rachel’s and Shep’s Chute ski trails would become intermediate ability level trails, accounting for a slight loss in advanced-intermediate ability level acreage as shown in Table 3A-4. With the realigned North Face chairlift, and its increased capacity, it is necessary that these trails be capable of serving true intermediate ability level skiers who decide return to the base area via the front side of the mountain. Despite the net reduction of advanced-intermediate ability level terrain, proposed trails B-4, B-5, and B-6 would be added to the advanced-intermediate terrain network under the Proposed Action. The three proposed expert ability level ski trails (refer to ski trails B-1, B-2, B-3 on Figure 2) would increase the skier/rider distribution to 4 percent, reducing the deficit of expert ability level ski terrain to 1 percent.

In addition to developed ski trails, approximately 434 acres of advanced-intermediate and expert glades would become available within the Teo Drainage and Teo Park areas, adding additional variety for upper ability level skiers. Although there are currently ample opportunities for expert ability level glade skiing within the existing terrain network, the additional terrain is needed to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings. Adding variety in the form of undeveloped terrain for guests of these ability levels is important, as terrain diversity is what keeps upper ability level guests interested. Thus, with the installation of two chairlifts, terrain variety would increase through over 500 acres of developed and undeveloped terrain that would become lift-served, addressing the Purpose and Need of increasing the total amount of developed and undeveloped terrain and ski pods, with an emphasis on intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and expert ability levels, in order to improve the skiing opportunities for guests, and thereby extend their length of stay.

Skier Circulation In addition to terrain density in terms of skiers per acre, there are specific project components that are anticipated to have an effect on skier circulation. The following paragraphs further described project components with potential to affect skier circulation.

North Face Chairlift The realigned North Face chairlift would provide enhanced access and connectivity from northern portions of CBMR. Circulation across the resort would improve by replacing and realigning the existing North Face surface lift. It would allow for additional repeat-skiing opportunities for intermediates and would also relieve pressure on the Paradise Express chairlift by providing a second access option from the East River Express chairlift area to the upper mountain. Replacing and realigning the existing North Face surface lift would also relieve pressure from the Paradise Express chairlift and, along with enhanced snowmaking coverage, would enable better circulation of guests to both the existing and proposed terrain.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 81 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Teo Park and Teo Drainage Chairlifts As previously mentioned, the Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts would provide access to new developed ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park portion of the CBMR SUP area, as well as in the adjusted SUP boundary. In doing so, these chairlifts would provide increased circulation throughout the entire SUP area by providing additional developed terrain for intermediate and advanced intermediate skiers, alleviating pressure on similar existing terrain and the chairlifts that serve these areas.

Snowmaking Under the Proposed Action, CBMR would implement 32 acres of previously approved snowmaking coverage on Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails (refer to Figure 2). This additional snowmaking would provide adequate early and late season coverage, as well as sufficient coverage during low-snow years, which would enhance skier circulation throughout these areas. The ability of CBMR to make snow during low-snow years would provide an advantage in the face of climate change-related changes in natural snowfall amounts and duration. In these conditions, CBMR would be able to enhance snowmaking to support or extend snow coverage. Visitation and Crested Butte Mountain Resort Capacity It is anticipated that upon implementation of projects included in the Proposed Action, annual winter visitation growth rates would increase. Under the Proposed Action, annual growth is anticipated to increase to approximately 4.5 percent between the 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons once the Teo Park and Teo Drainage lifts become accessible. Annual growth would remain higher than the normal trend over the

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 82 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences following three seasons (2021/22 to 2023/24), ranging from approximately 3.5 percent to 2.5 percent, before leveling out again approximately five seasons after project implementation. In total, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in an additional 95,696 skier visits over the course of five seasons following project implementation.

The installation of the Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts, as well as replacement and realignment of the North Face surface lift, would result in an increased CCC under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the CCC at CBMR would increase from 5,940 guests per day to 7,830 guests per day.

Summer visitation is also anticipated to increase under the Proposed Action; however, due to limited summer visitation data and summer programs being relatively new at CBMR, it is undetermined how much visitation would increase by. Even in a highest impact scenario, it is clear that summer visitation would remain fractional when compared to winter visitation at CBMR. CBMR would be capable of providing a similar recreation experience for any increase in summer visitation that would attributable to implementation of the Proposed Action. However, climate change may have a minor impact on the timing and amount of summer visitors, especially those who chose recreational opportunities during the summer as well as the spring and fall “shoulder” seasons. These seasons may be extended due to changes in the timing of precipitation, the onset and length of the snow season, and warmer temperatures in the shoulder seasons.

Facilities and Guest Services Under the Proposed Action, CBMR would expand its ski patrol operations to account for the adjusted SUP boundary and incorporation of the Teo Drainage area into the developed lift and trail network. A ski patrol/skier services outpost would be constructed at the top of the proposed Teo Park chairlift and realigned North Face chairlift, and snow safety activities would be expanded to accommodate new terrain in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas. This building would provide a centralized location within the newly developed Teo Drainage area to accommodate the needs of ski patrol and serve as a warming hut for skiers.

There are no additional facilities or guest services included in the Proposed Action; however, CBMR would be able to accommodate the increase in CCC through its existing surplus of space. As indicated in the Affected Environment, there is ample space available at CBMR; therefore, an increase in CCC as is associated with the Proposed Action is anticipated to result in a greater utilization of the existing facilities and guest services.

Multi-Season Recreation Upon implementation of the Proposed Action, there could be a perceived impact to the existing hunting recreation experience in the Teo Drainage area. Public comments received during the public scoping period indicated that incorporation of this area into CBMR’s SUP area might degrade the hunting experience in this area, and potentially displace big game species. It is likely that big game species would avoid the Teo Drainage area during construction, which would affect the recreation resource by potentially degrading the quality of hunting in this area. Beyond the recreation resource, impacts associated with the Proposed Action to big game species and wildlife in general are disclosed in

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 83 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Section I – Fish and Wildlife as well as Section F – Land Use. Hunting would continue to be permissible to the general public following the incorporation of the Teo Drainage into the CBMR SUP area. At this time, there are no summer use trails or other multi-season uses planned in the Teo Drainage area; therefore, no user conflicts are anticipated following implementation of the Proposed Action. When considered with the vast opportunities for hunting on the GMUG, impacts to hunting associated with the Proposed Action are considered negligible.

Aside from the proposed mountain biking and hiking trails detailed in the following discussion, there are no additional multi-season recreation components of the Proposed Action.

Mountain Biking and Hiking Approximately 15.1 miles of multi-use and directional mountain biking trails are proposed within the existing SUP area (and extending to private lands in the base area), increasing CBMR’s summer trail acreage to 40.6 acres (refer to Figure 3). The proposed multi-use trails range from beginner to intermediate ability levels, while the proposed directional mountain biking trails span all ability levels from beginner to expert. The proposed mountain biking trails would cater to gravity riders; however, the Proposed Action would support all types of riding, also continuing to expand cross-country opportunities in the SUP area through the inclusion of multi-use trails. It is anticipated that some of the proposed mountain biking trails would include jumps, rolls, wood bridging, and other terrain features that provide a fluid and flowing ride that is currently demanded by many mountain bikers. All terrain features would be constructed consistent with the ability level of a specific trail, and would be designed to provide users with opportunities for learning progression within the terrain network as a whole.

Table 3A-5 depicts the proposed trail specifications in greater detail, which corresponds to naming conventions included on Figure 3.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 84 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3A-5. Proposed Summer Trails Trail Name Ability Level Length Multi-Use A Intermediate 2.7 miles P Intermediate 1.3 miles R Beginner 0.3 mile S Beginner 0.6 mile Directional Mountain Biking Trails B Beginner 0.4 mile C Intermediate 0.1 mile D Intermediate 0.4 mile E Intermediate 0.5 mile F Intermediate 0.1 mile G Intermediate 0.1 mile H Intermediate 0.3 mile I Expert 0.3 mile J Expert 1.2 miles K Expert 1.6 miles M Intermediate 0.3 mile N Expert 0.3 mile O Expert 0.6 mile Q Intermediate 0.2 mile T Beginner 0.7 mile U Beginner 0.5 mile W Expert 0.5 mile X Intermediate 0.5 mile Y Intermediate 0.3 mile Z Intermediate 0.6 mile Directional Mountain Bike Loop

Va Intermediate 0.5 mile

Vb Intermediate 0.2 mile TOTAL 15.1 miles Source: Feier 2017a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 85 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As highlighted in Table 3A-5, trails included in the Proposed Action are intended to cater to users of all ability levels, and are anticipated to provide additional variety to the existing terrain network. In

particular, trails Va and Vb would create a directional loop, designed both for use by the general public and as well as the Adaptive Sports Program at CBMR. The vertical relief and proximity of this loop to the Adaptive Sports Center are anticipated to provide a unique recreational opportunity through the creation of a skills course specifically for handcycles and future Adaptive Sports programing.

More generally, the remainder of the proposed trails would address the needs of different user groups that engage in summer recreation at CBMR. These groups can be distilled into the following three categories.

• Mountain bikers and hikers that are new to the sport or less experienced. These users may use the Red Lady Express chairlift for biking or hiking access or the Silver Queen Express chairlift for hiking access only. This is the fastest growing segment of the summer guest population, which primarily consists of destination visitors.

• Gravity mountain bikers who seek a variety of downhill only directional trails to test and improve their riding skills. This user group needs a full range of mountain biking trails, from the beginner gravity biker to intermediate and expert gravity riders seeking challenging and exciting terrain.

• Mountain bike riders and hikers that have the desire, physical ability, and stamina to ride and hike in a high alpine environment in either uphill or downhill directions, and are able to safely mix with other uses. This group enjoys expanded opportunities to access areas outside the ski area boundary into the GMUG.

It is anticipated that when added to the existing trail network available on CBMR and adjacent NFS lands, the proposed mountain biking and hiking trails would more adequately address the needs of these user groups than is done by the No Action Alternative, by increasing terrain variety and connectivity for a range of ability levels. As noted above, climate change may increase the length of multi-season recreational opportunities such as mountain biking and hiking, resulting in small changes to the number and timing of visitors to CBMR for these activities.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in this discussion apply to both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on overall recreational opportunities in the CBMR SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Gunnison County, Colorado.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of recreation resources extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 86 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of recreation primarily focuses on NFS lands within, and adjacent to, CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area. However, the cumulative effects study area extends to include recreation opportunities within Gunnison County, some of which are on private lands.

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

The following current and upcoming projects could have cumulative impacts on recreation resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

 CBMR 2013 Resort Master Development Plan  Crested Butte Main Mountain Improvements Plan EA (2007)  1998 CBMR EA  CBMR Mountain Bike Trail Additions CE  CBMR Summit Trail Reconstruction CE  CBMR Mountain Bike Trail Construction CE  CBMR Teocalli 2 Egress CE  CBMR Mountain Bike Skills Park CE  CBMR Yurt Construction CE  CBMR Mountain Biking Trails  Base Area Development  Continued build out of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte  Continued build out of the Town of Crested Butte  Crested Butte Area Plan (2011)  Town of Crested Butte Bike Park  Town of Crested Butte Parks and Recreation Master Plan  Pitkin Travel Proposal EA  Gunnison National Forest Travel Management EIS  Baxter Gulch Trail Project CE  403 Trail Realignment CE  Gothic Corridor Camping and Motorized Travel Restrictions CE  Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association – Fat Bike Grooming and Winter Recreation CE  Tincup Dispersed Camping Closure CE

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 87 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Special Use Outfitter/Guide Permit Reissuances CE  Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Visitor Use Plan  Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation CE  Cottonwood Pass Road Improvement Project (Federal Highway Administration CE)

Recreation within the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Special Use Permit Area Recreation at CBMR has been prevalent since its inception as a ski resort. Skiing and other winter sports have become the driving force behind the economy of the area and draw visitors to CBMR from all over the country. During the summer, recreation opportunities such as mountain biking, hiking, disc golf, horseback riding, zip line tours, archery, and other activities associated with the Summer Adventure Park have been available, although in a more passive environment than winter recreation. Past projects, as listed above, have affected recreational opportunities at CBMR, primarily bolstering the winter recreation opportunities available within the CBMR SUP area but also expanding the multi-season recreation opportunities in more recent years, with an emphasis on the mountain biking trail network.

This cumulative effects analysis analyzes the potential impacts of all projects in the 2013 MDP, including those that are not included in the Proposed Action. As these unimplemented projects are accepted in the 2013 MDP but not approved under environmental review, they are considered here as reasonably foreseeable future projects. Included in the 2013 MDP but not in the Proposed Action are various lift upgrades, trail improvements, and additions to the developed terrain network, as well as updates to guest services and associated facilities. Additionally, approved but unimplemented projects from the CBMR Main Mountain Improvements Plan EA (2007) include the relocated/realigned Gold Link chairlift; upgraded Red Lady Express chairlift; upgraded Painter Boy chairlift; relocated/shortened High Lift surface lift; realigned/upgraded Twister chairlift; a total of six new alpine ski trails; a total of seventeen trail improvement and/or glading projects on existing alpine trails; and additional snowmaking. These were approved for construction in a 2008 Decision Notice.

In combination with previously accepted and approved projects that are reasonably foreseeable, and past projects that have been implemented at CBMR, the proposed projects would supplement existing winter recreation opportunities by providing additional ski terrain and infrastructure that would address existing terrain deficits for intermediate and expert ability levels, while also furthering the progression of summer recreation that has occurred in recent years by expanding the mountain biking and hiking trail networks. It is anticipated that when combined with the recreation opportunities provided by past projects, the Proposed Action would have a combined beneficial impact on the recreation resource. Recreation Opportunities beyond the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Special Use Permit Area Beyond CBMR and in the broader context of Gunnison Valley, opportunities for recreational activities are abundant on both private and public lands, including NFS, Gunnison County, and other municipal lands. Although summer is a short season in the mountain environment, summer recreational opportunities for different types of users outnumber winter recreational opportunities. These are primarily dispersed activities that depend on an individual’s skills, fitness, and experience. They include, but are not limited to hiking, road/mountain biking, off-highway vehicle riding, boating, sightseeing, fishing,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 88 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences camping, horseback riding, rock climbing, kayaking, and rafting. In addition to the hiking trails and mountain biking trails that are available at CBMR, hundreds of miles of trails can be found on NFS lands throughout the GMUG. Visitors of NFS lands outside of the CBMR SUP area are also increasing due to population growth, the natural resources present, and array of dispersed activities that exist in the area. Ongoing projects and visitor management show that this trend is occurring independent of additional recreation being provided at CBMR. While ongoing projects and visitor management work to mitigate the impacts that fall disproportionately on high use destinations, such as those addressed in the Maroon Bells- Snowmass Wilderness Visitor Use Plan, it is anticipated that additional visitors to the area could create future challenges for management and mitigation of impacts to high use destinations. In some cases, the additional recreation opportunities within the CBMR SUP area may alleviate pressure on high use destinations by providing alternative opportunities for recreation in a location that is easier to manage due to its developed nature and existing infrastructure. However, when considered cumulatively with the growing visitation to the greater CBMR area, it is anticipated that pressure on high use destinations would increase.

Additionally, numerous analyses have been completed or are in the process of being completed to address the growing demand and use of recreational resources in the project area. As highlighted in the list of projects with potential to cumulatively affect the recreation resource, an array of management and outfitter/guide permitting have occurred in the project area to ensure that demands for recreation are met and done so in a way that promotes the longevity of natural resource based activities in the project area. On NFS lands these analyses include the Pitkin Travel Proposal EA, Irwin & Tincup Dispersed Camping Closures CE, Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Visitor Use Plan, and Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association – Fat Bike Grooming and Winter Recreation CE, all of which have a focus on addressing the existing use in the project area, which is growing and could cumulatively be added to by proposed projects at CBMR. The Forest Service also experiences pressure to expand the range of outfitter and guide permittees, as is highlighted by the Special Use Outfitter/Guide Permit Reissuances CE that analyzes the reissuance of ten-year permits for numerous recreation providers operating on the GMUG. To address the growing demand for recreation on municipal lands, Town of Crested Butte Bike Park relocation and Town of Crested Butte Parks and Recreation Master Plan have been implemented and accepted (respectively) to address existing and future demand for recreation opportunities within the Town of Crested Butte. Cumulatively, the proposed projects at CBMR could lead to an increase in use of recreation opportunities on NFS lands and municipally owned lands within Gunnison County, as enhanced recreational opportunities available within the CBMR SUP would accommodate additional winter and summer visitors to the broader area. As such, it is likely that the Forest Service and local governments and organizations would continue to allocate resources to expand recreational offerings and address the management of exiting recreation opportunities in the foreseeable future.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources have been identified that may impact the recreational resources in association with the alternatives analyzed in this document.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 89 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

B. SCENERY SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The scope of this scenery resources analysis includes CBMR’s entire 2,890-acre SUP area on the Main Mountain as well as 165 acres on private lands, but focuses on both those portions of the SUP area and private lands where new projects are proposed. The analysis also focuses on the Teo Drainage area, where projects are proposed outside of the current SUP area and within the proposed SUP boundary adjustment.

One critical viewpoint was identified by the ID Team as appropriate for simulating the visual quality of the project area under existing and proposed conditions. A visual simulation was developed to represent the possible visibility of proposed projects:

• Critical Viewpoint 1 – View of the Main Mountain of CBMR, looking north from SH 135 toward the proposed Teo Drainage area. Existing visible infrastructure is limited to sparse residential development on private lands in the foreground. No CBMR infrastructure is visible. The existing condition as viewed from this critical viewpoint is portrayed in Figure 5.

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION Forest Service Visual Management System The goal of landscape management on all NFS lands is to manage for the highest possible visual quality, commensurate with other appropriate public uses, costs, and benefits. The Scenery Management System (SMS) was published in 1995 and the GMUG is currently in the process of mapping existing scenic integrity and developing scenic integrity objectives; however, the Forest Plan, including standards and guidelines, was developed based on the previously published Visual Management System (VMS) and VMS is used for this scenery analysis.

The Forest Service began operating under the guidance of the VMS for inventorying, evaluating, and managing scenic resources on NFS lands in the mid-1970s. The VMS is defined in National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2.27 The VMS provides a system for measuring the inherent scenic quality of any forest area as well as a measurement of the degree of concern for that quality. It also establishes objectives for alteration of the visual resource.

Visual Quality Objectives Per the VMS, NFS lands are assigned VQOs that describe the allowable amount of visual alteration within the Forest. VQOs are based on the physical characteristics of the land and the sensitivity of the landscape setting as viewed by humans.

VQOs range from Preservation (untouched environment) to Maximum Modification (major disturbance). For reference, Preservation VQOs are typically found in designated wilderness areas and special interest

27 USDA Forest Service, 1974

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 90 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

areas, while Maximum Modification VQOs may be found in areas where clearcut timber management activities are prescribed.28

The entirety of the current CBMR SUP area is designated Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. Management Area 1B is assigned a VQO of Modification, which is described as:29 Management activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape. However, activities of vegetation and land form alteration must borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that their visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area of character type. Activities which are predominately introduction of facilities such as buildings, signs, roads, etc., should borrow naturally established form, line, color, and texture so completely and at such scale that its visual characteristics are compatible with the natural surroundings. The Proposed Action contains project components in two Management Areas adjacent to the existing CBMR SUP area: Management Area 2A – Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities, and Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing. At the time the Forest Plan was developed, VQOs were not established for these Management Areas; therefore, no VQOs apply to these areas.

Forest Plan General Direction, Standards and Guidelines Forest-Wide Direction In addition to the VMS, the Forest Plan contains the following Forest-wide general directions, standards, and guidelines that apply to this project:30 General Direction 03: Achieve enhancement of landscapes through addition, subtraction, or alternation of elements of the landscape such as vegetation, rockform, water features, or structures. Examples of these include: addition of vegetation species to introduce unique form, color, or texture to existing vegetation; and vegetation manipulation to open up vistas or screen out undesirable views. General Direction 04: Plan, design, and locate vegetation manipulation in a scale which retains the color and texture of the characteristic landscape, borrowing directional emphasis of form and line from natural features. • Standard/Guideline 04(a): Meet the VQOs of retention and partial retention one full growing season after completion of a project. Meet modification and maximum modification objectives three full growing seasons after completion of a project. General Direction 05: Blend soil disturbance into natural topography to achieve a natural appearance, reduce erosion, and rehabilitate groundcover.

28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 USDA Forest Service, 1991

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 91 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

General Direction 06: Revegetate disturbed soils. In large projects, this may have to be done in stages. • Standard/Guideline 06(a): Revegetate disturbed soils by the following growing season. General Direction 07: Chose facility and structure design, color of materials, location, and orientation to meet the adoptive VQO for the Management Area.

Management Area-Specific Direction All three Management Areas contain direction regarding visual resources that are specific to the intended use of these areas.

Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports contains the following information on the desired condition for scenic values:31 Visual resources are managed so that the character is one of forested areas interspersed with openings of varying widths and shapes. Facilities may dominate, but harmonize and blend with the natural setting. This direction is in recognition of the developed nature of ski areas operating in scenic environments. General direction, standards, and guidelines specific to Management Area 1B and applicable to this project include: General Direction 01: Emphasize visually appealing landscapes (vista openings, rock outcroppings, diversity of vegetation, etc.). • Standard/Guideline 01(a): Meet or exceed the adopted VQO of Modification in ski areas. • Standard/Guideline 01(b): Apply rehabilitation practices where the above objectives are not currently being met. • Standard/Guideline 01(c): Meet visual resource management reflectivity standard of 15 percent or 4.5 on the Munsell Neutral Value Scale.

Management Area 2A – Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities Management Area 2A – Semi-Primitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities contains the following information on the desired condition for scenic values:32 Visual resources are managed so that management activities are not evident or remain visually subordinate. Past management activities such as historical changes caused by early mining, logging, and ranching may be present which are not visually subordinate but appear to have evolved to their present state through natural processes. Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to a desirable visual quality. Enhancement

31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 92 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

aimed at increasing positive elements of the landscape to improve visual variety is also used. General direction, standards, and guidelines applicable to this project include: General Direction 01: Design and implement management activities to provide a visually appealing landscape. Enhance or provide more viewing opportunities and increase vegetation diversity in selected areas. General Direction 02: Manage for adopted VQO. General Direction 03: Implement visual resource management, as outlined in the Forest Management Requirements.

It is important to note that while the Forest Plan specifies that Management Area 2A is to be managed for the adopted VQO, a VQO was not established for this Management Area.

Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing contains the following information on the desired condition for scenic values:33 Management activities are evident but harmonize and blend with the natural setting. General direction for this Management Area are identical to those prescribed for Management Area 2A, above. As with Management Area 2A, while the Forest Plan specifies that Management Area 6B is to be managed for the adopted VQO, a VQO was not established for this Management Area. In addition, no Management Area-specific standards or guidelines were developed for this Management Area.

The Built Environmental Image Guide The BEIG is a manual for the “thoughtful design and management” of the built environment contained within the national forests by province.34 The Forest Service defines the built environment as “the administrative and recreation buildings, landscape structures, site furnishings, structures on roads and trails, and signs installed or operated by the Forest Service, its cooperators, and permittees.”35 The BEIG divides the U.S. into eight provinces that combine common elements from the ecological and cultural contexts over large geographical areas; the GMUG is within the Rocky Mountain Province. Site development, sustainability, and architectural character should conform to BEIG guidelines described for this province.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Scenic Characteristics of the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Special Use Permit Area CBMR has developed chairlift and trail networks, guest service facilities, and other infrastructure on NFS lands to enhance the visitor’s recreational experience within the SUP area since its inception in 1961,

33 Ibid. 34 USDA Forest Service, 2001 35 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 93 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

when developed skiing was first permitted. In total, CBMR includes 1,547 acres of combined developed and undeveloped skiable terrain serviced by 16 lifts spread across the entire permit area. Of this total, approximately 638 acres are developed ski trails. Approximately 542 acres of tree, bowl, and open park skiing opportunities are available and another 367 acres of gladed terrain is available in-between developed trails. Teo Park, though within the CBMR SUP area, currently exists in its natural state; no ski area infrastructure is present.

Vegetation cover within the SUP area varies due to the complex topography, slope aspect, and gradient that exists. Vegetation types include quaking aspen, lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce, along with mixed shrubs on the forest floor, and an assortment of high-alpine grasses and plants above treeline.

The combination of trails, lifts, and facilities that exist at CBMR has resulted in an altered scenic character, distinguished by vegetation patterns typical of cut ski trails. Ski area-related facilities dominate the landscape, with certain trails exhibiting sharply-defined edges and uniform widths. A number of facilities including lifts, restaurants, service buildings, and snowmaking infrastructure that exist across the SUP area are also visible from within the ski area and adjacent private lands.

Existing conditions within the CBMR SUP area are consistent with the Forest Plan VQO designation of Modification. Existing ski area trails and infrastructure are not visible from Critical Viewpoint 1.

Scenic Characteristics of the Special Use Permit Adjustment Area The 500-acre SUP boundary adjustment area contains Management Areas 2A and 6B. While portions of the SUP boundary adjustment area are part of the South Butte Allotment and available for livestock grazing, the area is largely undeveloped and exists in its natural state. Topography is characterized by above-treeline bowls and ridgelines at higher elevations and forested areas below approximately 11,500 feet. Vegetation cover is dominated by Engelmann spruce and fir with some quaking aspen and lodgepole pine, along with mixed shrubs on the forest floor and an assortment of high-alpine grasses and plants above treeline. The westernmost edge of the SUP boundary adjustment area is visible from Critical Viewpoint 1.

As previously discussed, while the Forest Plan specifies that Management Areas 2A and 6B are to be managed for the adopted VQO, VQOs were not established for these Management Areas. The existing condition for the SUP boundary adjustment area does, however, meet the desired condition narratives for both Management Areas.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative No changes or modifications are included in the No Action Alternative that would affect the scenic character of CBMR’s SUP area; however, projects on private lands surrounding CBMR may occur. Generally speaking, the SUP area would continue to meet, and in some cases exceed, the VQO of Modification. The SUP boundary adjustment area would also continue to meet the desired condition narratives specific to the Management Area descriptions.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 94 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Critical Viewpoint 1 serves as a baseline to illustrate and compare the effects of implementation of the Proposed Action. No changes or modifications would be approved that would change these existing conditions. Existing visible infrastructure is limited to sparse residential development on private lands in the foreground. No CBMR infrastructure is visible. The existing condition as viewed from this critical viewpoint is portrayed in Figure 5.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Existing Crested Butte Mountain Resort Special Use Permit Area Implementation of the Proposed Action would incrementally contribute to the developed character of CBMR’s SUP area, which is identified in the Forest Plan as Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Recreation. With adherence to PDC, identified in Table 2-2, the proposed projects are not expected to increase visual resource impacts to the character of the SUP area, such that it would not meet the VQO of Modification. The proposed projects would be located within the existing developed trail network or otherwise near existing ski area infrastructure, which would reduce the need for vegetation clearing and overall visual resource impacts. Visual impacts are anticipated to be similar to the existing ski trails and lift infrastructure in terms of line, form, color, texture, and scale. Impacts by proposed project are described in detail in the following discussions.

Chairlifts One new chairlift would be constructed and one chairlift replaced within the existing SUP area under the Proposed Action. The Teo Park chairlift would be a new top-drive chairlift located within an area that is rarely skied due to difficult terrain access from the existing lift network. The top terminal of the Teo Park chairlift would be located near the top terminal of the existing North Face surface lift, and both terminal locations are planned to minimize the amount of ground disturbance necessary for construction while also providing efficient skier flow and access. Installation of the chairlift towers would require excavation for foundations. The proposed chairlift terminals and towers would be colored to maximize blending with the surrounding summer landscape. Construction of the chairlift would require a corridor of variable width to be created through the forest canopy; however, much of the corridor is located in unvegetated areas, negating the need for visually impactful overstory vegetation clearing. Vegetation clearing would be required primarily near the bottom terminal. PDC for the lift line would minimize the negative scenic effect of a linear corridor by creating larger openings in key locations, to better blend into the surrounding landscape when viewed in winter. A complete list of PDC for scenery resources is identified in Table 2-2.

The North Face chairlift replacement and realignment would replace the existing surface lift with a fixed- grip quad chairlift. Construction methodology and associated impacts would be similar to those described for the Teo Park chairlift. While the top terminal would remain in approximately the same location, the bottom terminal would be shifted to the north in a previously disturbed area and proximate to other ski area infrastructure; therefore, the realigned chairlift would result in minor and incremental impacts to scenic resources.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 95 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Additional Ski Terrain The Proposed Action includes the construction of new ski trails and the addition of tree skiing and open bowl skiing in the Teo Park area, which is currently within the SUP area but difficult to access. There would be no scenic impacts resulting from the addition of open bowl skiing terrain during the summer season, because no vegetation removal would be required. Tree skiing would have some impact on scenic resources, as between approximately 10 to 50 percent of tree basal area would be removed. This tree removal would modify the color and texture composition of forested areas within this terrain; however, this clearing would not be homogenous and linear cuts in overstory vegetation would be minimized.

Developed ski trails have been designed with consideration for the aesthetic resource. Where ski trails would be fully cleared of vegetation, trail edges would be feathered or scalloped to provide a variable line, thereby minimizing linear cuts in overstory vegetation. Larger inter-trail tree islands would be maintained to minimize the impact of cleared trails. Only limited spot grading would occur, so revegetation/soil stabilization efforts would be expected to have a high success rate. Cleared areas would be revegetated with a native grass mix. A complete list of PDC identified for scenic resources is included in Table 2-2.

Ski Patrol Building/Warming Hut The ski patrol building/warming hut would be located at treeline and would be partially screened by vegetation (first floor only); however, the structure would incorporate suitable massing and scale to relate to the surrounding landscape. The exterior of the building would include materials to match the backdrop of the alpine environment during the summer season. The roof form would be consistent with examples portrayed in the BEIG for the alpine environment. Final design of the facility would be reviewed and approved by the Forest Landscape Architect to minimize impacts to the scenery resource. Upon site review prior to project implementation, the ski patrol/warming hut building would comply with the BEIG guidelines and American Disabilities Act (ADA) and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) regulations.

Terrain Access Improvements Five terrain access improvement projects would be completed within existing terrain that is currently skied and within or proximate to existing trails. All five projects would require grading linear trails between 6 to 10 feet wide, and between 40 and 180 feet long depending on the project. While these projects would add incrementally to the modified/altered character of the project area, they would be consistent with the VQO of Modification.

Mountain Biking and Multi-Use Trails The proposed mountain biking trails would require vegetation removal and grading, which could result in changes to scenic character within the CBMR SUP area. Disturbed areas surrounding the trail tread would be revegetated. The most visible trails would be in existing ski trails, which lack natural screening provided by tree islands. These trails within existing ski trails would be visible in the foreground and middleground distance zones from portions of the CBMR SUP area and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte.

According to Forest Service direction under SAROEA that further clarifies appropriateness of additional seasonal and year-round activities at ski areas on NFS lands, the proposed mountain biking trails would

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 96 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

be visually consistent with or subordinate to the ski area’s existing facilities, vegetation and landscape. Mountain biking trails would be dispersed throughout the CBMR SUP and, given their lack of physical infrastructure, would blend in with the surrounding environment and landscape.

Mountain biking and hiking trails are found throughout NFS lands and are generally considered to be visually subordinate to the vegetation and landscape. Constructed mountain biking trail features would be appropriate in size and design for the setting, visually blend in with the site, and be constructed of natural materials. All trail features, including those that are temporary, would be designed to blend with the surrounding environment through the appropriate use of materials and colors.

Special Use Permit Boundary Adjustment Area Incorporating the proposed 500 acres of Management Areas 2A and 6B into CBMR’s SUP area would change the Management Area of these 500 acres to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. The SUP boundary adjustment area would acquire the desired condition, general direction, standards, and guidelines of Management Area 1B. In addition, the SUP boundary adjustment area would be assigned a VQO of Modification.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would introduce developed ski area infrastructure into an area that currently exists in its natural state. The Teo Drainage chairlift and associated terrain would be visible from multiple locations within CBMR’s current and adjusted SUP area. No chairlift infrastructure and only a small area of cleared skiing terrain would be visible from Critical Viewpoint 1. Refer to Figure 6 for a visual simulation of the potential scenic condition under the Proposed Action.

Construction of the Teo Drainage chairlift and surrounding terrain would be similar to that describe for the Teo Park chairlift. An access road would be constructed to the top terminal; however, as the chairlift would be constructed as a top-drive chairlift, an access road to the bottom terminal is not required. In winter, it is anticipated that snowpack in the Teo Drainage would display additional evidence of skiing activity (tracks) compared to current conditions. Scenic impacts would be discernable to the casual observer; however, due to the popularity of CBMR as a destination ski area, it can be reasonably assumed that the majority of visitors expect to encounter developed lift and trail systems within the viewshed. The impacts to scenery resources of the proposed projects are considered in relation to the overall existing development, recreational, and residential theme of CBMR and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. With adherence to PDC, identified in Table 2-2, the proposed projects are not expected to increase visual resource impacts to the character of the area, such that it would not meet the new VQO designation of Modification. Compliance with Forest Plan Direction for Scenery Management The projects included in the Proposed Action would alter the appearance of the CBMR SUP area and add incrementally to the developed character of the landscape. However, with the implementation of associated PDC, the CBMR SUP and proposed SUP adjustment area would continue to be consistent with the VQO of Modification.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 97 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Compliance with Built Environment Image Guide Prior to construction, all proposed facilities, including lift infrastructure, would undergo Forest Service review to ensure compliance with the BEIG. This includes considering the landscape, cultural and ecological character, as well as the architectural guidelines which include descriptions of appropriate siting, massing, scale, structure, materials, color, and sustainability efforts. This review is part of the Forest Service Design Review Process for all new or remodeled structures built on the forest.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of scenery extends from CBMR’s inception as a ski area in 1961, through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

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

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

The following current and upcoming projects could have cumulative impacts on scenery resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

• CBMR 2013 Resort Master Development Plan

• Crested Butte Main Mountain Improvements Plan EA (2007)

• 1998 CBMR EA

• CBMR Mountain Bike Trail Additions CE

• CBMR Summit Trail Reconstruction CE

• CBMR Mountain Bike Trail Construction CE

• CBMR Teocalli 2 Egress CE

• CBMR Mountain Bike Skills Park CE

• CBMR Yurt Construction CE

• CBMR Mountain Biking Trails

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 98 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Base Area Development

• Continued build out of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte

• Continued build out of the Town of Crested Butte

• Crested Butte Area Plan (2011)

• Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response EIS (2016)

In combination with previously accepted and approved projects that are reasonably foreseeable, and past projects that have been implemented at CBMR, the proposed projects would contribute incrementally to the modified nature of the area, and would further detract from the natural character of visual resources as viewed from SH 135, the CBMR SUP area, and the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte. These changes could take the form of additional built infrastructure, overstory vegetation clearing, and tree stand thinning.

Ongoing projects show that changes to the visual attributes of the surrounding areas are occurring independently from additional project implemented at CBMR. As discussed above, the Forest Plan includes mechanisms for the management of scenic resources Forest-wide. While the Forest Plan includes numerous management prescriptions that could impact scenic resources across the Forest, the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines will ensure that scenic quality is maintained or improved.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The addition of ski trails, lifts, and associated infrastructure within the SUP area would represent irretrievable effects to scenery resources at CBMR; however, this commitment of scenery resources is not irreversible because facilities could be removed and, in time, areas could be reclaimed and revegetated, restoring their natural appearance.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 99 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

C. NOISE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The spatial bounds considered for this analysis of noise include the CBMR SUP area and adjacent public and private lands. Additional noise and alterations to the existing soundscape have the potential to be generated by operation and construction of the proposed projects, including timber removal. Existing noise levels in the study area are assessed to construct a set of baseline conditions that to compare noise impacts associated with Proposed Action. As the Teo Drainage area would be the primary area where projects would be implemented, this area is the focus of this analysis. Noise associated with the operation and construction of projects throughout the existing and proposed SUP area and noise from the helicopter that would be used for timber removal and project implementation are analyzed and disclosed within this section.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Throughout this analysis, weighted decibel (dBA) levels are used in order to compare the relative loudness of sounds as perceived by the human ear.36 For comparison purposes, typical noise levels associated with a variety of common sources are outlined in Table 3C-1. Table 3C-1. Noise Levels for Common Sources Source/Type Noise Level (dBA) Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Quiet rural area 25 to 30 Quiet residential area 40 Conversation, busy office 50 to 60 Heavy traffic 70 Diesel truck 80 to 90 Snowmobile at a distance of 25 feet 100 Thunder 120 Source: Center for Hearing and Communication 2016

In general, winter operations have higher noise levels than summer operations at CBMR. With approximately 384,758 annual winter visitors compared to the estimated 31,746 annual summer visitors, the overall activity in the project area is much higher during the winter months.37 Noise generated by guests and infrastructure occurs throughout the SUP area and base area. Existing noise levels within the SUP area and away from the base area can range from a level similar to a quiet rural area (25 to 30 dBA) in the expansive undeveloped extents of the terrain network, to a level similar to a snowmobile at a distance of 25 feet (100 dBA) in areas where heavy equipment including snowmobiles, snowcats, and chairlifts may dominate the soundscape for short periods of time. Characteristically, noise levels in the

36 dBA is a measurement of sound level expressed in decibels, filtered or weighted at various frequencies to approximate the response of the human ear. A decibel (dB) is a unit for measuring the intensity of sound. The human hearing range is from 0 dB (the theoretical threshold of audibility) to 130 dB (the average pain threshold). 37 CBMR, 2017a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 100 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

SUP area are closer to the low end of the 25 to 100 dBA range. Despite being located on private lands, noise levels in the base area are important because guests enter through this portal to NFS lands. Sounds heard in this area can affect the guest’s overall experience. Guests would expect to hear noises from people gathering, dining facilities, ticket offices, retail and rental shops, concerts or music, and nearby traffic. Noise levels for this area could range from a conversation (50 dBA) to heavy traffic (70 dBA).

Existing noise levels during the summer months within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area would continue to be generated from a number of sources including mountain maintenance and operations, base area traffic and activity, and recreation-related noise. These noise levels would likely be observed during operational hours (mid-June to mid-September, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). Summer mountain operations are located around the Summer Adventure Park, areas served by the Red Lady Express chairlift, and areas served by Silver Queen Express chairlift. Noise observed around these areas originate from recreational users participating in multi-season recreation opportunities such as mountain biking, hiking, disc golf, zip lining, and more. Mountain biking and hiking activates typically generate noise levels comparable to a normal conversation (60 dBA). The operation of chairlifts and summer infrastructure that serve these activities can be heard in these areas when in close proximity and range from 60 to 80 dBA, depending on the type of activity and the listener’s proximity. Similar to winter operations, there are portions of the SUP area where dispersed recreation occurs that more closely resembles the quiet rural area (25 to 30 dBA) noise level.

Mountain maintenance and on-going construction activities, which primarily occur during the summer months, can cause high decibel levels of noise. These noises can originate from trucks traveling up and down mountain roads, workers conducting lift and facility maintenance, construction of new infrastructure, and logging operations to remove dead trees or construct new trails. Typical noise levels from construction equipment and activity can range from those similar to heavy traffic (70 dBA) to diesel truck (90 dBA).

Additionally, the use of helicopter for the removal of trees and other construction related projects has occurred in the past during the summer months. In 2007 the Forest Service conducted a noise measurement study of two heavy-lift helicopters (the Boeing Vertol 107 and the Kaman KMAX) taken in the field during helicopter logging operations.38 This study was used to determine auditory impact of helicopter logging operations on threatened species by recording the dBA of the aircraft at various distances. Sound data was gathered while the helicopters were in flight traveling to and from log landing sites to collect their loads; data was not gathered at the service (fueling) landing because the helicopter sound generated at this location is at its lowest noise level as the helicopter is not carrying a load.39 The louder of the two helicopters, the Vertol 107, has a range of approximately 80 dBA at a horizontal distance of approximately 850 feet to 100 dBA at a horizontal distance of approximately 200 feet.40 The regression associated with this range indicates that loudness would be incrementally greater within 200 feet and incrementally lower beyond 850 feet.

38 Harrison, 2008 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 101 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The typical noise levels from construction equipment, including helicopters, is on the higher end of relative loudness; however, these activities generally last for a short duration of time. Other events that feature live or amplified music and/or speakers also occur in the base area during both the summer and winter seasons, although not on a regular basis. Noises at these events are similar to that of a small outdoor concert, which can range from 110 to 120 dBA.41

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, noise impacts within the CBMR SUP area would not change from those described under Affected Environment. Existing noise levels within the SUP area would continue to range from 25 to 30 dBA in the expansive undeveloped extents of the terrain network, to 100 dBA in areas where heavy equipment may dominate the soundscape for short periods of time.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, noise within and adjacent to the proposed CBMR SUP boundary would be generated from similar sources as described in the Affected Environment. The proposed projects are not anticipated to result in uncharacteristic increases to the existing noise levels within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area; however, the construction of proposed projects could result in a temporary increase noise levels within and adjacent to the proposed SUP area. With the exception of proposed projects in the proposed Teo Drainage area, operational noise of additional recreational users would add incrementally to existing noise levels within the CBMR SUP boundary. This additional noise in the SUP area is not anticipated to have an adverse effect; however, noise in the Teo Drainage area would be new rather than an incremental increase. Both noise associated operations and construction are detailed in the following discussion.

Operations Noise associated with the operation of proposed projects and activities would be long term, and would occur throughout the winter and summer seasons for the life of the project. As previously discussed, proposed projects occurring within CBMR’s current SUP area (prior to adjustment) would have an incremental effect on the existing soundscape. The noises and noise levels of projects and activities that would be added to the SUP area are characteristic of noise and noise levels that are currently heard in the SUP area. Further, it is anticipated that the incremental increase in noise would be diluted as the proposed activities would disperse users throughout the SUP area and are not concentrated in areas already characterized by loudness like the base area.

The extension of the SUP boundary into the Teo Drainage area and associated projects that would be constructed in this area would alter the existing soundscape of these NFS lands. As there are currently no ski area operations or activities on NFS lands in this area, noise levels are estimated as that of a quiet rural area or quiet residential area, ranging from 25 to 40 dBA. Noise from adjacent ski area operations are likely heard in this area during the winter season; however, the do not characterize the soundscape. Upon implementation of the Proposed Action and construction of lift-served skiing in this area it is anticipated

41 Center for Hearing and Communication, 2016

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 102 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

that the soundscape would more closely resemble that which is currently associated with the existing SUP area. Noise would be generated by guests and infrastructure that would be constructed in the Teo Drainage. It is anticipated that noise would range from a level similar to a quiet rural area (25 to 30 dBA) in the less developed extents of this terrain to a level similar to a snowmobile at a distance of 25 feet (100 dBA) where heavy equipment, including snowmobiles, snowcats, and chairlifts may dominate the soundscape for short periods of time.

Construction Construction-generated noise would generally be short term, as it would cease upon completion of the project. Noise from construction-related activities would include construction equipment (i.e., diesel trucks, log skidders, helicopter), construction of the proposed activities (e.g., falling logs and pouring concrete), and transporting materials for construction.

A variety of construction vehicles could be used for the proposed projects, and could include standard pickup trucks, diesel concrete trucks, and/or diesel flatbed semi-tractor trailers. The proposed activities are estimated to require 2,758 truckloads of materials and equipment over a two-year implementation period. Assuming that construction takes place at an even pace over the course of two summers, a typical summer day may experience up to a 14 truck trips for timber removal and project staging/building, as well as an additional 10 to 30 vehicle trips for construction workers arriving and leaving the site. Noise levels from diesel trucks typically ranges from 80 to 90 dBA.42

Construction noises could also cause higher noise levels from such activities as falling trees and pouring concrete, as well as flying equipment and removing trees with helicopters. Tree removal for all projects is proposed to be accomplished primarily via helicopter, with skidding to centralized areas for transport when applicable. Noise levels from equipment used to fall trees (e.g., chainsaws, spider hoe with masticator, and skidsteers), as well as concrete trucks and mixers, all range from 80 to 90 dBA.

As discussed under the Affected Environment, helicopters associated with tree removal have a noise range of 80 dBA at a horizontal distance of approximately 850 feet to 100 dBA at a horizontal distance of approximately 200 feet.43 Trees removed in the Teo Drainage area would be flown via helicopter to an identified landing zone (refer to Figure 4) just above the existing Brush Creek trailhead parking lot where they would then be taken off-site via truck. It is anticipated that this location would likely experience the greatest noise impact from helicopter use as NFS users are most likely to be within audible range. As previously mentioned, the regression associated with noise generated by the helicopter continues to taper off beyond 850 feet, resulting in incrementally less than 80 dBA loudness the further one gets from the helicopter.44 The entirety of the flight path is well beyond 850 feet away from population centers and residential areas; therefore, it is anticipated that noise associated with the helicopter would be comparable to heavy traffic, and only isolated users of NFS lands in closest proximity to timber staging areas and the landing zone (refer to Figure 4) would experience loudness within the 80 dBA to 100 dBA range.45

42 Ibid. 43 Harrison, 2008 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 103 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Helicopter refueling would occur in an existing open area adjacent to the Ten Peaks event site (refer to Figure 4). It is anticipated that noise at the service landing would be lower than that of the landing zone because the helicopter sound generated at this location is at its lowest noise level as the helicopter is not carrying a load.46

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in this discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on overall recreational opportunities in the CBMR SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Gunnison County, Colorado.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for noise extend from CBMR’s inception as a resort in 1961 through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

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

 CBMR 2013 Resort Master Development Plan  Crested Butte Main Mountain Improvements Plan EA (2007)  1998 CBMR EA  Base Area Development  Continued build out of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte  Continued build out of the Town of Crested Butte  Crested Butte Area Plan (2011)  Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District CE The adjustment and development within and adjacent to the existing CBMR SUP area has incrementally added to the level of noise in the area. Within the CBMR SUP area, noise levels have been impacted by the development of additional ski terrain, construction of chairlifts, construction of mountain biking and hiking trails, and similar activities included in the past analyses and documents listed above. Additionally,

46 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 104 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

future projects that have yet to be implemented and are included in these documents and analyses would be expected to further add to noise levels within the CBMR SUP area. Adjacent to the CBMR SUP area, residential construction, Town of Crested Butte development, Town of Mt. Crested Butte development, the use of heavy machinery for replacement of ageing infrastructure and improvements associated with the Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District CE, and additional construction within the CBMR base area have already or will continue to increase noise levels in the study area.

The Proposed Action would incrementally add to noise levels within the CBMR SUP area with the construction of the activities in the short term and with additional visitors and traffic in the long term. These developments and future CBMR development would gradually add to the level of noise within the SUP area, which could potentially be heard from adjacent public and private lands. Further, the adjustment of CBMR’s SUP boundary and development of lift-served skiing opportunities in the Teo Drainage would increase noise levels in an area not previously affected by ski area operations, further extending the reach of CBMR’s contribution to noise levels when considered cumulatively with other projects.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Under the Proposed Action, ski area operations and infrastructure would extend into the Teo Drainage area, an area that is not currently within CBMR’s SUP area. This would result in a long-term alteration to the soundscape that represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. The implementation of lift- served skiing opportunities in the Teo Drainage area is not considered an irreversible commitment of this resource because operations could be discontinued, returning the soundscape of this area to its natural state. No additional irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources have been identified that may impact noise levels in association with the alternatives analyzed in this document. D. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The additional winter facilities proposed and the development of multi-season recreation activities at CBMR have the potential to affect not only the physical environment but also the social and economic (socioeconomic) environment. A correlation exists between public use of NFS lands and the economies and societies of adjacent communities. This correlation encompasses many factors such as employment, tourism, the business of other permit holders on NFS lands, and workforce housing in Gunnison County, which are assessed and disclosed herein. Additionally, the Proposed Action’s compliance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations is assessed and disclosed herein. The project area is defined as Gunnison County, Colorado.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 105 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Population The population of Gunnison County has been steadily growing for the past thirty years. The population of Gunnison County increased by 55 percent between 1985 and 2015, growing from 10,390 to 16,145.47 Table 3D-1 highlights the population totals for Gunnison County between 1985 and 2015 in greater detail.

Table 3D-1. Historic Gunnison County Population Totals for the Period of 1985 to 2015 County 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 % Change Gunnison 10,390 10,281 11,974 13,989 14,473 15,309 16,145 55 Source: Colorado State Demography Office 2016

The Colorado State Demography Office has projected a strong growth trend for the next thirty-five years, but not as substantial as has been observed since 1985. Between 2015 and 2050, population in Gunnison County is projected to increase by 46 percent, growing from 16,145 in 2015 to 23,575 in 2050.48 Table 3D-2 highlights the projected population for Gunnison County between 2015 and 2050.

Table 3D-2. Projected Gunnison County Population Totals for the Period of 2015 to 2050 County 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 % Change Gunnison 16,145 17,189 18,372 19,540 20,682 21,786 22,712 23,575 46 Source: Colorado State Demography Office 2016

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Employment As is true for most ski areas and mountain resorts, CBMR employs more workers in the winter than in the summer. CBMR currently employs approximately 537 full-time employees and 333 part-time employees in the winter, and approximately 240 full time employees and 72 part-time employees in the summer.49 Table 3D-3 depicts the baseline employment at CBMR.

Table 3D-3. CBMR Baseline Employment Employment Type Full-Time Part-Time Year-Round Employment 125 N/A Winter Seasonal Employment 537 333 Summer Seasonal Employment 240 72 Source: Feier 2017b

47 Colorado State Demography Office, 2016 48 Ibid. 49 Feier, 2017b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 106 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Housing In 2016 the Gunnison Valley Housing Needs Assessment was prepared to quantify current and future housing needs in Gunnison Valley.50 This analysis determined that there is a shortage in the supply of housing that is affordable for Gunnison Valley residents. As is the case in many mountain communities, the assessment found that the percentage of residential units in Gunnison Valley that house local residents has been decreasing while the number of second/vacation homes has been on the rise.51 The housing shortage has caused both rent and purchase prices to increase at a time when incomes in the Gunnison Valley have been holding steady. Housing prices throughout Gunnison Valley are now higher than most resident households can afford.52

The current state of the housing market throughout Gunnison Valley is affecting the economy of Gunnison County. The Gunnison Valley Housing Needs Assessment reported that approximately 70 percent of employers indicated that the availability of housing affordable for the workforce is a serious or the most critical problem in the region and approximately 360 jobs were unfilled as of August 2016, just three months prior to the start of ski season.53 It is evident that housing conditions in Gunnison Valley create a situation in which it is difficult to recruit and retain employees.

In general, the assessment noted that housing issues were at their most severe in the North Valley, which includes the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte, where the majority of CBMR employees live and CBMR is located. CBMR, as part of the Vail Resorts corporate family, currently owns and/or manages eight units that are rented exclusively to CBMR employees. These include three units at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, one unit in the Paradise Condos, three units in the Plaza Condos, and one unit in the Crested Mountain North Condos. In total, CBMR’s employee housing units can accommodate a maximum of 18 employees, depending on the configurations of each unit. Additionally, CBMR built six lots/units upon the Homestead Development (deed restricted, affordable multi-family housing) in 2006 that were sold to CBMR employees at the time. There are also 22 buildable lots/units still available in the Homestead Development (11 owned by the Mueller family, former owners of CBMR, and 11 owned by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte); the Mueller family real estate management team and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte are currently in negotiations to develop the remaining 22 lots/units via a third party developer.

The vast majority of employees live in the Town of Crested Butte or Gunnison, with only small percentages living in the Town of Mt. Crested Butte or other locations within the region. CBMR is an active supporter of the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority and holds an at-large position on their board. As such, CBMR works for, and has contributed financially to, valley-wide affordable housing efforts. Currently, 443 homes in the Gunnison Valley are restricted through some type of income, employment, and/or residency requirements, which equates to just over 7 percent of all occupied housing units.

50 Rees, 2016 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 107 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Economy Base industry economic drivers are defined by industries such as mining, manufacturing, agriculture, national and regional services, government, and households. These industries draw money into the area from other regions. Within Gunnison County, tourism is the largest base industry and accounts for approximately 35 percent of all employment in the county.54 The second largest base industry is household retirees at approximately 15 percent, followed by government at approximately 14 percent.55 While not necessarily a major economic driver, agriculture and ranching are one of Gunnison County’s most important assets. Many mountain communities with large ski areas similar to CBMR have lost their agricultural character to development; however, Gunnison County has managed to maintain an authentic ranching community as part of its character and brand. As a defining part of Gunnison County’s character, agriculture and ranching have a significant economic value.56 Natural resources and amenities are also economic drivers for tourism and residents in Gunnison County. Activities such as skiing, fishing, hunting, boating, biking, off-road vehicles, equine activities, hiking, etc. all rely on the pristine environment and natural landscapes of Gunnison County.57

When compared to national standards, it is evident that travel and tourism greatly contribute to the economy of Gunnison County. Tourism in Gunnison County accounts for approximately 39 percent of all employment, compared to approximately 16 percent of all employment in the U.S.58 According to the Gunnison-Crested Butte Tourism Association, tourism resulted in total direct spending by visitors of $150.6 million dollars, generating more than $5.5 million in local taxes and 1,870 tourism related jobs.59 The Town of Crested Butte experienced a 23.2 percent increase in sales tax from 2011 to 2014, the Town of Mt. Crested Butte a 19.5 percent increase in sales tax, and Gunnison County a 15.4 percent increase in sales tax.60 These trends indicate that travel and tourism would likely continue to be a major component of Gunnison County’s economy, generating employment, visitor spending, and tax revenue for the foreseeable future.

CBMR is a major employer in Gunnison County, and is one of only approximately five employers in the county with a capacity to employ more than 250 employees.61 CBMR operates year-round and generates tourism in the Town of Crested Butte and Gunnison County throughout all months of the year. Tourists are primarily drawn to CBMR for the purpose of winter recreation. As discussed in Section A – Recreation, annual winter visitation has been steadily increasing over the past decade and accounts for approximately 384,758 visitors. It is important to note that while visitation is currently increasing at CBMR, it is considerably lower than visitation recorded during the1997/98 season, which totaled approximately 550,000 visits during the winter season. It is assumed that the vast majority of tourism to

54 Colorado Department of Local Affairs, 2017 55 Ibid. 56 Gunnison County, 2014 57 Ibid. 58 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2017 59 Gunnison County, 2014 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 108 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the Town of Crested Butte and Gunnison County during the winter months is related to recreation opportunities at CBMR.

While winter visitation at CBMR has been rebounding over the past decade, summer visitation to the ski area has experienced consistent growth during this same period and is currently at its height. CBMR currently records approximately 31,746 summer visits.62 Summer visitation at CBMR is generated by the activities and events that exist not only at CBMR, but also in the Town of Crested Butte and Gunnison County as a whole. The recreational activities offered on NFS lands at CBMR may attract locals and those already visiting the area, but generally do not generate visits in-and-of themselves. In other words, few visitors are coming to CBMR solely for the recreational activities offered on NFS lands.

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Special Use Permittees In addition to CBMR, there are many different permit holders operating on NFS lands within the GMUG. A special-use authorization is a legal document such as a permit, term permit, lease, or easement that allows occupancy, use, rights, or privileges of NFS lands.63 The authorization is granted for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time and may involve anything from outfitting and guide activities, ski resorts, lodging, and marinas to energy transmission and development, commercial filming, and more.64 There are other users with special-use authorization to operate on NFS lands in close proximity the CBMR SUP area that have the potential to experience economic impacts associated with changes in CBMR’s operations. In closest proximity to CBMR are livestock and grazing permittees that have operations abutting CBMR’s current SUP area and the Teo Drainage area, and a hunting outfitter that operates near the Teo Drainage area.

As previously mentioned, agriculture and ranching are some of Gunnison County’s most important assets. Grazing on public lands is a component of this broader economic asset and provides livestock-based economic opportunities for private entities in Gunnison County. The CBMR SUP area and the Teo Drainage area are overlapped by two components of the Butte Allotment, which have potential to be affected by the proposed projects. The South Butte Allotment overlaps portions of the Teo Drainage area and the North Butte Allotment overlaps portions of the current CBMR SUP area.

Outfitter and guide permits for the use of public lands provide another economic opportunity for private entities in Gunnison County. Outfitters and guides are a component of the broader tourism industry as they provide a service that draws visitors to the area. A hunting outfitter operating directly adjacent to the existing and proposed CBMR SUP area is permitted during all seasons. The CBMR SUP area and Teo Drainage areas were included in the hunting permit area until an amendment in March 2016 removed

62 Estimate is based on data provided by CBMR (2017). Total summer lift scans in 2016 was 41,845 and total Summer Adventure Park scans were 21,650. As, some people ride the lift and use the Summer Adventure Park while others use one or the other, an average was taken for these two data points, estimating summer visitation at 31,746. It is important to note that other guests use neither the lift served summer activities or the Summer Adventure Park but still visit CBMR by hiking up, biking up, stay in lodging, eating at restaurants, etc. The visitation discussion only discusses the ticketed guests of CBMR, treating non-ticketed users as visitors of NFS lands. 63 USDA Forest Service, 2013 64 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 109 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

those areas as part of a broader permit area redistribution. Currently, the outfitter is authorized for 292 total hunting service days divided between five spatial areas outside of the Teo Drainage and CBMR SUP boundaries.65

For a complete discussion of land use related to the operations of the livestock and grazing permittees and hunting outfitter, the reader is referred to Section F – Land Use.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994) states that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”66 Therefore, an analysis of environmental justice impacts requires an assessment of the demographics of the potentially affected populations to determine if the potential impacts could disproportionately affect minority or low-income residents.

The following definitions provide guidance for compliance with environmental justice requirements in NEPA:67 “Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.” “Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.”

The first part of the CEQ guidance on minority population provides a numeric measure: “over 50 percent of the affected area.” The remainder of the guidance calls for the analyst to use his or her best judgment in evaluating the potential for Environmental Justice concerns (i.e., “population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis”).68 For this analysis the “affected area” is defined as the population of Gunnison County, which represents the population of the project area. The threshold of

65 USDA Forest Service, 2016a 66 EPA, 2017a 67 CEQ, 1997 68 EPA, 1998

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 110 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

“meaningfully greater” is set by the minority population percentage of the general population of the U.S. (approximately 28 percent).69

Minority Populations No minority populations, as defined by CEQ above, have been identified in the project area, which is defined as Gunnison County.70 The racial makeup of Gunnison County is presented in Table 3D-4, which provides U.S. Census Bureau data based on a period estimate from 2011 to 2015.71 The total minority population within Gunnison County is 2,083, and the total population is 17,055; therefore, the minority population does not exceed 50 percent, and the minority population percentage within Gunnison County (approximately 12 percent) is not meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage of the general population of the U.S. (approximately 28 percent).72

Table 3D-4. Minority Populations of the Study Area, Period Estimate 2011 to 2015 American Native Black or Some Two or Hispanic or Indian Hawaiian and White African Asian Other More Latino and Alaska Other Pacific County American Race Races Native Islander # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Gunnison 14,972 95.7 1,404 9 112 0.7 71 0.5 98 0.6 21 0.1 66 0.4 311 2 County Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a Note: The data provided in this table is based on a U.S. Census Bureau period estimate from 2011 to 2015

Low-Income Populations Low-income populations, as defined above, are identified in Table 3D-5. Nationwide, the 2015 poverty rate was 13.5 percent, down 1.2 percent from 2014.73 Therefore, Gunnison County has a higher poverty rate than the nationwide threshold.

Table 3D-5. Percentage of Population Below the Poverty Level, 2011 to 2015 Percentage of People below the Poverty Level County (%) Gunnison County 16.9 United States 13.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015b Note: The data provided in this table is based on a U.S. Census Bureau period estimate from 2011 to 2015

Despite Gunnison County having a higher percentage of people below the poverty level than the nationwide poverty rate of 13.5 percent (2015), there are no communities or groups of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals that experience common conditions of

69 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015a 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 111 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

environmental exposure or effect, identified as having potential to be affected by the proposed projects at CBMR.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Effects Common to both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives While both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action would generate economic activity in the form of sales, employment labor income, and tax revenues, the overall socioeconomic trends in Gunnison County (population growth, employment, town/county tax revenue, tourism and visitor spending) are expected to remain within their current trends under each alternative.

Population Under both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, no changes or modifications would be approved that would directly or indirectly affect population trends in Gunnison County. Population would be expected to grow consistent with the baseline conditions presented in Table 3D-1 and Table 3D-2. Although some workers may relocate to Gunnison County to fill the new employment positions that would become available under each alternative, this population projection accounts for a reasonable amount of job creation in the county such as what would be experienced under both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Thus, population growth resulting from either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action is expected to have a negligible effect on the baseline population trend.

Housing Housing availability in the Gunnison Valley and the Town of Crested Butte is an ongoing issue; however, neither the No Action Alternative nor Proposed Action are anticipated to measurably affect the housing markets of Gunnison County. Although the Proposed Action would increase the number of positions at CBMR, the additional employees would not impact housing markets beyond the existing conditions. Baseline conditions presented in Table 3D-2 project strong population growth in Gunnison County that would account for additional employees at CBMR in the future. Further, due to the seasonal nature of the positions that would be created at CBMR, the majority of workers are anticipated to already be living in the area and would primarily be seeking rental opportunities, which are less burdened than the purchase market. Under both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, CBMR would continue to work for, and contribute financially to, the realization of valley wide affordable housing solutions through its support of the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority.

Economy As discussed under the Affected Environment, travel and tourism is a major important component of the Gunnison County economy. Currently, approximately 35 percent of all employment in Gunnison County is related to travel and tourism operations.74 Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action are anticipated to affect this overall economic condition. As the largest employer within the travel and

74 Colorado Department of Local Affairs, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 112 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

tourism industry, CBMR is expected to remain one of the primary economic drivers in Gunnison County for the foreseeable future under each alternative.

As discussed in Section A – Recreation, visitation to CBMR during both the summer and winter seasons is expected to increase under the Proposed Action. While this could increase tourism during the winter months, it is not anticipated to do so in a way that exceeds current trends of growing tourism for the foreseeable future. Summer visitation to CBMR is also anticipated to increase under the Proposed Action; however, as stated in the Affected Environment, summer visitation to CBMR is generated by the activities and events that exist not only at CBMR, but also in the Town of Crested Butte and Gunnison County as a whole. The recreational activities offered on NFS lands at CBMR may attract locals and those already visiting the area, but generally do not generate visits to Gunnison County in-and-of themselves. Therefore, neither action alternative would impact the economy of Gunnison County, particularly as it relates to existing tourism levels.

Environmental Justice No changes or modifications would be approved under any alternative that would directly or indirectly affect minority or low-income populations in Gunnison County. This conclusion is based on the following:

• Minority populations were not identified in the project area where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

• Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action would have a disproportionate effect on any minority or low-income communities as any effects would be spread throughout Gunnison County and would not disproportionately affect any particular group or community in a negative way.

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Crested Butte Mountain Resort Employment Under the No Action Alternative, CBMR would continue to employ approximately 537 full-time employees and 333 part-time employees in the winter, and 240 full time employees and 72 part-time employees in the summer.75 The number of full-time and part-time employees at CBMR could change based on natural fluctuations in economic activity; however, it is anticipated that future employment under the No Action Alternative would remain similar to the existing conditions described in Table 3D-3.

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Special Use Permittees Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to CBMR operations that would have the potential to impact permittees operating in close proximity or within the existing CBMR SUP area.

75 Feier, 2017b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 113 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Specifically, this includes grazing permittees on the front side of CBMR and in the Teo Drainage area, and a hunting outfitter operating in close proximity to the Teo Drainage area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Crested Butte Mountain Resort Employment The projects included in the Proposed Action would result in increased employment at CBMR, as indicated in Table 3D-6.

Table 3D-6. New Positions at CBMR due to the Proposed Action Employment Type Full-Time Part-Time Year-Round Employment 3 0 Winter Seasonal Employment 16 16 Summer Seasonal Employment 4 4 Source: Feier 2017b

Winter projects included in the Proposed Action would require additional seasonal ski patrollers; seasonal lift operators for the Teo Park chairlift, the Teo Drainage chairlift, and the realigned North Face chairlift; additional seasonal groomers for the additional terrain; additional seasonal employees to carry out expanded snowmaking operations; additional seasonal employees associated with general resort improvements; additional seasonal employees for food and beverage services; and additional year-round employees to perform lift maintenance on the additional chairlifts.

Summer recreation opportunities associated the proposed mountain biking opportunities included in the Proposed Action would require the addition of five summer seasonal employees. The additional employees would be needed to operate and maintain the proposed trail network, including chairlifts operated during the summer season, as well as provide expanded programming associated with mountain biking opportunities (i.e., instructors).

When compared to existing employment at CBMR, it is evident that the Proposed Action would result in relatively minor increases in employment. These new employees could generate additional indirect employment in the surrounding area, such as servers at local restaurants, but at the scale of the Gunnison County economy these impacts would be negligible. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Special Use Permittees The Proposed Action could affect grazing permittees on the front side of CBMR and in the Teo Drainage area, and the hunting outfitter operating near the Teo Drainage area; however, these effects would occur as changes in land use that are not anticipated to bear economic impacts. The Proposed Action would result in a greater concentration of summer recreational opportunities near the North Butte Allotment, and the construction and development of ski terrain adjacent to the South Butte Allotment and the adjacent hunting outfitter permit area. While these actions could affect livestock and game species, PDC included in Table 2-2 would ensure changes to land use that would occur under the Proposed Action would not affect public lands in a way that would negatively impact the business of the permit holders.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 114 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Further, there would be no changes in grazing allotments, seasons, total days, or animal units under the Proposed Action; therefore, there would be no economic effect to grazing permittees. Similarly, the Proposed Action would not alter the boundary, seasons, or services permitted to the hunting outfitter, nor would any proposed project directly overlap this outfitter’s permit boundary; therefore, there would be no economic effect to the hunting outfitter permittee. All effects to land use (e.g., increased concentration of use, construction related disturbances, and changes to available forage for livestock and game species) will be assessed and disclosed in Section F – Land Use.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for social and economic resources extend from CBMR’s inception as a resort in 1961 through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for social and economic resources are limited to public and private lands in Gunnison County.

The following projects could have cumulative impacts on social and economic resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 115 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Forest Service decisions within the CBMR SUP area, as well as the approval of private lands development by CBMR and Gunnison County, have contributed to economic growth trends within the county over the past few decades. As previously detailed in the Affected Environment discussion, travel and tourism is an important economic component of Gunnison County and CBMR is a key driver of this industry in Gunnison County. Because of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, CBMR has and would continue to generate spending and tax revenue, jobs, and economic activity in other industries beyond tourism in Gunnison County.

As CBMR grows, more employees would be hired and new visitors would be attracted, incrementally impacting the social and economic resources of Gunnison County. Growth at CBMR can be expected to generate economic impacts related to visitation, as expenditures by visitors generate industry sales and support new jobs. Conversely, additional employees that would be incrementally added at CBMR in the foreseeable future would contribute to the growing housing issue that is taking place in Gunnison Valley. This contribution could be offset by other county-wide efforts to address the housing shortage, including the Long Lake land exchange project, which would contribute approximately $2.5 million to the Gunnison Valley Housing Foundation when complete to be used for workforce housing in Gunnison County. Cumulatively, it is anticipated that the Crested Butte Area Plan (2011) would guide development policies in Gunnison Valley to combat the housing issues currently seen in the county. The type of development that this plan discourages is dispersed, large lot development with no open space, no public access, and no local housing. With planning in place to guide future development associated with the growth of CBMR and Gunnison County as a whole, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would generate economic activity at a scale that is addressed in Crested Butte Area Plan (2011) and is appropriate when considered alongside current trends of the region.

While CBMR is the most notable provider of recreation in Gunnison County, recreation opportunities beyond CBMR also play an important role and cumulatively add to the tourism industry of Gunnison County. Accordingly, the economy of Gunnison County is cumulatively affected by town and county planning documents such as the Town of Crested Butte Parks and Recreation Master Plan. As discussed throughout this section, the natural resources of Gunnison County and surrounding NFS lands play an essential role in providing recreation opportunities and maintaining these resources is paramount in sustaining a healthy tourism economy. Planning documents such as the Town of Crested Butte Parks and Recreation Master Plan promote the continuation of a high-quality system of parks and recreation programs to both residents and visitors of the surrounding region, which cumulatively benefits social and economic resources when considered with the Proposed Action at CBMR.

While there are quantifiable economic impacts associated with increased visitation under each alternative, they are minor in the context of Gunnison County and no adverse cumulative effects are anticipated.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Under the Proposed Action, there would be a commitment of social and economic resources in the form of construction labor, long-term employment, and housing. These commitments are not considered irreversible and/or irretrievable as they would be either temporary (e.g., construction labor) or consistent with baseline trends (e.g., housing); therefore, no irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 116 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences economic resources have been identified in association with either of the alternatives analyzed in this document. E. TRAFFIC SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The scope of this analysis is limited to the section of SH 135 between Gunnison and the Town of Crested Butte, and parking infrastructure at CBMR. Virtually every visitor to CBMR travels on SH 135 between Gunnison and the Town of Crested Butte to access the ski area, and is further discussed throughout this section. The existing state of traffic and parking at CBMR as well as projected conditions under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action is disclosed in this section.

This traffic analysis calculates existing and projected traffic volumes from existing and proposed visitation at CBMR on the premise that all CBMR guests arrive via personal transportation rather than by public transportation, and does not account for destination guests that stay within the Town of Crested Butte and Town of Mt. Crested Butte for the duration of their stay once arriving via SH 135; therefore, the following analysis presents assumes the highest degree of traffic impacts from CBMR guests.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT CBMR is primarily accessed from the south via SH 135. From the City of Gunnison, SH 135 is a two- lane paved road that is approximately 30 miles long and is the only way to access the CBMR and the surrounding area in the winter. During the rest of the year, access is also provided via County Road 306 to Cottonwood Pass from the Town of Buena Vista, as well as Kebler Pass Road, which is approximately 29 miles long and serves as the Town of Crested Butte’s main link to the towns of Paonia and Aspen during the summer. Due to the high elevation and deep snowpack, these routes are closed to all traffic during the winter season.

The closest international airport to CBMR is in Denver, approximately 230 miles to the east. The closest regional airport is the Gunnison-Crested Butte Regional Airport located in the City of Gunnison, approximately 30 miles to the south. From the Gunnison-Crested Butte Regional Airport, guests can either take a shuttle service that meets every flight providing direct access from the airport to CBMR, or rent a car and drive to CBMR.

Public transit services are provided by Mountain Express. The Mountain Express provides services between the Town of Crested Butte and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. Gunnison Valley also has a very strong public transportation service that is managed by the Gunnison Valley Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) and funded through a county sales tax and other sources of public transportation funds. RTA buses cover a wide geographic area, and have frequent round trips making riding the bus an attractive alternative to driving a personal vehicle.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 117 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Generated Traffic Winter Traffic For this analysis, it is assumed that 95 percent of CBMR’s guests travel to and from the ski area via SH 135. This assumption is based on that fact that 33 percent of all visitors to CBMR travel by airplane and that all airports, including those located in Denver, Gunnison, and Montrose, require travel on SH 135; 64 percent of visitors to CBMR drive from their homes; 1 percent travel via shuttle bus; and 2 percent travel via some other means.76 For the 64 percent of guests traveling from home, all non-local traffic must utilize SH 135 during the winter months. The majority of in-state guests arrive via U.S. Highway 50, while out-of-state guests and those from southern Colorado primarily arrive via Highway 114, particularly those guests driving from Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico; both highways eventually require travel on SH 135.77 In essence, access to ski area for non-local guests is dependent on the use of SH 135. In terms of local traffic, only a portion of the combined population of the Town of Crested Butte and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte, which is 2,288 people, are regularly skiing at CBMR.78 Coupled with the fact that many destination guests behave similarly to locals and stay in the Town of Crested Butte or Mt. Crested Butte once they arrive via SH 135, it is conservatively estimated that this could account for 5 percent of CBMR’s visitation and that 95 percent of all CBMR’s guests make daily trips to the ski area via SH 135. This depicts a highest possible impact scenario.

CDOT records traffic volumes on state highways and Colorado interstate highway systems. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the number of vehicles passing a count location in both directions in a 24-hour period. Raw ADT data is processed and converted to Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes, defined as the total volume of traffic on a road segment for one year, divided by 365 days. Both directions of traffic volumes are reported. AADT can be adjusted to compensate for monthly and daily fluctuations in traffic—the basic intent being to provide traffic volumes that best approximate the use of a given highway section for a typical day of the year. Proximate and most relevant to CBMR, CDOT currently records and reports traffic count information southeast of Red Lady Avenue on SH 135. At this location, SH 135 has an AADT of 6,700. This location is relevant to the traffic analysis of CBMR as it captures the majority of visitors traveling to and from the Town of Crested Butte (and eventually CBMR) from the junction of other highways and interstates in Gunnison. This particular traffic station is located just before the segment of SH 135 that is within the downtown of Crested Butte, which is less reflective of those traveling to CBMR as it counts local traffic moving throughout the town.

Table 3E-1 highlights CBMR’s contributions to traffic on SH 135 based on three different visitation scenarios: 1) a seasonal average of winter visitation, representing any given winter day; 2) a winter day operating at CCC, which is generally comparable to the tenth busiest day of the ski season (refer to Section A – Recreation for a complete discussion of CCC); and 3) a peak day that is representative of maximum visitation that typically occurs during the holiday season.

76 Feier, 2017c 77 Ibid. 78 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 118 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3E-1. Winter Traffic Generated by CBMR – Existing Daily Vehicle Trips Percent of AADT related Daily Vehicle Trips AADT Type of Day to CBMR visitation (roundtrip)a (vehicles per day)b (daily vehicle trips) Typical Winter Day (Seasonal Average) 1,217 6,700 18 CCC Day (10th Busiest Day) 2,570 6,700 38 Peak Day (25% increase of CCC) 3,135 6,700 48 Source: CBMR 2013; SE Group 2017b; CDOT 2017 Notes: a Daily vehicle trips are measured as a roundtrip, counting an individual guest coming to and leaving CBMR. This also includes an estimate of employee traffic. b AADT from this particular counter station is for both north and south bound vehicle, counting total high-way traffic rather than to or from CBMR.

For the calculations included in Table 3E-1, an average vehicle occupancy rate (AVO) of 2.5 was used, based on data provided by CBMR staff.79 The industry standard is typically within a range of 2.3 guests per car to 2.7 guests per car. Although AVO was not adjusted for the different scenarios provided in Table 3E-1, it was also observed that AVO tends to be higher on busier days, since most guests tend to ski with larger groups or families on holiday periods and weekends. Conversely, AVO tends to be lower on days with low visitation, since guests often ski alone or in small groups on weekdays.

When considering the percent of AADT related to CBMR visitation disclosed in Table 3E-1, it is important to recognize that AADT remains constant across all three scenarios. Although daily traffic fluctuates month-to-month, and would likely be much higher than 6,700 during the holidays or peak of ski season, this data is not available. As such, the percent of AADT related to CBMR visitation would likely be lower than depicted in Table 3E-1 for a CCC day or peak day, as AADT on SH 135 during those times of year is likely higher. Additionally, Table 3E-1 accounts for employees that commute to CBMR. As discussed in Section D – Social and Economic Resources, CBMR currently employs 995 employees (including full-time year-round, seasonal full-time, and seasonal part-time).80 It is estimated that approximately 45 percent of these employees live outside the Town of Crested Butte and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte.81 To account for the employees that commute on SH 135, assuming a five-day base week, 313 people were added to each of the visitation scenarios in Table 3E-1. This is reflective of the greatest possible impact by CBMR employees to Highway-135 traffic as there is typically a rotation among part-time employees, many of which work less than five days per week.

Summer Traffic CBMR currently has no measurable effect on summer traffic, as summer recreation activities at CBMR are a minimal component of summer tourism in Gunnison. Summer visitation at CBMR is generated by the activities and events that exist not only at CBMR, but also in the Town of Crested Butte, and Gunnison County as a whole. The recreational activities offered on NFS lands at CBMR may attract

79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 119 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

locals and those already visiting the area, but generally do not generate visits in-and-of themselves. In other words, few visitors are coming to CBMR solely for the recreational activities offered on NFS lands.

Parking Ski resort parking demand is influenced by many variables including whether the resort is a day ski area or a destination resort, and what type of public transportation is available. Parking demand at a destination ski resort such as CBMR is lower than it is at ski resorts that serve a higher percentage of day skiers such as resorts in Summit and Eagle counties. A large portion of CBMR visitors are destination guests who are staying and parking at their local accommodations rather than in public lots. Additionally, many visitors utilize the public transit options previously discussed in this section. As a result of these factors, only a portion CBMR guests are actually utilizing parking lot on a daily basis.

For day skier guests that choose to drive to the resort, there are two parking options. First is CBMR’s main parking lot, which is a pay lot that can accommodate 425 vehicles.82 The second option includes two free lots that are owned by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte, totaling 230 spaces. These include a lot located south of the Plaza building (130 spaces) and the Inn site lot (100 spaces). Additional free parking is available at the intersection of Elk Avenue and 6th Street in the Town of Crested Butte.

Based on car counts taken each ski season, the main lot is significantly underutilized most of the time. In past seasons there were only a combined total of 26 days where parking demand exceeded 300 cars and only 6 days when demand exceeded the 425 parking space supply in the main lot.83 The town parking lots are frequently used by skiers that prefer to park in these free lots as opposed to paying for parking at the resort. These lots do fill during peak winter periods, but the lot at the Inn site is often not filled. Table 3E-2 summarizes the number of cars parked in the CBMR main parking lot over past seasons.

Table 3E-2. Main Parking Lot Usage Numbers – Existing Conditions Number of Percent of Total Days per Season Cars Parked 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Less than 100 Cars 49 68 75 19 16 31 23 57 n/a 86 101 to 200 Cars 38 25 18 54 50 49 53 31 n/a 11 201 to 300 Cars 12 7 6 20 23 13 13 8 n/a 3 301 to 400 Cars 1 0 1 3 11 6 7 2 n/a 0 401 to 425 Cars 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 n/a 0 More than 425 Cars 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 2 n/a 0 Source: CBMR 2013 Note: No parking data was collected in the 2009/10 season.

Table 3E-2 demonstrates the underutilization of the existing parking capacity. In order to accurately model the balance of access and parking to resort, it is important to model the number of parking spaces used on days when visitation closely matches CCC, rather than season-long averages. For that reason, the parking count data was analyzed to determine the average number of cars that are parked on days when skier counts closely match CCC. Since 2001 an average of 280 cars were parked in the CBMR pay

82 In addition to the main lot, the Manor lot and VIP lots provide parking spaces for area visitors. 83 CBMR, 2013

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 120 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

parking lots on those days. Based on observations, it was assumed that approximately 85 percent of the town lot parking spaces area filled on those days as well. Using those factors, a total of 475 cars were calculated to be using parking spaces on days when visitation matches CCC. Using the AVO of 2.5 guests per car, the number of guests using parking on days close to CCC is approximately 1,188, or 20 percent of the total CCC. Therefore, the remainder of guests can accurately be assumed to be staying in lodging that is conveniently accessible to ski facilities, or using shuttles or the mass transit system. Table 3E-3 details these calculations and the existing parking situation at CBMR.

Table 3E-3. Parking Capacity – Existing Conditions Total CCC 5,940 Percent of guests not using parking 80% Number of guests not using parking 4,752 Percent of guests using parking 20% Number of guests using parking 1,188 AVO 2.5 Number of required parking spaces 475 Number of resort-owned parking spaces 425 Number of town-owned parking spaces 230 Total available parking spaces 655 Number of surplus parking spaces 180 Percent of parking capacity used 73% Source: CBMR 2013

Based on the AVO of 2.5, existing parking capacity at CBMR has been calculated at approximately 1,638 guests (total spaces multiplied by AVO), which is well above the demonstrated need of 1,188. This is reflected in the 27 percent surplus parking capacity shown in Table 3E-3. Most destination visitors use lodging parking and walk or get shuttled to the ski area; therefore, day skiers rarely fill CBMR’s parking to capacity.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Crested Butte Mountain Resort Generated Traffic Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed projects would be approved in either the winter or summer season that would drive additional visitation to CBMR beyond current trends. Visitation to CBMR in both the winter and summer seasons is expected to continue to increase consistent with baseline trends (refer to Section A – Recreation for a discussion of visitation trends at CBMR). Additionally, employment at CBMR is anticipated to resemble current conditions of approximately 995 employees; therefore, there are no foreseeable traffic impacts related to employment at CBMR that would occur under the No Action Alternative.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 121 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There would be no increases in traffic attributable to construction on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area as there is no development included in the No Action Alternative. Vehicular traffic related to construction on private lands associated with CBMR is beyond the scope of this analysis.

AADT on SH 135 is projected to increase in near future. By 2024 SH 135 is projected to have an AADT of 7,799, reflecting a 16 percent increase from current conditions. This projected increase in traffic volumes is attributable to increasing population and development throughout the Gunnison Valley and represents the baseline trend.

Parking Under the No Action Alternative, CBMR would not change its current parking configuration. Although visitation is anticipated to increase, there would continue to be a surplus of parking for the foreseeable future. In particular, it is anticipated that the main lot would remain underutilized.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes projects that have the potential to impact traffic on SH 135 through increased visitation to CBMR, the additional employees associated with the proposed projects, and the construction vehicles needed implement the proposed projects. Additionally, the Proposed Action would increase the demand for, and utilization of, parking at CBMR.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Generated Traffic

Winter Traffic Winter projects included in the Proposed Action are anticipated to generate increases in visitation, which would correlate to increases in traffic on SH 135 during the winter season. Under the Proposed Action, it is anticipated that visitation would increase by approximately 95,696 visitors following project implementation. The additional visitors would be accumulated during the period of the 2019/20 season, the first season following project implementation, and the 2023/24 season. After the 2023/24 season it is expected that visitation would return to the baseline growth rate of 2 percent annual growth. Also associated with the Proposed Action would be an increase in employment, which could contribute to traffic on SH 135.

Both the increase in visitation and employment generated by the Proposed Action are considered in Table 3E-4, which depicts the daily vehicle trips under the proposed conditions. Additionally, as discussed under the No Action Alternative, traffic volumes on SH 135 are anticipated to experience a natural increase in the reasonably foreseeable future. Table 3E-4 compares additional traffic generated by CBMR associated with the Proposed Action to a projected AADT of 7,799 on SH 135 for the year 2024. The year 2024 is used to represent AADT under the proposed conditions as this is when additional visitation associated with the Proposed Action would reach its height.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 122 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3E-4. Winter Traffic Generated by CBMR – Proposed Daily Vehicle Trips Daily Vehicle Percent of AADT related AADT Type of Day Trips to CBMR visitation (vehicles per day)b (roundtrip)a (daily vehicle trips) Typical Winter Day (Seasonal Average) 1,475 7,799 19% CCC Day (10th Busiest Day) 2,975 7,799 42% Peak Day (25% increase of CCC) 3,719 7,799 52% Source: CBMR 2013; SE Group 2017b; CDOT 2017 Notes: a Daily vehicle trips are measured as a roundtrip, counting an individual guest coming to and leaving CBMR. This also includes an estimate of employee traffic. b AADT from this particular counter station is for both north and south bound vehicle, counting total high-way traffic rather than to or from CBMR.

As shown in Table 3E-4, the percent of AADT related to CBMR visitation would increase from the existing conditions depicted in Table 3E-1 for all three visitation scenarios (typical winter day, CCC day, and Peak Day). The percent of AADT related to CBMR visitation would increase by 1 percent for a typical winter day, 4 percent for a CCC day, and 4 percent for a peak day, compared to the existing conditions depicted in Table 3E-1. While there is an evident increase in daily vehicle trips associated with the Proposed Action, the natural increase in AADT on SH 135 would result in similar conditions to those currently present on SH 135 in terms of percentage of AADT related to CBMR visitation.

Table 3E-4 highlights that the Proposed Action would contribute to naturally increasing traffic volumes present on SH 135, but would not drive increases in traffic itself. Under each of the scenarios modeled in Table 3E-4, traffic generated by CBMR only accounts for a portion of the vehicles on SH 135, resembling existing conditions.

Summer Traffic Under the Proposed Action, summer visitation is anticipated to increase at CBMR; however, summer visitation at CBMR would continue to be generated by the activities and events that exist not only at CBMR, but also in the Town of Crested Butte, and Gunnison County as a whole. Traffic associated with increased summer visitation at CBMR would not have a measurable effect on summer traffic on SH 135, as the majority of visitors are anticipated to already be in the area and would not be traveling to the Town of Crested Butte or the Town of Mt. Crested Butte solely for the activities offered at CBMR. Traffic on SH 135 in the summer months is expected to remain consistent with current trends. Although employment would increase during the summer months, it would only do so by 11 employees. Considering that not all of these employees would even necessarily commute on SH 135, increased employment would not have a measurable impact on the traffic of this roadway.

There would be a measurable increase in traffic volumes during the summer months associated with construction vehicles needed to implement projects included in the Proposed Action. The construction of chairlifts, ski trails, and other elements of the Proposed Action would necessitate truck trips both for timber removal from CBMR, as well as for bringing materials to the mountain. Construction vehicle traffic represents a temporary increase in traffic that would occur during a set construction period. Table 3E-5 shows the number of truck trips needed to complete the proposed timber removal.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 123 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3E-5. Construction Trips for Tree and Debris Removal – Proposed Action Effective Tons of Tree Removal Project Acreage Timber Truck Loads Truck Trips (acres) (acres) Removed Glading (x removal) 434 130 5,208 208 417 100% Tree Removal Associated with Traditional 107 107 4,266 171 341 Trails and Lift Corridors Construction Trips for N/A N/A N/A 1,000 2,000 non-Timber Removal Total 2,758 Source: SE Group 2017b

As highlighted in Table 3E-5, under the Proposed Action, 758 truck trips are anticipated for timber removal from CBMR. An additional 2,000 truck trips are anticipated for construction and staging of projects. The construction of proposed infrastructure included in the Proposed Action is planned to take place starting in the summer of 2018. Between 2018 and 2020 it is estimated that approximately 1,000 truckloads (2,000 one-way trips) would be necessary to bring needed equipment and materials to CBMR. Most construction would take place on summer weekdays, where an anticipated additional 10 to 30 trips per day for construction workers may also occur. Assuming that construction takes place at an even pace over the course of two summers, a typical summer day may experience up to an additional 14 truck trips for timber removal and project staging/building, as well as an additional 10 to 30 vehicle trips for construction workers arriving and leaving the site. It is assumed that at some point all of these trucks would travel on SH 135. This would result in a less than a 1 percent increase in AADT on SH 135 during the summer months.

As construction traffic would occur during the summer months, prior to increases in winter traffic that would occur subsequent to project implementation, the impact of construction traffic should be thought of as a separate short-term impact, rather than an additive impact to the long-term effect increases in winter visitation would have on SH 135.

Parking There is no additional parking proposed on NFS lands included the Proposed Action. As discussed under the Affected Environment, parking is currently available at pay and free lots located at the Main Mountain and in the Town of Crested Butte. There is an existing surplus of day skier parking because the base area parking lots rarely fill to capacity. The capacity of existing parking (resort-owned and town- owned) lots is nearly sufficient to support the projected increased number of day skiers; however, planned private lands development is in place to ensure sufficient day skier parking at CBMR. There are approvals for up to 200 parking spaces to be built in conjunction with the Prospect at Mt. Crested Butte development. It is currently anticipated that these parking spaces would be built on an as-needed basis when demand dictates. Note that these spaces are planned for the Prospect area, an area which has underutilized out-of-base capacity, as previously described. This would further help to balance the access capacities of the various parts of the resort.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 124 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

It is anticipated that the percentage of destination skiers is predicted to increase over existing conditions, from the existing 80 percent depicted in Table 3E-3 to approximately 83 percent.84 It is reasonable to assume that the number of day skiers would also increase, due to growth in the Gunnison Valley and neighboring communities, and the increased attractiveness of the resort with the addition of the Teo Drainage area; however, the pool of potential day skiers in surrounding communities would not likely increase to the same degree as destination skiers, meaning that the total percentage of day skiers would likely decrease. It is also reasonable to assume that the percentage of destination skiers would increase along with increased length of visits, in conjunction with the upgrades on the mountain, base village, skier services, and lodging options.

Additionally, the Nordic Inn parking lot, which is north of the Nordic Inn on Treasury Road, was approved by Town Council in May of 2018 to be constructed at 140 or fewer parking spaces. The parking lot will be owned and operated by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte and will provide additional parking opportunities for CBMR guests, further lessening the impact additional skier visits associated with the Proposed Action would have on parking at CBMR.

In summary, it is likely that the percentage of day skiers compared to total skiers would decrease and that the existing surplus of parking would be sufficient to accommodate the increase in day skiers. Provided that there is planned parking at the Prospect at Mt. Crested Butte development that could occur at some point in the future, including the approved Nordic Inn parking lot, additional parking options would easily accommodate any future change in these assumptions, including any possible changes in use of the Town lots.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in this discussion apply to both the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on overall recreational opportunities in the CBMR SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Gunnison County, Colorado.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for traffic resources extend from CBMR’s inception as a resort in 1961 through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for traffic resources are limited to public and private lands in Gunnison County, Colorado, including SH 135.

84 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 125 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The following projects could have cumulative impacts on traffic resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

Projects at Crested Butte Mountain Resort Development over the past five decades has attracted both destination and local visitors to CBMR. The creation of trails and chairlifts, roads, infrastructure, buildings, and, more recently, the installation of summer and multi-season recreational activities, have all contributed to an increase in visitors (and thus more vehicles) coming to CBMR in recent years. These amenities have cumulatively impacted the level of vehicle traffic and parking availability observed in the base area. It is likely that the additional winter and summer projects included in the 2013 MDP would continue to increase visitor trips and thus traffic volumes on SH 135. Additionally, visitation generated by the remaining projects in the 2013 MDP would likely necessitate the expansion of parking at CBMR, which as previously discussed, is planned on private lands in the Prospect area as needed.

Future development of the base area and Prospect area, which support all the residential and commercial development associated with CBMR, would likely also contribute to increased traffic volumes on SH 135. Private ownership of the developed and undeveloped properties creates an ongoing potential for development and redevelopment of the base area and Prospect area. Ski area development is addressed in the Upper Gunnison Valley Transportation Plan (Update 2008), which guides the future development in the Upper Gunnison Valley and specifically addresses new development in the Town of Mt. Crested Butte that would continue to augment the area’s primary orientation as a destination ski resort. From a transportation perspective, this means that the area’s traffic would primarily continue to be caused by local day skiers, non-local skiers who stay for a weekend or multiple days, resort and service employees,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 126 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and year-round and seasonal (second home or fractional) residences. Until the area is fully developed, construction-related traffic would also be present.85

Projects in Gunnison County Residential and commercial development in the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte would generate additional trips to, from, and within the towns and their surrounding areas. These additional trips would result in increased traffic as well as additional wear on existing roads, requiring increased maintenance and associated costs. The 2011 Crested Butte Area Plan is in place and designed to guide future development, which would ultimately impact traffic as well. More specifically related to traffic and future development is the Town of Crested Butte 2014 Transportation Plan Update. The Crested Butte Town Council is currently working on a complete update to the Town’s Transportation Plan and in 2015, draft recommendations were released, emphasizing the following goals: maintain the safe pedestrian and bike oriented community where the use of a car is optional; free and reliable public transportation that is available to both residents and visitors; continue the use of the Town as the hub to surrounding regional trail and recreation network; and free parking that allows visitors and residents to walk, bike, or take transit to destinations around town. Cumulatively, the 2011 Crested Butte Area plan and the Town of Crested Butte 2014 Transportation Plan Update would both shape the future of development and traffic in Gunnison County, providing a framework to address population growth and associated traffic volumes.

Additionally, the Cottonwood Pass Road Improvement Project could affect traffic in the project area. By reconstructing and paving Cottonwood Pass, visitors to CBMR and surrounding area would be provided with an additional route to CBMR, that once paved could attract greater traffic than in its existing state as an unpaved road. This could cumulatively impact traffic volumes on roads accessing the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte by alleviating generally increasing traffic volumes during the summer months; however, there is no anticipated effect on winter traffic volumes as this roadway would continue to be closed during the winter months.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of resources in relation to traffic, parking, or ski area access have been identified in association with any of the alternatives analyzed in this document. F. LAND USE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The scope of this analysis of land use includes CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP areas and adjacent NFS and private lands. The Forest Service manages lands to meet a growing demand for a variety of uses on public lands. Often these diverse uses require specific approvals and permitting. In addition to CBMR, there are many different permit holders operating on NFS lands within the GMUG under special-use authorizations. A special-use authorization is a legal document such as a permit, term permit, lease, or easement, which allows occupancy, use, rights, or privileges on NFS lands. While the Proposed Action specifically applies to uses of NFS lands within CBMR’s SUP boundary and the proposed boundary

85 Gunnison County, 2008

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 127 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

adjustment area, the proposed projects have the potential to alter land use patterns on adjacent NFS lands including those used by other permit holders.

FOREST SERVICE DIRECTION As identified within the Forest Plan, the project area is composed of three different management areas: Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports, located within the CBMR’s existing SUP area; Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation Grazing, located adjacent the CBMR SUP area and overlapping the proposed Teo Drainage area; and Management Area 6B – Livestock Maintain Forage Composition, located adjacent the CBMR SUP area and overlapping the proposed Teo Drainage area.

All of these Management Areas are relevant to the analysis of land use as the Proposed Action would convert approximately 500 acres of NFS lands, currently within Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B, to Management Area 1B.

Management Area prescriptions are inherently tied to use of NFS lands as they provide sets of objectives and requirements for specific land areas. Though dictating the primary uses and parameters that guide land management, designations are not exclusive, and provide for uses beyond the primary management objective.

The following Table 3F-1 describes the management areas of the project area. Additional information about these management areas can be found in Chapter 1, Section K – Consistency with Forest Service Policy and in various resource sections of Chapter 3 as it relates to specific resources.

Table 3F-1. Forest Plan Management Areas within the Project Area Acres Management Area Management Emphasis within GMUG Management Area 1B – Downhill Downhill skiing and winter sports. Provide for ski area 14,253 Skiing and Winter Sports integrity, safety, and attractiveness. Semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities; e.g., Management Area 2A – Semi- snowmobiling, four-wheel driving, and motorcycling both on 330,508 primitive Motorized Recreation and off roads and trails. Management Area 6B – Livestock Livestock Grazing. Maintain soil and vegetation condition Grazing, Maintain Forage 829,760 and provide forage for livestock production. Composition Source: USDA Forest Service 1991

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Existing Land Use As CBMR is located within Management Area 1B, it is managed primarily for downhill skiing and a range of similar natural resource based activities that occur throughout the year. Since its inception, CBMR has become a destination resort that attracts regional and out-of-state visitors for both winter and summer recreational opportunities, and has gained recognition for its challenging skiing terrain. For a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 128 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

complete discussion of visitation and recreation opportunities at CBMR, refer to Section A – Recreation. Although land use within the CBMR SUP area is defined by ski area-related recreation, NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area are used for other purposes, including hunting and livestock grazing. As previously stated, management of NFS lands accommodates diverse uses that do not need to be specifically emphasized within a Management Area prescription.

The following uses occur within and surrounding the existing CBMR SUP area on NFS and interspersed private lands. Similar to NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area, some of these uses occur in areas where management emphasis doesn’t specifically direct the particular use; however, all land uses are compatible with their respective Management Area.

Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing is the primary land use, other than recreation, on NFS lands within, and adjacent to, the CBMR SUP area. Grazing occurs within the existing CBMR SUP boundary in Management Area 1B and on adjacent NFS lands to the south and east within Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B.

Grazing on public lands provides livestock-based economic opportunities in rural communities while contributing to the social fabric and identity of the U.S. and, in particular, the western region of the U.S. Together, public lands and the adjacent private ranches maintain open spaces in the fast-growing western regions of the U.S., provide habitat for wildlife, offer a myriad of recreational opportunities for public land users, and help preserve the rural western character.

In managing livestock grazing on public rangelands, the Forest Service’s overall objective is to ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands and to create multiple environmental benefits that result from healthy watersheds. The terms and conditions for grazing on NFS lands (such as stipulations on forage use and season of use) are set forth in the permits and leases issued to ranchers and outlined on a yearly basis in each allotment’s “annual operating instructions.” Hunting Hunting, subject to state laws and regulations, is an allowable use of NFS lands and is popular on the GMUG. The Forest Service has the ability to limit hunting within National Forests and Grasslands; however, much of the project area (including NFS lands within CBMR’s SUP area) is open to the public for hunting. Per 36 CFR § 261.10 (d), which prohibits discharging a firearm, “in or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area” makes rifle hunting off-limits in developed parts of the ski area. In its current state, the Teo Drainage does not constitute a “developed” site; therefore, hunting is permissible in this portion of the SUP area. Additionally, the Forest Service does have the ability to prohibit hunting through the use of Forest Orders (and Special Orders); however, these prohibitions do not exist at CBMR as hunting typically occurs only in undeveloped portions of the SUP boundary that are away from dense recreational use and/or hunting occurs in seasons when CBMR winter and summer operations have ceased. Thus far, hunting has been compatible with other uses at CBMR and coexists without additional management measures or regulations.

As noted in Section A – Recreation, hunting draws visitors from across the country to southwestern Colorado and the GMUG. The major big-game species present in the GMUG are mule deer, elk,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 129 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

mountain goat, bighorn sheep, moose, black bear, and mountain lion. Game bird species that are hunted include turkey, blue grouse, mourning dove, and various waterfowl species. The Teo drainage area, overlapped by Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B, is a productive Elk Hunting ground. In the past, this area has provided both guided and unguided opportunities for members of the public.

Additional Land Uses In addition to the wide array of recreational opportunities available within the CBMR SUP area, recreation also has a large presence on adjacent NFS lands. Both Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B provide public recreation opportunities in addition to livestock grazing that occurs outside the CBMR SUP area. Recreation and public land uses of Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B occur in a dispersed setting that requires users to be self-sufficient as compared to Management Area 1B, which provides amenities for specific types of recreation.

Snowmobiling, four-wheel driving, motorcycling, and other off-highway vehicle use occurs on Management Area 2A, to the south and east of the existing CBMR SUP boundary on areas accessed by Gothic road and Brush Creek Road. Dispersed non-motorized recreation including fishing, rafting, mountain biking, hiking, climbing, backcountry skiing, and camping also occur on NFS lands within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area.

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Permittees As previously discussed in Chapter 1, Section B – Background, CBMR is a permittee of the GMUG operating under a Forest Service Ski Area Term SUP. While the Proposed Action is directly related to the SUP and land uses of CBMR, other permittees of the GMUG also have potential to be impacted by the Proposed Action. There are many types of outfitted and guided services provided on NFS lands. The number and type of available outfitting opportunities are managed by individual forests. The Forest Service permits these uses in a manner that protects natural resource values, public health and safety, and is consistent with the Forest Plan.

Permits are issued for hunting, fishing, backpacking, mountaineering, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, mountain biking, and other uses. Nonprofits and educational groups, such as schools and universities, are also frequently considered outfitters, as are those who use the Forest for rehabilitation and therapeutic benefits. Any individual or organization providing commercial outfitting services on NFS lands, including nonprofits, educational and institutional groups, is required to obtain a permit. This includes activities that have a participation fee or when there is the sale of a service.

The following paragraphs describe other GMUG permittees whose permit boundaries either overlap or are adjacent to the CBMR SUP area. Livestock Grazing Permittees The GMUG issues grazing permits to 226 ranchers that graze approximately 62,000 cattle, 270 horses, and 31,000 sheep on approximately 2.6 million acres throughout the year.86 The CBMR SUP and the Teo

86 USDA Forest Service, 2017a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 130 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Drainage area are overlapped by two components of the Butte Allotment, which have potential to be affected by the Proposed Action. The Butte Allotment was split between two permittees in the mid 1990s.

The North Butte Allotment overlaps Management Area 1B and Management Area 2A, with the majority of its area being located within the existing CBMR SUP area. There is no portion of the North Butte allotment in the proposed Teo Drainage area. The North Butte allotment is managed as a single pasture and is grazed 25 days total between July 15–July 25 (130 cattle), and October 6–October 20 (130 cattle).87 Recreation provided by CBMR is prevalent across the North Butte Allotment. For a complete discussion of visitation and recreation opportunities at CBMR within the existing SUP area, refer to Section A – Recreation. To reduce direct interactions (i.e., potential conflict) between recreationists and livestock, a Decision Memo signed in in March 2017 authorized the construction of a wildlife friendly fence.88 This fence is designed to provide the North Butte allotment with the capability to implement a twopasture rest rotation grazing system, which would improve range conditions and enhance wildlife habitat.

The South Butte Allotment overlaps the existing CBMR SUP area, the entirety of the proposed Teo Drainage area, and adjacent NFS lands designated as Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B. It is managed with a two-pasture rotation grazing system and assigned an allotment management plan under the Gunnison Basin Range Project Environmental Assessment. It is grazed August 15–September 08 (55 cattle) on the North Pasture, and September 09–September 28 (55 cattle) on the South Pasture.89 The portions of the CBMR SUP area occupied by the South Butte Allotment are less developed and contain a considerably lower density of recreation than the North Butte Allotment. The Teo Drainage area exists in its natural, undeveloped state and thus the portion of Management Area 6B overlapped by the proposed SUP adjustment area is primarily thick timber.

Hunting Permittees The terms and conditions for hunting outfitters and guides on NFS lands (such as stipulations on number of service days and season of use) are set forth in the permits and leases issued to permittees operating on public lands. Accordingly, a hunting outfitter operating directly adjacent to the CBMR SUP is permitted to outfit and guide hunting opportunities that are available to the public during all seasons: archery/muzzleloader during the first, second, third seasons, and rifle during fourth season. The CBMR SUP and Teo Drainage areas were included in the hunting permit area until an amendment in March 2016 removed those areas as part of a broader permit area redistribution. Currently, the outfitter is authorized for 292 total hunting service days divided between five spatial areas outside of the Teo Drainage and beyond the CBMR SUP boundaries.90

Research Permit Holders As previously mentioned, permits are issued to nonprofits and educational groups, such as schools and universities, that are also frequently considered outfitters on the National Forest. Within this category operating on the GMUG is the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL). RMBL is a non-profit

87 USDA Forest Service, 2017b 88 USDA Forest Service, 2017c 89 USDA Forest Service, 2017d 90 USDA Forest Service, 2016a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 131 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

that provides logistical support for scientists and students (i.e., housing, laboratories, research sites) performing ecosystem studies in the region. RMBL is permitted special use of certain sites on the GMUG to perform studies and research that would otherwise not be available to the general public. While these specially permitted research sites exist near CBMR, there are no RMBL research sites, or research sites permitted to other organizations, that directly overlap the project area.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, existing land use and special-use authorizations to CBMR and other GMUG permittees would not change as a result of proposed projects at CBMR. Land uses authorized to other GMUG permittees would be subject to Forest Service terms; however, these would not be affected by any change in CBMR’s operations. Specifically, there would be no direct effects to permittee annual operating instructions or the suitability of land for livestock grazing on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area. Additionally, there would be no change to the extent or quality of hunting, for both guides and the general public utilizing NFS lands within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area as a result of changes in CBMR’s operations. The No Action Alternative would have no known impact to research permit holders.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Implementation and operation of the projects included in the Proposed Action have potential to impact land uses within CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands. Impacts could extend to the land uses of other GMUG permittees operating in the project area, including livestock grazing and hunting permittees.

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 400 acres of Management Area 6B and 100 acres of Management Area 2A would be converted to Management Area 1B to accommodate the development of lift-served skiing opportunities in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas. These areas would be incorporated into the CBMR SUP area. Management Area 6B and Management Area 2A are the largest and third-largest management areas in the GMUG, respectively. Table 3F-2 displays the change in spatial area for each affected Management Areas in absolute and relative terms.

Table 3F-2. Management Area Change on the GMUG under the Proposed Action Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Change Management Area (acres [% of GMUG]) (acres [% of GMUG]) (acres) GMUG 2,905,027 (100) 2,905,027 (100) None Management Area 1B – 14,253 (<0.01) 14,753 (<0.01) 500 Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports CBMR SUP 4,350 (<0.01) 4,850 (<0.01) 500 Management Area 2A – 330,508 (0.1) 330,408 (0.1) (100) Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation Management Area 6B – 829,760 (29) 829,360 (29) (400) Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition Source: USDA Forest Service 1991

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 132 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As detailed in Table 3F-2, conversion of 500 acres total between Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B to Management Area 1B would have a negligible effect on the Forest-wide distribution of land allocated to each management area.

Impacts to Land Use The Proposed Action would primarily affect land use in two ways. The first would occur through densification of summer recreational opportunities in currently developed areas of the existing CBMR SUP area resulting from new mountain bike and multi-use trail construction on the front side of the Main Mountain. The second would occur through the development of ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park portion of the CBMR SUP area, as well as in the Teo Drainage area served by the proposed Teo Park and Teo Drainage chairlifts, that would result in vegetation modification within approximately 500 acres of previously undeveloped land.

The following paragraphs describe general impacts to land uses overlapping the project area, including the suitability of specified land use in the future. Impacts to specific GMUG permit holders will be discussed in the following section, Impacts to Other GMUG Permit Holders.

Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing is impacted through the densification of summer recreational opportunities that would occur under the Proposed Action as there would be a higher likelihood for direct interactions between recreationists and livestock. Particularly, in areas where proposed mountain biking trails overlap existing and potential grazing allotments, there would be increased probability of land use conflicts. Impacts associated with the densification of summer recreational opportunities are incremental in nature (e.g., adding to the existing trail network); however, they are anticipated to span the life of the projects and would reduce the suitability of the CBMR SUP area for livestock grazing.

Vegetation modification associated with the development of ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas would affect livestock grazing by increasing available forage for livestock. As the existing portion of Management Area 6B is overlapped by dense timber, much of this area cannot be grazed in its existing condition as cows cannot typically enter the Teo Drainage area and available forage is limited by a lack of light reaching the forest floor. The increase of available forage may result in changes to grazing patterns, which has potential to result in both overgrazed and underused areas for livestock grazing currently occurring within this area. As the Teo Drainage area has not been previously disturbed, and there is no summer use proposed in this area, it is not anticipated that this portion of the Proposed Action would measurably affect the suitability of the Teo Drainage for future livestock grazing.

Hunting Hunting would remain open to the public in the existing and proposed CBMR SUP area, where consistent with Per 36 CFR § 261.10 (d). Impacts to hunting under the Proposed Action would largely resemble impacts to livestock grazing; however, the densification of summer recreational opportunities would likely have negligible impacts as game species already avoid many of the developed portions of the CBMR SUP area. However, there would be an increased presence of winter recreation in the Teo Drainage area. While the majority of use in this area (during the winter season) would not coincide with

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 133 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

hunting that occurs in the Teo Drainage, the accompanying human activity associated with ski area operations and presence of lift infrastructure has potential to degrade existing hunting opportunities. It is anticipated that upon implementation of the Proposed Action opportunities for hunting in the Teo Drainage would become reduced in quality when compared to existing conditions as game species are more likely to avoid the area in its proposed state.

Similar to livestock grazing, vegetation modification associated with the development of ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas could increase the available forage for game species by allowing a greater amount of light to reach the forest floor. This could be a benefit to big game species from the perspective of available forage; however, when considered with the increased presence of ski area infrastructure and human activity it would not outweigh the negative effects that the Proposed Action would have on hunting opportunities. Although this land use impacts discussion applies to all game species, the reader is referred to Section I – Fish and Wildlife for a more detailed discussion of impacts to elk.

Further, the presence of construction in the Teo Drainage area has the potential to displace game species during the short term; however, it is anticipated that upon the completion of construction, species would no longer avoid the area due to this component of the Proposed Action.

Additional Land Uses Additional land uses on NFS lands would largely resemble the existing conditions discussed under the Affected Environment of this section. The current recreation experience within the portions of Management Area 2A and Management Area 6B that would be converted to Management Area 1B in the Teo Drainage Area would likely be lost with the addition of ski terrain and infrastructure in this area. Outside the winter season there is no use proposed in this area by CBMR, and thus, dispersed activities could still occur in this area during the summer months. It is understood that the Teo Drainage is seldom accessed, and with similar dispersed recreation opportunities available on adjacent NFS lands it is anticipated that effects of the Proposed Action would be negligible.

Impacts to Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Permittees

Livestock Grazing Permittees Under the Proposed Action there would be no changes in grazing allotments, seasons, total days, or animal units for either the North Butte or South Butte livestock grazing permittees; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to livestock grazing permittees. Should issues arise between the operations of existing livestock, specifically cattle, and grazing permit holders and CBMR, PDC have been developed and incorporated into the Proposed Action (refer to Table 2-2) that will reduce these impacts. These PDC include installation of vegetative buffers and fencing to protect the interests of both permit holders.

Indirect impacts to livestock grazing permittees, associated with the densification of summer recreational opportunities and modification of vegetation, would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Particularly as it relates to the North Butte Allotment, the densification of summer recreation has the potential to impact livestock as much of the existing and proposed mountain bike trail network overlaps this allotment. While additional trails and accompanying users could result in a greater frequency of impacts,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 134 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

it is anticipated that to some degree this would be mitigated by recent North Butte Allotment Fence Construction that was approved in a 2017 Decision Memo.

Within both the existing and adjusted SUP area, overstory vegetation clearing and thinning included in the Proposed Action would change the nature of available forage in the project area. As much of the existing SUP area that the North Butte allotment occupies has previously been altered by past ski area development, it is not anticipated that additional vegetation type conversion would have a measurable effect on livestock grazing. The increase in available forage in the Teo Drainage area may result in changes to grazing patterns, which as previously mentioned has potential to result in both overgrazed and underused areas. If these patterns of use occurred, adjustments to grazing allotment management may be required and would be addressed in future annual operating instructions issued by the Forest Service. As there is no summer use proposed in the Teo Drainage area there would be no impact related to human presence outside of the short-term construction impacts.

Additionally, construction associated with the creation of proposed recreation opportunities could displace livestock either through the presence of machinery or temporary closures of areas as needed to complete certain construction activities. An increase in the number of roads constructed in grazing areas and additional project-related traffic would increase the potential for disturbance or harassment of animals or collisions with livestock. Construction related impacts would only exist as short-term impacts and it is anticipated that PDC included in Table 2-2 would be capable of mitigating the majority of disturbance to livestock. Additionally, PDC have been included in Table 2-2 to address conflicts between CBMR and livestock and grazing permit holders should they arise.

Hunting Permittees The Proposed Action would not alter the boundary, seasons, or services permitted to the previously identified hunting outfitter, nor would any proposed project directly overlap this outfitter’s permit boundary; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to the hunting outfitter and guide permittee operating on NFS lands adjacent to the Teo Drainage area.

Indirect impacts to the hunting outfitter and guide permittee, associated with the modification of vegetation, could occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Although not overlapping the permit area of the hunting outfitter and guide, vegetation modification associated with the development of ski terrain and glades in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas could change animal movement in the area due to the increased presence of ski area infrastructure and human activity; however, it is not anticipated that this would change patterns in animal movement to an extent that would affect the operations of the nearby hunting outfitter and guide.

The presence of construction in the Teo Drainage area would have the potential to displace game species and change animal movement patterns during construction of the proposed projects. This would likely result in minor impacts to the nearby hunting outfitter and guide permittee that would only last for the duration of the construction phase.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 135 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Research Permit Holders As previously mentioned, there are no permitted research sites that directly overlap the project area. Specifically, this includes RMBL research sites. There would be no impact to research permit holders associated with the Proposed Action.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for land use extend from CBMR’s inception as a resort in 1961 through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for land use are limited to public and private lands in Gunnison County, Colorado.

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

The following projects could have cumulative impacts on land resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

 CBMR 2013 Resort Master Development Plan  Crested Butte Main Mountain Improvements Plan EA (2007)  1998 CBMR EA  Base Area Development  Continued build out of the Town of Crested Butte  Continued build out of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte  Crested Butte Area Plan (2011)  Town of Crested Butte Bike Park  Town of Crested Butte Parks and Recreation Master Plan  North Butte Allotment Fence Construction CE  Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District CE

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 136 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects at CBMR have resulted in greater densification of recreation and changes to forage within certain portions of the project area, it is not anticipated that the currently proposed projects would significantly alter existing land uses. The Proposed Action would cumulatively increase the density of recreation and convert forage within the project area; however, this has occurred in the past without deterring the coexistence of land uses and operations of GMUG permittees other than CBMR. Despite past ski area development, history has proven that a variety of land uses can occur within the project area.

To address the ever-changing character of NFS lands and adjacent private lands that define the project area, the Forest Service will need to continually evaluate the suitability of different land uses in the project area and address conflicts between existing land uses with measures such as those contained the North Butte Allotment Fence Construction CE. As shown in the instance of the North Butte Allotment Fence Construction CE, the separate interests of different permit holders were addressed by Forest Service measures that were taken to facilitate the continuation of both uses. Addressing changes in this manner has and should continue to provide for the overarching Forest Service goal of accommodating a diversity of land uses.

Through continued land management and adherence to the Forest Plan, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Action would cumulatively impact existing land use within the project area. Further, it is anticipated the GMUG would continue to meet a growing demand for a variety of uses on federal lands and do so by balancing the interests of a variety of permit holders operating on NFS lands through future actions and management.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The conversion of 100 acres of Management Area 2A and 400 acres of Management Area 6B to Management Area 1B would be considered an irretrievable change to resource management direction on the GMUG; however, this commitment is not considered irreversible, as those areas could be reallocated in the future. G. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The purpose of this air quality and climate change review is to assess impacts that air emissions from activities related to development projects at CBMR would have on air quality and climate change in the region.

Climate change and air quality are intricately related. Although climate change is a global issue, the spatial scope of this analysis is the mountainous regions of Colorado and adjacent areas in the central Rocky Mountains of Colorado with similar climate, ecology, wildlife, and plant species. The temporal scope of this analysis spans from the ski area’s inception in 1961 through 2050, the date climate change literature uses as a benchmark in discussion of climate change effects.91

91 Gordon and Ojima, 2015

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 137 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Climate change interacts with other resources such as watershed resources and wildlife. Climate change may affect these resources, and/or actions that affect these resources may in turn affect climate. These considerations are discussed in the following resource-specific sections in this chapter: Section A – Recreation, Section H – Vegetation, Section I – Fish and Wildlife, Section J – Geology and Soils, Section K – Watershed, and Section L – Wetlands.

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE Federal Policy and Guidance The 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments established Class I, II, and III areas, where emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are restricted. Mandatory Class I federal lands include various national wilderness areas, national parks, national memorials, and some international parks based on acreage or existence prior to 1978. Federal land managers are charged with direct responsibility to protect the air quality of Class I lands. Class II areas are federally managed areas that allow more air quality deterioration than Class I areas and are not otherwise designated as Class I or Class III. The Forest Service has guidance, Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, for how to incorporate climate change into NEPA analyses. Two types of climate change effects should be considered: (1) the effect of a proposed project on climate change, including short- and long-term GHG emissions, and (2) the effect of climate change on a proposed project, such as the “effects of decreased snow fall on a ski area expansion proposal at a marginal geographic location, such as a southern aspect or low elevation.”92 The Forest Plan states:93 Through the ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’ provisions of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 1857, et seq.), Congress has established a land classification scheme for areas of the country with air quality standards. Class I allows very little additional deterioration of air quality; Class II allows more deterioration; and Class III allows still more.

State of Colorado Policy and Guidance The State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) air quality regulations also apply to this proposed project.94 These regulations include clean air goals and standards, permits for business and industry emissions, and permits for outdoor burning. In addition, the State of Colorado supports Class I and Class II designations as described above.

Local Policy and Guidance Gunnison County, Colorado does not have additional air quality policy; instead, the county air quality guidance is consistent with the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission regulations and CDPHE programs and permits.95

92 USDA Forest Service, 2009a 93 USDA Forest Service, 1991 94 CDPHE, 2017 95 Gunnison County, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 138 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Overview of Current Climate and Future Climate Projections The climate of Colorado is characterized by frequent sunshine, low humidity, and large temperature variations. Because there is no air quality data or monitoring stations for the Town of Mt. Crested Butte, this analysis has been based on data from the Town of Crested Butte which is located approximately 3 miles to the south of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. The Town of Crested Butte, located at an elevation of 8,909 feet above mean sea level, receives an average of 24.13 inches of precipitation per year. The average winter temperature is about 11ºF and the average summer temperature is about 55ºF.96 Average winter snowfall is about 200 inches per year.97

The effects of climate change have already been observed in both Colorado and the north-central Colorado Rocky Mountains. In the last fifty years, the annual average temperature in Colorado has increased by 2.5ºF.98 The daily minimum temperatures have warmed more than the daily maximum temperatures, and temperature increases are observed in all seasons, with the highest temperature increases recorded in the summer months. In addition to these temperature increases, the timing of snowmelt and peak runoff has shifted earlier, between one to four weeks with year-to-year variability, over the last thirty years. More frequent soil moisture drought conditions have also been observed in this timeframe, reflecting the warming trends and below average precipitation that have been observed since 2000. These warmer and drier conditions are projected to increase the frequency and intensity of drought, thereby increasing wildfire risk.99 These changing conditions are part of the baseline of this chapter and related resources, such as watershed resources.

Global change models predict a warming trend would continue into mid-century (2050) and beyond.100 These models are complex, integrated computer simulations of earth’s physical processes that projects how the global climate system would respond to increasing GHG concentrations. According to the Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study, completed in 2015, the statewide average annual temperature is projected to change +2.5ºF to +5.0ºF by 2050. Summers are projected to warm more than winters. The models diverge in the precipitation projections from -3 percent to +8 percent; however, there is general agreement that winter precipitation is expected to increase. In the nearby San Juan Mountains, models predict that summer temperatures would increase +4.0ºF to +5.0ºF in the period between 2035 to 2064, and precipitation would increase slightly in the winter months, then decrease in the spring while increasing later in the summer.101 The Forest Service predictions for the GMUG indicate that by the 2080s, snow residence time in Crested Butte may decrease between twenty and thirty days compared to historical averages, and annual temperatures may increase up to +8.0ºF.102

96 NCDC, 2011 97 WRCC, 2017 98 Lukas et al., 2014 99 Gordon and Ojima, 2015 100 Gordon and Ojima, 2015; Lukas et al., 2014 101 Lukas et al., 2014 102 USDA Forest Service, 2017e

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 139 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A decrease in annual streamflow for rivers is predicted, due to the loss of moisture from warmer snowpack, soils, and vegetation. Dust-on-snow events may cause peak snowmelt to occur between three and six weeks earlier than historic averages. Runoff is predicted to occur earlier, by one to three weeks, resulting in decreasing flows in later summer. These predicted patterns would likely increase the frequency and severity of heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and extreme precipitation events.103

Regional Air Quality Colorado is home to numerous state and national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. Among these are federal Class I areas. Class I areas and their distance from the project area are:

• Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, ~45 miles southwest;

• Great Sand Dunes National Park & Preserve, ~105 miles southeast;

• La Garita Wilderness, ~70 miles south;

• Maroon Bells – Snowmass Wilderness, ~15 miles north;

• Weminuche Wilderness, ~90 miles south;

• West Elk Wilderness, ~15 miles southwest.

Two nearby Class I areas, Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness and Weminuche Wilderness, provide insight into general air quality trends near the project area. Deciviews are a measure of haze and are used as a proxy for overall air quality. In the period between 2000 and 2015 both wilderness areas showed a significant improvement in visibility (e.g., a decline in deciview value) with deciview values less than half the national average. For example, in the Weminuche Wilderness, in 2001 the national average was 7.1 deciview while the site level was 3.2 deciview, and by 2015, the national average had declined to 5.1 deciview and the site level was 1.5 deciview. At National Forest air quality monitoring sites (IMPROVE monitors) near both wilderness areas, visual range improved from approximately 120 miles to upwards of 160 miles in the period 2000–2015.104

All other areas of the GMUG are designated Class II airsheds. The Forest Plan states that, “air quality over most of the Forest is good. The main source of pollutants from Forest activities are, and would continue to be, suspended particulates from wildfire and prescribed burning. Present and imminent external sources of air pollution are associated with dust from roads and exhaust emissions from internal combustion engines.”105

Since the year 2000 the air quality index for Gunnison County has ranged from “good” to “moderate,” with more days categorized as “moderate” in the past decade than in prior years. There have been several isolated time periods where the air quality was “unhealthy for sensitive groups.”106 On the National Air

103 Melillo et al., 2014; Lukas et al., 2014 104 EPA, 2017b 105 USDA Forest Service, 1991 106 EPA, 2017c

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 140 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Toxics Assessment, the Town of Crested Butte is ranked in the lowest category for cancer risk and respiratory hazards, and achieved a general air quality score of 98 out of 100.107

CBMR is a local driver of vehicular emissions, as an employer and tourist destination for thousands of people each year. Peak visitation in winter may generate over 3,000 vehicular trips in one day. CBMR currently has no measurable effect on summer traffic, as summer recreation activities at CBMR generally do not drive tourism in Gunnison County in and of themselves. For a complete discussion of traffic related to visitation and employee commutes to CBMR, refer to Section E – Traffic.

The nearest population centers whose air quality might affect Crested Butte are Aspen (~20 miles north), Glenwood Springs (~40 miles north), and Grand Junction (~80 miles west), Colorado. Aspen air quality has improved in the past several decades due to successful clean air ordinances that restrict emissions from wood-burning fireplaces, vehicles, and restaurant grill fumes.108 The nearest PM10 (particulate matter <10 microns) area is in Aspen, Colorado. Aspen has been in compliance with PM10 standards for over a decade. Glenwood Springs has an air quality monitoring program that began due to concerns about oil and gas industry in the region; however, monitoring data was not available for this analysis. Air quality in Glenwood Springs is dominated by oil and gas activity emissions, including nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds.109 Due in part to its population size and nearby oil and gas industry facilities, Grand Junction generally has “moderate” to “good” air quality. The State of Colorado monitors and reports daily highs and current conditions for carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone in Grand Junction.110

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following sections present the direct and indirect environmental consequences anticipated under the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. Interactions and impact analysis between climate change and other resources considered in this Final EIS are discussed in the following resource sections in this chapter: Section A – Recreation, Section H – Vegetation, Section I – Fish and Wildlife, Section J – Geology and Soils, Section K – Watershed, and Section L – Wetlands.

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, CBMR resources would remain in their existing conditions and the ski area would continue to operate with existing terrain and lifts. The contribution of activities at the ski area, such as visitor traffic/emissions, maintenance and operations, and water use, to climate change would continue along current trends. No additional effects from the Proposed Action to GHG emissions or air quality would occur under the No Action Alternative.

Similarly, the effects of climate change on air quality and climate within CBMR would be consistent with current trends. CBMR would continue to experience changes in the timing and amount of precipitation that falls as snowpack; the timing and duration of the winter season and snowmelt/runoff; and changes to

107 EPA, 2017d 108 City of Aspen, 2017 109 Garfield County, 2013 110 CDPHE, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 141 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

minimum and maximum temperatures due to climate change. Current air quality trends and climate- induced effects would be expected to continue under the No Action Alternative, and could affect snowmaking capacity, visibility, visitation, and operations at CBMR.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action is consistent with federal, state, and local regulations regarding air quality. Three categories of activities would contribute to increased emissions from the proposed projects: (1) emissions from construction of the projects; (2) emissions from additional winter visitation and operation of proposed infrastructure; and (3) emissions from additional summer visitation, driven by changes in recreational use patterns, including the proposed 15 miles of mountain biking trails.

Impacts from Construction and Timber Removal The Proposed Action would require trucks and other heavy equipment for tree removal, construction, staging, and installation of proposed infrastructure, an estimated 2,800 vehicle trips (detailed in Section E – Traffic) for the duration of construction activities. This vehicular activity would generate GHG emissions, as would additional electricity consumption required during construction.

Tree removal, rock clearing, soil removal and placement, and vegetation clearing on the proposed new ski terrain, ski terrain access improvements, and mountain biking trails would also require use of heavy equipment such as spider hoes and chipping equipment, resulting in GHG emissions during the summer construction seasons. When helicopters would be employed for aerial tree removal or lift tower placement they would consume fuel and contribute to GHG emissions.

In some cases, vegetation and felled trees would be burned on site, adhering to State of Colorado Burn Permit parameters and GMUG for pile size and the timing of burning. Burning would result in the short- term release of GHG emissions, limited to the duration of the burn itself. Compliance with GMUG and state regulations on this activity would mitigate impacts on air quality. Emissions from projected pile burning may consume some amount of an established “prevention of significant deterioration” increment should it exist. Due to prevailing wind patterns and the fact that the project site is generally east of the Class I areas described above, possible use of pile burning during the construction phase of the proposed projects is unlikely to result in Class I area air quality degradation. Impacts from Operation Future changes in recreational use in the winter seasons would result in several contributions to GHG emissions and possible air quality impacts. Vehicular traffic due to an increase in visitation, especially in the first five years of operation, would result in GHG emissions due to fuel consumption, and possible impacts on air quality in the region. In total, the Proposed Action would generate approximately 260 vehicles per day during the winter season, including the commutes of additional employees hired by CBMR under the Proposed Action (refer to Section E – Traffic and Section D – Social and Economic Resources). New ski area infrastructure, including chairlifts, would require power and maintenance, resulting in additional emissions from fuel and electricity consumption. Overall, the ongoing future impacts of the proposed projects may contribute new GHG emissions, resulting in minor long-term impacts to regional air quality.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 142 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Proposed summer projects are not expected to increase visitation beyond current trends, as described in Section E – Traffic. Mountain bike trail maintenance may occasionally require the use of equipment that consumes fuel or electricity, resulting in negligible amounts of GHGs and impacts to air quality.

Climate Change Impacts on Air Quality at Crested Butte Mountain Resort The proposed projects are not located in climatically marginal areas, and are generally not considered at unreasonable risk. Variability in temperatures, such as minimum lows, may affect the residence time of natural snowfall as well as the capacity of the resort to make artificial snow. Changes in the timing, duration, intensity, and frequency of precipitation may alter the amount of natural snow, artificial snowmaking capacity, and timing of snowmelt each spring. Climate change may also affect the duration, timing, and nature of visitation to the resort, which in turn may affect the types of operations and amenities provided. Watershed resource impacts from climate change on natural hydrologic cycles may also affect the resort’s ability to store water and make artificial snow. However, these realities are not expected to jeopardize the viability of winter project at CBMR, specifically in the areas proposed for new infrastructure (e.g., Teo Drainage area). Impacts to other resources, such as vegetation, fish, and wildlife are discussed in those respective sections of this Final EIS.

As documented in regional and global climate predictions, variability in natural rainfall, extreme precipitation events, and regional aridity may be experienced regionally with relative frequency in the future. However, these trends are not expected to jeopardize the viability of proposed summer projects. In fact, with respect to climate change, diversification of ski area operations to include summer and multi- season activities is generally considered an adaptive measure.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in this discussion apply to both the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The following projects are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on recreational opportunities in the Crested Butte SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Gunnison County, Colorado.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of air quality and climate change extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of air quality and climate change includes the airshed of the GMUG.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 143 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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

The following projects could have both beneficial and adverse cumulative impacts on air quality and climate change, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

The following efforts and projects could also have beneficial cumulative impacts on GHG emissions and air quality:

 CBMR has a number of environmental initiatives to support their environmental stewardship goals. These include green transit options for visitors and employees, waste reduction goals, and recycling goals.111  CBMR also participates in the National Ski Areas Association’s (NSAA) Climate Challenge, and is a recent recipient of NSAA’s “Sustainable Slopes” grants to further their environmental goals.112  Town of Mt. Crested Butte sustainability initiatives:113 In 2009 the Town of Mt. Crested Butte completed an Energy Action Plan that set targets for GHG emissions of 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, as well as sector targets (buildings, transportation, waste, etc.). The town has also adopted green building codes and supports rebate programs and sustainability initiatives for energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, recycling, and water usage.  Town of Crested Butte sustainability initiatives: Community-wide efforts such as those promoted by the Town of Crested Butte and Sustainable Crested Butte, aim to reduce GHG emissions and water use, and provide support for “green” building codes and construction, among other activities.114

111 CBMR, 2017b 112 NSAA, 2016 113 Town of Mt. Crested Butte, 2017 114 Town of Crested Butte, 2017; Sustainable Crested Butte, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 144 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Continued development and use of fossil fuels at CBMR, throughout Gunnison County, and around the world would continue to escalate the issue of climate change. In combination with the small additional amounts of emissions generated under the Proposed Action, these projects may have small adverse effects on increased temperatures, water use, weather variability, and air quality degradation. The Proposed Action would contribute a small amount of emissions to overall Gunnison County emissions. These effects could increase risks such as wildfire and heavy precipitation events, change the amount and timing of snowfall and snowmelt, and affect visibility. Temperature increases or variability may result in shortened ski seasons. Sustainability measures at CBMR and in the Crested Butte region could have a small beneficial cumulative effect on locally-produced GHG emissions, waste diversion, and water use, but may not have substantial cumulative effects that reduce the impacts of climate change in the project area.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The addition of new trails, snowmaking capability, and infrastructure at CBMR represent irretrievable contributions to climate change and air quality, because the emissions that would be generated from the construction and operation of the proposed projects and increased visitation cannot be retrieved. However, these emissions are not considered irreversible due to offsetting and mitigation that could possibly occur in the future. The loss of carbon sequestration capacity resulting from vegetation removal could be reversed in the long term if vegetation were allowed to regrow, and measures could be put into place to reduce vehicular and operational emissions that might impact air quality and visibility. H. VEGETATION SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This analysis summarizes the Botanical BA/BE for Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects (Botanical BA/BE) and the Vegetation and Wetland Specialist Report for Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects (Vegetation and Wetland Report), both of which are available in the project file.115 Species included in these analyses were identified as listed, PTES, or Forest Service Region 2 sensitive. Although they carry no legal status, plant SOLC were also included in this analysis as they are a component of biological diversity on the GMUG, which is required to be maintained by the National Forest Management Act. The spatial scope of analysis is 3,300 acres in size and encompasses both private and NFS lands within the existing SUP area as well as the proposed SUP adjustment area. Details of vegetation types, forest health, special status plant species (PTES, Region 2 sensitive, and SOLC), and noxious weeds within the project area are described in the following section.

115 WER, 2017a; WER, 2017b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 145 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Vegetation Types and Forest Health Vegetation types within the 3,300-acre project area include subalpine fir forests of Engelmann spruce (Abies lasiocarpa and Picea engelmannii), lodgepole pine forests (Pinus contorta ssp. latifolia), aspen forests (Populus tremuloides), mountain grasslands, alpine tundra, and riparian and wetland habitats. Each of the vegetation types is summarized in the following discussion. Table 3H-1 lists the acreage of each vegetation type within the project area.

Table 3H-1. Vegetation Types within the Project Area Private Percent of NFS Lands Total Vegetation Type Lands Project (acres) Existing SUP Area SUP Adjustment Area (acres) Area Spruce-Fir Forest 733.0 358.5 60.7 1,152.3 34.9 Lodgepole Pine Forest 250.9 21.1 13.4 285.3 8.6 Aspen Forest 437.1 87.8 52.3 577.2 17.5 Mountain Grassland 587.3 1.5 179.9 768.7 23.3 Riparian/Wetland 76.4 13.9 1.9 92.2 2.8 Alpine 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.5 Rock – Bare Soil 385.6 17.4 5.9 409.0 12.4 Grand Total 2,485.7 500.3 314.1 3,300.1 100.0 Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2016 Note: Detailed descriptions of each vegetation type are available in the Vegetation and Wetland Report contained in the project file

In 1995 a Vegetation Management Plan was approved by the Forest Service.116 The Vegetation Management Plan was required as a mitigation measure from the 1990 CBMR Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide both CBMR and the Forest Service with management alternatives and recommendations for the management of vegetation within the CBMR SUP area. The Vegetation Management Plan incorporates disease management techniques and fire concerns in order to achieve Forest Service and CBMR goals and objectives. Forest health issues discussed in the plan include infestation by dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum) in lodgepole pine stands, subalpine fir mortality by armillaria root disease (Armillaria spp.) and/or the western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confusus), and mortality in Engelmann spruce by the spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis). The Vegetation Management Plan also identifies five Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir tree stands that qualify as “old-growth.”117 Many of these stands support trees that are 242 to 389 years old. In addition, several old-growth recruitment stands, which are stands that will, in time, meet the characteristics of old growth, were identified. The silvicultural prescription for both old growth and old growth recruitment stands is to only remove hazard trees.

116 USDA Forest Service, 1995 117 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 146 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

More recent data obtained from the Forest Service Aerial Detection Database shows that the project area has been mainly subject to subalpine fir mortality due the western balsam bark beetle over the last five years.118 Infestations have occurred south of the bottom terminal of the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift, south of the upper portion of the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift, adjacent to the existing Teocalli chairlift, and along the upper portion of the existing East River Express chairlift.

Although spruce bark beetle outbreaks have not yet reached epidemic proportions within the ski area, they do pose an increasing concern for the health of spruce forests throughout the Rocky Mountains, including Colorado and the GMUG. In fact, the GMUG has experienced approximately 223,000 cumulative acres of spruce bark beetle mortality over the past decade.119 Spruce bark beetles typically colonize downed spruce and then spread to standing trees; therefore, proper care and treatment of downed spruce is an important component of managing this insect. Outbreaks cause extensive tree mortality and can alter stand structure and composition, which can impact visual resources and create fire hazards. The recent spruce bark beetle epidemic in the area has already significantly changed the scenery in the region and the extensive dead and downed trees pose a fire hazard. Careful attention to the prevention of a spruce bark beetle outbreak is a primary goal on the GMUG.

Threatened and Endangered Species There are no federally listed, proposed, or candidate plant species present in the project area or that may be affected by project activities. There is also no designated critical habitat within the project area. As there are no federally listed plant species or critical habitat present in the project area there will be no additional discussion of these species. For details regarding ESA consultation, the reader is referred to the Botanical BA/BE contained in the project file.

Region 2 Sensitive Species Table 3H-2 lists the 16 species either known or suspected to occur on the GMUG along with brief habitat descriptions, identifies whether the plant species was analyzed or excluded from further analysis, and describes the rationale for exclusion. In addition, two other R2 sensitive taxa are included as being potentially present on the GMUG: the upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens), and Hall’s fescue (Festuca hallii). Upswept moonwort is included as this species occurs on the adjacent White River National Forest and the project area lies within the overall range of the species. Hall’s fescue is considered as well because the species has a wide ecological amplitude and widely disjunct populations, including those to the north and south of the White River National Forest, and hence may be present on any of the National Forests in the central portion of Colorado.120 A total of 16 sensitive plant species are carried forward into the analysis. Rationale is supported where appropriate by rare plant survey results. Species excluded from analysis will not be discussed further in this document. The species analyzed are highlighted in bold throughout Table 3H-2.

118 USDA Forest Service, 2017f 119 USDA Forest Service, 2016b 120 Elliot, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 147 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3H-2. Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the GMUG Species Suitable Known From Rationale for (Common Name, General Habitat Description Habitat Analysis Area? Exclusion Scientific Name) Present? Appropriate geology is Dry gravelly talus of Stonecrop gilia lacking and known tuffaceous sandstone in the No No Aliciella sedifolia species elevation is high alpine; 12,723–13,832’ above project area. Disturbed but stabilized Upswept moonwort subalpine habitats; 8,000– No Yes Species Analyzed Botrychium ascendens 10,840’. On Region 2 but not GMUG sensitive species list. Moist meadows, sparsely Paradox moonwort vegetated upland, disturbed Yes Yes Species Analyzed Botrychium paradoxum but stabilized subalpine habitats. Sparsely vegetated gravelly Smooth rockcress slopes above timberline often No Yes Species Analyzed Braya glabella on calcareous substrates; 12,000–13,000’ Montane and subalpine wetland fens; 7,000–9,600’. Lesser panicled sedge Boulder, Garfield, Grand, No Yes Species Analyzed Carex diandra Gunnison, Jackson, Larimer, and Saguache counties, Colorado. Among sphagnum peat moss Roundleaf sundew on the margins of ponds, fens, No Yes Species Analyzed Drosera rotundifolia and floating peat mats; 9,100–9,800’ Altai cottongrass Fens; 10,160–13,200’ No Yes Species Analyzed Eriophorum chamissonis Slender cottongrass Fens on floating mats of peat; No Yes Species Analyzed Eriophorum gracile 8,100–11,140’ Alpine and subalpine grasslands and meadows; Plains rough fescue 8,500–11,500’. On Region 2 No Yes Species Analyzed Festuca hallii but not GMUG sensitive species list. Simple kobresia Fens and moist alpine areas; No Yes Species Analyzed Kobresia simpliciuscula 8,970–12,800’ Gravelly areas in mountain Colorado tansyaster parks, slopes and rock Machaeranthera No Yes Species Analyzed outcrops up to dry tundra; coloradoensis 7,600–13,000’ Ice cold buttercup Alpine slopes among rocks No Yes Species Analyzed Ranunculus grayi and scree; 12,000–14,100’

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 148 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3H-2. Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the GMUG Species Suitable Known From Rationale for (Common Name, General Habitat Description Habitat Analysis Area? Exclusion Scientific Name) Present? Dwarf raspberry Wetlands in willow carrs and Rubus arcticus subsp. mossy streamsides; No Yes Species Analyzed acaulis 7,000–9,720’ Found in calaceous, rich and Silver willow extremely rich fens; No Yes Species Analyzed Salix candida 8,900–10,400’ Narrowleaf sphagnum In Region 2, iron and other No Yes Species Analyzed Sphagnum angustifolium fens; 7,800–9,720’ In Region 2, iron fens, Baltic sphagnum strongly acidic yet high in No Yes Species Analyzed Sphagnum balticum calcium content; 9,600–11,483’ Endemic to sparsely vegetated No appropriate geology Sun-loving meadowrue steep shale talus slopes of the present and elevation of No No Thalictrum heliophilum Green River Formation; project area is above 6,300–8,800’ that of species Shallow water of subalpine Lesser bladderwort ponds and fens; No Yes Species Analyzed Utricularia minor 8,200–above 10,000’ Source: WER 2017a

Narratives for each of the Region 2 sensitive species described in Table 3H-2 are available in the Botanical BA/BE contained in the project file.

Site-specific field reconnaissance for sensitive and other rare plants was conducted during the growing season in 2015 and 2017. During this field reconnaissance, occupied habitat for the Paradox moonwart (Botrychium paradoxum) was observed. This plant was previously discovered in 2009 during rare plant surveys located near an existing chairlift on CBMR.121 No additional populations of this Region 2 sensitive plant species or any other sensitive plant species were found during the comprehensive field reconnaissance; however, because moonworts occur in mixed species aggregations and may not emerge every year, it is possible that the Region 2 listed moonworts (B. paradoxum or B. ascendens) may be present among populations of common moonworts that were identified during the survey.

Species of Local Concern Nine SOLC were documented within the project area during surveys for federally listed and Region 2 sensitive plant species and the results are summarized in this discussion. The majority of these species are moonworts (Botrychium spp.). Botrychium spp. identified during the surveys include echo moonwort (Botrychium echo), wishbone moonwort (Botrychium furculatum), western moonwort (Botrychium hesperium), red-stem triangle moonwort (Botrychium lanceolatum var. lanceolatum [red-stem

121 Smith, 2009

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 149 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

phenotype]), common moonwort (Botrychium neolunaria), mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense), and northwestern moonwort (Botrychium pinnatum). In total, 85 occurrences of Botrychium spp. were identified during the surveys and totaled approximately 1.44 acres.

In addition, one occurrence of fairy slipper orchid (Calypso bulbosa) and one occurrence of stiff clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum) were identified. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program Plant Element Data Form and Botanical BA/BE contained in the project file provide additional details regarding these species.

Noxious Weeds Four species of Colorado state listed noxious weeds were documented within the project area. These include yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), scentless chamomile (Tripleurospermum perforatum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare). Scentless chamomile is most common on private lands at the base area, with some additional populations on NFS lands. Yellow toadflax is common around the maintenance facility as well as in scattered sites around the mountain. Populations of this plant have been reduced over the past ten years due to chemical weed control, and populations are now under control.122 Canada thistle is not yet problematic; however, it does occur near the East River Express chairlift. Oxeye daisy occurs near the bottom of the Painter Boy chairlift. CBMR has been actively treating noxious weeds for the last ten years per requirements of the Forest Service. Table 3H-3 further describes the noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants within the project area.

Table 3H-3. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Non-Native Plants in the Project Area Species Management Common Name Noxious Weed? (Common Name, Scientific Name) Status Perennial Forbs Canada thistle Canada thistle Yes, Class B Suppression Cirsium arvense (Breea) Oxeye daisy Oxeye daisy Yes, Class B Suppression Leucanthemum vulgare* Yellow toadflax Yellow toadflax Yes, Class B Suppression Linaria vulgaris Annual/Biennial Forbs Scentless chamomile Scentless chamomile Yes, Class B Suppression Tripleurospermum perforatum Source: WER 2017b Notes: “Suppression” means reducing the vigor of noxious weed populations within an infested region, decreasing the propensity of noxious weed species to spread to surrounding lands, and mitigating the negative effects of noxious weed populations on infested lands. Suppression efforts may employ a wide variety of integrated management techniques. Additionally, both oxeye daisy and scentless chamomile are in containment areas which require suppression. *Data reported by the CBMR weed contractor, not directly observed by the author

122 Barry, 2016

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 150 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Invasive species have been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four significant threats to NFS lands. The Forest Service National Strategy is based on four components: 1) prevention, 2) early detection and rapid response, 3) control and management, and 4) rehabilitation and restoration. On February 3, 1999, Executive Order 13751 Safeguarding the National Forest from the Impacts of Invasive Species was signed. The Executive Order requires agencies to utilize programs and authorities to take steps to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, and to support efforts to eradicate and control invasive species that are established. Other authorities related to noxious weeds management include the Federal Noxious Weeds Act (7 U.S.C. § 2801), FSM 2080, FSH 2209.23, FSH 330, the Forest Plan, and the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act directs the Department of Agriculture to develop and implement management plans for all List A and List B noxious weed species. There are no List A noxious weeds present at CBMR; however, all four noxious weed species present in the project area are on List B (refer to Table 3H-3), and are slated for suppression in Gunnison County.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Vegetation Types and Forest Health Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation would continue to be managed according the Vegetation Management Plan or any other previously approved, but not implemented, forest health projects. Over the short term, plant communities would remain similar to those described in the Affected Environment section. Species composition, stand structure and configuration would remain similar to existing conditions. Barring a natural disturbance such as a wildfire, plant communities would gradually change through natural succession to later seral stages.

No large areas of Engelmann spruce trees would be cut as a result of the No Action Alternative; therefore, there would be no direct impact to the risk of spruce bark beetle infestation. Natural processes related to this insect are anticipated to continue. As previously discussed, the spruce bark beetle has not yet reached epidemic proportions within the ski area, but would continue to pose an increasing concern for the health of spruce forests throughout the GMUG. As the GMUG has experienced approximately 223,000 cumulative acres of spruce bark beetle mortality over the past decade, fire hazards that could affect the project area remain present. When considered with projected climate change impacts on air temperatures and precipitation regimes in the region, it is anticipated that existing fire hazards could increase unless properly managed. Fuel loading from the spruce bark beetle epidemic coupled with projected drought conditions creates a potential for wildfire beyond what is characteristically natural for GMUG forest types. Increasing fire hazard could manifest as both direct and indirect impacts, resulting in changes to vegetation types, forest health, and posing potential threats to a range of species that occupy the GMUG. Region 2 Sensitive Species Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a continuation of existing management practices. There would be no new ski terrain, no new or upgraded ski lifts, and no new recreational facilities. Other previously approved but not-yet-implemented projects would also likely occur, but these projects have already undergone site-specific analysis and approval under NEPA.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 151 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A determination of No Impact (NI) was made for the 16 Forest Service sensitive plant species carried forward into the analysis for the No Action Alternative. The rationale for the NI determination for the No Action Alternative is provided in the following discussion.

• A determination of No Impact (NI) is warranted for Botrychium paradoxum because although there is one occurrence of this species within the project area, no additional activities or ground disturbance would be authorized under the No Action Alternative and there do not appear to be any existing threats to this population.

• A determination of No Impact (NI) is warranted for Botrychium ascendens because habitat that supports this species, if present, would continue to follow natural succession and disturbance regimes.

• A determination of No Impact (NI) is warranted for Braya glabella var. glabella, Carex diandra, Drosera rotundifolia, Eriophorum chamissonis, E. gracile, Festuca hallii, Kobresia simpliciuscula, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Ranunculus grayi, Rubus arcticus subsp. acaulis, Salix candida, Sphagnum angustifolium, Sphagnum balticum and Utricularia minor because field reconnaissance determined that these species are absent from areas that would be affected by proposed project activities.

Species of Local Concern Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a continuation of existing management practices; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the Botrychium spp. or other SOLC found during 2015 and 2017 field reconnaissance.

Noxious Weeds Under the No Action Alternative, CBMR would continue to manage invasive non-native weeds according to their current noxious weed management guidelines. Management measures may need to be adapted and increased under climate change conditions as reduced water availability associated with climate change induced-drought conditions could alter the competitive balance between weed species and non-weed species on the GMUG. In the scenario that weed and non-weed species competition intensifies under these conditions, adaptive management measures may need to be implemented. No adverse impacts due to invasive and non-native weeds are anticipated.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Vegetation Types and Forest Health Table 3H-4 provides acreages of vegetation types and other non-vegetated habitat affected by the Proposed Action. Approximately 75 percent of the overstory vegetation removed would be to spruce-fir forest, with lesser amounts to lodgepole pine (1 percent), and aspen forest (3 percent). Most of the spruce- fir forest affected by grading and vegetation removal (including glading) is mature with a closed canopy. Approximately 93 percent of the Proposed Action’s disturbances would be associated with ski trail and glade developments in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas. Further, 83 percent of all Proposed Action disturbance would be associated with the proposed glades in the Teo Drainage, and which would involve up to 50 percent tree removal.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 152 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3H-4. Overall Disturbance by Vegetation Type – Proposed Action Acres of Disturbance Vegetation Habitat Type Vegetation Total Acreage Clearing and Glading Clearing (percent) Grading Spruce-Fir Forest 6.7 71.3 342.3 420.3 (75) Lodgepole Pine Forest 2.7 0.3 4.2 7.2 (1) Aspen Forest 3.8 3.4 8.0 15.2 (3) Mountain Grassland 16.3 5.5 7.5 29.3 (5) Riparian 0.4 0.6 8.7 9.8 (2) Alpine -- 0.2 -- 0.2 (0) Rock, Scree, Talus 3.7 9.9 63.3 76.9 (14) Grand Total 33.7 91.3 434.0 559.0 (100) Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2016 Note: Vegetation Clearing = 100% overstory vegetation removal; Glading = 50% overstory vegetation removal. Disturbance for Grading and Vegetation Clearing & Grading are combined for simplicity in this table.

Of the 33.7 acres of disturbance due to grading, the majority (16.3 acres) are to the mountain grassland habitat type, with lesser amounts to spruce-fir forest (6.7 acres), aspen forest (3.8 acres) and lodgepole pine forest (2.7 acres). There would be no grading impacts to alpine habitats, but 3.7 acres of disturbance to rock and scree. Finally, although 0.4 acre of grading impacts to riparian habitat is listed above based on Region 2 Vegetation data, wetland mapping conducted for this project in 2015 and 2017 and a detailed impact analysis determined that there would be no permanent impacts to wetlands. The reader is referred to Section L – Wetlands for a discussion of the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action to wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

According to the Vegetation Management Plan, none of the projects included in the Proposed Action would impact old growth stands within the existing SUP area; however, it is not known if the proposed SUP adjustment in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas has been surveyed.123

Tree removal for all projects is proposed to be accomplished primarily via helicopter (with skidding to centralized landing areas). Burning, chipping and/or lop-and-scatter would also be utilized depending on specific site conditions and accessibility. It is anticipated that hand-felling would be necessary in areas that are excessively steep. The terrain of the Teo Drainage area precludes the use of out-hauling via trucking.

Spruce trees would be cut for the multi-season recreation activities under Proposed Action. The implementation of PDC included in Table 2-2 would ensure that downed spruce trees are properly treated (or promptly removed or burned) to prevent colonization by spruce bark beetles. These PDC would minimize the risk that tree removal would contribute to a spruce bark beetle outbreak and ensure that existing fire hazards would not be exacerbated. When considered with projected climate change impacts

123 USDA Forest Service, 1995

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 153 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences on air temperatures, precipitation regimes, and existing fuel loading from past spruce beetle epidemic in the project area, it is especially important to treat downed trees as outlined in Table 2-2.

Region 2 Sensitive Species No new occurrences of the two Forest Service sensitive moonworts were found during the field surveys that were focused in areas that would be directly impacted under the Proposed Action. In addition, the proposed projects are not in close proximity to the existing Botrychium paradoxum site; therefore, it is highly unlikely that there would be any direct effects to these species. However, because additional locations of these Botrychium spp. could have been overlooked due to their small size and the fact that they do not produce above-ground vegetation every year, there is a remote possibility that they could be present, and consequently, of direct and/or indirect effects to these species.

Direct impacts could potentially result from trampling, breaking, crushing, or uprooting of individuals as produced by machinery during the construction process. Individuals could also be directly impacted by smothering with slash, chips or soil, or could have trees fall on them during forest overstory removal. Individuals impacted may die or experience reduced growth and development as well as reduced or eliminated reproduction. If direct impacts are large enough, the reduced population size may change meta-population structure, potentially affecting species viability on the planning unit or rangewide; therefore, PDC have been developed and incorporated into the Proposed Action (refer to Table 2-2) that will reduce potential impacts to these plants. These PDC include avoiding and minimizing impacts to habitats occupied by relatively common moonworts and coordination with the GMUG should sensitive plants be found to ensure there is no loss of viability of the species within the planning area or cause a trend toward federal listing. The potential effects of implementing the Proposed Action were analyzed with PDC applied.

Indirect effects to Botrychium spp. could also occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Adverse indirect effects could potentially include noxious weed invasion, altered hydrologic patterns, erosion, sedimentation, or increased dust from vehicular construction traffic, all of which may be a detriment to Botrychium spp., and impacted individuals may die or show reduced growth and reproduction. Under climate change induced drought conditions that correspond to reduced water availability, the competitive balance between weed species and Botrychium spp. could be further deteriorated and detriments exacerbated. Additional PDC would be implemented in order to avoid or lessen the magnitude of any potential indirect effects to these species.

It is anticipated that the direct and indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be localized and not of sufficient intensity or scale to cause a significant effect. A determination of may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing (MAII) is warranted for Botrychium ascendens and B. paradoxum. The rationale for the MAII determination for the Proposed Action is provided in the following discussion.

• The existing occurrence of B. paradoxum would not be directly or indirectly affected by proposed project activities.

• No new occurrences of Botrychium ascendens or B. paradoxum were documented during the botanical survey work in 2015 and 2017.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 154 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Occurrence(s) of Botrychium ascendens and B. paradoxum could have been overlooked during surveys due to their small size and ephemeral nature.

• PDC would be implemented as part of the Proposed Action (refer to Table 2-2) in order to protect and minimize direct and indirect impacts to occupied moonwort habitat that may contain the Region 2 sensitive Botrychium spp. Such PDC include avoiding and minimizing impacts to habitats occupied by relatively common moonworts and coordination with the GMUG should sensitive plants be found to ensure there is no loss of viability of the species within the planning area.

For the other 14 Region 2 sensitive species analyzed in this document, Braya glabella var. glabella, Carex diandra, Drosera rotundifolia, Eriophorum chamissonis, E. gracile, Festuca hallii, Kobresia simpliciuscula, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Ranunculus grayi, Rubus arcticus subsp. acaulis, Salix candida, Sphagnum angustifolium, Sphagnum balticum and Utricularia minor; a determination of No Impact (NI) is warranted. None of these species were found during comprehensive field reconnaissance and hence they are presumed to be absent. Species of Local Concern

Under the Proposed Action there would be direct grading impacts to 0.09 acre of occupied SOLC moonwort habitat, mainly associated with the multi-use trails, but also associated with the bottom terminal of the Teo Park chairlift. There would be an additional 0.12 acre of potential disturbance to SOLC moonworts due to overstory vegetation removal associated with new trails in the Teo Park and Drainage Areas and with the North Face chairlift realignment. Finally, 0.15 acre of occupied SOLC moonwort habitat occurs in the gladed portion of the Teo Drainage area, which would have 50 percent tree clearing. Impacts to moonworts could potentially occur in these areas as well if they occur within timber staging areas, skid roads, or helicopter landing zones. It should be noted, however, that the botanical resource surveys were limited to areas of proposed ground disturbance and tree removal; hence, there may be additional, yet undiscovered, locations of Botrychium ssp. within the existing and proposed ski area SUP boundary.

There would be no impacts to fairy slipper orchid (Calypso bulbosa) or stiff clubmoss (Lycopodium annotinum) under the Proposed Action. Noxious Weeds

Under the Proposed Action, the existing populations of noxious and invasive weeds could potentially spread into the uninfested Teo Park and Teo Drainage project areas and increase in abundance and density in the other project areas. The greatest risk of noxious weed dispersal occurs when ground disturbing activities take place in mid to late summer when the majority of weed species are producing seeds. If grading activities occur in weed infested areas when weeds are actively producing seed, the seeds could potentially become transferred to other sites via soil or plant parts embedded on construction equipment. In addition, construction personnel have the potential to move weed seed to other areas if seeds become attached to clothing.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 155 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the Proposed Action, CBMR would continue to comply with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. In addition, PDC included in Table 2-2 would be implemented for all approved projects. As the Proposed Action could result in the spread of weeds into previously unoccupied areas, the implementation of PDC is paramount. Climate change-induced drought conditions have the potential to intensify competition between weed species and non-weed species; therefore, corresponding to an increased risk where weeds are not already present. Reducing the threat of weed spread and managing existing weed populations hinges on the implementation of management measures such as those outlined in the PDC of Table 2-2 to ensure successful suppression under climate change conditions.

With implementation of the weed management plans for all List A and List B noxious weed species and PDC, it is anticipated that the threat of increased weed spread would be lessened. The main elements of the weed management plan and PDC include: 1) pretreatment of existing infestations; 2) cleaning all off- road and construction equipment; 3) revegetation with Forest Service approved seed mixes that are certified noxious weed free; 4) use of Forest Service approved weed free mulches; and 5) monitoring and treatment of the project area for three years.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of vegetation resources extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of vegetation resources include the project area which encompasses the existing CBMR SUP area as well as the adjusted SUP area into the proposed Teo Drainage area and extends to nearby areas of NFS lands, where select projects could affect species composition and overall forest health on the GMUG.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 156 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following current and upcoming projects could have cumulative impacts on vegetation resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

When combined with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and considering the existing guidance protecting federally listed and Region 2 sensitive species as well as the PDC identified in this proposal, the cumulative impacts to forest health, vegetation types, and noxious weeds would be negligible.

Under the Proposed Action, there is a remote possibility of cumulative effects to the moonwort species, especially because the rarity of Botrychium ascendens and B. paradoxum make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation. Assuming presence of the above listed species, past actions likely had both positive and negative effects on Botrychium spp. Historic activities within the project area, such as ski trail development and forest thinning that reduced forest cover while minimizing ground disturbance and soil sterilization, likely benefitted moonworts by creating open habitats preferred by these species; however, introduction of invasive non-native species, infrastructure development (e.g., buildings, lift tower foundations) and creation of new roads and trails may have been detrimental to moonworts by increasing competition for light, causing erosion and sedimentation, and eradicating habitat. Present and future projects would likely cause similar effects to those in the past, and the actions and effects described above can be additive. Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670.32) mandates that activities, “…avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern.” Thus, cumulative effects are not expected to contribute to increases in any current, or predicted, downward trend in sensitive plant species viability across the project area.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Ground disturbance associated with the Proposed Action represents an irretrievable effect to forest health resources within the SUP area and adjacent private lands. Overstory removal is not considered an irreversible commitment because timber is a renewable resource.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 157 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

I. FISH AND WILDLIFE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This wildlife analysis is tiered to , and incorporates by reference, the Forest Plan as well as the SRLMD.124 Species analyzed were identified as listed, PTES, Forest Service Region 2 sensitive, or MIS. A Biological Assessment (BA)/Biological Evaluation (BE)/MIS/Migratory Bird Report has been prepared and is in the project file.125 All of these documents are hereby incorporated by reference and summarized in this section. Refer to the Affected Environment portion of Section H – Vegetation for a detailed description of vegetation communities within the project area. The spatial scope of the wildlife analysis primarily includes CBMR’s existing and proposed SUP area, but it also extends to areas beyond the existing and proposed SUP area that could be impacted from a wildlife movement standpoint.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Threatened and Endangered Species Federally threatened and endangered species for the project area are displayed in Table 3I-1. Species in bold are analyzed in detail, as it was determined the proposed projects could overlap their respective habitats. Other listed and proposed species known to occur elsewhere on the GMUG and/or in Colorado were considered but not analyzed for one or more of the following reasons:

• The species were not identified by the USFWS as potentially present in the project area;

• The species’ habitats do not occur in the project area or on the Gunnison Ranger District;

• The species have no affinities to project area habitats;

• The project area is outside of the species’ range; and/or

• The management decisions associated with the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action would have no effect on the species, on their habitats, or on designated critical habitat.

A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance was needed to complete the analysis. No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. The following table documents the rationale for excluding a species.

124 USDA Forest Service, 1991 and 2008a 125 Western Ecosystems, Inc., 2017; Wildlife Specialties LLC, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 158 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-1. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Wildlife Species Species Statusa Rationale for Exclusion from Detailed Analysisb (Habitat) (Common Name, Scientific Name) Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly No habitat (alpine snow willow stands >12,000’on peaks E Boloria acrocnema ≥12,600’) Humpback chub Not excluded; additional water depletions (far downstream in E Gila cypha Colorado River) Bonytail chub Not excluded; additional water depletions (far downstream in E G. elegans Colorado River) Colorado pikeminnow Not excluded; additional water depletions (far downstream in E Ptychocheilus Lucius Colorado River) Razorback sucker Not excluded; additional water depletions (far downstream in E Xyrauchen texanus Colorado River) Greenback cutthroat trout Habitat outside of historical range, unsuitable year-round T Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias habitat (isolated mountain stream headwaters) No historic, occupied, designated critical, or suitable habitat Gunnison sage-grouse T present or affected (large expanses of sagebrush with grasses Centrocercus minimus and forbs) North American wolverine Historic range (remote mountains and alpine areas), no P Gulo gulo luscus known individuals in the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Canada lynx Present in action area, potential forage/travel habitat (montane T Lynx Canadensis and subalpine forests) Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2017 Notes: a Federal status, listed after species, is as follows: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P = Proposed b In respective action areas

For purpose of this analysis, the “action area” includes “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.”126 Action areas are defined individually for the species carried forward and considered in detail. For the purposes of this analysis, the big river fish action area is the Gunnison and Colorado River (below the confluence with the Gunnison River) basins, extending downstream from CBMR. The Canada lynx action area includes the Gothic LAU, the Poncha Pass Lynx Linkage that is bisected by Highway 50, the main highway conducting traffic to and from CBMR, and the Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Linkage Area that is bisected by Highway 114. This area is sufficiently inclusive to capture the most far-reaching, measurable, potential direct, indirect, and reasonably certain effects associated with the Proposed Action.

Big River Fish These four big river fish are addressed together because they all occur far downstream from the project area in the Gunnison and Colorado River basins (i.e., the action area) and because water depletions, water quality degradation, and the effects of impoundments have been the major factors adversely affecting these species. The USFWS has determined that activities resulting in water depletion in the Upper Colorado River Basin may jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish. Section 7 of the ESA mandates that actions authorized, funded, or implemented by a federal agency will not likely

126 USFWS and NMFS, 1998; 50 CFR § 402.02

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 159 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Federal actions that would result in new depletions of water or degradation of water quality to tributaries of the Colorado River require consultation with the USFWS. Existing water use, water rights, and ESA Section 7 consultation are detailed in the technical report found in the project file.

Canada Lynx Preliminary data from lynx monitored in the vicinity of Summit and Eagle County ski areas suggest that lynx approach ski area operational boundaries but may not be using ski areas during daylight hours during the winter operating season; however, lynx may use ski areas at night and during summer months when recreational activities have ceased.127

Habitat connectivity associated with daily, breeding season, and landscape-level movements through ski areas is somewhat degraded during the ski season by a combination of habitat fragmentation from developed ski terrain, skier presence and activity during operating hours, a reduced prey base, and by insect epidemic effects (i.e., mountain pine beetle where lodgepole pine is present).

In addition to the habitat loss and fragmentation associated with developed ski terrain, the presence of skiers within and adjacent to active terrain, including undeveloped tree skiing areas, has likely degraded the inherent value of lynx habitat as foraging and security areas. Because of habitat loss and fragmentation from ski area development, and the subsequent negative effects of winter skiing activity (e.g., snow compaction, increased predator/competitor presence, reduced hare habitat effectiveness, etc.), snowshoe hare presence is often reduced and may eventually be eliminated in at least some areas year- round.128 The USFWS has, therefore, concluded that although high quality lynx habitat may occur adjacent to ski trails, its functionality is likely degraded by the winter elimination of hares due to human intrusion and disturbance into the habitat.

Lynx Analysis Units Proximate to the Project Area The project area is contained within the 68,300 plus-acre Gothic LAU. There is no lynx linkage zone overlapping or contiguous with this LAU. Existing habitat statistics for the Gothic LAU, not including field validation associated with the Proposed Action, are provided in Table 3I-2. There have been no recent insect epidemics in the LAU that have impaired lynx habitat effectiveness.

127 Roberts, 2012 128 USFWS, 2013

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 160 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-2. Gothic LAU Existing Habitat Statistics Lynx Habitat Category Acres in LAU Percent in LAU Suitable Habitat Primary Suitable (PS) 20,565.7 31.0 Secondary Suitable (SS) 8,278.4 12.5 Subtotal Suitable Habitat 28,844.1 43.5 Unsuitable Habitat Primary Unsuitable (PU) 89.6 0.1 Subtotal Unsuitable Habitat 89.6 0.1 Habitat Totals Total Lynx Habitat 28,933.7 43.6 Total Non-Habitat 37,367.3 56.4 Total Acres in LAU 66,300.9 100 Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2017 Note: Data are based on Forest Service habitat mapping and classification criteria and LAU data, unless otherwise noted Total Lynx Habitat = PS + SS + PU. Numbers may not total due to rounding.

Based on Table 3I-2, the Gothic LAU is non-functional because of the large percentage (56.4 percent) of naturally occurring non-habitat associated primarily with alpine habitat, but also including broad, graminoid-dominated valley bottoms. Suitable lynx habitat in the LAU is 43.5 percent, far below the minimum 70 percent functionality threshold. Unsuitable habitat (0.1 percent) is not a limiting factor in the Gothic LAU. Existing habitat fragmentation on CBMR has contributed to the LAU’s non-functionality, but only to a negligible extent, considering its relatively small percentage of all non-habitat.

It is important to note that LAUs are arbitrary constructs. Suitable lynx habitat in the Gothic LAU is or would be functional and able to support a resident lynx year-round if a lynx could connect those habitats to sufficient areas of suitable habitat in contiguous LAUs.

Lynx Linkages Proximate to the Project Area Two lynx linkages are proximate to the project area and have historically been crossed by guests accessing CBMR. The first of these linkages is the Poncha Lynx Linkage Area, which is Highway 50 over Monarch Pass and is used by the majority of guests driving from Colorado Front Range population centers. The second linkage is the Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Linkage Area, which is Highway 114 and is used by those guests driving from Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and southern Colorado. A description of both lynx linkage areas is provided in the following discussion.

• Poncha Lynx Linkage Area: This linkage area provides for movement between the San Juans to the Sawatch and Sangre de Cristo Ranges. It connects central Colorado to southern Colorado and is a very important connection. The topography pattern and vegetation results in a funneling north-south connection near Poncha Pass. This linkage also includes Monarch and Marshall

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 161 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Passes, as they provide a series of habitat and terrain features that provide a “stepping stone”-type series of connections.129

• Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Linkage Area: This linkage area provides for north-south movements from the San Juans to the Sawatch Range, and is a well-used movement corridor by lynx. North Pass (Highway 114) is a potential barrier or impediment to movements.130

Existing Lynx Habitat within the Project Area Table 3I-3 lists the acreage and percentage of existing lynx habitat types within the project area that includes the existing and proposed CBMR SUP area and adjacent private lands.

Table 3I-3. Existing Lynx Habitat within the Project Area Lynx Habitat Category Acres in Project Area Percent in Project Area Primary Suitable (PS) Within Existing SUP Area 1,056.9 32.0 Within Proposed SUP Adjustment Area 393.2 11.9 On Private Lands 93.9 2.8 Subtotal Primary Suitable Habitat 1,544.1 46.8 Secondary Suitable (SS) Within Existing SUP Area 325.0 9.8 Within Proposed SUP Adjustment Area 65.8 2.0 On Private Lands 34.3 1.0 Subtotal Secondary Suitable Habitat 425.1 12.9 Primary Unsuitable (PU, all NFS) Within Existing SUP Area 18.8 0.6 Within Proposed SUP Adjustment Area 0.2 0.0 On Private Lands 0.0 0.0 Subtotal Primary Unsuitable 19.0 0.6 Totals Total Lynx Habitat 1,988.2 60.2 Non-habitat 1,311.9 39.8 Total Acres in Project Area 3,300.1 100 Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2017 Note: Data are based on Forest Service habitat mapping and classification criteria and LAU data, unless otherwise noted Total Lynx Habitat = PS + SS + PU. Numbers may not total due to rounding.

129 USDA Forest Service, 2008b 130 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 162 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As shown in Table 3I-3, most (60.2 percent) of the project area is composed of lynx habitat and 59.7 percent is suitable. Primary unsuitable habitat is a small fraction (0.6 percent) of the project area, primarily composed of avalanche chutes. Conventional ski trails, boulder fields, alpine areas and meadows compose non-habitat, which accounts for 39.8 percent of the project area. There have been no recent insect infestations that have altered lynx habitats in the project area.

The effectiveness of most lynx habitats in the project area is diminished year-round by habitat fragmentation; negative effects on hares that reduce or eliminate hare presence; diurnal skiing activity and diurnal and nocturnal maintenance, such as snowmaking and grooming, during the winter; and diurnal recreation and maintenance during the summer. Current human intrusion into remaining habitats (i.e., intertrail islands and larger forest blocks) within the current operations area is likely frequent enough and intense enough to preclude lynx from effectively using the habitat. Studies show that there is some threshold of human use that may render habitat ineffective as lynx are likely to avoid areas of intense human use. As it relates to CBMR, the existing levels of year-round human activity within the project area likely causes lynx to avoid these areas, thus reducing or eliminating the functionality of the habitat. Because these areas encompass over 50 percent of the forest cover at CBMR, their impaired effectiveness limits the functional effectiveness of all habitat in the project area.

The habitat in and around the Teo Drainage area, which is outside of the current SUP area but would be included in the proposed SUP area boundary adjustment, is currently functional as lynx habitat. The habitat is intact and of relatively high quality, regular skiing does not occur in the area, and the only human use is limited to a light level of fall hunting. This area contains the largest remaining block of spruce-fir-dominated forest at CBMR; however, this habitat is isolated from surrounding lynx habitats and the towns of Crested Butte and Mt. Crested Butte would likely block any attempted lynx movements from the ski area to the northwest and west. Furthermore, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) monitoring of radio-collared lynx has indicated that the entire Teo Drainage area is located outside of the lynx habitat use areas, even though it is the largest block of higher quality lynx habitat. Because the monitoring of radio-collared lynx has ended, it is unknown if CPW monitoring data is reflective of current lynx use.

It is unlikely that this habitat and the remaining forest on CBMR would be part of an established home range because of travel inefficiencies to and from sufficient surrounding habitats; however, the habitat is functional for transient and dispersing lynx, and potentially including use as diurnal security habitat, and could facilitate broad scale habitat connectivity.

Existing Use of the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Project Area Section A – Recreation contains a detailed description of CBMR’s winter and summer operations. The following paragraphs are intended to quantify baseline use of the project area (operating lifts, existing backcountry skiing, summer activities, etc.) for the purpose of qualifying potential impacts to wildlife that could occur under the Proposed Action.

Winter With the exception of the terrain that would be developed outside of the existing SUP area in the Teo Drainage area, all terrain proposed for development is currently being skied to some extent. All terrain associated with proposed Teo Park development is currently skied as part of Headwall, Peak, and Teo 1

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 163 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and Teo 2 Bowls. During the 2015/16 ski season, it was estimated that approximately 22 percent of High Lift surface lift riders would enter Teo 1 Bowl, resulting in 35 skiers per hour or approximately 210 skiers per day.131 Teo 2 Bowl was not open during the 2015/16 ski season due to snow conditions and operational constraints.

The proposed Teo Drainage terrain outside of the current SUP boundary is not currently skied due to its condition as undesirable backcountry terrain and it being long and difficult to egress. Likewise, there is currently no skiing through the Teo Drainage terrain out to the Brush Creek Trail and road. There is no existing or proposed snowmaking or grooming of Teo Park or the proposed Teo Drainage terrain. There is little, if any, summer maintenance in Teo Park and what may occur is entirely diurnal, infrequent, and localized.

Other winter activities are available at CBMR; however, none account for levels of use that are greater than the previously described operations for traditional snow sports (i.e., skiing).

Summer CBMR offers a variety of summer recreational activities, including lift-served mountain biking and hiking, zip line tours, a climbing wall, bungee trampoline, mini-golf, disc golf, nature viewing, and public access to the summit of the Main Mountain. With exception of lift-served mountain biking and hiking, use of these activities is centralized in the base and Prospect areas. Mountain biking and hiking use is dispersed over 20 miles of existing trails for mountain biking and 5 miles of “hiking only” trails that span the CBMR SUP area and adjacent private lands Additionally, the Adaptive Sports Center operates a ropes course located at the top of the Red Lady chairlift and hang gliding from the summit of the resort is authorized with prior permission but account for lower concentrations of use.

Coverboard Survey Results Live, horizontal, conifer foliage density is an important determinant of snowshoe hare presence and abundance within lynx habitat. This cover may occur in both young structure and multi-storied stands with the latter being more important to lynx during the winter period. Assessment of this cover element at the project level is important in determining whether these areas are likely to provide important foraging habitat for lynx. Stands at or above 35 percent represent suitable snowshoe hare foraging habitat; stands below this value represent habitat that is lacking in snowshoe hare foraging habitat. The use of coverboards is the standardized method of quantifying horizontal cover.

Coverboard surveys were used to sample the winter cover of habitats potentially affected within the Teo Drainage, Teo Park, and realigned North Face chairlift areas. The objective was to determine whether multi-storied stands provide winter snowshoe hare cover above a threshold value.

Of the 25 plot locations for which data were collected, 84 percent met or exceeded the 35 percent cover value, indicating that most of the proposed new and upgraded ski terrain represents suitable snowshoe hare winter foraging habitat. The average winter cover density for those 21 locations meeting or exceeding the 35 percent cover value was 52.5 percent.

131 Sale, 2016

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 164 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Although the coverboard surveys indicated that most of the proposed new and upgraded ski terrain represents suitable snowshoe hare winter foraging habitat, a snowshoe hare pellet plot survey performed in the Teo Drainage area provided conflicting data.132 Data derived from the pellet counts indicated that the Teo Drainage area does not contain sufficient hare abundance to support functional lynx foraging habitat. As the results of the Coverboard survey present a more conservative assessment of lynx habitat in the project area, by suggesting an abundance of snowshoe hare, conclusions associated with the Coverboard data take precedence over the pellet plot data for the purpose of this analysis.

Additional detail regarding the coverboard and snowshoe hare pellet plot surveys is available in the project file.

Region 2 Sensitive Species Based on biological surveys of the project area and similar surrounding habitats, habitat suitability on and around the area, records of sensitive species from the action area, and species’ habitat affinities, the species highlighted in bold in Table 3I-4 were determined to have potential habitat in the project area. Sensitive species noted as excluded in Table 3I-4 would not be impacted by the Proposed Action and were eliminated from further analysis. Additional information regarding species with potential habitat present (e.g., American marten) can be found in the technical report in the project file.133

Table 3I-4. Region 2 Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species Species Species (Common Name, Habitat Reason for Exclusion Excluded Scientific Name) Mammals Semidesert shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands and open montane forests below 9,500’. Requires caves or Townsend’s big-eared bat Suitable habitat does not exist abandoned mines for roost sites during all Yes Corynorhinus townsendii within the project area. seasons and stages of its life cycle, and its distribution is strongly correlated with the availability of these features. Gunnison’s prairie dog Restricted to southwestern and south- Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Cynomys gunnisoni central Colorado sage brush ecosystem. within the project area. White-tailed prairie dog Open shrublands, semidesert grasslands, Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Cynomys leucurus and mountain valleys. within the project area. Black-tailed prairie dog Short grass ecosystems along the Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Cynomys ludovicianus Colorado Front Range. within the project area. Wide variety of habitats including Spotted bat montane forests. Rocky cliffs are Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Euderma maculatum necessary to provide suitable cracks for within the project area. roosting. North American wolverine High alpine environments away from Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Gulo gulo human disturbance. within the project area.

132 Stern, 2017 133 Wildlife Specialties LLC, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 165 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-4. Region 2 Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species Species Species (Common Name, Habitat Reason for Exclusion Excluded Scientific Name) Generally a solitary species. In Colorado, the species is frequently detected in Hoary bat Suitable habitat does not exist ponderosa pine forests where large Yes Lasiurus cinereus within the project area. deciduous trees are lacking. Can occur in any appropriate treed habitat. Relatively large rivers at low to moderate River otter Suitable habitat does not exist elevations; need ice-free stretches of river Yes Lontra canadensis within the project area. in winter. Impacts to Canada Lynx are presented in the CBMR Canada lynx Spruce-fir forests. Yes Project EIS Endangered Lynx canadensis Species Act Biological Assessment. Subalpine spruce-fir and lodgepole pine American marten forests, alpine tundra and occasionally No Suitable habitat present. Martes americana montane forests. Coniferous woodlands and shrublands below 7,500’ rocky outcroppings in mid- Fringed myotis Suitable habitat does not exist elevation ponderosa pine, pinyon/juniper, Yes Myotis thysanodes within the project area. oak, & mixed conifer woodlands, grasslands, deserts, & shrublands. Bighorns typically occur in steep, high Rocky Mountain mountain terrain. In Colorado, they prefer Suitable habitat does not exist bighorn sheep Yes habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, within the project area. Ovis canadensis canadensis rock cover and areas near open escape. Desert bighorn sheep Suitable habitat does not exist Desert habitats in southwestern Colorado. Yes Ovis canadensis nelsoni within the project area. Subalpine forests, clear-cut and selectively Pygmy shrew logged forests, forest-meadow edges, bogs No Suitable habitat present. Sorex hoyi and moist meadows, willow thickets, aspen-fir forests, and subalpine parklands. Kit fox Semidesert shrubland and margins of Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Vulpes macrotis pinon-juniper woodlands. within the project area. Birds Not excluded, because of Predominantly uses ponderosa pine, but Northern goshawk their large territory size they will also use Douglas fir, various pines No Accipiter gentilis could use the project site for and aspens. nesting or while foraging. Mature to old-age spruce-fir above 9,000’ Boreal owl Not excluded. Detected in after nesting may wander to open pinon- No Aegolius funereus 2015 and 2016. juniper and ponderosa pine. Sagebrush-obligate species; typically nest Sagebrush sparrow Suitable habitat does not exist at lower elevations up to 8,400’ in the San Yes Artemisiospiza nevadensis within the project area. Luis Valley. Burrowing owl Use burrows created by small mammals in Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Athene cunicularia grasslands, shrublands and deserts. within the project area.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 166 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-4. Region 2 Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species Species Species (Common Name, Habitat Reason for Exclusion Excluded Scientific Name) Vast expanses of ungrazed or lightly American bittern grazed grassland and shrubland with Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Botaurus lentiginosus varied topography, including hills, ridges within the project area. and valleys. Vast expanses of ungrazed or lightly Ferruginous hawk Suitable habitat does not exist grazed grassland and shrubland and Yes Buteo regalis within the project area. shortgrass prairie. Gunnison sage-grouse Suitable habitat does not exist Sagebrush shrublands. Yes Centrocercus minimus within the project area. Spring & fall migrant in western valleys Northern harrier mountain parks, and eastern plains in CO Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Circus cyaneus inhabiting grasslands, agricultural areas, within the project area. marshes & tundra in fall; 3,500 to 13,000’ Yellow-billed cuckoo Old-growth riparian woodlands with dense Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Coccyzus americanus understories. within the project area. Olive-sided flycatcher Not excluded. Suitable Boreal forests between 7,000 to 11,000’ No Contopus cooperi habitat exists. Black swift Nests behind or close to waterfalls and Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Cypseloides niger wet cliffs. within the project area. Nests on foothill and mountain cliffs from American peregrine falcon Suitable habitat does not exist 4,500’ to >9,000’; 50% of all nests sites Yes Falco peregrinus anatum within the project area. near piñon-juniper. Bald eagle Nest in mature cottonwoods or pines near Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Haliaeetus leucocephalus water. within the project area. Alpine, but in the winter they may go as Not excluded. Potentially White-tailed ptarmigan low as 8,000’ along streams lined by No suitable winter habitat exists Lagopus leucura willows or alders. within the project site. Loggerhead shrike Suitable habitat does not exist Shortgrass prairie. Yes Lanius ludovicianus within the project area. Open pine forests, burnt-over areas with Lewis’s woodpecker abundant snags and stumps, riparian and Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Melanerpes lewis rural cottonwoods, and pinon-juniper within the project area. woodlands. In Colorado they prefer the edges of old- Purple martin Suitable habitat does not exist growth aspen stands near a stream, pond, Yes Progne subis within the project area. or spring. Depend on cavities for nesting, open Flammulated owl forests for catching insects, and brush or Not excluded. Detected in No Psiloscops flammeolus dense foliage for roosting at altitudes 2016. between 6,000–10,000’ Brewer’s sparrow Suitable habitat does not exist Sagebrush shrublands. Yes Spizella breweri within the project area. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Suitable habitat does not exist Tympanuchus phasianellus Sagebrush shrublands. Yes within the project area. columbianus

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 167 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-4. Region 2 Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species Species Species (Common Name, Habitat Reason for Exclusion Excluded Scientific Name) Amphibians Damp areas near marshes, wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds, glacial kettle Boreal (western) toad ponds, and lakes interspersed in subalpine Not excluded. Potentially No Anaxyrus boreas boreas forest. Beaver ponds with emergent suitable habitat present. vegetation are the one key habitat component necessary for breeding. Wet meadows and the banks and shallows Northern leopard frog of marshes, ponds, glacial kettle ponds, Not excluded. Potentially No Lithobates pipiens beaver ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, suitable habitat present. and irrigation ditches. Fishes Bonytail chub Suitable habitat does not exist Rocky runs, riffles, and rapids in swift, Yes Gila elegans deep rivers. Mainstem Colorado River and within the project area. Humpback chub major tributaries; upstream to Black Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Gila cypha Rocks near Utah state line. within the project area. Colorado pikeminnow General: Deep, slow runs, pools, and Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Ptychocheilus lucius eddies. within the project area. Spawning: silt to gravel substrates in shallow water and seasonally flooded Razorback sucker Suitable habitat does not exist overbank areas. Mainstem Colorado River Yes Xyrauchen texanus and major tributary rivers; upstream to within the project area. Town of Rifle. Cold, clear, gravely headwater streams Greenback cutthroat trout Suitable habitat does not exist and mountain lakes that provides an Yes Oncorhynchus clarki stomias within the project area. abundant food supply of insects. Most commonly found in small to mid- Bluehead sucker Suitable habitat does not exist sized streams in the Upper Colorado River Yes Catostomus discobolus within the project area. Basin. Flannelmouth sucker Medium to large streams in the Upper Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Catostomus latipinnis Colorado River Basin. within the project area. Mountain sucker Found in smaller rivers and streams in Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Catostomus platyrhynchus northwestern Colorado. within the project area. Roundtail chub In Colorado they historically occurred in Suitable habitat does not exist Yes Gila robusta streams typically below 7,400’ within the project area. Clear, cold water, naturally-fluctuating Colorado river cutthroat flows, low levels of fine sediment in Suitable habitat does not exist Oncorhynchus clarkii channel bottoms, well-distributed pools, Yes within the project area. pleuriticus stable stream banks, and abundant stream cover. Source: Wildlife Specialties LLC 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 168 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species The Forest Plan lists eight species as MIS on the Forest (refer to Table 3I-5). At the project level, MIS are evaluated to address issues, concerns and opportunities for meeting overall goals, standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan (FSM 2621.1). All eight MIS were initially considered for analysis; however, only three species were retained as MIS to be evaluated at the project level, based on Forest Plan selection criteria and the presence or potential occurrence of these species and their habitats within the project site. These species are denoted in bold in Table 3I-5. Additional information regarding MIS species with potential habitat present can be found in the technical report in the project file.134

Table 3I-5. GMUG MIS Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Species Species Analyzed for Representative Rationale for Carrying the Species (Common Name, Project-Level Habitat Forward or Ending the Analysis Scientific Name) Effects? Mammals Abert’s squirrel Not carried forward. Suitable habitat Ponderosa pine forests No Sciurus aberti is not present within the study area. Habitat and populations present in the study area. Species can be Rocky Mountain elk Forest-wide habitats Yes influenced by changes in vegetation Cervus elaphus nelsoni structure and composition due to project activities. Known to occur within the project American marten Subalpine spruce-fir forests and area. Impacts assessment is covered Yes Martes americana lodgepole pine forests within the Region 2 sensitive species section of this document. Birds Brewer’s sparrow Not carried forward. Suitable habitat Sagebrush shrubland species No Spizella breweri is not present within the study area. Known to occur within the project Northern goshawk Aspen, subalpine spruce-fir forests, area. Impacts assessment is covered Yes Accipiter gentilis lodgepole within the Region 2 sensitive species section of this document. Mountain shrub (primarily Gambel Merriam’s wild turkey oak), pinyon-juniper and lower Not carried forward. Suitable habitat Meleagris gallopavo No elevation ponderosa pine habitat is not present within the study area. merriami types Breeds in aspen dominated forests Red-naped sapsucker with nest sites chosen based on Not carried forward. Suitable habitat No Sphyrapicus nuchalis proximity to foraging areas is not present within the study area. (riparian areas with willows) Fish Common trout Known to occur in East River, from East River is nearest suitable Brook trout Yes which water depletions would be habitat Salvelinus fontinalis made for snowmaking. Source: Wildlife Specialties LLC 2017

134 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 169 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Migratory Birds In 2008 the Forest Service Chief signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds. This MOU was pursuant to Executive Order 131866, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.135 The Executive Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further comply with the migratory bird conventions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other pertinent statutes. The purpose of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize negative impacts on migratory birds.

There are 37 Bird Conservation Regions in North America, of which occur at least partially in Colorado. The GMUG occurs within bird conservation Region 16, the Southern Rockies Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region, which encompasses portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming. Table 3I-6 presents a list of birds of conservation concern for bird conservation Region 16, as well as information about potential occurrence in the project area. Species with “no” occurrence in the project area are excluded from analysis because the species does not occur, suitable habitat is not present, the project area is above the species altitudinal range, or the species has very rare migratory occurrence near CBMR.

Table 3I-6. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province Species Occurrence in General Habitat (Common Name, Scientific Name) Project Area American bittern Wetlands No Botaurus lentiginosus Bald eagle Lakes and rivers No Haliaeetus leucocephalus Ferruginous hawk Grassland, mountain shrub, semi-desert No Buteo regalis shrubland, sagebrush shrublands Golden eagle Agricultural, grassland, cliff/rock/talus No Aquila chrysaetos Peregrine falcon Agricultural, pinyon-juniper, spruce-fir, No Falco peregrinus anatum ponderosa pine, cliff/rock/talus, wetlands Prairie falcon Agricultural, grassland, semi-desert shrubland, No Falco mexicanus cliff/rock/talus Gunnison sage-grouse Mountain Shrub, Sagebrush Shrubland, Low No Centrocercus minimus Elevation Riparian Snowy plover Wetlands No Charadrius nivosus Mountain plover Agricultural, grassland, semi-desert shrubland, No Charadrius montanus sagebrush shrubland Long-billed curlew Shorelines No Numenius americanus Southwestern willow flycatcher Willow-riparian No Empidonax traillii extimus

135 66 Federal Register 11, 2001

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 170 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-6. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province Species Occurrence in General Habitat (Common Name, Scientific Name) Project Area Juniper titmouse Pinyon-juniper woodlands No Baeolophus ridgwayi Yellow-billed cuckoo Low elevation riparian, wetlands No Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Flammulated owl Aspen, ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer, spruce-fir Yes Psiloscops flammeolus Burrowing owl Grassland, semi-desert shrubland, sagebrush No Athene cunicularia shrubland Veery Dense riparian thickets, willow-riparian No Catharus fuscescens Lewis’s woodpecker Ponderosa pine, low elevation riparian No Melanerpes lewis Gray vireo Oak woodlands/scrub No Vireo vicinior Pinyon jay Pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine No Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Bendire’s thrasher Semi-desert shrubland No Toxostoma bendirei Black rosy finch Spruce-fir forest; alpine No Leucosticte atrata Brown-capped rosy finch Nests above timberline in alpine zone in cliffs, No Eucosticte australis crevices; also utilizes spruce-fir forest Cassin’s finch Primarily spruce-fir, but also mixed-conifer forest Yes Haemorhous cassinii Grace’s warbler Ponderosa pine No Setophaga graciae Brewer’s sparrow Sagebrush shrubland No Spizella breweri Grasshopper sparrow Grasslands No Ammodramus savannarum Chestnut-collared longspur Shortgrass prairie No Calcarius ornatus Source: Wildlife Specialties LLC 2017

The Colorado Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan (BCP) identified priority species within each physiographic area in Colorado based on the PIF Species Prioritization Process.136 The species that occur within the project site are identified in Table 3I-7.

136 Beidleman, 2000

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 171 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-7. PIF Priority Species of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province Habitat Potential Influence from BCP Priority Species Potential Issues(s) Type Project Activities Blue (Dusky) grouse Mixed Altered disturbance regimes, snags, Changes in forest structure and Williamson’s sapsucker conifer timber management. composition; snag habitat. Boreal owl Timber management snags, altered Changes in forest structure and Olive-sided flycatcher Spruce/fir disturbance regimes composition; snag habitat. Hammond’s flycatcher Source: Wildlife Specialties LLC 2017

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at CBMR without changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area. Over the short term (less than twenty years), vegetation within the project area would remain much the same as described in Affected Environment. The project area would continue to provide habitat for species that are currently present and disturbance to these species would remain at current levels, with the exception of those portions of the project area that are private lands. Portions of the project area located on private lands would be subject to private development, which could modify the habitat of various species. Additionally, projected climate change impacts on air and water temperatures and precipitation regimes in the Crested Butte area could have localized impacts on fish and wildlife at CBMR. These impacts could be both direct and indirect, including changes to habitat, forage, timing of breeding, and inter-species relationships (e.g., macroinvertebrates and fish). Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impact on threatened, endangered, Region 2 sensitive species, MIS, or migratory birds. Threatened and Endangered Species The No Action Alternative would result in no additional water diversions or depletions; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the big river fish or their habitat. Additionally, there would be no vegetation clearing or grading authorized on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area, and thus there would be no effect on Canada lynx and its habitat. Further, the No Action Alternative would be consistent with all applicable SRLMD.137

Region 2 Sensitive Species The No Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on any Region 2 sensitive wildlife species or their habitats on NFS lands, because no habitat modifications would be authorized on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have “no impact” on any Region 2 sensitive species with habitat overlapping the project area.

137 USDA Forest Service, 2008a, 2008b, and 2009b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 172 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species The No Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect impacts on elk, American marten, and northern goshawk because no habitat modifications would be authorized on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area. Additionally, the No Action Alternative would result in no additional water diversions or depletions; therefore, there would be no impacts to brook trout.

Migratory Birds The No Action Alternative would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to Birds of Conservation Concern, including PIF priority species, because no habitat modifications would be authorized on NFS lands within the CBMR SUP area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Threatened and Endangered Species

Big River Fish The Proposed Action includes a proposed expansion of the snowmaking infrastructure that would add 32 acres of previously listed snowmaking coverage. As discussed in Chapter 2, it was discovered that 32 acres of snowmaking at CBMR was listed on trails that do not have snowmaking; therefore, CBMR intends to use the 32 acres of snowmaking as a “credit” without having to build a water storage pond. Implementation of snowmaking on the proposed 32 acres of ski terrain would require, on average, 28.7 acre feet of additional diversions from the East River. Depletions to the river resulting from these additional diversions would equal 6.8 acre feet. Although the Proposed Action does not include construction of new restaurants or the expansion of existing facilities, it is estimated that implementation of the proposed projects would increase the overall skier visitations by approximately 5.5 percent relative to existing conditions. Assuming the higher number of skiers would translate into a greater utilization of the on-mountain restaurants, the restaurant diversions and depletions would increase by 0.1 acre foot and 0.01 acre foot, respectively.

Under the Proposed Action, water diversions and depletions at CBMR would increase by 28.8 acre feet and 6.8 acre feet, respectively, to a total 296.9 acre feet and 70.0 acre feet, respectively. Table 3I-8 depicts the total proposed water use.

Table 3I-8. Total Proposed Water Use Under Existing and Proposed Conditions at CBMR Existing Proposed Water Use Type (acre feet) (acre feet) Total Diversions 268.1 296.9 Total Depletions 63.2 70.0 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 173 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The increase in water diversions and depletions associated with the Proposed Action and shown in Table 3I-8 would result in a loss of water to endangered fish downstream that is likely to adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. The USFWS concurred with this determination in a Biological Opinion (BO) issued on August 27, 2018. These impacts could be compounded by the impacts of climate change on the greater Colorado River watershed, which are expected to include changes in air and water temperature, evaporation, timing of rain and snow events and snowmelt, and the quantity of water found in the watershed.

Canada Lynx The Proposed Action would present impacts to Canada lynx in the form of habitat modification, both within the project area at CBMR and the greater Gothic LAU, and through indirect means such as increased human activity in lynx habitat and increased traffic in lynx linkage areas. Construction of proposed projects itself could displace a lynx moving through active construction areas and access corridors, and present construction-related noise that may alter lynx movement during the summer construction periods; however, the potential effects to lynx from construction-related activities would be insignificant and discountable. The following paragraphs describe the impacts to Canada lynx anticipated to occur under the Proposed Action in greater detail.

Impacts to Lynx Habitat within the Project Area Table 3I-9 summarizes the net effect of implementing Proposed Action’s project components on the various lynx habitat types within the CBMR project area.

Table 3I-9. Net Acreages of Lynx Habitat Affected Within the Project Area – Proposed Action Lynx Habitat Category Acreage Suitable Habitat Primary Suitable (PS) -401.3 Secondary Suitable (SS) -21.3 Subtotal Suitable Habitat -422.5 Unsuitable Habitat Primary Unsuitable (PU) -10.2 Subtotal Unsuitable Habitat -10.2 Habitat Totals Total Lynx Habitat -432.8 Non-habitat (NFS and private lands) +432.8 Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2017 Notes: Data are based on Forest Service habitat mapping and classification criteria and LAU data, unless otherwise noted Total Lynx Habitat = PS + SS + PU. Numbers may not total due to rounding.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 174 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As shown in Table 3I-9, vegetation clearing and grading associated with the Proposed Action would convert 401.3 acres of primary suitable lynx habitat, 21.3 acres of secondary suitable habitat, and 10.2 acres of primary unsuitable habitat into 432.8 acres of non-habitat. The majority of habitat conversion would occur on NFS lands (99.7 percent) compared to private lands (0.3 percent). Climate change is reducing the snowpack in western North American mountains and is shifting the distribution of boreal forest northward and up mountain slopes.138 Thus, the removal of additional tree habitat from the Proposed Action may exacerbate the impacts of climate change on lynx habitat, movement patterns, and prey.

Impacts to the Gothic Lynx Analysis Unit As a result of the habitat conversion depicted in Table 3I-9 that would occur under the Proposed Action, suitable lynx habitat in the Gothic LAU would decline by 0.6 percent to total 42.9 percent, which is further reduced from the minimum 70 percent functionality threshold. This would further impair the current non-functional condition of the Gothic LAU, largely as a result of naturally occurring non-habitat associated primarily with alpine habitat and broad, graminoid-dominated valley bottoms. Currently unsuitable habitat would remain unchanged at 0.1 percent.

Table 3I-10 provides an updated version of Table 3I-2, depicting the change in lynx habitat statistics for the Gothic LAU that would occur under the Proposed Action.

Table 3I-10. Updated Lynx Habitat Statistics for the Gothic LAU – Proposed Action Lynx Habitat Category Acres in LAU % in LAU Suitable Habitat Primary Suitable 20,165.0 30.4 Secondary Suitable 8,256.9 12.5 Subtotal Suitable Habitat 28,422.0 42.9 Unsuitable Habitat Primary Unsuitable 79.3 0.1 Subtotal Unsuitable Habitat 79.3 0.1 Habitat Totals Total Lynx Habitat 28,501.3 43.0 Total Non-Habitat 37,799.7 57.0 Total Acres in LAU 66,300.9 100.0 Source: Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2017 Notes: Data are based on Forest Service habitat mapping and classification criteria and LAU data, unless otherwise note. Numbers may not total due to rounding. Total Lynx Habitat = PS + SS + PU. Numbers may not total due to rounding.

138 IPCC, 2007

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 175 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects to Lynx The Proposed Action would adjust the SUP area of CBMR to include the Teo Drainage area, a large, currently undeveloped and unused area of moderate quality lynx habitat, while also increasing use in a moderately-large, largely undeveloped, currently skied, and naturally fragmented area of moderate quality lynx habitat that exists in the Teo Park and associated upper bowls. Combined with the direct effects on lynx habitat described above, the new and increased skier use would result in the permanent degradation of functional year-round lynx habitat values (i.e., snowshoe hare habitat) and could result eventually in the elimination of functional winter lynx habitat values. It is likely that a lower abundance of snowshoe hares would persist in tree skiing terrain during the summer months when human disturbance is minimal. There should be a natural tendency for hares to attempt recolonization of the terrain from undisturbed and unused peripheral habitats. Red squirrels should persist in the tree skiing terrain year-round, but at a lower abundance.

All other proposed terrain upgrades within the existing operations area should have little additional effects on lynx because existing habitat fragmentation and levels of year-round human activity within the current CBMR operations area that likely causes lynx to avoid the area, thus reducing or eliminating the functionality of the habitat. Preliminary data from the Colorado Lynx and Winter Recreation Study suggests that lynx are not using Summit and Eagle County ski areas in the day time or night time hours and that existing summer activities at those ski areas are not necessarily affecting lynx; therefore, additional vegetation removal, development of human infrastructure (lifts, roads, trails, etc.), and increased human presence (bikers, hikers, etc.) within the currently used portion of the CBMR project area is unlikely to cause additional, measurable/detectable effects to lynx when added to the existing environmental baseline.139

Guest use of the various summer activities areas would occur during the same period as at present, from approximately June 15 to September 30, with peak use occurring in July and August. Current maximum summer chairlift operating hours, which dictate the daily summer activity period on the mountain, are 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with most use occurring mid-day; therefore, the seasonal duration of reduced habitat effectiveness along and adjacent to new activity corridors could affect any lynx and prey species that would otherwise be present during that period. Additional human activity along new recreational trails, particularly those that bisect relatively large intertrail islands, have the potential to cause additional displacement of wildlife present that would involve a much larger area than the acreage of direct habitat modification for trails.

The Proposed Action is not expected to induce any additional secondary development for employees or future residents that would affect functional lynx habitat; however, the Proposed Action would result in incremental traffic increases related to visitation on regional highways through the Poncha and Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Lynx Linkage Areas resulting in negative highway effects on lynx. Anticipated impacts to existing traffic trends associated with the Proposed Action are described in Section E – Traffic. Collectively, total traffic associated with CBMR is contributing to negative highway effects through the

139 Roberts and Broderdorp, 2014

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 176 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Poncha and Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Lynx Linkage Areas and the effects likely reach adverse levels over Monarch Pass.

The Proposed Action is not expected to result in any increased skier use of undeveloped habitat blocks outside of the adjusted SUP area that could have further adverse effects on the lynx prey base, lynx diurnal security habitat, habitat connectivity, or lynx home range efficacy.

Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Consistency The direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action would be inconsistent with five objectives and four guidelines of applicable SRLMD. The Proposed Action would not be consistent with Human Use Project Objectives HU O1, O2, O3, O4, and O5 and Human Use Project Guidelines HU G3, G10, and G11 because it would adjust the existing SUP area into approximately 500 acres of undeveloped, mostly high- quality lynx habitat and develop most of that acreage for tree skiing terrain by removing up to 50 percent of the existing trees. That entire 500-acre boundary adjustment area would become snow-compacted and the current effectiveness of the lynx habitat (at whatever functional value of potential winter foraging, snowshoe hare, and diurnal security habitat is present) would not be maintained in most of that area.

Identified Human Use Project Objectives:

• HU O1: Maintain the lynx’s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep snow, by discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat

• HU O2: Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity

• HU O3: Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat.

• HU O4: Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanding existing developed recreation sites or ski areas.

• HU O5: Manage human activities, such as special uses, mineral and oil and gas exploration and development, and placement of utility transmission corridors, to reduce impacts on lynx and lynx habitat.

Identified Human Use Project Guidelines:

• HU G3: Recreation development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat.

• HU G10: Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12.

• HU G11: When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 177 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A complete SRLMD consistency analysis, providing reasoning for consistency or inconsistency with each applicable objective or guideline, is provided in the BA contained in the project file.

Effects Determination Considering the largely, naturally, non-functional condition of the Gothic LAU, and collective habitat losses, land uses, and human activity effects, the additive loss of lynx habitat and disturbances associated with the Proposed Action, including traffic contributions through the Poncha Lynx Linkage, would be considered to be adverse. The Proposed Action’s collective effects on lynx foraging, sheltering, and breeding would exceed the definitions of insignificant and discountable; therefore, warranting a may affect, likely to adversely affect determination for Canada lynx. The USFWS concurred with this determination in a BO issued on August 27, 2018.

Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 contains Canada lynx-related conservation measures as required components of the Proposed Action that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate project effects to lynx and lynx habitat. There may be additional lynx-related conservation measures, including compensatory mitigation, developed during the ESA Section 7 process that may be considered by the decision maker in the ROD to further avoid, minimize, or mitigate project effects that would be vital or necessary to meeting the overall intent of the Forest Plan and SRLMD. Region 2 Sensitive Species Determinations to Region 2 sensitive species are presented in Table 3I-11. Detailed effects analysis by species is included in the BE found in the project file, which contains more in-depth information for why the Proposed Action results in impacts or no impacts for the species considered. In general, species with habitat present would be impacted due to the loss of habitat and the increase in human presence associated with the Proposed Action. Climate change impacts on air and water temperatures and precipitation may have small additive adverse impacts on these species, especially where alterations from the Proposed Action reduce habitat viability.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 178 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-11. Effects to Region 2 Sensitive Species Analyzed – Proposed Action Determination Summary Species (Common Name, Determination Impact Amount Scientific Name) Mammals American marten Approximately 379.6 acres potentially impacted; MAII Martes americana approximately 77% of one home range. Pygmy shrew Potentially 9.8 acres of mesic habitat impacted; MAII Sorex hoyi approximately 24 home ranges. Birds Impacts to approximately 9.4 acres of aspen forest, or less Northern goshawk than 1.5% of the smallest reported home range size of 640 NI Accipiter gentilis acres. No known nest sites within the project area; thinning may increase foraging opportunities. White-tailed ptarmigan NI Not known to occur within the project area. Lagopus leucurus Boreal owl Approximately 392.8 acres of impacts to spruce-fir forests; MAII Aegolius funereus approximately 10% of one home range. Flammulated owl Less than 0.1 total acre of impact to potential foraging and NI Psiloscops flammeolus nesting habitats described in Table 3I-4. Impacts to approximately 192.3 acres of potential nesting and Olive-sided flycatcher MAII foraging habitat within the Teo Drainage area. The loss of Contopus cooperi 192.3 acres represents 87% of two summer home ranges. Amphibians Boreal western toad NI Not known to occur within the project area. Anaxyrus boreas boreas Northern leopard frog NI Not known to occur within the project area. Lithobates pipiens Source: Wildlife Specialties LLC 2017 Notes: MAII = may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide. NI = No impact.

Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 includes PDC that would minimize impacts to boreal owls, olive-sided flycatchers, and American martens by placing timing restrictions on construction and operations of proposed projects.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 179 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species

Rocky Mountain Elk The direct impact of the Proposed Action to Rocky Mountain elk would be to mapped summer concentration and production (calving) habitat. In areas where trails and/or lifts would be located, the Proposed Action would result in the loss and/or modification (up to 50 percent thinning) of approximately 415.4 acres of aspen, lodgepole, and spruce-fir habitat within the mapped summer concentration area. The majority of the change to the habitat type would occur in the Teo Drainage area where tree thinning is planned. South facing slopes of the Teo Drainage area are sparsely forested and likely currently do not provide much hiding cover for elk. Conversely, the north facing slopes, are densely forested, and would be thinned; however, hiding cover would still be available in the immediate areas where thinning would not occur. The aspen forest along the lower bench of the Teo Drainage area would not be thinned, which is where the majority of elk sign (i.e., tracks, scat, rubs, etc.) was noted during field surveys.140 Forested areas in which habitat modification would occur would result in an increase in available elk forage because more light would reach the forest floor, which would allow for more grass and shrub growth. Summer range is not a limiting factor and the resulting increase in available forage likely would benefit elk. With projected increases in temperature and changes in precipitation near CBMR due to climate change, summer forage and habitat for Rocky Mountain elk may increase in the future, as an added implication of clearing due to the Proposed Action.

Components of the Proposed Action that would occur within the mapped elk production area would all occur within or near existing disturbed areas and would result in an approximate total of 6.7 acres of habitat loss and/or modification. These 6.7 acres represent less than 1 percent of the 951 acres of mapped elk production area. For the same reasons identified within the mapped elk concentration areas, it is likely that available forage could increase and there would not be an increase in disturbance. These impacts are insignificant and discountable.

Brook Trout Direct and indirect effects associated with the Proposed Action would be insignificant and discountable on this species’ Forest-wide population, habitat distribution, and trend. Brook trout would remain relatively abundant and widely distributed across the GMUG. The Forest Service and CPW would continue monitoring brook trout and their habitats to establish and track population trends and habitat conditions across the GMUG.

Migratory Birds As depicted in Table 3I-12, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the loss of 426.8 acres of potentially suitable mixed conifer/spruce-fir PIF priority species nesting and foraging habitat.

140 Wildlife Specialties, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 180 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3I-12. Impacts to PIF Priority Species of the Southern Rocky Mountains Province by Habitat Type Habitat Type Species Acres Mixed Conifer and Blue (dusky) grouse, Williamson’s sapsucker, boreal owl, 426.8* Spruce/Fir olive-sided flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher Source: Wildlife Specialties LLC 2017 Note: *All impacts combined

For all PIF priority species listed in Table 3I-12, it was determined that the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide.

Additionally, for one of the birds of conservation concern determined to occur within the project area, Cassin’s finch (refer to Table 3I-6), it was determined that the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability range wide. A determination of no effect was provided for all other birds of conservation concern listed in Table 3I-6.

Direct mortality to spruce-fir PIF priority species adults on nests and eggs or young within nests would be eliminated by implementing a seasonal restriction on clearing and grubbing of vegetation between March 14 and July 15. This PDC has been incorporated into Table 2-2 in Chapter 2. Additional PDC are provided in Table 2-2 that are anticipated to minimize impacts to birds of conservation concern and PIF priority species. Under such circumstances, the Proposed Action would be consistent with the Forest Service/USFWS MOU because of the attempt to reduce take of migratory birds.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of fish and wildlife resources extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of fish and wildlife resources varies by species and is discussed above in the Affected Environment.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 181 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following current and upcoming projects could have cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

 CBMR 2013 Resort Master Development Plan  Crested Butte Main Mountain Improvements Plan EA (2007)  1998 CBMR EA  CBMR Mountain Bike Trail Additions CE  CBMR Mountain Bike Trail Construction CE  CBMR Mountain Bike Skills Park CE  CBMR Mountain Biking Trails  Base Area Development  Continued build out of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte  Continued build out of the Town of Crested Butte  Crested Butte Area Plan (2011)  Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association – Fat Bike Grooming and Winter Recreation CE  Gunnison National Forest Silvicultural Projects  North Butte Allotment Fence Construction CE  Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District CE  Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Visitor Use Plan

Projects identified by the Forest Service and listed as reasonably foreseeable in Appendix A with relevance to wildlife are included in the cumulative effects analysis. Some of those projects are also reasonably certain, and their effects on lynx and other wildlife species are considered in more detail in wildlife technical documents.

Reasonably certain future actions and reasonably foreseeable actions could have positive and negative effects on lynx habitat effectiveness in the project area. Reasonably certain, future residential growth is almost entirely ongoing, with previously approved development likely to occur on private lands entirely outside of non-fragmented lynx habitat. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include previously approved, but unimplemented CBMR projects, some of which would negatively affect lynx habitat and incrementally reduce lynx habitat functionality at CBMR. Individually, the projects would have insignificant and discountable effects; however, depending on what projects were implemented, the projects could collectively pose adverse effects to lynx. Additional reasonably foreseeable projects mentioned in the list above are mostly beyond the Gothic LAU, and would most likely result in insignificant and discountable effects on lynx habitat.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 182 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For all Region 2 sensitive species analyzed in the wildlife technical reports, it was determined that the ongoing operation of CBMR presented the highest potential to cumulatively affect species and their habitats. No other reasonably foreseeable projects considered in this analysis were identified as contributing additional cumulative effects to Region 2 sensitive species.

In terms of MIS species, brook trout were determined to have the potential of being cumulatively impacted by water depletions associated with proposed snowmaking. For Rocky Mountain elk it was determined that the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action would be insignificant and discountable. Elk populations are influenced primarily by winter range availability, winter severity, and hunter harvest. GMUG herds are currently above management objectives across the Forest. Cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Action are not anticipated to measurably affect the population, trend, or habitat distribution of elk on a Forest-wide basis.

The spruce beetle epidemic is likely having a negative influence on the habitat of a variety of species analyzed in the wildlife technical reports. Within spruce-dominated forests, spruce beetle mortality would likely alter structural forest stand conditions, which may influence prey species abundance and habitat use. These changes would likely occur in a patchy pattern, with some dead standing trees potentially remaining standing for decades, while others would fall more rapidly. Trees would be expected to fall within the next ten to one hundred years, with many falling between twenty to forty years. Canopy cover would be reduced and reduced overstory coverage generally leads to faster understory regeneration. Through time, a patchy distribution of large amounts of deadfall, dead standing, and newly regenerating trees and shrubs would likely occur across the landscape.

As described in the wildlife technical reports contained in the project file, the action alternatives would result in varying levels of cumulative impacts for the variety of species considered; however, none of these cumulative impacts are expected to be significant.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Tree removal related to the proposed projects would represent an irretrievable effect to some habitat for some threatened and endangered, Region 2 sensitive, and MIS species, as well as migratory birds within the SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because the habitat (vegetation) is a renewable resource.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 183 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

J. GEOLOGY AND SOIL RESOURCES SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This analysis summarizes the Soils Specialist Report for Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects (Soils Report) and the Soils and Geotechnical Impact of 2017 Proposed Mountain Biking Trails, Crested Butte Mountain Resort (Geotechnical Report), both of which are available in the project file.141 The project area for geology and soil resources corresponds to the CBMR SUP area and the proposed SUP area adjustment, which encompass approximately 2,986 acres combined. The geology summary is based on a geologic map of the Gothic Quadrangle and geologic reports of the Crested Butte area.142 The soil summary is based on a Soil Survey of the Taylor River Area and from a site-specific soil study conducted in June 2016.143 Review of existing mapping and imagery, as well as field reconnaissance, was also performed to assess slope instabilities as they relate to proposed mountain bike and multi-use trails in the project area. Disclosed in this section are soil types, estimates of soil organic matter levels, measurements of thicknesses of organic and surface soil mineral horizons, estimates of soil compaction at proposed disturbances, and an assessment of slope instability in the project area.

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION Both the WCPH and the Forest Plan provide direction for the management of soil resources on the GMUG. A primary goal of the WCPH is to protect soil quality, which includes soil depth, structure, organic matter, and nutrients. This direction coincides with a goal of the GMUG to conserve soil resources and to maintain long-term land productivity.

Forest Plan General Direction, Standards, and Guidelines Applicable general directions, standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan include:

• Maintain soil productivity, minimize man-caused soil erosion and maintain the integrity of associated ecosystems.

• Use site preparation methods which are designed to keep fertile, friable topsoil essentially intact.

• Give roads and trails special design considerations to prevent resource damage on capability areas containing soils with high shrink-swell capacity.

• Limit intensive ground disturbing activities on unstable slopes and highly erodible sites.

• Provide adequate road and trail cross drainage to reduce sediment transport energy.

• Revegetate all areas, capable of supporting vegetation, disturbed during road construction and/or reconstruction to stabilize the area and reduce soil erosion.

• Provide permanent drainage and establish protective vegetation cover on all new temporary roads or equipment ways, and all existing roads which are being removed.

141 Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc., 2017; Geo-Haz Consulting Inc., 2017 142 Gaskill et al., 1991; Dowsett et al., 1981; Robinson and Dea, 1981 143 USDA-SCS, 1977

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 184 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Restore soil disturbance caused by human use to soil loss tolerance levels commensurate with the natural ecological processes for the treatment area.

• Minimize soil compaction by reducing vehicle passes, skidding on snow, frozen or dry soil conditions, or by off-ground logging systems.

• Prevent soil surface compaction and disturbance in riparian ecosystems.

• Chisel or rip, on the contour, compacted soils. Soils are considered compacted if there is a 15 percent increase in bulk density or a 50 percent decrease in macro pore space.

• Obliterate and rehabilitate those existing travel ways identified for return to resource production.

• Identify at the project level, upland areas that are immediately adjacent to riparian Management Areas. Adjacent upland areas are those portions of a Management Area which, when subjected to management activities, have a potential for directly affecting the condition of the adjacent riparian area. The magnitude of effects is dependent upon slope steepness, and the kind, amount and location of surface and vegetation disturbance within the adjacent upland unit. A table that serves as a guide to identify the approximate extent of adjacent upland areas is available in the Forest Plan.

• Reduce project caused erosion rates through designed management practices and appropriate erosion mitigation and vegetation/mitigation measures.

• Reduce project caused erosion by 95 percent within five years after initial disturbance.

• Design continuing mitigation/restoration practice and follow-up maintenance activities to insure 80 percent original vegetation ground cover recovery occurs within five years after disturbance.

• Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff.

• Reduce erosion rates to natural conditions in the season of disturbance and sediment yields within one year of the disturbance through necessary mitigation measures such as water-barring and revegetation.

Applicable Water Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measures Applicable soil management measures of the WCPH include the following:

• MM-6: Do not degrade ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and drainage patterns in wetlands.

• MM-10: Rehabilitate disturbed areas that are contributing sediment directly to perennial streams as a result of management activities to maintain water quality and establish vegetation cover.

• MM-13: Manage land treatments to maintain or improve soil quality, limiting the sum of detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of any activity area.

• MM-14: Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 185 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Geology The project area lies on the western edge of the northwest trending Elk Mountains, which extend for nearly 50 miles from the central Sawatch Range to the Huntsman Hills near Glenwood Springs.144 Over the last 510 million years, many earth processes have combined to create the Elk Mountains. From Middle Pennsylvanian through Triassic times, sediments washed to the west off the Ancestral Rocky Mountains and accumulated in the Maroon Basin.145 During the Laramide Orogeny these sedimentary rocks were uplifted forming the Elk Mountains, which consist mainly of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks. About 34 million years ago, these rocks were intruded by abundant Tertiary igneous rocks of quartz monzonite to granodiorite composition associated with laccolith development. The Crested Butte laccolith consists of mid-Tertiary quartz monzonite porphyry and granodiorite porphyry.146 The project area is within the Colorado Mineral Belt, and includes a wide variety of metallic elements that have been mined in the past. These metal deposits are associated with hydrothermal alteration from the intrusive bodies.147

Geologic maps of the project area are available in the Soils Report and Geotechnical Report, both of which are contained in the project file. The higher elevations of the project area are composed of the mid- Tertiary Crested Butte laccolith covered with scattered boulder fields. The mid-elevations consist predominately of Holocene and Pleistocene debris slopes of forested talus, talus streams, and protalus ramparts derived from the Crested Butte laccolith and locally includes landslides, rock falls and avalanche debris. Talus fields on the northeast flank of the mountain are furrowed by linear troughs and ridges, possibly due to deep-seated gravity slumping of the underlying Mancos shale. The lower elevations are composed of the Upper Cretaceous Mancos shale, which in the project area is mainly dark-gray silty to sandy marine shale, and much of which is covered by Holocene landslide deposits and other Holocene and Pleistocene undifferentiated surficial deposits of colluvial slope wash and some talus and glacial deposits.148

Slope Stability The Geotechnical Report contains a review of existing mapping and imagery, coupled with field reconnaissance, that was used to examine slope stability within the project area. Old and young landslides within CBMR’s existing mountain bike trail network were assessed, and it was determined that the primary impacts of existing trails at CBMR in these areas of instability are related to drainage diversion.149 Existing trails intercept natural runoff slopes from above, divert it laterally to some degree, and then discharge it onto other parts of the slope. When lateral water transfer occurs entirely within an unstable area, the impacts from this water transfer is minimal. Larger impacts occur when additional runoff is diverted onto an unstable area from adjacent areas. The addition of water to unstable areas

144 Benedict, 1991 145 Cliffshade, 2004 146 Dowsett et al., 1981 147 Robinson and Dea, 1981 148 Gaskill et al., 1991 149 Young landslides describe those that are more recent and more active; old landslides occurred earlier in the geologic history of an area and are less likely to be reactivated.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 186 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

locally increases groundwater levels, and thus decreases slope stability. Compared to effects of run-off diversion, the effect of the local mass distribution from small trail cuts and fills is negligible.

The existing beginner ability level mountain biking trails examined at CBMR did not considerably intercept and divert runoff. They were built closely to “sustainable” standards suggested by the International Mountain Bicycling Association, with outsloped treads, little or no berming, and frequent dip reversals. Conversely, intermediate trails at CBMR were not built to these same standards, trail treads were insloped rather than outsloped, and runoff was channeled along the inslope side of the tread. In some instances, runoff was diverted into a buried drain pipe, crossing beneath the trail and draining to the downslope side. While this is how runoff is normally routed along a road, it is very different than the dispersed-sheetflow-type water management advocated by International Mountain Bicycling Association for trail building.

Based on a review of previously studied geologic areas and identified unstable slopes, five areas were determined to have slope instability potential that could be further degraded by the trail building included in the Proposed Action. These areas were visited during field reconnaissance and existing conditions were recorded. The following bullets describe each of these sensitive areas; the Geotechnical Report contained in the project file provides greater detail and mapping of landslides and instabilities.

• Area 1: This area includes the site of the 2001 Gold Link debris-slide-debris flow event. Proposed mountain biking trails X and Y would descend the same steep slope band that failed in the 2001 Gold Link landslide, but lie west and east of the slide scar, respectively. It is important to note that the proposed trails would primarily be located in tree islands, unlike the 2001 failure that occurred in a cleared ski trail.

• Area 2: The originally-proposed mountain bike trail layout included two trails (V and W) that zigzagged from the yurt west of the Umbrella Bar, down a north-facing slope mapped as a landslide complex and containing a landslide. This slope lies directly upslope of a residential subdivision.

• Area 3: This area includes two mapped landslides; however, there are no proposed trails in the area and further analysis was not completed in the Geotechnical Report.

• Area 4: This area lies at the toe of a large watershed draining the center of the Evolution Bike Park. All the west-flowing surface water and groundwater from this watershed is funneled into a narrow valley with hummocky earthflow topography. Proposed Trails Q and the lower part of Trail R lie in this area, which has a relatively low gradient compared with the rest of the bike park. This narrow valley contains several marshy areas where groundwater from higher in the watershed intercepts the ground surface.

• Area 5: Two landslides about 300 feet wide were mapped just downslope from proposed Trail P.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 187 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soils Most soils within the project area have developed out of parent material of the Crested Butte laccolith and, at lower elevations, the Mancos shale. The forest soil supply is essentially fixed, renewing itself by the slow weathering of bedrock over periods of several hundred years. Many of the soils developed in slope alluvium and colluvium derived from laccolith rocks and occur on steep mountain slopes, summits, and ridges with slopes ranging from about 5 to 150 percent. About a third of the project area consists of rock outcrop, boulder fields, rock slides, and stony lands. The cold climate and high elevation of the project area limit the rate of soil formation.

A site-specific soil study was conducted to validate the accuracy of Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping in areas proposed for soil removal. The intent of the study was not to remap the entire project area but rather to verify the existing soil mapping and to measure thicknesses of organic and surface mineral horizons in areas where the soil surface is to be removed. For the study, 16 soil profiles were described in areas where at minimum the soil surface is expected to be removed, and thicknesses of organic and surface mineral horizons were measured along numerous transects at proposed projects of soil removal. Proposed mountain biking and multi-use trails were not included since soil removed along the trails generally would be placed immediately next to the trails and for the life of the trails. Soil Map Units There are thirteen soil map units and four miscellaneous map units within the project area. Seven of the soil map units and the four miscellaneous map units were defined in the Soil Survey of the Taylor River Area.150 The other six soil map units were developed from the site-specific soil study as they did not correlate with the NRCS mapping. The six new soil map units that were developed from the site-specific soil study include GeF, IyF, LaF, LCF, LRF, and TCF and are included in Table 3J-1. Most soil map units contain one dominant soil, and two map units (LRF and Sr) are a complex of soil and rock. There are four miscellaneous map units that have little or no soil. The acreages and classifications, as applicable, of the map units that occur within the project area are listed in Table 3J-1.

150 USDA-SCS, 1977

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 188 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3J-1. Acreages of Map Units within the Project Area Acres in Percent of Map Unit Map Unit Name Classification* Project Project Symbol Area Area Soil Map Units Bassel sandy loam, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive BaF 145 4.9 25 to 60% slopes Ustic Argicryolls Cs Cryaquolls and Histosols Cyraquolls and Histosols 32 1.1 Dinnen sandy loam, coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive Ustic DnF 156 5.2 2 to 60% slopes Haplocryolls Gateview loam, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive GeF* 26 0.9 5 to 50% slopes Pachic Haplocryolls Iyers clay loam, deep phase, IyF* fine, smectitic, Ustic Haplocryepts 9 0.3 5 to 45% slopes Lamphier loam, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive Pachic LaF* 58 1.9 5 to 45% slopes Haplocryolls Leal gravelly loamy sand, coarse-loamy, isotic Spodic LeF 232 7.8 25 to 60% slopes Dystrocryepts Lithic Cryorthents, clayey, smectitic, superactive Lithic LCF* 88 2.9 10 to 55% slopes Cryorthents Lithic Cryorthents-Rock Outcrop loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive LRF* 510 17.1 Complex, 5 to 80% slopes Lithic Cryorthents Stony colluvial land, Sr Not classified 198 6.6 60 to 70% slopes Typic Cryorthents, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive Typic TCF* 165 5.5 5 to 60% slopes Cryorthents Tex gravelly sandy loam, coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive TgF 27 0.9 25 to 60% slopes lamellic Haplocryalfs Tilton sandy loam, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive Ustic TiF 583 19.5 25 to 45% slopes Haplocryolls Miscellaneous Map Units Rl Rock land n/a 316 10.6 Ro Rock outcrop n/a 343 11.5 Rs Rock slides n/a 96 3.2 Sh Shale rock land n/a 2 0.1 Total 2,986 100 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017; USDA-SCS 1977 Notes: * Map unit developed from the site-specific soil study Classifications correspond to the current soil classifications and may not correspond to outdated classifications in the Soil Survey of the Taylor River Area.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 189 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Organic Matter Levels and Thicknesses of Organic and Surface Mineral Horizons Organic matter levels and thicknesses of organic and surface mineral horizons in areas that are proposed to have at least the surface horizon removed are shown in Table 3J-2 (excluding the mountain biking and multi-use trails). Organic matter levels were based on three soil samples analyzed for organic matter percent, and then extrapolated to other soils having similar soil color. In general, black or dark brown soil colors indicate higher amounts of organic matter than lighter colors. Organic matter percent was determined for A horizons only. Organic matter levels and thicknesses of organic and surface mineral horizons are from the site-specific soil study only and not from NRCS soil surveys, since they are not site specific. Additionally, if a measurement site was in a disturbed area or wetland, those thicknesses were not included in the ranges in Table 3J-2 since they do not represent natural conditions of that soil.

Table 3J-2. Organic Matter Levels and Thicknesses of Surface Horizons (A and E Horizons) and Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) by Map Unit Range of Thicknesses of Range of Thicknesses of Organic Matter Organic Horizons Surface Horizon Map Unit Soil Level in A Horizon (Oi/Oe/Os) (A and E Horizons) (inches) (inches) GeF Gateview high 0 19 to 21 IyF Iyers medium to high 0 4 LaF Lamphier high 0 20 LCF Lithic Cryorthents low to medium 0–1 1–6 LRF Lithic Cryorthents medium to high 0–4 1–6 TCF Typic Cryorthents low to high 0–6 –9 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017 Notes: Organic matter level classifications are low <1%, medium 1–3%, high >3%

Organic matter levels and thicknesses of organic and surface mineral horizons at proposed project locations that would have at least the surface horizon removed are shown in Table 3J-3. Also included is soil compaction of the surface layer at the project sites. Moderately to very compacted soils occur in prior disturbance areas such as access roads, around buildings, and on some ski trails. Some compaction was due to cattle grazing in the northeast portion of the project area above the East River. Field data forms containing the measurements collected during the site-specific soil study and a figure of measurement locations is available in Soils Report contained in the project file.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 190 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3J-3. Organic Matter Levels and Thicknesses of Surface Horizons (A, A/E and E if at Surface) and Organic Horizons (Oi/Oe/Oa) by Proposed Project Range of Range of Thicknesses Organic Thicknesses of of Surface Horizons Soil Compaction of Proposed Project Matter Level Organic Horizons (A and E Horizons) Surface Layer in A Horizon* (inches) (inches) North Face chairlift 0–3, most is low 0 very compacted bottom terminal 90% of the area has 0 North Face chairlift Medium 0–3 0–2.5 very compact on road top terminal Teo Drainage chairlift High 1–2 2–6 not compacted bottom terminal Teo Drainage chairlift top High 0–2 0–4 not compacted terminal Teo Park chairlift High 0–0.5 0–2, much rock not compacted bottom terminal Teo Park chairlift High 0–1.5 1–3 not compacted top terminal moderately to very 1–19 Snowmaking pipeline # 1 low to high 0–1 compacted; in ski (19 inches at bottom end) trail and from cattle moderately to very Snowmaking pipeline # 2 low to high 0–2.5 1–9 compacted; in ski trail and from cattle Snowmaking pipeline # 3 High 0 4–21 not compacted none to slightly Snowmaking pipeline # 4 most is rock 0–2 0–6, most is rock compacted Snowmaking pipeline # 5 most is rock 0 0–4.5, most is rock not compacted Access road to Teo Drainage chairlift High 0–6 0–4 not compacted top terminal Short access road most is rock 0–1 0–4.5, most is rock not compacted Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017 Notes: Organic matter level classifications are low <1%, medium 1–3%, high >3%

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 191 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soil Interpretations Soil interpretations that could affect ski area development and impact surrounding lands are summarized in Table 3J-4 and furthered detailed in this discussion. The interpretations were taken from the Soil Survey of the Taylor River Area, from similar soil series, and professional judgment.151 These interpretations include soil erosion hazard, soil compaction, shrink-swell potential, and suitability for unsurfaced roads, cut-and-fill slopes, and foundations for chairlift towers and terminals.

Erosion hazard is the inherent susceptibility of a soil to particle detachment and transport by rainfall and runoff when the vegetation is removed. Soil properties that affect particle detachability are soil structure, texture, organic matter content, and permeability. Runoff and transport are affected by slope and amount of coarse fragments. Most of the soils have moderate or high erosion hazards and are subject to water erosion if the vegetation is removed.

Table 3J-4. Ski Area Development Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areas Unsurfaced Cut-and-Fill Map Erosion Shrink-Swell Foundation Runoff Compactability Roads Slopes Unit Hazard Potential Limitations Limitations Limitations low at 0–12 inches moderate at moderate – BaF high rapid Good poor good 12–22 inches, slopes low at 22–60 inches poor – high very poor – poor – water table, Cs slight slow very poor low wetness wetness high organic matter medium to fair moderate – DnF moderate Good low good rapid slopes moderate – GeF moderate medium Good low fair good slopes poor – high poor – fine poor – high medium to IyF high Poor high shrink-swell grained shrink-swell rapid potential material potential fair – moderate poor – hard to poor – hard to shrink-swell LaF moderate medium Fair low to moderate compact, compact potential, low workability strength very poor – poor – poor LeF moderate medium Poor low good stability stability poor – shallow poor – shallow to bedrock, poor – fine medium to to bedrock, LCF high Poor high workability, grained rapid high shrink- high shrink- material swell potential swell potential poor – shallow medium to poor – shallow LRF moderate Fair low to bedrock, slight rapid to bedrock workability

151 Ibid.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 192 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3J-4. Ski Area Development Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areas Unsurfaced Cut-and-Fill Map Erosion Shrink-Swell Foundation Runoff Compactability Roads Slopes Unit Hazard Potential Limitations Limitations Limitations medium to moderate – TCF moderate Fair low fair good rapid slope moderate – TgF moderate medium Fair low good good slope fair – moderate low at 0–24 inches medium to moderate – shrink-swell TiF high Good moderate at good rapid slope potential, low 24–60 inches strength very poor – very poor – unstable, fair – high Sr slight medium -- low workability, stones and stone content stability boulders very poor – poor – rock Rl very high rapid -- -- workability, -- outcrop stability very poor – very poor – Ro slight rapid -- -- workability, rock outcrop -- stability and cliffs very poor – very poor – Rs slight slow -- -- workability, -- unstable stability Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017; USDA-SCS 1977 Notes: “Good” limitation indicates that soil properties are generally favorable for the rated use; limitations are minor and easily overcome. “Fair” limitation indicates that some soil properties are unfavorable but can be overcome or modified by special planning and design. “Poor” limitation indicates that soil properties are so unfavorable and so difficult to correct or overcome that major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. “Very poor” limitation means one or more soil properties are so unfavorable for a particular use that overcoming the limitations is difficult and costly and commonly not practical for the rated use. “--” not rated

A detailed description of each of the limitations assessed in Table 3J-4 is provided in the Soils Report contained in the project file.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, new winter and multi-season recreation projects would not occur at CBMR. CBMR would continue to operate under its current design and capacity. There would be no direct or indirect effects on geology and soils resources, and soil erosion initiated by construction activities would not be allowed on NFS lands. Soil losses from erosion due to rainfall, runoff, and wind would continue to occur at existing rates. Most soil erosion would likely continue to be from existing roads and from areas with a low vegetative cover. Ongoing and expected effects from climate change, such as the timing and duration of rainfall, snowfall, and snowpack, would continue to have impacts on soil

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 193 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

resources. These impacts could be direct, such as effects on the freeze/thaw cycles of the uppermost soil layers, or indirect, such as impacts on hydrology that could affect erosion.

Geology and soil resources on NFS lands would continue to be managed as under current conditions. The Forest Service would continue to be responsible for managing the soil resources so that the physical, chemical, and biological processes and functions of the soil are maintained or enhanced.152

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Geology Selection of the Proposed Action would administratively remove the approximately 500 acres in the SUP boundary adjustment area from mineral entry, consistent with Forest Service policy and National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. The affected lands would become Reserved Public Lands with no mining claims or leased minerals. The mineral withdrawal would protect the investment of CBMR from potential ground disturbing activities associated with mining as well as maintain a recreation focus for the area. Effects to permitted prospecting or recreational panning from the Proposed Action are not anticipated.

Soils

Direct Soil Impacts Disturbance activities associated with each project component of the Proposed Action occurring within the project area are summarized in Table 3J-5. There would also be 2.9 acres of grading and grading with vegetation clearing occurring outside the project area on private lands for a snowmaking pipeline and mountain biking and multi-use trails, which are not included in the analysis.

Table 3J-5. Disturbances Types – Proposed Action Disturbance Type Acres Grading 17.5 Vegetation Clearing and Grading 13.3 Tree Clearing (100% removal) 91.3 Removal of 10 to 50% of Trees 434.0 Total 556.1 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017

There are twelve soil map units and three miscellaneous map units that would be affected by the Proposed Action. The acreages of each map unit that would be disturbed under the Proposed Action are listed in Table 3J-6. The majority of the proposed disturbances would occur in map units LRF and Rl. These map units account for about 83 percent of the proposed disturbances, and most of that is for partial tree removal in ski glades.

152 USDA Forest Service, 1991

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 194 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3J-6. Acreages of Map Units and Disturbance – Proposed Action Acres Disturbed by Acres Disturbed by Map Map Unit Name Grading/Veg Clearing Vegetation Clearing Unit and Grading Only BaF Bassel sandy loam, 25 to 60% slopes 3.1 0 Cs Cryaquolls and Histosols 0.4 0 DnF Dinnen sandy loam, 2 to 60% slopes 2.5 0 GeF Gateview loam,5 to 50% slopes 1.2 0 IyF Iyers clay loam, deep phase, 5 to 45% slopes 1.3 0 LaF Lamphier loam, 5 to 45% slopes 1.0 0 LeF Leal gravelly loamy sand, 25 to 60% slopes 2.9 2.0 LCF Lithic Cryorthents, 10 to 55% slopes 1.7 0 Lithic Cryorthents-Rock Outcrop Complex, LRF 4.6 279.3 5 to 80% slopes Sr Stony colluvial land, 60 to 70% slopes 0.3 0.4 TCF Typic Cryorthents, 5 to 60% slopes 3.5 44.9 TgF Tex gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 60% slopes 0.9 0 TiF Tilton sandy loam, 25 to 45% slopes 4.2 0 Rl Rock land 0.6 177.9 Ro Rock outcrop 2.3 20.8 Rs Rock slides 0.3 0 Total 30.8 525.3 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017 Notes: 2.9 acres of grading and vegetation clearing/grading would occur outside the project area on private lands and are not included in this table.

Table 3J-7 summarizes the disturbances associated with each project component included in the Proposed Action. The soil disturbance by grading and by both vegetation removal and grading would displace the organic layer and the soil surface layer, which as depicted in Table 3J-7 would primarily include mountain biking and multi-use trails and snowmaking pipelines. Minor grading, vegetation clearing, and/or vegetation removal and grading would occur at lift realignment, terrain access improvements, access roads, new lifts, and the ski patrol building/warming hut.

Soil disturbance would also result from areas of vegetation removal without grading (525.3 acres) where some soil displacement would be inevitable. About 83 percent (434 acres) of this vegetation removal would be for proposed glades in the Teo Drainage area, where 10 to 50 percent of the trees would be removed. The remaining 91.3 acres would have all trees removed and include traditional ski trails, the lift realignment, and new lifts (refer to Table 3J-7). It is important to note that areas where vegetation removal without grading is proposed would experience significantly less soil disturbance than graded areas. Areas that are cleared of vegetation and trees may be more susceptible to the impacts of climate

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 195 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

change at CBMR, as variability in precipitation and air and soil temperatures may affect how much and when soil erosion may occur.

Table 3J-7. Disturbance Acres of Proposed Projects for under the Proposed Action Soil Disturbed by Soil Disturbed by Soil Disturbed by Vegetation Clearing Vegetation Clearing Disturbance Type Grading Only and Grading Only (acres) (acres) (acres) Access Roads 0.1 0.7 0.0 Lift Realignment 0.4 0.6 3.6 Mountain Biking and Multi-Use Trails 7.6 8.4 0.0 New Lifts 0.0 2.0 0.7 Ski Patrol Building/Warming Hut 0.0 0.1 0.0 Snowmaking 9.1 1.4 0.0 Teo Drainage Area – Glades 0.0 0.0 434 Teo Ski Trails 0.0 0.0 87 Terrain Access Improvements 0.3 0.1 0.0 Total 17.5 13.3 525.3 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017

Direct impacts of the Proposed Action’s disturbances would be an increase in soil erosion and sedimentation, changes to soil physical and chemical characteristics reducing soil productivity, and the permanent loss of soil resources. Disturbance activities from grading would disturb 30.8 acres of soil by grading within the project area, of which 10.9 acres would be in soils having very high (0.6 acre) or high (10.3 acres) erosion hazard, 16.6 acres of grading would be in soils having moderate erosion hazard, and 3.3 acres would be in soils having slight erosion hazard. There would be 13.4 acres that would be graded and that would later be reclaimed following project completion; of that, 10.5 acres are snowmaking pipelines routes. Mountain biking and multi-use trail cut-and-fill slopes are not included since their acreages are not known at this time; however, they would require reclamation. The mountain biking and multi-use trails would compact 16.0 acres of soil, which would lead to an increase in runoff and erosion. There would be about 1.4 acres of soil resource that would be permanently replaced with roads and structures.

A management measure of the WCPH Handbook is to manage land treatments to maintain or improve soil quality, limiting the sum of detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of any activity area (refer to Forest Plan Direction discussion of the Affected Environment). A bare ground analysis has not been completed for the entire CBMR SUP area; however, it is anticipated that the proposed 17.4 acres graded that would not be later reclaimed, which include 16.0 acres of soil that would be compacted from mountain biking and multi-use trails, would not additively exceed 15 percent detrimentally impacted soils within the SUP area, which is currently 1,455 acres.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 196 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct impacts to soil resources that would occur under the Proposed Action are summarized in Table 3J-8.

Table 3J-8. Direct Impacts to Soil Resource from the Proposed Action Disturbance Type Acres Soils disturbed by grading that would have high or very high erosion hazard 10.9 Disturbed areas that would be later reclaimed so there would be changes to soil physical 13.4 and chemical characteristics Areas where soils would be permanently compacted from mountain biking and multi-use 16.0 trails Permanent loss of soil resources ~1.4 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017

Soil losses and sedimentation due to erosion would be long term, but would return to natural rates once vegetation is re-established and stabilizes reclaimed areas, in about two to five years following reclamation. Over-steepened and south- and west-facing cut slopes may require more than five years for the vegetation ground cover to reach pre-disturbance levels without soil amendments. Due to mixing of soil horizons, soil profile characteristics and soil productivity would be drastically changed over pre- construction conditions. Decreases in soil productivity would be long term in all reclaimed areas. The loss of soil resources would be long term and permanent. These adverse effects could be exacerbated by climate change, which may change the patterns and timing of soil erosion in the Proposed Action area.

Direct impacts to soils resources that would occur under the Proposed Action would be mitigated with the proper use of design PDC/BMPs as included in Table 2-2 of Chapter 2.

Slope Stability Impacts As previously discussed, the Geotechnical Report was prepared to specifically identify potential slope stability concerns associated with the construction of new mountain biking trails included in the Proposed Action. International Mountain Bicycling Association trail building standards would be utilized on many of the proposed beginner ability trails; however, the majority of the proposed trails are designed for intermediate and advanced ability levels, and would require the use of machinery in their construction. Although these machine-built trails would be wider and have a different drainage configuration than trails built to International Mountain Bicycling Association standards, the Geotechnical Report determined that their overall effect on landslides should be slight as long as the distance between drainage diversion outfalls (rolling dips or culverts) does not become longer than 50 feet. For each of the following sensitive areas assessed in the Affected Environment discussion of this section the following rationale is provided.

• Area 1: The removal of trees and their associated root strength stemming from ski trail construction was identified as a key factor in the 2001 Gold Link debris-slide-debris flow event. Such tree removal would not occur for the construction of proposed Trails X and Y; therefore, even though both bike trails would descend the same slope band that failed in 2001, they would not remove the root strength such as occurred in the wide ski trail. The mountain biking trails could destabilize the steep slope band only if they diverted water laterally into the (repaired) 2001 slide scar or into the unfailed area immediately west of it in the cleared ski trail.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 197 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Area 2: A previous version of the Geotechnical Report identified Trail V as having a potential for runoff diversion as runoff that would not naturally flow down into the landslide complex of this sensitive area could be laterally diverted so it would impact that slide mass. Such a redistribution of runoff could have undesirable effects on the landslides, and thus the subdivision. After reviewing these findings, CBMR relocated Trail V so it did not descend into the mapped landslide in this sensitive area, but instead continued west at the head of the slope on a stable lateral moraine crest. Trail W, which is located within this same sensitive area, was not relocated and still descends the eastern side of the slope; however, Trail W’s alignment is different in several ways that Trail V’s original alignment. Trail W zigzags straight down the upper part of the slope, unlike Trail V which zigzagged widely across the scarp in long diagonal runs. Trails that zigzag straight down the fall line cannot produce a significant runoff diversion effect. Additionally, no part of Trail W enters the mapped landslide, and only a very short section even lies upslope of that landslide complex. Although Trail W would still cross the larger landslide complex, it would not approach the more active mapped landslide lobe.153

• Area 3: There are no proposed trails in the area and thus no slope stability impacts to this area.

• Area 4: Because proposed Trails Q and R trend straight downslope in this narrow valley, and the entire valley floor is already at or near saturation, these small bike trails would have negligible runoff diversion effect as the surface and subsurface hydrology of Area 4 is determined by changes in seasonal precipitation higher in a large drainage basin.

• Area 5: Field reconnaissance discovered that the maintenance road upslope of and parallel to proposed Trail P contains an inslope ditch that intercepts runoff from upslope, and diverts it far to the north past the landslides of concern in this sensitive area. Since most of that runoff has already been diverted away from the slides by the maintenance road, there is little concern about Trail P having the potential to divert significant water towards mapped landslides.

As all proposed trail alignments near mapped landslides have been examined, the analysis provided in the Geotechnical Report is anticipated to provide for CBMR’s construction of the proposed trails with minimal runoff diversion effects. With implementation of water management PDC (refer to Table 2-2), it is not anticipated that the Proposed Action would result in any additional slope instability, similar to how the construction and operation of the existing Evolution Bike Park has not triggered instability. These PDC would require monitoring for effectiveness if climate change were to have impacts on soil stability, through changes to freeze/thaw cycles, precipitation patterns, runoff, infiltration, and erosion. Additionally, climate change may affect the timing and amount of visitors using the mountain biking trails, creating additional impacts on soil stability in localized areas.

Indirect Soil Impacts The indirect impacts of the Proposed Action would include an additional loss of soil from erosion stemming from an increase in mountain biking and hiking activities, from vehicle traffic on new access

153 The “landslide lobe” refers to the bulging material created by an earthflow

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 198 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

roads, and from maintenance of these trails, access roads and other facilities. The additional traffic on new mountain biking and multi-use trails and access roads would most likely be the major indirect contributors to the increase in soil erosion. Exacerbation of indirect impacts on soils and geology from climate change, such as from changes in precipitation patterns that could create different temporal and spatial patterns of soil erosion, would be expected under the Proposed Action. These impacts would be long term, and would require long-term maintenance of BMPs to minimize erosion and sedimentation to waterways.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for soil resources extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for soil resources are limited to public and private lands in the vicinity of the CBMR SUP area.

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

The following projects could have cumulative impacts on soil resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 199 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Base Area Development  Continued build out of the Town of Mt. Crested Butte  Continued build out of the Town of Crested Butte  Crested Butte Area Plan (2011)  Mt. Crested Butte Water & Sanitation District CE

Currently there are a total of 638 acres of developed ski terrain at CBMR and 20 miles of mountain biking trails. The past actions of the development of CBMR terrain have increased erosion rates and sedimentation and reduced soil productivity in comparison to undisturbed areas in the project area. In addition, ski development and mountain biking and multi-use trails within the project area have increased impermeable surfaces and soil compaction. Changes in erosion rates, sediment yield, and compaction from temporary disturbances associated with construction activities would be short term once restored following project completion; however, permanent structures, such as access roads, buildings, and multi- use trails would result in increased impermeable surfaces causing higher runoff and higher mass movement potential.

The Forest Service requires the implementation of PDC and BMPs to minimize impacts to soil resources and sedimentation to waterways. Impacts to soil productivity reflect changes in land use, management, and vegetation cover between pre-development and present conditions. If PDC and BMPs are properly implemented and maintained, onsite erosion and potential increases in sedimentation to waterways would be minimized. Similarly, the incremental additional effects on local slope stability would be negligible.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There would be an irreversible and irretrievable loss of soil from erosion entering streams and exiting the watershed, but with the proper implementation of BMPs and PDC this loss would be minimal. K. WATERSHED SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This analysis summarizes the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects EIS (Hydrology Report), which is available in the project file.154 The scope of this hydrology analysis focuses on streams and riparian resources located within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area. The project area comprises a total of 6,108 acres and includes several relatively small watersheds (the study watersheds) containing various un-named ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial channels. For purposes of this analysis, the study watersheds are identified based on the stream to which they are tributary (the East River or Washington Gulch). Most of the project area is located on NFS lands; however, portions of the study watersheds are located on private lands. Watershed resources are depicted on Figure 7 in Chapter 6.

154 Resource Engineering, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 200 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION The Forest Plan provides guidance for all natural resource management activities including Forest-wide and Management Area specific standards and guidelines. Selected Forest Plan standards and guidelines that are relevant to this analysis are outlined in the following discussion.

Forest-Wide Water Goals

• Manage surface water uses to maintain water quality above federal, state, and local standards.

• Increase water supply, while reducing soil erosion and stream turbidity.

• Protect the water quality in streams, lakes, riparian areas, and other water bodies.

Forest-Wide Management Requirements General Direction 01: Maintain instream flows and protect public property and resources. General Direction 02: Improve or maintain water quality to meet state water quality standards. However, where the natural background water pollutants cause degradation, it is not necessary to implement improvement actions. Short term or temporary failure to meet some parameters of the state standard, such as increased sediment from road crossing construction or water resource development, may be permitted in special cases. General Direction 04: Rehabilitate disturbed areas that are contributing sediment directly to perennial streams as a result of management activities to maintain water quality and establish vegetation cover. General Direction 05: Prevent the accumulation of debris from management activity within the stream channel while protecting naturally accumulated large organic debris. Add or remove large debris only if supported by fluvial and fisheries analysis. General Direction 06: Prevent soil surface compaction and disturbance in riparian ecosystems. Allow use of heavy construction equipment for construction, residue removal, etc., during periods when the soil is least susceptible to compaction or rutting. Standards and Guidelines: • Provide mitigation measures necessary to prevent increased sediment yields. • Reduce to natural rate any erosion due to management activity in the season of disturbance and sediment yields within one year of the activity through necessary mitigation measures such as waterbarring and revegetation.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 201 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Area Direction The Forest Plan identifies general direction, standards, and guidelines specific to each Management Area; however, the Forest Plan does not contain standards or guidelines applicable to this watershed resources analysis for Management Area 1B, 2A, or 6B. Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports does contain the following applicable Silviculture General Direction 03:155 The combined water yield effects of type conversion on ski runs and increased on-site water from stand regeneration must be determined. Do not exceed threshold limits of water quality and drainage system stability deterioration.

Applicable Water Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measures Pursuant to the Forest Plan, as amended, stream health Management Measures (MM) and PDC are provided in the WCPH to ensure applicable federal and state laws are met on NFS lands in Region 2.156 The WCPH contains several Management Measures that are environmental goals to protect aquatic and riparian systems. Management Measures of relevance regarding watershed resources include:

• MM-1: Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.

• MM-2: Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff.

• MM-3: In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.

• MM-7: Manage stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment.

• MM-8: Manage water use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams.

• MM-9: Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate.

• MM-10: Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands.

• MM-11: Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion.

• MM-16: Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and groundwater.

155 USDA Forest Service, 1991 156 USDA Forest Service, 2005

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 202 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Relevant Water Conservation Practices Handbook Definitions Additionally, the WCPH provides definitions for some terms that are important to conveying information in this analysis: Connected Disturbed Areas (CDAs): High runoff areas like roads and other disturbed sites that have a continuous surface flow path into a stream or lake. Hydrologic connection exists where overland flow, sediment, or pollutants have a direct route to the channel network. CDAs include roads, ditches, compacted soils, bare soils, and areas of high burn severity that are directly connected to the channel system. Ground disturbing activities located within the water influence zone should be considered connected unless site-specific actions are taken to disconnect them from streams.

Concentrated-Use Site: Areas designed and managed for high density of people or livestock, such as developed recreation sites and livestock watering areas.

Ephemeral Stream: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed or catchment basin), and whose channel is at all times above the zone of saturation.

Hydrologic Function: The ability of a watershed to infiltrate precipitation and naturally regulate runoff so streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their channels and floodplains.

Intermittent Stream: A stream or reach of stream channel that flows, in its natural conditions, only during certain times of the year or in several years. It is characterized by interspersed, permanent surface water areas containing aquatic flora and fauna adapted to the relatively harsh environmental conditions found in these types of environments.

Gully: An erosion channel greater than 1-foot-deep.

Perennial Stream: A stream or reach of a channel that flows continuously or nearly so throughout the year and whose upper surface is generally lower than the top of the zone of saturation in the areas adjacent to the stream.

Rill: An erosion channel less than 1-foot-deep.

Swale: A landform feature lower in elevation than adjacent hillslopes, usually present in headwater areas of limited areal extent, generally without display of a defined watercourse or channel that may or may not flow water in response to snowmelt or rainfall. Swales exhibit little evidence of surface runoff and may be underlain by porous soils and bedrock that readily accepts infiltrating water.

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

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 203 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Project Area Description Elevations at the CBMR span between 9,400 feet and 12,160 feet, resulting in the area receiving a significant portion of its annual precipitation in the form of snow during the winter months. Annual precipitation at CBMR totals 26.5 inches on average, with average monthly temperatures ranging from 18ºF in December to about 56ºF in July.157

As previously stated, the study watersheds are identified based on the stream to which they are tributary. Study watersheds tributary to East River are denoted with “ER” and study watersheds tributary to Washington Gulch are denoted with “WG.” A discussion of the East River, as it relates to proposed snowmaking, is included in the following Snowmaking discussion. While separate from the project area study watersheds, this waterway is assessed in terms of existing conditions and potential environmental consequences attributable to the Proposed Action. A brief description of the study watersheds follows:

 ER-1: Tributary to the East River, most slopes of this 1,051-acre watershed face east and are drained by ephemeral and intermittent stream channels. Surface flows originating from the ER-1 watershed are intercepted by the Verzuh Young Bifano Ditch, which is a relatively large canal that often diverts greater than 20 cfs. The ditch diverts from the right bank of the East River and travels at a gentle slope along the lower elevations of the ER-1 watershed, intercepting surface flows conveyed by the ephemeral and intermittent channels that drain ER-1. The Verzuh Young Bifano Ditch irrigates fields located to the south of Mount Crested Butte. Ski area projects have not been constructed in the ER-1 watershed; however, proposed ski trails and glades in the Teo Drainage area would be located in this watershed.  ER-2: A 557-acre hill-slope watershed tributary to the East River where only ephemeral channels were identified. No ski area development has occurred in this watershed; however, proposed ski trails and glades in the Teo Drainage area would be located in this watershed.  ER-3: A 251-acre watershed drained by an intermittent stream channel tributary to the East River. The East River Express chairlift and ski trails such as Resurrection and Black Eagle are located in this watershed.  ER-4: A 631-acre watershed drained by intermittent streams and one first-order perennial channel. Ski area projects exist in this watershed and include the Teocalli chairlift and Paradise Express chairlift.  ER-5: The smallest of the study watersheds; it comprises 180 acres and is drained by one intermittent stream. Most of the impacts to this watershed are caused by roads and residential development.  ER-6: A 350-acre watershed, tributary to the East River, that is drained by intermittent channels and one first-order perennial stream. This watershed includes residential and ski area development. The Prospector chairlift is located in this watershed.

157 NRCS, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 204 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 WG-1: Tributary to Washington Gulch, this watershed is 227 acres and includes ephemeral channels and one intermittent stream. The peak of Mount Crested Butte is located in this watershed, as well as the top of the Silver Queen Express chairlift and steep ski terrain such as the Peak, Funnel, and Banana runs.  WG-2: A 267-acre watershed drained by an ephemeral stream. Development in this watershed includes residential projects in its lower section and ski terrain at higher elevations.  WG-3: A 1,000-acre watershed with a second-order perennial stream, tributary to Washington Gulch, which flows through the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. CBMR’s base area is located in this watershed.  WG-4: The largest of the study watersheds, it comprises 1,581 acres and includes a first-order perennial stream. It also contains both residential and ski area development. The Gold Link chairlift is located in this watershed.

Baseline (or pre-development) conditions for the study watersheds, were estimated from analysis of aerial photography taken prior to the creation of the ski area and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte.158 The historical photography shows that land use within the lower elevations of the study watersheds corresponded mostly to agricultural activities, and that approximately 3,136 acres of subalpine forests existed in these watersheds. The agricultural use of the lower elevation lands has been replaced, in part, by urban development and CBMR’s base area. Ski trails and chairlifts, hiking and biking trails, on- mountain restaurants, and service roads are examples of typical development that has taken place in some of the study watersheds over the last thirty years. As mentioned in the descriptions of the study watersheds, ER-1, ER-2, and WG-1 are an exception to this example as little to no development has occurred in these watersheds.

Urban development and ski area projects have resulted in the removal of approximately 285 acres of forested areas in the study watersheds. The removal of forest areas in the study watersheds is shown in the difference between the total baseline and existing acres in Table 3K-1, which displays a comparison of forested areas under baseline and existing conditions for each of the study watersheds.

158 USGS, 1955

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 205 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3K-1. Study Watersheds – Baseline vs. Existing Conditions a Forested Areas (acres) Openings (acres) Forest Cutb Watershed Baseline Existing Baseline Existing (%) ER-1 768 768 283 283 0 ER-2 381 381 177 177 0 ER-3 243 195 8 56 20 ER-4 485 356 147 275 27 ER-5 84 84 97 97 0 ER-6 136 122 214 228 11 WG-1 147 121 80 106 17 WG-2 159 143 108 124 10 WG-3 280 281 720 719 0 WG-4 454 401 1,128 1,180 12 Total 3,136 2,851 2,961 3,246 9 Source: Resource Engineering 2017 Notes: a Baseline openings include meadows, bare ground, and above treeline areas b Relative to baseline conditions

Watershed Yield Hydrographs for the study watersheds were estimated following the methodologies presented in the Forest Service’s Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) Procedural Handbook, as updated by Troendle, Nankervis, and Porth, and supplemented by the Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA) Handbook.159 The WRENSS Model generates a water balance using seasonal precipitation and vegetation type and density (distributed by watershed aspect) and then computes the amount of water potentially available for runoff. The water balance of the WRENSS Model is coupled with a snowmaking hydrology computation process developed through the CSCUSA study. Together, these calculations produce estimates of water yield typical of subalpine mountain watersheds. The WRENSS Model distributes the calculated annual yield using simulated hydrographs based on data recorded at several different gauging stations. The simulated hydrographs represent the normalized distributions of the annual yield in six-day intervals throughout the year. It is important to note that the computations do not include routing of runoff water through the watershed to the stream system. Thus, water yield hydrographs do not represent actual streamflow, but rather a time distribution of basin-wide water yield available to the receiving waters. In other words, the WRENSS hydrologic model was developed to simulate expected changes in streamflow as the result of silvicultural activities, not streamflow itself.

One of the applications of the WRENSS model is to compare computations of watershed yield and six- day average peak flows between different watershed conditions. Under current conditions, the watershed yield is affected by tree removal associated with urban and ski area development and by the input of

159 EPA, 1980; Troendle et al., 2003; CSCUSA, 1986

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 206 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences additional water in the form of snowmaking. The water yields and peak flows calculated using the WRENSS Model are summarized in Table 3K-2, for both baseline and current conditions assuming average precipitation and temperatures. Peak streamflow values are not included for the ER-2 and WG-2 watersheds because no perennial or intermittent streams were identified in these watersheds.

Hydrograph plots that depict the temporal distribution of these water yields were also developed using the WRENSS Model, and are available in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file. These modeled hydrographs reveal the different flow characteristics of baseline and existing conditions in watersheds where tree clearing has occurred. In general, snowmelt hydrographs influenced by vegetation clearing (and snowmaking) have higher intensity peak flows that occur earlier in the runoff season as compared to pre-development, or baseline conditions. This is a direct consequence of the higher volume and rate of snowmelt due to decreased canopy interception and evapotranspiration, increased solar radiation in cleared areas, and also due to the snowmaking water input (additional to natural precipitation, where applicable) to the study watersheds. Such changes to the hydrology of a watershed can alter the stream channel morphology and affect stream health metrics. An increase in peak flows relative to pre- development conditions can erode the stream channel and negatively impact streambank stability.

Table 3K-2 summarizes the water yields and peak flows calculated using the WRENSS Model, for both baseline and current conditions assuming average precipitation and temperatures.

Table 3K-2. WRENSS Model Output for Baseline and Existing Conditions (Average Year) Watershed Yield (acre feet) Peak Flow (cfs) Watershed Percent Percent Baseline Existing Difference Baseline Existing Difference (%) (%) ER-1 834 834 0 8.0 8.0 0 ER-2 488 488 0 n/a n/a n/a ER-3 206 284 37 1.4 2.1 50 ER-4 535 805 50 4.3 7.8 81 ER-5 178 178 0 1.9 1.9 1 ER-6 397 420 6 4.1 4.4 8 WG-1 217 246 13 1.7 2.0 14 WG-2 239 269 13 n/a n/a n/a WG-3 1,048 1,145 9 1.0 1.1 9 WG-4 1,271 1,329 4 13.3 14.2 6 Source: Resource Engineering 2017 Notes: Peak streamflow values are not included for the ER-2 and WG-2 watersheds because no perennial or intermittent streams were identified in these watersheds.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 207 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

It is important to note that watershed yield and the temporal distribution of streamflows shown in Table 3K-2 correspond to average conditions of precipitation and temperature. Most of the water supply for watersheds in the Colorado Rocky Mountains comes from the snowpack that accumulates during the winter and melts in summer. Both of these processes, the accumulation of snow and its subsequent melt, can vary from year to year depending upon several factors, such as cloud cover, soil moisture, and occurrence of wind, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation and temperatures.160

Changes in watershed yield and peak streamflows can be estimated using hydrologic models such as WRENSS. For example, the ER-4 yield and hydrographs were computed for typical wet and dry years, with a 25 percent and 75 percent probability of exceedance respectively, as shown by data recorded for typical wet (1982) and dry years (2004) as recorded by the Butte Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) site. In these examples, the wet year watershed yield was 15 percent higher than the average, while the dry year yield was calculated at 22 percent lower than the average. Table 3K-3 compares the modeled water yields and peak flows of the ER-4 watershed for the temperatures and precipitation corresponding to the typical dry, average, and wet years.

Table 3K-3. Comparison of ER-4 Watershed Yield and Peak Flows Dry (2004), Average Conditions, and Wet (1982) Conditions Dry Wet Parameter Percent Change Average Percent Change Value Value (%) (%) Yield (acre feet) 617 -23 805 929 15 Peak Flow (cfs) 6.0 -22 7.8 8.9 15 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Stream Health and Watershed Condition The WCPH defines stream health as the condition of a stream compared to the condition of a minimally disturbed reference stream of similar type and geology. Stream health is categorized using metrics such as percentage of unstable banks, density of large woody debris, and fine sediment deposits on the stream bed. For streams that are third-order and larger, stream health surveys are typically conducted following a standard physical habitat survey protocol, such as the R1/R4 Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook.161 Streams that may be affected by proposed management activities are surveyed and compared to reference streams with similar morphology and geology. Reference streams represent natural conditions that are considered the best conditions attainable. This procedure is not routinely conducted for second-order and smaller streams because the high variability of health metrics found on smaller streams makes it difficult to select adequate reference and study reaches; therefore, smaller streams are often evaluated using qualitative observations.162 The Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) was developed by the USDA NRCS specifically for small perennial and intermittent streams.163 This tool provides a means for the investigator to assess physical, chemical, and biological features within

160 Chow et al., 1988; Eagleson, 1970 161 Overton et al., 1997 162 Weinhold, 2011 163 NRCS, 2009

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 208 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

a study reach by analyzing and scoring up to 16 different assessment elements. The overall score for the assessed stream reach is then calculated as the average of the various scores. Table 3K-4 shows the SVAP health ratings.

Table 3K-4. SVAP Stream Condition Ratings Overall Score Stream Classification 1 to 2.9 Severely Degraded 3 to 4.9 Poor 5 to 6.9 Fair 7 to 8.9 Good 9 to 10 Excellent Source: NRCS 2009

Potential Management Effects to Stream Health As described under the Forest Plan Direction heading, the Forest Plan and the WCPH include direction for projects that may affect water resources. The influence of ski area projects on the condition of the watershed (including stream health) where these projects are constructed has been documented by several investigators.164 For example, increased streamflows and sediment loads can result from implementation of tree clearing, terrain grading, and snowmaking. These impacts, in turn, can degrade stream health in metrics such bank stability, percent of fine sediments, and density of woody debris. Table 3K-5 lists various metrics of stream health and their associated causal mechanisms. The metrics and causal mechanisms included in Table 3K-5 are defined in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file.

Table 3K-5. Stream Health – Metrics and Causal Mechanisms Metric Causal Mechanism Increased Watershed Yield and Peak Flow Unstable Banks Impacts to Riparian Vegetation Channel Network Extension Percent Surface Fines CDA Wood Frequency Vegetation Removal in WIZ: Source: Resource Engineering 2017

The following discussion uses the metrics and causal mechanisms from Table 3K-5 to describe the existing conditions of the study watershed.

Existing Stream Health Of the ten study watersheds, four contain perennial streams. Only one of these four perennial streams is located entirely within NFS lands (ER-4); the other three perennial streams (ER-6, WG-3, and WG-4) are at least partially located on private lands. Furthermore, substantial portions of the perennial stream in the WG-3 watershed have been piped. Although visual observations of stream channels were completed and

164 David et al., 2009; Burroughs and King, 1989; Troendle and Olsen, 1994

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 209 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

documented for all of the study watersheds, a formal stream condition assessment was only conducted for the ER-4 stream channel.

Ten assessment elements were analyzed and scored under the SVAP methodology for the perennial stream located in the ER-4 study watershed, where proposed projects (including snowmaking) have the potential to increase yield and peak flows and impact stream health. Examples of these elements include channel condition; hydrologic alteration; riparian area quality and quantity; and canopy cover. The SVAP provides guidance for selecting the study reach and for scoring the different assessment elements; each assessment element is scored with a value between 0 and 10. For example, the channel condition element was given a score of seven points (from a corresponding recommended range of six to eight) because the study reach was observed to be “stable, with gradient control provided by boulders forming step-pool patterns. No evidence of aggradation or degradation was observed, and riparian vegetation appeared to be well established.” In summary, the assessment reach was given an overall score of 7.3 and was consequently rated as in “good condition.” The stream bank condition, riparian area quantity, canopy cover, and manure or human waste elements all score eight points; the lowest score was given to hydrologic alteration (four points), due to the modeled increases in yield and peak flows resulting from existing tree cut and snowmaking applications. A printout of the SVAP worksheet, photographs, and field notes are included in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file.

In order to maintain or improve the stream health and riparian condition in the study watersheds, any proposed project with potential to decrease bank stability, affect large wood debris recruitment, or increase fine sediment loads to the stream will have to include mitigation measures to ensure that stream health and watershed condition are not negatively affected by such action. Connected Disturbed Actions A field investigation complete during July and August of 2016 in the study watersheds provides important information regarding existing conditions related to stream health. Data collected during the field investigation included location, characteristics, and condition of roads, road-side ditches, and culverts. The data was incorporated into a GIS database in order to estimate the spatial extent of CDAs. In particular, the field investigation focused on the condition of ski area roads and mountain biking trails (and associated drainage features) in the vicinity of stream channels to determine if such areas route flows directly to the stream system (i.e., are connected to the stream). Disturbed areas where clear evidence of direct hydrologic connection to the stream system was observed were classified as CDAs. Generally, roads and mountain biking trails at CBMR were found to be in fair condition; however, there exist sections of roads and trails where evidence of drainage flowing into the creek was observed. As a result, these sections were classified as CDA. Photographs and figures included in the project file depict CDA conditions and locations.

As shown in Table 3K-6, the length of mountain biking trails and roads that are connected to the stream were estimated at 50,155 feet, which represents an 18 percent increase over the length of the natural stream channel network (including perennial and intermittent streams) of all of the study watersheds. Although the ER-3, ER-4, and WG-3 watersheds show a large percent of connected roads and trails relative to the length of stream channels, the acreage of disturbed areas that is connected to the stream

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 210 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences system is small relative to the spatial extent of watersheds (refer to Table 3K-6). This is due to CDAs being predominantly associated with linear projects such as mountain biking trails and service roads.

Table 3K-6. CDAs within the Study Watersheds – Existing Conditions Percent of Drainage Area Stream Length Area Percent CDAs Linear Length Watershed Streams (acres) (feet) (acres) (%) (feet) (%) ER-1 1,053 2,933 0.0 0.0 0 0 ER-2 559 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 ER-3 252 3,334 0.9 0.4 1,829 55 ER-4 632 6,694 4.2 0.7 3,842 57 ER-5 181 1,354 0.0 0.0 0 0 ER-6 384 3,355 0.0 0.0 0 0 WG-1 228 1,374 0.0 0.0 0 0 WG-2 268 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 WG-3 1,000 13,415 1.1 0.1 3,490 26 WG-4 1,584 17,696 0.0 0.0 0 0 Total 6,141 50,155 6.2 0.1 9,162 18 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Existing Impacts to the Water Influence Zone As highlighted in Table 3K-5, disturbance of the WIZ has a direct impact in stream health metrics, such as channel sedimentation and woody frequency. The WCPH states the importance of the WIZ in the protection of interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions. Furthermore, MM-3 includes PDC requiring that new concentrated-use sites be located outside the WIZ if practicable. Table 3K-7 compares the extent of the WIZ estimated for pre-development, or baseline, against existing conditions.

Table 3K-7. Forested Acreage in the WIZ – Baseline vs Existing Conditions Baseline Existing Percent Difference Watershed (acres) (acres) (%) ER-1 15 15 0 ER-2 0 0 n/a ER-3 16 13 -22 ER-4 32 27 -17 ER-5 7 6 -9 ER-6 17 17 0 WG-1 7 7 0 WG-2 0 0 n/a WG-3 81 41 -49 WG-4 81 78 -4 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 211 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Quality Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that states prepare a list of water quality-limited, or impaired, stream segments. The upper reaches of the East River, from its headwaters to a point just upstream from its confluence with the Slate River have been given the Water Body Identification (WBID) COGUUG05a_A by the State of Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission. These segments of the East River, which include the ER-1 through ER-6 study watersheds, are classified for Agricultural, Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation E, and Water Supply uses.165 Numeric water quality standards for physical and biological parameters, and for various metals and inorganic compounds, have been implemented for this segment of the Upper Gunnison Basin.166 In compliance with requirements of the CWA, Section 305(b), the State of Colorado issued its most recent Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report in 2016.167 In summary, these periodic assessments are conducted by comparing water quality data of surface waters throughout Colorado against the corresponding standard. No cause of impairment has been identified for streams included in segment COGUUG05, and these streams have been classified under Category 1 (attaining water quality standards for all classified uses).

Similarly, tributaries to the Slate River including Washington Gulch and the WG-1 through WG-4 watersheds, have been assigned the WBID COGUUG09_A. The State of Colorado also classified this segment for Agricultural, Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation E, and Water Supply uses. All classified uses have been determined to be fully supported; therefore, these streams tributary to the Slate River received a Category 1 classification.

Snowmaking Over the last five seasons CBMR has diverted on average 266.4 acre feet per year of water from the East River for snowmaking purposes on approximately 297 acres of ski terrain, including terrain park features. An estimated 63.1 acre feet of the average 266.4 acre feet (23.7 percent) that is diverted from the East River is lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses assuming average temperature conditions during the snowmaking period. The remaining 203.2 acre feet that is not lost (76.3 percent) returns to the East River and/or Washington Gulch as snowmelt during the ensuing spring and summer months. These estimations, shown in Table 3K-8, are based on snowmaking water usage data provided by CBMR for the last five seasons, and calculations completed using the WRENSS model.

Table 3K-8. Snowmaking Diversions, Depletions, and Return Flows (in acre feet) Season Diversion Depletion Return Flows 2012/13 278.9 66.1 212.8 2013/14 239.1 56.7 182.4 2014/15 244.9 58.0 186.9 2015/16 296.2 70.2 226.0 2016/17 272.8 64.7 208.2 Average 266.4 63.1 203.2 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

165 Existing primary use. 166 CDPHE, 2016a 167 CDPHE, 2016b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 212 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, CBMR would continue its current summer and winter operations. Removal of vegetation, terrain grading, and/or implementation of additional snowmaking would not occur with selection of this alternative. This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on the watershed resources.

Watershed Yield Under the No Action Alternative, the study watershed yields would continue to resemble the baseline and current conditions depicted in Table 3K-2. The baseline and current conditions reflected in Table 3K-2 are based on average precipitation and temperatures, and it is important to understand that conditions can vary from year to year depending upon several factors. Under the No Action Alternative, any variability to watershed yield would be a result of natural conditions and climate change, and would not be driven by projects at CBMR.

Stream Health and Watershed Condition Under the No Action Alternative, ER-4 (the only watershed a formal stream condition assessment was conducted for, refer to Affected Environment discussion for reasoning) is expected to remain in “good condition.” No removal of vegetation, terrain grading, and/or implementation of additional snowmaking would occur on NFS lands with selection of the No Action Alternative; therefore, any impacts to the stream health of ER-4 would be a result of natural and/or human induced factors. Climate change may affect the temperature normal and extremes as well as the patterns, timing, duration, and amount of precipitation that falls as rain or snow. These possible impacts from climate change may affect the timing of the peak hydrograph, create variable snowpack and snowmelt conditions, and change the overall quantity of water within the East River and Washington Gulch watersheds.

Under the No Action Alternative, the length of roads and trails that are connected to streams in the study watersheds would remain at approximately 0.1 percent. As described in the CDAs discussion of the Affected Environment, roads, mountain biking trails, and ski trails at CBMR were generally in fair condition; however, sections of roads and trails where evidence of drainage flowing into the creek was observed were classified as CDAs. The duration of snowmelt (e.g., how long it takes for the snowpack to melt each spring) may affect the conditions of trails and roads if warm temperatures and snow conditions result in faster snowmelt, leading to soil erosion into streams.

Impacts to the WIZ would continue to resemble those depicted in Table 3K-7. There is no tree clearing or grading on NFS lands associated with the No Action Alternative. Water Quality No cause of impairment has been identified for project area streams (those considered by the Water Quality Control Commission in segment COGUUG05a_A and WBID COGUUG09_A). Under the No Action Alternative, it is anticipated that these streams would continue to be classified under Category 1 (attaining water quality standards for all classified uses). Any impacts to stream health would be a result

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 213 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of natural and/or human induced factors. For example, climate change could impact water quality by changing the quantity of water in the streams seasonally, thus affecting the concentrations of various metals and inorganic compounds in the streams.

Snowmaking Under the No Action Alternative, additional snowmaking would not be implemented at CBMR. No additional diversions for snowmaking purposes from the East River would occur and it can be expected that diversions would resemble the average 266.4 acre feet per year CBMR currently diverts.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action would require 91 acres of tree clearing, 434 acres of tree thinning in forested areas (to create gladed terrain), grading on approximately 18.9 acres of terrain, and tree clearing and terrain grading on an additional 14.8 acres where both disturbances would occur together. It is important to note that of the 34 acres of total grading, approximately a third of this grading would occur as temporary disturbance associated with excavation required to install new snowmaking pipelines. Upon completion of the project, the excavated trenches would be backfilled, and the disturbed terrain would be restored to its original grade and revegetated. Additionally, 32 acres of previously listed snowmaking would be implemented without creation of new water storage infrastructure.

Table 3K-9 compares the forest’s acreage for baseline, existing, and proposed conditions; and Table 3K-10 displays the existing and proposed snowmaking coverage. The potential impacts to watershed resources that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action are detailed in the following discussion.

Table 3K-9. Forested Acreage in the WIZ – Baseline versus Existing and Proposed Conditions Percent of Existing Forest Baseline Forest Existing Forest Proposed Cut Watershed Proposed to be Cut (acres) (acres) (acres) (%) ER-1 768 768 87.1 11 ER-2 381 381 0.0 0 ER-3 243 195 0.5 0 ER-4 485 356 10.6 3 ER-5 84 84 0.4 0 ER-6 136 122 0.3 0 WG-1 147 121 0.1 0 WG-2 159 143 0.6 0 WG-3 280 281 5.1 2 WG-4 454 401 1.4 0 Total 3,136 2,851 106.0 4 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 214 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3K-10. Snowmaking Coverage and Associated Water Demands – Existing vs Proposed Snowmaking Coverage (acres) Snowmaking Water (acre feet) Watershed Existing Proposed Cumulative Existing Proposed Cumulative ER-1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ER-2 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ER-3 6 9 15 5.0 8.1 13.1 ER-4 111 14 125 100.0 12.3 112.3 ER-5 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ER-6 14 0 14 12.5 0.0 12.5 WG-1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WG-2 8 5 12 6.5 4.1 10.6 WG-3 140 5 145 126.0 4.3 130.3 WG-4 19 0 19 16.4 0.0 16.4 Total 297 32 329 266.4 28.7 295.1 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Watershed Yield Hydrologic computations performed using the WRENSS hydrologic model show that water yields and peak runoff flow rates originating from the study watersheds under Proposed Action conditions would increase, on average, by approximately 3 percent relative to existing condition. Several of the study watersheds would experience negligible and unmeasurable increases due to the small amount of tree clearing that would result from implementation of the proposed projects in these watersheds (refer to Table 3K-9). These potential changes in water yields and peak flow rates are a consequence of the proposed tree removal and additional snowmaking coverage. Removal of trees within the watershed reduces the amount of water intercepted, stored, and transpired by the forest; therefore, a volumetric increase in water yield may be expected as a result of tree clearing. These impacts may be exacerbated by climate change, which could alter air and water temperatures as well as the timing and duration of precipitation as rain or snow. Introduction of snowmaking water into the watersheds further increases the water yield. Table 3K-11 displays the changes in annual water yield and Table 3K-12 shows the changes in peak runoff flow rates modeled for the Proposed Action under average climatic conditions. Peak streamflows are not shown for the ER-2 and WG-2 watersheds because no perennial or intermittent streams were identified in these watersheds.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 215 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3K-11. Computed Water Yield and Estimated Change Relative to Existing Conditions

Watershed Yield (acre feet) Percent Change Watershed Baseline Existing Proposed (%) ER-1 834 834 967 16 ER-2 488 488 489 0 ER-3 206 284 291 2 ER-4 535 805 828 3 ER-5 178 178 178 0 ER-6 397 420 420 0 WG-1 217 246 246 0 WG-2 239 269 273 1 WG-3 1,048 1,145 1,151 1 WG-4 1,271 1,329 1,330 0 Total 5,414 5,996 6,171 3 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Table 3K-12. Computed Peak Flows and Estimated Change Relative to Existing Conditions Peak Flows (cfs) Percent Change Watershed Baseline Existing Proposed (%) ER-1 8.0 8.0 9.5 18 ER-2 n/a n/a n/a n/a ER-3 1.4 2.1 2.2 4 ER-4 4.3 7.8 8.1 4 ER-5 1.9 1.9 1.9 0 ER-6 4.1 4.4 4.4 0 WG-1 1.7 2.0 2.0 0 WG-2 n/a n/a n/a n/a WG-3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1 WG-4 13.3 14.2 14.2 0 Source: Resource Engineering 2017

With the exception of the ER-1 watershed, increases in yield and peak flow computed for the Proposed Action are relatively small as compared to the natural variability of the study watersheds hydrology. As described in the Watershed Yield discussion of the Affected Environment, the “peak flow” computed by the WRENSS model does not necessarily reflect actual streamflows, but a time distribution of basin-wide water yield available to the receiving waters. Hill-slope processes, hydrologic routing of snowmelt runoff, and the absence of a unique stream channel at the outlet of the ER-1 watershed would likely result in peak streamflows significantly lower than the amounts shown in Table 3K-12.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 216 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There would be no change in timing of peak flow for any of the study watersheds, except for the ER-1 watershed, from the Proposed Action. The WRENSS model predicts that peak flows under the Proposed Action would occur one week earlier as compared to existing conditions for the ER-1 watershed. All other study watersheds would experience peak flows, on average, at approximately the same time of the year. However, climate change is expected to shift the timing of peak flow earlier in this region, which could exacerbate the changes seen in ER-1 from the Proposed Action.

Additionally, a portion of the modeled increases in water yield corresponds to groundwater, particularly during the beginning of the snowmelt season, before the upper layers of soil have been saturated. It would be reasonable to expect that the upper soil layers near areas where new ski trails and/or snowmaking are proposed, would be saturated earlier in the spring as compared to existing conditions. This could, in turn, cause the area springs and intermittent streams to flow at an increased rate during late April and early May, as compared to existing conditions. Changes in soil temperature as a combination of climate change and exposure (e.g., reduced canopy cover from tree and vegetation removal) from the Proposed Action may also affect infiltration rates, soil saturation, and runoff.

Stream Health and Watershed Condition As described in the Existing Stream Health discussion of the Affected Environment, a formal stream health assessment was only conducted for the perennial stream in the ER-4 watershed. This stream was determined to be in “Good Condition” with high scores in bank condition, riparian area quantity and quality, and canopy cover. A low score of four was given for hydrologic alteration. The 3 and 4 percent increases in yield and peak flows associated with the proposed projects are relatively modest and should not cause the stream condition to deteriorate. The small intermittent and ephemeral streams in the remaining watersheds would also experience modest increases in yield that should not significantly diminish current conditions. Again, the exception to this statement is the ER-1 watershed where yield is expected to increase by 16 percent.

The effects of climate change on stream health and watershed condition as described under the No Action Alterative would also be expected under the Proposed Action. Climate change may affect the temperature normal and extremes as well as the patterns, timing, duration, and amount of precipitation that falls as rain or snow. These possible impacts from climate change may introduce impacts to the watershed such as timing of peak hydrograph, variable snowpack and snowmelt, and effects on water quantity within the East River and Washington Gulch watersheds.

Impacts to the Water Influence Zone Disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would result in approximately 0.4 acre of tree removal in the WIZ of the ER-4 and WG-3 watersheds, near perennial and intermittent streams. The proposed tree removal in the WIZ is associated with “linear” projects (multi-use summer trails), meaning that the Proposed Action would remove selected trees in the WIZ, as necessary, within an area rather than clear- cut the entire area itself. It is estimated that corridors required for the proposed mountain biking trails would range between 2 and 4 feet wide. Depending on the location, minimal removal of overstory vegetation would be required for the proposed projects as tree spacing in the project areas often exceeds 6 feet. A map depicting the location of the proposed projects within the WIZ is available in the Hydrology

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 217 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Report, which is contained in the project file. PDC in Table 2-2, which is further described in the following discussion, have been designed for the proposed projects involving the removal of trees in the WIZ to avoid or minimize potential impacts and maintain or improve stream health.

Connected Disturbed Actions MM-3 of the WCPH states that only those projects that maintain or improve long-term stream health should be allowed in the WIZ next to perennial and intermittent streams. The proposed tree removal and terrain grading projects have the potential to increase the acreage connected to the stream and impact stream health, particularly in the ER-4 and WG-3 watersheds where there is proposed tree removal in the WIZ; however, PDC included in Table 2-2 would ensure that the proposed projects would not result in additional acreage connected to the stream and would avoid or minimize potential impacts and maintain or improve stream health. Further, the Proposed Action would reduce the existing quantity of CDAs described in Table 3K-6 as PDC included in Table 2-2 would disconnect 0.6 acre of the mountain road that travels from the base area to the bottom terminal of Painter Boy chairlift, in the WG-3 watershed.

PDC in Table 2-2, include measures for project installation and construction; BMPs for erosion and sediment control in order to minimize the potential increase of CDAs; protocol to disconnect existing CDAs; and processes to improve existing drainage conditions. A quantification and discussion of ground disturbing activities that would occur on highly erodible soils under the Proposed Action is provided in Section J – Geology and Soil Resources; adherence to PDC would ensure that these activities would not result in adverse impacts to stream health.

Implementation of the Proposed Action with associated PDC (refer to Table 2-2) would be consistent with Forest Plan and WCPH direction. Water Quality The primary potential effects to water quality associated with the proposed activities would be from (1) increased snowmaking diversions to the quality of water in the East River (these are further elaborated on in the Cumulative Effects discussion of this Section); and (2) the increased application of snowmaking water to the quality of the streams located downslope from the trails where snowmaking would be implemented in Washington Gulch and the East River. The impacts of climate change on water quality under the Proposed Action would be similar to that described in the No Action Alternative; changes in water quantity may affect water quality by changing the concentration of various metals and inorganic compounds in the streams.

As stated in Water Quality discussion of the Affected Environment, the State of Colorado has classified Segments COGUUG05a_A and COGUUG09_A (which include the study watersheds) as Category 1, meaning that streams included in these segments have a water quality attaining to the corresponding numeric standards for all classified uses. As classified uses for these segments are Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation E, and Water Supply, the utilization of East River water supplies for snowmaking operations by CBMR would not impact the water quality of the study watersheds to an extent that would affect their classification as Category 1.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 218 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Snowmaking System Under the Proposed Action, improvements planned for CBMR’s snowmaking system would result in a direct impact to CBMR’s snowmaking operations and water rights as CBMR would provide snowmaking water supplies to an additional 32 acres of trails. The additional 32 acres of snowmaking coverage, would result in CBMR diverting an additional 28.7 acre feet of water for snowmaking purposes. From the 28.7 acre feet of additional water diverted for snowmaking, approximately 6.8 acre feet (23.7 percent) would be lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses assuming average temperature conditions during the snowmaking period. The remaining 21.9 acre feet (76.3 percent) would return to Washington Gulch and the East River as snowmelt during the ensuing spring and summer months. These calculations were completed using the WRENSS model. Return flows may be impacted by climate change, which could increase air and soil temperatures such that system losses may be slightly increased compared to the calculations above. Climate change may also impact water quantity and timing of return flows to Washington Gulch and the East River.

CBMR’s East River snowmaking system and supporting water right are sufficient to support the additional 28.7 acre feet of diversions under the Proposed Action; however, CBMR’s pumping infrastructure located on the East River and water right is limited to approximately 6.0 cfs. Accordingly, CBMR’s instantaneous snowmaking diversion rate from the East River would remain at 6.0 cfs under the Proposed Action consistent with historic operations. The seasonal duration of pumping, however, would necessarily increase in order to provide the additional 28.7 acre feet of snowmaking diversions and duration is expected to increase by approximately five days. During this prolonged period of pumping the average pumping rate from the East River would average 3.1 cfs. It is important to note that the actual volume of pumping and increased duration would vary, depending upon temperatures, natural variations in streamflows, climate change impacts on water availability, and CBMR’s required compliance with two bypass flow agreements entered into between CBMR, the Department of Natural Resources, acting by and through the Wildlife Commission and the Division of Wildlife, and the Forest Service.

Bypass Flow Agreements As part of CBMR’s 1981 water court proceedings, CBMR entered into two bypass flow agreements regarding diversions from the East River, one with the State of Colorado dated June 22, 1981 and one with the Forest Service dated June 25, 1981. The terms and conditions regarding CBMR’s snowmaking operations under its 1981 water right were similar in each of the two agreements. Generally, the agreements established a minimum bypass flow requirement in the East River as illustrated by the following language contained in the Forest Service bypass flow agreement: “In order to maintain favorable conditions of water flow in the East River downstream of the proposed point of diversion of CBMR as decreed in case no. 81-CW-69, the parties agree that CBMR shall not divert more water from the East River than will permit 7.0 cfs of water to remain in the East River immediately below its point of diversion; provided, however, that during the month of December each year, CBMR shall be permitted to divert water from the East River in a quantity which will leave not less than 6.0 cfs of water remaining in said stream immediately below its point of diversion for a duration not to exceed 360 hours.”

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 219 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

To ensure compliance with the established bypass flow requirements, CBMR maintains a streamflow monitoring program approved by the Forest Service. Adherence to the required bypass flow and streamflow monitoring program would continue under the Proposed Action.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of watershed resources extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for watershed resources are limited to public and private lands in the vicinity of the CBMR SUP area.

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

The following projects could have cumulative impacts on watershed resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 220 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The effects on watershed resources of existing and proposed activities that take place in CBMR would be most evident in the reaches of the Middle East River (HUC12 140200010203) and Washington Gulch- Slate River (HUC12 140200010206) immediately downstream from the CBMR’s slopes. Municipal and agricultural diversions and associated return flows have a significant impact on the hydrology of these watersheds. The Middle East River and Washington Gulch-Slate River account for 16,676 and 22,977 acres of drainage area respectively, as compared with a combined 6,141 acres of drainage area corresponding to the study watersheds. Thus, the Middle East River and the Washington Gulch-Slate River basins define the downstream spatial boundary for the watershed resources cumulative effects analysis.

When considered cumulatively with the No Action Alternative, historical mining activities, ski area operations and maintenance, private and public road infrastructure, residential build-out, area forest health and fuels projects, water projects and agricultural activities have affected water resources. Existing impacts to the watershed resources include changes to streamflow hydrology (e.g., due to agricultural irrigation of lands), increased input of sediment and other pollutants (such as nutrients) into stream waters, and decreased vegetation cover. Climate change would result in additional impacts to water yield, streamflows, and water quality. It is anticipated that the existing activities would continue to require management to minimize potential impact to the project area watersheds and to the availability of water for snowmaking uses and ski area operations. Existing concerns regarding the stream health and water quality of the Slate River would be expected to continue as the mainstem of the Slate River downstream from the study watersheds, has been given a Category 5 classification which is defined as “Not meeting applicable water quality standards for one or more classified uses by one or more pollutants (303(d) waterbodies).”168 Future implementation of projects would require site-specific studies to determine whether additional water depletions for snowmaking would be necessary, and impacts to water resources would be minimized to the extent practicable.

The following paragraphs disclose cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Action.

Watershed Yield The study watersheds’ yield is anticipated to increase by 3 percent (approximately 175 acre feet) as a result of the Proposed Action. Computations completed with the WRENSS model, at the scale of the study watersheds, indicate that ski area and residential developments over the last fifty years have increased yield by approximately 11 percent relative to pre-development conditions. At the scale of the cumulative effects analysis, the study watersheds contribute approximately 2.5 percent of the total yield. An analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage on the East River below the confluence with the Slate River, which contains records from 1963 through present, shows that the average water yield of the East River at this location is approximately 227,000 acre feet per year.169 The effects of the Proposed Action on watershed yield would result in a slight, but probably un-measurable, change at the scale of the cumulative effects spatial extent (the watershed yield increase is estimated to be less than 0.1 percent relative to the annual yield of the East River, below the confluence with the Slate River).

168 CDPHE, 2016a 169 USGS, 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 221 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Stream Health Past ski area development at CBMR has cumulatively affected riparian areas on NFS lands within the SUP area. Residential development has also resulted on impacts to the study watersheds. Regarding ski area development at CBMR, there have been cumulative impacts to the study watersheds from ground disturbance activities related to construction of ski trails, mountain restaurants, and chairlifts. Although the Proposed Action includes tree clearing and grading, PDC and mitigation measures would ensure that the extent of existing CDAs within CBMR would not increase.

Despite direct project effects within the WIZ of the study watersheds, when considered cumulatively, in addition to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of the Proposed Action would maintain stream health through successful implementation of mitigation measures and PDC. By maintaining the health of the study watersheds, the Proposed Action would not exhibit a negative influence upon watershed conditions in a cumulative context. Water Quality Historic activities that have taken place within the Middle East River and Slate River watersheds, such as mining, agricultural, commercial, and urban projects, have caused ground disturbance and vegetation removal. These activities contribute to increased erosion and sediment input into the streams and impact to water quality; however, because there are no impacts to water quality anticipated from any of the project components within the Proposed Action, there would be no cumulative impacts to water quality.

Snowmaking The Proposed Action would not result in an increase of instantaneous rate of diversions from the East River and CBMR will continue to limit its snowmaking diversions from the East River to pumping rates not to exceed its decreed water rights of 6 cfs; therefore, there would be no changes to the existing cumulative impacts to the East River from the Proposed Action. Increased visitation as a result of the Proposed Action could result in increases in water use from CBMR and non-CBMR facilities (restaurants, hotels, etc.) serviced by the Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District (MCBWSD). These increases would be required to meet the minimum bypass agreements specified in the MCBWSD’s water rights permit, and not CBMR’s. Further analysis of these bypass flow agreements and their impacts to the East River are outside the scope of this Final EIS.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The additional 28.7 acre feet of water diversions from the East River (6.9 acre feet of associated depletions) that would be required for production of man-made snow as proposed under the Proposed Action, would result in a new irretrievable loss of the water resource. Similarly, an additional 0.1 acre foot of diversions for restaurant uses, would also result in an additional irretrievable loss of the resource; however, these losses are not irreversible, since the stream water is a renewable resource and changing the activity (in this case, snowmaking) would reduce or stop the loss. Irreversible and irretrievable impacts to stream health and water quality are not expected to occur as a consequence of implementation of the Proposed Action.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 222 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

L. WETLANDS SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The project area for wetland resources is 3,300 acres in size and encompasses both NFS and private lands within and adjacent to the CBMR SUP area. This analysis summarizes the Vegetation and Wetland Specialist Report Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects (Vegetation and Wetland Report) that is contained in the project file.170

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION The Forest Plan does not contain Forest-wide or Management Area-specific goals, standards, or guidelines specific to wetlands; however, there are goals, standards, and guidelines related to water resources that are discussed in greater detail in Section K – Watershed.

Water Conservation Practices Handbook Standards Soils, aquatic, and riparian system Management Measures and PDC are provided in the WCPH and Forest Plan to ensure applicable federal and state laws are met on NFS lands in Region 2 and the GMUG. Applicable WCPH management measures include:

• MM-4: Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life.

• MM-5: Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats maintain or improve long- term stream health.

• MM-6: Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function.

• MM-7: Manage stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment.

• MM-8: Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams.

Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 All jurisdictional wetlands on NFS and private lands are protected by Section 404 of the CWA, and a permit from the USACE is required for both permanent and temporary wetland impacts. Additional direction regarding wetlands management for the USACE and Forest Service is provided by Presidential Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent practicable, short- and long-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. More specifically, Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to avoid new

170 Western Ecological Resource, 2017b

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 223 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

construction in wetlands unless there is no reasonable alternative. Executive Order 11990 states further that where wetlands cannot be avoided, the Proposed Action must include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. As required by Executive Order 11990 and the CWA, avoidance and minimization measures were considered through the planning process for the proposed projects. Therefore, this analysis also identifies PDC (refer to Table 2-2) that would be implemented in order to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Finally, the USACE’s policy of no net loss of wetlands requires mitigation for wetland impacts, which can include the construction of new wetlands to replace those that were lost, the purchase of credits in a wetland mitigation bank, the restoration of a degraded wetland, or a combination thereof. The type and amount of wetland mitigation for these projects would be determined during a future CWA 404 permit process.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT In total, 78.7 acres of wetlands occur within the 3,300-acre project area, including 53.3 acres of wetlands in the Washington Gulch watershed and 25.4 acres of wetlands in the East River watershed. In addition, 52,708 linear feet of small perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams occur throughout the project area. The bank width of many of these streams is 2 feet; however, streams up to 5 feet wide are present in certain locations. No wetlands were identified in the proposed Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas.

In general, the wetlands within the Washington Gulch watershed support a greater extent of scrub-shrub wetlands, while those wetlands in the East River watershed have a higher percentage of forested wetlands. Three wetland fens were also identified. Fens are wetlands characterized by the accumulation of organic- rich soils and are primarily fed by groundwater sources. Because the rate of accumulation of peat in fens is so slow, these ecosystems are generally considered to be irreplaceable. Fen soils are Histosols, characterized by more than 40 cm (16 inches) of organic matter accumulation, commonly referred to as peat. Fens were identified along a ski area access road north of the Red Lady Express Lift, north of the Teocalli Lift, and northwest of the lower terminal of the Paradise Express chairlift. A total of 1.2 acres of fens were mapped within the project area. Table 3L-1 contains a summary of the type and size of each of the wetlands and streams present within the project area. Detailed descriptions for each of the wetlands and other waters of the U.S. overlapping the project area can be found in the Vegetation and Wetland Report contained in the project file.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 224 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3L-1. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Area Length Wetland Type (acres) (feet) Washington Gulch Watershed PFO 4.85 n/a PSS 40.50 n/a PEM 7.95 n/a Perennial Stream n/a 7,279 Intermittent Streams n/a 6,463 Ephemeral Streams n/a 10,064 Subtotal 53.30 23,806 East River Watershed PFO 9.51 n/a PSS 11.22 n/a PEM 4.52 n/a PAB 0.14 n/a Perennial Streams n/a 3,669 Intermittent Streams n/a 8,425 Ephemeral Streams n/a 16,808 Subtotal 25.39 28,902 Grand Total 78.69 52,708 Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017b Notes: PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent, PAB = Palustrine Aquatic Bed Numbers may not total due to rounding.

Wetland Functions and Values Wetlands are often described in terms of their functions and values. Functions refer to the ecological role or processes that a wetland performs. Values refer to the importance of these functions to the environment or to humans. Wetlands do not necessarily perform all functions, nor do they perform all functions to the same degree. The location, vegetation, and hydrology of a wetland often determine which functions it performs.

Wetland functions can be generally categorized into three major groups: hydrology, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The qualitative assessments of wetland functions presented here are based on best professional judgment and knowledge of the project area wetlands. In general terms, these assessments rank the effectiveness of a function by considering both the presence of a particular process as well as the opportunity for that process to occur based on the wetland type and location. These assessments consider the overall condition of wetlands relative to the other wetlands within the watershed.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 225 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This functional assessment groups the wetlands into types, based upon hydrological characteristics. Types include isolated springs and seeps, wetlands along stream channels, streams without wetlands, and wetlands on ski trails. Functions and values for these wetland types are described in the following discussion.

Isolated Spring/Seep Wetlands

Hydrology Spring/seep wetlands are not located on streams; therefore, they do not have flood peak reduction or shoreline erosion control functions. They have a groundwater discharge function rated low due to the small volume of water discharged, the seasonality of many of the seeps, and the low number of wetlands with springs. Much of the discharged water evaporates or is absorbed into the soil. The recharge function is rated very low.

Water Quality The spring/seep wetlands do not have sediment and nutrient removal functions because they are not located on streams, and hence do not receive sediment and nutrient laden storm water.

Wildlife Habitat The spring/seep wetlands support low to moderate wildlife values. In general, the larger and more structurally diverse the wetland, the greater the wildlife value. However, most of these wetlands are so small and isolated that they represent a subset of any particular species’ (e.g., a small mammal’s or nongame bird’s) home range. Many of these wetlands have small seeps within a forest, which provides structural diversity. The lush vegetation of these and most of the other wetlands within the project area provides high quality forage throughout most of the year. Willows and other shrubby vegetation provide nesting and foraging sites for nongame birds. Isolated wetlands within forested areas may increase humidity and lower ambient temperatures within forests and may be preferentially used by deer and elk as thermal cover on hot days.

Condition Overall, most of these wetlands are functioning at or near the reference standard.

Wetlands along Stream Channels

Hydrology These wetlands have flood peak reduction, erosion protection, and groundwater recharge and discharge functions. Although these wetlands do not have sinuous channels with large floodplains, they do have extensive woody vegetation that reduces the velocity of flood flows. The majority of these wetlands occur along small first- and second-order headwater streams no greater than 3 feet in width, and in many cases are only 1-foot-wide. The flood peak reduction and erosion protection functions are rated high. These wetlands are also a net contributor to the hydrology of larger stream systems and have groundwater discharge functions. The groundwater recharge function is rated low to medium because most of the discharge flows downslope into larger tributaries and rivers.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 226 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Quality These wetlands have a high potential to trap sediment due to the ability of the dense woody plants on the streambanks to reduce the velocity of flood water and allow precipitation of sediments. Wetlands that remove suspended sediments have a high nutrient retention value, because nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are absorbed to the sediments.

Wildlife Habitat The drainage channels with continuous wetlands provide some of the highest value wildlife habitat. The sheer size of the wetlands, combined with the structural and plant species diversity of these wetlands, provide habitat for numerous large mammals, small mammals, and nongame birds. The continuous connectivity and broadness of these wetlands provide natural movement corridors that connect higher elevation forested habitats with lower elevation valley habitats to the north. The willow and shrub components of these wetlands provide high quality breeding and escape cover for nongame birds and small mammals. Similar to the other wetlands, the lush vegetation associated with these wetlands provides season-long quality forage for deer, elk and small herbivorous mammals, although many of these areas have been heavily grazed by cattle.

Condition Overall, most of these wetlands are functioning at or near the reference standard.

Streams without Wetlands

Hydrology These small ephemeral stream channels have no floodplain or areas for ponding. Snow melt and storm water runoff flows rapidly down the drainages without resistance. The value of the flood peak reduction function is very low. There are no wetlands to provide a shoreline erosion control function. There are no groundwater discharge or recharge functions.

Water Quality There are no wetlands to provide water quality functions.

Wildlife Habitat The wildlife value of drainage channels without wetlands is generally low. The drainages are steep and trapezoidal with low plant species diversity. Bird and mammal diversity is also low, although a few sagebrush-associated species may be attracted to this habitat. The overall extent of this habitat is small and capable of supporting only a small number of wildlife species and individuals.

Condition Overall, most of these streams are functioning at or near the reference standard.

Wetlands on Ski Trails Several areas of wetlands occur on ski trails that have had the overtopping forest vegetation cleared. The majority of these wetlands are dominated by grasses and forbs, but in some cases shrubs have also

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 227 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

become established. The functions of these wetlands vary depending on whether they occur as isolated spring/seeps or if they occur along small streams. The quality of the vegetation in these wetlands varies; while native species dominate many wetlands, others are dominated by non-native agricultural grasses such as meadow foxtail. The hydrology of many of the wetlands on ski trails has been altered by historic ski area activities. For example, one of the small streams north of the lower portion of the Red Lady Express chairlift has been piped, leading to a decrease in wetland extent. In other areas the installation of underground snowmaking pipes or other utilities may have altered the subsurface hydrology, diverting groundwater away from down gradient wetland areas. Finally, the effect of snowmaking may have increased the hydrology of some of these wetlands, broadening the extent of hydrophytic vegetation. Overall, most of these wetlands appear to function at or near the reference standard, but some wetlands are likely functioning below the reference standard.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section identifies and discusses the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on wetlands and waters of the U.S. The potential effects have been broadly grouped into permanent, temporary, and secondary wetland impacts. Permanent wetland impacts occur when fill or grading physically disturbs the wetland so that it is no longer present in perpetuity. Temporary wetland impacts exist only for the duration of project construction and then the wetland is restored to the previous undisturbed condition. Both of these impacts would be considered direct impacts and, according to NEPA, are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (36 CFR § 1508.8).

Secondary wetland impacts, for the purpose of this analysis, include those impacts to wetlands that are not directly resultant of fill or grading. Instead, these may result from changes in vegetation structure such as shading of wetland vegetation by boardwalks, forest or shrubby overstory removal, snow compaction, competition from invasive and noxious weeds, alteration of hydrologic patterns, and/or increased soil erosion or sedimentation. These secondary impacts are best described as indirect effects according to NEPA and are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (36 CFR § 1508.8).

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a continuation of existing management practices. Some minor indirect impacts to wetlands are likely occurring within the CBMR SUP area as a result of ongoing ski area operations (i.e., forest overstory removal, snow compaction, increased hydrologic budgets from snowmaking). There would be no new ski terrain, no new or upgraded ski lifts, no additional snowmaking, and no new recreational facilities. There are no new anticipated effects to wetlands or other waters of the U.S. from the No Action Alternative. Ongoing and projected impacts of climate change on regional hydrology may impact the extent, distribution, and functions of the wetlands within the CBMR SUP area. These impacts may be minor and long-term, and would be additive with the minor, indirect impacts described above from ski area operations.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 228 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Table 3L-2 summarizes the direct and indirect effects to wetlands that would occur under the Proposed Action. There would be no permanent wetland impacts under the Proposed Action. Proposed snowmaking lines would have temporary impacts to 0.09 acre of wetlands in four locations based on a 40-foot-wide disturbance corridor; however, with the implementation of avoidance and minimization PDC identified in Table 2-2, it is likely the disturbance corridor width would be reduced to 20 feet through wetlands, lessening the temporary wetland impacts to 0.04 acre. These wetland impacts would be restored in their entirety post-construction. Finally, any potential indirect impact to wetlands from dewatering through trench construction would be ameliorated by a recommended site-specific PDC, which states that clay-cut off walls will be installed in the trench where high groundwater is encountered within or adjacent to any wetland resource. Detailed descriptions of impacts for each of the wetlands and other waters of the U.S. overlapping the project area can be found in the Vegetation and Wetland Report in the project file. Table 3L-2: Wetland Impact Summary – Proposed Action Direct Impact Indirect Impactb Project Name Wetland Classa Permanent Temporary Secondary Impact Area Impact Area Impact Area (acres) (acres) (acres) Watershedc WG ER WG ER WG ER PFO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.01 PSS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17 0.03 Multi-Use Trails PEM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.0 Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.26 0.04 PEM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.0 Snowmaking Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.0 0.0 Grand Totald 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.26 0.04 Sources: Western Ecological Resource, 2017b and Cowardin et al., 1979 Notes: a PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent b Indirect impacts due to shading from 10-foot-wide elevated boardwalks or bridges c Watershed: ER = East River, WG = Washington Gulch d Totals are the sum of unrounded numbers

The proposed multi-use trails would also affect wetland resources. Approximately 22 wetland crossings and 6 crossings of streams without wetlands would occur under the Proposed Action. All trails through wetlands would be constructed with boardwalks on environmentally friendly pier-foundations (i.e., helical screws or diamond piers), which are generally not considered to be “fill” under CWA Section 404 permitting procedures. In addition, narrow wetlands or streams without wetlands would be crossed with bridges that would be constructed without any direct wetland impacts. Indirect impacts from trails, which total 0.30 acre, could potentially include a decline in wetland vegetation due to shading; however, the overall functional condition of wetlands is not anticipated to be adversely affected.

Erosion and sedimentation from construction activities also have the potential to adversely affect wetlands; however, with the implementation of the numerous PDC listed in Table 2-2, these indirect

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 229 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

impacts would be minor. Such protections generally include installing appropriate sediment control features prior to ground disturbing activities, constructing roads and trails so that they do not drain directly into wetlands, identifying and flagging wetlands prior to construction.

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, the Proposed Action was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands wherever possible. For example, the bottom of the proposed North Face chairlift was re-located from its original proposed location to avoid impacting wetlands, and PDC would be implemented to field-fit proposed trails to minimize wetland crossings. Where avoidance is not feasible, boardwalks on environmentally friendly pier foundations or bridges would be utilized for wetland crossings. No wetland fens would be directly or indirectly affected by proposed project activities.

Similar to the No Action Alternative, ongoing and projected impacts of climate change on regional hydrology may impact the extent, distribution, and functions of the wetlands within the CBMR SUP area. These impacts would be minor and long-term, and would be additive with the minor, indirect impacts described above from the Proposed Action and ongoing ski area operations. The Forest Plan, WCPH, Executive Order 11990, and the CWA all provide strict regulations and policy on impacts to wetlands, which would be avoided, mitigated, and minimized under the Proposed Action. Therefore, the impacts to wetlands that might be exacerbated by climate change would also be minimized.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for wetland resources extend from 1961 when CBMR first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which CBMR can be expected to operate.

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

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

The following current and upcoming projects could have cumulative impacts on wetland resources, and are analyzed in the following discussion:

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 230 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative effects to wetlands would continue to occur. Historically, ski areas such as CBMR have likely directly impacted wetlands especially prior to implementation of the CWA. However, over the last few decades CBMR has worked closely with the USACE to avoid, minimize, and mitigate direct impacts to wetlands. As previously discussed, some minor indirect impacts to wetlands are likely occurring within the CBMR SUP area as a result of ongoing ski area operations (i.e., forest overstory removal, snow compaction, increased hydrologic budgets from snowmaking). In addition, past disturbances to wetlands have likely occurred both within the CBMR SUP area as well as the general vicinity. However, considering the existing laws protecting wetlands on both private and federal lands, cumulative impacts to wetlands would be insignificant.

Generally, cumulative effects for the Proposed Action would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative; however, the magnitude would be slightly greater under the Proposed Action as there is a potential direct impact to 0.09 acre of wetlands through temporary disturbances. In addition, another 0.3 acre of wetlands may be indirectly affected by the Proposed Action through shading from elevated boardwalks and bridges. However, when combined with all past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, and considering the existing laws and guidance protecting, restoring and mitigating wetland impacts, CBMR’s compliance with wetlands laws and guidance, as well as the BMPs and PDC identified in Table 2-2 of this document, with the implementation of mitigation the cumulative impact to wetlands would meet the intent of Forest Plan standards and Executive Order 11990.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There are no permanent wetland impacts associated with the Proposed Action; therefore, there would be no irreversible commitment of wetland resources. The 0.09 acre of temporary wetland impacts associated with the installation of snowmaking pipelines is considered to be an irretrievable commitment of wetland resources and would likely last for approximately three to five years or until the disturbed wetlands are fully restored to their pre-disturbance condition.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 231 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 232 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

A. PREPARERS FOREST SERVICE TEAM The following people participated in initial scoping, were members of the Interdisciplinary Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this Final EIS. Chad Stewart Acting Forest Supervisor, Deciding Officer Matthew McCombs Gunnison District Ranger, Line Officer Aaron Drendel Recreation, Supervisors Office, Project Leader Beth Anderson Soil Scientist, Supervisors Office James Cuthbertson Recreation Wilderness and Trails Program Manager, SO Matthew Dare Fisheries Biologist, Supervisors Office Tambi Gustafson Snow Ranger, Gunnison Ranger District Ashley Hom Hydrologist, Gunnison Ranger District Justin Lawrence Archaeologist, Supervisors Office Niccole Mortenson Engineering and Minerals NEPA Project Specialist, SO Kelly Nywening Forester, Gunnison Ranger District Suzann Parker Wildlife Biologist, Gunnison Ranger District Daniel Perez Rangeland Specialist, Supervisors Office Clay Speas Wildlife, Fish and Threatened and Endangered Species Program Manager, Supervisors Office Matt Vasquez Wildlife Biologist, Gunnison Ranger District Corey Wong Public Service Staff Officer, Supervisors Office

CONSULTANT TEAM The use of a third-party consulting firm for preparation of an EIS is addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Title 40, Part 1506.5(c). If an EIS is prepared with the assistance of a consulting firm, the firm must execute a disclosure statement, such as: Except as provided in §§1506.2 and 1506.3 any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor selected by the lead agency or where appropriate under §1501.6(b), a cooperating agency. It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency, or where

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 233 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

appropriate the cooperating agency, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit any agency from requesting any person to submit information to it or to prohibit any person from submitting information to any agency. Furthermore, the use of a third-party contractor in preparing an EIS is specifically addressed by the CEQ in its “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations” in question #17a.171 Per this CEQ direction:

When a consulting firm has been involved in developing initial data and plans for the project, but does not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the decision, it need not be disqualified from preparing the EIS. However, a disclosure statement in the draft EIS should clearly state the scope and extent of the firm’s prior involvement to expose any potential conflicts of interest that may exist. Accordingly, disclosure statements were signed by all entities that make up the third-party consulting team. These disclosure statements are included in the project file. SE Group has been involved in several other projects at CBMR.

SE Group Kent Sharp Principal, Senior Project Manager Ashley Smith Assistant Project Manager/Document Review/Scenery/Wetlands Scott Prior Recreation/Noise/Social and Economic Resources/Traffic/Land Use/Vegetation/Fish and Wildlife/Geology and Soils/Watershed Larissa Read Air Quality/Climate Change Mitch Lafevre Scenery Sam O’Keefe Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Paula Samuelson Document Production

Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Garrett Williams Staff Archaeologist Ann McKibbin Principal Investigator

GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. Dr. James McCalpin Geotechnical Engineer

171 CEQ, 1981

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 234 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

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

Western Ecological Resource, Inc. Rea Orthner Plant Ecologist and Botanist

Western Ecosystems, Inc. Richard W. Thompson Certified Wildlife Biologist

Wildlife Specialties, LLC Jerald Powell Certified Ecologist, Certified Wildlife Biologist

Resource Engineering, Inc. Raul Passerini, P.E. Water Resources Engineer B. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Park Service

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

STATE GOVERNMENT Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division (CDPHE) Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Colorado State Forest Service

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 235 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

LOCAL GOVERNMENT Town of Crested Butte Town of Mt. Crested Butte Gunnison County Commissioners Gunnison County Planning Commission City of Gunnison Gunnison County Trails Commission

LOCAL MEDIA KPKE/KEJJ Radio, Gunnison KBUT, Crested Butte KWSB Radio, Gunnison KVLE Radio, Gunnison KAYV Radio, Aspen Crested Butte News Gunnison Country Times Grand Junction Sentinel

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Adaptive Sports Center of Crested Butte Alpine Express Center for Native Ecosystems Colorado Backcountry Colorado Outfitters Association Conservation Colorado Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association Crested Butte Nordic Council Crested Butte Shuttle Company Fantasy Ranch Horseback Adventures Friends Hut Friends of Snodgrass Mountain Gunnison Angling Society

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 236 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Gunnison Chamber of Commerce Gunnison Sportsman Association Gunnison Stockgrowers Association High Country Conservation Advocates Irwin Backcountry Guides, LLC Lazy F Bar Outfitters Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory Rocky Mountain Wild Spann Ranches Trout Unlimited

INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED DURING SCOPING OR WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE NEPA PROCESS Bruce Alpern Ted Reeves Hailee Stanley Evan Halligan Chris Kopf Mia Phillips Michael Kraatz Tom Courtney Barto Gail Donald Ochs Kim Rose Eric Long Zach Pickett Andrew Gitin Collin Sprau Wes Cyrus Jaima Giles Joe Matyk Margery Feldberg Rachel Miller Mark Lucas Judy McGill Edward Miller Sara Morgan Jeremy Levin Richard Moody Scott Hargrove Matt Feier Jason Napoli Nicholas Herrin Woody Lindenmeyr Craig Geipel David Light Suz Cyrus Jordan Anderson Lewis Abrams Lauren Crawley Cindy Ervin James Ward Shauna Cupolo Jeff Stump Gretchen Bunnell Joseph Cole Bill Hall Don Bunnell John Flanigan Kent Lindberg Greg Harscher Deb Casey Derek Carstens Sam Evans Amy Reid Jean-Claude Pharamond Mick Osmundson Matt Webb Caleb Weinberg CL Cherry Fred Sandusky Steve Curtiss Steve Guerrieri

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 237 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Christopher Hensley Isaac Evans Rebecca Stern Donna Fishman Teddy Evans Warren Miterko David McGuire Rick Reavis Alli Melton Alli Melton Margery Reavis J Wenun Jane Lowell Sue Navy Chris Nutgrass Jean Public Sandy Shea Tim Kugler Jamie Walton Doug Bradbury Melanie Armstrong Roger Lowell David McGuire Maddie Rehn Scott Fishman Sara Morgan Gavin Sollberger Tim Kugler Scott Clarkston Melanie Wasco David Rothman

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 238 Chapter 5. References

5. REFERENCES

In Text Citation Reference

Barry, J. 2016. Personal communication with Jim Barry, Weed Control Barry, 2016 Expert. Benedict, A.D. 1991. A Sierra Club Naturalist’s Guide to the Southern Benedict, 1991 Rockies: The Rocky Mountain Regions of Southern Wyoming, Colorado, and Northern New Mexico. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Beidleman, C.A. (facilitator). 2000. Colorado Partners in Flight Land Bird Beidleman, 2000 Conservation Plan. 320 pp. Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Burroughs and King, Roads. G.T.R INT-264, Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 1989 Research Station. Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2017. Soils Specialist Report Buscher Soil & for Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Environmental Statement. Gunnison Ranger District, Gunnison National Forest. September Consulting, Inc., 2017 2017. Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR). 2013. Crested Butte Mountain CBMR, 2013 Resort 2013 Master Development Plan. Prepared by Crested Butte Mountain Resort in collaboration with SE Group. CBMR, 2017a Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR). 2017. Visitation Information. Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR). 2017. Environmental Stewardship CBMR, 2017b programs. Available at: http://www.skicb.com/content/environmental- stewardship. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2016. Online CDOT, 2017 Transportation Information System. Available at: http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/trafficdata. Accessed September 2017. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2016. CDPHE, 2016a Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Water Quality Control Commission. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2016. Regulation #93: Colorado’s Section 303(D) List of Impaired Waters and CDPHE, 2016b Monitoring and Evaluation List. Water Quality Control Commission. Effective: November 30, 2016. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2017. Air Quality division webpage. Available at: CDPHE, 2017 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/categories/services-and- information/environment/air-quality. Center for Hearing and Communication. 2016. Common Environmental Center for Hearing and Noise Levels. Available at: http://chchearing.org/noise/common- Communication, 2016 environmental-noise-levels/. Accessed August 2017.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 239 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: CEQ, 1997 Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment, and L.W. Mays. 1988. Applied Hydrology. Chow et al., 1988 McGraw-Hill International Editions, Civil Engineering Series. City of Aspen. 2017. Aspen’s Air Quality Success Story. Available at: City of Aspen, 2017 http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Environmental-Health/Air- Quality-Outdoors/ Cliffshade. 2004. Colorado Geology Photojournals: A Tribute to Colorado’s Cliffshade, 2004 Physical Past and Present. Available at: http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/index.htm. Colorado State Demography Office. 2016. Population Totals for Colorado Colorado State Counties. Denver, CO. Available at: Demography Office, 2016 https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/population-totals- counties/#population-totals-for-colorado-counties. Accessed August 2017. Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2017. Base Industry Analysis by Colorado Department of County. Available at: https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/economy-labor- Local Affairs, 2017 force/data/base-analysis/. Accessed August 2017. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Cowardin et al., 1979 Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C., 103 pp. Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA). 1986. A Final Report on the Colorado Ski Country USA Water Management Research Project. Prepared CSCUSA, 1986 by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Charles F. Leaf. Denver, CO: Colorado Ski Country USA. David G.C.L., B.P. Bledsoe, D.M. Merritt, E. Wohl. 2009. The Impacts of David et al., 2009 Ski Slope Development on Stream Channel Morphology in the Whiter River National Forest, Colorado, USA. Journal of Geomorphology 103, 375–388. Dowsett, F.R., Jr., M.W. Ganster, D.E. Ranta, D.J. Baker, and H.J. Stein. 1981. Geology of the Mount Emmons Molybdenum Deposit, Crested Butte, Dowsett et al., 1981 Colorado. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 32nd Field Conference, Western Slope Colorado. New Mexico Geological Survey, 325– 332. Eagleson, 1970 Eagleson P.S. 1970. Dynamic Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Elliot, 2017 Elliot, B. 2017. Personal communication with Brian Elliot, Botanist. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. WRENSS: An Approach to EPA, 1980 Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (A Procedural Handbook). EPA-600/8-80-012. Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance EPA, 1998 Analyses. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 08/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498.pdf

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 240 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Environmental Justice. EPA, 2017a Available at: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. Accessed August 2017. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Our Nation’s Air, 2017 EPA, 2017b Trends Report. Available at: https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2017/#home. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Air Data – Multiyear Tile Plot for All Air Quality Index Pollutants, Gunnison County, Colorado. EPA, 2017c Available at: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-data- multiyear-tile-plot. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017d. National Air Toxics Assessment, National Emissions Inventory. Available at: EPA, 2017d https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-assessment- results. Feier, M. 2017. Personal Communication with Matthew Feier, Director of Feier, 2017a Planning at CBMR. Summer Activity Usership at CBMR. Feier, M. 2017. Personal Communication with Matthew Feier, Director of Feier, 2017b Planning at CBMR. Baseline and Projected Employment at CBMR. Feier, M. 2017. Personal Communication with Matthew Feier, Director of Feier, 2017c Planning at CBMR. Traffic Characteristics of CBMR guests. Garfield County. 2013. Garfield County Emissions Inventory. Available at: https://www.garfield-county.com/air- Garfield County, 2013 quality/documents/airquality/Garfield_County_Emissions_Inventory- 2010.pdf. Gaskill, D.L., F.E. Mutchler, J.H. Kramer, J.A. Thomas and S.G. Zahony. Gaskill et al., 1991 1991. Geologic Map of the Gothic Quadrangle, Gunnison County, Colorado. GQ-1689. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. Geo-Haz Consulting, Inc. 2017. Soils and Geotechnical Impact of 2017 Geo-Haz Consulting, Inc., Proposed Mountain Bike Trails, Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Gunnison 2017 County, Colorado. October 2017. Gordon, E. and D. Ojima (eds). 2015. Colorado Climate Change Gordon and Ojima, 2015 Vulnerability Study: A Report by the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University to the Colorado Energy Office. Gunnison County. 2008. Upper Gunnison Valley Transportation Plan: Gunnison County, 2008 October 2008 Update. Available at: http://www.gunnisonvalleyrta.com/packets/Plan_10.8.08.pdf. Gunnison County. 2014. Gunnison County Economic Indicators Report August 2014. Available at: Gunnison County, 2014 http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/3453. Accessed August 2017.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 241 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Gunnison County. 2017. Environmental Health – Air Quality information. Gunnison County, 2017 Available at: http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/399/Air-Quality. Harrison, R.T. 2008. Sound Measurements of Helicopters During Logging Operations. USDA Forest Service. Inventory and Monitoring. Available at: Harrison, 2008 https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/techdev/IM/sound_measure/helo_results.shtml. Accessed August 2017. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change IPCC, 2007 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lukas, J., J. Barsugli, N. Doesken, I. Rangwala, and K. Wolter. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Lukas et al., 2014 Management and Adaptation, Second Edition – August 2014. A Report for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Western Water Assessment, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds). 2014. Highlights of Melillo et al., 2014 Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 148 pp. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 2016. A Class III Cultural Metcalf, 2016 Resources Inventory of the 2015 Proposed Winter and Summer Upgrades at Crested Butte Mountain Resort. January 2016. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2011. NOAA’s 1981–2010 Climate NCDC, 2011 Normals. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov. USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. National NRCS, 2009 Biology Handbook Subpart B – Conservation Planning. Part 614, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Version 2. USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) system. Butte, Colorado Site, Station ID: 380. NRCS, 2017 Available at: https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=380. Accessed May 2017. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA). 2016. Climate Challenge: NSAA, 2016 “Sustainable Slopes” Annual Report. Available at: http://www.nsaa.org/media/276021/SSAR2016.pdf. Overton, C.K., S.P. Wollrab, B.C. Roberts, and M.A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain Regions) fish and fish habitat standard inventory Overton et al., 1997 procedures handbook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-346. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 73 pp. Rees Consulting, Inc. 2016. Gunnison Valley Housing Needs Assessment. Rees, 2016 Available at: http://gvrha.org/2016-housing-needs-assessment/. Accessed July 2017. Resource Engineering. 2017. Hydrology Specialist Report for the Crested Resource Engineering, Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement. 2017 October 2017.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 242 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Roberts, L., W. Magwire, and A. Nettles. 2012. Southern Summit County Roberts, 2012 Lynx Habitat Assessment, Dillon Ranger District, White River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Silverthorne, CO. September 11. Roberts, L. and K. Broderdorp. Personal Communication with Liz Roberts, Roberts and Broderdorp, Wildlife Biologist White River National Forest, and Kurt Broderdorp, Fish 2014 and Wildlife Biologist. Robinson, C.H. and P.S. Dea. 1981. Quaternary Glacial and Slope-Failure Deposits of the Crested Butte Area, Gunnison County, Colorado. New Robinson and Dea, 1981 Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 32nd Field Conference, Western Slope Colorado, 155–163. Sale, J. 2017. Personal Communication with John Sale, former Director of Sale, 2016 Planning at CBMR. Skier Traffic in Teo Bowls 1 and 2. SE Group. 2017a. Terrain Network Distribution by Ability Level SE Group, 2017a Calculations. CBMR Capacity Models. Available in the project file. SE Group. 2017b. Traffic Calculations prepared for the Crested Butte SE Group, 2017b Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement. Available in the project file. Smith, S. 2009. Rare Plant Survey for Mount Crested Butte, Gunnison National Forest. Unpublished report prepared for Gay Austin, USDA Forest Smith, 2009 Service Botanist, Gunnison National Forest, Gunnison, CO. Prepared by Scott Smith Botanical Consulting, Denver, CO. 16 pp. Stern, R.F. 2017. Snowshoe hare fecal pellet count survey to assess Canada lynx habitat at the proposed Crested Butte Mountain Resort ski expansion Stern, 2017 area, Year One: Pilot Study. Western State Colorado Univ. Gunnison, CO. Apr. 24 pp. Sustainable Crested Butte, Sustainable Crested Butte. 2017. Available at http://sustainablecb.org/. 2017 Accessed August 2017. Town of Mt. Crested Butte. 2017. Sustainable Projects. Available at: Town of Mt. Crested http://www.mtcrestedbuttecolorado.us/index.asp?SEC=5DF025C3-689E- Butte, 2017 470F-B47B-C978EB7F9C84&Type=B_BASIC. Town of Crested Butte. 2017. Sustainable Projects. Available at: Town of Crested Butte http://www.crestedbutte- Sustainable Projects, co.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={011D5D6F-0F2B-4F0F-8A35- 2017 405D86FFC261} Troendle, C.A. and Olsen. 1994. Potential Effects of Timber Harvest and Water Management on Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. In: Troendle and Olsen, 1994 Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management, July 12–15, 1993, Flagstaff, AZ. USDA Forest Service Gen Tech Rep RM-247.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 243 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Troendle, C. A., J. M. Nankervis, and L. S. Porth. 2003. The Impact of Forest Service Activities on the stream flow regime in the Platte River. Final Troendle et al., 2003 report submitted to the USDA Forest Service by MATCOM Corporation. Fort Collins, CO. 50 pp. plus Appendices. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017. Census Bureau, County Business U.S. Department of Patterns. Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html. Commerce, 2017 Accessed August 2017. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. American Census Survey (ACS) Demographic and Housing Estimates. 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year U.S. Census Bureau, Estimates. American Community Survey Office, Washington, DC. Available 2015a at: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml ?pid=ACS_15_5YR_DP05&src=pt. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Selected Economic Characteristics. 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. American Community U.S. Census Bureau, Survey Office, Washington, DC. Available at: 2015b https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml ?src=bkmk. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered species consultation handbook: USFWS and NMFS, 1998 procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Modified Biological Opinion for Breckenridge Ski Resort’s proposed Peak 6 Improvement project. USFWS Grand Jct. CO. ES/CO: FS/WRNF/Dillon Ranger District, USFWS, 2013 TAILS 06E24100-2012-F-0132, 65413-2009-B-0008, ES/GJ -6-C0-12-F - 003. Apr. 19 Ltr. from, P. Gelatt, USFWS to S. Fitzwilliams, USDA Forest Service. 19pp. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management 1974 Volume 2. Handbook Number 462. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 1991. The Amended Land and Resource Management 1991 Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Vegetation Management Plan for Crested Butte USDA Forest Service, Mountain Resort, Inc. Prepared by Jon Morrisey, Forester, Taylor 1995 River/Cebolla Ranger District. USDA Forest Service. 2001. The Built Environment Image Guide for the USDA Forest Service, National Forests and Grasslands. FS-710. Available at: 2001 https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/beig/01_frontmatter.pdf. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 2005. FSH 2509.25 Watershed Conservation 2005 Practices Handbook. Region 2, Lakewood, CO. Draft Final.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 244 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Southern USDA Forest Service, Rockies Lynx Amendment Management Direction, Vol. 1. USDA Forest 2008a Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Supplemental Biological Assessment of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment on Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species for the following National Forest Land and Resource USDA Forest Service, Management Plan Amendments: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests; 2008b Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests; Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests; Rio Grande National Forest; San Juan National Forest; White River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project USDA Forest Service, Level NEPA Analysis. Available at: 2009a https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/includes/cc_nepa_guidance. pdf. USDA Forest Service. 2009. Implementation guide to the Southern Rockies USDA Forest Service, Lynx Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, 2009b CO. USDA Forest Service. 2013. Special Uses – Applying for a Permit. USDA Forest Service, Available at: 2013 https://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/special_app_process.shtml#sp-app-a. Accessed August 2017. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 2016. Forest Service Amendment for Special-Use 2016a Authorization #:2 [Lazy F Bar Hunting]. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Spruce 2016b Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Range Management on the GMUG National USDA Forest Service, Forest. Available at: 2017a https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/landmanagement/resourcemanagement /?cid=stelprdb5401534. Accessed October 2017. USDA Forest Service. 2017. 2017 Annual Operating Instructions USDA Forest Service, Fisher Basin, West Brush, Gothic, Butte North, 2017b and Brush Creek Allotments Livestock grazing annual operating instructions – North Butte. Available in project file. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Decision Memo USDA Forest Service, North Butte Fence Construction USDA Forest Service Gunnison Ranger 2017c District. GMUG National Forest. Available in project file. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service. 2017c. 2017 Gunnison Ranger District Annual 2017d Operating Instructions. Available in project file.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 245 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

USDA Forest Service. 2017. National Forest Climate Change Maps, Region USDA Forest Service, 2 Forests. Available at: 2017e https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NFS-regional-climate- change-maps/regions/rocky-mountain-region-r2.html. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Region 2 Aerial Detection Survey Data. USDA Forest Service, Downloadable GIS shapefiles from 1994–2016. Available at: 2017f https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/forest- grasslandhealth/?cid=fsbdev3_041629 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1955. Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc. United States. Army Map Service. Photo taken October 14, 1953. Available through USGS, 1955 the U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey and the Arthur Lakes Library, Colorado School of Mines. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. National Water Information System. U.S. Geological Survey Colorado Water Science Center. Station No. USGS, 2017 09112200: Available at: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=09112200&agency_cd= USGS. Accessed May 2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). USDA-SCS, 1977 1977. Soil Survey of Taylor River Area, Colorado (Northern Part of Gunnison County). Weinhold, M.R. 2011. Personal Communication with Weinhold M.R., White Weinhold, 2011 River National Forest Hydrologist. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. (WER). 2017. Botanical Biological WER, 2017a Assessment & Biological Evaluation. Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects. October 2017. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. (WER). 2017. Vegetation and Wetland WER, 2017b Specialist Report. Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects. October 2017. Western Ecosystems, Inc., Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2016. Field verified R2 Veg GIS Shapefiles 2016 prepared for Crested Butte Mountain Resort. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 2017. Plant and Animal Biological Assessment for Western Ecosystems, Inc., the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact 2017 Statement, Gunnison National Forest. September 2017. Wildlife Specialties LLC. 2017. Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Specialties LLC, Specialist Report (Wildlife Specialists Report) for the Crested Butte 2017 Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement, Gunnison National Forest. September 2017. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2017. Data for Crested Butte, WRCC, 2017 Colorado. Available at: https://wrcc.dri.edu.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 246 Chapter 6. Figures

6. FIGURES

Vicinity Map

Figure 1. Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

Figure 2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Proposed Winter Projects

Figure 3. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Proposed Mountain Bike and Multi-Use Trails

Figure 4. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Proposed Timber Removal Plan

Figure 5. Existing Conditions from Highway 135 Viewpoint

Figure 6. Visual Simulation from Highway 135 Viewpoint

Figure 7. Project Area Water Resources

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 247 Chapter 6. Figures

This page intentionally left blank.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 248 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Ranger District

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement Vicinity Map

Snodgrass Mountain

Main Mountain 0 5 10 20 Miles Date: October 2018 Prepared By: [ East River Express Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Ranger District

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement Spellbound Bowl Hawk's Figure 1 Nest Alternative 1 The North Teocalli No Action Alternative Face

Paradise Express Existing Infrastructure

Chairlift

North Face Access Road

Paved Road Prospector Multi-Use Trail

SUP Boundary

Ski Trail

High Snowmaking Gold Link

Painter Boy Western Extreme Terrain

Twister

Red Lady Express

Silver Queen Express

Peachtree 0 500 1,000 2,000 West Wall Town of Feet Mt. Crested Butte Date: October 2018 Prepared By: [ E Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and a s t R e Gunnison National Forests iv g e a r B-8 n E i Gunnison Ranger District x ra p D re o s e s T

B-6 Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects

B-7 B-5 Environmental Impact Statement

Spellbound Bowl B-4 Figure 2 Hawk's Nest Alternative 2 - Proposed Action No rth Fa Proposed Winter Projects ce The North T e o Face c ark a eo P Proposed Projects l T li P ar SUP Boundary Adjustment ad A-3 is A-1 e A-4 B-1 Ex pr e A-2 B-2 e c New Chairlift ss a F h rt o B-3 Chairlift Removal N

Chairlift Realignment Pr os pe ct Access Road

Reclaimed Access Road

High Terrain Access Improvements Gold Link Ski Patrol Building/Warming Hut P kj ai nte r B Skiing Terrain oy Western Extreme Terrain er ist Tw Expert Trail

Intermediate Trail Banana Access

s s Flatiron Access Trail Corridor e r p x Funnel Access E Gladed Skiing y d s a s re L xp Snowmaking d E e en R ue r Q Existing Infrastructure lve Si Chairlift

Access Road

SUP Boundary

Ski Trail

l l a P W e C t 0 500 1,000 2,000 a a s c rp e e h Feet t t W s r Town of e e Date: October 2018 ted Butte Mt. Cres Prepared By: [ East River Express

«¬A

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Ranger District

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement Teocalli Figure 3 Paradise Express Alternative 2 - Proposed Action ¬ Proposed Mountain Biking «B North Face and Multi-Use Trails

Proposed Prospector «¬C Directional Mountain Biking Trail (Expert) «¬D Directional Mountain Biking Trail «¬Z (Intermediate) «¬E Directional Mountain Biking Trail «¬Y «¬F (Beginner) «¬T «¬G «¬I «¬J High Gold Link Multi-Use Trail (Intermediate) «¬X Painter Boy Multi-Use Trail (Beginner) «¬U Existing «¬H «¬W Twister Chairlift «¬V «¬S Access Road «¬K «¬ SUP Boundary «¬R M

Red Lady Express Existing Summer Trail

«¬N Silver Queen Express

«¬Q «¬O «¬P

Peachtree Carpets 0 500 1,000 2,000 West Wall Feet Town of Date: October 2018 Mt. Crested Butte Prepared By: [ East River Express Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Ranger District

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Timber Staging Areas Environmental Impact Statement Teocalli Brush Creek Helicopter Paradise Express Landing Zone Helicopter Fueling Area Figure 4 Prospector North Face Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Proposed Timber Removal Plan

Proposed Projects High Gold Link Painter Boy SUP Boundary Adjustment

Helicopter Fueling Area NFS Lands Twister Private Lands Timber Staging Areas

Brush Creek Helicopter Landing Zone Existing Infrastructure Red Lady Express Silver Queen Express Chairlift

SUP Boundary

Peachtree

Town of West Wall Mt.Crested Butte

«¬135

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Date: October 2018 Town of Crested Butte Prepared By: [ Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Ranger District Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement Figure 5 Existing Conditions From Highway 135 Viewpoint

Legend SUP Boundary

SUP Boundary Adjustment

Ski Trail

Gladed Skiing

Existing Conditions

Viewpoint Details Viewpoint elevation = 8,730’ Date: October 2018 Approximate Distance to SUP Boundary = 3.30 miles Prepared By: View Location [ Photograph provided by others, taken on 07/19/2017 at 12:28 PM. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests PROPOSED SKI TRAIL CLEARING Gunnison Ranger District ON RIDGELINE Crested Butte Mountain Resort

PROPOSED WINTER PROJECTS Ski Area Projects BEHIND RIDGE (not visible from this viewpoint) Environmental Impact Statement Figure 6 Visual Simulation From Highway 135 Viewpoint

Legend

SUP Boundary

SUP Boundary Adjustment

Ski Trail

Gladed Skiing

Visual Simulation

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement Figure 7 WG-4 ER-6 Project Area Water Resources

Gold Link

Prospector ast R E iv ER-5 er Existing Infrastructure

Chairlift

Wa SUP Boundary s h Town of Painter Boy ingto n Gu Mt. Crested Butte Hydrologic Features lch WG-3 Teocalli Study Area Watersheds

Red Lady Express East RiverER-3 Express ER-1 ER-4 ER-2 West Peachtree Silver Queen Express ER-3 Wall Twister ER-2 ER-4

ER-5 WG-2 North ER-6 Paradise Express Face WG-1

High WG-2

WG-1 WG-3

WG-4

Study Area Streams ER-1 Rive r Verzuh Young Bufano Ditch Slate

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet C Town of Date: October 2018 oal Creek Crested Butte Prepared By: [ Chapter 7. Glossary

7. GLOSSARY

Ability level: The relative rank of a skier or snowboarder, or the relative rank given to alpine terrain or summer trails. The six ability levels are as follows: beginner, novice, low-intermediate, intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and expert. The three ability levels for mountain biking and hiking trails are as follows: easier, more difficult, and most difficult. Acre foot: The amount of water necessary to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equals 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons. Action alternatives: Any alternative that includes upgrading and/or expansion of existing recreational development within the area. Additive impact: An impact in which two or more actions used in combination produce a total impact the same as the sum of their impacts. Affected environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic environment that would or may be changed by actions proposed and the relationship of people to that environment. Alternative: One of several conceptual development plans described and evaluated in the EIS. Analysis area: The geographical area and/or physical, biological, and social environments that are analyzed for specific resources in the EIS. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Annual average two-way daily traffic volume represents the total traffic on a section of roadway for the year, divided by 365. It includes both weekday and weekend traffic volumes. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): The federal agency charged with enforcing the CWA by regulation of dredge and fill activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Average daily two-way traffic volume represents the total traffic on a section of roadway for a given day or sampling period, but not necessarily for a given year. Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO): Average number of occupants in a vehicle. Rate of 2.5 guests per car was used in this Final EIS. Background distance zone: A landscape viewing area visible to a viewer from approximately 3 to 5 miles to infinity. Baseline condition: The existing dynamic conditions prior to development, against which potential effects are judged. Benched trail: A benched trail is where the entire width of the trail is cut into the hillside. Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods, measures, and practices specifically adopted for local conditions that minimize or avoid impacts to resources. BMPs include, but are not limited to, construction practices, structural and nonstructural controls, operations protocol, and maintenance procedures. Biological Assessment (BA): An evaluation conducted to determine the potential effects of the action on federally listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat and determine whether any such species or habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the action.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 249 Chapter 7. Glossary

Biological Evaluation (BE): An evaluation conducted to determine whether a proposed action is likely to affect any species which are listed as sensitive (Forest Service), candidate (Forest Service), or other special designations. Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG): The guide describes an approach to designing recreation and administrative facilities fits facilities within the context of their ecological, physical, and cultural settings. Canopy: The more-or-less continuous cover of leaves, needles and/or branches collectively formed by the crowns of adjacent trees in a stand or forest. Clean Air Act (CAA): An act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1963 to control air pollution. The act established a federal program with the U.S. Public Health Service and authorized research into techniques for monitoring and limiting air pollution. Clean Water Act (CWA): An act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1977 to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. This act was formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344). Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT): CDOT builds and maintains interstates, U.S. highways, and state highways in Colorado. They also provide traffic studies on many roadways in the state. Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC): Comfortable Carrying Capacity is a planning tool used to determine the optimum level of utilization that facilitates a pleasant recreational experience. This is a planning figure only and does not represent a regulatory cap on visitation. CCC is used to ensure that different aspects of a resort’s facilities are designed to work in harmony, that capacities are equivalent across facilities, and sufficient to meet anticipated demand. CCC is based on factors such as vertical transport and trail capacities. Concentrated-use site: Areas designed and managed for high density of people or livestock, such as developed recreation sites and livestock watering areas. Connected Disturbed Areas (CDAs): High runoff areas like roads and other disturbed sites that have a continuous surface flow path into a stream or lake. Hydrologic connection exists where overland flow, sediment, or pollutants have a direct route to the channel network. CDAs include roads, ditches, compacted soils, bare soils, and areas of high burn severity that are directly connected to the channel system. Ground disturbing activities located within the WIZ should be considered connected unless site- specific actions are taken to disconnect them from streams. Cooperating agency: A federal agency, other than a lead agency, which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact associated with the proposed action or one of the alternatives. A state or local agency or an Indian tribe may be a cooperating agency with agreement from the lead agency. Corridor: A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. Also, a contiguous strip of habitat suitable to facilitate animal dispersal or migration. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by NEPA. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 250 Chapter 7. Glossary

Cover: Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators and weather conditions, or in which to reproduce. Coverboard study: A standardized study method used to quantify the amount of horizontal cover in a forested area. A coverboard consists of what is typically a plywood board, sectioned into a labeled or numbered grid. Based on the intersection of vegetation and gridded area, a percent cover can be determined for a specific survey location. Cubic feet per second (cfs): Unit measure of streamflow or discharge, equivalent to 449 gallons per minute or about 2 acre feet per day. Cultural resource: Cultural resources are the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to sites, structures, buildings, districts, and objects associated with or representative of people, cultures, and human activities and events. Cumulative impact: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Each increment from each project may not be noticeable but cumulative impacts may be noticeable when all increments are considered together. Cut and fill: The process of building a trail where the amount of material from the cuts roughly equals the amount of fill needed to construct nearby embankments. Day visitor: Visitors that arrive in the morning and drive back home at the end of the day (as opposed to a “destination visitor”). Deciview: A measurement of visibility. One deciview represents the minimal perceptible change in visibility to the human eye. Designated critical habitat: A formal designation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act which may be applied to a particular habitat that is essential to the life cycle of a given species, and if lost, would adversely affect that species. Critical habitat can have a less formal meaning when used outside the context of the Endangered Species Act. Destination visitor: A visitor that stays overnight within the resort community (as opposed to a “day visitor”). Developed recreation site: An area with characteristics that enable to accommodate, or be used for intense recreation. Such sites are often enhanced to augment the recreational value. Improvements range from those designed to provide great comfort and convenience to the user to rudimentary improvements in isolated areas. Developed terrain network: Consists of its named, defined, lift-served, maintained (groomed) ski trails. These trails represent the baseline of the terrain at any resort, as they are where the majority of guests ski, and are usually the only place to ski during the early season, periods of poor or undesirable snow conditions, avalanche closures, and certain weather conditions. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): the standard measure for quantifying the diameter of a tree trunk. Direct effect: An effect which occurs as a result of an action associated with implementing the proposal or one of the alternatives, including construction, operation, and maintenance.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 251 Chapter 7. Glossary

Dispersed recreation: Recreation that occurs outside of a developed recreation site and includes such activities as mountain biking, hiking, backpacking, and recreation activities in primitive environments. Distance zone: One of three categories used in the visual management system to divide a view into near and far components. The three categories are (1) foreground, (2) middleground, and (3) background. See individual entries. District Ranger: The official responsible for administering the NFS lands on a Ranger District. Drainage diversion outfalls: Places where drainage diversions, meant to handle additional flows, empty (rolling dips or culverts). Dust on snow events: Springtime events where storms pull dust out of the desert and deposit it in the Colorado Mountains. Such events can speed snowmelt and impact water quality. They are likely a result of soil destabilization. Ecosystem: The system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their environment, for example, marsh, watershed, or lake. Effects: Results expected to be achieved from implementation of the alternatives relative to physical, biological, economic, and social factors. Effects can be direct, indirect, or cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental. Endangered species: An official designation for any species of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species must be designated in the Federal Register by the appropriate Federal Agency Secretary. Environmental analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short- and long-term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social and environmental design factors and their interactions. Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public document required by the regulations implementing NEPA which briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A disclosure document required NEPA that documents the anticipated environmental effects of a proposed action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal agency charged with lead enforcement of multiple environmental laws, including review of Environmental Impact Statements. Ephemeral Stream: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed or catchment basin), and whose channel is at all times above the zone of saturation. Erosion control: Materials, structure, and techniques designed to reduce erosion. Erosion control may include rapid revegetation, avoiding steep or highly erosive sites, and installation of cross-slope drainage structures. Erosion hazard: Soil ratings to predict the erosion hazard or potential to be eroded. Erosion: The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by wind, water, ice, or gravity.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 252 Chapter 7. Glossary

Evaporation: The process by which water changes from a liquid to a gas or a vapor as atmospheric water vapor. Evapotranspiration: The sum of evaporation from the land surface plus transpiration from plants. Flow Trails: Flow trails are trails built specifically for mountain bikes. They require little pedaling and braking and feature banked turns, rolling terrain, various types of jumps, and consistent and predictable surfaces. They are accessible to beginners through experts. Forage: All browse and non-woody plants used for grazing or harvested for feeding livestock or game animals. Forb: Any non-grass-like plant having little or no woody material on it. A palatable, broadleaved, flowering herb whose stem, above ground, does not become woody and persistent. Foreground distance zone: The landscape area visible to an observer from the immediate area to 0.5 mile. Forest Plan: A comprehensive management plan prepared under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 that provides standards and guidelines for management activities specific to each National Forest. The GMUG Amended Forest Plan was approved in 1991. Forest Service: The agency of the United States Department of Agriculture responsible for managing National Forests and Grasslands. Forest Supervisor: The official responsible for administering the NFS lands in a Forest Service administrative unit who reports to the Regional Forester. GIS: Geographic information system, a computer mapping system composed of hardware and software. Glades: Trees stands that are naturally thin, or have been thinned specifically in varying degrees to improve the skiing experience by increasing the spacing between individual trees. Grading: The practice of moving or re-contouring earthen materials to achieve a specified slope in the landform. Grazing allotment: The area of land designated and managed for the grazing of livestock. Groomable Glades: Trails where vegetation would not be cleared entirely from the edge and some natural features would be maintained. Grooming: The preparation and smoothing of the developed trail network’s snow surface, using large over-the-snow vehicles (commonly referred to as “snow cats” or “groomers”). Groomers are equipped with front-mounted blades to push snow and rear-mounted implements to flatten and/or till the snow to the desired consistency. Groundwater: Subsurface water in the part of the ground that is wholly saturated. Guest services facilities or guest services: Facilities or services that are supplied by a resort—both on- mountain and at the base area—to accommodate guests’ needs and to enhance the quality of the recreational experience. Examples of guest services facilities include: restaurants, warming huts, general information desks, resort lost and found departments, restrooms and lounges, ski school, daycare, public lockers and ticketing facilities, patrol, first aid clinics, etc.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 253 Chapter 7. Glossary

Guideline: A preferred course of action designed by policy to achieve a goal, respond to variable site conditions, or respond to an overall condition. Gully: An erosion channel greater than 1-foot-deep. Habitat type: A classification of the vegetation resource based on dominant growth forms. The forested areas are more specifically classified by the dominant tree species. Habitat: The sum of environmental conditions of a specific place that is occupied by an organism, a population, or a community. Home range efficacy: The ability of a species to properly utilize their habitat area for food, water, or other basic needs. Hybrid trails: Mountain biking trails that combine typical single track with flow trail features. Hydrograph: a graph showing the rate of discharge or flow over time at a specific point in the river. The rate of flow is usually measured in CFS. Hydrologic function: The ability of a watershed to infiltrate precipitation and natural regulate runoff so streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their channels and floodplains. Impacts: See effects. Indicator species: An animal species used to represent a group of species that utilize the same habitat. For monitoring purposes, the well-being of the indicator species is assumed to reflect the general health of the community. Indirect effect: Secondary consequences to the environment resulting from a direct impact. An example of an indirect impact is the deposition of sediment in a wetland resulting from surface disturbance in the upland. Infiltration rate: The velocity or speed by which water enters into the soil. It is usually measured by the depth (in mm) of the water layer that can enter the soil in one hour. Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team): A group of individuals each representing specialty resource areas assembled to solve a problem or perform a task through frequent interaction so that different disciplines can combine to provide new solutions. Intermittent stream: A stream or reach of stream channel that flows, in its natural conditions, only during certain times of the year or in several years. It is characterized by interspersed, permanent surface water areas containing aquatic flora and fauna adapted to the relatively harsh environmental conditions found in these types of environments. Legacy trees: Old trees that have been spared during harvest or have survived stand-replacing natural disturbances. Legacy trees have achieved near maximum size and age and are significantly larger and older than the average trees on the landscape. Long term: In this analysis, long term describes the period after five years from project completion. Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU): The area of at least the size used by an individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 square miles. It is the unit for which the effects of a project would be analyzed. Management Area 1B: According to the Forest Plan, areas for “existing winter sports sites. Management integrates ski area development and use with other resource management to provide healthy tree stands,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 254 Chapter 7. Glossary

vegetation diversity, forage production for wildlife and livestock, and opportunities for non-motorized recreation.” Management Area 2A: According to the Forest Plan, areas for “semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities in a natural appearing environment. Range management will reduce conflicts between recreation and livestock. Vegetation treatment will enhance plant and animal diversity.” Management Area 6B: According to the Forest Plan, areas for “Livestock grazing. Rangeland will be maintained at or above a satisfactory condition. Semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural recreation opportunities will be provided. Vegetation treatment will enhance plant and animal diversity.” Management direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. Management Indicator species (MIS): A representative group of species that are dependent of a specific habitat type. The health of an indicator species is used to gauge function of the habitat on which it depends. Management measures: environmental goals to protect aquatic and riparian measures outlined in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Management practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment. Master Development Plan (MDP): A document that is required as a condition of the ski area term SUP, designed to guide resort planning and development in the long and short term, typically across both public and private lands. Middleground distance zone: The landscape area visible to a viewer from 0.5 mile to about 3 to 5 miles. Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse environmental impacts. Mountain Roads: On-mountain primary and secondary roads that provide summertime access to mountain buildings and lift terminal locations. Multi-season recreation: Additional recreation uses of ski areas operating on NFS lands that provide other seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreational activities and associated facilities, which extend beyond traditional snow-sports and winter operations. Munsell Neutral Value Scale: The official color system of the Forest Service. It defines colors based on hues, lightness, and color purity. The Neutral Value Scale refers to the grayscale. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): A law enacted by Congress in 1969 that requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of all major federal activities that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of regulations to guide that development. National Forest System (NFS) lands: National Forests, National Grasslands, and other related lands for which the Forest Service is assigned administrative responsibility.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 255 Chapter 7. Glossary

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): A listing maintained by the National Park Service of areas that have been designated as historically significant. The register includes places of local and state significance, as well as those of value to the nation in general. Natural Resource Conservation Service: An agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that works to improve, protect, and conserve natural resources on private lands. Formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). No Action Alternative: The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely to exist in the future if the current trends and management would continue unchanged. Under NEPA, it means following the current approved Forest Plan management direction and guidance. Objective: A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre- established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals. Overstory: The more-or-less continuous cover of leaves, needles and/or branches collectively formed by the crowns of adjacent trees in a stand or forest. Perennial Stream: A stream or reach of a channel that flows continuously or nearly so throughout the year and whose upper surface is generally lower than the top of the zone of saturation in the areas adjacent to the stream. Partners in Flight (PIF) Species Prioritization: The PIF Conservation Plan identifies species that have conservation priority in each of its planning units. Species are ranked based on vulnerability from factors such as breeding distribution, relative abundance, threats to breeding, and population trend. Pod: A lift and all of the terrain that is serviced by that lift. Preferred alternative: The alternative selected from the range of alternatives that is favored by the lead agency. Project area: The area encompassed by the development proposal including base area and the permit area. Project Design Criteria (PDC): Specific measures designed to minimize or avoid impacts anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. PDC are incorporated within the proposal of specified action alternatives. Record of Decision (ROD): A document prepared within 30 days after the final EIS is issued which states the agency’s decision and why one alternative was favored over another, what factors entered into the agency’s decision, and whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why not. Revegetation: The re-establishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On disturbed sites, this normally requires human assistance such as seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching. Rill: An erosion channel less than 1-foot-deep. Riparian habitat or area: Land situated along the bank of a stream or other body of water and directly influenced by the presence of water (e.g., streamsides, lakeshores, etc.). Scenery management: The art and science of arranging, planning and designing landscape attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in outdoor settings.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 256 Chapter 7. Glossary

Scenery Management System (SMS): A systematic approach for determining the relative value and importance of scenery in a national forest first codified in 1995. Unlike the VMS, the SMS recognizes the positive scenic values associated with some human modified features and settings. The analysis can go beyond NFS land into adjacent communities. Scenic integrity: State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation for the existing landscape character in a national forest. Scoping process: A process that determines the issues, concerns, and opportunities that should be considered in analyzing the impacts of a proposal by receiving input from the public and affected agencies. The depths of analysis for these issues identified are determined during scoping. Sediment: Solid material, both organic and mineral, that has been transported from its site of origin by air, water, or ice. Sensitive species: Species which have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed additions to the endangered or threatened species list; those which are on an official State list or are recognized by the Regional Forester to need special management in order to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. Short term: In this analysis, short term describes the period from construction up to five years after project completion. Significant impact: A somewhat subjective judgment based on the context and intensity of the impact. Generally, a significant impact is one that exceeds a standard, guideline, law, or regulation. Skier: At ski areas, one may see people using alpine, snowboard, telemark, cross-country, and other specialized ski equipment, such as that used by disabled or other skiers. Accordingly, the terms “ski, skier, and skiing” in this document encompass all lift-served sliding sports typically associated with a winter sports resort. Skier circulation: How guests navigate throughout a ski area; specifically, how a guest would migrate from one side of the ski area to the other and potentially back again. Skier visit: One skier utilizing the ski area for any length of time; a skier visit is typically recorded as a ticket scan. Regardless of how many times a single ticket is scanned, it counts a one skier visit. Snowmaking coverage: The acreage of the mountain that has the infrastructure nearby for snowmaking operations. Soil: A dynamic natural body on the surface of the earth in which plants grow, composed of mineral and organic materials and living forms. Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (SAROEA): A 2011 Act amending the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of NFS land subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes. Among its provisions, SAROEA expands the authority of the Secretary to authorize other seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreational activities and associated facilities on NFS lands subject to a ski area permit as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. Soil productivity: The capacity of a soil for producing plant biomass under a specific system of management. It is expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 257 Chapter 7. Glossary

Soil saturation: A condition in which all easily drained pores between soil particles are temporarily or permanently filled with water. Soundscape: The sounds heard in a particular location, considered as a whole. Special use authorization: A legal document such as a permit, term permit, lease or easement, which allows occupancy, use, rights or privileges of NFS land. The authorization is granted for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time. Special Use Permit (SUP): A legal document, similar to a lease, issued by the Forest Service. These permits are issued to private individuals or corporations to conduct commercial operations on NFS lands. They specify the terms and conditions under which the permitted activity may be conducted. Stand: A community of trees or other vegetation, which is sufficiently uniform in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities and to thus, form a management entity. Swale: A landform feature lower in elevation than adjacent hillslopes, usually present in headwater areas of limited areal extent, generally without display of a defined watercourse or channel that may or may not flow water in response to snowmelt or rainfall. Swales exhibit little evidence of surface runoff and may be underlain by porous soils and bedrock that readily accepts infiltrating water. Standard: A course of action that must be followed; adherence is mandatory. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP): Protocol from the NRCS for evaluating the condition of aquatic ecosystems associated with streams. The protocol provides an assessment for stream health based primarily on the physical conditions within the assessment area. Sublimation: A process in which a substance transitions directly from solid to gas. SUP area: Area of NFS lands encompassed within the SUP. Threatened species: Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future and which has been designated in the Federal Register as a threatened species. Top-drive chairlift: A chairlift where the terminal that houses the motor, gearbox, auxiliary engine, and drive and safety circuitry is located at the top of the lift. A top drive lift is slightly more energy efficient than a bottom drive lift, but requires the ski area to run electric service to the summit. Trail density: The number of skiers per acre on any trail at one time. Tree Basal Area: The cross-sectional area occupied by tree trunks at the base. Usually measured in square feet. Turbidity: The measure of relative clarity of a liquid. The more material in the water, the higher the level of turbidity; therefore, high levels of turbidity denote poorer water quality. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The agency of the Department of the Interior responsible for managing wildlife, including non-ocean going species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Understory: Low-growing vegetation (herbaceous, brush or reproduction) growing under a stand of trees. Also, that portion of trees in a forest stand below the overstory. Undeveloped terrain: Areas within the SUP that do not have infrastructure, maintenance, or grooming. This terrain type is primarily used by more experienced skiers.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 258 Chapter 7. Glossary

Vehicle trips: The number of times vehicles use a segment of road. Vertical transport: The vertical rise of a chairlift, usually measured in feet. Visual Management System (VMS): A process that identifies all travel routes, recreation use areas, and water bodies that were considered to be the most important scenic areas, and develops visual quality objectives for these places (see “Visual Quality Objective”). Visual resource: The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. Visual Quality Objective (VQO): A desired level of excellence based on the physical and sociological characteristics of an area. Refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape. The levels are Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification. Water rights: The legal right to use water. Snowmaking operations have water rights for a specific acre feet of water and/or for a specific withdrawal duration. Water storage pond: Bodies of water used to maintain an ample supply of water for snowmaking. Warming hut: A structure along a ski trail used to provide rest and warmth to skiers. Watershed: The entire area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream. WCPH: Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. A Forest Service Region 2 manual suggesting design criteria and guidelines for watershed projects. Wilderness: Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness is undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements of human habitation. It is protected and managed so to preserve its natural conditions. Winter Range: That part of the home range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the winter at least five out of ten winters. Water Influence Zone (WIZ): The land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining long-term integrity of aquatic systems. It includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is most. WRENSS: The EPA’s Handbook An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 259 Chapter 7. Glossary

This page intentionally left blank.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 260 Chapter 8. Index

8. INDEX

A diversity ..... 5, 15, 81, 92, 93, 137, 226, 227, 255 alpine tundra...... 146, 166 E Average Annual Daily Traffic ...... 48, 49, 118, 119, 122–124, 249 endangered species ...... 252, 258 Average Daily Traffic ...... 118, 249 Environmental Protection Agency ...... 110, 140, 141, 206, 235, 240, 241, 252, 259 B erosion ...... 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32–36, 60, 61, 63–65, 91, 154, 157, 184, 185, 192, bare ground ...... 196, 206 193, 196–198, 200–203, 213, 218, 222, 223, Best Management Practice ...... 11, 26, 61, 249 226–228, 252, 254, 256 Biological Assessment ...... 145, 147, 149, Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands 150, 158, 166, 178, 245, 246, 249 ...... 13, 66, 223, 230, 231 biological diversity ...... 145 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice .. Biological Evaluation ...... 145, 147, 149, 150, 9, 48, 105, 110 158, 178, 246, 250 Built Environment Image Guide ..... 8, 26, 43, 93, G 96, 98, 244, 250 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison bypass flow ...... 13, 38, 64, 219, 220, 222 National Forests ...... 2–5, 7, 10, 18, 24, 27, 36, 51, 70, 76, 78, 84, 86, 89, 90, 93, C 99, 109, 127–133, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, Canada lynx ...... 11, 30, 55–58, 159, 145, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160–166, 172, 174–178, 182, 243, 254 169, 170, 180, 183, 184, 223, 244, 245, 253 CDPHE ...... 138, 141, 212, 221, 235, 239 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison Class I areas ...... 51, 138, 140, 142 National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Plan ... 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 15, 20, Class II areas ...... 10, 51, 138 25, 28, 43, 51, 57, 62, 90, 91, 93–95, 97, 99, Clean Air Act ...... 138, 250 128, 130, 137, 138, 140, 151, 158, 169, 178, Clean Water Act ...... 12, 18, 64, 212, 223, 184, 185, 196, 201, 202, 209, 218, 223, 230, 229–231, 249, 250 231, 253–256, 264 climate change ...... 10, 41, 52, 59, 61, 62, greenhouse gas emissions ...... 10, 51, 52, 138, 79, 82, 83, 86, 137–139, 141, 143–145, 151, 141, 142, 144, 145 152–154, 156, 172, 174, 175, 180, 193, 196– 198, 199, 213–215, 217–219, 228, 230 H climbing wall ...... 75, 79, 164 hiking trails ...... 41, 59, 75–77, 80, 84, 86, 89, connected disturbed area ...... 12, 32, 34, 62, 97, 104, 249 63, 209, 210 Council on Environmental Quality ...... 1, 7, L 14, 19, 48, 69, 110, 111, 234, 240, 250 lynx analysis unit ...... 56, 57, 159, 160–162, 174, critical habitat...... 147, 158, 160, 249, 251 175, 177, 178, 182, 254 cultural resource ...... 13 M D Master Development Plan...... 2, 3, 87, 98, 104, decibel ...... 100, 101 115, 126, 136, 144, 157, 182, 199, 220, 231, developed recreation ...... 75, 129, 177, 203, 239, 255 250, 252 migratory birds .... 11, 55, 57, 170, 172, 181, 183 dispersed recreation ...... 75, 101, 134

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 261 Chapter 8. Index

mountain biking ...... 2, 6–8, 12, 19, 20, 23, Ski Area Recreational Opportunity 31, 33, 36, 37, 41, 56, 59, 60, 62, 64, 75–77, Enhancement Act of 2011 ... 3, 16, 17, 96, 257 79, 80, 84, 86, 88, 96, 97, 101, 104, 114, 130, soil map units ...... 188, 194 133, 142, 164, 187, 188, 190, 194–198, 200, Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ...... 245 210, 213, 217, 249, 252 Special Use Permit ...... 2, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, multi-season recreation ...... 41, 70, 78, 79, 84, 19–21, 23, 28, 30, 36, 37, 39–44, 47, 50, 52, – 86, 88, 101, 105, 126, 153, 193 54, 56–59, 66, 70, 71, 73, 75–77, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86–91, 93–102, 104, 105, 109, 113–116, N 122, 125, 127–133, 135, 136, 143, 145, 146, National Forest System Lands ...... 2, 3, 5, 153, 155–158, 162–164, 172, 173, 176, 177, 11, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25, 29, 36, 41, 45–47, 50, 181, 183, 184, 194, 196, 199, 200, 220, 222, 51, 56–59, 62, 70, 74–76, 78, 86–90, 93, 96, 223, 228, 230, 231, 255, 258 97, 99, 101–103, 105, 109, 113, 116, 119, Species of Local Concern ...... 10, 11, 27, 53, 122, 124, 127–132, 134, 135, 137, 145, 150, 55, 145, 149, 152, 155 151, 156, 172, 173, 175, 193, 194, 200, 202, Spruce Bark Beetle ...... 99, 245 209, 213, 222, 223, 252, 253, 255, 257, 258 standards and guidelines ...... 8, 25, 43, 90, 99, National Register of Historic Places ...... 13, 256 169, 184, 201, 253, 255 non-native weeds ...... 152 stream health ...... 11, 12, 33, 59, 62–64, 202, 207–211, 213, 217, 218, 221–223, 258 P survey...... 147, 149, 154, 165, 208, 243, 251 particulate matter ...... 138, 141 particulates ...... 140 T prehistoric ...... 13, 27 threatened and endangered species .... 10, 53, 158 project area .. 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 27–29, 43, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55–57, 59, 60, 64, 65, 69, 89, 90, 96, U 100, 105, 110, 111, 113, 126–129, 132, 133, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...... 18, 34, 135–137, 140, 144–152, 154–163, 165–170, 223, 231, 235, 249 172, 174, 176, 179, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 18, 158–160, 190, 194–196, 199, 200, 204, 213, 217, 220, 170, 174, 178, 181, 235, 240, 244, 258 221, 223–226, 229 Project Design Criteria .... 1, 7, 11, 18, 19, 25–28, V 37, 43, 54, 55, 57, 61–64, 66, 95–97, 114, 134, 135, 153–157, 179, 181, 197, 198, 200, visitation ...... 4, 8–10, 41, 47–49, 52, 202, 211, 218, 222–224, 229–231, 256 73–75, 79, 82, 83, 89, 108, 109, 113, 116– proposed species ...... 53, 158, 249 124, 126, 129, 131, 141–145, 176, 222, 250

R W riparian habitat ...... 153 Water Influence Zone ...... 12, 29, 32–34, 62, 63, 203, 209, 211, 213, 214, 217, 218, 222, S 250, 259 water yield ...... 12, 61, 202, 206–208, Scenery Management System ...... 90, 257 215–217, 221 sediment ...... 12, 30, 32–35, 61–63, 168, Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook ..... 184, 185, 200–203, 208–210, 218, 221–223, 12, 32–35, 62, 184, 185, 196, 202, 203, 208, 226, 227, 230, 250, 254 209, 211, 218, 223, 230, 244, 255, 259 sedimentation ...... 28, 154, 157, 196, 197, 199, 200, 211, 228, 229 Z sensitive species ...... 10, 53, 55, 148, 149, zip line ...... 17, 75, 79, 88, 164 155, 157, 165, 169, 172, 178, 183

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement 262

Appendices Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the Draft EIS

Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

APPENDIX A. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS PROJECTS

Recreation Noise Within the CBMR Social and Economic SUP, on adjacent CBMR prepared a Master Development Areas within the Traffic NFS lands proposed Plan (MDP) that was accepted by the 1,455 SUP area, Land Use CBMR for inclusion in the GMUG in 2013. The projects in the MDP and the additional Air Quality and 2013 Resort Master SUP, and on that are not part of the Proposed Action Accepted 2013 500 acres Climate Change Development Plan adjacent private would require site specific NEPA analysis proposed for Vegetation lands within the ski prior to implementation but are considered inclusion in the Fish and Wildlife area operational reasonably foreseeable future actions. SUP area Geology and Soil boundary Watershed Wetlands

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-1 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

In 2008 a Decision Notice approved most, but not all, of the proposed facilities and upgrades included in CBMR’s 2005 Mountain Improvements Plan. Approved projects from the 2008 Decision Notice include: new/upgraded/realigned lifts; new trails and glades; trail improvements; additional snowmaking; a new tubing hill; a new dining facility; expansion of the Ice Bar; and new biking and hiking trails. Approved but unimplemented projects from Recreation this Decision Notice include the Noise relocated/realigned Gold Link chairlift; Social and Economic Within the CBMR upgraded Red Lady Express; upgraded Traffic Crested Butte SUP and on adjacent Painter Boy chairlift; relocated/shortened Land Use Main Mountain private lands within Areas within the Air Quality and High lift; realigned/upgraded Twister Approved 2008 Improvements Plan the ski area chairlift; a total of six new alpine ski trails; 1,455 SUP area Climate Change EA (2007) operational a total of seventeen trail improvement Vegetation boundary and/or glading projects on existing alpine Fish and Wildlife trails; and additional snowmaking on Geology and Soil 50 acres. Watershed Wetlands The expansion of the Ice Bar; the Nordic trail system (uphill route); and a new tubing hill were implemented prior to this analysis. The Forest Service will review project proposals that are previously approved to determine if there are any changed conditions or new circumstances since the original decision was approved. Additional studies may be conducted to supplement the previously approved projects.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-2 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

In 1998 a Decision Notice approved all but two of the proposed projects. The approved projects included a gondola, new/upgraded/ realigned lifts and trails, an extension of the SUP, a Nordic trail system, a restaurant, restrooms, patrol headquarters, snowmaking, utilities, an access road and hiking and biking trails. Projects from the 1998 Decision Notice that have been Recreation implemented include: trail grading, hiking Noise and biking trails, expansion of the SUP Social and Economic Within the CBMR boundary and Forest Plan amendment, Traffic SUP and on adjacent replacement of the T-bar, upgrade North Land Use private lands within Areas within the Air Quality and 1998 CBMR EA Face chairlift, new CB-5 (which is Prospect Approved 1998 the ski area chairlift) and associated trails, and the new 1,455 SUP area Climate Change operational vehicle maintenance access road. Vegetation boundary Fish and Wildlife Approved but unimplemented projects from Geology and Soil this Decision Notice include the Red Lady Watershed Lodge; the Teocalli Bowl chairlift; and the Wetlands Teocalli chairlift realignment. The Forest Service will review project proposals that are previously approved to determine if there are any changed conditions or new circumstances since the original decision was approved. Additional studies may be conducted to supplement the previously approved projects.

Within the CBMR In 2015 a Decision Memo authorized SUP and on adjacent approximately 1.75 miles of new trail Recreation CBMR Mountain private lands within construction on four segments of trail Fish and Wildlife Bike Trail Additions Implemented 2016 <5 acres the ski area within the CBMR permit boundary. Geology and Soil CE operational Construction by hand and the use of a Watershed boundary tracked machine was approved.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-3 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

In 2014 a Decision Memo authorized Within the CBMR CBMR to reroute approximately 700 feet of SUP and on adjacent CBMR Summit trail on the Summit Trail within SUP private lands within Recreation Trail boundary. The purpose of the reroute was to Implemented 2015 <5 acres the ski area Geology and Soil Reconstruction CE avoid a heavily eroded area that creates operational safety issues for trail users. The reroute boundary contoured the adjacent hillside.

In 2014 a Decision Memo authorized the construction of three new mountain biking trails during the summer of 2014, with a combined total length of 3.15 miles and an Within the CBMR average width of 4 feet. These trails SUP and on adjacent Recreation CBMR Mountain included a beginner mountain biking trail private lands within Fish and Wildlife Bike Trail called the Smith Hill Trail, a downhill race Implemented 2015 <5 acres the ski area Geology and Soil Construction CE trail, and an extension of an existing trail operational called the Psycho Rocks Trail. These trails Watershed boundary were constructed with the use of a small rubber tracked machine and hand construction. No overstory tree removal was anticipated.

Within the CBMR SUP and on adjacent In 2013 a Decision Memo authorized the CBMR Teocalli 2 private lands within construction of a 20-foot-wide winter route Implemented 2014 <5 acres Recreation Egress CE the ski area and associated tree clearing to allow for operational egress from Teocalli 2 Bowl. boundary

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-4 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Project Location Resources Potentially (Straight Line Project Project Approval/ Project Area Project Affected that Apply Distance to CBMR Description Implementation (acres/length) to this Final EIS SUP Area) In 2013 a Decision Memo authorized the construction of a Mountain Bike Skills Park located within CBMR’s SUP area. The Within the CBMR approved action included constructing a SUP and on adjacent mountain bike skills zone for novice and Recreation CBMR Mountain private lands within intermediate riders at the top of Red Lady Fish and Wildlife Implemented 2014 <5 acres Bike Skills Park CE the ski area chairlift. The area was intended to offer Geology and Soil operational riders an introduction to what they will Watershed boundary encounter on trails within the existing Bike Park. Features included singletrack, berms, rollers, basic bridges, rocks, and small jumps.

In 2013 a Decision Memo authorized the Within the CBMR construction of a 35-foot-diameter yurt SUP and on adjacent within the CBMR SUP boundary. The CBMR Yurt private lands within project entailed constructing a yurt to house Implemented 2014 <5 acres Recreation Construction CE the ski area Ski Patrol, the Terrain Park Staff, and riders operational involved in the Smart Style Education boundary Program at the top of Painter Boy Ski Lift.

Within the CBMR In 2013 a Decision Memo authorized the SUP and on adjacent construction of four mountain biking trails Recreation CBMR Mountain private lands within Fish and Wildlife within the CBMR SUP area for a total of Implemented 2014 <5 acres Biking Trails the ski area approximately 2.5 miles of new trail Geology and Soil operational construction. Watershed boundary

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-5 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

The resort base area is located on private Recreation lands at the base of CBMR within the Town Noise of Mt. Crested Butte, and it supports all the Social and Economic residential and commercial development Traffic associated with a major destination resort. 100+ acres of land Land Use Base Area Private ownership of the developed and adjacent to the Air Quality and 0 to 1 mile Ongoing Development undeveloped properties creates an ongoing CBMR SUP Climate Change potential for development and boundary Vegetation redevelopment of the base area. Fish and Wildlife Construction activities, human induced Geology and Soil alterations, and disturbances are anticipated Watershed to occur in this area into the future. Wetlands

According to the 2007 Town of Mt, Crested Butte Community Plan, the Town of Mt. Recreation Crested Butte is shifting towards becoming Noise the primary bed base in the Upper Gunnison Social and Economic Continued build out Valley. No longer is Mt. Crested Butte a Traffic of the second-home community, as growing Land Use 0.1 to 1.3 miles Ongoing 1,421 acres Town of Mt. public facilities and services have begun to Air Quality and Crested Butte keep more residents in this area. It is Climate Change projected that the Town of Mt. Crested Fish and Wildlife Butte will more than double its population Geology and Soil at build-out (sometime between 2026 and Watershed 2035).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-6 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Project Location Resources Potentially (Straight Line Project Project Approval/ Project Area Project Affected that Apply Distance to CBMR Description Implementation (acres/length) to this Final EIS SUP Area) The Crested Butte Land Use Plan (1996) Recreation addresses the trend of ongoing growth and Noise the need for additional residential Social and Economic development. This plan also acknowledges Traffic Continued build out the growth of the ski area as a contributing Land Use of the factor to this trend. Although written in Air Quality and 1.5 to 2.5 miles Ongoing 544 acres Town of Crested 1996, the plan provides guidance for future Climate Change Butte development that is still applicable for the Vegetation Town of Crested Butte. Based on current Fish and Wildlife trends of population growth it is expected Geology and Soil that buildout of the area as guided by the Watershed Land Use Plan will continue. Wetlands This plan describes the land use issues and policies concerning development in the vicinity of Crested Butte. This Plan is capacity-based and focuses on determining the capacity of the Middle Slate River Valley to absorb more development. Capacity is determined by examining the Recreation constraints for development and the Noise resources the community would like to Social and Economic preserve. Constraints include: avalanche Traffic zones, flood plains, geologically unstable Land Use Crested Butte Area Air Quality and 0.1 to 5.3 miles lands, steep slopes and wildfire areas. Approved 2011 24,960 acres Plan (2011) Resources include: wetlands, important Climate Change wildlife habitat, and views that should be Vegetation preserved. The plan recommends residential Fish and Wildlife development near Crested Butte, Skyland Geology and Soil and Buckhorn Ranch, and light industrial Watershed development adjacent to Riverland Wetlands Industrial Park. The type of development that this plan discourages is dispersed, large lot development with no open space, no public access, and no local housing.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-7 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

In 2016 the Town of Crested Butte relocated and rebuilt the old dirt jumps to Town of Crested Recreation 3 miles create the Crested Butte Bike Park The new Implemented 2016 <5 acres Butte Bike Park park is located in the Gravel Pit just south Land Use of the Crested Butte Community School.

The Town of Crested Butte provides a high- quality system of parks and recreation programs to both residents of the Town and the surrounding region. There are a number of parks in the system including, but not limited to Big Mine Park, Rainbow Park, Town Park, Gothic Field, the former (and new) Tommy Villanueva Field, and the dirt jump area that are heavily utilized by residents in the region. The survey conducted for this plan found that while the Town of Crested Town performs well at meeting the parks Recreation Butte Parks and 2.5 to 5 miles and recreation needs of the regional Accepted 2010 30 acres Social and Economic Recreation Master community, the largest areas of community Land Use Plan needs not being met are those that involve the development and operation of large facilities not currently found in the area. Specifically, the largest areas of unmet needs and subsequent interest for development among both residents of the Town and the region were: swimming facilities, an indoor recreation center, and improved hockey facilities. The plan guides the development of new facilities, including those previously mentioned.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-8 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

The Crested Butte Town Council is currently working on a complete update to the Town’s Transportation Plan. In 2015 Draft recommendations were released, emphasizing the following goals: maintain the safe pedestrian and bike oriented Town of Crested community where the use of a car is Traffic Butte 2014 0.1 to 5 miles optional; free and reliable public Ongoing n/a Air Quality and Climate Transportation Plan transportation that is available to both Change Update residents and visitors; continue the use of the Town as the hub to surrounding regional trail and recreation network; free parking that allows visitors and residents to walk, bike, or take transit to destinations around Town.

This Plan Update addresses its identified major issues through analysis and evaluation of potential solutions for each issue. This plan guides the future development in the Upper Gunnison Valley and specifically addresses new development in Mt. Crested Butte that will continue to Upper Gunnison augment the area’s primary orientation as a Traffic Valley destination ski resort. From a transportation 0.1 to 30 miles Accepted 2008 n/a Air Quality and Climate Transportation Plan perspective, this means that the area’s Change (Update 2008) traffic will primarily continue to be caused by local day skiers, non-local skiers who stay for a weekend or multiple days, resort and service employees, and year-round and seasonal (second home or fractional) residences. Until the area is fully developed, construction-related traffic will also be present.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-9 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Project Location Resources Potentially (Straight Line Project Project Approval/ Project Area Project Affected that Apply Distance to CBMR Description Implementation (acres/length) to this Final EIS SUP Area) Currently under analysis, this EA addresses Pitkin Travel the Pitkin Trail Advocates proposal to Proposal 30 miles revisit 2010 Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Under Analysis n/a Recreation EA Travel Management decision regarding specific routes near Pitkin, Colorado. Approved in 2010, this action designated a sustainable transportation system providing for public and management access, Gunnison National recreation opportunities, natural and Gunnison National Forest Travel Forest-wide ROD Signed in 2010 Recreation cultural resource protection, public safety Forest Management EIS and agency management success within its capabilities. Implementation of this action is ongoing. In 2016 a Decision Memo authorized parts of Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association’s application to groom multi- use trails in the Upper East River, Brush Creek, and Cement Creek areas between November 30th and March 31st of each year for improved fat bike use. Grooming of the Upper Cement Creek Trail was not Crested Butte permitted due to potential impacts to quality Mountain Bike lynx habitat. Two trails related to this Approximately Association – Fat proposal, but not included the framework of Recreation 0 to 7 miles Approved 2016 18 miles on NFS Bike Grooming and the decision (due to their location) are Fish and Wildlife lands Winter Recreation located on NFS lands operated by CBMR. CE This Decision did not change the allowed mode of travel on the existing snow trails contained in the proposal. Human-powered fat bikes, though a newer use, were already allowed on the Gothic Road, the Brush Creek roads, and the Cement Creek Road in the winter. Electric Bikes (E-bikes) are considered motorized and are subject to motorized over snow travel regulations.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-10 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Project Location Resources Potentially (Straight Line Project Project Approval/ Project Area Project Affected that Apply Distance to CBMR Description Implementation (acres/length) to this Final EIS SUP Area) In 2016 a Decision Memo authorized the realignment/reconstruction approximately 3.2 miles of the Baxter Gulch Trail into a sustainable, non-motorized trail to accommodate foot traffic, mountain bikes, Approved 2016 Approximately Baxter Gulch Trail Recreation 3 to 5 miles and equestrian use. The construction of this Implementation 3.2 miles on NFS Project CE Fish and Wildlife trail is planned to be completed in 2018 and Ongoing lands will provide for more non-motorized opportunities close to Crested Butte and improve the recreation experience near the urban interface.

403 Trail This CE would analyze the realignment of Proposal 2 miles Undetermined Recreation Realignment the 403 Trail off of private property. Development

This CE addressed the Gunnison Ranger District’s proposal to close the Gothic Corridor to dispersed camping and off route Dispersed Gothic Corridor travel from June 15–August 15. This project camping in the Dispersed Camping Approved and is categorically excluded under the Gothic Corridor Recreation and Motorized 2 to 10 miles Forest Order Issued following: within the Fish and Wildlife Travel Restrictions May 31, 2016 “Orders issued are pursuant to 36 CFR Gunnison Ranger CE Part 261 – Prohibitions to provide short- District. term resource protection or to protect public health and safety.”

This CE addressed the Gunnison Ranger District’s proposal to close the area of Tincup to dispersed camping from Dispersed Tincup Dispersed Memorial Day to Labor Day. This project is Approved and camping areas Recreation Camping 26 miles categorically excluded under the following: Forest Order Issued near Tincup within

Restrictions CE “Orders issued are pursuant to 36 CFR May 22, 2017 the Gunnison Part 261 – Prohibitions to provide short- Ranger District term resource protection or to protect public health and safety.”

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-11 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Project Location Resources Potentially (Straight Line Project Project Approval/ Project Area Project Affected that Apply Distance to CBMR Description Implementation (acres/length) to this Final EIS SUP Area) The following Recreation Special Use Permits are currently under analysis to be Areas utilized by Special Use reissued under a CE in the spring of 2018: outfitters and Outfitter/Guide N/A Headed West Outfitters, Mineral Mountain Under Analysis guides on the Recreation Permit Reissuances Guide & Outfitters, Sport Fish Colorado, Gunnison Ranger CE Cadwell, Curtis, Western State College Of District Colo, Burt Rentals Snowmobile Tours Currently under analysis, this CE addresses the reconstruction of Cunningham Ditch. Reconstruction would consist of relocating Cunningham Ditch the ditch’s head gate, reestablishing flow Watershed 20 miles Under Analysis <5 acres Reconstruction CE through a slightly altered ditch location, Wetlands piping through spots to allow continuous flow and cleaning and clearing existing ditch. In 2017 a Decision Memo approved the North Butte construction of 0.85 mile of fence within Land Use Allotment Fence 0.1 mile the North Butte Allotment. The fence will Approved 2017 0.85 mile Fish and Wildlife Construction CE be a laydown structure in conjunction with following wildlife friendly specifications. Silvicultural projects, including timber sales, removal of dead, dying, or hazard trees, fuel reduction, thinning, and other treatments are ongoing across the Gunnison National Forest. These projects have altered, and will likely continue to alter, the Gunnison National vegetative composition and health of NFS Gunnison National Vegetation Forest Silvicultural Forest-wide Ongoing lands. The establishment and growth of Forest Fish and Wildlife Projects certain species is directly and indirectly linked to these processes. As silvicultural projects are constantly beginning and concluding on the GMUG, these projects are generally discussed collectively unless otherwise specified.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-12 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Project Location Resources Potentially (Straight Line Project Project Approval/ Project Area Project Affected that Apply Distance to CBMR Description Implementation (acres/length) to this Final EIS SUP Area) This plan creates a visitor use management strategy that will restore and preserve the natural conditions by addressing Within the biophysical impacts resulting from Maroon Bells- Maroon Bells- increasing overnight use within the Maroon Snowmass 181,535 acres of Wildlife Snowmass Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. The plan Approved 2017 Wilderness Visitor wilderness Recreation Wilderness Area defines an overnight visitor carrying Use Plan (0 to 16 miles) capacity by management area, and uses these capacities to determine a threshold for which when exceeded will trigger a limited entry permit system.

In 2016 Categorical Exclusion authorizing Cottonwood Pass the reconstruction and paving of Approved 2016 Road Improvement Cottonwood Pass beginning at the Implementation Recreation Project (Federal 20 to 33 miles intersection of County Road 742 and ongoing (estimated 13.5 miles Traffic Highway continuing easterly towards the Gunnison to be completed Administration CE) and Chaffee County Line on the Continental 2019) Divide.

Currently under analysis, this CE addresses the replacement of ageing infrastructure and Mt. Crested Butte improvements to increase water reliability Recreation Water & Sanitation 0.1 to 1.2 miles and efficacy for the Town of Mt. Crested Under Analysis ~3.5 acres Land Use District CE Butte and related recreational areas Watershed including CBMR.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-13 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

This page intentionally left blank.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement A-14 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

APPENDIX B. FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT Table of Contents A. Introduction ...... 2 B. Amendment Consistent with Forest Service NEPA Procedures (§ 219.13(b)(3)) .... 2 C. How the 2012 Planning Rule Applies to the Plan Amendment ...... 2 D. Purpose of the Plan Amendment (36 CFR § 219.13(b)(1)) ...... 2 E. Compliance with the 2012 Planning Rule’s Procedural Provisions ...... 3 Using the Best Scientific Information to Inform the Planning Process (§ 219.3) 3 Providing Opportunities for Public Participation (§ 219.4) and Providing Public Notice (§ 219.16 and § 219.13(b)(2)) 3 Format for Plan Components (§219.13 (b)(4) and § 219.7(e)) 4 Plan Amendment Process (§ 219.7(c)) 4 Objection Opportunity (§ 219.50 through § 219.62) 4 Effective Date (§ 219.17(a)(2)) 5 F. Documenting Compliance with the 2012 Planning Rule’s Applicable Substantive Provisions ...... 5 Scope and Scale of the Plan Amendment 5 Rule Provisions Directly Related to the Amendment 5 Other Substantive Provisions 6 Project and Activity Consistency with the Plan 8

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-1 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

A. INTRODUCTION Under the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regualtions (CFR) § 219 (2012 Planning Rule), a plan may be amended at any time.1 Plan amendments may be broad or narrow, depending on the need for the change. The Forest Service has the discretion to determine whether and how to amend the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and to determine the scope and scale of any amendment.2 B. AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH FOREST SERVICE NEPA PROCEDURES (§ 219.13(B)(3)) The effects of the proposed plan amendment are documented in the Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) following Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures at 36 CFR Part 220. A change of Management Area prescription in and of itself would not be considered a significant change in the plan for the purposes of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA); however, because the projects proposed in the CBMR Ski Area Projects Final EIS are anticipated to result in significant impacts to Canada lynx, a 90-day comment period for the proposed plan amendment and Draft EIS was required.3 C. HOW THE 2012 PLANNING RULE APPLIES TO THE PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed amendment to the Forest Plan has been prepared under the 2012 Planning Rule. The 2012 Planning Rule replaced the 1982 planning procedures that the Forest Service used to develop the existing Forest Plan. The proposed amendment, therefore, must comply with the procedural provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule, not the obsolete 1982 rule. D. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT (36 CFR § 219.13(B)(1)) The purpose of this amendment is to convert approximately 500 acres currently within Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation and Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition, to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. This conversion would be prompted by the adjustment of CBMR’s SUP boundary to include these 500 acres, and CBMR’s intention to use this adjusted area for downhill skiing and winter sports.

A plan amendment is required in order to change how or where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the plan area, including management areas or geographic area.4 The action of adjusting CBMR’s SUP boundary as proposed and the resulting Management Area conversion would, therefore, require a plan amendment.

Several action alternatives were considered by the ID Team during development of the CBMR Ski Area Projects Final EIS that would not require a SUP boundary adjustment and resulting Management Area

1 36 CFR § 219.13(a) 2 36 CFR § 219.6; USDA Forest Service, 1991 3 36 CFR § 219.13(b)(3) 4 36 CFR § 219.13(a)

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-2 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

conversion, and would, therefore, not require a plan amendment. These alternatives did not meet the Purpose and Need for the project and were eliminated from detailed analysis in this Final EIS. E. COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2012 PLANNING RULE’S PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS The following sections demonstrate the amendment’s compliance with the procedural provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule.

Using the Best Scientific Information to Inform the Planning Process (§ 219.3) To identify the potential direct, indirect, irretrievable, irreversible, and cumulative impacts that may result from converting approximately 500 acres currently within Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation and Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition, to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports, the most accurate, reliable, and relevant information was considered. The particular information and documentation of how the information was used is included in the CBMR Ski Area Projects Final EIS.

Providing Opportunities for Public Participation (§ 219.4) and Providing Public Notice (§ 219.16 and § 219.13(b)(2)) The scoping notice and the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the CBMR Ski Area Projects Draft EIS (published November 5, 2015) stated that a, “SUP boundary adjustment and amendment to the 1991 GMUG National Forests’ Amended Land and Resource Management Plan” is one of the elements of the Proposed Action; therefore, the proposed amendment was included during this time of public participation.

Additionally, as allowed by § 219.16.13(b)(2), required public notifications of plan amendments may be combined where appropriate. The initiation of the proposed plan amendment and invitation for comments on the amendment was combined into one notification and comment period with the public notification and comment period for the CBMR Ski Area Projects Draft EIS. The comment period was 90 days.5 Public notifications were made by publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (published February 9, 2018); by publication of a legal notice in The Daily Sentinel, the newspaper of record (published February 9, 2018); by posting the notification on the project website; by mailing or e- mailing notifications to interested or affected parties per § 219.4(1) and (2); and by distributing a press release.

Individuals and entities who submit timely, specific written comments during designated opportunities for public comment will also have opportunity to file an objection to the proposed project and plan amendment.6 Details regarding the objection process are provided it the section Objection Opportunity, below.

5 36 CFR § 219.16(a)(2) 6 36 CFR § 218.5

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-3 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

Format for Plan Components (§ 219.13 (b)(4) and § 219.7(e)) The plan amendment would apply to three Management Areas within the GMUG by converting approximately 500 acres currently within Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation and Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition, to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. The plan amendment would not apply to portions of those three Management Areas outside of the 500-acre area identified by the amendment, or to the remaining 17 other Management Areas within the GMUG, and the format of plan components identified in § 219.7(e) would not be changed.

Plan Amendment Process (§ 219.7(c)) As previously stated, public notice of the amendment was provided at the time of scoping and publication of the NOI for the CBMR Ski Area Projects Draft EIS. Additionally, the effects of this amendment were analyzed and disclosed in conjunction with this project’s Draft EIS. The adjoined analysis was available for a public comment period and will be available for an objection period following the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR Part 218.

Objection Opportunity (§ 219.50 through § 219.62) The plan amendment would apply to all future projects or activities within the 500-acre SUP boundary adjustment; therefore, the 2012 Planning Rule’s objection process applies, but only to the plan amendment. The review process of 36 CFR § 218 would apply to the project part of the decision.7 Draft decision documents and all notices of the opportunity to comment on the draft decision clearly indicate which part of the draft decision is subject to the objection process and which part of the draft decision is subject to the review procedures of 36 CFR § 218, and an explanation of those procedures.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, a plan amendment is not subject to objection when the responsible official receives no substantive formal comments on the proposal during the opportunities for public comment.8 Should substantive comments be received, an objection to the plan amendment, including attachments, must be filed with the appropriate reviewing officer within 60 days of the date of publication of the public notice for the objection process.9

Should no objection to the plan amendment be filed, approval of the plan amendment may occur on, but not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection-filing period. Should an objection(s) to the plan amendment be filed and found to have standing, a decision document concerning the plan amendment cannot be issued until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all objections, which must occur no greater than 90 days following the end of the objection-filing period.10

7 36 CFR § 219.59(b) 8 36 CFR § 219.51(a) 9 36 CFR § 219.56(a) 10 36 CFR § 219.58

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-4 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

Effective Date (§ 219.17(a)(2)) The plan amendment would be effective 30 days after publication of notice of its approval.11 F. DOCUMENTING COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2012 PLANNING RULE’S APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS The 2012 Planning Rule requires that those substantive provisions within § 219.8 through § 219.11 that are directly related to the amendment must be applied to the amendment. The applicable substantive provisions apply only within the scope and scale of the amendment.

As explained in the discussion that follows, both the purpose and effects of the amendment are such that any adverse effects or lessening of protections of any of the provisions within § 219.8 through § 219.11 are not directly related to this amendment or substantial.

Scope and Scale of the Plan Amendment The scope and scale of the proposed plan amendment is site-specific, applying to a specific area of 500 contiguous acres, and covers only a small portion of the GMUG (less than 1/10,000 of a percent). It would apply to all future projects and activities within this 500-acre area, as well as all resources within this area. This plan amendment would be effective for the life of the current Forest Plan.

The plan amendment would alter the management emphasis, actions, measures, and prescriptions of the 500 acres that would be converted from Management Area 2A – Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation and Management Area 6B – Livestock Grazing, Maintain Forage Composition, to Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing and Winter Sports. As Management Area 1B, this 500-acre area would be expected to function as a ski area and future ski area-related projects would likely be proposed beyond what are included in the CBMR Ski Area Projects Final EIS, though any future projects would require separate and appropriate NEPA analysis.

Rule Provisions Directly Related to the Amendment The rule requires that substantive rule provisions (§ 219.8 through 219.11) that are directly related to the amendment must be applied to the amendment. A determination that a rule provision is directly related to the amendment is based on any one or more of the following criteria:

1. The purpose of the amendment (§ 219.13(b)(5)(i)); 2. Beneficial effects of the amendment (§ 219.13(b)(5)(i)); 3. Substantial adverse effects associated with a rule requirement (§ 219.13(b)(5)(ii)(A)); 4. Substantial lessening of protections for a specific resource or use (§ 219.13(b)(5)(ii)(A)); and 5. Substantial impacts to a species or substantially lessening protections for a species (§ 219.13(b)(6)).

11 36 CFR § 219.17(a)(2)

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-5 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

Applying these criteria, it has been determined that any adverse effects or lessening of protections are not substantial. Having considered the NEPA analysis, I have determined that the proposed amendment does not have substantial adverse effects and does not substantially lessen protections. I reviewed the evidence put forth by respondents to rebut that conclusion, but after considering that evidence and evidence in the NEPA analysis supporting the position that effects would not be substantial, I conclude that the effects will not be substantially adverse.

Other Substantive Provisions The responsible official is not required to apply any substantive requirements that are not directly related to the amendment. For the remaining substantive provisions from the 2012 Planning Rule, the project has no significant effect as explained below.

§ 219.8 Sustainability • § 219.8(a)(1) Ecological Sustainability – Ecosystem Integrity – Ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area are adequately protected by existing Forest Plan guidance. The amendment would have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on ecological integrity within the areas proposed for Management Area conversion; however, these impacts would not be significant at the ecosystem scale due to the limited scope and scale of the proposed Management Area conversion. • § 219.8(a)(2) Ecological Sustainability – Air, Soil, and Water – Air quality, soils and soil productivity, water quality, and water resources are addressed in the Forest Plan and project specific design criteria are in place to reduce resource concerns. The amendment would have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on these resources within the areas proposed for Management Area conversion; however, these impacts would not be significant at the ecosystem scale due to the limited scope and scale of the proposed Management Area conversion. • § 219.8(a)(3) Ecological Sustainability – Riparian Areas – Ecological integrity of riparian areas is adequately protected in the Forest Plan and project specific design criteria are in place to reduce resource concerns. The amendment would have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on riparian areas within the areas proposed for Management Area conversion; however, these impacts would not be significant at the watershed scale due to the limited scope and scale of the Management Area conversion. • § 219.8(a)(4) Ecological Sustainability – Best Management Practices for Water Quality – Existing Forest Plan standards address best management practices for water quality by matching regional Water Conservation Practices Handbook management measures. • § 219.8(b) Social and Economic Sustainability – The amendment would not have a direct effect that is outside the scope of existing Forest Plan direction on social and economic sustainability. • § 219.8(b)(2) Social and Economic Sustainability – Sustainable Recreation – The amendment has been designed to be compliant with recreation direction in the Forest Plan regarding sustainable recreation including recreation settings, opportunities, access, and scenic character.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-6 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

• §219.8(b)(5) Social and Economic Sustainability – Cultural and Historic Resources and Uses – The amendment would have no effect on Forest Plan direction for cultural and historic resources, or management of areas of tribal importance. The project does not occur in areas of tribal importance.

§ 219.9 Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities • § 219.9(a) Ecosystem Plan Components – Ecosystem plan components to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area are adequately addressed by existing Forest Plan guidance and project-specific measures are in place to reduce resource concerns. The amendment would have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds within the areas proposed for Management Area conversion; however, these impacts would not be significant at the ecosystem scale due to the limited scope and scale of the proposed Management Area conversion. • § 219.9(b) Additional, Species-Specific Plan Components – Species-specific plan components are adequately addressed by existing Forest Plan guidance and project-specific measures are in place to reduce resource concerns. The amendment would have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on plant and animal communities within the areas proposed for Management Area conversion; however, these impacts would not be significant at the ecosystem scale due to the limited scope and scale of the proposed Management Area conversion. • § 219.9(c) – Species of Conservation Concern – Species of conservation concern are adequately addressed by existing Forest Plan guidance and project-specific measures are in place to reduce resource concerns.

§ 219.10 Multiple Use • § 219.10(a) Integrated Resource Management for Multiple Use – The limited scope and scale of the plan amendment has no direct impact on integrated resource management to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses. • § 219.10(b)(1)(i) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Sustainable Recreation – The proposed plan amendment has been designed to be compliant with recreation direction in the Forest Plan regarding sustainable recreation, including recreation settings, opportunities, access, and scenic character. • § 219.10(b)(1)(ii) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Protection of Cultural and Historic Resources – The proposed Management Area conversion would have no effect on Forest Plan direction for cultural and historic resources. • § 219.10(b)(1)(iii) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Management of Areas of Tribal Importance – The proposed Management Area conversion would have no effect on Forest Plan direction for management of areas of tribal importance. The proposed Management Area conversion does not occur in areas of tribal importance. • § 219.10(b)(1)(iv) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Congressionally Designated Wilderness – The proposed Management Area conversion would

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-7 Appendix B. Forest Plan Amendment

have no effect on Forest Plan direction for congressionally designated areas or areas recommended for wilderness designation. The proposed Management Area conversion does not occur in areas of wilderness or recommended wilderness. • § 219.10(b)(1)(v) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Wild and Scenic Rivers – The proposed Management Area conversion would have no effect on Forest Plan direction for wild and scenic rivers. The proposed Management Area conversion does not occur in areas of wild or scenic rivers, or rivers found eligible or determined suitable for the National Wild and Scenic River system. • § 219.10(b)(1)(vi) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Appropriate Management of Other Designated Areas – Aside from the Management Area assignments, no other designations or proposed designations are present within the proposed 500- acre Management Area conversion area. • § 219.10(b)(2)(vi) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Other Plan Components – No other components for integrated resource management to provide for multiple use have been identified as potentially impacted by the proposed plan amendment.

§ 219.11 Timber Requirements based on the NFMA The proposed Management Area conversion is compliant with existing Forest Plan guidance regarding: lands not suited for timber production; timber harvest for purposes other than timber production; timber harvesting in the plan area on a sustained-yield basis; timber harvest of even-aged stands for regeneration, including maximum openings; and protections for soil slope or other watershed conditions, and protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic resources related to timber harvest (219.11(a), 219.11(c), 219.11(d)(2), 219.11(d)(3), 219.11(d)(4), 219.11(d)(5), 219.11(d)(6), 219.11(d)(7)).

Project and Activity Consistency with the Plan All future projects and activities must be consistent with the amended plan. With respect to determinations of project consistency with other plan provisions, the Forest Service’s prior interpretation of consistency (that the consistency requirement applies only to plan standards and guidelines) applies (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 20, Section 21.33).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement B-8 Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the Draft EIS

APPENDIX C. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT EIS

Comment letters on the Draft EIS were submitted by the following agencies:

• United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 8

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service – Colorado Ecological Services

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement C-1 Appendix C. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement C-2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 Phone 800-227-8917 www.epa.gov/region08 HAY 10 2010.

Ref: 8EPR-N

Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests c/o Aaron Drendel, Recreation Staff Officer 216 N. Colorado Street Gunnison, Colorado 81230

Dear Supervisor Armentrout:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 has reviewed the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service's January 2018 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (CEQ No. 20180013) that analyzes the Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) Ski Area Projects, pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The project proposal includes the installation of new facilities, chairlifts, ski and mountain biking trails, and additional snowmaking operations, which would require a Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary adjustment to allow for an approximately 500-acre boundary extension. Over 500 acres of developed and undeveloped intermediate and advanced ski terrain would become lift-served, and would require some form of vegetation or tree removal, including limited spot grading and some road construction and maintenance.

The EPA provided scoping comments for this Draft EIS on December 7, 2015, which focused on assessing the project's potential to impact wetlands and waters of the U.S, water quality and air quality. We appreciate that the Draft EIS addressed our air quality scoping comments by including information on traffic and prescribed fire treatments. In response to our recommendations to include mitigation details for aquatic resources, the Draft EIS describes project design criteria (PDC) and best management practices (BMPs) that will be useful in avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetlands, resulting in minor effects. Overall, we found the Draft EIS to be well written in its analysis of potential project impacts.

Based on our review of the Draft EIS, the EPA has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposed action. We have rated the Draft EIS as Lack of Objections (LO). The level of concern is low based on the proposed PDC and BMPs, there are no permanent wetland impacts associated with the proposed action or Colorado State 303(d) impairment listings in the study watersheds. Also, there are instream flow agreements and an associated monitoring program in place for diversions from the East River, the source of CBMR's snowmaking, which offer some assurances that substantial impacts to the river will be averted. The enclosure includes proposals for your consideration to reduce the potential for impacts to wetlands and water resources, and includes areas regarding water quality that we recommend be clarified in the Final EIS. A description of the EPA's rating system can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statement-rating system-cri teria. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review of the Draft EIS. We are committed to working with you as you prepare the Final EIS. If further explanation of our comments would be helpful, please contact me at (303) 312-6704, or your staff may contact Melanie Wasco at (303) 312-6540 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Philip S. Strobel Director, NEPA Compliance and Review Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation

Enclosure

2 ENCLOSURE

Wetlands: In addition to temporary impacts, the Draft EIS states that the proposed multi-use trails would indirectly affect approximately 0.30 acre of wetland resources (DEIS pp. 224-225). The proposed action includes approximately 22 wetland crossings. We support the proposed avoidance methods and mitigation approaches to protect against direct impacts to wetlands. All trails through wetlands would be constructed with boardwalks on pier-foundations. Additionally, narrow wetlands would be crossed with bridges that would be constructed without any direct wetland impacts. According to the Draft EIS, indirect impacts could potentially include a loss in wetland vegetation due to shading. Despite the relatively minor impacts to wetlands, shading at these crossings may indirectly impact wetland functions. We recommend that the Forest Service consider elevating the boardwalks and bridges, and spacing the boards of these structures as generously as feasible given safety constraints to help to reduce the negative effects of shading on wetland functions.

Water Quality: The Final EIS analysis may benefit from simple clarifications regarding water quality, particularly related to the ER-I watershed. The ER-I watershed appears to have the most potential for project impacts. The WRENSS model predicts that peak flows under the proposed action would occur one week earlier compared to existing conditions for the ER-I watershed study section, and yield is expected to increase by 16%. These changes in water yields and peak flow rates are influenced by components of the proposed project. The Draft EIS states that most slopes of the 1,051-acre ER-I watershed are drained by ephemeral and intermittent stream channels, and that proposed ski trails and glades in the Teo Drainage area would be located in this watershed. Based on information on page 204 of the Draft EIS, only four watersheds contain perennial streams, and ER-I is not mentioned as one of them. Increased streamflows and sediment loads can result from implementation of tree clearing, terrain grading, and snowmaking, which can degrade stream health regarding bank stability, percent of fine sediments, and density of woody debris (DEIS p. 204). We recommend that the Final EIS clarify whether the East River will ultimately receive these flows and confirm that there are no other perennial waters that will be impacted prior to flows reaching the East River. We also recommend that the watershed study areas are depicted on a map in the Final EIS to complement the brief descriptions included on pp. 199-200 of the Draft EIS. These two areas of clarification will increase understanding of the drainage areas and receiving waters related to the proposed project.

The Draft EIS acknowledges that meteorological trends are expected to shift the timing of peak flow earlier in this region, which could exacerbate the changes seen in ER-I from the proposed action (DEIS p. 212). Changes in air and water temperatures, as well as changes to the timing and duration of precipitation events, could exacerbate potential changes in water yields and peak flow rates caused by proposed tree removal and additional snowmaking coverage (DEIS p. 211 ). The Draft EIS also states that water quality could be impacted by changes in the quantity of water in the streams seasonally, thus affecting the concentrations of various metals and inorganic compounds in the streams (DEIS p. 214). The Draft EIS importantly notes that the actual volume of pumping for snowmaking and pumping duration would vary, depending upon temperatures, natural variations in streamflows, water availability affected by meteorological trends, and the instream flow agreements (DEIS p. 215). If meteorological trends or other stressors cited in the Draft EIS were to result in new water quality impairment listings in the watershed, we recommend that CBMR and the USFS work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to ensur~ that the additional snowmaking does not exacerbate the impairment. This will help to ensure project impacts remain within the range predicted in the EIS. 3 United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Colorado Ecological Services

IN REPLY REFER TO: Front Range: Western Slope: FWS/R6/ES CO Post Office Box 25486 445 W. Gunnison Avenue Mail Stop 65412 Suite 240 Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-5711

ES/CO: FS/GMUG ES/GJ-6-CO-09-F-00 1-GP03 7 TAILS 06E24100-2018-F-0228

August 27, 2018

Scott Armentrout Forest Supervisor Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison NF 2250 S. Main Street Delta, Colorado 81416

Dear Mr. Armentrout:

This responds to your February 27, 2018, request for formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. Your request is for the Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area (CBMR or Applicant) Development and Expansion project located near the town of Mount Crested Butte, Colorado. We agree with the determination contained in your biological assessment (BA) that the proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorbat:k su1.:hr (Xyruuc:hen texanus), hwnpback chub (Gila cypha), and bonytail (Gila elegans). The subject project will cause an average annual depletion of 70.02 acre-feet (AF)/year (yr) to the Gunnison River, which may affect the four endangered fish, and their designated critical habitats.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

Colorado River Endangered Fish

A Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin was initiated on January 22, 1988. The Recovery Program has been determined to be the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy to the endangered fishes from impacts of water depletions to the Upper Colorado River Basin. In order to further define and clarify the process in the Recovery Program, a section 7 agreement was implemented on October 15, 1993, by the Recovery Program participants. Incorporated into this agreement is a Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) which identifies actions currently believed to be required to recover the endangered fishes in the most expeditious manner. On December 4, 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued the final Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) (this document is available for viewing at the following internet address: http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/documents publications/section-7-consultation/GUPBO.pdf). The Service has determined that projects that fit under the umbrella of the Gunnison River PBO would avoid the likelihood ofjeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for depletion impacts to the Gunnison River basin. For projects involving water depletions less than I 00 AF/yr to fit under the umbrella of the Gunnison River PBO, the Federal agency requesting consultation must document the project location, the amount of the water depletion, identify if the depletion is new or historic, and provide the information to the Service when consultation is initiated. This information was provided in your consultation request, therefore, the requirements have been met for the subject project to fit under the umbrella of the Gunnison River PBO.

The Service and the Recovery Program track all water depletions that are covered under the Gunnison River PBO on a quarterly basis. A summary of those depletions are available at: http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/documents-publications/section-7- consultation/consultation-list.html . Also, in accordance with the Section 7, Sufficient Progress, and Historic Projects Agreement, the Service reviews cumulative accomplishments and sho1tcomings of the Recovery Program in the upper Colorado River basin. Per that Agreement, the Service uses the following criteria to evaluate whether the Recovery Program is making "sufficient progress" toward recovery of the four listed fish species: • actions which result in a measurable population response, a measurable improvement in habitat for the fishes, legal protection of flows needed for recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate extinction; • status of the fish populations; • adequacy of flows; • and magnitude of the impact of projects.

Through these bi-annual Sufficient Progress reviews the Service evaluates the best available and current information to determine if the Recovery Program continues to offset depletion effects identified in existing Section 7 consultations including the depletions covered by these PBOs. In 1ne most recent assessment ( dated December lU, LUU), the ~erv1ce ctetermmect that su1t1c1ent progress has been made towards recovery. Sufficient Progress reports can be found at: http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/documents-publications/section- 7- consultation/sufficient-progress-letters.html.

The Service requests that the U.S. Forest Service retain discretionary Federal authority for the subject project in case reinitiation of section 7 consultation is required. For your information we included the reinitiation notice from the Gunnison River PBO below.

Canada Lynx

On August 20, 2008, we issued biological opinion (BO) number ES/LK-6-CO-08-F-024 on the effects of the Southern Rocky Mountains Lynx Amendment (SRLA) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The BO was identified as the first-tier of a tiered programmatic consultation framework, with the review of

2 subsequent projects that may affect lynx as being the second-tier of consultation. For projects that result in insignificant or discountable effects to lynx, the Service will provide a concurrence letter. For projects that will result in adverse effects to lynx and are consistent with, and fully analyzed under, the first-tier BO, we will provide a letter that confirms that the project complies with the first-tier BO. For projects that result in adverse effects to lynx but we did not fully analyze the effects in the first-tier BO, a second-tier BO will be prepared. This document serves as our second-tier BO for this project.

As stated in the BA, the consultation history includes informal discussions between U.S. Forest Service staff the Service staff regarding the Canada lynx and the Colorado River fish prior to initiation of formal consultation.

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action includes several components. The Forest Service proposes to expand the special use permit boundary to the east of the existing boundary of CBMR by approximately 500 acres (Figure 2-2, in BA p. 98). Crested Butte Mountain Resort proposes to add two new chairlifts and replace an existing chairlift. The Applicant further proposes to develop additional ski terrain, incl~ding developed ski trails and glades; expand ski patrol operations, including construction of a ski patrol/skier services building; conduct terrain access improvements; develop additional snowmaking coverage; and develop additional mountain biking trails (Figures 2-2 and 2-3, in BA pages 98-99). The BA provides detailed descriptions of the project components, and geo-spatial position of the components on the landscape (BA pages 3-5). The action area associated with the proposed action consists of the Swan River lynx analysis unit (LAU) that contains CBMR. The action area also includes the Poncha Pass and North Pass lynx linkage areas, because the proposed action is likely to result in incremental increased traffic volume within these two lynx linkages.

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures - are actions to benefit or promote the recovery of listed species that are included by the Federal agency as an integral part of the proposed action. These actions will be taken by the Federal agency or applicant, and serve to minimize or compensate for, project effects on the species under review. These may include actions taken prior to the initiation of consultation, or actions which the Federal agency or applicant have committed to complete in a biological assessment or similar document.

The proposed action includes the following project design features (i.e. conservation measures), two of which may minimize effects to lynx. 1) Do not propose and discourage summer recreational facilities and activities, including organized recreational activities, in the Teo Drainage and Teo Park areas to minimize further habitat loss and summer disturbance to lynx habitat; 2) To minimize impacts to lynx and their nocturnal movements, focus regular snow grooming and snowcat operations within the Teo Park and Teo Drainage terrain (below treeline) outside the hours of 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. The Forest Service anticipates the Applicant will need to conduct grooming during this period on an infrequent basis throughout the ski season for skier safety. The annual winter operating plan will consider this measure, which may be adjusted over time as knowledge of grooming practices is better understood, with the consideration of minimizing impact to lynx and skier safety.

3 STATUS OF THE SPECIES

The status of the species for this biological opinion tiers to the SRLA BO. We have included some additional information from our recent species status assessment and five-year review.

Five-year Review

In accordance with section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Service completed a five-year review of the Canada lynx (Service 2017b, entire). The Service evaluated the biology and status of the contiguous United States (U.S.) distinct population segment (DPS) of the Canada lynx as part of a species status assessment (SSA) [Service 2017a, entire] to inform the five-year review.

In our recently completed Species Status Assessment for the Canada lynx, we found no reliable information that the current distribution and abundance of resident lynx in the contiguous U.S. are substantially reduced from historical conditions (Service 2017a, p. 235). In fact, because of the introduction of lynx in Colorado and anthropogenically influenced lynx abundance in Maine, there may be more resident lynx currently in the DPS range than occurred historically (Service 2017a, pp. 228, 229). This suggests historical and current resiliency among lynx populations in the DPS. The current broad distribution of resident lynx in large, geographically discrete areas (redundancy) makes the DPS invulnerable to extirpation caused by a single catastrophic event (Service 2017a, pp. 106, 235). Since we lack information that formerly persistent lynx populations have been lost from any large areas, it also seems that redundancy in the DPS has not been meaningfully diminished from historical levels (Service 2017a, pp. 106,235). As a result of the current population in Colorado, redundancy in the DPS is likely greater, at least temporarily, now than it was historically (Service 2017a, p. 235). Similarly, resident lynx remain broadly distributed across the range of habitats that have supported them historically, suggesting maintenance of the breadth and diversity of ecological settings occupied within the DPS range (representation) (Service 2017a, p. 235).

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The environmental baseline consists of the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR § 402.02).

Status ofthe Species within the Action Area

Crested Butte Mountain Resort falls entirely within the Gothic lynx analysis unit (GLAU). In addition, the likely increase in visitation at CBMR as a result of the expansion may affect baseline traffic on area highways that pass through the Poncha, and North Pass lynx linkages. We consider the LAU (Figure 4-1 in BA) and the lynx linkages (described in the BA) affected by increased traffic included in the action area.

4 The environmental baseline for lynx is generally evaluated against vegetation standard one (VEG Sl) of the SRLA. We use this standard as a means for determining whether the LAU contains sufficient lynx habitat in a suitable (functional) condition to support survival (feeding) and reproduction of lynx. Our current understanding of lynx home ranges suggests that at least 70 percent of the lynx habitat within a LAU should be in a suitable (functioning) condition to support a resident lynx year-round (Ruediger et al. 2000). The GLAU contains approximately 28,844 acres oflynx habitat. Shenk (2007) reported an average home range size of 75.2 km2 (18,582 acres) for reproductive female lynx in Colorado. The BA reported less than one perc~nt of the lynx habitat within the GLAU is in the stand initiation (unsuitable) condition. The BA incorrectly stated that the GLAU is non-functional because the quantity oflynx habitat is far below the functionality threshold recommended by the 2013 Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS). We believe the statement in the BA presents an inaccuracy regarding the LCAS's information about lynx habitat requirements. The ability of a LAU to support lynx is, sufficiency of habitat within the LAU, and at least 70 percent of the lynx habitat within the LAU must be in a suitable/ functioning condition. Therefore, we conclude, based on the habitat statistics contained in the BA, the GLAU is large enough, and contains sufficient habitat in a suitable/ functioning condition to support a reproducing female lynx. However, the presence of skiers within and adjacent to the developed portion of CBMR, has likely degraded the inherent value of lynx habitat in proximity to developed areas. Beyond the current development boundary, undeveloped timbered areas likely experience some level of skier intrusion, which may degrade the value of these areas for lynx as foraging and security areas. It is currently unclear what effect tree skiing has on habitat effectiveness of inter-trail islands and the presence of snowshoe hares in these stands. However, monitoring data in our files from Blue Sky Basin (Vail Resort), and unpublished data from Winter Park Resort (Brock McCormick, 2010, pers comm.), suggests that snowshoe hares do not appear to use inter-trail islands that experience heavy skier use. McCormick (2012, pers comm.), suggested that even light to moderate skier intrusion into high quality habitats may eliminate use by snowshoe hares, rendering the habitat non-functional, at least during winter months. Therefore, we conclude that although high quality lynx habitat may occur adjacent to the ski area, its functionality may be degraded due to human intrusion into the habitat resulting in a lack of prey within disturbed areas. At this time, it is unclear whether snowshoe hares are using these areas during the summer months when human disturbance is minimal.

Traffic

The BA indicated that lynx are likely to use the Poncha (i.e., U.S. Hwy. 50 over Monarch Pass) and Cochetopa Hills/ North Pass Lynx Linkage Areas (i.e., Colorado Hwy. 114 over North Pass), where increased traffic volume resulting from the proposed action, may affect lynx. Colorado Highway 114 and U.S. Highway 50, are high speed, low to moderate volume highways that bisect lynx habitat within the action area, and may influence landscape level lynx movement within Colorado. Table 1 displays current and projected environmental baseline traffic volumes for the two highways at monitoring stations believed the most likely scenarios for the respective - routes and less likely to be influence by other activities that generate traffic (e.g. other ski areas).

5 Table 1. Current and projected environmental baseline daily traffic (AADr) crossing through the Poncha (i.e., on Hwy. 50 over Monarch Pass) and Cochetopa Hills/ North Pass (i.e.; on Hwy. 114 over North Pass) Lynx Linkage Areas. Year 2015 I 2016 I 2011 I 201s I 2019 I 2020 I 2021 I 2022 I 2023 I 2024 I 2025 I 2026 I 2027 Poncha Lynx Linkage Area 2400 I 2441 I 2482 I 2552 I 2563 I 2604 I 2645 I 2686 I 2126 I 2867 I 2808 I 2849 I 2890 Cochetopa Hills/ North Pass Lynx Linkage Areab 290 I 294 I 298 I 302 I 306 I 310 I 314 I 318 I 322 I 326 I 330 I 334 I 338 • AADT = annual average two-way daily traffic. b Future 114 traffic was manually calculated from the station's 20-year growth factor (1.31) because the CDOT's website calculator was not working. Source: COOT website: htt:p: lLdtdapps.s;QIQrndQ~lQt.in foL otis[T'raffi,!2,i.tai!uiL 1 L2L2Lstation L1 Q2271 Ls;rit~riaLQ~0AL 175L210 LtrucL tru~L and htrp: {. t.dtdapps.s;QlpradQdpt.infQfoti~t.IrnfficDatai!ui{.2{.1{.Q{.~tatiQnL104232 l'.tritcrial'.104239 L.

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

The effects of the proposed action tier, in part, to our analysis of effects contained in the SRLA BO. Our understanding of the effects of outdoor recreation on lynx and their habitat is incomplete (ILBT 2013, p. 80). Tne effects, if any, may depend on the type of activity and the context within which it occurs (ILBT 2013, p. 80). Mechanisms through which recreational activities could impact lynx may include loss of habitat, reductions in habitat availability due to disturbance, or changes in competition for snowshoe hare prey (ILBT 2013, p. 80).

Habitat loss

Construction or expansion of developed areas such as large ski areas and 4-season resorts, as well as smaller recreational sites like nordic ski huts or campgrounds, may directly remove forest cover (ILBT 2013, p. 80). Such removal in lynx habitat could decrease prey availability, affect lynx movement within home ranges, or result in a more fragmented landscape (ILBT 2013, p. 80). As stated above, we concluded, based on the habitat statistics contained in the BA, the

support a reproducing female lynx. However, the.proposed development will result in habitat loss or severe degradation of approximately 433 acres oflynx habitat within.the GLAU. We consider the habitat loss a measureable affect to lynx, but we do not believe the proposed action will result in take of lynx.

Disturbance

Few studies have examined how lynx react to human presence (ILBT 2013, p. 80). Some anecdotal information suggests that lynx are quite tolerant of humans, although given differences in individuals and contexts, a variety of behavioral responses to human presence may be expected (Staples 1995, Mowat et al. 2000, Brock McCormick, 2010, pers comm.). Preliminary information from winter recreation studies in Colorado indicates that some recreation uses are compatible, but lynx may avoid some developed ski areas (J. Squires, personal communication 2012 in ILBT 2013, p. 80). The existing body of scientific literature remains inconclusive regarding the disturbance effects to lynx from ski area activities. Anecdotal information about 6 lynx responses to recreational activities, are similarly inconclusive. Therefore, we conclude that the expansion area will become non-functional for lynx, likely limiting lynx use of the area. Lynx may pass through the area, and may encounter and take prey items within the area, but the area may be simply be avoided by lynx in the future.

Traffic Effects

Highways and their continued. expansion into mountain towns and resorts. located in mountain valleys increase the amount of fragmentation occurring in these long, linear landscapes. This fragmentation further erodes the potential for lynx to effectively cross some of these potential barriers (Ruediger et al. 2000). High-speed, high-volume highways can result in lynx road-kills, fragment and restrict lynx habitat use, impair home range effectiveness, inhibit local and dispersing movements that may lead to reduced habitat connectivity and the decline of some wildlife populations and species over time due to genetic isolation (Forman and Alexander 1998, Service 2000, 2003; Alexander et al. 2005; Clevenger et al. 2002; Forman et. al. 2003).

With respect to highway traffic volumes and wildlife impacts, 2,000-3,000 vehicles per day (VPD) are problematic and 2: 4,000 VPD are more serious threats to mortality and habitat fragmentation (Ruediger et al. 2000). Movement is impaired for carnivores, including lynx, when winter traffic ranges from 300-500 VPD (winter average daily traffic), where snow-free period traffic volume on road segments in the study area were 3,000-5,000 VPD AADT (Alexander·et al. 2005). The aggregation of species into guilds (e.g. carnivores) provides the most generous interpretation of traffic disturbance. In other words, permeability (across highways) could appear higher because of more crossings by tolerant species within the guild (Alexander et al. 2005).

The BA relied on seven assumptions in regards to traffic related affects to lynx as a result of the proposed action. The Forest Service anticipates the proposed action will increase visitation at CBMR resulting from the proposed terrain expansion, resulting in increasecl traffic volume on area highways associated with the terrain development. The BA anticipates a portion of the increased traffic will occur within the Poncha Pass and North Pass lynx linkage areas. However, only Monarch Pass within the Poncha Pass Linkage experiences baseline traffic volume within a range thought to negatively affect lynx.

Increased traffic volume resulting from the proposed action translates to a small contribution (relative to baseline traffic volume within the lynx linkages) to further impairment of lynx reproduction and feeding, because some individuals seeking mates and/ or prey may be unwilling to cross highways due to higher traffic volume. In addition, increased traffic volume generated by the proposed action may contribute to increased mortality risk (vehicle collisions) on area highways (i.e. Highway 50), and within the lynx linkages. However, the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed action, represents a small fraction of overall traffic. It is not possible to determine the increased risk attributable to the proposed action, because specific data are not available to calculate specific current or projected baseline resort-related traffic through the lynx linkages as a percentage of total traffic volumes (BA, page 45). Therefore, we acknowledge that the proposed terrain development at CBMR is likely to increase visitation, which will contribute to increased traffic volume on area highways, particularly within the lynx linkages. We are

7 unable to accurately quantify or meaningfully measure CBMR's contribution to traffic increases. Furthermore, it would not be possible to specifically attribute any vehicle related incidental take of lynx that occurred in the linkages to the proposed action.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

Future Residential Growth

As of 2007, Mt. Crested Butte was considered still largely undeveloped (Elk Mountains Planning Group Inc. 2007, cited in BA). It is projected that the Town of Mt. Crested Butte will more than double its population at build-out (sometime between 2026 and 2035). The Town is expected to · have approximately 2,677 housing units at build-out and, based on a projected annual growth rate of 4%, a projected "full" population of 5,809, over 2.5 times more than the 2000 "full" population. Such growth should not directly affect lynx, because development areas are in non- habitat. ·

As of 2011, based on the current number ofresidential dwelling units and vacant lots in town and their zoning, the current projected number of dwelling units at buildout for Crested Butte is 1,288, leaving about 332 units (25.8% more) to be built (Crested Butte Planning Commission 2011). At the same occupancy rate as in 2003, 531 more residents will be present. All of this growth in the towns of Mt. Crested Butte and Crested Butte will occur on private lands within the towns, which do not support functional lynx habitat and which are outside-of the Gothic and other LAUs. However, a larger human population could increase dispersed recreation into lynx habitats and will cause an increase in traffic along Highway 135 and other regional highways could have negative, incremental, highway traffic effects. Such growth and its potential effects to lynx is similar to those of other Colorado ski towns.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of Canada lynx, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service' s biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lynx within the contiguous United States distinct population segment. No critical habitat has been designated for this species in Colorado, therefore none will be affected.

This project level BO tiers to the SRLA BO, which concluded that the Forest Service's actions addressed in the SRLA BO are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the lynx. The SRLA BO specifically states: "Other project types that are likely to adversely affect lynx, such as recreation development, are constrained by standards mandating maintenance of connectivity (the major adverse impact) and affect a relatively small proportion oflynx habitat within the

8 SRLA area." We believe the effects of the proposed action conform to our conclusion in the SRLA.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement.

In general, an incidental take statement anticipates the amount of any incidental taking of endangered or threatened species. It also provides reasonable and prudent measures that are necessary to minimize the impacts of the take and sets forth terms and conditions that must be complied with in order to implement the reasonable and prudent measure.

The Service does not anticipate incidental take will result from implementation of the proposed action. Therefore, no take is exempted by this biological opinion.

REINITIATION NOTICE

Gunnison River PBO

This concludes formal consultation on the subject action. The proposed action includes adaptive management because additional information, changing priorities, and the development of the States' entitlement may require modification of the Recovery Action Plan. Therefore, the Recovery Action Plan is reviewed annually and updated and changed when necessary and the required time frames include changes in timing approved by means of the normal procedures of the Recovery Program, as explained in the description of the proposed action. Every 2 years, for the life of the Recovery Program, the Service and Recovery Program will review implementation of the Recovery Action Plan actions that are included in this biological opinion (BO) to determine timely compliance with applicable schedules. As provided in 50 CFR sec. 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required for new projects where discretionary Federal Agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and under the following conditions:

9 1. The amount or extent of take specified in the incidental take statement for this opinion is exceeded. The terms and conditions outlined in the incidental take statement are not implemented. The implementation of the proposed reoperation of Aspinall and the Selenium Management Program will further decrease the likelihood of take caused by water depletion impacts.

2. New information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion, such as impacts due to climate change. In preparing this opinion, the Service describes the positive and negative effects of the action it anticipates and considered in the section of the opinion entitled "EFFECTS OF THE ACTION."

3. The identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the BO. It would be considered a change in the action subject to consultation if the reoperation of Aspinall and the Selenium Management Program described in this opinion are not implemented within the required timeframes. If a draft Selenium Management Program document is not completed within 18 months of the final PBO and a final document within 24 months, reinitiation of consultation will be required. Reinitiating consultation could consist of an exchange of memoranda examining the progress made on the plan and evaluating the consequences of extending the timeframe. Also, at any time, if funding is not available to implement the Selenium Management Program reinitiation of consultation will be · required.

The analysis for this BO assumed implementation of the Colorado River Mainstem Action Plan of the RIPRAP because the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker that occur in the Gunnison River use the Colorado River and are considered one population. The essential elements of the Colorado River Plan are as follows: 1) provide and protect instream flows; 2) restore floodplain habitat; 3) reduce impacts of nonnative fishes; 4) augment or restore populations; and 5) monitor populations and conduct research to support recovery actions. The analysis for the non-jeopardy determination of the 1"\t'"r\1'\f"\<,!~~ Ol"'f;l''\t''l fhr.:tt 1nr-1n rl,:u:.• .-, hn11 ♦ 'l'i Of\{) A "Cf... ,.,. - +-oH, n ,,..+o - A~-1.....,+! --,.. .C..,.....,.,_ +1...t""- r•-,:-....,...,. __ -'"'""""''"' ...,.., a_w ...... _.,._.,. ___.-.1 ____., - t )6" vv • .__,._, J• .,_,,.&. .&~-•• ""-1,".t,. """"'.t'-'""''-.IV&&.,:, .LA.VA.I.& I.AA.._. Gunnison River Basin relies on the Recovery Program to provide and protect flows on the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers.

4. The Service lists new species or designates new or additional critical habitat, where the level or pattern of depletions covered under this opinion may have an adverse impact on the newly listed species or habitat. If the species or habitat may be adversely affected by depletions, the Service will reinitiate consultation on the PBO as required by its section 7 regulations. The Service will first determine whether the Recovery Program can avoid such impact or can be amended to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for such depletion impacts. If the Recovery Program can avoid the likelihood ofjeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat no additional recovery actions for individual projects would be required, if the avoidance actions are included in the Recovery Action Plan. If the Recovery Program can't avoid the likelihood ofjeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical

10 habitat then the Service will reinitiate consultation and develop reasonable and prudent alternatives.

If the annual assessment from Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) reports indicates that the operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet flow targets or that the Selenium Management Program, as specified in this opinion has not been implemented as proposed, Reclamation will be required to reinitiate consultation to specify additional measures to be taken by Reclamation or the Recovery Program to avoid the likelihood ofjeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for depletions and water quality. Also, if the status of all four fish species has not sufficiently improved, as determined by the Service in a formal sufficient progress finding under provisions of the Recovery Program, Reclamation will be required to reinitiate consultation. If other measures are determined by the Service or the Recovery Program to be needed for recovery prior to the review, they can be added to the Recovery Action Plan according to standard procedures. If the Recovery Program is unable to complete those actions which the Service has determined to be required, Reclamation will be required to reinitiate consultation in accordance with ESA regulations and this opinion's reinitiation requirements.

All individual consultations conducted under this programmatic opinion will contain language requesting the applicable Federal agency to retain sufficient authority to reinitiate consultation should reinitiation become necessary. The recovery agreements to be signed by non-Federal entities who rely on the Recovery Program to avoid the likelihood ofjeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for depletion impacts related to their projects will provide that such non-Federal entities also must request the Federal agency to retain such authority. Non-Federal entities will agree by means of recovery agreements to participate during reinitiated consultations in finding solutions to the problem which triggered the reinitiation of consultation.

This concludes formal consultation for the subject project. If you have any questions regarding this consultation or would like to discuss it in more detail, please contact Kurt Broderdorp of our Western Slope Field Office at (970) 628-7r86, email: [email protected].

Sincerely,

\ --✓ "~) tJ \ ;J\ \"'-.______

Ann Timberman Western Colorado Supervisor

~c: FWS/UCREFRP, Denver; Email: Kevin [email protected] Peter McDonald [email protected]

11 LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, S. M., N.M. Waters, and P.C. Paquet. 2005. Traffic volume and highway permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Can. Geographer. 49:321-331.

Aubry, K.B., G. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. Chapter 13. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, technical editors. Ecology and conservation oflynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Clevenger, A.P., B. Chruszcz, K. Gunson, and J. Wierzchowski. 2002. Roads and wildlife in the Canadian Rocky Mountain parks - movements, mortality and mitigation. Final Report to Parks Canada. Banff, Alberta.

Colorado Department of Transportation website (http://apps.coloradodot. info/dataaccess/T raffic).

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. And Systematics. 29:207-231.

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, J. Turrentine, T.C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication Rl-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp.

Koehler, G.M., and J.D. Britten. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. Journal of Forestry 88:10-14.

~A ..... r-.~-...l r-,. "A ,.._..J Tr:' r-t ..... -..1 .... - .... 1()0~ n .... t .. __... _,,_ ..J ' - --- ~ TA r,1" ______...... J r, 4 _ .J! ... _ .. _ "IT T •1 _, .1. •..L""~v..a..u, '-"•.lY.&.• , U,.lJ.\,.I,. t1 • ..L.1. '-'U-lUV~U.• .1./0~• .LIVU\,,,Q.I, UU.U 1JJJ.A. J.ri... V11Cl.}J111CU1 ClJ.lU '-.,J.r'l.. CUll.Vl;:). VY 11U mammals of North America biology, management and Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

McCormick, B. Personal Communication. February 2, 2010. Email providing unpublished data of tracking surveys at Winter Park Resort.

Mowat, G., K. G. Poole, and M. O'Donoghue. 2000. Ecology oflynx in northern Canada and Alaska. Pages 265- 306 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation oflynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado, USA.

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 For. Serv., USDI Fish & Wildl. Serv.,

12 USDI Bur. Land. Manage. and USDI Nat'l. Park Serv. FS Publ. #Rl-00-53. Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Shenk, T. 2007. Wildlife Research Report. Post-release monitoring oflynx reintroduced to Colorado. 37pp.

Shenk, T. 2009. Wildlife Research Report. Post-release monitoring oflynx reintroduced to Colorado. 28pp.

Shenk, T. 2010. Wildlife Research Report. Post-release monitoring of lynx reintroduced to Colorado. 13pp.

Squires, J.R., and T. Laurion. 2000. Lynx home range and movements in Montana and Wyoming: preliminary results. Chapter 11. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, technical editors. Ecology and conservation oflynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Squires, J.R., L.F. Ruggiero, and J.A. Kolbe. 2004. Ecology of lynx in western Montana, including Seeley Lake, progress report - January 2003-September 2004. Unpubl report. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana.

Staples, W. R. 1995. Lynx and coyote diet and habitat relationships during a low hare population on the Kenai Peninsu-la, Alaska. Thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017a. Species Status Assessment for the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment. Version 1.0, October, 2017. Lakewood, Colorado. 300 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017b. Five-year Review Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 10 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx; Clarification of Findings; Final Rule. Fed. Register 68 (128) 40076-40101.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and related rule. Fed. Register 65(58):16051-16086.

Vashon, J.H., A.L. Meehan, W.J. Jakubas, J. F. Organ, AD. Vashon, C.R. McLaughlin, and G.J. Matula, Jr. 2005a. Preliminary diurnal home range and habitat use by Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in northern Maine. Unpubl. Report, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Bangor.

13 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

APPENDIX D. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS INTRODUCTION

As is required by United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, public involvement occurred throughout the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] 1909.15 Chapter 11.5). Due to the nature of the Proposed Action Alternative and the proposed Forest Plan amendment, public interest and involvement was sought throughout the EIS process. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2018, initiating the Draft EIS comment period that remained open until May 10, 2018. Notification of the Draft EIS’s availability was mailed to 78 interested individuals, government officials (including tribal contacts), public agencies, and other organizations, in addition to 13 federal agencies as specifically directed under NEPA. This letter was specifically designed to summarize the contents of the Draft EIS and elicit public comments on the Draft EIS and the proposed Forest Plan amendment during the 90-day comment period and provide instructions for public involvement and resources for additional information.

Additional information was available on Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=46904) and comment submissions were accepted via this website. Comments were also accepted from the following sources: email, letter, public meetings, fax, and phone. During the Draft EIS comment period, the GMUG received 95 comment submittals. All comment letters were reviewed for substantive comments, and contact information for each commenter was entered into a master database. One of these comments was received following the close of the comment period. This comment was reviewed and processed; however, the commenter would not have standing to object as their comments were received outside of the 90-day comment period as initiated by the publication of the NOA in the Federal Register. Additionally, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe requested additional information on the planned site for its impact on properties of religious and cultural importance to the Tribe. The Forest Service cultural resource specialists attempted to contact the Tribe several times via mail, e-mail, and telephone to resolve the request, with no response from the Tribe.

A total of 56 substantive comments were extracted from the letters across 12 broad categories. These 56 comments provide the foundation for which this Response to Comments document is based. Comments were grouped further by subcategory and theme in order to facilitate the recording and response process. Similar comments were combined to be representative of common themes that were expressed by numerous individuals. Comments that resulted in an update to a particular component of the analysis between the Draft EIS and Final EIS are indicated as such.

Names of those individuals who submitted comments on the Draft EIS are provided here. Per FSH 1909.15, Chapter 24.1(3), copies of comment letters received by tribes, federal, state and local agencies and elected officials are included as Appendix C of this Final EIS.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-1 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

Lewis Abrams Andre Garcia Tarra N Dana Albright Janet Giesselman John Norton Bruce Alpern Mark Gloeckler Helen Oravecz Cassandra Atencio Nancy Grindlay Andy Oravecz Michael Baim Steven Guerrieri Mick Osmundson Wanda Bearth Pryce Hadley Kenneth Patterson Grant Benton Thomas Hamilton Glen Plake Matt Berglund Greg Harscher Jean Publiee Greg Biggs Chris Haver Matt Reed Caressa Binion Bobby Heiser Kathy Reid Rob Bowen Celeste Helminski Alex Roddey Dan Breault Dan Hendershott Katie Roddey Derek Carstens Kraig Henry Lisa Roddey Ray Casey Nicholas Herrin Elli Roth Paul Chartrand Roger Herrscher Andrew Sandstrom Carollynn Cherry Paul Hogan Kate Schmidt Joseph Ciocca Paul Hooge Dennis Schneider Andy Cochran Duane Johnson Joe Schoen Arthur Cole Lance King Joe Stembridge Arthur Cole Howard Klein John Stenmark Paula Dietrich Michael Kolesar Philip Strobel David Dimmock Chris Kopf Mindy Sturm William Dowell Daniel Kreykes Jacob Sunter Sam Evans Frank Kugel Charles Team Theodore Evans Jason Lachance Dane Vander Wall Teddy Evans David Lien Thomas Vickers Crockett Farnell Mark Lucas Laurel Walker Matt Feier Edwin Lupberger Kirk Webb Scott Fishman Christy Miller Jim Williamson Edwin Foster Desiree Miller Gregg Wilson Justin Fuhrmann Dr. W. Z. Miller Iii Joshua Futterman Sara Morgan

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-2 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Page 2, Background Heading, Paragraph 1; Text indicates 165 acres of developed ski terrain and land in the base area is owned by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. The land in reference is owned by a private equity partner and operated by CBMR, within the Town of Mt. Crested Butte’s jurisdictional boundaries. The land ownership information provided by the commenter was no longer correct following the purchase of Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) by Vail Resorts in, which was finalized in September 2018. As a result of the sale, the following clarification has been made to Chapter 1, Section B – Background of the Final EIS, “The portion of the SUP on the Main Mountain is approximately 2,890 acres; this acreage does not include approximately 165 acres of developed ski terrain and the base area on land owned by CBMR as part of the Vail Resorts corporate family, within the Town of Mt. Crested Butte’s jurisdictional boundaries” (p. 2).

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 CBMR requests all of the corrections identified in the provided Errata document be incorporated into the Final EIS as written. Consistent with the request of the commenter, the corrections identified in the Errata document have been incorporated into the Final EIS. Specifically, the revisions are included in the discussion of the Proposed Action Alternative and correct errors that were made in describing the proposed lift specifications. Where applicable, the corrections have also been made in other sections of the Final EIS.

2.2 Page 23, Mountain Biking and Multi-Use Trails Heading, Paragraph 1; Existing text identifies some portions of the proposed new summer trails being located on private lands in the base area. Some portions of the proposed new summer trails will be located on private lands in the Prospect development, which is near, but not in the base area. The Final EIS has been updated to reflect the information provided by the commenter. Chapter 2, Section B – Alternatives Considered in Detail of the Final EIS now states, “[a]pproximately 15 miles of multi-use and mountain biking trails are proposed within the existing SUP area and extending to private lands in the Prospect area” (p. 23).

2.3 Page 22, Terrain Access Improvement Projects Heading, Paragraph 4; Text indicates the proposed terrain access improvement projects will be undertaken with the use of a spider excavator. However, the proposed improvements will most likely be accomplished through the use of hand crew teams. The Final EIS has been updated to reflect the information provided by the commenter. Chapter 2, Section B – Alternatives Considered in Detail of the Final EIS now states, “These terrain improvement projects would be constructed primarily by hand crews; however, rock blasting and the use of tracked machinery (e.g., spider excavator) is analyzed as a precautionary measure to ensure that unforeseen impacts do not occur should this type of machinery be required” (p. 22).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-3 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

2.4 Page 22, Terrain Access Improvement Projects Heading, Paragraph 1; Text identifies all five proposed terrain access improvement projects as being on the West side of the mountain. However, three of the proposed terrain access improvement projects will be on the West side and the remaining two will be located on the East side in the North Face area. The Final EIS has been updated to reflect the information provided by the commenter. Chapter 2, Section B – Alternatives Considered in Detail of the Final EIS now states, “Five terrain access improvement projects are proposed in order to facilitate access to existing terrain in the North Face, Spellbound Bowl, and the Extreme Limits terrain (refer to Figure 2)” (p. 22).

2.5 Page S-2, Chairlifts Heading, Bullet 3; Text indicates the existing North Face surface lift will be replaced by the proposed North Face Replacement chairlift. However, if feasible, it is preferable that the North Face surface lift remain in its current location and the proposed new North Face Replacement chairlift be added. In this scenario, the existing North Face surface lift can then be utilized as a form of redundancy should there be a wind, snow, or mechanical event that precludes the use of the proposed North Face Replacement chairlift. Mountain and lift system planners assessed the feasibility of retaining the existing North Face surface lift in its current location with the addition of the proposed North Face chairlift. Although technically feasible, the planning effort identified a variety of factors that would make this configuration less than desirable for CBMR’s operations and the experience CBMR intends to provide. These factors include the inability to adequately locate both lift terminals consistent with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) code without substantial grading or realignment of the existing surface lift; tower heights that would be required for the proposed chairlift to cross the existing surface lift would present issues in the form of exposure to wind, ride experience, and evacuation scenarios; and installation and operation costs of any of the technically feasible configurations would outweigh the benefits of retaining both lifts. As a result of these factors it has been determined that the retention of the existing North Face surface lift is not desirable. Modification of the Proposed Action as requested by the commenter has not been incorporated into the Final EIS; however, this alternative is included as an alternative considered but eliminated in Section D of Chapter 2.

2.6 Forest density varies throughout the proposed expansion area. Yet, the DEIS provides only limited information on the expected glading practices. For example, the vegetation in the proposed expansion area east of Spellbound Bowl appears far less dense than the heavily timbered areas south of the proposed Teo Drainage lift. We also question why it is necessary to glade the area downgradient and southeast of the base of the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift (DEIS Figure 2). We request that the FEIS include a more accurate delineation of high and low-density areas and the anticipated glading practices in each area. Such documentation would provide decision- makers and the public better understanding of the cumulative impacts of the project. The commenter is correct in their assessment that forest stand density varies throughout the proposed special use permit (SUP) boundary adjustment area, which would include proposed gladed terrain. Specifically, the Final EIS states the following, “[i]n addition to developed ski trails, approximately 434 acres of advanced and expert glades would become skiable within the Teo Drainage and Teo Park

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-4 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

areas. Where practical, these glades would be located in areas where natural glades already exist in order to minimize tree clearing requirements. Tree stand density varies significantly within the area, thus tree removal could range from approximately 10 to 50 percent depending on the stand density of a particular area selected for glading. Attempts would be made to prioritize removal of dead and dying trees, in order to address skier safety, operational concerns, and forest health” (p. 21). As stated in excerpt, tree removal associated with the proposed glades could range from approximately 10 to 50 percent depending on the stand density of a particular area selected for glading. As a precautionary measure, all resource analyses assumed disturbance of 50 percent tree removal. A delineation of high and low-density tree removal is not practical at the current point of the project planning process; however, the analysis provides a highest impact scenario that is sufficient for the decision-maker to consider potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Finally, the following Project Design Criteria (PDC) is included in the Final EIS to address tree removal practices in Teo Park and Teo Drainage: “Follow the general silvicultural recommendations in the 1995 CBMR Vegetation Management Plan for the tree removal in the Teo Park and Teo Drainage areas, unless newer information is provided” (p. 27).

3.0 NEPA PROCESS 3.1 I’d like to know if federal, sate and private organizations are still involved with the NEPA process after the Scoping Period. The Draft EIS and Final EIS are Forest Service documents prepared by a third-party contractor (private) consistent with 40 CFR § 1506.5. CBMR is also inherently involved in the process; however, as the applicant, their role in the NEPA process is similar to the general public in terms of participation with some capacity for early planning and information sharing as it relates to details of the proposal. No agencies, including state agencies, requested to be cooperating agencies for the environmental review process. However, as stated in Chapter 1, Section F – Interagency Cooperation of the Final EIS, “In accordance with regulatory direction, and in furtherance of cooperative management among federal agencies charged with oversight of environmental and natural resources; federal, state, local, and tribal entities with a likely interest and/or jurisdiction in the Proposed Action were sent scoping notices and/or consulted prior to and throughout the NEPA process” (p. 6). Information provided by federal (other than the Forest Service), state, local, and tribal entities during both the scoping and Draft EIS comment processes has informed the analysis and have been incorporated into documentation as applicable.

3.2 Having your own chosen biologist (by CBMR) is unethical and what do you think they are going find in their analysis? No impacts? And no negative impacts from the 15 miles of new bike trails thrown into the WINTER plan? The commenter is incorrect in their assertion that CBMR has chosen the biologist for the analysis. As stated in Chapter 4 on page 233 of the Final EIS, “The use of a third-party consulting firm for preparation of an EIS is addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR § 1506.5(c). If an EIS is prepared with the assistance of a consulting firm, the firm must execute a disclosure statement, such as:

Except as provided in §§1506.2 and 1506.3 any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor selected by the lead agency or where appropriate under §1501.6(b), a

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-5 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

cooperating agency. It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency, or where appropriate the cooperating agency, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit any agency from requesting any person to submit information to it or to prohibit any person from submitting information to any agency.

Furthermore, the use of a third-party contractor in preparing an EIS is specifically addressed by the CEQ in its “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations” in question #17a.171 Per this CEQ direction, which is included on page 230 of the Final EIS:

Accordingly, disclosure statements were signed by all entities that make up the third-party consulting team. These disclosure statements are included in the project file. As discussed in this text, “all entities” that make up the third-party consulting team signed disclosure statements, which includes the biologists responsible for preparing certain resource analyses. Further, Forest Service specialists were involved in the selection of consulting biologists, including selecting biologists most qualified for the analysis and reviewing and accepting the consulting biologists’ analyses. Effects to biological resources from both the proposed winter and summer activities were identified in the Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, and Management Indicator Species Report, and summarized in the Final EIS (refer to the Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences sections of Chapter 3, Section H – Vegetation and Chapter 3, Section I – Fish and Wildlife).

4.0 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 If the proposed expansion is approved, BHA would ask that all construction-related roads, trails, jammer roads, skid trails and all other human-caused disturbances be properly reclaimed. Not only will this prevent erosion and help to reestablish native vegetation, but it will also help in preventing illegal and non-compatible trail building and trail development. The commenter is referred to Table 2-2, which details Project Design Criteria (PDC) that would be incorporated into the Proposed Action. Specifically stated is the measure that, “CBMR will revegetate disturbed areas to attain cover densities that would control erosion and prevent sedimentation consistent with Forest Plan Standards. Prior to ground-disturbing activities, CBMR must submit for review a Post- Construction Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan. The plan will contain:

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-6 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

• A list of materials to be used for site stabilization and revegetation (i.e., soil amendments, seed mixes, erosion control products). Seed mixtures and mulches will be certified to be free of noxious weeds and must be approved by the Forest Service botanist or other Forest Service qualified personnel prior to purchase. Seed test results for each seed lot will be made available to the Forest Service prior to purchase. If weed seed is present that is listed as a Colorado noxious weed, or a noxious weed seed as identified by the current Colorado Weed and Colorado Weed Seed Acts, or if any other weed species is present that the Forest Service deems potentially harmful to local ecosystems, the seed may be rejected by the Forest Service at the permittee’s expense. Mulches will also be certified to be noxious weed free. Masticated wood chips, wood straw, coconut husk products, Excelsior products (shredded aspen), bonded fiber matrix (hydromulch), and other materials not containing seeds are preferred for erosion control in the Teo Drainage and Teo 1 and Teo 2 Bowls. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non-native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials become established.

• Revegetation techniques including the proposed timing and method of application for seed, mulches, and erosion control products.

• A monitoring protocol for vegetative cover standards that will be implemented for a minimum of three years following seeding. Monitoring will document the plant species present, their likely origin (i.e., seed mix, colonizer, residual), the presence of invasive non-native plants and noxious weeds, and any problems with erosion or sedimentation. Recommendations for site improvements, if necessary, will also be provided” (Final EIS p. 28). 4.2 If the proposed expansion is approved, BHA would ask that future recreational use be restricted to winter use only. The commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section A – Recreation in the Final EIS which states that, “[a]t this time, there are no summer use trails or other multi-season uses planned in the Teo Drainage area; therefore, no user conflicts are anticipated following implementation of the Proposed Action” (p. 84). Future recreational uses in the proposed Teo Drainage area would be evaluated in future analyses and subject to review in future NEPA documentation as the proposed SUP boundary adjustment area would remain National Forest System (NFS) lands under Management Area 1B – Downhill Skiing. At this time, no summer recreational uses are proposed or being evaluated within the Teo Drainage. The Forest Service has no specific cause to review or assess these future use; therefore, no analysis has been conducted to determine if these futures uses (were they to be proposed) would be approved or denied.

4.3 If the proposed expansion is approved, BHA would ask that construction take place after calving season (typically early June) and before the hunting season. This would respect both historical use from a hunting perspective as well as possibly preserve a historical calving area for resident elk. Construction of the runs and lifts could take place during the summer months of July and August, when wildlife impacts would be reduced. Based on information provided by the commenter, the following PDC has been added to Table 2-2 of the Final EIS, “[t]o the extent possible, construction in the proposed Teo Drainage area would take place outside of elk calving season (May 15 to June 15). Efforts to minimize disturbances during this time period shall be taken” (p. 29).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-7 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

Timing restrictions to limit construction activities to outside of the hunting season (from the end of August to the middle of November, depending on species) were not included as part of the proposed project. Had the suggested restriction been implemented, the remaining construction window would have been approximately four to six weeks when incorporating timing restrictions for elk calving and Partners in Flight priority species, and would have been too short for construction activities to occur.

The Forest Service recognizes that, “[t]he presence of construction in the Teo Drainage area would have the potential to displace game species and change animal movement patterns during construction of the proposed projects. This would likely result in minor impacts to the nearby hunting outfitter and guide permittee that would only last the duration of the construction phase” (Final EIS p. 135).

4.4 The DEIS states that “CBMR will revegetate disturbed areas to attain cover densities that would control erosion and prevent sedimentation consistent with Forest Plan Standards” (DEIS Table 2-2, page 28). Due to the size of the proposed expansion area, approximately 500 acres, we believe that revegetation and other measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation are necessary to protect watershed health. However, the DIES lacks detail regarding oversight for the revegetation monitoring process, and contingency plans should initial revegetation efforts fail. Thus, we request additional detail regarding post-project monitoring of vegetation and stormwater controls. The commenter correctly cites a portion of the PDC contained in Table 2-2; however, it is important to note that revegetation will only occur within areas of ground disturbance in the proposed SUP adjustment area and thus would not be 500 acres. As depicted in Table 3J-8 of Chapter 3, Section J – Geology and Soil Resources approximately 13.4 acres of disturbed areas are anticipated that would be later reclaimed. The Forest Service intends to develop a protocol to monitor these areas as part of the Post-Construction Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan. This plan would be developed prior to starting construction activities on NFS lands.

As it relates to stormwater controls, CBMR will prepare appropriate documentation consistent with State of Colorado Stormwater Management plan standards. PDC that address this topic are provided in Table 2-2 and specific measures are further articulated in the response to Comment 12.7.

4.5 To the extent possible, we would like the Forest Service to incorporate information from the WMP assessment into the FEIS to address the issues identified in this comment letter. The Watershed Management Plan (WMP) identified by the commenter is acknowledged by the Forest Service as being capable of providing future information pertinent to the East River watershed; however, at this time, information that is anticipated to eventually be published in the WMP is in a draft state that cannot be utilized for the purposes of this analysis. The Forest Service has relied on the best available data in conducting its analysis of potential resource impacts associated with the Proposed Action. It is the intent of the Forest Service to coordinate with stakeholders involved in the preparation of the WMP at future junctures.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-8 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

4.6 IDENTIFICATION OF OPTIONS TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ON FLOW The DEIS includes potential mitigation strategies to reduce sedimentation impacts from the proposed development of ski runs in the Teo Drainage area. While we support incorporating the proposed best management practices to control impacts from glading and grading, additional mitigation strategies should be identified to address impacts from additional depletions and reduced streamflow on the East River caused by the proposed action. Past documents that were prepared by USFS personnel have included suggestions for improving flow monitoring and mitigating impacts on flows: Consideration should be given to requiring CBMR to develop a water use/management guide that will maximize snowmaking during minimal municipal use periods. Reviewing technology for real-time streamflow monitoring methods that could be used to better track flows at the pumphouse location during snowmaking. The Master Development Plan (MDP) also includes options for mitigating impacts to the East River from snowmaking. Given that prolonged snowmaking would have additional impacts on the flow of the East River, it would be appropriate to assess these options now for the role that they could play in mitigating impacts from additional flow drawdowns. Options to assess should include: Consideration of developing a snowmaking pond. As discussed in the DEIS, the Forest Service would require construction of a snowmaking pond for additional snowmaking beyond the proposed 32 acres. The required pond would presumably be used to mitigate impacts on the East River from direct pumping. The FEIS should include a plan to assess potential snowmaking pond locations as mitigation for additional depletions to the East River. Construction of a storage tank for mitigating impacts from depletions on the East River. As discussed in the MDP, new snowmaking would be contingent upon establishment of a three-million gallon water storage facility. A buffering storage pond or a storage tank for water would reduce the drawing down of the East River when there is a call for water needed for snowmaking, hence, mitigating the effects on the East River. The 2008 Decision Notice indicates that it falls on CBMR to construct the reservoir or storage facility they choose to meet this requirement. Construction of a storage tank should be analyzed as a potential option to mitigate existing impacts and additional impacts from snowmaking depletions. NEPA guidance supports the integration of the NEPA process into early planning efforts. Agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts. The majority of the mitigation options above have been identified by CBMR in recent planning documents. As such, they should be disclosed and considered in the environmental impact analysis undertaken by the decision- maker. In addition to considering the approaches discussed in the MDP, the FEIS should incorporate relevant data and information from the Watershed Management Planning process that is being coordinated by the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District. Recommendation: The FEIS should analyze mitigation strategies to address impacts from additional depletions and reduced streamflow on the East River caused by the proposed action. Under the Proposed Action, the instream flow agreements between CBMR, the Forest Service, and the State will continue to mitigate impacts to East River streamflows. These agreements will ensure that

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-9 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

required instream flows continues to be met and are further detailed in Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed. Further analysis of these instream flow agreements and their impacts to the East River are outside the scope of this Final EIS.

With regard to the commenter’s statement that the FEIS should include a plan to assess potential snowmaking pond locations as mitigation for additional depletions to the East River and the construction of a storage tank, an addition was made to Chapter 2, Section D – Alternatives and Design Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis that discusses the construction of a storage tank or snowmaking pond(s) as an alternative eliminated from detailed study. This text states, “In response to comment received on the Draft EIS, an alternative was considered to construct storage tanks or snowmaking ponds as part of the mountain’s snowmaking system. Construction of tanks or ponds would have allowed CBMR to continue snowmaking operations during periods when the East River streamflows fall below 7 cfs or 6 cfs in November and December, according to existing junior bypass flow agreements. CBMR would be required by their junior bypass flow agreements to cease diversion for snowmaking when the river is below the threshold, which does occasionally occur.

4.7 According to the Draft EIS, indirect impacts could potentially include a loss in wetland vegetation due to shading. Despite the relatively minor impacts to wetlands, shading at these crossings may indirectly impact wetland functions. We recommend that the Forest Service consider elevating the boardwalks and bridges, and spacing the boards of these structures as generously as feasible given safety constraints to help to reduce the negative effects of shading on wetland functions. The commenter is referred to Table 2-2, which details PDC that would be incorporated into the proposed Action. The following PDC has been added to Table 2-2 of the Final EIS, “Where trail crossings would require the use of boardwalks and bridges to minimize wetland impacts, every effort shall be made to elevate these structures and provide spacing between boards to reduce the negative effects of shading on wetland functions” (p. 35).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-10 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

4.8 If meteorological trends or other stressors cited in the Draft EIS were to result in new water quality impairment listings in the watershed, we recommend that CBMR and the USFS work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to ensure that the additional snowmaking does not exacerbate the impairment. This will help to ensure project impacts remain within the range predicted in the EIS. Chapter 4 highlights that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division has already been engaged in this project process. It is the intent of the Forest Service and CBMR to continue this relationship with CDPHE, especially if new impairment listings were to arise in the project area.

4.9 The DEIS outlines helpful practices for use in water influence zones (WIZ) and provides a robust list of best management practices (BMP) that may be used during the construction phase of the proposed expansion. However, the DEIS lacks specificity on where WIZ occur and how specific BMPs will be used to minimize or eliminate resource damage in WIZ, excessively steep areas, and other sensitive areas. We recommend that the FEIS include additional discussion of how BMPs will be used in the proposed trail corridors, especially near the base of the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift (DEIS Figure 2) to minimize resource damage during construction. The commenter is referred to the Table 2-2 of the Final EIS and Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences discussion of Alternative 2 in Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed, which states “Disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would result in approximately 0.4 acre of tree removal in the WIZ of the ER-4 and WG-3 watersheds, near perennial and intermittent streams. The proposed tree removal in the WIZ is associated with ‘linear’ projects (multi-use summer trails), meaning that the Proposed Action would remove selected trees in the WIZ, as necessary, within an area rather than clear- cut the entire area itself. It is estimated that corridors required for the proposed mountain biking trails would range between 2 and 4 feet wide. Depending on the location, minimal removal of overstory vegetation would be required for the proposed projects as tree spacing in the project areas often exceeds 6 feet. A map depicting the location of the proposed projects within the WIZ is available in the Hydrology Report, which is contained in the project file. PDC in Table 2-2…have been designed for the proposed projects involving the removal of trees in the WIZ to avoid or minimize potential impacts and maintain or improve stream health” (Final EIS pp. 217–218).

Upon review of the map depicting the location of the proposed projects within the WIZ contained in the project file, it is evident that there are no components of the proposed Teo Drainage chairlift that overlap the WIZ. For additional information related to how resource damage would be minimized in proposed trail corridors, the commenter is referred to Table 2-2 (see Final EIS p. 26). Specifically related to this topic, Table 2-2 states, “To minimize potential stream health impacts associated with construction of proposed projects that require tree clearing, including ski and mountain biking trails:

• Prior to ski trail construction, clearly flag tree clearing limits.

• To the extent practicable, trail waterbars must be designed and constructed to discharge surface runoff originating within the proposed ski trails away from the WIZ and into well vegetated areas, effectively disconnecting disturbed areas from the stream network.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-11 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

• In instances where, due to terrain conditions, waterbars discharge within 100 feet of a stream channel, the downstream end of waterbars will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment separation and dispersion of flow, such as sediment traps.

• Waterbars and associated BMPs must be installed immediately after construction of the trail.

• Inspect waterbars and other BMPs during the first snowmelt season following construction to ensure surface runoff is being conveyed and discharged adequately. Repair, maintain and/or modify BMPs as necessary” (p. 33).

5.0 RECREATION 5.1 Page 71, Multi-Season Recreation Heading, Paragraph 2; Text indicates the resort hosts guided ski and snowshoe tours on Snodgrass Mountain. The resort does not currently conduct any guided activities on Snodgrass Mountain, winter or summer. Based on information provided by the commenter, Chapter 3, Section A – Recreation has been revised to state that, “All developed recreation opportunities operated by CBMR are located on the Main Mountain” (Final EIS p. 75). Reference to guided ski and snowshoe tours on Snodgrass mountain that were previously stated have been omitted.

5.2 RE: Table 2-4 - “Overall, the proposed conditions depict a positive recreational experience, as lower skier/rider densities correlate to a higher quality recreational experience.” Installing three new high capacity lifts to the “extremes” is designed to transport more skiers at faster rates. Claiming this will lower skier/rider densities is completely ridiculous (even if you add 500 acres). The commenter correctly cites Table 2-4, which depicts a summary comparison of direct and indirect environmental effects. This information is supported by the publicly available 2013 MDP, which contains detailed planning metrics for calculating trail density and achieving a balanced resort.

5.3 Page 73, Table 3A-3, Existing Summer Trails; There are several missing trail segments and trail mileages in this table. Namely Deer Park, Up and Away, Sharpshooter, Capitan Jack’s, Teaser, Boulder Mason, Downtime, and Happy Hour. As a result of the information provided by the commenter, Table 3A-3 included in Chapter 3, Section A – Recreation of the Final EIS has been updated to include the existing Deer Park, Up and Away, Sharpshooter, Capitan Jack’s, Teaser, Boulder Mason, Downtime, and Happy Hour trail segments.

6.0 SCENERY 6.1 Page 91, Ski Patrol Building/Warming Hut, Paragraph 1; Text indicates the proposed Patrol Hut/Warming Building will be located above tree line and not screened by vegetation. However, the proposed site is at tree line and there are trees and other vegetation on the proposed site that should screen the first floor of the proposed building. Based on the information provided by the commenter and a reassessment of the proposed ski patrol building/warming hut, the scenery discussion related to this project component has been revised to state

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-12 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

that, “[t]he ski patrol building/warming hut would be located at treeline and would be partially screened by vegetation (first floor only); however, the structure would incorporate suitable massing and scale to relate to the surrounding landscape” (Final EIS p. 96).

7.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES 7.1 Page 102, Housing Heading, Paragraph 3; Text indicates CBMR does not own any employee housing units. The resort currently owns three employee housing units and is in the process of working with other entities to develop several new employee housing opportunities on lands purchased, owned, or managed by CBMR. Based on information provided by the commenter, the Housing discussion of Chapter 3, Section D – Social and Economic Resources has been revised to reflect the current number of employee housing units provided by CBMR. The Final EIS now states, “CBMR, as part of the Vail Resorts corporate family, currently owns and/or manages eight units that are rented exclusively to CBMR employees. These include three units at the Lodge at Mountaineer Square, one unit in the Paradise Condos, three units in the Plaza Condos, one unit in the Crested Mountain North Condos. In total, CBMR’s employee housing units can accommodate a maximum of 18 employees, depending on the configurations of each unit. Additionally, CBMR built six lots/units upon the Homestead Development (deed restricted, affordable multi-family housing) in 2006 that were sold to CBMR employees at the time. There are also 22 buildable lots/units still available in the Homestead Development (11 owned by the Mueller family, former owners of CBMR, and 11 owned by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte); the Mueller family real estate management team and the Town of Mt Crested Butte are currently in negotiations to develop the remaining 22 lots/units via a third-party developer” (p. 107). This update also required a revision to Table 2-4 of the Final EIS, which in part summarizes the information contained in Chapter 3, Section D – Social and Economic Resources. Effects determinations related to the Proposed Action’s impact to housing markets of Gunnison County as described in the Draft EIS remain unchanged, as the updated information provided by the commenter does not measurably affect the analysis that was conducted prior to receiving this information. Simply, the number of employees accommodated by CBMR housing units (18 employees) would still not generate impacts within the housing markets of Gunnison County.

New information regarding the Long Lake land exchange has been included in the Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects discussion of Chapter 3, Section D – Social and Economic Resources. Specifically, the Final EIS now states, “This contribution could be offset by other county- wide efforts to address the housing shortage, including the Long Lake land exchange project, which would contribute approximately $2.5 million to the Gunnison Valley Housing Foundation when complete to be used for workforce housing in Gunnison County” (p. 116).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-13 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

8.0 TRAFFIC 8.1 what will be done to mitigate the effects of increased construction traffic and heavy truck road wear and tear on Brush Creek Road from tree removal activities. During this same time there is also an anticipated large scale development project on the corner of 135 and Brush Creek road which will also involve large number of trucks. According to CDOT, this intersection is already failing to meet its safety standards and I have heard no plans to address/improve this intersection. Please take this into consideration as I believe this road and intersection will need to be improved for safety and congestion and any damage to the road from construction activities be repaired as part of the permit process. The Brush Creek affordable housing project referenced by the commenter has not yet received final approvals; therefore, it is not analyzed as a cumulative effect as it is undetermined if it would temporally or spatially overlap the proposed projects. As described in Chapter 3, Section E – Traffic of the Final EIS, “…758 truck trips are anticipated for timber removal from CBMR. An additional 2,000 truck trips are anticipated for construction and staging of projects. The construction of proposed infrastructure included in the Proposed Action is planned to take place starting in the summer of 2018. Between 2018 and 2020 it is estimated that approximately 1,000 truckloads (2,000 one-way trips) would be necessary to bring needed equipment and materials to CBMR. Most construction would take place on summer weekdays, where an anticipated additional 10 to 30 trips per day for construction workers may also occur. Assuming that construction takes place at an even pace over the course of two summers, a typical summer day may experience up to an additional 14 truck trips for timber removal and project staging/building, as well as an additional 10 to 30 vehicle trips for construction workers arriving and leaving the site. It is assumed that at some point all of these trucks would travel on SH 135. This would result in a less than a 1 percent increase in AADT on SH 135 during the summer months” (p. 124). The short-term increase in AADT on SH 135 attributable to construction traffic associated with the Proposed Action is not anticipated to lead to improvements to the intersection of Brush Creek Road and SH 135 itself; however, this determination would need to be made by CDOT and is beyond the scope of this analysis. Brush Creek Road (County Road 738) is maintained by Gunnison County; agreements regarding maintenance of Brush Creek Road would be made between CBMR and Gunnison County.

8.2 Page 119, Parking Heading, Paragraph 1; One other potential parking opportunity not identified in the DEIS is the proposed lot on Treasury Road currently in the Planning Committee review and approval process. If this lot is approved it will be owned and operated by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. Based on information provided by the commenter, the Parking discussion of Chapter 3, Section E – Traffic has been revised to describe the additional parking opportunities identified by the commenter. The Final EIS now states, “Additionally, the Nordic Inn parking lot, which is north of the Nordic Inn on Treasury Road, was approved by Town Council in May of 2018 to be constructed at 140 or fewer parking spaces. The parking lot will be owned and operated by the Town of Mt. Crested Butte and will provide additional parking opportunities for CBMR guests, further lessening the impact additional skier visits associated with the Proposed Action would have on parking at CBMR” (p. 125).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-14 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

9.0 LAND USE 9.1 This proposed development is a taking of my existing Grazing Permit. If it is allowed, how will CBMR and the USFS mitigate the damage and potential new problems to my current grazing permit? Any new fences that need to be built should be constructed by the USFS at no cost to the permitee. Construction of any new mountain bike trails should take place within the current ski area boundary. No new trail should be allowed in the Teo Drainage or the bench area on the south/southeast flank of Mount Crested Butte. This will create many management problems for the permittee and the adjacent agricultural landowners. The Forest Service anticipates that grazing and ski area operations can coexist in the area of the existing grazing permittee that would be overlapped by the proposed Teo Drainage area. As stated in the permit held by the commenter, “[t]his permit can also be cancelled, in whole or in part, or otherwise modified, at any time during the term to conform with the needed changes brought about by law, regulation, Executive order, allotment management plans, land management planning, numbers permitted or seasons of use necessary because of resource conditions, or the lands described otherwise being unavailable for grazing.” The Forest Service reserves the right to terminate the commenter’s permit should conditions require this action; however, it is not believed that this action is necessary at this time as neither the current or proposed uses of the NFS lands in question are exclusive. Similarly, at this time the Forest Service does not intend to modify or decrease allotment areas or animal unit months (AUMs) within the area of the proposed projects.

As the commenter desires, the Forest Service is not authorizing the construction of mountain bike or summer trails in the Teo Drainage or on the bench area on the south/southesast flanks of Mount Crested Butte. The intent of the Proposed Action is to develop year-round amenities within the more highly- impacted zones served by the Red Lady and Silver Queen lifts. At this time, summer uses have not been proposed or accepted in the commenter’s area of concern.

Further, the commenter is referred to Table 2-2 of the Final EIS, which includes the following PDC that has been updated to state, “Should issues arise between the operations of existing livestock, specifically cattle, and grazing permit holders and CBMR, CBMR will cooperate with the Forest Service and livestock and grazing permittee and take measures, including but not limited to, the installation of vegetative buffers and fencing to protect the interests of both permit holders as directed by the Forest Service. Any installation costs of vegetative buffers or fencing would be borne by CBMR” (p. 26).

10.0 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 10.1 Page 139, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Heading; Text indicates the proposed plan will have an irretrievable effect on climate change. However, the DEIS does not identify the immediate positive, offsetting effects this proposal may have on climate. By concentrating recreation opportunities within the resort’s footprint and focusing on recreation activities that are not fossil fuel focused, CBMR can immediately minimize climate impacts

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-15 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

associated with dispersed vehicular travel for the purposes of motorized and/or non-motorized recreation. CBMR requests this positive offsetting effect be identified in the FEIS. Information provided by the commenter was not incorporated into the Air Quality and Climate Change analysis of Chapter 3, Section G – Air Quality and Climate Change. Although negligible in the context of other local and regional GHG sources, the Proposed Action would result in the emission of GHG during construction (operation of construction equipment and vehicles), timber removal (operation of equipment, helicopters, and pile burning), and operation (increased visitation and vehicle trips, lift operation) phases. These emissions would not be offset by other components of the proposal that would concentrate recreation opportunities within CBMR’s footprint, such as the construction of summer trails near the Red Lady and Silver Queen lifts or provide recreation activities that are not fossil fuel focused, such as mountain biking and hiking. Visitors who participate in recreation activities that are not fossil fuel focused would still contribute to emissions through vehicle trips to the area. For a complete discussion of impacts the commenter is referred to the Alternative 2 discussion under Direct and Indirect Environmental Effects of Chapter 3, Section G – Air Quality and Climate Change.

10.2 Page 139, Bullet 1; Text indicates CBMR participates in NSAA’s Climate Challenge program. In fact, the resort participates in NSAA’s Sustainable Slopes program and conducts its own internal form of the Climate Challenge program. The commenter is referred to the Cumulative Effects discussion of Chapter 3, Section G – Air Quality and Climate Change, which contains the information provided by the commenter.

11.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE 11.1 The DEIS noted that brook trout “have the potential of being cumulatively impacted by water depletions associated with proposed snowmaking” (DEIS page 178). However, there was no evaluation of the cumulative effects to brook trout or other fish in the East River. Brook trout spawn in the late fall and require deep pools for overwinter habitat. Because the proposed action has the potential to influence stream flow and habitat conditions, the FEIS should assess the effect of expanded snowmaking on brook trout in the East River. The commenter correctly cites the Draft EIS, which states that, “In terms of MIS species, brook trout were determined to have the potential of being cumulatively impacted by water depletions associated with proposed snowmaking” (p. 178). As highlighted by the quoted text, brook trout are MIS species, which serve as an indicator for species viability at a Forest level. These species are not analyzed at an individual project level, nor are they managed with the same protections as threatened and endangered species or Region 2 sensitive species. Additional details regarding brook trout can be found in the Biological Evaluation which is contained in the project file; however, in an effort to cover substantive topics simply and concisely, consistent with 33 CFR § 230.13, these details have not been incorporated into the Final EIS. For information regarding streamflow within the East River, the commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed, and response to Comment 4.6.

11.2 THE FEIS SHOULD ASSESS HOW ADDITIONAL FLOW DEPLETIONS WILL DIRECTLY AND CUMULATIVELY IMPACT THE MAINSTEM OF THE EAST RIVER If implemented, the proposed action would impact the river by increasing the duration of

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-16 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

drawdowns on the East River and increasing overall consumptive use for snowmaking. As described in the DEIS, CBMR would install A total of 32 acres of new snowmaking coverage on Championship, Black Eagle, Lower Gallowich, Rachel’s, and Shep’s Chute ski trails. This would expand the duration of snowmaking by approximately one week during the time of year where East River flows are already low due to the natural hydrograph. The most sensitive time for streamflow impacts from pumping withdrawals remains during the lowest point in the natural flow. At the Almont gage, StreamStats reflects a November mean of 87.8 cfs for the East River Watershed. In December mean flows drop to 69.6 cfs. The mean flow continues to drop in January to an average of 65.5 cfs (as reflected at the Almont gage). Extending snowmaking will continue withdrawals into the period in the hydrograph when flows are continuing to drop and will increase the time during which flows in the East River edge closer towards the bypass flow threshold. Beyond extending the duration of snowmaking, the proposed expansion would also lead to additional depletions of water from the East River watershed. As noted in the DEIS, Under the Proposed Action, water diversions and depletions at CBMR would increase by 28.8 acre feet and 6.8 acre feet, respectively, to a total 296.9 acre feet and 70.0 acre feet, respectively. The impact of these additional depletions on the fishery and stream habitat should be assessed. The Biological Evaluation discusses how flow and geomorphic conditions impact the success of brook trout communities generally. However, it does not assess how the proposed action might change stream conditions to impact brook trout. Specifically, the evaluation: Explains that Brook Trout are sensitive to management activities but does not assess how pumping on the East River, as a management action, will impact the fishery on the mainstem of the East River. Notes that temperature is an important condition for spawning and that brook trout spawn during the snowmaking season, but does not assess how reduced flows and climate change impacts might impact stream temperature and brook trout spawning. Discusses that temperature can have an impact on brook trout distribution, but does not describe how changes in flow from additional withdrawals and depletions, in concert with impacts from climate change, could impact stream temperatures and thus potentially impact brook trout distribution. Describes that sediment can reduce spawning success of brook trout, but does not analyze whether the proposed action will impact sedimentation downstream of the pumphouse. Cites Raleigh (1982) who reported a definite relationship between annual stream flow regime and the quality of trout habitat, with the most critical period being during base flow which is usually during late summer or winter and describes flow conditions that could impair fishery health. Despite the fact that CBMR may draw the East River down below the thresholds discussed in the Biologic Assessment, the report does not discuss how additional flow depletions may impact fishery health. Explains that overwintering habitat, including deep waters and pools is crucial for long-term trout survival in stream environments, but fails to assess how the proposed action will impact these conditions. In summary, certain changes in stream conditions impact the success of brook trout; sedimentation, flow alteration, warmer temperatures, overwintering habitat, and healthy riparian conditions are all conditions described in the Biological Evaluation as important to the success of brook trout fisheries. However, there is no analysis in the DEIS of how pumping from the East River, as well as how glading and other on-mountain project requirements, might affect fishery and habitat needs.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-17 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

The FEIS should apply the science discussed in the Biological Evaluation and analyze how the proposed action will impact brook trout habitat. As described in the Biological Evaluation, brook trout need certain stream conditions to thrive. These conditions include deep pools, a certain quality of substrate, appropriate stream temperatures, and adequate flows. Flow alteration can directly impact stream geomorphology and fish habitat for spawning. The Biologic Evaluation describes that: “The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor year class distribution.” Changes higher in the watershed, like glading and grading, can also cause sedimentation lower in the watershed. While the Biologic Evaluation discusses how sedimentation can impact fisheries, it does not assess whether this proposed action will create conditions that could impact the fishery. The DEIS concludes that there are no fisheries within the project area that would be directly impacted by the Proposed Action. While this might be true for the area that is delineated as the project area in the DEIS, as noted above, the FEIS should include all areas directly impacted by expanded operations, including the mainstem of the East River watershed. With the scope adjusted to include this important fishery, the FEIS should include the impact of the additional drawdown on the East River fishery, macroinvertebrate community, and riparian area. Recommendation: The FEIS should assess how the proposed action will directly impact conditions required for a healthy brook trout fishery on the mainstem of the East River. The USFS should also include what methods it will use to monitor the fishery on the affected area of the East River mainstem. With regard to CBMR’s ability to maintain compliance with the established bypass flow requirements, the Final EIS states that, “CBMR maintains a streamflow monitoring program approved by the Forest Service. Adherence to the required bypass flow and streamflow monitoring program would continue under the Proposed Action” (p. 220). Additional information regarding instream flow agreements in provided in Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed and specific excerpts of the agreement, along with an assessment of CBMR’s ability to maintain compliance into the future, are provided in the responses to Comment 12.4 and Comment 12.9.

As it relates to brook trout, the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 4.6, Comment 11.1, and Comment 11.4. A discussion of impacts to brook trout is contained in Chapter 3, Section I – Fish and Wildlife, which states that “Direct and indirect effects associated with the Proposed Action would be insignificant and discountable on this species’ Forest-wide population, habitat distribution, and trend. Brook trout would remain relatively abundant and widely distributed across the GMUG. The Forest Service and CPW would continue monitoring brook trout and their habitats to establish and track population trends and habitat conditions across the GMUG” (Final EIS p. 180). As stated in the response to Comment 10.1, additional details regarding brook trout can be found in the Biological Evaluation which is contained in the project file; however, in an effort to cover substantive topics simply and concisely, consistent with 33 CFR § 230.13, these details have not been incorporated into the Final EIS.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-18 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

11.3 Page 58, Identification of Change in Water Yield Heading, Alternative 2; Text indicates water yields and peak runoff flow rates may increase by approximately 3% under the proposed action. Yet text also indicates the proposed snowmaking additions could reduce total flow volume and adversely affect downstream endangered Colorado River fishes. The predicted increased water yields and runoff rates seem to undercut the DEIS premise of decreased total flow volume via new snowmaking. CBMR requested the FEIS provide greater clarity on this apparent discrepancy and the net potential effect on endangered Colorado big river fish species, if any. The commenter is incorrect in their understanding of the relationship between peak runoff flow rates and depletions from snowmaking that could adversely affect downstream endangered Colorado River fish. The commenter correctly cites the Draft EIS, which states that, “Water yields and peak runoff flow rates originating from the study watersheds under Proposed Action conditions would increase, on average, by approximately 3 percent relative to existing condition.” To further understand the cited text, the commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed of the Final EIS, which states that, “It is important to note that the computations [from the Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) model] do not include routing of runoff water through the watershed to the stream system. Thus, water yield hydrographs do not represent actual streamflow, but rather a time distribution of basin-wide water yield available to the receiving waters. In other words, the WRENSS hydrologic model was developed to simulate expected changes in streamflow as the result of silvicultural activities, not streamflow itself” (p. 206). Changes in watershed yield were computed for the study watersheds tributary to East River and Washington Gulch and the 3 percent increase in watershed yield includes both East River and Washington Gulch.

As explained in Chapter 3, Section I – Fish and Wildlife, impacts to big river fish would be driven by the additional 28.8 acre feet of diversions and 6.8 acre feet of depletions from the East River. As the hydrographs projecting the 3 percent increase in watershed yield doesn’t predict actual streamflow and are related to watersheds tributary to the East River, this metric is not relatable to the decrease in water in the East River. Further, the Biological Assessment (BA) contained in the project file provides additional context for the determination of likely to adversely affect for the big river fish as included in the Final EIS. As the GMUG successfully completed programmatic consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on minor water depletions on the Forest in 2007, consultation with the USFWS is not required as long as a single depletion does not exceed 50 acre feet and cumulative depletions (Forestwide) do not exceed 100 acre feet in a given year. When coupled with culinary water use, CBMR’s depletion is 66.8 acre feet, or 16.8 acre feet over the 2007 programmatic consultation agreement. Accordingly, USFWS has been consulted for the proposed undertakings and concurs with a finding of likely to adversely affect for the big river fish. No changes have been made to the Final EIS as a result of this comment.

11.4 Page 178, Paragraph 2; Text indicates that brook trout, a management indicator species (MIS), have been determined to have the potential of being cumulatively impacted by water depletions associated with the proposed snowmaking improvements. CBMR questions whether brook trout are the correct MIS to be used in determining potential cumulative impacts. Brook

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-19 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

trout are not the primary game species in this reach, but brown trout are. It may therefore be more appropriate to use brown trout as the MIS. The Draft EIS and Final EIS summarize findings contained within the Biological Evaluation (BE) located in the project file. With respect to the appropriateness of brook trout for the analysis contained in the Final EIS, the BE provides the following rationale, “Brook trout were selected as a management indicator of the health of montane aquatic ecosystems and they are a recreationally important local species. Brook trout are sensitive to management activities that impact stream flows or water quality, increase sediment, reduce stream cover, and create barriers to movement. Brook trout were also evaluated for project effects because they are present in the East River and may be affected by water depletions associated with the Proposed Action” (p. 54). Therefore, although brown trout may be a “primary game species” they were not selected for analysis as an MIS.

11.5 Page 169, Paragraph 1; Text indicates proposed snowmaking activities are likely to have an adverse effect on endangered lower Colorado River fishes but does not identify the primary threat to these fishes; downstream water impoundments. Also, text does not discuss any potential positive affects the proposed new snowmaking may have on the timing and volume of runoff. The proposed new snowmaking will add to spring runoff, and this addition could prove to be a net benefit to the endangered lower Colorado fishes. CBMR requests this benefit be identified in the FEIS, if applicable. There are no downstream water impoundments associated with the Proposed Action or identified within the cumulative impacts analysis; water impoundments outside of the analysis areas are beyond the scope of this EIS. Refer to the response to Comment 11.3 for a discuss of the USFWS requirements to consult on water depletions and for a discussion of the potential benefits from proposed snowmaking on Colorado big river fish.

11.6 Page 56, Identification of Impacts to Aquatic Species Heading, Alternative 2; Text indicates the proposed additional snowmaking is likely to adversely affect endangered Colorado big river fish species. However, per Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service document FR 13374 13400, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Colorado River Endangered Fishes: Razorback Sucker, Colorado Squawfish, Humpback Chub, and Bonytail Chub, existing large downstream water impoundments that greatly alter native water turbidities, temperatures, and flow regimes and inhibit lower Colorado endangered fish species from migrating and breeding are the primary cause of Colorado big river fish species endangerment. As such, the impacts of existing large downstream water impoundments should bear almost total responsibility for the continued demise of endangered Colorado big river fish species. CBMR requests the FEIS acknowledge the overwhelming responsibility of downstream impoundments on these fishes. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 11.5. While it is widely recognized that downstream water impoundments are the leading contributor to the endangerment of big river fish, this is an existing condition of the species that has resulted in their status as threatened and endangered rather than a cumulative effect of the Proposed Action. As there are no downstream impoundments associated with the proposed action, or any identified as cumulative projects, the determination that depletions and

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-20 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

diversions to the East River associated with the Proposed Action would likely to adversely affect big river fish remains unchanged.

11.7 Page 218, Stream Health Heading, Top Paragraph; Text indicates the proposed action will not exhibit a negative influence upon watershed conditions in a cumulative context. This text supports the assertion that the proposed action will have no adverse effects on downstream endangered Colorado River fishes. As such, CBMR requests clarity in relation to the previously identified may adversely affect determination. The commenter is incorrect in their understanding of the relationship of cumulative impacts to stream health and impacts to big river fish. The information cited by the commenter is in reference to the stream health of watersheds tributary to the East River, rather than the East River itself. The following heading of the section referenced by the commenter, Water Quality, describes cumulative project impacts to water quality of the East River. For direct impacts to big river fish the commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section I – Fish and Wildlife, which states that “[t]he increase in water diversions and depletions associated with the Proposed Action and shown in Table 3I-8 would result in a loss of water to endangered fish downstream that is likely to adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. These impacts could be compounded by the impacts of climate change on the greater Colorado River watershed, which are expected to include changes in air and water temperature, evaporation, timing of rain and snow events and snowmelt, and the quantity of water found in the watershed” (Final EIS p. 174). In assessing the cumulative impacts to water resources, the commenter has overlooked direct impacts to aquatic species that would occur due to loss of water that would occur under the Proposed Action.

11.8 Page 217, Watershed Yield Heading; Text indicates the cumulative effect of the proposed action will have an estimated less than 0.1% increased yield in the East River. It is difficult to understand how this very small yield increase may negatively affect downstream endangered fishes. CBMR requests greater explanation within the FEIS. The commenter correctly cites the Draft EIS, which states that, “[t]he effects of the Proposed Action on watershed yield would result in a slight, but probably un-measurable, change at the scale of the cumulative effects spatial extent (the watershed yield increase is estimated to be less than 0.1 percent relative to the annual yield of the East River, below the confluence with the Slate River)” (p. 217). For a discussion of how these impacts relate to threatened and endangered downstream fish species, the commenter is referred to the Big River Fish discussion under Alternative 2 in Chapter 3, Section I – Fish and Wildlife. Specifically, this discussion states that, “The increase in water diversions and depletions associated with the Proposed Action and shown in Table 3I-8 would result in a loss of water to endangered fish downstream that is likely to adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. These impacts could be compounded by the impacts of climate change on the greater Colorado River watershed, which are expected to include changes in air and water temperature, evaporation, timing of rain and snow events and snowmelt, and the quantity of water found in the watershed” (Final EIS p. 174). For reasons described in the response to Comment 11.3, the USFWS was consulted for the project undertakings and concurs with the Final EIS’s determination of

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-21 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

likely to adversely affect for big river fish. Additional information is available in the BA contained in the project file.

11.9 Page 55, Table 2-4, Evaluate Consistency of Alternatives with SRLMD Heading, Alternative 2; Text indicates the proposed action does not meet Human Use Objectives and Guidelines in the Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (SRLMD). However, on page 170 the DEIS indicates lynx habitat in the Teocalli Drainage does not meet minimum functionality standards in consideration of the greater surrounding Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). Therefore, the proposed action should not be evaluated in consideration of the SRLMD. The commenter correctly cites the evaluation of consistency with the SRLMD summarized in Table 2-4; however, the commenter is incorrect in their assertion that the Proposed Action should not be evaluated in consideration of the SRLMD. The 2008 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision amended the 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests to incorporate the goal, objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring requirements specific to Lynx that are not dependent on the condition of the surrounding LAU. As depicted in Table 3I-2, 56.4 percent of the Gothic LAU is classified as non-habitat due to alpine habitat, making it non-functional; however, the LAU totals 66,300.9 acres, meaning that there is still 28,933.7 acres of lynx habitat in the LAU, which the SRLMD and Forest Plan provide standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements for.

11.10 Page 170, Canada Lynx Heading, Paragraph 1; Text indicates in the proposed action 401.3 acres of primary suitable lynx habitat, 21.3 acres of secondary suitable habitat and 10.2 acres of unsuitable habitat will be converted into 432.8 of non-habitat. If 10.2 acres is currently assessed as unsuitable habitat, this acreage should not be included in the proposed non-habitat calculation. CBMR requests the FEIS identify 422.6 acres as non-habitat, not the currently listed 432.8 acres. The commenter is incorrect in their understanding of unsuitable habitat. Unsuitable lynx habitat includes habitat that is not currently in a condition suitable to provide for lynx denning, foraging, or other habitats considered necessary to support lynx reproduction and survival but is expected, with time, to develop those necessary conditions; therefore, unsuitable lynx habitat is not the same as non-habitat. Non-habitat includes areas that are not considered to be capable of providing lynx habitat, such as lakes or human developments.

11.11 Pages 171 and 172, Indirect Effects to Lynx Heading; Text indicates the proposed action will contribute to negative highway effects through the Poncha and Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Linkage Areas and will likely reach adverse levels over Monarch Pass. However, if the following estimates are assumed: 95,696 additional skier visits over five winters (as identified on page 78 in the DEIS) 140 days of operation per winter 95% of skiers arriving from points beyond the Gunnison Valley (as determined from CBMR s guest loyalty surveys) 85% of those 95% arriving by automobile from points beyond the Gunnison Valley (with the remaining 10% arriving by airplane via the Gunnison/Crested Butte regional airport) 70% of those 85% arriving via Monarch Pass 10% of those 85% arriving via North Pass The remaining 20% arriving via Cerro Summit, Highway 149, or Highway 92 2.5 passengers per vehicle (as

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-22 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

identified on page 115 in the DEIS) Nearly all vehicles travelling between the hours of 5am and 10pm. An average skier visit of 2 days per skier. The proposed action would add an average of 1.9 vehicles/hour on Monarch Pass, .3 vehicles per hour on North Pass and .5 vehicles per hour split amongst Cerro Summit, Highway 149, and Highway 92. CBMR contends these average additions may not adversely affect the identified lynx travel corridors. As well, it may be of value to know the current average vehicles per hour on each of these routes from 5am to 10pm during the winter season and the travel effects associated with a robust regional economy and a growing population in intermountain Colorado. Further, the DEIS as written, does not appear to take into account any vehicular traffic arriving from Highway 50 West/Cerro Summit, Highway 92/North Rim of the Black Canyon, or Highway 149/Lake City. And, it is unclear why the Poncha Lynx Linkage is under assessment. As, travelers likely either travel via North Pass or Monarch Pass but not Poncha Pass and Monarch Pass nor Poncha Pass and North Pass. CBMR requests these concerns be addressed in the FEIS. The Draft EIS and Final EIS summarize findings contained within the BA located in the project file. With respect to potential traffic effects on lynx, as discussed by the commenter, those effects are presented in Section 3.5.2.2 of the BA, and do not appear in the Draft EIS. Specifically, this section states that, “Assuming that the majority of this additional traffic would cross over Monarch Pass (as does current resort-related traffic) and considering that traffic volumes through the Poncha Lynx Linkage Area are within the range (2,000–5,000 vehicles per day) that have been documented to impair lynx movements (see Section 3.4.2.8), then the traffic contributions would exceed the somewhat arbitrary ±2% contribution to total traffic volume through a lynx linkage that the USFWS uses as a threshold for assessing adverse, single project effects. This determination is not likely the case for Alternative 2 traffic contributions to the Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Lynx Linkage Area, where baseline traffic is well below the range (2,000–5,000 vehicles per day) that have been documented to impair lynx movements (see Section 3.4.2.8). Collectively, total traffic associated with CBMR is contributing to negative highway effects through the Poncha and Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Lynx Linkage Areas and the effects likely reach adverse levels over Monarch Pass” (pp. 57–58). In an effort to cover substantive topics simply and concisely, consistent with 33 CFR § 230.13, these details have not been incorporated into the Final EIS.

The lynx analysis relies on CDOT traffic data to assess baseline and projected traffic data. It cannot be confirmed if the calculations for baseline and projected hourly traffic rates provided by the commenter are accurate, as the CDOT monitoring stations where data were obtained for the CBMR analysis did not collect hourly data (not many CDOT traffic monitoring stations do).

With respect to comments on the lynx/traffic effects analysis areas, only Poncha and the Cochetopa Hills/North Pass Linkages were considered because those were the closest designated lynx linkages that are and will be used by CBMR guests that could receive measurable short-term increases in CBMR visitation resulting from the Proposed Action (see BA pp. 20–21). Measurable levels of resort traffic to and from the west do not go through designated linkages. Traffic over Poncha Pass was not considered in the assessment. Poncha Pass is only relevant to the lynx analysis in that Monarch Pass is part of the designated Poncha Pass Lynx Linkage.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-23 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

11.12 While the EIS describes a number of feasible measures for mitigating the adverse impacts of increased recreation pressure and development, including selecting a top drive model for the two additional chairlifts that avoids developing lynx habitat in the base area of Teo Drainage, containing recreation pressure to newly developed ski runs depends heavily on the voluntary compliance of CBMR visitors with roped-off habitat closures. The EIS explains lynx habitat below the ski runs in the SUP Adjustment Area will be roped-off and signed; unauthorized hiking or biking trails discovered in the area during the summer season will be deconstructed. Unfortunately, there is little peer-reviewed literature to support the efficacy of seasonal habitat closures for wildlife protection from the impacts of winter recreation, especially without vigilant enforcement...CBMR may not have the capacity to enforce roped closures on the boundary of Teo Drainage and Teo Park, at least to the degree necessary to significantly offset the adverse impacts on lynx habitat described above. I urge the GMUG and CBMR to address this issue, either through educational and enforcement partnerships with USDA Forest Service staff or by reconsidering the boundaries of the SUP Adjustment Area to discourage side- country riding in primary and secondary lynx habitat. The commenter correctly summarizes measures intended to minimize impacts to lynx described in Table 2-2. CBMR currently maintains a closed boundary under their Operating Plan with the Forest Service. This boundary is roped, signed, and monitored throughout the winter season by CBMR ski patrol, and the Colorado Ski Safety Act designates ski patrol with the responsibility to enforce and maintain the closed boundary. Violations of the closed boundary have occurred; however, these violations have been vigorously pursued The Forest Service monitors CBMR for compliance under the Operating Plan, and considers the measures in place as extremely effective. Effectiveness is expected to continue with increased ski patrol presence as described in the Proposed Action. The Forest Service will continue to consider additional enforcement measures suggested by the commenter; however, the boundaries of the proposed SUP adjustment area are not being reconsidered at this time.

11.13 Page 173, Effects Determination Heading, Paragraph 1; Given that the Gothic LAU is currently in a naturally non-functional condition (as identified in the DEIS) and the Poncha, Monarch, and North Pass lynx linkage corridors do not appear to have been assessed in consideration of traffic pattern norms, CBMR requests the determination that the proposed action “may affect, likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx be reconsidered. The commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 11.9, Comment 11.10, and Comment 11.11, which correct the commenter’s assertions around the Gothic LAU, lynx linkage corridors, and lynx habitat conditions in the project area. For reasons described in these comment responses, the determination of may affect, likely to adversely affect provided for Canada lynx in the Draft EIS is not being reconsidered at this time.

12.0 WATERSHED 12.1 The East River and its riparian corridor were not included in the affected area considered in the DEIS. The East River should be included in the affected area in the FEIS because CBMR diverts water from the East River and the proposed action includes expanded snowmaking operations. Expanded snowmaking operations would either increase diversion rates, increase

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-24 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

the length of the snowmaking season or both. These changes have the potential to impact aquatic life and riparian habitat in the East River. The commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed, which in its discussion of snowmaking includes an analysis of the East River. To make clear that the analysis includes a discussion of the East River, the following text has been added under the Project Area Description heading of Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed in the Final EIS, “A discussion of the East River, as it relates to proposed snowmaking, is included in the following Snowmaking discussion. While separate from the project area study watersheds, this waterway is assessed in terms of existing conditions and potential environmental consequences attributable to the Proposed Action” (p. 204).

Throughout Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed it is described that CBMR will continue to operate under the conditions of the instream flow agreements between the Forest Service and CBMR, and between the State of Colorado and CBMR (refer to the response to Comment 12.4 for details of this agreement). CBMR will continue to limit its snowmaking diversions from the East River to pumping rates not to exceed its decreed water rights of 6 cubic feet per second (cfs) and will maintain its historic target for the end of snowmaking operations before Christmas Day. Depending upon natural snowfall and temperatures experienced during the snowmaking season, it may be necessary to extend the snowmaking operations by four to five days. The Proposed Action would result in 28.7 acre feet of additional snowmaking diversions over the entire snowmaking season, which is greater than fifty days. Aquatic life will continue to be protected by the minimum bypass flow required by the instream flow agreements between the Forest Service and CBMR, and between the State of Colorado and CBMR. The small amount of additional diversion during the snowmaking season would not impact riparian habitat.1

12.2 Page 212, Peak Flow Changes Relative to Existing Conditions Heading, Paragraph 2; Text indicates peak flow in ER-1 will likely occur one week earlier compared to existing conditions, due to the removal of shading tree cover. However, experience suggests skier and snowcat snow compaction causes snow to melt slower. As such, the skier and snowcat compaction associated with the proposed action may have a counteracting effect on peak snowmelt in ER- 1. It is unclear if skier/snowcat compaction has been taken into account in assessing potential peak flow changes, and CBMR requests this topic to be addressed in the FEIS. While it is generally true that snow compaction causes some delay in snow melting, it also has been well documented that the melt of compacted snow causes a higher peak discharge value, with a steeper rising and receding limbs of the snowmelt hydrograph. However, a procedure to calculate, with certainty, the behavior of compacted snow has not been developed, as opposed to widely accepted procedures to compute the effect of tree removal and snowmaking on watersheds’ yield and rate of runoff (e.g., WRENSS model).

The areas that would be subject to snow compaction within the ER-1 watershed (ski trails and areas adjacent to lift terminals) amount to approximately 83.7 acres, which represents 8 percent of the total 1,053.5 acres in the ER-1 watershed. Although additional snow compaction by skiers could occur in the proposed Teo Glades, an estimation of the extent and degree of snow compaction due to skier activities in

1 Resource Engineering Inc., 2017

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-25 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

these glades is beyond the scope of this analysis. Therefore, it is not possible to determine, or even estimate with a reasonable degree of accuracy, the potential effects of snow compaction on the watershed’s timing and rate of snowmelt.

12.3 Page 211, Watershed Yield Heading, Paragraph 1 and Table 3k-11; Text and table indicates the proposed action will produce an average increase of 175-acre feet of runoff above existing conditions. Yet on page 168, text and table indicate a purported 6.8-acre foot depletion of water from new snowmaking will likely adversely affect downstream endangered Colorado big river fishes. As stated earlier in this letter, this total flow volume discrepancy appears incongruent, and CBMR wishes this apparent incongruency to be addressed in the FEIS. The different metrics addressed by the commenter are not inconsistent with one another as the watershed yield increase of 175 acre feet refers to an increase in basin-wide water yield from study watersheds that are tributary to East River or Washington Gulch, and the 6.8-acre foot depletion of water from new snowmaking would occur directly out of the East River. Additionally, water diversions would increase by 28.8 acre feet under the Proposed Action. For greater explanation of how the WRENSS model simulates expected changes in streamflow the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 11.3. As the modeled increases in watershed yield are not directly related to depletions in the East River there have been no changes to the determination that the Proposed Action would likely adversely affect downstream big river fish.

12.4 THE FEIS SHOULD INCLUDE BASELINE ASSESSMENTS OF THE EAST RIVER AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN CORRIDOR NEAR THE CBMR PUMP HOUSE The East River Watershed begins at Emerald Lake above the Town of Crested Butte and ends where the East River and the Taylor River join in Almont to form the Gunnison River. The watershed is home to municipalities, historic mining activities, irrigated pasture and hay meadows, recreational fishing and skiing, and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Existing agricultural, environmental, and recreational water uses (fishing and skiing) on the East River are a significant economic driver in the Upper Gunnison Basin. The Forest Service is required to consider the East River watershed in the DEIS as a critical part of the affected environment. The environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The EIS must be sufficiently detailed to apprise the decision-maker of the potential environmental consequences of the project, and the agency’s analysis of the affected area should provide the decision-maker with an accurate basis from which to evaluate those consequences. The DEIS does not include the mainstem of the East River as part of the affected area within the Affected Environment analysis even though it acknowledges that additional withdrawals for snowmaking would impact the East River (footnote 2: DEIS at 178. The DEIS assesses conditions on many of the tributary intermittent and ephemeral streams within the outlined project area. It also contemplates impacts to endangered fish far downstream in the Colorado River Basin. However, the waterway most directly impacted from pumping operations, the mainstem of the East River at and below the pump station, is not included in this assessment. Nor does it assess the condition of the riverine ecosystem further downstream and below the area targeted for additional glading and grading. See also HYDROLOGY SPECIALIST REPORT Crested Butte

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-26 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

Mountain) The East River would be directly affected by this project. CBMR pumps directly from the East River at the pumphouse location. Current operations are summarized in the DEIS as follows: Over the last five seasons CBMR has diverted on average 266.4 acre feet per year of water from the East River for snowmaking purposes on approximately 297 acres of ski terrain, including terrain park features. An estimated 63.1 acre feet of the average 266.4 acre feet (23.7 percent) that is diverted from the East River is lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses assuming average temperature conditions during the snowmaking period. The remaining 203.2 acre feet that is not lost (76.3 percent) returns to the East River and/or Washington Gulch as snowmelt during the ensuing spring and summer months. The FEIS should provide additional information on how the average annual snowmaking numbers quoted above were arrived at. There is an apparent discrepancy between the annual numbers presented in the DEIS and the numbers included in diversion records provided to the Division of Water Resources. If the annual average snowmaking numbers need to be corrected, the FEIS should also consider how a revised average changes the system losses discussed in the DEIS. As noted in the DEIS, the ski area is permitted to draw down the East River to 6 cfs and 7 cfs during snowmaking. This bypass flow amount is a condition of the Special Use Permit. In the past, USFS personnel have questioned whether the bypass flow is protective of the East River fishery. As explained in Steve Pierce s letter CBMR Snowmaking- Minimum Stream Flow in the East River: Initial application by CBMR for a conditional decree of 6.0 cfs for snowmaking was formally opposed by USFS in 1981 on the reservation doctrine principle and by DOW on the possibility for adverse fishery impacts. After extensive negotiations the USFS dropped opposition to the application with certain conditions in place. The conditions included limiting the duration of the drawdown, payment of mitigation funds, and streamflow monitoring conditions, amongst other things. However, even after these conditions were added, concerns over the adequacy of the bypass flow have persisted. On January 21, 2000 John Almy, a hydrologist with the Forest Service, responded to an inquiry from Craig Magwire, former Forest Service ski area administrator, addressing several East River stream flow questions. See Attachment B. Almy was asked How was the minimum instream flow determined and is it accurate? and provided the following response: It appears to me that the minimum flows were not based upon a threshold for resource protection, but rather were calculated based upon the call on the East River from decrees, conditional and absolute, having priorities over the waters of CBMR pursuant to case number 81-CW-69, along with a prediction of flows during the winter months that was included by the Forest Hydrologist. In other words the 7 cfs is what was calculated to be left in the river after senior water rights holders calls have been met, plus the 6.0 cfs filed by CBMR in 1981. In a November 23, 1982 memo to the Taylor River District Ranger from Forest Biologist Fred Wild, the conclusion was reached that only 1/3 of the brown trout spawning habitat would remain if the flow in the river was reduced to 6 cfs. This suggests that the 7 cfs may not really be adequate. Also the fact that the state holds a 15 cfs minimum stream flow right suggests that the 7 was not sufficient. While this is all interesting the science of instream flows has progressed significantly in the last 15 years. If and when there is ever a need to rethink the minimum flow necessary to protect flow dependent resources then I would strongly suggest we essentially start from scratch. In 2003,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-27 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

Almy revisited this question and stated: A line officer needs to make a decision on what level of risk we are willing to assume regarding the possibilities of over-predicting actual flows when the 7 cfs threshold is approached. The same concerns originally raised by DOW (now CPW) and the USFS persist today. Indirect monitoring of the bypass flow remains challenging and snowmaking operations butt up against the bypass flow (and have in the past occasionally drawn the river down below these protections). Pumping operations draw down the East River to flows substantially lower than the State’s minimum flow protections on the East River; the 7 cfs bypass flow is less than half of the instream flow protected by the State of Colorado. The method that the State used to determine the 15 cfs minimum flow on this reach is called R2Cross. R2Cross is the standard Colorado Water Conservation Board method used to determine the minimum amount of water necessary to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. It is uncertain whether this bypass flow requirement adequately protects the East River aquatic environment. Given that the proposed action will have additional impacts on the East River flow regime, it is important to understand existing baseline conditions. Without such an assessment, the public and decision-maker cannot understand the current state of the affected environment or the potential environmental consequences of the project, and CBMR will be unable to monitor how expansion activities will impact the overall health of the watershed. Recommendation: The USFS should conduct a baseline characterization of river conditions at and below the East River pump house in the FEIS. The commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed, which in its discussion of instream flow agreements states, “As part of CBMR’s 1981 water court proceedings, CBMR entered into two instream flow agreements regarding diversions from the East River, one with the State of Colorado dated June 22, 1981 and one with the Forest Service dated June 25, 1981. The terms and conditions regarding CBMR’s snowmaking operations under its 1981 water right were similar in each of the two agreements. Generally, the agreements established a minimum bypass flow requirement in the East River as illustrated by the following language contained in the Forest Service instream flow agreement:

‘In order to maintain favorable conditions of water flow in the East River downstream of the proposed point of diversion of CBMR as decreed in case no. 81-CW-69, the parties agree that CBMR shall not divert more water from the East River than will permit 7.0 cfs of water to remain in the East River immediately below its point of diversion; provided, however, that during the month of December each year, CBMR shall be permitted to divert water from the East River in a quantity which will leave not less than 6.0 cfs of water remaining in said stream immediately below its point of diversion for a duration not to exceed 360 hours.’ To ensure compliance with the established bypass flow requirements, CBMR maintains a streamflow monitoring program approved by the Forest Service. Adherence to the required bypass flow and streamflow monitoring program would continue under the Proposed Action” (Final EIS p. 220).

Under the Proposed Action, CBMR would continue to operate its snowmaking diversions from the East River under the conditions stipulated in the two instream flow agreements. Furthermore, CBMR will maintain its historical target for the end of snowmaking operations before Christmas Day. Depending

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-28 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

upon natural snowfall and temperatures experienced during the snowmaking season, snowmaking operations may need to be extended by four to five days. Because minimum bypass and instream flows would not be reduced by the Proposed Action and an analysis of the effects of the minimum bypass flow requirement is outside the scope of this EIS, an assessment of the East River condition at and below the CBMR’s diversion structure was not included in the scope of this analysis.

12.5 Table 3K-8 (DEIS page 208) reports annual diversions. However, the diversions provided in Table 3K-8 do not match the diversion records provided to the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR). The table below compares the annual diversions provided in the DEIS to the annual diversions reported by DWR. (Table) The DEIS reports that “over the last five seasons CBMR has diverted an average of 266.4 acre feet per year of water from the East River” (DEIS page 207). When the DWR diversion records from irrigation years 2012 to 2016 are used to calculate the five-year average, the average water use is 358 acre feet per year. The 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 seasons appears to be the primary sources of discrepancy between the two datasets. We request that the USFS verify CBMR’s water use to assure that the FEIS reports the correct five-year average water use. If needed, related components of the water use assessment (e.g. depletions and return flows) should also be revised. It is unclear how the total diversions referenced by the commenter and available through the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) were calculated. The water rights water year calculated by DWR is based on irrigation use and runs from October through the following September. This does not correlate with the CBMR snowmaking season. In fact, it appears that the 588.2 acre feet shown for season 2012/13 actually combines two seasons. Some data shown in the DWR Resources table (available online via the DWR website and provided by the commenter) appears to be shifted by one year. For example, values provided for the 2012/13 season in Table 3K-8 of the Final EIS equals that provided by the Colorado Division of Water Resources for the 2013/14 season; this is the same case for the 2013/14 values in Table 3K-8 of the Final EIS compared to DWR 2014/15 values; and 2015/16 values in Table 3K-8 of the Final EIS compared to DWR 2016/17 values. To further clarify this discrepancy, it is worth noting that the values provided in Table 3K-8 of the Final EIS for the 2016/17 snowmaking season is the period of time from late October 2016 through early January 2017. The information provided in Table 3K-8 of the Final EIS were computed using data provided directly by the CBMR snowmaking manager, which the Forest Service believes is the best available data for the purposes of this analysis. (See Final EIS p. 212.)

12.6 Water Quality: The Final EIS analysis may benefit from simple clarifications regarding water quality, particularly related to the ER-I watershed. The ER-I watershed appears to have the most potential for project impacts. The WRENSS model predicts that peak flows under the proposed action would occur one week earlier compared to existing conditions for the ER-I watershed study section, and yield is expected to increase by 16%. These changes in water yields and peak flow rates are influenced by components of the proposed project. The Draft EIS states that most slopes of the 1,051-acre ER-I watershed are drained by ephemeral and intermittent stream channels, and that proposed ski trails and glades in the Teo Drainage area would be located in this watershed. Based on information on page 204 of the Draft EIS, only four watersheds contain perennial streams, and ER-I is not mentioned as one of them. Increased streamflows and sediment loads can result from implementation of tree clearing,

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-29 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

terrain grading, and snowmaking, which can degrade stream health regarding bank stability, percent of fine sediments, and density of woody debris (DEIS p. 204). We recommend that the Final EIS clarify whether the East River will ultimately receive these flows and confirm that there are no other perennial waters that will be impacted prior to flows reaching the East River. We also recommend that the watershed study areas are depicted on a map in the Final EIS to complement the brief descriptions included on pp. 199-200 of the Draft EIS. These two areas of clarification will increase understanding of the drainage areas and receiving waters related to the proposed project. The commenter is referred to the project area description of ER-1 included in Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed. No perennial streams were observed in the ER-1 watershed and are, therefore, are not mentioned in this discussion. Further, this section has been updated to provide the following details, as requested by the commenter, “Surface flows originating from the ER-1 watershed are intercepted by the Verzuh Young Bifano Ditch, which is a relatively large canal that often diverts greater than 20 cfs. The ditch diverts from the right bank of the East River and travels at a gentle slope along the lower elevations of the ER-1 watershed, intercepting surface flows conveyed by the ephemeral and intermittent channels that drain ER-1. The Verzuh Young Bifano Ditch irrigates fields located to the south of Mount Crested Butte” (Final EIS p. 204). Lastly, a map depicting the watershed study areas has been included in Chapter 6 of the Final EIS, as Figure 7. Project Area Water Resources.

12.7 The DEIS did not evaluate potential indirect effects, including erosion and debris flows, of the proposed ski area expansion on the East River. There are several significant diversions in the East River downstream of CBMR. In the short-term, increased sedimentation during the construction phase of the project may pose a risk to downstream water users. In the years following the proposed expansion, prior to full revegetation, large-scale decreases in vegetation cover may lead to increased sediment production which could create sedimentation issues for downstream water users (e.g. additional maintenance at other diversion structures). We request that the FEIS evaluate indirect effects of the proposed action on the East River. The Final EIS evaluates indirect effects to the East River and provides PDC and BMPs to mitigate their potential consequences. The commenter is referred to Table 2-2 of the Final EIS, which contains several PDC to protect soil and water resources, and to avoid or minimize erosion and sediment transport into the study watersheds’ streams and wetlands. Certain PDC are specific to the construction phase while others designed to mitigate impacts post-construction and during operation of the proposed projects. Correct design, implementation and maintenance of the BMPs for erosion and sediment control included in Table 2-2 will minimize sediment transport from the project area into downstream waters. Furthermore, Table 2-2 contains mitigation to improve existing drainage conditions including improvements to existing roads and associated drainage features. All design and mitigation measures related to the watershed resources are further explained in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file. For additional discussion regarding the methodology of assessing impacts to the East River, the commenter is referred to response to Comment 12.1.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-30 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

12.8 Further, it is important to note that in some cases the DEIS uses the term instream flow to refer to the minimum bypass flow. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) administers instream flow rights throughout the state of Colorado. The CWCB instream flow program uses a specific field method, R2Cross, and additional procedures to determine the flow rates necessary to protect the natural environment to a reasonable degree. R2Cross was not used to develop the minimum bypass flow included in the Special Use Permit. The minimum bypass flow was derived from a water availability analysis completed by the Forest Service. As such, the minimum bypass flow should not be referred to as an instream flow. The CWCB appropriated an instream flow for the East River from the confluence with Copper Creek to the confluence with Brush Creek on 6/3/1982 with flow rates of 25 cfs from May 1 to September 30 (summer) and 15 cfs from October 1 to April 30 (winter). We request that the FEIS use the correct terminology to refer to the minimum bypass flow. Additionally, we request that the Forest Service consider the winter instream flow right should the flow rate of the minimum bypass flow be evaluated in the future because the method used to develop the winter instream flow right better protects the natural environment than the minimum bypass flow. The Memorandum of Agreement between the Forest Service and CBMR refers to “minimum stream flows.” However, the commenter is correct that changing to “minimum bypass flow” would help to avoid confusion. Accordingly, this change has been made throughout Final EIS, which now references “minimum bypass flow” rather than “minimum instream flows.”

12.9 Snowmaking occurs during the winter when stream flows are primarily attributed to groundwater. Riparian plant communities depend on shallow groundwater in the river corridor. Increased diversions from the East River to support the proposed snowmaking expansion may alter groundwater dynamics in the East River downstream of the point of diversion. We request that the FEIS characterize the condition of the East River riparian corridor and evaluate how proposed changes may affect the condition of the riparian corridor. As is articulated in the Final EIS and throughout this Response to Comments document, the Proposed Action would not result in an increase in the instantaneous rate of diversions from the East River. As is required by existing instream flow agreements and its water rights, CBMR will continue to limit its snowmaking diversions from the East River to pumping rates not to exceed its decreed water rights of 6 cfs.

By continuing to comply with requirements of its instream flow agreements with the State of Colorado and the Forest Service, snowmaking diversions will not cause the East River to flow at less than the required minimum bypass flow. In compliance with these agreements, CBMR periodically conducts direct measurements of streamflow rate in the East River during the length of the snowmaking season. Based upon these periodic measurements, CBMR adjusts the pumping rate of its snowmaking system in order to ensure that the required minimum bypass is met. Accordingly, additional winter diversions of up to 28.7 acre feet will not cause streamflow elevations to drop below historic levels that have been maintained by CBMR. Compliance with current instream flow agreements and water court decrees will ensure that the Proposed Action will not adversely impact local and regional groundwater levels.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-31 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

12.10 Page 214, Snowmaking System Heading, Paragraph 1; Text identifies 6.8-acre feet of water to be lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses in association with the proposed new snowmaking. CBMR requests the FEIS make clear within all references to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and or other system losses that 100% of the snowmaking associated losses shall remain entirely within the natural hydrologic cycle. A better term for this loss may actually be redistribution. As, all losses are actually redistributed to other natural components of and within the hydrologic cycle. (E.g. Some of the losses will be redistributed to underlying groundwater resources, some redistributed to snowpack higher up in the East River Drainage, some redistributed to other areas of the Upper Gunnison and Colorado River watersheds, and some redistributed to other watersheds within, and possibly beyond, our state’s borders.) While the commenter highlights that snowmaking-associated losses would remain entirely within the natural hydrologic cycle, they also articulate that once water enters the evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration phases of the hydrologic cycle it is undetermined if this water will be redistributed to project area watersheds (the East River or possibly beyond our state’s borders). For all intents and purposes, this is analyzed as a “loss” of water rather than a “redistribution” of water as this portion of the hydrologic cycle becomes unquantifiable for the purpose of assessing project, and specifically local watershed, impacts. The information provided by the commenter is sound on larger geographic scale of the hydrologic cycle but cannot be used for the purposes of this analysis.

12.11 The snowmaking diversion is subject to a minimum bypass flow. The minimum bypass flow is defined as “CBMR shall not divert more water from the East River than will permit 7 .0 cfs of water to remain in the East River immediately below its point of diversion; provided, however, that during the month of December each year, CBMR shall be permitted to divert water from the East River in a quantity which will leave not less than 6.0 cfs of water remaining in said stream immediately below its point of diversion for a duration not to exceed 360 hours.” (DEIS page 215). Although, the DEIS discussed the minimum bypass flow requirement the DEIS did not evaluate whether the minimum bypass flow would be attained if snowmaking operations were expanded as proposed in the DEIS. We request that the FEIS evaluate CBMR’s ability to maintain compliance with the minimum bypass flow in the East River. The commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Section K – Watershed, which in its discussion of the Proposed Action Alternative’s snowmaking related impacts states, “CBMR’s East River snowmaking system and supporting water right are sufficient to support the additional 28.7 acre feet of diversions under the Proposed Action; however, CBMR’s pumping infrastructure located on the East River and water right is limited to approximately 6.0 cfs. Accordingly, CBMR’s instantaneous snowmaking diversion rate from the East River would remain at 6.0 cfs under the Proposed Action consistent with historic operations” (Final EIS p. 219). The Proposed Action would not result in an increase of instantaneous rate of diversions from the East River and CBMR will continue to limit its snowmaking diversions from the East River to pumping rates not to exceed its decreed water rights of 6 cfs. For a complete discussion of CBMR’s ability to maintain compliance with the minimum bypass flow in the East River the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 12.9.

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-32 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS

12.12 Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District (MCBWSD) diverts water from the East River, at a location immediately adjacent to the CBMR snowmaking diversion. MCBWSD recently initiated the planning process to expand the Mt. Crested Butte water treatment plant to meet future demands for drinking water in the Mt. Crested Butte service area. The Mt. Crested Butte Service area includes the town of Mt. Crested Butte, Crested Butte Mountain Resort and adjacent commercial and residential areas. Increased visitation to the ski area as a result of the proposed expansion relates to the need for increased drinking water supplies. Increased water production will result in additional water diversions from the East River. We request that the FEIS evaluate how the East River will be affected due to changes in water diversions and identify potential mitigation options to assure that the minimum bypass flow is attained in the future. The commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 4.6 and Comment 12.9 for information regarding CBMR’s water rights and minimum bypass flow agreements. The following text was added to the Final EIS, “Increased visitation as a result of the Proposed Action could result in increases in water use from facilities (restaurants, hotels, etc.) serviced by the Mt. Crested Butte Water and Sanitation District (MCBWSD). These increases would be required to meet the minimum bypass agreements specified in the MCBWSD’s water rights permit, and not CBMR’s” (p. 222).

12.13 CLIMATE CHANGE MAY EXACERBATE IMPACTS ON FLOW The DEIS provides an appropriate summary of anticipated impacts from climate change, but fails to describe how these changes could interact with project impacts to increase stress on the East River Watershed. As demonstrated in the DEIS and supporting documents, climate change is likely to create conditions that impact stream health. These impacts include: Earlier peak runoff, and reduced late season flows. Increased temperatures. Increased rain on snow events. A need for increased snowmaking in the future (due to increased temperature and less time when snowmaking conditions exist). If these climate impacts require CBMR to extend snowmaking operations, they could exacerbate the impact of additional withdrawals from the East River Watershed. These conditions could increase system snowmaking losses, change the timing of snowmaking needs, and impact the flow regime during time of pumping. Recommendation: The FEIS should assess how impacts from climate change might coincide with impacts from hydrologic changes due to the Proposed Action to increase impacts on the mainstem of the East River. Recent investigations suggest that long-term climate change will influence temperature and precipitation patterns in the Colorado River Basin, possibly resulting in changes to the volume and timing of annual runoff. This is articulated in Chapter 3, Section G – Air Quality and Climate Change of the Final EIS, which concludes that a decrease in the volume of annual streamflow is predicted, along with an earlier snowmelt season. Additionally, the Hydrology Report states that if global emissions of greenhouse gases continue at the current rate, the snowpack of the Colorado Rocky Mountains would decrease to approximately 74 percent of current snow-water equivalent average by the end of this century. (Hydrology Report p. 34) Although it is very difficult to accurately assess future streamflow conditions within specific watersheds, qualitatively it may be argued that an increase in temperatures could delay the start of snowmaking operations; possibly limit the hours of snowmaking production to the colder, night-

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-33 Appendix D. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS time hours; and potentially require that snowmaking operations continue into early January. However, because the Proposed Action does not seek to modify the existing instream flow agreements with the Forest Service and the State of Colorado, streamflows, and CBMR’s diversion patterns, on the East River, as a result of the Proposed Action, will continue to be as detailed within the Final EIS.

12.14 Climate change is discussed in the DEIS, but its specific effects related to the proposed project are not evaluated. Climate change is likely to result in lower stream flows, warmer temperatures, and altered patterns of precipitation. Will CBMR be able to maintain the minimum bypass flow given the proposed expansion in snowmaking area and permanent reductions in water supply? Will an increase in the length of the snowmaking season effect other water users? We request that the FEIS evaluate such effects. If climate change were to alter East River streamflows as suggested by the commenter, such as causing lower instream flows, warmer temperatures, and altered precipitation patterns, CBMR would still be required to continue to comply with all requirements of its instream flow agreements with the State of Colorado and the Forest Service. Snowmaking diversions will not cause the East River to flow at less than the required minimum bypass flow. As noted in the response to Comment 12.9, CBMR periodically conducts direct measurements of streamflow rate in the East River during the length of the snowmaking season. Based upon these periodic measurements, CBMR adjusts the pumping rate of its snowmaking system in order to ensure that the required minimum bypass is met. Compliance with current instream flow agreements and water court decrees has, and will continue to, ensure that downstream water users are not affected by CBMR’s snowmaking operations. Should CBMR identify in the future that a storage tank or pond(s) be necessary to produce a volume of snow to support operations, these facilities would undergo separate NEPA analysis. Refer to response to Comment 4.6 and Chapter 2, Section D – Alternatives and Design Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis for discussions regarding a snowmaking water storage tank and pond(s).

Crested Butte Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects Final Environmental Impact Statement D-34