STEAMBOAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

MAY 2018

USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin /Bears Ears Ranger District In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, largeprint, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. This institution is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Cover photo credit: Larry Pierce/ ABSTRACT

STEAMBOAT SKI RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

MEDICINE BOW-ROUTT NATIONAL FORESTS AND THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND HAHNS PEAK/BEARS EARS RANGER DISTRICT ROUTT COUNTY,

MAY 2018

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Russell Bacon, Forest Supervisor Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

For Information Contact: Erica Dickerman, Mountain Sports Ranger Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District 925 Weiss Drive Steamboat Springs, CO 80487 [email protected]

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the estimated environmental effects of projects proposed on Steamboat Ski Resort (Steamboat). Steamboat is located on the Routt National Forest in Routt County, Colorado, and operates in accordance with the terms and conditions of a special use permit that is administered by the Forest Service. The Proposed Action Alternative includes the following elements: expansion of Steamboat’s operational boundary; construction of the Rough Rider Learning Center including Bashor Gondola, Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant, several moving carpets, and replacement of the Rough Rider platter lift; improvements within the Bashor Bowl area, such as realignment and replacement of the Bashor , relocation of Mavericks , and expansion of Rabbit Ears Terrain Park; improvements within the area, including substantial trail improvements, construction of a patrol hut and restroom, and the addition of chairs to Pony Express chairlift; and development of the new Pioneer Ridge area, including glading and hazard tree removal, ski trail construction, and construction of the Pioneer Ridge chairlift. A non-significant project-specific amendment to the 1998 Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is also proposed to amend Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6.∗

Components of the Proposed Action Alternative are detailed in Chapter 2.

This FEIS discusses the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Alternative; alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternative; potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative; and best management practices and project design criteria. Two alternatives are analyzed in detail in this FEIS: Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action Alternative).

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

∗ USDA Forest Service, 1998 p. 13 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed projects 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 Forest Service (Forest Service). Therefore, these projects must be analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Action 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 (FEIS) in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Forest Service policy. It discloses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result with implantation of the Proposed Action Alternative or No Action Alternative. 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. SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The overall purpose of the proposed projects at Steamboat Ski Resort (Steamboat) is to address existing constraints and conditions and further improve the skiing experience. The projects would meet the following needs: • Improve Steamboat’s teaching terrain for beginner ability level guests to provide an effective and comfortable learning/teaching progression • Address operation inefficiencies and circulation of existing terrain • Provide additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings

The full text of the Purpose and Need is stated in Section 1.5. SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THIS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In addition to the Proposed Action Alternative, the required No Action Alternative is analyzed in detail within the FEIS. 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.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-1 Executive Summary

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE These projects are designed to address existing constraints and conditions and further improve the skiing experience of Steamboat. The Proposed Action Alternative includes the following elements, each of which are further defined in Chapter 2. All components of the Proposed Action Alternative are depicted in Figure 2-2, Figure 2-2a, and Figure 2-2b. Terrain • Steamboat’s ski area operational boundary would be increased by 355 acres to encompass additional Pioneer Ridge terrain that is present within Steamboat’s Special Use Permit (SUP) area • Thirteen traditional, cleared ski trails, ski-ways, and gladed ski trails would be constructed, totaling 121 acres. A ski bridge over Burgess Creek would also be constructed. • Mavericks Superpipe would be relocated and Rabbit Ears Terrain Park expanded. • Terrain improvements such as trail corridor enhancements, glading, and hazard tree removal would occur within the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas. • coverage would be increased by 53 acres, resulting in approximately 36.8 acre-feet of additional water diverted from the . Lifts • The Bashor Gondola would be installed on private lands between the base area and proposed Rough Rider Learning Center, and would be constructed to a design capacity of 2,400 people per hour (pph). • Up to three moving carpet surface lifts would be installed within the proposed Rough Rider Learning Center. Each would be constructed to a slope length of up to 250 feet and have a design capacity of up to approximately 600 pph per surface lift. • The existing Rough Rider platter lift would be replaced by a 1,200-foot Rough Rider chairlift, increasing the design capacity from 513 pph to 1,800 pph. • The Bashor chairlift would be replaced and realigned. The design capacity of this lift, located on private lands, would be increased from 1,200 pph to 2,400 pph. • Additional chairs would be added to the Pony Express chairlift to increase the design capacity from 1,200 pph to 1,800 pph. No ground disturbance would be required. • The Pioneer Ridge chairlift would be installed within the new Pioneer Ridge area. The chairlift would have a slope length of approximately 6,450 feet, and a design capacity of 1,800 pph.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-2 Executive Summary

Guest Services • The Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant, located on private lands, would be constructed at the top terminal of the Bashor Gondola and would have a seating capacity of 400 guests at one time. • A patrol hut and restroom would be constructed at the top terminal of the Pony Express chairlift. Comfortable Carrying Capacity • The Proposed Action Alternative would increase the comfortable carrying capacity (CCC) of Steamboat from 12,670 guests to 14,420 guests. Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment of Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6 • A non-significant and project-specific amendment to the 1998 Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan would remove the applicability of Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6 during the construction phase of the Proposed Action Alternative; the amendment would not apply to the operation or maintenance phase of the Proposed Action Alternative, or to future projects not included in the Proposed Action Alternative.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE In order to minimize potential resource impacts from construction and implementation of any approved projects, best management practices (BMPs) and project design criteria (PDC) have been incorporated into the Proposed Action Alternative. Table 2-1 in this FEIS lists these BMPs and PDC. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A scoping notice, dated August 19, 2016, was sent to 77 individuals and organizations. The scoping notice included a brief description of the Proposed Action Alternative, the Purpose and Need for action, and one illustrative map. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the proposal. A legal notice was also published in the Laramie Boomerang on August 24, 2016. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2016, which initiated the scoping comment period. A public scoping meeting was held on August 25, 2016 at the Steamboat Springs Community Center in the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Comments were accepted from the following sources: email, web submission, letter, public meeting, fax, and telephone. During the scoping period, the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears District of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (MBRTB) received seven comment submittals.

1 USDA Forest Service, 1998 p. 13

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-3 Executive Summary

All of the submittals were reviewed, and comments were extracted and categorized by resource or topic. These themes were reviewed by the interdisciplinary team (ID Team) on October 20, 2016. The ID Team used comment disposition codes to identify issues and to formulate potential alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternative in response to external (public and agency) and internal (MBRTB) concerns. The issues are addressed in Chapter 3.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018, initiating the DEIS comment period that remained open until March 5, 2018. Additional information was available on the MBRTB website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48246) 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 DEIS comment period, the MBRTB received 30 comment submittals. One comment was received following the close of the comment period. This comment was reviewed and processed; however, these commenters would not have standing to object as their comments were received outside of the 45-day comment period as initiated by publication of the NOA in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 2-3 found in Chapter 2 includes a summary comparison of environmental consequences, by resource, for the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative. Detailed information on affected environment and environmental consequences considered in this analysis can be found in Chapter 3.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-4 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 1.1 Document Structure ...... 1 1.2 Introduction ...... 1 1.3 Background ...... 2 1.4 Relationship to Previous Analyses and Approvals...... 4 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.6 Summary of the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 7 1.6.1 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 7 1.7 Decision Framework ...... 8 1.8 Public Involvement and Consultation ...... 9 1.8.1 Public Scoping ...... 9 1.8.2 Public Comment ...... 9 1.9 Issues Analyzed and Issues Dismissed ...... 10 1.9.1 Issues Selected for Detailed Analysis ...... 10 1.9.2 Issues/Resources Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ...... 16 1.9.3 Scope of the Analysis ...... 17 1.9.4 Actions ...... 17 1.9.5 Alternatives ...... 17 1.9.6 Impacts ...... 17 1.10 Consistency with Forest Service Policy...... 18 1.11 Other Necessary Permits, Licenses, Entitlements and/or Consultation ...... 19 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 21 2.1 Introduction ...... 21 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 21 2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 21 2.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 23 2.4.1 Rough Rider Learning Center ...... 23 2.4.2 Bashor Bowl ...... 28 2.4.3 Pony Express ...... 29 2.4.4 Pioneer Ridge ...... 31 2.4.5 Snowmaking ...... 32 2.4.6 Additional Implementation/Construction Activities ...... 33 2.4.7 Non-Significant Forest Plan Amendment ...... 34 2.5 Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria ...... 35 2.5.1 Mitigation ...... 45 2.5.2 Monitoring ...... 46 2.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 46 2.6.1 Raptor Nest Protection Alternative ...... 46 2.6.2 Proposed Action Alternative with One-Year Suspension of Raptor Timing Restrictions ...... 48 2.6.3 Alternate Pioneer Bottom Terminal and Operational Boundary Location ...... 48 2.6.4 Avoid Permanent Wetland Impacts in Bashor Bowl/ Rough Rider Areas ...... 49 2.6.5 Avoid Permanent Wetland Impacts with Modified Crux Blasting/Grading Project ...... 49

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement i Table of Contents

2.6.6 Avoid Permanent Wetland Impacts by Replacing Crux Blasting/Grading Project with Novice Ski Trail ...... 49 2.6.7 Remove Culvert and Grading from Trail F Stream Crossing Design ...... 50 2.6.8 Relocate Trail F to Avoid Stream Crossing ...... 50 2.6.9 Development of Sunshine 2 Chairlift and Terrain ...... 50 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 51 2.8 Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 53 2.9 Identification of the Preferred Alternative ...... 77 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 79 3.1 Recreation ...... 80 3.1.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 80 3.1.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 80 3.1.3 Affected Environment ...... 83 3.1.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 93 3.1.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 107 3.1.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 111 3.2 Social-Economic and Environmental Justice ...... 112 3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 112 3.2.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 114 3.2.3 Affected Environment ...... 114 3.2.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 125 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 129 3.2.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 130 3.3 Traffic and Parking ...... 131 3.3.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 131 3.3.2 Affected Environment ...... 131 3.3.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 136 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 143 3.3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 145 3.4 Visuals ...... 145 3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 145 3.4.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 146 3.4.3 Affected Environment ...... 157 3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 159 3.4.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 162 3.4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 163 3.5 Cultural/Heritage ...... 163 3.5.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 163 3.5.2 Affected Environment ...... 164 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 168 3.5.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 169 3.5.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 170 3.6 Air Quality and Climate Change ...... 170 3.6.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 170 3.6.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 171 3.6.3 Affected Environment ...... 171

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement ii Table of Contents

3.6.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 175 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 179 3.6.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 181 3.7 Botany, including Timber and Forest Health ...... 181 3.7.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 181 3.7.2 Affected Environment ...... 181 3.7.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 191 3.7.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 198 3.7.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 199 3.8 Fire and Fuels ...... 200 3.8.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 200 3.8.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 200 3.8.3 Affected Environment ...... 200 3.8.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 201 3.8.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 203 3.8.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 204 3.9 Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 204 3.9.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 204 3.9.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 204 3.9.3 Affected Environment ...... 204 3.9.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 219 3.9.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 231 3.9.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 236 3.10 Soils ...... 236 3.10.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 236 3.10.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 237 3.10.3 Affected Environment ...... 238 3.10.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 241 3.10.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 247 3.10.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 248 3.11 Hydrology ...... 248 3.11.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 248 3.11.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 249 3.11.3 Affected Environment ...... 252 3.11.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 263 3.11.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 269 3.11.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 273 3.12 Wetlands and Waters of the United States ...... 273 3.12.1 Scope of the Analysis ...... 273 3.12.2 Forest Plan Direction ...... 274 3.12.3 Affected Environment ...... 275 3.12.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 279 3.12.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 283 3.12.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 284 3.13 Other Required Disclosures ...... 285 3.13.1 Compliance with Other Required Disclosures ...... 286

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement iii Table of Contents

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 287 4.1 Preparers ...... 287 4.1.1 Forest Service Team ...... 287 4.1.2 Consultant Team ...... 287 4.2 Agencies, Organizations, Tribal Governments, and Persons Contacted ...... 289 4.2.1 Federal Government ...... 289 4.2.2 Tribal Government ...... 289 4.2.3 State Government ...... 289 4.2.4 Local Government...... 289 4.2.5 Local Media ...... 289 4.2.6 Other Organizations ...... 290 4.2.7 Individuals Who Commented During Scoping or Who Have Participated in the NEPA Process ...... 290 5. REFERENCES ...... 291 6. GLOSSARY ...... 303 7. INDEX ...... 313 APPENDICES Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment Appendix D. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement iv Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria ...... 35 Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Projects – Alternatives 1 and 2 ...... 51 Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences...... 53 Table 3.1-1: Lift-Served Terrain Distribution by Ability Level – Existing Conditions ...... 86 Table 3.1-2: Portal Capacity Analysis – Existing Conditions ...... 89 Table 3.1-3: Recommended Restaurant Seats – Existing Condition ...... 91 Table 3.1-4: Lift-Served Terrain Distribution by Ability Level – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 97 Table 3.1-5: Portal Capacity Analysis – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 104 Table 3.1-6: Recommended Restaurant Seats – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 106 Table 3.1-7: Lift-Served Terrain Distribution by Ability Level – Reasonably Foreseeable Future Conditions...... 109 Table 3.2-1: Steamboat Baseline Employment ...... 115 Table 3.2-2: Steamboat Baseline Employment by Season ...... 115 Table 3.2-3: Baseline Impact of Winter Visitation at Steamboat ...... 115 Table 3.2-4: Baseline Impact of Summer Visitation at Steamboat ...... 116 Table 3.2-5: Percent of Income Spent on Housing 2000, 2007, and 2015 ...... 118 Table 3.2-6: Race Within Routt County (2015) ...... 119 Table 3.2-7: Average Routt County Labor Force, 2011–2016 ...... 121 Table 3.2-8: Routt County Median Household Income and Percentage of Population below the Poverty Level, 2015 ...... 122 Table 3.2-9: Monthly Public Transportation Ridership in 2014–2016 ...... 124 Table 3.2-10: Impact of Winter Visitation at Steamboat – Alternative 2 ...... 129 Table 3.2-11: Impact of Construction – Alternative 2 ...... 129 Table 3.3-1: Existing Daily Vehicle Trips ...... 131 Table 3.3-2: 2016 AADT at Key Locations ...... 133 Table 3.3-3: Existing Daily Vehicle Trip Distribution Due to Visitation ...... 135 Table 3.3-4: Existing Parking Lots ...... 135 Table 3.3-5: Projected Daily Vehicle Trip Distribution Due to Visitation – Alternative 2 ...... 138 Table 3.3-6: Additional Daily Trips on Roadways Due to Visitation ...... 139 Table 3.3-7: Construction Trips for Tree and Debris Removal – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 142 Table 3.5-1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of Steamboat ...... 167 Table 3.6-1: Air Quality Assessment in Areas near Steamboat ...... 174 Table 3.6-2: Estimated Increase in 2026 Winter Season On-road Mobile Source Emissions Due to Projected Increase in VMT from the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 176 Table 3.6-3: Estimated Increase in 2026 Summer Season On-road Mobile Source Emissions Due to Projected Increase in VMT from the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 176 Table 3.6-4: Estimated Increase in 2026 Summer Season Non-road Mobile Source Emissions Due to Projected Increase in Non-Road Vehicle Population from the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 177 Table 3.6-5: Summary of the Maximum Estimated Increase in MOVES2014a Emissions Due to Projected Activities at Steamboat for 2026 ...... 178 Table 3.6-6: Summary of the Maximum Estimated Emissions from Pile Burning (35 piles) Due to Projected Activities at Steamboat for 2026 ...... 179 Table 3.7-1: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the Routt National Forest ...... 186 Table 3.7-2: Rare Plant Survey Results – Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species...... 189

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement v Table of Contents

Table 3.7-3: Rare Plant Survey Results – SOLC ...... 189 Table 3.7-4: Documented Non-Native Plants and Noxious/Invasive Weeds ...... 190 Table 3.7-5: Vegetation Cover Type Impacts ...... 193 Table 3.7-6: Summary of Direct Impacts to Rabbit Ears Gilia Occupied Habitat ...... 194 Table 3.7-7: Summary of Determinations for Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species ...... 196 Table 3.7-8: Summary of Indirect Impacts to SOLC under the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 197 Table 3.9-1: Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Wildlife Species ...... 205 Table 3.9-2: Summary of Yampa River Depletions at Steamboat – Existing Conditions (acre-feet) ...... 206 Table 3.9-3: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species for the Routt National Foresta ...... 208 Table 3.9-4: USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern ...... 214 Table 3.9-5: List of Routt National Forest MIS and Rationale for Excluding from Further Analysis ...... 219 Table 3.9-6: Depletions to the Yampa River Watershed ...... 220 Table 3.9-7: Region 2 Sensitive Species and Determination Summary ...... 222 Table 3.9-8: Cumulative Effects Depletion Analysis ...... 233 Table 3.10-1: Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areas ...... 239 Table 3.10-2: Bare Ground Related to Anthropogenic Causes ...... 241 Table 3.10-3: Disturbance by Type under the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 242 Table 3.10-4: Disturbance Acres by Proposed Activity under the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 242 Table 3.10-5: Direct Impacts to Soil Resource from the Proposed Action Alternative ...... 243 Table 3.10-6: Qualitative Mass Movement Potential Risk by Projects with Grading ...... 245 Table 3.11-1: Burgess Creek Watershed – Summary Description of Stream Channels ...... 252 Table 3.11-2: Burgess Creek Watershed – Baseline and Existing Conditions ...... 254 Table 3.11-3: Burgess Creek Watershed – WRENSS Model Output for Baseline and Existing Conditions (Average Year) ...... 255 Table 3.11-4: Comparison of Burgess Creek Watershed Yield and Peak Flows for Dry (1994), Average, and Wet (2006) Conditions ...... 256 Table 3.11-5: SVAP Stream Condition Ratings ...... 257 Table 3.11-6: Watershed Condition Classification ...... 257 Table 3.11-7: Stream Health – Metrics and Causal Mechanisms ...... 258 Table 3.11-8: Stream Health – Summary of SVAP Stream Health Element Ratings ...... 258 Table 3.11-9: Burgess Creek Watershed Roads and Trails – Existing Conditions ...... 260 Table 3.11-10: CDAs within the Study Watershed – Existing Conditions ...... 260 Table 3.11-11: Channel Length Increase – Existing Conditions ...... 260 Table 3.11-12: Scoring of Roads and Trails Indicator ...... 261 Table 3.11-13: WIZ Forested Areas – Baseline vs. Existing Conditions ...... 262 Table 3.11-14: Water Quality – Summary of SVAP Water Quality Element Ratings ...... 263 Table 3.11-15: Summary of Disturbance associated with the Proposed Projects ...... 264 Table 3.11-16: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Acreage of Forested Areas ...... 264 Table 3.11-17: Snowmaking Coverage and Associated Water Demands – Existing vs Proposed ...... 265 Table 3.11-18: Burgess Creek Watershed – Computed Water Yield and Peak Flows Estimated Change Relative to Existing Conditions ...... 265 Table 3.11-19: Comparison of Forested Areas in Burgess Creek Water Influence Zone ...... 267 Table 3.12-1: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S...... 276 Table 3.12-2: Qualitative Wetland Assessment Rankings ...... 277 Table 3.12-3: Summary of Functions and Values for Wetlands Overlapped by Proposed Project Locations ...... 278 Table 3.12-4: Wetland Impact Summary – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 279

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement vi Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map ...... 3 Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative ...... 22 Figure 2-2: Proposed Action Alternative ...... 25 Figure 2-2a: Proposed Action Alternative – Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl ...... 26 Figure 2-2b: Proposed Action Alternative – Pony Express/Pioneer Ridge ...... 27 Figure 3.3-1: Existing Traffic Representative of 2016 Conditions ...... 132 Figure 3.3-2: Approximate Trip Distribution of Vehicles Traveling to Steamboat ...... 134 Figure 3.3-3: Projected AADT, 2026 Conditions – No Action Alternative ...... 137 Figure 3.3-4: Projected AADT, 2026 Conditions – Proposed Action Alternative ...... 140 Figure 3.4-1: Critical Viewpoint 1 – Rough Rider/Bashor Area (3D Perspective – Existing) ...... 147 Figure 3.4-2: Critical Viewpoint 1 – Rough Rider/Bashor Area (3D Perspective) ...... 149 Figure 3.4-3: Critical Viewpoint 2 – Fish Creek Falls Road (Existing) ...... 151 Figure 3.4-4: Critical Viewpoint 2 – Fish Creek Falls Road (Simulation) ...... 153 Figure 3.9-1: Proposed Action Alternative and Raptor Nest Area ...... 213 Figure 3.11-1: Proposed Action Alternative and Water Resources ...... 253

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement vii List of Acronyms

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ADA Americans with Disabilities Act amsl Above mean sea level APE Area of Potential Effect AQRV Air Quality Related Value AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BEIG Built Environment Image Guide BMP Best Management Practice CCC Comfortable Carrying Capacity CDA Connected Disturbed Area CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CE Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet per Second CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CR -lineage CSCUSA Colorado Ski Country USA CWA Clean Water Act DAU Data Analysis Unit DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act EVC Existing Visual Condition ºF Degrees Fahrenheit FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Service U.S. Forest Service FSH Forest Service Handbook FTE Full-Time-Equivalent GB Greenback-lineage GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GRP Gross Regional Product ID Team Interdisciplinary Team

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement viii List of Acronyms

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments IPaC Information, Planning, and Conservation LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LOS Level of Service MAII May Adversely Impact Individuals MBRTB Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland MDP Master Development Plan MDPA Master Development Plan Amendment MIS Management Indicator Species MM Management Measure MOU Memorandum of Understanding MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator MPB Mountain Pine Beetle N/A Not Applicable NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act NASTAR National Standard Race NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NI No Impact NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NOA Notice of Availability NOI Notice of Intent PDC Project Design Criteria PEM Palustrine Emergent PFO Palustrine Forested ppb Parts per billion pph People per hour ppm Parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIR Supplemental Information Report SMS Scenery Management System SOCC Species of Conservation Concern SOLC Species of Local Concern Steamboat Steamboat Ski Resort SSRC Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation SST Steamboat Springs Transit SUP Special Use Permit

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement ix List of Acronyms

SAP Stream Visual Assessment Protocol TBD To Be Determined TES Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive ug/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VMS Visual Management System VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VQO Visual Quality Objective WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook WFDSS Wildland Fire Decision Support System WIZ Water Influence Zone WRENSS Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources YVHA Yampa Valley Housing Authority

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement x Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is organized into seven chapters, plus three appendices: • Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: 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 details how the United States Forest Service (Forest Service) informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter 1 also describes issues raised through the scoping process. • Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Alternative: Provides a detailed description of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2) that are analyzed in detail in this document. This discussion also includes alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study and best management practices (BMPs) and project design criteria (PDC). Finally, Chapter 2 provides a summary table (refer to Table 2-3) 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 of concern, and describes the environmental effects of implementing the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. 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 FEIS. 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 are included in this chapter. • Chapter 5 – References: Provides complete references for documents cited within this FEIS. • Chapter 6 – Glossary: Provides a definition of technical and non-technical terms used throughout this FEIS. • Chapter 7 – Index: Provides a list and page number of frequently used terms throughout this FEIS. • Appendices – Includes: (A) Cumulative Effects Projects, (B) Forest Plan Consistency Analysis for Forest-wide and Management Area 8.22 Standards and Guidelines, (C) Forest Plan Amendment Analysis, (D) Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS, and (E) Response to Comments on the DEIS.

1.2 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 Forest Service. Therefore, these projects must be analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 1 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

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 FEIS in compliance with NEPA and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS contains analyses consistent with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and Forest Service policy. It discloses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects on the human and biological environment anticipated to result with implementation of the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative. 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.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of Project Area resources, may be found in the project file located at the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears District office of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (MBRTB).

1.3 BACKGROUND Steamboat Ski Resort (Steamboat) is located on the MBRTB, adjacent to the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado (refer to Figure 1-1). Steamboat operates under a special use permit (SUP) administered by the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District of the MBRTB. The 1998 Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides general direction, including standards and guidelines, for the operation of Steamboat regarding its activities and operations on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The ski area’s SUP and associated summer and winter operating plans, as well as other resource management documents, provide more specific guidance for annual winter and summer ski area operations and projects.

According to the terms of its SUP, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation (SSRC) is required to prepare a Master Development Plan (MDP) to identify management direction and opportunities for future four- season management of the resort on NFS lands. The current Master Development Plan—the 2011 Steamboat Ski Area Master Development Plan Amendment (2011 MDPA)—was accepted by the Forest Service in 2013. Forest Service acceptance of the 2011 MDPA does not constitute approval for individual projects. The implementation of individual projects identified in the 2011 MDPA is contingent upon subsequent site-specific analysis/approval in accordance with the NEPA process.

This FEIS analyzes several projects identified under the Master Plan Proposals of the 2011 MDPA, including construction of the Rough Rider Learning Center and various trail improvements. Several additional projects, such as the Pioneer chairlift and Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restroom, were included in the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and other public scoping materials. Section 2.2 provides a full description of this project (refer to Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative). Contingent upon the NEPA process, implementation of any approved projects could potentially begin as early as summer 2018.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 2 ^

UV13

White River NF UV13

70 Rifle ¨¦§

White River NF 342 UV133 UV82

White River NF

Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity Map

Date: May 2018 Prepared By: 0 5 10 20 Miles [ Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS This FEIS is consistent with and incorporates by reference several documents that are related to the management of Steamboat on NFS lands, including:2 • 1998 Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Forest Plan) • 2011 Steamboat Ski Area Master Development Plan Amendment (2011 MDPA) • 2011 Steamboat Summer Trails Environmental Assessment • 2006 Steamboat Proposed Improvements Environmental Assessment • 1996 Steamboat Ski Area Expansion Environmental Impact Statement • 2015 Invasive Plant Management Environmental Impact Statement for the MBRTB 1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of the proposed projects is to address existing constraints and conditions and further improve the skiing experience at Steamboat. In the 2011 MDPA, SSRC extensively detailed a strategy with the purpose of improving winter recreation within their SUP area. Additional information to clarify and update elements of the strategy detailed in the 2011 MDPA was provided in a letter from SSRC to the Forest Service dated January 19, 2017.3 This letter is in the project file, and addresses a statement in the 2011 MDPA, that the Pioneer chairlift would not be needed in the “near future.”4 The letter updates and clarifies this statement as not describing the present needs and objectives for the Pioneer Ridge area, as SSRC has determined there is a need for the Pioneer chairlift and related elements that were not included in the 2011 MDPA. These elements include the Pioneer Pod, glading, hazard tree removal, and the Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restroom, and are further described in Section 2.2. Like those outlined in the 2011 MDPA, projects included in the subsequent letter from January 2017 would address existing constraints and conditions and further improve the skiing experience at Steamboat.

The projects would meet the following needs: • Improve Steamboat’s teaching terrain for beginner ability level guests to provide for an effective and comfortable learning/teaching progression • Address operational inefficiencies and circulation of existing terrain • Provide additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings

2 These documents are part of the project file for this DEIS and are available for review at the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District. 3 SSRC, 2017a 4 SSRC, 2011 p. IV-17

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 4 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

The existing conditions driving these needs are further described below. 1. Improve Steamboat’s teaching terrain for beginner ability level guests to provide for an effective and comfortable learning/teaching progression The Forest Service has identified the need to increase the quality and quantity of children’s facilities and teaching terrain, thereby maintaining Steamboat’s appeal as a family-oriented resort. Currently, Steamboat’s learning center facilities are all located within the lower mountain, and all ability levels descend through the beginner ability terrain on their way to the base area.5

The Christie Peak Express chairlift is a detachable six-passenger chairlift that contains a mid-offload station for beginners and is used for novice skiing as well as morning staging (i.e., skiers accessing the mountain at the beginning of the day). At the same time of day when maximum staging capacity is needed, morning ski school activity also begins, resulting in decreases in chairlift loading and staging capacity for the area.6 This affects both the learning experience, from longer lines due to the presence of staging skiers, as well as the experience of the staging skiers, from the presence of beginners and their loading and unloading difficulties.

This mixing of ability levels is intimidating for lower level skiers and is inconsistent with the type of recreational offering SSRC strives to provide. SSRC has explored expanding the teaching facilities; however, there is insufficient area to accommodate these facilities in the base area.

2. Address operational inefficiencies and circulation of existing terrain Several areas of Steamboat are currently affected by operational and circulation inefficiencies. Trail and infrastructure improvements within the SUP boundary, such as the installation and replacement of lifts and additional snowmaking coverage, are necessary to increase use of underutilized lifts and skier pods, and to increase the quality of trails and facilities, thereby meeting the increasing expectations of the local, regional, and destination skier markets.

Base Area In the base area of Steamboat, skier circulation and chairlift use is hindered by the entry and exit of guests combined with simultaneous use as teaching terrain. The base area of Steamboat is the single staging portal for the ski area and receives upwards of 16,000 skiers on peak days, and the existing Gondola is guests’ preferred access route to the upper mountain.7 On days with over 10,000 skiers, the line exceeds 15 minutes, and exceeds 35 minutes on peak days. These wait limits approach or exceed guests’ approximately 20-minute wait tolerance.

Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl Within the Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area, the narrowness of Boulevard and varying slope gradients create inconsistent skier speeds and difficult passing conditions.8 Short Cut is an important access route from mid-mountain to the base; however, inconsistent conditions on Short Cut inhibit skier traffic

5 SSRC, 2011 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 5 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

flow and curtail the use of Short Cut through the spring. Bashor chairlift, one of Steamboat’s oldest , is reaching the end of its operational life. The chairlift maze at the base terminal often experiences crowding from staging combined with pass-through skiers accessing Short Cut and Lower Mavericks Terrain Park. Mavericks Superpipe, which is located in a central location within Bashor Bowl, has experienced reduced skier utilization yet dominates the Bashor Bowl skiing terrain. Finally, the entire Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area contains aging snowmaking infrastructure as well as insufficient snow coverage on heavily trafficked and proposed terrain.

Pony Pod There is a need to widen and re-grade the Crux terrain, install snowmaking throughout the Pony Pod, increase the capacity of the Pony Express chairlift, reduce ski patrol response times by staffing ski patrollers within the Pony Pod, provide restroom facilities for staff and guests, and provide storage for patrol-related equipment. Overall, the Pony Pod offers challenging terrain, but inconsistent early season snow conditions, limited chairlift capacity, insufficient ski patrol facilities, and limited connection to nearby pods affect the utilization of the area. Skier utilization is reduced in early season due to variable natural snow, absence of snowmaking, and unfinished trail and chairlift improvements that were not completed at the time the Pony Pod was originally developed. In particular, the Crux is a major collector for the Pony Pod yet is very narrow and experiences inconsistent early season snow conditions.9 Skiers wishing to move to the adjacent Four Points Pod must exit the Pony Pod through BC Skiway to the base terminal of Thunderhead Express chairlift, and then ski from the top terminal of the Thunderhead Express chairlift to the Four Points chairlift or Storm Peak Express chairlift. Finally, the Pony Express chairlift was originally constructed at a capacity of 1,200 people per hour (pph), although approval at the time of construction allowed for a capacity of 1,800 pph.

3. Provide additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings The proposed new terrain within the Pioneer Ridge area of Steamboat is currently within the SUP area but outside its current operational boundary. Existing challenges within this area include the need for improved ski area boundary management, adequate entry and exit paths, and return routes to other mountain lifts. In addition, ski patrol rescue access and exit paths are insufficient, hindering ski patrol response.

Characterized by mixed forest with moderately spaced trees, this area of Pioneer Ridge is skied regularly by guests seeking off-piste conditions on powder days.10 These out-of-bounds skiers exit the operational boundary through established access points or, in some cases, by ducking boundary ropes. The portion of the Pioneer Ridge area beyond the current operational boundary is primarily skied by expert skiers; however, non-expert skiers frequently need to be rescued from difficult terrain and cliffs.

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. “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.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 6 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Currently, skier use of the proposed new Pioneer Ridge area ranges between occasional to heavy use depending on the terrain, presence and density of forested areas, and snow coverage. The upper portion of the area receives the greatest concentration of skiing; following large snowfall events, several hundred guests may ski the area and moguls will develop. The majority of these skiers traverse the upper portion of the area to return to the ski area; other skiers continue to ski the treed terrain until reaching Burgess Creek. From Burgess Creek, guests then side-step/hike up and out of the gully to BC Skiway, traverse BC Skiway to the base terminal of the Thunderhead Express chairlift, and then ski to the Pony Express chairlift. Skiers inexperienced with the terrain and exit routes often find themselves hiking considerable distances. On non-powder days, the area receives little use due to tree density as well as difficult access in and out of the terrain.

1.6 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The projects analyzed in this FEIS are designed to address the Purpose and Need described above. This FEIS was assembled to enable public and the Responsible Official to determine whether all, portions of, or alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternative will be approved for implementation on NFS lands within the Steamboat SUP area.

A summary of the Proposed Action Alternative is provided here, with a detailed description and figures presented in Section 2.2.

1.6.1 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The Proposed Action Alternative includes the following projects that 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. Consistency with the Forest Plan was determined through a Forest Plan Consistency Analysis. While the overall goals and objectives of the Proposed Action Alternative were determined to be consistent with the Forest Plan, the Forest Plan Consistency Analysis identified a potential inconsistency between the Proposed Action Alternative and Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4.7.

The proposal contains individual projects located in the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas of Steamboat. The Proposed Action Alternative includes the addition of the following recreation opportunities: • The Rough Rider Learning Center, which would include the installation of the Bashor Gondola, building of the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant (located on private lands), removal of the existing Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, installation of multiple moving carpet lifts, installation of a fixed grip or (Rough Rider chairlift), removal of the existing Rough Rider platter lift, construction of a new skier bypass from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center (Trail A), and grading and overstory vegetation removal for associated novice and beginner terrain. • Bashor Bowl, which would include replacement and realignment of the outdated Bashor chairlift (located on private lands), construction of two new ski-ways (Trail B and Trail C) from the

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 7 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

realigned Bashor chairlift top terminal, re-grading at the base of Bashor Bowl, expansion of the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park, relocation of the Mavericks Superpipe, and construction of a new novice trail connecting Yoo Hoo to Big Foot (Trail D). • Proposed improvements within the Pony Pod include enhancements to trail corridors through vegetation removal, grading, and rock blasting; increased capacity of the Pony Express chairlift by adding carriers to the existing chairlift; installation of winch cat anchors; construction of a ski- way from the junction of Lower Middle Rib and Chaps ski trails to the Storm Peak Express chairlift (Trail E); and construction of a patrol hut and restroom building at the top terminal of Pony Express. • Expansion of Steamboat’s operational boundary by approximately 355 acres to encompass additional terrain within the Pioneer Ridge area. This area would include a new fixed-grip or detachable quad chairlift (Pioneer chairlift); 95 acres of gladed skiing; 40 acres of hazard tree removal and vegetation management; a bridge over Burgess Creek and an associated collector ski-way (Trail F); and multiple gladed trails and egress routes to connect with existing and proposed terrain and facilities. • New and upgraded snowmaking infrastructure would be installed in existing and proposed terrain within the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, and Pony Pod areas. • The Proposed Action Alternative includes activities that are proposed in proximity of known active and inactive raptor nests. Therefore, a Forest Plan Amendment is included as part of the Proposed Action Alternative, to remove the Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6 temporarily during the construction activities near known raptor nests. As previously mentioned, a detailed description of these project components is presented in Section 2.2.

1.7 DECISION FRAMEWORK Based on Forest Service and external public scoping, and evaluation of the context and intensity factors contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1508.27, the Responsible Official determined that an EIS would be 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 FEIS is a disclosure rather than a decision document and its purpose is to provide sufficient environmental analysis to support a ROD.

Based on the analysis documented within this FEIS, the Responsible Official will decide whether to select the Proposed Action Alternative, the No Action Alternative, or a combination of the two alternatives. The Responsible Official is not required to choose either the action alternative or the No Action Alternative described herein but may select components of the action alternative or develop an entirely new alternative created from components of each. In addition to determining which alternative to select, the Responsible Official will determine any required PDC and BMPs. The Responsible Official may require additional PDC and/or BMPs not discussed within this document, as well as any monitoring requirements related to the selected alternative.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 8 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND CONSULTATION As is required by Forest Service NEPA regulations, public involvement will occur throughout the EIS process (FSH 1909.15 Chapter 11.5). Due to the nature of the Proposed Action Alternative, public interest and involvement is expected throughout the EIS process.

1.8.1 PUBLIC SCOPING A scoping notice, dated August 19, 2016, was sent to 77 individuals and organizations. The scoping notice included a brief description of the Proposed Action Alternative, the Purpose and Need for action, and one illustrative map. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the proposal. A legal notice was also published in the Laramie Boomerang on August 24, 2016. The NOI was published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2016, which initiated the scoping comment period. A public scoping meeting was held on August 25, 2016 at the Steamboat Springs Community Center in the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Individuals were able to obtain information and submit comments at this public scoping meeting. Scoping comments were also accepted through mail, fax, telephone, or email; or through the MBRTB website (https://cara.ecosystem- management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=48246).

In total, seven letters were received during scoping. All of the submittals were reviewed, and comments were extracted and categorized by resource or topic. These themes were reviewed by the interdisciplinary team (ID Team) on October 20, 2016. The ID Team used comment disposition codes to identify issues and to formulate potential alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternative in response to external (public and agency) and internal (MBRTB) concerns. Resource issues and indicators are identified herein.11

1.8.2 PUBLIC COMMENT A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018, initiating the DEIS comment period that remained open until March 5, 2018. Additional information was available on the MBRTB website and comment submissions were accepted via this website. During the DEIS comment period, the MBRTB received 30 comment submittals. One comment 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 45-day comment period as initiated by publication of the NOA in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018.

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

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 9 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.9 ISSUES ANALYZED AND ISSUES DISMISSED 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 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 (FSH 1909.15 Section 11.5, Section 12.4, Section 15.24; and 40 CFR §§ 1500.4 and 1501.7). This guidance directs the Forest Service to focus the analysis on key issues and include brief rationale for other topics not analyzed in detail.

1.9.1 ISSUES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS Each issue below 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.

1.9.1.1 Recreation Implementation of the proposed projects could impact recreational opportunities within the Steamboat SUP area. Additional trails and recreation opportunities should only offer experiences that address the stated Purpose and Need, providing previously unavailable opportunities to meet guest expectations. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area Indicators: • Discussion of skier circulation and congestion under existing and proposed conditions • Discussion of current and projected skier use in relation to access, dispersion, and egress in the Project Area • Quantification (acres) of current backcountry terrain and qualitative discussion of existing and proposed backcountry use in the Project Area • Quantification (acres) of existing and proposed terrain distribution in the Project Area and the ski area by ability level, in relation to the skier market and Steamboat’s specific client niche • Discussion of seasonal and year-round recreation opportunities at the ski area, quantification of year-round and seasonal visitation to the ski area and to the City of Steamboat Springs, and discussion of how alternatives meet market demands • Analysis of existing support facilities and comparison to proposed level of support facilities with anticipated skier volume

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 10 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

• Analysis of minimum number of safety employees to adequately manage the proposed area or ski area as a whole, which draws on other resort experience. Analysis that identifies whether the Proposed Action Alternative includes adequate safety measures and egress for emergency

1.9.1.2 Social-Economic and Environmental Justice Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter certain socioeconomic characteristics of Routt County or City of Steamboat Springs due to additional employees and their impacts within the community. Project Area: Routt County, Colorado Indicators: • Discussion of potential effects to socioeconomic indicators in Routt County, including: population, employment (part-time seasonal employment vs. full-time equivalents [FTEs]), city/county tax revenue, housing, affordable housing, wages, schools, use of public/social services, public transportation and visitor spending • Qualitative and quantitative discussion of available housing and affordable housing, including designated employee housing, in Routt County during both summer and winter seasons • Discussion of compliance with Environmental Justice and Executive Order (EO) 12898 1.9.1.3 Traffic and Parking Proposed projects may generate measurable increases in daily/seasonal visitation, thereby affecting traffic movement and volumes within the City of Steamboat Springs, on Highway 40, and on construction/maintenance access roads proximate to the ski area. In turn, this may impact other resource areas. Project Area: Primary roadway networks accessing Steamboat and parking areas Indicators: • Discussion of historic and projected traffic counts for roadway networks to access Steamboat • Comparison of anticipated traffic volumes with existing traffic volumes and the design capacities of roadway networks accessing Steamboat, including Burgess Creek Road • Quantification of existing and proposed parking capacity for day and destination visitors within Steamboat parking lots • Discussion of potential impacts from construction traffic and construction access routes • Discussion of how traffic and parking issues may impact other resource areas

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 11 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.9.1.4 Visuals Proposed projects within the Steamboat SUP area may be visible from the City of Steamboat Springs and/or within the existing ski area. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area and adjacent NFS and private lands Indicators: • Discussion of the existing scenic integrity in and around the Steamboat SUP area and potential changes to this condition • Discussion of potential impacts of lights during after dark events and activities • Narrative description of how proposed projects imitate landscape character • Discussion of identified critical viewpoints, including foreground visual simulations of project implementation in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider areas, and middleground visual simulations for the Pioneer Ridge area

1.9.1.5 Cultural/Heritage Implementation of proposed projects and associated ground disturbance may affect previously unidentified cultural and heritage resources. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area (Area of Potential Effect [APE]) Indicators: • Documentation of the presence or absence of identified cultural/heritage resources • Documentation of impacts to any eligible National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites 1.9.1.6 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. Project Area: Routt County, Colorado Indicators: • Narrative description of existing air quality in the Project Area, including population centers, Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity, and proximity to the City of Steamboat Springs PM10 Attainment Area • Discussion of compliance with local, state and federal regulations regarding air quality • Qualitative discussion of potential impacts to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) • Estimation of short-term and long-term emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including timber removal and traffic (including increased traffic associated with the anticipated increased annual visitation) • Narrative discussion of timber removal techniques (e.g., burning) and their potential effect on air quality in the region

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 12 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Climate change has the potential to affect the proposed projects; construction and operation of the proposed projects (including short-term construction-related activity, burning, and transportation related to timber removal) could result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other contributions to climate change. Project Area: Routt County, Colorado Indicators: • Discussion of the impact of climate change on the operations of Steamboat and the proposed projects • Qualitative discussion of potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed projects, during both construction and operation, and potential contributions to climate change • Discussion of climate change and ongoing and reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts relevant to Steamboat’s SUP area, based on U.S. Global Change Research Program assessments

1.9.1.7 Botany, including Timber and Forest Health Ground disturbance associated with construction and operation of proposed projects could affect plant communities throughout the Project Area, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species, MBRTB Species of Local Concern (SOLC), invasive plant species, and overall forest health. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area Indicators: • General discussion of vegetation types and forest health, including stand level vegetation types, species, and age class, as well as the presence of insects and disease • Identification and disclosure of and impacts to any federally listed threatened and endangered species, Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species, and MBRTB SOLC present in the Project Area • Quantification (acres) of permanent type conversion and discussion of changes to vegetation type • Quantification (acres) of proposed overstory vegetation removal and proposed ground-based vegetation removal, both total and within the water influence zone (WIZ) • Identification of noxious weeds present in the area and description of any potential for increasing noxious weed spread

1.9.1.8 Fire and Fuels Implementation of proposed projects, including pile burning, has the potential to affect fire behavior. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area Indicators: • Estimation of the amount and arrangement of residual fuels from each alternative • Discussion of compliance with Fire and Fuels Standard 1 for Management Area 8.22 under each alternative

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 13 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

• Analysis of management activity fuels to determine if treatment would reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease

1.9.1.9 Wildlife and Fisheries Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, could affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for federally proposed, threatened or endangered and/or Forest Service Region 2 sensitive (TES) fish and wildlife species, Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT), management indicator species (MIS), raptors, migratory birds, Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC), and SOLC, as well as big game species. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area and adjacent NFS lands Indicators: • Identification of federally listed, MIS, Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species, SOCC, SOLC, and migratory birds potentially present in the habitats of the Project Area, and describe field studies conducted to determine the presence or absence of these species • Quantification (acres or miles for fish) and qualification of existing wildlife habitat and proposed alteration, fragmentation, or removal of wildlife habitat, by species. Include specifically lynx diurnal security habitat, winter forage habitat, and denning habitat • Description of the existing environmental baseline by quantifying current use in the Project Area and compare to proposed conditions • Disclosure of effects to the above listed species, as well as raptors • Quantification and qualification of compensatory mitigation for impacts to lynx or other relevant species habitat, if necessary • Identification of impacts to elk, moose, and mule deer habitat with particular focus on the impacts to reproductive habitat. Describe the possible timing conflicts between elk/moose/deer movement corridors/concentration areas with operating season. Specifically outline seasonal timing restrictions for affected species with listed status • Discussion of the proposed projects’ potential to cumulatively impact habitat connectivity within the Steamboat SUP area and surrounding areas • Identification of impacts to aquatic species, particularly CRCT in Burgess Creek from effects from the proposed projects, especially in relation to water quality and stream health • Identification of potential impacts from proposed after dark activities

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 14 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.9.1.10 Soils 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. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area Indicators: • Discussion of soil conditions, including: bare ground analysis and intentional/unintentional bare ground, areas of slope instability and mass movement, and baseline inventory of soil organic matter • Analysis of increased erosion hazard, slope instability, and increased soil compaction due to temporary and permanent ground disturbance

1.9.1.11 Hydrology Implementation of proposed projects has the potential to impair stream and riparian health. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area Indicators: • Location of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels that are within the zone of construction, as well as quantification of width, substrate size, bank stability, and valley confinement • Discussion 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 WIZ impacts, within the context of the following stream health metrics: state water quality standards, bank stability, fine sediment, channel width/depth ratios, and longitudinal profile • Quantification of stream health through surveys that classify each channel, their function, and channel sensitivity to disturbance • Quantification and discussion of existing drainage concerns and treatment areas, including areas of rilling and gullying • 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) • Analysis of road and trail densities in the affected area • Quantification (acres) of ground disturbing activities located on highly erodible soils as it pertains to stream health

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 15 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

• Identification of any Clean Water Act (CWA) § 303(d) impaired or threatened waterbody segments in the Project Area • Narrative discussion of BMPs and PDC to minimize adverse effects to watershed health 1.9.1.12 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 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. Project Area: Steamboat SUP area Indicators: • Quantification of wetlands, groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs), and other waters of the U.S. existent within the Project Area (acres/linear feet); description of anticipated temporary/permanent, direct/indirect effects of impacts • Narrative description of wetland communities, classifications, functions and values, and species present; disclosure of anticipated temporary/permanent, direct/indirect impacts (acres/linear feet) to these characteristics • Description of compliance with EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 1.9.2 ISSUES/RESOURCES DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS The following resources or issues will not be analyzed in the FEIS, and rationale for their exclusion are presented in this section.

1.9.2.1 Noise All proposed projects would occur within the existing Steamboat SUP area. While the proposed projects would result in short-term noise associated with construction activities, such as use of helicopters for tower installation, long-term noise would primarily result from the operation of the proposed lifts and restaurant. Proximity of the lifts and restaurant to sensitive noise receptors, such as private residences, would be unchanged from current conditions. In addition, noise was not identified as a resource of concern during internal or external scoping. Noise will not be analyzed as a separate resource in this FEIS, but will be discussed in other resource sections as applicable.

1.9.2.2 Range Domestic livestock grazing is a historical use within the Routt National Forest; however, livestock grazing does not occur within the Steamboat SUP area, and there is a low potential for future livestock grazing in the area. Therefore, range resources will not be analyzed in this FEIS. In addition, noxious weeds, a common component of range resources analysis, will be analyzed under botany in Section 3.7.

1.9.2.3 Roadless Areas Steamboat’s SUP area does not contain roadless areas; therefore, roadless areas will not be impacted by the proposed projects and will not be analyzed in this FEIS.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 16 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.9.3 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered within this FEIS. Furthermore, it includes the spatial and temporal boundaries associated with the actions, alternatives, and impacts as the scope of the analysis relates to the Purpose and Need. A detailed scope of this environmental analysis is presented at the beginning of each resource section in Chapter 3. The Project Area is determined by individual resource analyses presented in Chapter 3 (e.g., the Hydrology Project Area is spatially different from the Wildlife Project Area). The Project Area is specific to the project location and is related to area of direct impacts. Contingent upon approval, construction of proposed projects could begin as early as 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.12

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

1.9.5 ALTERNATIVES • No Action Alternative • Proposed Action Alternative • Other reasonable courses of action identified in response to substantive issues • Mitigation measures (not in the Proposed Action Alternative) 1.9.6 IMPACTS • Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place • Indirect impacts are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the life of the project) • Cumulative impacts are the result of the incremental effects of any action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over an extended period of time

12 40 CFR § 1508.25

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 17 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.10 CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY SSRC operations carried out on NFS lands must comply with management direction provided in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan includes twenty separate Management Area Prescriptions for different portions of the Forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and anticipated future conditions. All components of the Proposed Action Alternative fall within Management Area 8.22 Ski Based Resorts (Existing/Potential), which directs: “Ski runs will be designed to blend and harmonize with the natural terrain. Recreation facilities, such as buildings, lifts, and groomed trails, will be evident. At the base development, services and facilities will be designed to complement the overall forest setting and will serve the needs of forest visitors. Opportunities to experience solitude will be very limited during the winter sports season.

Changes to vegetation composition and structure will result in forested areas interspersed with openings of varying widths and shapes. Forested acres will be managed for esthetics and recreation and for their resistance to windthrow, fire, and insect and disease infestation. Artificial openings and other disturbed areas will be revegetated and maintained with drainage structures to protect soil productivity and minimize erosion.

Opportunities to view wildlife and their habitat will be available throughout the year, but may be limited by the amount of recreational use. Habitat for sensitive species may be enhanced where opportunities exist, but the focus will be on protection and maintenance.

Livestock may be present during the summer. Forest Service and permittee objectives will be met within the development boundary. Rangeland vegetation will occur in a mix of seral stages but will predominantly be in upper mid seral to late seral stages of development.

The road system will be developed and maintained by the permittee. These roads will be subject to seasonal closure. Only permitted motor-vehicle use will be allowed. The trail system may include trails designed for hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and ski touring. Trails will be designed and maintained for heavy seasonal use. All trails will be closed to summer and winter motorized use, expect by permit. Forest trailhead will be maintained, both on private and public land, to provide and encourage easy access to forest lands. Trail signs will be consistent with the ski area sign plan.”13

As part of this analysis, the Alternatives and Purpose and Need were reviewed to determine consistency with the Forest-wide Goals and Objectives, as well as the specific Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 8.22. The action alternative was compared against pertinent Forest-wide and Management Area standards and guidelines; inconsistencies were identified for Threatened,

13 USDA Forest Service, 1998

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 18 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6. The Forest Plan Amendment is discussed in detail in Section 2.2.

1.11 OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION The Forest Service decision would apply only to NFS lands analyzed within this FEIS and would not apply to private property surrounding the SUP area or inholdings within the SUP area. However, other federal, state, and local entities would also have jurisdiction. Specifically, those portions of the project that are proposed on private land would be subject to City of Steamboat Springs regulations. Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this FEIS. While the Forest Service assumes no responsibility for enforcing laws, regulations, or policies under the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies, Forest Service regulations require permittees to abide by applicable laws and conditions imposed by other jurisdictions. In addition to requisite Forest Service approvals, consultation with the following entities, or permits, may be required to implement any approved projects: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CWA Section 404 • State of Colorado, Stormwater Management Plan • State of Colorado, Burn Permit.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 19 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 20 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes the alternatives considered within this environmental analysis and briefly summarizes the environmental consequences anticipated to result with the implementation of each. As required by the CEQ, the alternatives considered are presented in comparative form.14 This chapter also identifies PDC and BMPs that are designed to lessen or avoid impacts anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.

NEPA requires that an environmental analysis examine a range of alternatives that are reasonably related to the purpose of the project.15 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 (refer to Section 2.6).16

The issues raised during the scoping process (refer to Section 1.9) were utilized as the basis for determining the need for alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternative.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL In addition to the Proposed Action Alternative, the required No Action Alternative is analyzed in detail within this FEIS.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action Alternative, required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR § 1502.14(d)), provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternative. The No Action Alternative essentially reflects a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. Improvements to the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas of Steamboat would not be approved under the No Action Alternative. Detailed descriptions of existing on-mountain facilities, operations, and opportunities relative to the Proposed Action Alternative are provided in Section 3.1.3. Projects at Steamboat 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 2-1.

14 40 CFR § 1502.14 15 40 CFR § 1505.1(e) 16 40 CFR § 1502.14(a)

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 21 Priest Creek Lift Sundown Express

Bar UE

Four Points

Pony Express Storm Peak Express Elk Head

Burgess Creek

Thunderhead Express

Gondola

Bashor

VooDoo

Christie Peak Express

Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement

Christie lll

Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative Preview

Existing

SUP Boundary Lifts [

Roads Operational Boundary Steamboat Ski Resort Date: May 2018 0 375 750 1,500 ' Prepared By: Base Area Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE The projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative 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 contains individual projects located in the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas of Steamboat. The overall Proposed Action Alternative is depicted in Figure 2-2. Individual projects within the areas of Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl are depicted in detail in Figure 2-2a, and individual projects within the areas of the Pony and Pioneer Ridge pods are depicted in detail in Figure 2-2b.

The Proposed Action Alternative description includes projects located on NFS and private lands. The description explicitly states which projects are located entirely or partially on private lands. Those projects located on private lands are analyzed in this FEIS as “connected actions” (refer to Section 1.9.4) however, the Responsible Official does not have the jurisdiction to authorize those projects that occur on private lands.

2.4.1 ROUGH RIDER LEARNING CENTER Forest Service proposes to authorize SSRC to construct the Rough Rider Learning Center. Creation of the Rough Rider Learning Center would include the installation of a gondola (Bashor Gondola, located on private lands), construction of the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant (located on private lands), removal of the existing Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, installation of multiple moving carpet lifts, installation of a fixed grip or detachable chairlift (Rough Rider chairlift), removal of the existing Rough Rider platter lift, construction of a new skier bypass from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center (Trail A), and grading and overstory vegetation removal for associated novice and beginner terrain. Details regarding these improvements are provided in the subsections below. Details regarding proposed snowmaking are provided in Section 2.4.5. The proposed Rough Rider Learning Center projects are depicted in Figure 2-2a.

2.4.1.1 Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant Designed for both winter and summer use, the proposed Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would be located at the top terminal of the proposed Bashor Gondola on private lands. For purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the facility would be constructed with a footprint of approximately 8,000 square feet; however, the final design would be subject to design regulations, review, and approval by the City of Steamboat Springs. This facility would include a children’s ski school, restaurant with a seating capacity of approximately 400 guests at one time, small retail shop, special events area, and storage. Construction of this facility would require the removal of the existing Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities and would require grading and ground disturbance for foundation work and access.

Utilities required for the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would include sewer, potable water, and electric. A sewer line would be trenched east of the proposed facility and tie into the existing sewer line that currently services the Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, both of which would be removed

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 23 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action as part of the proposed project. Prior to connecting to the existing sewer line, the capacity and condition of the line would be evaluated and upgraded if necessary. Potable water and electric would be provided to the proposed facility from trenched utility lines originating on NFS lands from the Thunderhead Express chairlift bottom terminal parking area.

2.4.1.2 Bashor Gondola, Rough Rider Chairlift, and Carpet Lifts With the creation of teaching terrain in the Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area, a low skill level chairlift would be required to transport guests from the base area to the Rough Rider Learning Center. Located on private lands, the proposed Bashor Gondola would reduce skier traffic congestion at the base area by transporting up to 2,400 pph to the Rough Rider area. In addition to normal ski season operating hours, the gondola would operate during the evening hours in both winter and summer seasons and would operate at full capacity for ski school use during the peak morning hours. Grading and ground disturbance would be required for gondola construction. The lower terminal would be located on private land owned by SSRC and situated either within a building to be constructed as part of the future base area redevelopment or on a suitably flat area around the terminal. The upper terminal would require less area for staging but may require greater cuts and fills in order to achieve the necessary unloading configurations.

Along the proposed Bashor Gondola alignment (located on private lands), trees and brush would be cut and towers with concrete foundations installed between the bottom and upper terminal at varying intervals based on topography and engineering constraints (refer to Figure 2-2a). The construction area around the tower foundations, where soils would most likely be disturbed, are typically 30 feet by 30 feet in size but would vary based on ground conditions. Towers would be constructed using a track hoe or similar equipment, which would be driven across natural terrain that has been cleared of trees and brush. Construction access roads are typically not created for new chairlift tower installation and are usually installed via helicopter or use of existing roads.

A proposed new fixed-grip or detachable chairlift, identified as the Rough Rider chairlift, would replace an existing platter lift and provide round-trip skiing in Rough Rider Basin. The improved Rough Rider chairlift would be approximately 1,200 linear feet, constructed to a capacity of 1,800 pph, and operate at a speed of approximately 350 feet per minute to provide comfortable loading and unloading for beginners. Construction methods would be similar to those described for the Bashor Gondola. Overstory vegetation removal and grading would occur in the area of the proposed chairlift to provide adequate skier circulation and teaching/learning space.

Several new moving carpets (surface lifts) would be installed immediately adjacent to the Bashor Children’s Facility building for use by novice and beginner students. These surface lifts would be approximately 200 to 250 feet long and designed to provide a learning progression from beginner to novice. Spot grading and vegetation removal would occur in limited areas to smooth terrain irregularities and provide adequate skier circulation and teaching/learning space.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 Priest Creek Lift Sundown Express

Patrol Hut & Restroom !

Bar UE

Four Points

Pony Express Storm Peak Express Elk Head

Pioneer Chairlift

Burgess Creek

The Crux

Burgess Creek Bridge !

Thunderhead Express

Rough Rider Learning Center Gondola

Rough Rider

Steamboat Ski Resort Bashor Relocation

Environmental Impact Statement ! Bashor Gondola Figure 2-2: Proposed Action Alternative

VooDoo

Bashor Children's Christie Peak Express Existing Facility & Restaurant Lifts Ski Trails

Roads Ski Trail Enhancements

SUP Boundary Glading

Proposed Hazard Tree Removal

Christie lll Lifts Rock Blasting Preview

Lift Upgrades Snowmaking Coverage

Operational Boundary Lift Removal ! Facilities & Infrastructure

Roads [ Steamboat Ski Resort Date: May 2018 0 375 750 1,500 ' Prepared By: Base Area H

e

a

v

e

n

l

y

D

a

z

e Trail A Big Foot Main Drag

Bo ule va rd Thunderhead Express

Trail D Giggle Rough Rider Gulch Main Drag/ Trail B e l d d i

r M pe p o U o h lc H

u o

G o e Y gl ig Rough Rider G Trail C 3 Learning Center

2 Bashor Relocation Mavericks Superpipe

Surface Gondola Lift 1

Bashor Removed !

Bashor Children's r

e Facility & Restaurant

w o

L

h

c

l e u u

G g

o e l V

g e g i

M

G VooDoo

e

e

S S h o r Christie Peak Express t C u t

Steamboat Ski Resort Christie lll

Environmental Impact Statement Bashor Gondola

Figure 2-2a: Proposed Action Alternative Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl

Existing Proposed

Lifts Lifts

Roads Lift Upgrades

SUP Boundary Lift Removal

Roads Christie Peak Express Ski Trails

0 125 250 500 ' Snowmaking Coverage

[ Operational Boundary Date: May 2018. Prepared By: ! Facilities & Infrastructure

Patrol Hut & Restroom !

L Bar UE o n g h o rn U M p p i d e d r

l e Upper SPX Ri Connector b

U

p p e r

Pony Express

Pioneer Chairlift L

o Storm Peak Express n g h o rn

Mi L dd o le s R w ib p e M a r i M dd h C le i d

d

l

e

R

ib

L Trail E o w

e The Crux r

Trail H Lower SPX Connector

Trail G t ria La

Trail F Burgess Creek Bridge

BC Ski Way !

Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-2b: Proposed Action Alternative Pony Express/Pioneer Ridge

Existing

Lifts Ski Trails

Roads Ski Trail Enhancements

SUP Boundary Glading ! Proposed Snowmaking Coverage

Lifts Rock Blasting

Lift Upgrades Hazard Tree Removal

Roads Operational Boundary

! Facilities & Infrastructure [

Date: May 2018 0 250 500 1,000 ' Prepared By: Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.4.1.3 Ski Trail A and Boulevard Re-grading A new skier bypass (Trail A) would be constructed from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center. This bypass would improve Learning Center access for beginners, as well as allow more experienced skiers to bypass the Learning Center as they move toward Thunderhead Express. Re-grading of Boulevard would incorporate the portion of Main Drag between Heavenly Daze and Big Foot into Boulevard. The remainder of Main Drag would be reclaimed.

2.4.2 BASHOR BOWL Proposed improvements within Bashor Bowl include replacement and realignment of the outdated Bashor chairlift (located on private lands), construction of two new ski-ways (Trail B and Trail C) from the realigned Bashor chairlift top terminal, re-grading at the base of Bashor Bowl, expansion of the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park, relocation of the Mavericks Superpipe, and construction of a new novice trail connecting Yoo Hoo to Big Foot (Trail D). As part of the development proposed within Bashor Bowl, it is anticipated that relocation, reclamation, and/or abandonment of disc golf, bike trails, and National Standard Race (NASTAR) race shacks would occur. Additional NASTAR race shacks and associated utility lines may be installed within the areas of proposed disturbance. SSRC would be responsible for modifying or realigning NFS trails that are disturbed by the proposed projects. Details regarding these improvements are provided in the subsections below. Details regarding proposed snowmaking are provided in Section 2.4.5. The proposed Bashor Bowl projects are depicted in Figure 2-2a.

2.4.2.1 Bashor Chairlift Replacement and Realignment The Bashor chairlift is located on private lands, is one of SSRC’s oldest chairlifts, and is nearing the end of its operational life. Replacement of the chairlift also provides an opportunity to realign the chairlift to accommodate greater utilization of surrounding terrain and resolve circulation issues experienced with the current alignment.

The existing Bashor chairlift would be removed and replaced with a fixed-grip or detachable quad chairlift approximately 1,500 feet in length with a capacity of 2,400 pph. The new chairlift would be repositioned to the east in order to provide better service to the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park. Additionally, the realignment would help serve the surrounding beginner skier terrain and through-traffic. The top terminal would be moved to a higher elevation, allowing skiers to more easily access Big Foot, the new novice Trail D described below in Section 2.4.2.4, and Giggle Gulch, located north and east of the chairlift. On the west side of the chairlift, the realignment would allow easier access to Vogue.

Realignment and replacement of the chairlift would require the decommissioning of the existing top terminal access road, which would be re-graded and reclaimed, and construction of a new access road, which would also serve to create two new ski-ways emanating eastward (Trail B) and westward (Trail C) from the top terminal. A portion of the existing Yoo Hoo summer route through Bashor Bowl would be re-graded and a new summer road would be constructed from See Me to Big Foot. The bottom terminal would be relocated to keep both the terminal and the maze out of through-traffic and separate the Giggle Gulch through-traffic from Bashor Bowl return-cycle ski traffic.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 28 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Construction of the Bashor chairlift would be similar to that described in Section 2.4.1.2 for Bashor Gondola. In addition, grading at the base of the existing Bashor chairlift would be conducted to reform the hill and create a more uniform slope, thereby reducing skier circulation interruption and improving functional use of Bashor Bowl. Approximately 43,000 cubic yards of soil is anticipated to be removed as part of the Bashor chairlift base terminal construction. Removed material would be used up-slope of the Bashor chairlift to fill the depression left by the relocation of Mavericks Superpipe, or used as part of other projects within the Bashor Bowl area.

2.4.2.2 Rabbit Ears Terrain Park Expansion To reduce crowding and increase utilization within the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park, the regrading would extend the terrain park and tie into the new eastern ski-way emanating from the top terminal of the realigned Bashor chairlift (Trail B). Expanding Rabbit Ears Terrain Park would require grading of the area. Terrain park features and equipment would require minor fabrication, maintenance, and seasonal storage; SSRC would construct a small storage building and gravel pad near the terrain park to address these needs.

2.4.2.3 Mavericks Superpipe Relocation The Mavericks Superpipe is located on private lands in a central location within Bashor Bowl. In response to reduced skier utilization of the terrain park feature, SSRC would relocate the Mavericks Superpipe, thus improving the circulation and use of the overall Bashor Bowl skiing terrain. The existing topography would be regraded, using soil from the Bashor chairlift construction as much as possible, into a smooth, skiable slope consistent with the adjacent terrain. A site for the relocation has not yet been identified; however, the site and all ground disturbance associated with the project would occur entirely on private lands.

2.4.2.4 Novice Ski Trail D To provide terrain for novice skiers transitioning from the proposed Rough Rider Learning Center to Bashor Bowl, SSRC would construct a new novice ski trail (Trail D). This trail, which would be approximately 950 feet long, would connect from Yoo Hoo near the intersection with Big Foot and continue to Giggle Gulch east of the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park.

2.4.3 PONY EXPRESS The Pony Pod, located on NFS lands, offers challenging terrain but is often underutilized due to inconsistent early season snow conditions, expert trails with complex fall lines and rock outcroppings, and the need for substantial trail improvements such as grading and tree thinning to increase use. Proposed improvements within the Pony Pod include: enhancements to trail corridors through vegetation removal, grading, and rock blasting; increased capacity of the Pony Express chairlift by adding carriers to the existing chairlift; installation of winch cat anchors; construction of a ski-way from the junction of Lower Middle Rib and Chaps ski trails to the Storm Peak Express chairlift (Trail E); and construction of a patrol hut and restroom building at the top terminal of Pony Express. The proposed trail enhancements and the addition of snowmaking would allow for better designed and more reliable trail conditions, improved operational efficiency, increased skier utilization, and improved skier

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 29 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

experience. Details of these proposed projects are provided in the subsections below. Proposed snowmaking is discussed in Section 2.4.5. The proposed Pony Pod projects are depicted in Figure 2-2b.

2.4.3.1 Trail Corridor Enhancements Several trails would be renovated to increase the utilization of the Pony Pod and enhance skiability. Anticipated trail renovations include portions of Longhorn, Middle Rib, and the Crux. Portions of Longhorn would be widened, and portions of Longhorn and Middle Rib would be re-contoured in areas severely off fall line and containing rock obstructions to facilitate snow grooming. The Crux, the major collector for the Pony Pod, would be regraded and is anticipated to require rock blasting. Additional enhancements would include select tree removal and mowing. Individual winch points, fixed anchor points that enhance the safety and efficiency of grooming steep trails, would be field selected and installed, requiring ground disturbance at these locations. Snowmaking is discussed in Section 2.4.5.

2.4.3.2 Increase Pony Express Chairlift Capacity The Pony Express chairlift was originally constructed at a capacity of 1,200 pph, although approval at the time of construction allowed for a capacity of 1,800 pph. To accommodate the increased use of the Pony Express chairlift anticipated to occur from the proposed trail corridor enhancements and development of the new Pioneer Ridge area, SSRC proposes to add an additional 27 chairs to the existing chairlift to increase chairlift capacity to the previously approved capacity of 1,800 pph. No grading or other surface disturbance is anticipated to be required.

2.4.3.3 Patrol Hut and Restroom To reduce ski patrol response time and provide additional manpower and equipment in the Pony Pod, a ski patrol hut and restroom would be constructed and maintained at the top terminal of the Pony Express chairlift, which is currently occupied by a temporary yurt. This patrol hut would act as a satellite station for ski patrol during day operations for six to ten people, as well as supplementing search and rescue needs both within the SUP boundary and out-of-bounds areas. Storage for ski patrol and lift operations would be included, as would restrooms for ski patrol, lift operations, and the public as needed. Potable water would be hauled by SSRC to the patrol hut and either composting toilets or a leach field would be installed for the operation of the restroom facilities. No potable water or sewer lines are proposed.

Final design and construction of the facility would adhere to scenery PDC included in Table 2-1.

2.4.3.4 Ski Trail E In order to improve access between the Pony Express and Storm Peak chairlift areas and increase utilization of the Pony Pod, a ski-way would be constructed from the junction of Lower Middle Rib and Chaps ski trails to the Storm Peak Express chairlift (Trail E). Tree and vegetation removal is described in further detail in Section 2.4.6.2.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 30 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.4.4 PIONEER RIDGE The proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain is currently inside SSRC’s SUP boundary but outside the operational boundary. The proposed Pioneer Ridge projects are depicted in Figure 2-2b. It is used by a considerable number of skiers who choose to leave the current operational boundary through established access points or by ducking boundary ropes. Existing challenges within this area include the need for improved ski area boundary management, adequate entry and exit paths, and return routes to other mountain lifts. On days with variable snow conditions, the area receives less use due to tree density as well as difficult access in and out of Pioneer Ridge. Skiers inexperienced with the terrain and exit routes often find themselves hiking considerable distances or becoming lost and needing rescue. In addition, ski patrol rescue access and exit paths are in some cases difficult to use or insufficient, hindering ski patrol response.

To meet the needs and expectations of Steamboat’s guests and provide a more broadly accessible and safer skiing experience in Pioneer Ridge, SSRC proposes to expand the operational boundary by approximately 355 acres to encompass additional terrain within Pioneer Ridge; construct a new fixed- grip or detachable quad chairlift (Pioneer chairlift); create 95 acres of gladed skiing; conduct 40 acres of hazard tree removal and vegetation management; install a bridge over Burgess Creek and construct an associated collector ski-way (Trail F); and define multiple gladed trails and egress routes to connect with existing and proposed terrain and facilities. SSRC is not proposing snowmaking within the new Pioneer Ridge area as part of this Proposed Action Alternative. Details of these proposed projects are provided below.

2.4.4.1 Pioneer Chairlift To serve the expanded Pioneer Ridge area, SSRC would construct the 6,450-foot-long fixed-grip or detachable Pioneer chairlift with a capacity of approximately 1,800 pph. A maintenance bay would be constructed at either the upper or lower terminal, which would be determined during the final chairlift design phase. Construction methods would be similar to the methods described in Section 2.4.1.2 for the installation of the proposed Bashor Gondola, including the clearing of vegetation along the chairlift alignment. Utilities would be provided to the upper terminal along the existing access road originating at the upper terminal of Pony Express to the upper terminal of the Pioneer chairlift; this existing access road would need to be regraded and gravel applied as part of the proposed project. To provide construction access the bottom chairlift terminal, as well as the proposed Burgess Creek Bridge, an access road/ski trail (Trail G) would be constructed originating from Lariat and connecting to the lower chairlift terminal and boundary collector ski trail (Trail F). The width of Trail G varies from a minimum of approximately 15 feet to a maximum of approximately 70 feet, with an average width of approximately 35 feet.

2.4.4.2 Glading and Hazard Tree Removal Throughout the Pioneer Ridge area, trees would be removed as part of hazard tree removal, construction of ski trails, and construction of glading corridors. Tree removal methods are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4.6.2. Hazard tree areas have been identified where beetle kill activity has created stands of dead trees. Removal of hazard trees is necessary to improve forest health and to

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 31 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

increase skier safety. SSRC would remove individual or groups of trees that are defined as hazardous with a Defect Rating of 1 or 2, according to the criteria contained in the 2008 SSRC Hazard Tree Recognition and Removal Plan. Clearcut trees would be cut with reserves, and edges would be softened to meet visual quality objectives of Management Area 8.22.

Glading corridors would be created within Pioneer Ridge to allow for functional skiing lines. Trees would be cut to create corridors with residual stands of islands and stand fragments with narrow sinuous openings. Tree compositions would be consistent with Stand Management Objectives defined in the 1995 Steamboat Ski Area Vegetation Management Plan. On average, approximately 30 to 40 percent of overstory vegetation would be removed within the glading corridors.

2.4.4.3 Boundary Collector Ski Trail F and Exit Ski Trail H Currently within Pioneer Ridge, skier exit paths are not readily defined and often involve hiking. To create a safer and more efficient path for ski patrol toboggan evacuations, and to guide skiers toward the Pioneer chairlift and BC Skiway, SSRC proposes to construct a 30-foot-wide groomable collector ski trail (Trail F) along the new operational boundary. The ski trail would originate from the top of the Pony Express chairlift, traverse north to Pioneer chairlift, and follow along the expanded northern operational boundary to the bottom of the Pioneer Ridge pod. The ski trail would then cross Burgess Creek (refer to Section 2.4.4.4) and connect to BC Skiway. Permanent boundary fence, fenceposts, and signage may also be installed to define the operational boundary.

To provide a midway exit for skiers in Pioneer Ridge, SSRC would construct an exit ski trail (Trail H). Trail H would originate at the boundary collector ski trail (Trail F) and connect to Lariat and would be constructed to an approximate width of 20 feet. The trail would be logged; however, no grading is proposed. Grooming would only occur when snow conditions permit.

2.4.4.4 Burgess Creek Bridge The Burgess Creek Bridge is proposed to provide a much less arduous, safer, and more efficient egress out of the expanded Pioneer Ridge terrain by exiting onto the existing BC Skiway. The bridge would be designed at a height to span Burgess Creek and at a width to accommodate slope maintenance vehicles such as snowcats, anticipated to be approximately 30 feet wide. All construction activity and bridge components, such as piers and abutments, would be sited outside of the ordinary high-water mark of the creek. The bridge would require the construction of an access road originating north of the proposed Pioneer chairlift lower terminal and access road and proceeding to the proposed bridge abutment on the north side of Burgess Creek.

2.4.5 SNOWMAKING New and upgraded snowmaking infrastructure would be installed in existing and proposed terrain within the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, and Pony Pod areas. Snowmaking within the proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain is not anticipated at this time. New trails outside of the new Pioneer Ridge area would require snowmaking coverage and new infrastructure. Existing trails that receive high skier traffic and wind wear impacts, or are underutilized due to insufficient snow, would also require new snowmaking coverage and

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 32 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

infrastructure. Finally, antiquated snowmaking equipment originally installed in 1981 would be replaced by new and more efficient equipment and snowmaking techniques.

In total, approximately 53 acres of new snowmaking coverage are proposed. Snowmaking would occur between October and January and would depend on suitable and stable temperatures as well as the season’s needs. Water for snowmaking is obtained from an existing diversion point on the Yampa River approximately 4,000 feet from the base area. Approximately 36.8 acre-feet of water is anticipated to be required in order to provide the proposed new snowmaking coverage and approximately 1.9 acre-feet of water is anticipated to be required for the proposed Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant and Pony Express Patrol Hut. All water used for snowmaking would be accommodated under SSRC’s existing water rights.

Within the Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Bowl, new areas requiring snowmaking would include the new teaching areas and trails, areas surrounding the Rough Rider chairlift and surface lifts, the new bypass connecting Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center, and existing Short Cut trail. Within the Pony Pod, installation of snowmaking infrastructure would occur to provide coverage to Upper and Lower Middle Rib, the Crux, Upper and Lower Longhorn, Lower Pony Express chairlift line, Upper and Lower Storm Peak Express Connectors, BC Skiway, and Chaps.

Snowmaking pipeline installation would require the excavation of a trench approximately 3 to 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep to contain the main pipeline. Where possible, the trench would be located within previously disturbed areas of a ski trail or road. The pipeline and associated trench would be located within a 50-foot-wide corridor that would allow for access, pipe storage, and excavation material stockpile. In addition to snowmaking pipeline, valve blockhouses may be required. Typical valve blockhouse dimensions are approximately 12 feet by 12 feet; actual blockhouse dimensions would be identified during the final design stage of the project.

2.4.6 ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES To implement the previously described projects, SSRC proposes the following ancillary activities: construct and utilize temporary and permanent staging areas and perform skid logging and potentially helicopter logging for timber removal. These activities are described in greater detail in the following subsections.

2.4.6.1 Staging Areas SSRC would construct temporary and permanent staging areas throughout the Project Area to allow for parking of construction vehicles, delivery and temporary storage of construction equipment and materials, temporary storage of timber accrued during timber removal activities, and other needs. A total of ten potential permanent staging areas have been identified within the Project Area. Staging areas would be constructed to a size of between 2.5 and 3.0 acres to allow for the safe operation and turnaround of construction equipment and vehicles. Following construction activities and during the operational phase, these staging areas would be used as vehicle turnarounds, parking areas, and maintenance activity staging. Up to 15 temporary staging areas would be field-selected based on proximity to project activities and would be approximately 1.5 to 2.5 acres in size. These areas would be

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 33 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

cleared during construction of the proposed trails or would already be free of vegetation and provide logical sites for skidding timber and pickup if needed.

2.4.6.2 Tree Removal As discussed in previous sections, trees would be removed or otherwise directly impacted for trail corridor construction, enhancement, accessibility, or other management needs. Ground-based or aerial- based harvesting or other direct impact methods may be utilized and are described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. Treatments options would be dictated generally but not exclusively by accessibility. Other impediments may be present and may also dictate a preferred treatment.

The primary method of tree removal is anticipated to be ground-based cut-and-skid type logging. Trees would be felled either mechanically or by hand and skidded to landings for removal or other treatment, such as, but not limited to, chipping or burning. Skidding would occur on existing roads, proposed roads, existing ski trail corridors, or proposed ski trail corridors. Should additional skid trails be necessary outside of these areas, SSRC would coordinate with MBRTB on the location of these additional skidding operations. Existing roads or proposed roads would be utilized with additional temporary roads developed as needed for accessibility of logging equipment.

Aerial-based logging via helicopter may also be utilized in the Pioneer Ridge area. Trees removed in the Pioneer Ridge area that are located on steep slopes or other inaccessible areas may be flown via helicopter to an identified landing zone where they would then be taken off-site via log truck. Clearing and grading would be necessary to accommodate this landing zone. Helicopter refueling would occur in designated areas and fuel would be brought to this site only as needed.

Pile burning or other burning of vegetation must adhere to the State of Colorado Air Pollution Control Division requirements. Prior to burning, SSRC must consult with the MBRTB on size and timing of burning.

2.4.7 NON-SIGNIFICANT FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT A Forest Plan Consistency Analysis was prepared (Appendix B), which considers the alternatives in the context of the applicability and relevance of each standard/guideline contained in the Forest Plan. An inconsistency has been identified between the Proposed Action Alternative and Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6, which is: Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of the protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. A no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when animals are adapted to human activity.17

The Proposed Action Alternative includes activities that are proposed in proximity of known active and inactive raptor nests. Therefore, a Forest Plan amendment is included as part of the Proposed Action

17 USDA Forest Service, 1998

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 34 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Alternative. A non-significant and project-specific Forest Plan amendment would remove the applicability of this standard during the construction phase of the Proposed Action Alternative; the amendment would not apply to the operation or maintenance phase of the Proposed Action Alternative, or to future projects not included in the Proposed Action Alternative. Details regarding the proposed Forest Plan amendment are provided in Appendix C.

2.5 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA In order to minimize potential resource impacts from construction and implementation of any approved projects, BMPs and PDC would be incorporated into the Proposed Action Alternative. Table 2-1 lists the anticipated BMPs and PDC for this project. Additional BMPs and PDC may be identified during the development of the FEIS.

PDC are devised in the pre-analysis and analysis phases to reduce 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 will be designed by the Forest Service and specialists involved in this analysis. The potential effects of implementing the Proposed Action Alternative will be analyzed with these PDC applied. A discussion of mitigation and monitoring follows Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Recreation

All improvement projects will follow Forest Service accessibility guidelines as outlined by the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines, and Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines for Ski Resorts, and Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines.

Visual Resources

Infrastructure should imitate landscape character with natural appearing materials and colors to minimize impacts to scenery. 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). Facilities or structures including buildings, chairlift terminals and chairs need to reduce reflectivity. 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 reduce solar reflectivity. The colors should be muted, subdued colors because they blend well with the natural color scheme.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 35 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Re-grade to restore a natural terrain appearance. Where there is disturbed ground for new structures include new buildings, lifts, and associated terminals, towers and foundation placements, road realignments, and water storage ponds and structures, including culverts and bridges, put any excess material back to the area with grading to avoid stockpile of material and maintain a natural appearance at transitions. Any site grading should blend disturbance into the existing topography to achieve a natural appearance and minimize cuts and fills at the transition with proposed grading and existing terrain. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. Reseed with a native seed mixture using a variety of native seed grasses, wildflowers, and forbs. Any seed mixes should be approved by the Forest Service Botanist. Seeding and planting should be repeated until satisfactory revegetation is accomplished, avoid straight edges where removing trees. The edges of ski trails, lifts and any newly created openings where the vegetation is removed, needs 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 opening 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. When removing trees or other vegetation, stumps should be cut as low as possible to the ground to lessen scenery impact.

Submit building designs, grading, erosion control, pre-construction erosion control/drainage management plans, post-construction revegetation plans for Forest Service review prior to implementing approved construction activities on NFS lands. For sites that would require grading in excess of 2,000 square feet, the grading plan should portray existing topography and cut/fill areas on large scale site plans.

Cultural/Heritage

If unidentified archeological resources are discovered, work shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by the Forest Service Archeologist and consultation with the SHPO has been completed.

Botany, including Timber and Forest Health

Re-seeding/revegetation plans need to be developed, discussed, and implemented with the Forest Service Botanist. Create a revegetation plan that includes measures to adequately establish desirable vegetation. Reclaim disturbed areas promptly after construction to prevent erosion and invasion by weeds. Ensure proper drainage, rip compacted areas, apply biodegradable erosion control blanket or mulch, and apply a Forest Service- approved noxious weed-free seed mix to facilitate revegetation. Incorporate native vegetation into site plans as much as possible. Travel routes accessing the Project Area prior to and during project construction will be treated for noxious species. Travel routes include ski area access roads, after leaving county administered roads. Where possible, pretreat existing infestations within the Project Area with approved herbicides prior to project implementation. Clean construction and logging equipment prior to and when leaving NFS lands. Within the Project Area, construction and logging equipment shall be cleaned prior to entering weed free areas. Specifically, equipment should be cleaned between use in the Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas. Cleaning includes removing all soil, mud, plant parts, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds.

Monitor for and treat any new invasive botanical species for a minimum of three years after project completion.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 36 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

All herbicide choices for pre- and post-treatment of invasive plant species, application rates for treatment, and required resource protection measures shall follow the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive Plant Management for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland and Record of Decision (ROD) dated August 2015 (August 2015 Invasive Plant Species ROD). As per the ROD, special protection measures would be implemented for weed control near occupied Forest Service sensitive plant habitat (August 2015 Invasive Plant Species ROD, pages 38 and 41) and in environmentally sensitive management zones (aquatic zones, streamside zone, wetland zone, groundwater vulnerable zone, woodland zones) (August 2015 Invasive Plan Species ROD, page 42). A Pesticide Use Proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the District/Forest Weed Program Manager prior to herbicide application to ensure SSRC weed control activities are in compliance with the August 2015 Invasive Plant Species ROD. Before implementing any approved project activities not included in the 2016 botanical and wetland survey area, the specific project areas will be surveyed using established protocols. Surveys will be conducted for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species; Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species; and wetland/riparian habitats. Such areas may include, but are not limited to, staging areas that were not originally identified prior to botanical field reconnaissance. The acreage of Rabbit Ears gilia directly impacted will be replaced in kind within the Planning Area (i.e., Routt National Forest). Replacement may include, but is not limited to, seeding and live planting of Rabbit Ears gilia into appropriate habitat elsewhere within the Planning Area. In areas of proposed glading (40% tree removal), retain a higher density of trees within 100 feet of rare plant occurrences, where possible.

When cutting trees in gladed areas, prioritize the removal of dead/unhealthy trees over live, healthy trees and only remove trees that are necessary to facilitate a quality recreational experience.

Fire/Fuels

To meet Forest Plan Fire and Fuels Standard 1 for Management Area 8.22 Ski Based Resorts, fuel load reduction and/or fuel manipulation must be utilized in hazard tree removal areas, Trail F, lift lines, and road corridors. This can be accomplished through pile burning, tree removal, and/or mastication. If mastication is used, chips must be spread out and less than 6 inches in depth. No piling of chips for burning is to be allowed.

If pile burning is used, limit the size of the piles to 20 feet high by 20 feet wide by 12 feet long. This would result in approximately 30 to 35 piles and would allow for more opportunities to burn and reduce possible smoke issues. To allow direct attack, treat management activity fuels to reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease.

Fish and Wildlife

To protect the CRCT, restrict construction activities within 50 feet of live water in the Pioneer Ridge area until after August 1, unless first coordinated with the Forest Service Fish Biologist. All sampling gear, waders, and tools must be washed daily and also prior to entering a stream segment with CRCT with an approved biocide to prevent spread of diseases and non-native organisms.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 37 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Any new stream crossings on fish bearing streams or near amphibian breeding sites must meet Forest Service standards for aquatic passage as outlined in Stream Simulation: An Ecological Approach to Providing Passage for Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream Crossings. Maintain adequate snag habitat by preserving a minimum of 1 tree per acre for cavity nesting species such as woodpeckers, owls, purple martin, and bats as outlined in the Forest Plan Biological Diversity Standards (pages 1–8). Discovery Clause: If specific impacts to threatened, endangered, and Region 2 sensitive species and/or their habitats, including nests, are identified during project implementation, project operations in the immediate vicinity will be suspended until the Forest Service Wildlife or Fish Biologist or Botanist are contacted. Project implementation may be adjusted, and timing restrictions may be applied, as determined by the Forest Service, to reduce those impacts. The species of interest include any USFWS TES species, goshawks, raptors, pygmy shrews, amphibians, CRCT, and rare plants. Active Northern Goshawk Nest Site Seasonal Buffer: If northern goshawks are discovered nesting during pre- project surveys, a no disturbance buffer and timing restrictions will be set forth in the vicinity of the active goshawk nest stand up to 0.25 mile from April 15 through July 31, unless a shorter distance or lesser time is approved by a Forest Service wildlife biologist or Forest Service Responsible Official. If northern goshawks are discovered in the historical raptor area beside the Outlaw ski trail after pre-project surveys, including during the construction phase of the project, then construction of the following projects will be delayed up to 0.25 mile from April 15 through July 31. 1. Trail corridor enhancements projects: the Crux 2. Ski-way construction: Trail E 3. Glading and hazard tree removal 4. Snowmaking 5. Pioneer Chairlift: Trail G construction, Trail H construction If goshawk nests are identified following construction of Trail G and within the historical raptor area beside the Outlaw ski trail, limited administrative use of Trail G during the nesting period will be authorized for use of this road specifically to complete construction of the Pioneer chairlift and Burgess Creek bridge. This may require reducing the number of passes and/or trips past the nest area, no stopping vehicles, and workers cannot spend time on maintenance activities on this road within 0.25 mile of the nest during the nesting period.

Northern Goshawk Nest Site Habitat Protection: Where tree removal management actions are proposed within a 3/8-mile radius of a goshawk nest site, • A consultant and Forest Service wildlife biologist will delineate a total of no less than 90 mature forest acres of protected northern goshawk nest habitat, in three or less areas inside and/or outside of the permit area. One protection area shall be centered on the stand where northern goshawk nesting is currently active or where nesting occurred most recently. Two protection areas would preserve nearby alternate stands that are structurally and compositionally suitable for northern goshawk nesting. • Trees within the nest protection areas and/or reserve nest stands shall not be marked for removal unless approved by a Forest Service wildlife biologist or Forest Service Responsible Official. This design criterion shall stay in place for active or inactive northern goshawk nest stands, or until nests are determined to be inactive by northern goshawk for more than ten years. Consult with Forest Service wildlife biologist prior to timber management actions in units 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1805, or 1819 to conserve key elements of the known raptor nest areas. This is not applicable if northern goshawks are determined to be nesting within these units, as northern goshawk require further protection as sensitive species as outlined in the PDC immediately above.

No active or inactive raptor nest trees shall be removed within the Project Area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 38 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Raptor nest surveys will be conducted at known raptor nests between June 15 and July 31 of each construction period to identify active nest sites. Project-related construction activities are permitted prior to the beginning of the June 15 survey window, unless active goshawk nest sites were previously identified within 0.25 mile of the construction activity. Minimize the loss of suitable lynx habitat by: 1) minimizing tree and vegetation removal, b) limiting the extent (percentage) of glading and tree removal within the Pony Express and Pioneer Ridge areas, and c) phasing in improved tree skiing over a five- to ten-year period as forest health improves across the Lynx Unit. This does not preclude hazard tree removal in any of the project areas included in this analysis. SSRC, in concert with the Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), will develop a moose management plan. SSRC will continually communicate with CPW and the Forest Service to monitor any increases in big game pressure and human-big game conflicts as a result of the project.

Construction workers will not have dogs on site.

All food and garbage will be secured in a bear proof manner on site and not left on site overnight.

Soils

Site-specific erosion control plans must be approved by the Forest Service prior to implementation.

Prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, per the requirements of 40 CFR Part 112.

Dispose of chemicals and containers in state-certified disposal areas.

Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent seepage to ground water.

Inspect equipment used for transportation, storage or application of chemicals daily during use period for leaks.

Report leaks and spills. Install emergency traps to contain them and clean them up. Contaminated soil and other materials shall be removed from NFS lands and disposed of in a manner according to state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Take other appropriate clean-up actions in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps and areas, on gentle upland sites. Mix, load, and clean on gentle upland sites. Prepare detailed site plans where uses would concentrate foot traffic or ground transport into high traffic areas. Design sites for proper drainage and to be resistant to erosion associated with the intended traffic. Define grading limits on the ground before construction by placing stakes, flagging, wattles, sediment fence, construction fence or some physical barrier along the perimeter of the area to be graded. Ensure that all grading is confined within the specified grading limits. Before grading, existing topsoil resources should be removed and stockpiled in an upland area where soils storage will not cause a resource impact. Subsequent to the grading activities, this topsoil should be re-spread, mulched, and seeded, unless the Forest Service determines that seeding is not necessary. 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.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 39 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Avoid locating roads, trails, or other disturbed areas on slopes that show signs of instability, such as slope failure, mass movement, or slumps. If avoidance is not possible, obtain approval from the Forest Service Engineer and Hydrologist prior to implementation and provide drainage and/or stabilization measures.

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

Avoid soil-disturbing activities during periods of heavy precipitation or wet soils.

Operate heavy equipment only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit if the soil can be rolled into 3- millimeter threads without breaking or crumbling. To minimize erosion and sedimentation to waterways, new access roads should have appropriately spaced cross drains. New ski trails should utilize cross drains to direct water off trails into the forest and away from waterways. Cross drain spacing should not exceed 120 feet for very highly erodible soils on a 15% slope, and 220 feet for a highly erodible soil on a 15% slope but should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors.

Track up and down on final graded slopes with dozer to minimize erosion.

Compact fill slopes in 6- to 12-inch layers using appropriate compaction equipment.

Provide surface drainage, such as trenches, to intercept surface flow that affects slope stability.

Direct concentrated surface runoff away from cut and fill slopes and unstable slopes.

Provide subsurface drainage to lower groundwater or to remove seepage that affects slope stability.

Perform an on-site slope stability examination on slopes over 30% prior to design of roads or activities that remove most or all of the timber canopy. Limit intensive ground-disturbing activities on unstable slopes identified during the examinations. Conduct slope stability analyses by a licensed geotechnical engineer in areas to be graded that also have high mass movement potential. When lift tower locations are identified, ensure there are no mass movement concerns (i.e., on slopes less than 60% and not in or below nearby wetlands).

Hydrology and Wetlands

SSRC will follow all requirements from their site State Storm Water Management Plan.

Maintain 100-foot vegetative buffers adjacent to intermittent or perennial drainages on each side of drainage and wetlands, as practicable (consistent with WIZ). Do not remove naturally occurring debris from stream channels unless it is a threat to life, property, or important resource values, or otherwise covered by legal agreement. The Burgess Creek Bridge must be designed as a channel-spanning structure with abutments located above the high-water mark. Thirty percent design plans for the Burgess Creek Bridge and North Fork Burgess Creek crossing will be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval. Final design plans will be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval prior to construction. Prior to and following implementation, assess sediment loading to Burgess Creek using Colorado’s Narrative Sediment Water Quality Standard, Regulation 31, Section 31.11 (I)(a)(i), to evaluate the difference between current conditions and impairment based on the sediment standard.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 40 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

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. Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to the flow as practicable. Install stream crossings to sustain bank full dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep streambeds and banks resilient. Favor bridges, bottomless arches or buried pipe-arches for those streams with identifiable floodplains and elevated road prisms, instead of pipe culverts. Favor armored fords for those streams where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or temporary, or the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension. During winter operations, maintain roads as needed to keep the road surface drained during thaws and break- ups. Perform snow removal in such a manner that protects the road and other adjacent resources. Do not use riparian areas, wetlands or streams for snow storage or disposal. Remove snow berms where they result in accumulation or concentration of snowmelt runoff on the road or erodible fill slopes. Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. For projects that would increase road traffic or require road use by heavy construction equipment, apply road surfacing near stream crossings, as needed, to harden the road surface in order to minimize rutting and sediment delivery to streams. Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, groundwater dependent ecosystems, wetlands, and other riparian areas. Reduce sediment sources and connected disturbed areas by minimizing the number of stream crossings. Construct trail approaches to stream crossings such that drainage is relieved onto the hill slopes, as opposed to entering the channel.

Keep all debris generated by project activities out of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams.

Avoid altering the stream bed and banks to maintain the natural character of the stream.

Avoid relocating natural stream channels. If relocation is necessary, it will require the Forest Service Fish Biologist and Hydrologist’s approval before implementation. Return flow to natural channels where practicable. Where reconstruction of stream channels is necessary, construct channels and floodways with natural stream pattern and geometry, stable beds and banks, and provide habitat complexity.

Do not encroach fills or introduce soil into streams, wetlands, groundwater dependent ecosystems, or riparian areas. Protect these features from sediment by installing sediment waddles, sediment fencing, retention basins, or other applications as appropriate before ground-disturbing activities begin. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, wetlands, and ponds, except to cross at Forest Service approved and designated points or if the area is protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Exception may occur for performing restoration work or to build crossings, with Forest Service Soils Scientist, Hydrologist, and Fish Biologist approval. For approved temporary stream or wetland crossings, lay down construction mats or other physical barriers to protect again soil displacement and minimize the number of passes. Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams only if such action maintains or improves stream health. Leave rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or banks to prevent channel scour and maintain natural habitat complexity. Out-slope roads to shed water rather than concentrate water on the road surface or in ditches whenever possible. Construct rolling dips to facilitate maintenance-free drainage. Install and maintain ditch relief culverts wherever in sloped roads are necessary.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 41 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Do not install culverts or conduct ground-disturbing activities near streams during spring runoff. Ground disturbances in or adjacent to streams/wetlands should 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. For ground-disturbing activities near perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, minimize CDAs by ensuring that roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas drain to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams and ephemeral draws. Manipulate drainage from disturbed areas as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, ditch-relief culverts, etc., to disconnect disturbed areas from streams. In the Burgess Creek watershed, limit connected CDAs to the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress toward zero connected disturbed area as much as practicable. Where it is impossible or impracticable to disconnect a particular connected disturbed area, minimize the areal extent of the individual connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In watersheds that contain stream reaches in diminished stream health class, allow only those actions that will maintain or reduce watershed-scale Connected Disturbed Area. Apply the following measures to disconnect existing CDAs. • M-1: Evaluate the feasibility of improving soils and revegetating the area adjacent to the Thunderhead Express bottom terminal. • M-2: Disconnect approximately 420 linear feet of existing road and graded terrain that currently drains into an order 1, perennial tributary to Burgess Creek. The creek downslope from this graded area is covered with half-corrugated metal pipes (CMP) but field observations show that surface runoff flows into the stream. • M-3: Disconnect 570 feet of Mountain Road #7, near the bottom terminal of the Burgess Creek chair lift. This road crosses over the main-stem of Burgess Creek, an order 2, perennial stream at this location. Installation and maintenance of BMPs for sediment control (e.g. sediment trap) near the discharge of the existing road-side ditch and road waterbar would disconnect this graded terrain from the stream network. • M-4: Disconnect approximately 900 linear feet of Mountain Road #7 and Creekside Connector bike trail near the Pony Express bottom terminal. These sections of road and trail cross over and run parallel to Burgess Creek and are currently connected to the stream. Improve trail drainage by, for example, outsloping the road surface to promote sheet-flow type drainage. Install sediment control BMPs at discharge of trail waterbars. Snowmaking pipelines are proposed to be installed along the road and trail at this location. Ensure that proper BMPs for erosion and sediment control are implemented during construction phases of the snowmaking pipeline project; design, install, and maintain long-term BMPs to minimize or avoid sediment discharge into the stream. • M-5: A 100-foot section of the Gunsmoke bike trail near the bottom terminal of the Bashor lift is within 90 feet of an intermittent tributary to Burgess Creek (located in private lands). Soils and the stream channel in this area are impacted by snowmelt from the terrain park features located upslope (gully erosion and headcutting). Grading and tree removal are proposed in this area to construct the new Bashor chairlift and install snowmaking pipelines. Ensure that proper BMPs for erosion and sediment control are implemented during construction phases of these projects; design, install, and maintain long-term BMPs to disconnect the Gunsmoke bike trail and new lift terminal from the stream channel. • M-6: Disconnect approximately 1,300 feet of mountain roads #9 and #10 located near an intermittent tributary to Burgess Creek (within private lands). Stream channel in this area is covered by half-CMP but the road-side ditch discharges directly into the stream. Grading projects proposed for this area include the Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Gondola top terminal. Implement proper BMPs for erosion and sediment control during construction phases of these projects; design, install, and maintain long-term BMPs to disconnect these road segments, and the proposed graded area, from the stream channel.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 42 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Apply the following measures to projects within the WIZ.

PDC Common to all Projects: • Up to 1.7 acres of WIZ restoration may be required as determined by the Forest Service Responsible Official. • 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 USFS. 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. • Avoid soil disturbing activities during periods of heavy rain or excessively wet soils. • Make cuts, fills, and road surfaces strongly resistant to erosion (MM-9 Design Criteria). • For ground-disturbing activities near perennial and intermittent streams and ephemeral draws, CDA should be minimized by draining roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas to undisturbed soils rather than directly to streams and ephemeral draws. Drainage from disturbed areas should be modified as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, ditch relief culverts, etc., to disconnect disturbed areas from streams. • Trees should be felled into inter-trail islands to improve large woody debris density. In areas adjacent to a WIZ, tree should be felled in a way that protects vegetation in the WIZ. • For projects involving excavation and/or grading, stockpile topsoil so that it may be used for revegetation projects. • Ground disturbances in or 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 bottom terminals to drain surface runoff into well vegetated areas and away from stream channels. • Properly compact fills (MM-11 Design Criteria). • Where appropriate, revegetate disturbed terrain (including staging areas, log landings, skid trails, etc.) immediately after completion of grading using USFS-approved, native seeds. Install temporary BMPs for sediment and erosion control until planted vegetation provides erosion control (MM-11 Design Criteria). • 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: SSRC shall review with the USFS, 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%. • Prior to disturbance of any waters of the U.S., including wetlands, SSRC shall coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine if the activities require a permit. • Excavated material should not be stored in the WIZ. • Tree removal, excavation and grading should be minimized in the WIZ.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 43 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

BC Skiway Snowmaking: • Implement BMPs for erosion and sediment control during installation of the snowmaking infrastructure; design, install, and maintain long-term BMPs along the BC Skiway to minimize erosion of the trail surface and prevent sediment to reach Burgess Creek.

Proposed Mountain Roads, Burgess Creek Bridge, and at-grade crossing of North Fork Burgess Creek: • In the vicinity (approximately 200 feet) of the proposed bridge and stream crossing, in-slope road surfaces (2 to 4% cross-slope) to drain surface runoff into road-side ditch. Minimize erosion in road-side ditch by implementing and maintaining standard BMPs for erosion control. For example, line ditch with proper size rock and/or install check dams at adequate intervals. • Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent erosion and failure (MM-10 Design Criteria). Install road-relief culverts or road waterbars at a spacing adequate for the road slope and ditch characteristics (MM-10 Design Criteria). • 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 the WIZ. • Construct road to minimize sediment discharge into Burgess Creek. Avoid down-road flow and ponding by cross sloping road surface 2 to 4%. Construct road with crown fill or in-slope road cross sections (based upon final grading plan). • Inspect and maintain 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. • Design and construct bridge over Burgess Creek and at-grade crossing of North Fork Burgess Creek to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of aquatic life (MM-4 Design Criteria). Obtain all necessary State and Federal permits. • Construct both stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to flow as possible (MM-4 Design Criteria). • Design and construct both stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep streambeds and banks resilient (MM-4 Design Criteria). • Construct both stream crossings during periods of low stream flow, typically late summer or early fall. • Keep construction equipment out of streams, except if specifically authorized by the USFS or if protected by 1-foot packed snow minimum. This measure sustains stream integrity (MM-3 Design Criteria). If construction equipment is required to access the stream channel for construction of the proposed bridge over Burgess Creek, SSRC will obtain all necessary local, State, and Federal permits.

Proposed Ski Trails: • Prior to ski trail construction, clearly flag tree clearing limits. • To the extent practicable, ski 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, water bars discharge within 100 feet of a stream channel, the downstream end of water bars will include BMPs for sediment separation and dispersion of flow, such as sediment traps and fiber logs. • Waterbars and associated BMPs must be installed immediately after construction of the ski trail. Inspect water bars during the first snowmelt season following construction to ensure surface runoff is being conveyed and discharged adequately. Modify waterbars/construct additional waterbars as necessary.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 44 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-1: Best Management Practices and Project Design Criteria

Wetlands proximate to the potentially disturbed areas will be identified and flagged prior to the initiation of approved construction-related activities. Construction limits will be clearly defined so as to avoid or minimize disturbance to those identified wetlands. Any identified wetland will be completely avoided unless approved by the Forest Service and a CWA Section 404 permit, where applicable.

Obtain any necessary CWA Section 401, 402, and 404 permits prior to project implementation.

Avoid disrupting water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands. If this is not possible, obtain Forest Service Hydrologist’s approval before implementation of disturbance and provide compensatory mitigation. 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 the wetlands. To the greatest extent practicable, the disturbance width for temporary snowmaking and other utility lines should be a maximum of 20 feet wide through wetlands and other aquatic resources. Flush-cut and leave stumps and root wads intact within riparian areas and wetlands, except in areas identified for grading activities.

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. Contribution to a wetland bank or to the Forest Service for wetland enhancement work to offset wetland impacts and ensure compliance with EO 11990 will be required. There will be no net loss of wetlands.

2.5.1 MITIGATION Compensatory mitigation of wetlands will be required when projects having the potential to directly or indirectly affect wetlands are implemented. These projects include the Crux, Boulevard trail, Bashor chairlift, and Trail F. The purpose of the compensatory mitigation will be to replace the wetland functions and values lost or impacted by the projects. The Forest Service will require a minimum replacement ratio of 1.5:1. The replacement ratio may be higher if determined by the USACE during the CWA Section 404 permitting process. Mitigation for WIZ impacts will be required when projects having the potential to directly and permanently impact the WIZ are implemented. These projects include glading, Trail F, and Trail G. The purpose of the WIZ mitigation will be to ameliorate overall impacts in order to maintain the stream health condition of Burgess Creek. The Forest Service requires that for each acre of permanent impact the equivalent area is mitigated through restoration or enhancement within the WIZ of Burgess Creek. If project monitoring indicates degrading stream health, additional restoration or enhancement will be required (e.g., improve ground cover or reduce impervious surfaces).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 45 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.5.2 MONITORING The Forest Service and SSRC will together develop a monitoring plan for this project that will include the following elements:

Resource Methods Frequency Responsibility

Wetlands: Existing and Before and after Ocular/Photography Forest Service compensatory construction mitigation

Wetlands: Wetland characterization Steamboat by Forest Before construction and Existing and through soils, botany, and Service approved every other year thereafter compensatory hydrology, including flow contractor or Forest for ten years mitigation patterns Service employees

Before and after WIZ Ocular/Photography Forest Service construction

Stream health survey addressing sedimentation, Before and after bank stability, bank height, construction and every Steamboat by Forest and arsenic other year for ten years Service approved WIZ/Stream Health concentrations, and after the project to contractor or Forest additional chemical understand project Service employees concentrations determined impacts relevant during project implementation

As applicable for each Forest Service and BMP Monitoring Various measure in PDC/BMP Steamboat (Table 2-1)

2.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY The following design options were considered by the ID Team but were eliminated from further analysis.

2.6.1 RAPTOR NEST PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE An alternative was considered that would remove the requirement for a Forest Plan amendment to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6. Key components of this alternative include constructing the Pioneer pod without the Pioneer chairlift and utilizing raptor nesting deterrent methods for identified raptor nests. This alternative would also commit to a no-disturbance buffer around all active raptor nest sites from nest-site selection to fledgling, generally March through July.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 46 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Several modifications to the Proposed Action Alternative would be necessary to remain consistent with Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6. • To avoid impacts to known and unknown raptor nests within the new addition to the Pioneer Ridge area, the area would be constructed without the Pioneer chairlift and would remove the associated gladed terrain east of the proposed ski-way beginning at the junction of Upper Middle Rib and the Pony Express chairlift. Removing the Pioneer chairlift would allow the expanded terrain within the Pioneer Pod to become accessible for gladed and more remote skiing but would not require one of the most time-intensive project components of the Proposed Action Alternative. In addition, summertime maintenance activities associated with the Pioneer chairlift, such as chairlift servicing, would not occur and would, therefore, not conflict with raptors present in the area. Access to the terrain for each run would be more involved, requiring traverses and two chairlift rides to return to the Pioneer area. Without the Pioneer chairlift, skiers wishing to return to the Pioneer Pod would be required to traverse BC Skiway to the base terminal of Thunderhead Express, and then ski from the top terminal of Thunderhead Express through Lower Storm Peak Express Connector to the Pony Express chairlift. • The glading, access road, and Burgess Creek Bridge construction components, as well as administrative road use, would be subject to 1/8-mile no-disturbance buffers around active raptor nest sites between March 15 and August 1. • Raptors that establish nests after construction activities commence, or during the operational phase of the project, would be considered acclimated to the activity and avoidance buffers would not apply. This would be in conformance with the standard, which states “[e]xceptions [to the standard] may occur when animals are adapted to human activity.”18 Raptor surveys following completion of the construction phase of the project would not be required.

This alternative was considered but dismissed from detailed analysis due to several reasons, including: • Construction feasibility: ○ The new Pioneer Ridge portion of the project, as proposed, is anticipated to include at least a two-year time frame for the construction of the access road, bridge, and chairlift; tree removal for the chairlift; and installation of utilities. Each construction season would be approximately four and a half months from June 1 to October 15. ○ The feasibility of construction due to a limited annual construction window. Not initiating construction until August 15 and concluding construction by October 15 only allows two and a half months for construction activities. ○ An annual construction window of approximately two months would make a two- year construction project into an approximately four- to five-year construction project.

18 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 47 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• Prolonged short-term construction related impacts: ○ Any construction project includes short-term impacts to resources such as stream health, invasive species, construction traffic, etc.

○ With a prolonged construction timeframe lasting four to five years, the risk of reoccurring short-term impacts increases. Revegetation and erosion and sediment control measures would be at greater risk due to the possibility of inclement weather, including rainfall and snow events during the construction season. Additionally, increased construction traffic would occur over an extended period of time.

2.6.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION OF RAPTOR TIMING RESTRICTIONS This alternative would contain all proposed project components of the Proposed Action Alternative and would incorporate a project- and timeframe-specific Forest Plan amendment to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6. The amendment would remove the applicability of this standard for this project for one year to allow for the construction of the most time-intensive project components, such as construction of the Pioneer chairlift.

Under this alternative, summertime maintenance activities such as chairlift servicing, trail maintenance, etc., would be prohibited until after the end of the Limited Operation Period (March through July annually).

Similar to the alternative described in Section 2.6.1, this alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis due to infeasible limitations to construction activities as well as prolonged short-term construction impacts. In addition, a one-year suspension of the raptor timing restrictions is not anticipated to result in greater than marginal additional protections to raptor species compared to the Proposed Action Alternative.

2.6.3 ALTERNATE PIONEER BOTTOM TERMINAL AND OPERATIONAL BOUNDARY LOCATION Under this alternative, the operational boundary and bottom terminal of the Pioneer chairlift would be situated approximately two-thirds from the top of the Pioneer chairlift as compared to the Proposed Action Alternative. The bottom terminal would be located where a skier egress is currently proposed. The proposed Burgess Creek Bridge would not be constructed, nor would the proposed access road that would access the bridge or the original bottom terminal location. Skiers who, illegally, exit the operational boundary to access the lower portion of the Pioneer area to the west would still be required to hike the “hundred steps” over Burgess Creek to re-enter the ski area. This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for the project as described in Chapter 1.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 48 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.6.4 AVOID PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACTS IN BASHOR BOWL/ ROUGH RIDER AREAS An alternative was considered that would modify the Proposed Action Alternative to avoid permanently impacting wetlands identified in the Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider areas. During the planning and design process, wetland delineations were completed and proposed grading within these wetlands was minimized, particularly in the area of the Bashor chairlift bottom terminal where grading within wetlands was considerably reduced. The remaining permanent wetland impacts are necessary to establish the necessary grades between projects, and complete avoidance of the wetlands in the Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider areas is not feasible.

2.6.5 AVOID PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACTS WITH MODIFIED CRUX BLASTING/GRADING PROJECT An alternative was considered that modified the Crux blasting and grading project to avoid permanent impacts to wetlands. As described in Section 2.4.3.1, the wetlands within the proposed Crux blasting/grading area are located within an existing ski trail that is a major collector ski-way for the Pony Pod but is very narrow. Any trail improvements in this area that would improve the skiability and circulation of the trail, including improvements confined to the existing trail corridor, would cause disturbance to the wetlands. Modifying the Crux blasting/grading project by limiting project activities to within the existing trail corridor boundary would not result in wetland avoidance. Modifying the Crux blasting/grading project by moving the blasting/grading to portions of the trail corridor up gradient or downgradient from the wetland would not meet the Purpose and Need for the project.

Wetland delineations were completed during the planning process and narrowed the permanent wetland disturbance corridor within the Crux to minimize impacts to wetlands. The remaining permanent wetland impacts are necessary to meet the Purpose and Need for the project, and this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.

2.6.6 AVOID PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACTS BY REPLACING CRUX BLASTING/GRADING PROJECT WITH NOVICE SKI TRAIL An alternative was considered that would improve skier circulation in the Crux area but avoid the blasting and grading projects within the identified wetlands. Under this alternative, a ski trail would be constructed beginning approximately 100 feet topographically up gradient of the Crux to collect novice users. During wetland delineations performed during the design phase, it was identified that this ski trail would result in greater permanent wetland impacts than the Crux project, as several wetland features were mapped along the ski trail alignment. In addition, to meet the optimal grades required for the effective transport of the target skier demographic, the ski trail alignment would have resulted in intersecting Tower 5 of the existing Pony Express chairlift, reducing the safety and operation of the ski trail. This alternative was eliminated from further analysis.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 49 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.6.7 REMOVE CULVERT AND GRADING FROM TRAIL F STREAM CROSSING DESIGN An alternative was considered that would retain Trail F but would not allow grading or culverting at the North Fork Burgess Creek stream crossing. Without installing a culvert or grading at this crossing, the ski trail, which also functions as an access/logging road during the construction phase of the project, would not be able to accommodate grooming equipment/ski patrol snowmobile access in the winter or logging truck access in the summer. Snowmaking is not proposed in the new Pioneer Ridge area, and sufficient snow would not be available to “fill” in the stream during the winter season. Selection of this option would reduce reliability and intended use of Trail F during both the winter and summer seasons; therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.

2.6.8 RELOCATE TRAIL F TO AVOID STREAM CROSSING An alternative was considered to modify the alignment of Trail F to avoid crossing North Fork Burgess Creek. At this location, Trail F is oriented north-south and North Fork Burgess Creek is oriented east- west, with the crossing perpendicular to the stream channel. Moving Trail F east or west would not avoid North Fork Burgess Creek or its associated wetlands. Additionally, the stream crossing location is necessary in order to obtain the required grades between Trail F and the Pioneer chairlift bottom terminal. North Fork Burgess Creek and its associated wetlands cannot be avoided by relocating Trail F; therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.

2.6.9 DEVELOPMENT OF SUNSHINE 2 CHAIRLIFT AND TERRAIN An alternative was considered to construct a chairlift (Sunshine 2) and associated terrain within the Sunshine Bowl area of Steamboat. The Sunshine 2 development would replace the proposal for the new Pioneer Ridge area. The Sunshine 2 chairlift was identified in the 2011 MDPA to service the mountain to the south of the existing Sunshine chairlift. In addition to the chairlift, the 2011 MDPA identified approximately 60 acres of associated new traditional cleared ski trails and another 60 acres of tree skiing. While this alternative includes some tree skiing, it does not meet the Purpose and Need for Action to provide diverse terrain options to the same degree as the gladed terrain proposed within the new Pioneer Ridge area.

Dismissal of this alternative in this FEIS does not preclude SSRC’s ability to develop the Sunshine 2 chairlift and terrain in the future. Development of the Sunshine 2 chairlift and terrain would require separate NEPA analysis and approval, and other required compliance.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 50 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2-2 provides a comparison of project elements associated with each alternative.

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Projects – Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Total Guest Capacity (Guests) Comfortable Carrying Capacity 12,670 14,420 Proposed Guest Capacity Increase (Guests) Comfortable Carrying Capacity 0 1,750 Total Terrain (acres) Special Use Permit Area 3,738 3,738 Ski Area Operational Boundary Area 2,768 3,123 Traditional, Cleared Ski Trails, Ski-ways, and 171 184 Gladed Ski Trails (number) Traditional, Cleared Ski Trails, Ski-ways, and 1,362 1,483 Gladed Ski Trails (acres) Pioneer Ridge Backcountry Terrain within the 600 245 SUP Area Construction and Maintenance Access Roads (miles) Road and Trail Density (miles/square mile) 12.6 13.2 Length of Roads in the SUP 19.6 20.7 Proposed Lift Specifications Quantity of New Lifts N/A 5 Rough Rider Moving Carpet Surface Lifts (pph) N/A 600 per surface lift Bashor Gondola Carrier Capacity (people per chair) N/A TBD Bashor Gondola Uphill Capacity (pph) N/A 2,400 Pioneer Ridge Carrier Capacity (people per chair) N/A TBD Pioneer Ridge Uphill Capacity (pph) N/A 1,800 Lift Upgrades Specifications Quantity of Lift Upgrades N/A 3 Bashor Chairlift Carrier Capacity 2 TBD (people per chair) Bashor Chairlift Uphill Capacity (pph) 1,200 2,400 Rough Rider Platter Lift to Chairlift Carrier 1 TBD Capacity (people per chair) Rough Rider Platter Lift to Chairlift Uphill 513 1,800 Capacity (pph)

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 51 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Projects – Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Pony Express Chairlift Carrier Capacity 4 4 (people per chair) Pony Express Chairlift Uphill Capacity (pph) 1,200 1,800 Snowmaking Snowmaking Coverage (acres) 299 352 Water Diversions for Snowmaking (acre-feet) 298.5 335.3 Other Proposed Projects Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant N/A Included Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restroom N/A Included Burgess Creek Bridge N/A Included Rabbit Ears Terrain Park Expansion N/A Included Mavericks Superpipe Relocation N/A Included Trail Corridor Enhancements N/A Included Glading and Hazard Tree Removal N/A Included Note: All acreages presented are approximate

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 52 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.8 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Per direction provided in 40 CFR § 1502.14, Table 2-3 provides a comparison of environmental impacts by alternative.

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Recreation Issue Statement: Proposed projects would impact recreational opportunities within the Steamboat SUP area. Additional trails and recreation opportunities should only offer experiences that address the stated Purpose and Need, providing previously unavailable opportunities to meet guest expectations. Indicator: Discussion of skier circulation and congestion under existing and proposed conditions Trail density and skier circulation would not change from its existing Desirable trail densities would be maintained throughout the SUP area and condition. Overall, Steamboat would continue to exhibit desirable density and project components that include changes to lift capacity, snowmaking circulation conditions. However, travel in the Christie Peak Express Pod and improvements, and terrain modifications would address circulation issues near the base area, portions of Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area, and associated with Christie Peak Express Pod and near the base area, portions of throughout the Pony Pod would continue to be challenged. Without changes Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area, and throughout the Pony Pod. to lift capacity, snowmaking improvements, and terrain modifications in these areas, it is anticipated that skier circulation issues and congestion would persist.

Indicator: Discussion of current and projected skier use in relation to access, dispersion, and egress in the Project Area In the base area of Steamboat, skier circulation and lift use are hindered by There would be enough out-of-base capacity to stage the full CCC onto the the ingress and egress of guests combined with simultaneous use of this area mountain in less than an hour and a half time period. Additionally, through as teaching terrain. The base area of Steamboat is the single staging portal for the incorporation of the Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary, the ski area and wait limits would continue to frequently approach or exceed egress in the Project Area would be improved. The location of backcountry guest’s approximately 20-minute wait tolerance. Additionally, egress from access points and adequate return routes to the proposed Pioneer Ridge area the popular Pioneer Ridge backcountry terrain back into the Pony Pod is done are expected to reduce the number of issues related to skiers being unable to via the “100 steps,” which leads users back to lift-served terrain within the navigate to the operational boundary or getting stranded in high operational boundary. Without clearly defined ingress into the Pony Pod, this consequence terrain. is time consuming and challenging for many users who are unfamiliar with the terrain the Pioneer Ridge backcountry terrain and would continue to create circulation issues in the existing Pony Pod.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 53 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Quantification (acres) of current backcountry terrain and qualitative discussion of existing and proposed backcountry use in the Project Area Backcountry access would not change from existing conditions. The entire The majority of terrain previously accessed as backcountry adjacent to the 600-acre area of Pioneer Ridge adjacent to the Pony Pod and within the Pony Pod in the Pioneer Ridge Area, would be incorporated into Steamboat’s existing SUP boundary at Steamboat would remain as backcountry terrain as operational boundary. This would not encapsulate all the terrain one could it would be outside the existing operational boundary. Existing use of the access from the existing Pony Express chairlift; however, the 355-acre popular Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw, as well as Upper and Lower Fish operational boundary increase would include the popular Golf Course Fields Creek Canyon backcountry areas would continue through the existing and Outer Outlaw. The Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon areas would backcountry access points and is anticipated to resemble current trends. remain as backcountry beyond the proposed operational boundary. New access points would be constructed to provide backcountry users with entry to this area; however, the number of access points and locations would be determined in the ski area’s winter operating plan.

Indicator: Quantification (acres) of existing and proposed terrain distribution in the Project Area and the ski area by ability level, in relation to the skier market and Steamboat’s specific client niche

Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Skier Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Skier Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Area Capacity Distribution Market Area Capacity Distribution Market Ability Level Ability Level (acres) (guests) (%) (%) (acres) (guests) (%) (%) Beginner 5.1 154 1 5 Beginner 11.6 347 2 5 Novice 191.0 3,437 26 15 Novice 200.1 3,602 26 15 Low Intermediate 154.0 2,155 16 25 Low Intermediate 158.4 2,218 16 25 Intermediate 412.5 4,125 31 35 Intermediate 411.4 4,114 30 35 Advanced Advanced 374.0 2,618 20 15 386.8 2,707 19 15 Intermediate Intermediate Expert 225.3 676 5 5 Expert 315.1 945 7 5 Total 1,361.9 13,166 100 100 Total 1,483.4 13,933 100 100

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 54 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Discussion of seasonal and year-round recreation opportunities at the ski area, quantification of year-round and seasonal visitation to the ski area and to the City of Steamboat Springs, and discussion of how alternatives meet market demands Visitation to Steamboat and the City of Steamboat Springs would not be Summer visitation is expected to remain in its current trend. Although expected to change from its current trend, which is relatively flat. Visitation components of the Proposed Action Alternative would be operated during during the summer months is expected to continue increasing more rapidly, the summer season, they are not designed to increase summer visitation to anywhere from 3% to 18% based on recent trends. These trends in both the the ski area. Steamboat winter season visitation is expected to increase by summer and winter months are expected to be reflected in the City of 1.4% annually, or approximately 8 to 10% by 2028 (three years following Steamboat Springs. It is assumed that there is a natural increase of visitation project implementation and the completion of construction). Improvements in both the summer and winter months occurring at Steamboat and the to terrain, both in terms of variety and acreage would be the primary driver surrounding areas independent of an action alternative being selected. of increasing winter visitation that would occur. Indicator: Analysis of existing support facilities and comparison to proposed level of support facilities with anticipated skier volume There would be no changes to facilities or guest services. Restaurants in the A Children’s Facility and Restaurant designed for both summer and winter use base area and the Rendezvous Saddle would continue to have the greatest would be located at the top terminal of the proposed Bashor Gondola on deficiency of seats. Despite the largest deficiency of seats being in the base private lands. This facility would include a children’s ski school, restaurant area, it is important to understand that there are additional restaurants in the with a seating capacity of approximately 400 guests at one time, small retail base area that are not owned by Steamboat, which provide additional shop, special events area, and storage. The proposed Bashor restaurant seating. As none of the non-Steamboat restaurants in the base area are would maintain the existing guest experience commensurate to growing CCC considered but provide additional seating capacity, it is assumed that the and would accommodate the increased number of guests that are expected. current deficiency is in part made up by these private restaurants. None of It is assumed that the current seating deficiency in the base area would also the existing restaurants have a surplus of seating, indicating that none of be present but would be in part made up by these private restaurants. these facilities are being underutilized.

Indicator: Analysis of minimum number of safety employees to adequately manage the proposed area or ski area as a whole, which draws on other resort experience. Analysis that identifies whether the Proposed Action Alternative includes adequate safety measures and egress for emergency Steamboat’s ski patrol operation and practices would not change from the To patrol the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area, it is anticipated that existing conditions. It is anticipated that occasional responses to accidents in approximately one additional ski patrol supervisor and ten additional ski the area adjacent to the existing Pony Pod would continue to be difficult. patrollers would be added to Steamboat’s staff. This would result in Based on the current levels of use in the Pioneer Ridge backcountry, safety approximately six to seven patrollers per day covering the proposed Pioneer measures and egress for emergencies would remain insufficient. Ridge area. Current avalanche safety procedures and avalanche control devices would address avalanche concerns associated with the additional terrain in the Pioneer Ridge area. Components of the Proposed Action Alternative would address existing issues associated with the Pioneer Ridge area and provide adequate egress for emergency.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 55 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Social-Economic and Environmental Justice Issue Statement: Implementation of the proposed projects could potentially alter certain socioeconomic characteristics of Routt County or City of Steamboat Springs due to additional employees and their impacts within the community. Indicator: Discussion of potential effects to socioeconomic indicators in Routt County, including: population, employment (part-time seasonal employment vs. FTEs), city/county tax revenue, housing, affordable housing, wages, schools, use of public/social services, public transportation and visitor spending Population: Colorado is expected to reach 7.8 million residents by 2040, an Population: Alternative 2 would have a negligible effect on the baseline increase of about 2.3 million. Routt County population is expected to reach population trend. 39,000 by 2040, an increase of about 15,000. Employment: Approximately 430 FTEs and $15.6 million in labor income Employment: The proposed projects on NFS lands would not be constructed would be generated each year in response to direct spending associated with and Steamboat would continue to employ approximately 1,008 FTEs in the the Proposed Action Alternative. This value includes 37 new FTEs that would winter season. be directly employed by Steamboat in the winter. Revenue: Steamboat’s economic impact currently accounts for approximately Revenue: The new economic activity anticipated would contribute $180.3 million (10.2%) of the gross regional product (GRP) of Routt County. approximately $25.1 million to the GRP of Routt County. Approximately $4.0 Approximately $28.5 million in federal taxes and approximately $22.9 million million in federal taxes and approximately $3.2 million in state and local taxes in state and local taxes are generated each year by this economic activity. would be generated each year by this economic activity. Housing: There is currently shortage of affordable housing in the Yampa Housing: Not anticipated to measurably affect the housing markets of the City Valley that is expected to persist. of Steamboat Springs or Routt County. Income and Poverty: Routt County can be expected to retain its relatively Income and Poverty: Routt County can be expected to retain its relatively higher median household income ($64,963) and a lower percentage of the higher median household income ($64,963) and a lower percentage of the population below the poverty level (10.2%) than both the State of Colorado population below the poverty level (10.2%) than both the State of Colorado and the U.S. as a whole. and the U.S. as a whole. Schools: Routt County has very high levels of educational attainment and a Schools: Not anticipated to measurably affect the ability of the public school robust public school system, with multiple districts that are capable of system in Routt County to continue to provide adequate educational providing enrollment for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students. opportunities. Social Services: Social services are being used by some Steamboat employees Social Services: Employees generated are likely to earn less than the annual to supplement the high cost of living in a mountain resort town and seasonal mean income in Colorado, and as a result, could require social services. Social work patterns. Child-care services experience the greatest demand, which is services could see an increase in demand; however, the effect to social struggling to be accommodated. services is not anticipated to be driven by changes in employment at Public Transportation: Public transportation is provided through Steamboat Steamboat. Child-care services in the county are and would continue to be Springs Transit (SST), which offers local, regional, and Americans with severely challenged. Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit public transportation throughout Routt Public Transportation: Not anticipated to measurably affect the ability of County. SST is capable of accommodating increased ridership for both public transportation to accommodate increased ridership for both tourists tourists and workers. and workers that may occur.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 56 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Qualitative and quantitative discussion of available housing and affordable housing, including designated employee housing, in Routt County during both summer and winter seasons Housing availability in the Yampa Valley and the City of Steamboat Springs is The project is not anticipated to measurably affect the housing markets of an ongoing issue. Studies led by the Yampa Valley Housing Authority the City of Steamboat Springs or Routt County. The majority of workers are identified a housing shortage in certain areas of the county that was more anticipated to already be living in the area. impactful to different groups, particularly the low to middle income workforce. Steamboat currently provide 442 beds in its employee housing units at The Ponds, accommodating approximately 26% of the winter seasonal workforce. The workforce housing currently available at Steamboat would not accommodate any additional employees and Steamboat would need to provide additional employee housing options in the near future. Indicator: Discussion of compliance with Environmental Justice and EO 12898 No existing minority populations were identified in Routt County. No changes or modifications would be approved that would directly or Additionally, no low-income populations were identified in the Project Area indirectly affect minority or low-income populations in Routt County. that would experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects. Traffic and Parking Issue Statement: Proposed projects may generate measurable increases in daily/seasonal visitation, thereby affecting traffic movement and volumes within the City of Steamboat Springs, on Highway 40, and on construction/maintenance access roads proximate to the ski area. In turn, this may impact other resource areas. Indicator: Discussion of historic and projected traffic counts for roadway networks to access Steamboat Traffic was observed at five key locations in 2016 on the roadway network Traffic was observed at five key locations in 2016 on the roadway network that accesses Steamboat. Traffic volumes measured as (Average Annual Daily that accesses Steamboat. Traffic volumes measured as AADT would increase Traffic) AADT would increase by 13.3% over the next ten years. by between 14.6% and 24.6% over the next ten years on a busy winter day. Indicator: Comparison of anticipated traffic volumes with existing traffic volumes and the design capacities of roadway networks accessing Steamboat, including Burgess Creek Road No additional trips are anticipated to Steamboat in addition to background An additional 396 one-way trips are anticipated to the Steamboat on a busy traffic. Improvements such as new traffic signals, stop signs, and roundabouts winter day in addition to background traffic. Improvements such as new are suggested in a 2008 Traffic Impact Study to mitigate traffic impacts from traffic signals, stop signs, and roundabouts are suggested in a 2008 Traffic already planned development in the area. Impact Study to mitigate traffic impacts from visitation and planned development.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 57 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Quantification of existing and proposed parking capacity for day and destination visitors within Steamboat parking lots There is adequate parking capacity for existing and projected visitation. There is adequate parking capacity for existing and projected visitation.

Indicator: Discussion of potential impacts from construction traffic and construction access routes No additional trips are anticipated from timber removal, construction and Two hundred and thirty-six truck trips for debris and timber removal, as well staging, or workers accessing the job site as the proposed project would not as 2,000 one-way truck trips for construction and staging are anticipated over be constructed. the next ten years. On construction days, an additional 10 to 30 trips one-way for workers are also anticipated.

Indicator: Discussion of how traffic and parking issues may impact other resource areas No traffic or parking-related impacts to other resources are anticipated above Dust, particulate matter, and increased emissions are anticipated. Road existing conditions and trends. maintenance may also need to occur more frequently. Additional traffic on rural Highway 40 may impact wildlife crossings.

Visuals Issue Statement: Proposed projects within the Steamboat SUP area may be visible from the City of Steamboat Springs and/or within the existing ski area. Indicator: Discussion of the existing scenic integrity in and around the Steamboat SUP area and potential changes to this condition The majority of the SUP area is inventoried as Existing Visual Condition (EVC) Implementation would incrementally contribute to the developed character Type V, Heavily Altered Landscapes; however, the new Pioneer Ridge Area is of Steamboat’s SUP area. With adherence to PDC, none of the proposed inventoried as Type I, Naturally Evolving Landscapes. The entire SUP area is projects are expected to increase visual resource impacts to the character of assigned a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Modification. No changes or the SUP area, such that it would not meet the VQO of Modification. With the modifications would be approved on NFS lands that would change these exception of the addition of ski area infrastructure and terrain in the new existing conditions. Steamboat’s overall trail network and infrastructure is Pioneer Ridge area, proposed projects would be located within the existing visible in the middleground from the City of Steamboat Springs, Highway 40, developed trail network or otherwise near existing ski area infrastructure, and surrounding road network. and would remain EVC Type V. The Proposed Action Alternative would introduce ski area infrastructure to Pioneer Ridge and convert the area from EVC Type I to Type IV. A limited number of the projects on NFS lands would be visible in the middleground from the City of Steamboat Springs and Highway 40, primarily in the new Pioneer Ridge area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 58 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Discussion of potential impacts of lights during after dark events and activities Currently, after-dark events and activities within the overall SUP area include There is potential for after-dark use of the proposed Bashor Restaurant. The , after-dark snowshoeing, night-time dining, and restaurant would be located approximately 1,000 feet north of the existing gondola/snowcat/sleigh rides. Night skiing uses the Christie Peak Express night skiing area; due to close proximity to existing night skiing, impacts to chairlift and occurs both at the base area as well as three trails adjacent to visual resources from after-dark use of the proposed Bashor Restaurant are Bashor Bowl: See Me, Sitz, and Vogue. Night skiing occurs until 8:30 p.m. or not expected to be greater than current conditions caused by night skiing 9:00 p.m., depending on the time of year. illumination.

Indicator: Narrative description of how proposed projects imitate landscape character N/A The proposed projects would imitate landscape character through project PDC that include, but are not limited to, adherence to Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) concepts and criteria, reflectivity guidelines, revegetation standards, avoidance of straight edges when removing trees, variable density cuttings, and selection of natural appearing construction materials and colors.

Indicator: Discussion of identified critical viewpoints, including foreground visual simulations of project implementation in the Bashor and Rough Rider areas, and middleground visual simulations for Pioneer Ridge Critical Viewpoint 1: Existing visible infrastructure includes the Bashor Critical Viewpoint 1: The projects that would be visible from this critical chairlift, Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, Mavericks Superpipe, Rough viewpoint include the Bashor Gondola, Bashor Children’s Facility and Rider platter lift, Thunderhead Express chairlift, Christie Peak Express top Restaurant, moving carpet lifts, Rough Rider chairlift, Trail A, Trail B, Trail C, terminal, and various ski trails. No changes or modifications would be Trail D, removed Mavericks Superpipe, and Rabbit Ears Terrain Park approved on NFS lands that would change these existing conditions. Projects expansion. The view from this critical viewpoint would continue to exhibit the located on the private lands within the area may still occur, and these existing EVC Type V, Heavily Altered Landscapes and meet the existing VQO projects would incrementally contribute to the developed character of of Modification. Steamboat’s SUP area. Critical Viewpoint 2: The Pioneer chairlift and collector ski-way Trail F would Critical Viewpoint 2: The new Pioneer Ridge area, while frequently skied, is create linear features in an otherwise natural landscape, despite the undeveloped except for a portion of the existing Pioneer Trail, a summer application of PDC that would apply variable density cutting techniques to multi-use trail. No changes or modifications would be approved that would create a more natural edge. Gladed trails and hazard tree removal would also change the visual character from this viewpoint. modify the color composition of forested areas by reducing the number of coniferous trees. The view from this critical viewpoint would not affect the EVC for much of the viewpoint, except for the new Pioneer Ridge area, which would become EVC IV. The visual character from this viewpoint would continue to meet VQO of Modification.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 59 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Cultural/Heritage Issue Statement: Implementation of proposed projects and associated ground disturbance may affect previously unidentified cultural and heritage resources. Indicator: Documentation of the presence or absence of identified cultural/heritage resources One prehistoric cultural resource (5RT809), located on private lands, was N/A identified within the APE. The resource was determined not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP and received concurrence on the determination by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in March 1992.

Indicator: Documentation of impacts to any eligible National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites New development projects within the Steamboat SUP area would not occur. There is potential to impact unknown cultural resources within the APE. Steamboat would continue to operate under its current configuration and Proposed Action Alternative undertakings associated with snowmaking; ski capacity. There would be no direct or indirect impacts to heritage resources. trail grading and contour grading; construction or maintenance of new and/or The implementation of the No Action Alternative would not change or alter existing trails, roads, skid trails, staging areas, buildings, and bridges; tree the significant characteristics or the integrity of heritage resources within the removal; and installing ski lifts and magic carpets can be considered a ground- APE. disturbing activity. Impacts to cultural resources from these activities include the potential alteration or destruction of artifacts or cultural features on the surface, as well as damage to site soil matrices and depositional strata. There is a potential for ground disturbance in the form of vehicles, personnel, and other equipment used to implement the Proposed Action Alternative. Disturbance and/or destruction of surface cultural material is the greatest threat of the proposed undertaking; however, shallow subsurface deposits (i.e., 1 to 20 centimeters below the ground surface) are also in danger of disturbance and/or destruction. Heavy disturbance activities also pose a threat to deposits as deep as 5 feet below the ground surface.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 60 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Air Quality and Climate Change Issue Statement: 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 Indicator: Narrative description of existing air quality in the Project Area, including population centers, Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity, and proximity to City of Steamboat Springs PM10 Attainment Area There would be no change in air quality parameters due to the Proposed There would be a negligible to small increment of additional emissions. Action Alternative. Wilderness, approximately 7.5 miles north, is Negligible changes to current measurements of PM10 and PM2.5, as well as the nearest Class I area. The nearest Class II area is , other metrics such as ozone and deciviews, are expected. approximately 18.5 miles away. Steamboat is not located in any U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designated non-attainment areas for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. However, it is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the PM10 attainment and maintenance area of the City of Steamboat Springs. Three (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) IMPROVE monitors consistently register measurements well below the NAAQS for both PM10 and PM2.5. The three-year average of the annual fourth highest 8-hour ozone measurement is slightly less than the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the three monitors for which data are available. Indicator: Discussion of compliance with local, state and federal regulations regarding air quality There would be no change in compliance with air quality regulations. There would be no change in compliance with air quality regulations. Current measurements of PM10 and PM2.5, as well as other metrics such as ozone and deciviews, are not expected to change.

Indicator: Qualitative discussion of potential impacts to NAAQS and AQRVs There would be no change in compliance with NAAQS and AQRVs. There may be negligible to small changes to the amount of emissions measured for NAAQS and AQRVs; however, the incremental additions are not expected to change the compliance with these standards.

Indicator: Estimation of short-term and long-term emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including timber removal and traffic (including increased traffic associated with the anticipated increased annual visitation). There would be no emissions related to construction and operation of the There would be a very small increment in the emissions from on-road mobile project. sources predicted to occur from projected activities at Steamboat, and a negligible increase from non-road mobile sources.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 61 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Narrative discussion of timber removal techniques (e.g., burning) and their potential effect on air quality in the region There would be no timber removal or associated potential effects on air The Proposed Action Alternative would result in short-term, adverse impacts quality. on air quality in the region due to timber removal machinery, vehicle emissions from timber removal vehicles, and possible burning. These effects are anticipated to be small and would be carried out in accordance with local and Forest Service BMPs for air quality. Issue Statement: Climate change has the potential to affect the proposed projects; construction and operation of the proposed projects (including short- term construction-related activity, burning, and transportation related to timber removal) could result in GHG emissions and other contributions to climate change Indicator: Discussion of the impact of climate change on the operations of Steamboat and the proposed projects Ongoing effects of climate change would continue to occur based on recent Climate change is not anticipated to directly impact the activities or outcomes Colorado trends in precipitation, temperature, and the timing and duration of beyond what will occur under ongoing climate trends in Colorado. snowfall and snowmelt. As a result, there could be change to snowmaking capacity, other operations, and the visitation season. Indicator: Qualitative discussion of potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed projects, during both construction and operation, and potential contributions to climate change There would be no additional GHG emissions above baseline conditions and Small amounts of GHG emissions are anticipated from on-road mobile and continued operations at Steamboat. non-road mobile sources due to the construction and ongoing use of elements of the Proposed Action Alternative. CO2(e) may increase up to a maximum of 6 metric tons per day, or up to 2,200 metric tons/year, as a highest estimate. As a comparison, fossil fuel consumption in the State of Colorado releases approximately 251,000 metric tons of CO2 per day.

Indicator: Discussion of climate change and ongoing and reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts relevant to Steamboat’s SUP area, based on U.S. Global Change Research Program assessments Ongoing effects of climate change would continue to occur based on recent The Proposed Action Alternative would not alter the ongoing effects of Colorado trends. In the Yampa River Valley region, models predict that climate change in the Steamboat SUP area. summer temperatures will increase +4.0ºF to +5.0ºF in the period between 2035 to 2064, and precipitation will increase 10% to 20% between December and April and decrease 5% to 10% in the summer. Cumulative beneficial impacts may occur regionally, due to Steamboat and local GHG emissions efforts.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 62 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Botany, including Timber and Forest Health Issue Statement: Ground disturbance associated with construction and operation of proposed projects could affect plant communities throughout the Project Area, including TES species, MBRTB SOLC, invasive plant species, and overall forest health. Indicator: General discussion of vegetation types and forest health, including stand level vegetation types, species, and age class, as well as the presence of insects and disease Roughly 70% of the Project Area is forested. Stands composed of N/A predominantly lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia), or those where pine is a significant component, are found throughout the northwest portion of the Project Area. Stands of nearly pure aspen (Populus tremuloides) and those composed of both aspen and conifers are predominant throughout the mid-section of the tract, and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) stands are dominant throughout the upper elevation range of the Steamboat SUP area. Additionally, two stands in the western tip of the ski area have significant component of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Roughly 90% of the mature lodgepole pine has died due to Mountain Pine Beetle attack and regeneration is sparse to non-existent in the Pony Pod and Pioneer Ridge area.

Indicator: Identification and disclosure of and impacts to any federally listed TES, Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species, and MBRTB SOLC present in the Project Area There are no federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate Approximately 1.35 acres of occupied Rabbit Ears gilia habitat would be plant species within the Project Area. Rabbit Ears gilia (Ipomopsis aggregata directly impacts by the Proposed Action Alternative, 1.04 acres of which subsp. weberi) was located during field reconnaissance at the top of the would be permanently impacts and 0.31 acre of which would be temporarily existing Pony Express chairlift. Individual plants would likely continue to impacted. Any existing plants in these areas would be destroyed by grading or experience some direct impacts through lift maintenance activities, vehicle buried under fill or other infrastructure and would be permanently lost. It is parking, material storage, and minor construction activities. None of the unlikely that implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would other 11 plant species carried forward for analysis were found in the Project eliminate the occurrence of Rabbit Ears gilia in its entirety, but rather reduce Area and are presumed to be absent; therefore, no direct or indirect effects the overall extent. Furthermore, there are likely numerous other, yet would occur. undocumented occurrences of this plant in the general vicinity.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 63 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Quantification (acres) of permanent type conversion and discussion of changes to vegetation type None of the proposed activities would occur and current management A total of approximately 228.4 acres of disturbance would occur within the conditions would continue. Forest succession and existing levels of skier use various vegetation cover types that compose the Project Area. Of the 228.4 would continue, and existing ski area infrastructure such as trails and lift acres, approximately 151.6 acres would occur as overstory vegetation corridors would continue to be maintained. Barring disturbances such as removal and 76.8 acres would occur a ground-based vegetation removal. insects, disease, and wildfire, lodgepole pine stands that are currently Glading would preserve 60 to 70% of the existing basal area, on average; composed of standing dead lodgepole, aspen seedlings, lodgepole pine therefore, a complete cover type conversion would not occur in gladed areas. seedlings, shrubs, grasses, and forbs would regenerate to pure lodgepole, Hazard tree removal areas in spruce/fir stands are located near the base of lodgepole/aspen mix, or pure aspen stands. The natural process in beetle the proposed Pioneer chairlift, and again near the summit of Pioneer Ridge, killed lodgepole pine stands would continue with additional trees where standing dead lodgepole pine (Mountain Pine Beetle [MPB] mortality) deteriorating and falling to the ground to either decompose naturally or and subalpine fir (fir root rot mortality) constitute the majority of trees accumulate on the forest floor. These stands would proceed through the targeted for removal. Similar to glading impacts, the remnant spruce/fir stand successional pathway to climax spruce/fir communities. Existing spruce/fir would not represent a cover type conversion. stands would continue to exist as uneven-aged forest similar to those which Hazard tree removal in lodgepole pine stands would essentially be exist at the current time. clearcutting, as almost 100% of lodgepole pines were killed by MPB. Lodgepole pine and aspen would likely regenerate in these sites; however, unless barriers are placed surrounding these stands to prevent skier access, it is likely that skier damage would prevent trees from reaching maturity. Clearcutting within aspen, spruce/fir, and lodgepole stands for ski trails, lifts, the Burgess Creek Bridge, summer access roads, and for communication and electrical line installations would convert forested habitats to grass/forblands or shrublands.

Indicator: Quantification (acres) of proposed overstory vegetation removal and proposed ground-based vegetation removal, both total and within the WIZ No additional overstory vegetation removal would occur. It is estimated that Approximately 151.6 acres would occur as overstory vegetation removal and the WIZ within the Project Area is approximately 149.5 acres. Approximately 76.8 acres would occur a ground-based vegetation removal. Approximately 6 28% of the forests within the WIZ have been cleared as a result of projects acres of disturbance would occur within forested WIZ areas, reducing the such as lift terminals, road, and ski train construction, with 107.5 acres of area of forest WIZ by 5% compared to existing conditions. forested WIZ remaining.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 64 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Identification of noxious weeds present in the area and description of any potential for increasing noxious weed spread Six species of Colorado-listed noxious weeds were documented within the The existing populations of noxious and invasive weeds could potentially Project Area. These include white to (Cardaria draba), Canada thistle (Cirsium spread into the relatively uninfested areas of Pony Express and Pioneer Ridge arvense), bull thistle (Linaria vulgaris), houndstongue (Cynoglossum areas. However, with proper implementation of BMPs and PDC, this threat officinale), and scentless chamomile (Tripleurospermum perforatum). Reed would be lessened. BMP and PDC include 1) pretreatment of existing canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), an invasive wetland grass species, was infestations; 2) cleaning all off-road equipment; 3) revegetation with also observed. approved seed mixes that are certified noxious weed free; and 4) monitoring and treatment of the Project Area for three years.

Fire and Fuels Issue Statement: Implementation of proposed projects, including pile burning, has the potential to affect fire behavior. Indicator: Estimation of the amount and arrangement of residual fuels from each alternative No residual fuels would be created from project-related activities. The anticipated volume of pile burning that would occur is 60,800 cubic feet. As recommended in the PDC, piles would be restricted to 20-foot-high piles, 20 feet wide by 12 feet in length. This would allow for more opportunities to burn and reduce possible smoke issues and would account for approximately 30 to 35 piles that could likely be burned by one to two people in one to two days. If mastication is used, chips would need to be spread out to be less than 6 inches in depth on the forest floor. No piling of chips for burning would be allowed, per State of Colorado burning regulations which generally prohibit the burning of products derived from wood processing.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 65 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Discussion of compliance with Fire and Fuels Standard 1 for Management Area 8.22 under each alternative Residual fuels would not be added to the Project Area; therefore, the No To meet Fire and Fuels Standard 1, fuel load reduction and/or fuel Action Alternative would not preclude the feasibility of direct attack and manipulation would need to be utilized in hazard tree areas, Trail F, lift lines, would adhere to Fire and Fuels Standard 1. and road corridors areas where vegetation removal would occur.

Indicator: Analysis of management activity fuels to determine if treatment would reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease There would be no necessary treatment of management activity fuels to Landfire data was used to predict the treatment of management activity reduce fire intensity levels, as there is no vegetation removal associated with fuels. Landfire data indicated that either forms of treatment, lop and scatter the No Action Alternative or removal of vegetation in proposed gladed areas, would reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease. Conversely, Landfire data did indicate that lop and scatter of vegetation in Trail F, hazard tree areas, and lift lines would not reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease; therefore, vegetation would need to be removed in these areas to meet Fire and Fuels Standard 1.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 66 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Wildlife and Fisheries Issue Statement: Development of proposed projects, including associated infrastructure, could affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for federal and/or Forest Service Region 2 TES fish and wildlife species, CRCT, MIS, raptors, migratory birds, SOCC, and SOLC, as well as big game species. Indicator: Identification of federally listed, MIS, Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species, SOCC, SOLC, and migratory birds potentially present in the habitats of the Project Area, and describe field studies conducted to determine the presence or absence of these species Existing conditions (presence/absence) include: As described in the No Action Alternative. TES Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker humpback chub, bonytail chub Species occur on the Colorado River and are affected by water depletions Greenback cutthroat trout Genetically pure species does not occur in Yampa River drainage Canada lynx Steamboat SUP area occupies 6.8% of the Mount Werner Lynx Analysis Unit Region 2 Sensitive Species Refer to Table 3.9-3 for species with and without potential habitat. Eleven species have potential habitat within the Project Area. Migratory Birds Refer to Table 3.9-4 for species with and without potential habitat. Six species may occur within the Project Area. SOCC, SOLC and Big Game Elk The Project Area is mapped as elk summer range. No portions of the Project Area are mapped as elk production range, but some elk may still use the area for this purpose. Moose Evidence of moose utilization is apparent throughout the Pioneer Ridge area, and several moose (bulls, cows, and calves) were observed during field surveys. The entire ski area is located within a large area mapped by CPW as moose summer range. The lower portions of the Pioneer Ridge area provide winter range, while the entire Bashor area is within CPW-mapped winter range. MIS Table 3.9-5 describes that two species are present in the Project Area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 67 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Quantification (acres or miles for fish) and qualification of existing wildlife habitat and proposed alteration, fragmentation, or removal of wildlife habitat, by species. Include specifically lynx diurnal security habitat, winter forage habitat, and denning habitat No impacts to listed species and raptors. No habitat removal would occur. TES Upper Colorado endangered fish Additional 8.6 acre-feet of depletions impacting downstream habitat Canada lynx 55 acres of habitat conversion, 92 acres of habitat effectiveness reduction Greenback cutthroat trout Absent from Yampa River watershed Region 2 Sensitive Species Marten: 87.7 acres of habitat impact Hoary bat: 87.7 acres of habitat impact Pygmy shrew: 127.4 acres of habitat impact Northern goshawk: 184.6 acres of habitat impact Boreal owl: 87.7 acres of habitat impact Olive-sided flycatcher: 87.7 acres of habitat impact Flammulated owl: 141.5 acres of habitat impact SOLC All of the proposed activities have the potential to impact seasonal elk habitat, primarily summer and spring/fall transition ranges. The proposed project would have direct and indirect impacts to moose due to construction and operations. Migratory Birds and Raptors 228.4 acres of habitat impacts Indicator: Description of the existing environmental baseline by quantifying current use in the Project Area and compare to proposed conditions Within the existing ski area boundary, the CCC is 12,670 skiers per day. The anticipated skiers per day would increase to 14,420 including skiers Beyond the operational boundary, 50 to 500 skiers per day enter the Pioneer within the Pioneer Ridge area. Ridge area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 68 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Disclosure of effects to the above listed species, as well as raptors No impacts to listed species and raptors. TES Alternative 2 may adversely affect the four Upper Colorado endangered fish. Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. Alternative 2 would have no effect to the greenback cutthroat trout. Region 2 Sensitive Species For species that have the potential to be present within the Project Area, the Proposed Action Alternative would have no impact on purple marten, boreal toad, mountain sucker, and CRCT. For species that have the potential to be present within the Project Area, the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals for the following species: marten, hoary bat, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl. SOLC All of the proposed activities have the potential to impact seasonal elk habitat, primarily summer and spring/fall transition ranges. The proposed project would have direct and indirect impacts to moose due to construction and operations. Migratory Birds Avian nesting and foraging effectiveness could be impaired adjacent areas of tree removal. While some affected birds could experience reduced recruitment, such potential effects would be limited to a low number of individual birds and would not measurably affect bird abundance or community composition in the Steamboat SUP area. Raptors Due to the Forest Plan amendment that would reduce protections of raptor nests and habitat areas, displacement of raptors could occur during construction activities of the Pioneer Ridge project. Indicator: Quantification and qualification of compensatory mitigation for impacts to lynx or other relevant species habitat, if necessary N/A No compensatory mitigation is required for any species habitat.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 69 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Identification of impacts to elk, moose, and mule deer habitat with particular focus on the impacts to reproductive habitat. Describe the possible timing conflicts between elk/moose/deer movement corridors/concentration areas with operating season. Specifically outline seasonal timing restrictions for affected species with listed status. No additional impacts to elk, moose and mule deer. All of the proposed activities have the potential to impact seasonal elk habitat, primarily summer and spring/fall transition ranges. The proposed project would have direct and indirect impacts to moose due to construction and operations.

Indicator: Discussion of the proposed projects’ potential to cumulatively impact habitat connectivity within the Steamboat SUP and surrounding areas No impacts to habitat connectivity within the Steamboat SUP and Habitat connectivity would be maintained throughout the Project Area at the surrounding areas. level it currently exists, yet may be somewhat degraded due to the increase in the winter operational area.

Indicator: Identification of impacts to aquatic species, particularly CRCT in Burgess Creek from effects from the proposed projects, especially in relation to water quality and stream health No additional impacts to aquatic species. The Proposed Action Alternative would have no impact on CRCT.

Indicator: Identification of potential impacts from proposed after dark activities After dark activities in the winter currently consist of night skiing adjacent to The Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would operate in the summer the Bashor Bowl area. Summer after dark activities include operation of the after dark for on-mountain dining and weddings. This activity would occur on Gondola and on-mountain dining. These activities create temporary private lands, along with the operation of the Bashor Gondola for access. displacement of general nocturnal wildlife species. No additional impacts After dark activities have the potential to displace evaluated species across a would occur. greater portion of the Project Area. Several species are known to forage, bed, or travel at night and these biological functions could be impacted from supplemental lighting, noise, and human activity.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 70 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Soils Issue Statement: 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. Proposed project components that could result in unnecessary or excessive ground disturbance should be avoided. Indicator: Discussion of soil conditions, including: bare ground analysis and intentional/unintentional bare ground, areas of slope instability and mass movement, and baseline inventory of soil organic matter A bare ground analysis calculated 148.9 existing acres of bare ground from The Proposed Action Alternative would intentionally create about 3.4 acres of anthropogenic causes within the Project Area. Of those, 63.8 acres are bare ground from roads and staging areas. Other intentional and possibly unintentional disturbances. The other 85.1 bare ground acres are unintentional bare ground acres from grading would be restored. from intentional disturbances, such as roads and trail, buildings, facilities and The Proposed Action Alternative would disturb 76.7 acres of soil by grading staging areas. (60.6 acres on NFS lands and 16.1 acres on private land). Grading, especially Since there would be no ground disturbances, mass movement potential on slopes >30%, can increase mass movement potential. On-site slope would likely remain the same or similar as under the same climatic stability examinations would be conducted prior to grading in areas of mass conditions. Increases in precipitation, however, can increase mass movement movement concerns. potential. The Proposed Action Alternative would disturb 76.7 acres of soil by grading Since there would be no ground disturbances, thicknesses of mineral A (60.6 acres on NFS lands and 16.1 acres on private land). Thicknesses of and/or organic O horizons would continue to increase or decrease at existing mineral soil surface and/or organic layers in these areas would be impacted rates. by mixing and displacement from grading and vegetation clearing. Measurements revealed that organic horizons are generally very thin (<1-inch thickness), which is common for mountain forested soils. Surface mineral horizons (A, A/E and E horizons) averaged 6 inches thick throughout the proposed disturbances where grading is anticipated. Prior to disturbance, on- site assessment of thicknesses of soil A and organic layers were made to ensure no net loss of these materials and that they would be re-spread following construction or used elsewhere.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 71 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Analysis of increased erosion hazard, slope instability, and increased soil compaction due to temporary and permanent ground disturbance Since there would be no ground disturbances, soil erosion losses would Proposed Action Alternative would disturb 76.6 acres of soil by grading, of continue to occur at existing rates. which 74 acres would be in soils having high erosion hazard (58.3 acres on Since there would be no ground disturbances, mass movement potential NFS lands and 15.7 acres on private land. Grading actions are likely to would likely remain the same or similar as under the same climatic increase risk of erosion, especially in soils having high erosion hazards. conditions. Increases in precipitation, however, can increase mass movement Grading would affect 4.6 acres of soil having high mass movement potential. potential. Grading actions are likely to increase mass movement potential, especially on Since there would be no ground disturbance, soil compaction would be slopes >60% and on slopes >30% that are in or near up gradient wetlands. limited to activities associated with the current developments within the ski The Proposed Action Alternative would disturb 184.2 acres of soil by grading resort. and vegetation clearing (166.5 acres on NFS lands and 17.7 acres on private land). Of these acres, essentially all acres (except 0.1 acre) would be in soils having high compaction hazard. These activities would cause soil compaction, especially in soils having high compaction hazard. Soil disturbing activities would be avoided during periods of heavy rain and excessively wet soils. Hydrology Issue Statement: Implementation of proposed projects has the potential to impair stream and riparian health. Indicator: Location of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream channels that are within the zone of construction, as well as quantification of width, substrate size, bank stability, and valley confinement Summary description of stream channels within the Burgess Creek N/A Watershed: Intermittent Total Stream Perennial Streams Streams Network Description Total Total Total Piped Piped Piped Length length Length (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Burgess Creek 27,212 1,197 6,692 0 33,904 1,197 (NFS Lands) Burgess Creek 15,990 5,066 2,314 988 18,304 6,054 (Private Lands) Total 43,202 6,263 9,006 988 52,208 7,251

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 72 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Discussion of anticipated temporary and permanent changes in water yield (acre-feet) and peak flows (cfs), and subsequent watershed effects No changes in water yield and peak flow would occur. Water yield and peak The Proposed Action Alternative would cause increases in the Burgess Creek flows would continue to resemble quantities presented in Table 3.11-3. yield by 176 acre-feet (or 4% relative to existing condition), and its peak streamflow by 0.8 cfs (1% relative to existing condition).

Indicator: Discussion of existing stream health conditions and WIZ impacts, within the context of the following stream health metrics: State water quality standards, bank stability, fine sediment, channel width/depth ratios, and longitudinal profile Baseline WIZ is estimated at 149.5 acres and assumed to have been entirely Impacts to the WIZ associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would forested. The existing forested WIZ is approximately 107.5 acres, or 72% of account for 6 acres of tree clearing including 1.7 acres of grading. Adverse baseline. Stream health would remain in the ‘at risk’ category. effects to Burgess Creek stream health would occur; however, the stream would remain (maintain) in the “at risk” category.

Indicator: Quantification of stream health through surveys that classify each channel, their function, and channel sensitivity to disturbance Burgess Creek within NFS lands was determined to be in “Good Condition.” A Burgess Creek sensitivity to additional disturbance is limited. However, 2011 greenline survey conducted by the MBRTB rated the stability of the implementation of the proposed BMPs to disconnect existing CDA, and surveyed reach as “Poor to Moderate.” construction of the Proposed Action Alternative in compliance with proposed PDC and required federal and state permits would protect stream health.

Indicator: Quantification and discussion of existing drainage concerns and treatment areas, including areas of rilling and gullying. The existing Burgess Creek CDAs within NFS lands totals 1.7 acres. Areas of N/A rilling and gulling were observed at the discharge or road waterbars and in the half-pipe area.

Indicator: Development and analysis of drainage management measures to maintain or improve stream health No changes to the current drainage management measures would be The Proposed Action Alternative includes PDC that would disconnect implemented. approximately 3,200 linear feet (1.2 acres) of roads and trails and minimize CDAs to the extent practicable. Implementation of the proposed PDC would maintain Burgess Creek stream health.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 73 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Quantification (acres) of impacts to the WIZ Existing impacts to the WIZ within NFS lands total approximately 42 acres. Impacts to the WIZ associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would account for approximately 6 acres of tree clearing including 1.7 acres of grading, an increase of approximately 14% above existing conditions.

Indicator: Quantification (acres) of CDA Burgess Creek CDAs within NFS lands total approximately 1.7 acres. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, along with the proposed PDC including proper design, installation, and maintenance of BMPs, would disconnect 1.2 acres of the 1.7 acres currently connected, and not increase the extent of CDAs.

Indicator: Analysis of road and trail densities in the affected area Existing road and trail density within the Project Area is approximately Road and trail density would increase to 13.2 miles/square mile, a 4% 12.6 miles/square mile. increase relative to existing condition.

Indicator: Quantification (acres) of ground disturbing activities located on highly erodible soils as it pertains to stream health No additional disturbance would occur on highly erodible soils. Approximately 26.5 acres of ground disturbing activities would be located on highly erodible soils.

Indicator: Identification of any CWA § 303(d) impaired or threatened waterbody segments in the Project Area No cause of impairment has been identified for streams included in the Changes to the water quality of Burgess Creek from the Proposed Action Project Area. The segment of the Yampa River from where SSRC draws its Alternative is anticipated to be negligible. snowmaking water is included in the CWA Section 303(d) list for temperature and arsenic.

Indicator: Narrative discussion of BMPs and PDC to minimize adverse effects to watershed health N/A BMPs and PDC designed to minimize adverse effects to watershed health are included in Table 2-1.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 74 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Issue Statement: 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 wetlands, GDEs, and other waters of the U.S. existent within the Project Area (acres/linear feet); description of anticipated temporary/permanent, direct/indirect effects of impacts A summary of proposed direct and indirect effects to wetlands in the Project Wetland Type Area (acres) Area is provided below. Palustrine Forested/Scrub-Shrub (PFO/PSS) 5.23 Direct Impact Indirect Impact Permanent Area of Palustrine Forested (PFO) 2.44 Temporary Area of Wetland Type* Impact Tree Impact Area Dewatering Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS) 4.84 Area Removal (acres) (acres) Palustrine Emergent (PEM) 4.94 (acres) (acres) Grand Total 17.46 Palustrine Forested/Scrub-Shrub 2.24 (PFO/PSS) Perennial Intermittent Total Palustrine Forested Streams 0.01 0.15 (linear feet) (linear feet) (linear feet) (PFO) Burgess Creek 2,506 2,506 Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 0.87 .06 (PSS) North Fork Burgess Creek 7,051 7,051 Palustrine Emergent 0.10 0.70+ 0.00 1.12 Unnamed Streams 604 12,292 12,896 (PEM) Grand Total 10,162 12,292 22,454 Palustrine Scrub- Shrub/Palustrine 0.23 Emergent (PSS/PEM) Grand Total 0.10 0.70+ 3.26 1.41

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 75 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2-3: Summary Comparison of Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Indicator: Narrative description of wetland communities, classifications, functions and values, and species present; disclosure of anticipated temporary/permanent, direct/indirect impacts (acres/linear feet) to these characteristics Adverse impacts to wetlands could potentially occur in the Bashor and Rough The anticipated direct and indirect impacts are quantified above. With Rider areas due to the periodic repair of the existing aging snowmaking implementation of BMPs and PDC, including compensatory wetland infrastructure. In addition, existing snowmaking would continue to increase mitigation and/or restoration, these effects would not jeopardize the wetland the hydrologic budget of wetlands in this area. In the Pony Express and functioning condition. Indirect effects to wetland resources include forest Pioneer Ridge areas, no effects are anticipated except for minor pruning of overstory removal, snow compaction, wetland dewatering, noxious weed shrubby wetland vegetation in ski trails. invasion and erosion/sedimentation. It is anticipated that potential changes to wetland structure, species composition, and function could potentially occur; however, with implementation of the BMPs and PDC, these changes would not be of sufficient magnitude or scale to cause a significant effect.

Indicator: Description of compliance with EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands N/A In accordance with EO 11990, the Proposed Action Alternative was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands wherever possible. Numerous BMPs and PDC would be applied to minimize and avoid wetland impacts including several project-specific PDC such as installing clay cut-off walls to prevent dewatering of wetlands from snowmaking pipeline construction, minimizing disturbance width when crossing wetlands, leaving stumps and root wads intact within wetlands, and not placing slash and other debris in wetlands. In addition, recommendations for cleaning all construction equipment prior to entering the Pioneer Ridge project to prevent the spread of noxious and invasive weeds, and monitoring post-construction were made.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 76 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.9 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 Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 77 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 78 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CEQ regulations direct agencies to succinctly describe the environment that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration.19 As such, Chapter 3 describes the existing physical, biological, social, and economic components of the Project Area that have the 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 Chapter 3 is organized in the following order: Scope of the Analysis, Forest Plan Direction, 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 the analysis varies according to resource area and may be different for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan Direction section provides a description of applicable Forest-wide or Management Area- specific standards identified in Forest Plan or related documents, such as the Forest Service Watershed Practices Conservation Handbook (WPCH). The Forest Plan was considered for every resource carried forward for analysis; however, this section only appears for those resources containing applicable standards or guidelines that address issues and indicators identified in this FEIS. 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 section 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.

19 40 CFR § 1502.15

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

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. 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 will produce irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.

3.1 RECREATION 3.1.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This analysis summarizes the Recreation Technical Report for the Steamboat Environmental Impact Statement (Recreation Technical Report), which is available in the project file.20 The scope of this analysis of recreational opportunities extends to summer and winter uses at Steamboat on NFS lands within the ski area’s 3,738-acre SUP boundary. Most of Steamboat’s on-mountain operations are conducted on public lands administered by the Routt National Forest; however, the base area and portions of the terrain network are located on private lands. This analysis defines the existing recreational opportunities within the Steamboat SUP area and adjacent private lands and provides an analysis of potential changes in the recreational dynamic anticipated with proposed projects. The proposed projects will be analyzed in terms of their effect on the existing backcountry terrain adjacent to Steamboat’s operational boundary, the existing terrain network within Steamboat’s operational boundary, the facilities and guest services available at Steamboat, and existing visitation trends to Steamboat and the surrounding area.

3.1.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION As stated in the Forest Plan, Steamboat is located in Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts: Existing and Potential and has Urban and Roaded Natural classifications under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).21

20 SE Group, 2017a 21 USDA Forest Service, 1986; USDA Forest Service 1998

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 80 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Forest Plan provides the following management direction for Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts:22 Theme: Areas with existing ski-based resorts or potential ski-based resorts are managed to provide for skiing and related recreational uses.

Setting: These areas are Steamboat Springs Ski Area and Catamount Ski Area, which are primarily designed for downhill skiing and associated four-season use. Areas may include terrain into which winter sports developments may expand.

Desired Condition: Ski runs will be designed to blend and harmonize with the natural terrain. Recreation facilities, such as buildings, lifts, and groomed trails, will be evident. At the base development, services and facilities will be designed to complement the overall forest setting and will serve the needs of forest visitors. Opportunities to experience solitude will be very limited during the winter sports season.

Changes to vegetation composition and structure will result in forested areas interspersed with openings of varying widths and shapes. Forested areas will be managed for esthetics and recreation and for their resistance to windthrow, fire, and insect and disease infestation. Artificial openings and other disturbed areas will be revegetated and maintained with drainage structures to protect soil productivity and minimize erosion.

Opportunities to view wildlife and their habitat will be available throughout the year, but may be limited by the amount of recreational use. Habitat for sensitive species may be enhanced where opportunities exist, but the focus will be on protection and maintenance.

Livestock may be present during the summer. Forest Service and permittee objectives will be met within the development boundary. Rangeland vegetation will occur in a mix of seral stages but will predominantly be in upper mid seral to late seral stages of development.

The road system will be developed and maintained by the permittee. These roads will be subject to seasonal closure. Only permitted motor-vehicle use will be allowed. The trail system may include trails designed for hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and ski touring. Trails will be designed and maintained for heavy seasonal use. All trails will be closed to summer and winter motorized use, except by permit. Forest trailheads will be maintained, both on private and public land, to provide and encourage easy access to forest lands. Trail signs will be consistent with the ski area sign plan.

22 USDA Forest Service, 1998

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

Additionally, the following direction is provided for the management of recreation resources within Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts.23 Guidelines: 1. Manage for an ROS class of urban at large base areas, rural where there are concentrated developments and lifts, roaded natural in the large, undeveloped areas, and semi-primitive at more remote sites. 2. Develop nonmotorized recreation activities consistent with a four-season resort. Allow nontraditional uses on National Forest System lands only if they are in the public’s interest. 3. Make all resource management activities compatible with recreation opportunities. Minimize impacts to other resources. The Forest Service typically plans and manages for recreation experiences through the application of the ROS. The ROS is a framework for inventorying, planning, and managing the recreational experience and utilizes seven classifications ranging from Primitive to Urban. The Steamboat SUP area is assigned a ROS setting of Urban closest to the base area and City of Steamboat Springs and Roaded Natural in the remainder of the SUP area.24

The Urban setting is described in the 1986 ROS Book as:25 “Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural-appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans, on-site, are predominant. Large numbers of users can be expected, both on-site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site.”

The Roaded Natural setting is described in the 1986 ROS Book as:26 “Area is characterized by predominantly natural appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided tor in construction standards and design of facilities.”

23 Ibid. 24 USDA Forest Service, 1986 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 82 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The assigned desired ROS condition class is the maximum level of use, impact, development, and management that an area should experience over the life of the Forest Plan. The ROS is not prescriptive; it serves as a tool for land managers to identify and mitigate change.27 Recreational carrying capacity is a consequence of adopting specific ROS classes for which a landscape will be managed.

3.1.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Steamboat serves a broad range of guest demographics and ability levels through its winter operations, with the majority of its terrain being designed for low to advanced intermediate ability levels but also providing lesser amounts of beginner and expert terrain. In addition to skiing terrain within Steamboat’s operational boundary, the backcountry access points at Steamboat are popular among expert-level skiers. Existing backcountry use in the Pioneer Ridge area (outside of Steamboat’s operational boundary) has become very popular and has resulted in increasing responses by ski patrol due to use by skiers unfamiliar with the terrain or lacking adequate abilities to ski beyond the operational boundary. While Steamboat currently serves a broad range of guest demographics and ability levels there are existing challenges associated with, and demands that are not met by, existing operations. The following paragraphs further describe the existing conditions at Steamboat.

3.1.3.1 Pioneer Ridge Backcountry Terrain Backcountry skiing has become increasingly popular in the last decade as a result of various technological advances in equipment, including safety equipment, and a growing interest in the unique experience.28 The backcountry offers a sense of adventure, solitude, and self-awareness that simply cannot be experienced when skiing inbounds at a developed ski area and is attractive to advanced and expert ability level skiers that visit Steamboat. Additionally, backcountry terrain that is in close proximity to the operational boundary of a ski area can often attract skiers looking for untouched snow during a storm, or in the days immediately following a storm.29

Existing Backcountry Terrain In its existing state, there is an area adjacent to the existing inbounds terrain served by the Pony Express chairlift (Pony Pod) that is relevant to the Proposed Action Alternative and has become a popular backcountry area due to its proximity and accessibility from the infrastructure associated with Steamboat’s winter operations. The area encompassing the existing Pony Pod and the entire ridgeline to the north is referred to as “Pioneer Ridge.” Pioneer Ridge includes both the area skiable inside the operational boundary from the Pony Express chairlift and the adjacent area being utilized as backcountry terrain that is currently inside Steamboat’s SUP boundary but outside the operational boundary. As it extends from the northern-most border of the existing operational boundary to the northern-most border of Steamboat’s existing SUP boundary, Pioneer Ridge encompasses an area just over 600 acres. In its existing state, Pioneer Ridge is popular among a number of advanced and expert ability skiers who

27 Ibid. 28 USDA Forest Service, 2012 29 Ibid.

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

choose to leave the current operational boundary through two established access points and disperse into NFS lands surrounding Steamboat’s operational boundary.

Within this 600-acre area that currently exists as backcountry terrain, there is an approximately 355-acre area that is closest to Steamboat’s existing operational boundary and is most popular among backcountry users. The area closest to the existing operational boundary that skis directly back to the Pony Express chairlift includes what are referred to as the Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw. Beyond this area are the areas known as Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon. Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon includes an area skiable outside of the operational boundary and beyond the immediate backcountry (i.e., Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw) extending to the northern-most border of the existing SUP boundary. Skiing Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon typically places skiers further into the Fish Creek drainage and requires users to hike back up into the ski area. This hike is usually done via a trail called “100 steps” which leads users back to lift-served terrain within the operational boundary.

Existing Use of Backcountry Terrain On any given day, the backcountry area of Pioneer Ridge adjacent to the existing Pony Pod will be skied by 50 to 500 skiers that are assumed to be evenly split between the immediate backcountry (i.e., Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw) and Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon.30 All users are assumed to access these backcountry areas via the Pony Express chairlift. The Recreation Technical Report contains graphical depiction of the existing backcountry terrain in the Pioneer Ridge Area.

The Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon receives less use overall, as use is more likely to fluctuate with snow conditions. On the day of a storm when powder conditions exist, use of Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon is at its highest on the high side of the 50 to 500 range with approximately 100 of these skiers making multiple laps.31 A day or two after a powder day, less than 400 people use this area, and during periods of no snow, use of this area declines to 25 to 150 people.32 Use of the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon area declines on days without new snow due to tree density as well as difficult access in and out of Pioneer Ridge. Most of the use in Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon involves two hiking climbs; the first up and over Whoopie Ridge, and the second up “100 steps” up to the existing BC Skiway. A much smaller group, about 10 percent, ski Mahogany Ridge staying left or south and west of Whoopie Ridge and hiking only up “100 steps.” Due to its proximity to the existing operational boundary, access in and out of this adjacent backcountry area is much easier than the travel associated with Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon. Thus, the immediate backcountry (i.e., Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw) receives greater overall use that is less likely to be affected by snow conditions.33

There are existing challenges associated with the Pioneer Ridge area, as is it is easily accessible from Steamboat’s operational boundary and provides desirable terrain that attracts many users. As this area currently exists beyond the existing operational boundary, it is not managed or maintained to provide a recreation experience that one would expect find within Steamboat’s lift-served terrain network. While

30 Feiges, 2017 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 84 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

this is largely what draws users into this area in the first place, it also can be problematic for users who enter this area without adequate knowledge of the terrain or potential threats associated with backcountry skiing. Skiers inexperienced with the terrain and egress routes often find themselves hiking considerable distances to return to Steamboat’s inbounds terrain network, or in areas of large cliff bands that may be beyond their skiing ability level (or not skiable at all). In addition, ski patrol rescue access and egress paths are insufficient, hindering ski patrol response. Steamboat ski patrol has identified the need for improved ski area boundary management, adequate ingress and egress paths, and return routes to other mountain lifts. Existing challenges associated with ski patrol’s ability to manage the Pioneer Ridge area are further discussed in the following sections.

3.1.3.2 Steamboat Terrain Network Existing Terrain Network Steamboat’s existing terrain network encompasses approximately 171 traditional cleared ski trails, ski- ways, and gladed ski trails that cover approximately 1,362 acres and have a combined length of over 62 miles.34 The ski trail network accommodates the entire range of skier ability levels from beginner to expert.

Within the terrain network, there is a developed ski trail network that consists of named, defined, lift- served, maintained (groomed) ski trails. These trails represent the baseline of the terrain at any resort, as they are where most 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. There is also an undeveloped portion of the terrain network that is not maintained and provides a natural and unstructured style of terrain that is typically used by advanced intermediate to expert ability level skiers. Steamboat’s entire terrain network, and thus the undeveloped terrain network, is almost entirely below treeline; however, the undeveloped terrain network still includes a wide variety of terrain that features expansive bowls, chutes, open meadows, natural glades, and abundant tree skiing.

Table 3.1-1 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 Steamboat. The terrain distribution is compared to skier market.

34 SE Group, 2017a

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

Table 3.1-1: Lift-Served Terrain Distribution by Ability Level – Existing Conditions Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Skier Skier/Rider Ability Level Area Capacity Distribution Market (acres) (guests) (%) (%) Beginner 5.1 154 1 5 Novice 191.0 3,437 26 15 Low Intermediate 154.0 2,155 16 25 Intermediate 412.5 4,125 31 35 Advanced Intermediate 374.0 2,618 20 15 Expert 225.3 676 5 5 Total 1,361.9 13,166 100 100 Source: SE Group 2017a

Table 3.1-1 indicates that 5 percent of the skier market is within the beginner ability level, 25 percent of the skier market is within the low intermediate ability level, and 35 percent are within the intermediate ability level.35 However, the current terrain capacities fall short of adequately accommodating these guests as Steamboat only has terrain distribution of 1 percent for beginner ability level skiers, 16 percent for low intermediate ability level skiers, and 31 percent for intermediate ability level skiers, resulting in an imbalance between current terrain and Steamboat’s skier/rider market.36 The biggest deficiencies at Steamboat are in beginner and low intermediate terrain, which can pose a challenge for Steamboat in maintaining its appeal as a family-oriented resort and facilitating a comfortable learning progression for lower ability level guests.

Currently, Steamboat’s learning center facilities are all located within the lower mountain, and all ability levels descend through the beginner ability terrain on their way to the base area.37 This mixing of ability levels is intimidating for lower level skiers and is inconsistent with the type of recreational offering desired by Steamboat’s guests. Steamboat has explored expanding the teaching facilities in their current location to better meet skier market demands for beginner ability level terrain; however, there is insufficient area to accommodate these facilities in the base area.

Terrain Capacity Steamboat currently operates twenty-four lifts including: one eight-passenger gondola, one six- passenger detachable chairlift, six detachable quad chairlifts, six fixed-grip triple chairlifts, three fixed- grip double chairlifts, two surface lifts, and five carpet lifts.38 The Steamboat lift network is aging, with the majority of the existing lift network having been built more than twenty years ago. This may indicate that certain lifts are reaching the end of their operational life and that replacements could be necessary in the near future. In particular, the Bashor chairlift is the second oldest chairlift on the mountain and is in an area that receives heavy use. Additionally, the outdated chairlift is not optimally located to provide

35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 SSRC, 2011 38 SE Group, 2017a

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 86 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

service to the surrounding terrain, as the elevation of the top terminal and current alignment restrict the ease of access to certain trails. The Pony Express chairlift is also underutilized in its current state. Constructed at a capacity of 1,200 pph, although approval at the time of construction allowed for a capacity of 1,800 pph, this chairlift could be better utilized to transport a greater number of skiers through the Pony Pod. The existing gondola functions well but is the only staging portal out of the base area and often experiences prolonged wait times. With the exception of these few areas, the Steamboat lift network services the available terrain efficiently and effectively.

The efficiency of chairlifts is important for skier circulation, as well as the calculation of a planning metric called Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC). Based on a comparison of uphill vertical lift supply to downhill vertical skiing demand, CCC provides a planning tool which indicates the optimum level of daily utilization for a resort. The existing CCC of each chairlift and the overall existing CCC at Steamboat, is 12,670 guests per day.39

Trail Density and Skier Circulation The average trail density at Steamboat is 7 skiers per acre, which is 30 percent lower than the industry standard of 10 skiers per acre.40 It is not uncommon for ski areas to have lower trail densities than the industry standard, as generally lower trail densities reflect a higher quality recreation experience and less instances of overcrowding. Although the industry standard is 10 skiers per acre, the industry standard can be thought of as a range where the lowest skier densities indicate underutilization of the existing terrain. Underutilization of terrain means that there could comfortably be more skiers/riders on the terrain at any one time than there are at current visitation levels. This situation indicates that the amount of effort required to properly maintain the quantity of terrain could be disproportionately high when compared to the overall number of skiers/riders on the mountain. Therefore, it is beneficial for a ski area to be below the industry standard of 10 skiers per acre, but densities that are too low may indicate that there is a surplus of trail acreage. Certain areas of Steamboat are above the industry standard of density; however, the existing conditions depict an overall positive recreational experience. At an average trail density of 7 skiers per acre there is not an underutilization scenario at Steamboat, and there is also not overcrowding on the vast majority of the mountain; maintaining a similar average trail density would be ideal in providing the desired recreation experience.

Aside from 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 location within the lower mountain, Steamboat’s learning center facilities often face challenges associated with snow conditions. In the early and late portions of the season, variable snow conditions at lower elevations of the mountain can be difficult to maneuver for guests learning to ski, which makes it hard to circulate lower ability level guests through the base area. Typically, it is much easier for guests to learn to ski in areas that hold consistent snow and aren’t as likely to be affected by changes in temperature.

39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.

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

Within the Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area, the narrowness of Boulevard and varying slope gradients create inconsistent skier speeds and difficult passing conditions.41 Short Cut is an important access route from mid-mountain to the base; however, additional snowmaking on Short Cut is needed to improve skier traffic flow and extend the use of Short Cut through the spring. Additionally, the lift maze at the bottom terminal of the Bashor chairlift often experiences crowding from staging combined with pass- through skiers accessing Short Cut and Lower Mavericks Terrain Park. Mavericks Superpipe, which is located in a central location within Bashor Bowl, has experienced reduced skier utilization yet dominates the Bashor Bowl skiing terrain. Finally, the entire Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area contains aging snowmaking infrastructure as well as insufficient snow coverage on heavily trafficked and proposed terrain.

Another area that has low skier densities but observed skier circulation issues is the Pony Pod. Overall, the Pony Pod offers challenging terrain, but inconsistent early season snow conditions, limited lift capacity, insufficient ski patrol facilities, and limited connection to nearby pods. As previously mentioned, egress from the popular Pioneer Ridge backcountry terrain back into the Pony Pod is done via the “100 steps,” which leads users back to lift-served terrain within the operational boundary. This constrains circulation throughout the area as it is time consuming and challenging for many users who are unfamiliar with the terrain. Without clearly defined ingress into the Pony Pod, the Pioneer Ridge backcountry terrain would continue to create circulation issues in the existing Pony Pod. This issue is compounded by the lack of snowmaking on the BC Skiway, an important egress from the “100 steps” and out of the Pony Pod. Beyond circulation within the Pony Pod, skiers wishing to move to the adjacent Four Points Pod must exit the Pony Pod through BC Skiway to the base terminal of Thunderhead Express chairlift, and then ski from the top terminal of Thunderhead Express to Four Points chairlift or Storm Peak Express chairlift. Skier utilization is reduced in early season due to variable natural snow, absence of snowmaking, and unfinished trail and lift improvements that were not completed at the time the Pony Pod was originally developed. Similar to the existing issues of the BC Skiway that are caused by the lack of snowmaking, the Crux is a major collector for the Pony Pod yet is very narrow and experiences inconsistent early and late season snow conditions.42 These factors contribute to the underutilization of the Pony Pod, which if addressed would better disperse skiers across Steamboat’s operational boundary and would improve the overall circulation of the mountain.

Guest Distribution In the base area of Steamboat, skier circulation and lift use are hindered by the entry (ingress) and exit (egress) of guests, combined with simultaneous use of this area as teaching terrain. The base area of Steamboat is the single staging portal for the ski area and receives upwards of 16,000 skiers on peak days, and the existing gondola is guests’ preferred access route to the upper mountain.43 On days that receive over 10,000 skiers, the gondola lift line exceeds 15 minutes, and exceeds 35 minutes on peak days. These wait limits approach or exceed guest’s approximately 20-minute wait tolerance.

41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 SSRC, 2011

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 88 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The industry standard goal is to have enough out-of-base lift capacity to be able to stage the full CCC of the resort onto the mountain in an hour and a half. The implication of this analysis is that, under the existing conditions there are still over a thousand-people waiting to stage onto the mountain after the hour and a half time period, resulting in what is termed as a “portal capacity deficiency.” Table 3.1-2 highlights how the existing CCC is greater than the existing portal capacity, resulting in a “portal capacity deficiency.”

Table 3.1-2: Portal Capacity Analysis – Existing Conditions Existing Portal Capacity 11,565 Existing CCC 12,670 Portal Capacity Deficiency -1,105 Source: SE Group 2017a

Ski Patrol Steamboat’s ski patrol currently consists of 52 full-time ski patrollers, 12 part-time ski patrollers, 12 volunteer medical ski patrollers, 7 courtesy patrollers (also known as Steamboat Ambassadors), and 24 volunteer courtesy patrollers.44 Courtesy patrollers are tasked with providing information and directions and do not typically carry their responsibilities beyond Steamboat’s operational boundary; ski patrol and volunteer medical ski patrollers actively monitor the entire operational boundary, responding to medical and safety related calls. Ski patrol responds to incidents beyond the operational boundary, including those in the nearby Pioneer Ridge backcountry that is within the existing SUP boundary, but ski patrol only patrols and enforces avalanche safety procedures inside the operational boundary. Ski patrol operations are currently located at the top of the Gondola and at the top of the Sundown chairlift.45 There is also a small temporary yurt at the top of the Pony Express chairlift that is used as a satellite location to facilitate ski patrol operations in this area of the operational boundary.46 The existing avalanche safety program is well equipped to perform risk management work within the operational boundary and does not face operational challenges or deficiencies.

As previously mentioned, existing conditions at Steamboat do present several challenges for certain aspects of ski patrol operations. Most of these challenges revolve around the existing Pony Pod and the adjacent Pioneer Ridge backcountry. The Pony Pod is limited in connectivity to nearby pods and lacks sufficient ski patrol facilities. In addition to constraining factors within the existing operational boundary, the Pony Express chairlift also provides the most direct access to the adjacent Pioneer Ridge backcountry via two established access points that allow skiers to exit the operational boundary and access unmaintained NFS lands. Despite this area being outside of the operational boundary, ski patrol still responds to incidents related to skiers inexperienced with the terrain and exit routes needing assistance. There is also a more severe issue associated with the large cliff bands that characterize the topography of the Pioneer Ridge area. Without adequate knowledge of the terrain, it is very easy for skiers to find themselves stranded on cliff bands or skiing in terrain that exceeds their ability level. Ski patrol responds

44 Miles and Feiges, 2017 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid.

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

to many of these cliff related issues every season but lacks adequate rescue access, hindering ski patrol response in this area. Based on the current levels of use in the Pioneer Ridge backcountry, safety measures and egress for emergencies are not sufficient.

3.1.3.3 Multi-Season Recreation During the summer operating season (typically mid-June to late August) Steamboat operates the gondola daily to provide access to the mountain and a selection of activities on-mountain. From the end of August through September, the gondola is operated only on weekends. The gondola provides an easy ride directly from the base area up to the Thunderhead Lodge, providing views on the gondola ride itself as well as from the lodge. A selection of restaurants is available at the Thunderhead Lodge for on- mountain dining during normal daytime operations during the summer season. Steamboat also operates at night on selected days for evening dining and sightseeing. The Thunderhead Lodge can be booked for special events such as weddings, conferences, and corporate functions. Steamboat also offers a “Guided Gourmet Hike” which consists of a gondola ride up to Thunderhead, a guided interpretive hike to Four Points Lodge, a gourmet lunch, and a hike back to the Thunderhead Lodge.

For those seeking a hiking experience at their own pace, a network of hiking trails is available on Mt. Werner ranging in difficulty from easy to moderately difficult. Hikes range from an easy loop near the Thunderhead Lodge (Vista nature trail) to long hikes into the alpine or a hike back down to the base area via the Thunderhead hiking trail. Steamboat also has fifteen mountain bike trails covering approximately 50 miles. These are primarily traditional “cross country” style mountain bike trails; however, there are some downhill, lift-served, mountain biking trails, which have become highly popular in recent years. Guests can either go biking on their own or hire a guide to show them the trails and/or teach them mountain biking skills. Mountain bikes are available for rental at the mountain and mountain bike clinics are offered periodically during the summer season Steamboat is currently in the process of constructing more mountain biking trails (primarily downhill trails), which were approved by the Forest Service in summer 2011 (refer to Appendix A for greater detail regarding the Steamboat Summer Trails Environmental Assessment 2011).47 The current and proposed trail network spans the entire operational boundary. Located in the Thunderhead and Bashor areas is a 19-hole disc golf course. Disc golf has become popular on NFS lands as natural terrain and topography is left undisturbed and required infrastructure is typically limited to an elevated metal basket for each hole. Similar to traditional golf, users try to land their flying disc in the hole in as few shots possible.

Steamboat also offers developed recreation opportunities for those lacking the necessary skills or experience to engage in traditional activities like hiking or mountain biking. Developed recreation opportunities are those with characteristics that enable them 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. Every summer, Steamboat organizes a variety of activities in the plaza bounded by the Ski School building and the Bear River Grill on private lands. This adventure zone includes activities such as a bungee trampoline, inflatable bouncy structures, climbing wall, human gyro, mechanical bull, and ropes

47 USDA Forest Service, 2011a

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 90 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

courses. Additionally, there is a mountain coaster located near the Christie Peak Express chairlift that operates during both the summer and winter months and is highly popular with Steamboat guests.

3.1.3.4 Facilities and Guest Services In serving the needs of visitors, the capacity of restaurant facilities is particularly important. Restaurant facilities provide an array of amenities under one roof, and utilization of these amenities is determined through the availability of seating space. Food service seating at Steamboat is provided in the base area and three separate locations across the SUP area. Table 3.1-3 summarizes the seating requirements at Steamboat.

Table 3.1-3: Recommended Restaurant Seats – Existing Condition Base Area Thunderhead Four Points Rendezvous Total Restaurants Restaurant Restaurant Saddle Resort Lunchtime Capacity (CCC) 5,234 3,411 1,200 3,460 13,304 Average Seat Turnover 2.5 3 3 3 N/A Existing Seats 1,560 1,120 248 914 3,842 Required Seats 2,093 1,137 400 1,153 4,783 Difference -533 -17 -152 -239 -941 Existing seating capacity 3,900 3,360 744 2,742 10,746 (existing seats x turnover) Source: SE Group 2017a

An average seat turnover rate of 2 to 5 times throughout the day is the standard range utilized in determining restaurant capacity. As shown in Table 3.1-3, turnover rates of 2.5 and 3 were used for the various facilities included in this analysis. The turnover rate is multiplied by the existing number of seats to determine the seating capacity of each of these restaurants.

As highlighted in Table 3.1-3, the base area restaurants and the Rendezvous Saddle have the greatest deficiency of seats. This is shown in the “difference” row, which highlights the gap between the existing and recommended number of seats. The base area restaurants include only those facilities owned and operated by Steamboat (Gondola, Geano’s, Bear River, KVC, Round Up, Seven’s, Truffle Pig, the Grand, and Slopeside Grill). While Table 3.1-3 highlights the largest deficiency of seats being in the base area, it is important to understand that there are additional restaurants in the base area that are not owned by Steamboat, which provide additional seating. As the non-Steamboat restaurants in the base area provide additional seating capacity but are not considered in calculating deficiency, it is assumed that the current deficiency is in part made up by these private restaurants.

None of these restaurants have a surplus of seating, indicating that none of these facilities are being underutilized.

3.1.3.5 Visitation Steamboat attracts guests in all seasons of the year; however, visitation is generally broken out into the two main seasons, which are winter and summer. Winter visitation is much higher than summer—

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

averaging 926,307 annual visits compared to 52,233 annual visits over the last five years.48 Over the past ten years, visitation during the winter months has fluctuated considerably. The last ten years include growth as high as 12 percent from one season to next; and declines in visitation as high as 13 percent from one year to the next.49

Demand for additional winter recreation opportunities has been a constant for many ski resorts in the western United States for some time; however, recent years have shown an increasing demand for multi- season and summer recreation opportunities at ski areas and other NFS lands nationwide. This trend is evident at Steamboat, which has exhibited growth in summer visitation, ranging from 3 percent to 18 percent yearly increases, in the last five years. While summer visitation to Steamboat has the potential to grow rapidly, it is expected to remain well below the visitation generated by winter operations.

Visitation to the City of Steamboat Springs is largely related to visitation to the ski area and reflects similar trends. During the summer months when visitation is more likely to occur for opportunities beyond the ski area, annual visitation to the City of Steamboat Springs is expected to be considerably higher than annual visitation to the ski area. While the exact number of visitors during the summer months is highly speculative, it expected to be closer to an average of 100,000 summer visitors per year, than the average of approximately 50,000 visitors that come to Steamboat during the summer months of the year. Summer lodging trends showed an almost 6 percent growth in visitation to the area from 2014 to 2015.50 As winter recreation opportunities at Steamboat are the primary driver of visitation to the City of Steamboat Springs during the winter months, visitation trends to the City of Steamboat Springs are more reflective of visitation trends to ski area. As previously mentioned, visitation during the winter months has remained much higher than summer visitation but has varied considerably over the last decade; the same is expected to be true for the City of Steamboat Springs with visitation around 100,000 visitors per year during the winter months. During both the summer and winter months lodging in the City of Steamboat Springs is used by visitors of the ski area.

Winter visitation to Steamboat is primarily generated by skiing; however, there are other activities that draw visitors to the area. The surrounding Yampa Valley is home to many guide and outfitter services (some of which operate on NFS lands), that offer a multitude of activities other than skiing for both guests and residents to participate in. Activities range from guided snowmobile tours and horseback rides to unguided adventures in the vast amounts of public lands for those with the skills and experience to explore on their own.

While the majority of alternative winter activities happen outside Steamboat’s SUP area, Steamboat also offers a limited number of non-skiing activities within its SUP area during the winter season. These non- skiing activities are primarily concentrated around the Thunderhead Lodge, as the gondola, which provides direct access to the Thunderhead Lodge for skiers and pedestrians alike, terminates here. The restaurant facilities in the Thunderhead Lodge are available every day during the ski season for both sightseeing and on-mountain dining. During the ski season, evening dining is offered to the public two times per week is often sold out. Steamboat also offers a combination sleigh ride and dinner at Ragnar’s

48 SSRC, 2017b 49 Ibid. 50 Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association, 2015

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 92 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

restaurant at the Rendezvous Saddle mountain lodge. Another popular winter activity is snowshoeing, which Steamboat offers through guided snowshoeing tours on Mt. Werner, around the general vicinity of the Thunderhead Lodge. For those seeking to engage in a more educational experience, Steamboat offers the “Ski with a Naturalist” program on the mountain twice a week. This is a free program in partnership with Yampatika (a local non-profit organization dedicated to inspiring environmental stewardship) where participants ski slowly down the Why Not trail, stopping frequently to learn about animals and their behavior, forest ecology, and other elements of the surrounding biota.

Summer visitation is primarily generated by the activities and events that exist beyond the ski resort in the surrounding Yampa Valley. The number of activities in the area, combined with the scenery, atmosphere, and altitude (with cooler temperatures) draw many visitors during the summer months, some of which spend a portion of their trip at Steamboat. As previously discussed in Section 3.1.3.3, Steamboat provides a variety of multi-season recreation activities that include sightseeing, guided and unguided hiking opportunities, guided and unguided mountain biking opportunities, as well as on- mountain dining and special events on NFS lands. These activities are typically accessed via the gondola, which operates daily from mid-June to late August and on the weekends through September.

As previously mentioned, the surrounding area offers a multitude of structured and dispersed recreation opportunities during the summer months. Recreation opportunities outside of the ski resort range from fly fishing to hot air balloon rides, and more dispersed activities like hiking, biking, and camping that one can engage in on the vast amount of NFS lands and designated wilderness in the surrounding area. The recreational activities offered on NFS lands at Steamboat may attract locals and those already visiting the area, but generally do not generate visits in-and-of themselves. In other words, few summer visitors are coming to Steamboat solely for the recreational activities offered within the SUP area.

3.1.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Pioneer Ridge Backcountry Terrain Backcountry access would not change from existing conditions. The entire 600-acre area of Pioneer Ridge adjacent to the Pony Pod and within the existing SUP boundary at Steamboat would remain as backcountry terrain as it would be outside the existing operational boundary. There would be no improvements to skier safety or the existing terrain network at Steamboat through the incorporation of this area into Steamboat’s operational boundary. Existing access to the popular Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw, as well as Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon backcountry areas would continue through the existing backcountry access points.

Steamboat Terrain Network There would be no changes to Steamboat’s terrain network. Steamboat’s existing terrain network would include approximately 171 traditional cleared ski trails, ski-ways, and gladed ski trails that cover approximately 1,362 acres and have a combined length of over 62 miles.51 The deficit of beginner, low

51 SE Group, 2017a

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

intermediate, and intermediate ability level terrain, compared with the skier market, would persist. The deficit of beginner ability level terrain, in combination with the current location of learning center facilities, could deter visitation to Steamboat.

Terrain Capacity The existing lift network and its CCC, which totals 12,670 guests per day, would not change.

Trail Density and Skier Circulation Trail density and skier circulation would not change from its existing condition. Overall, Steamboat would continue to exhibit desirable density and circulation conditions. However, travel in the Christie Peak Express Pod and near the base area, portions of Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area, and throughout the Pony Pod would continue to be challenged. Without changes to lift capacity, snowmaking improvements, and terrain modifications in these areas, it is anticipated that skier circulation issues would persist. In particular, the gondola would lack sufficient capacity to transport guests out of the base area on the busiest days/times of day; the narrowness of Boulevard and varying slope gradients would continue to create difficult passing conditions and the lack of snowmaking on Short Cut would continue to hinder skier traffic flow and limit the use of this area; the Bashor chairlift would remain outdated and underserve the area; the Mavericks Superpipe would continue to be underutilized and contribute to congestion of the area; circulation in the entire Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl area would be burdened by insufficient snowmaking infrastructure; the Crux would continue to lack adequate width to accommodate skier traffic and would experience inconsistent early season snow conditions; the capacity of the Pony Express chairlift would continue to underserve the area; and snowmaking coverage throughout the Pony Pod, namely on the BC Skiway would not adequately serve the area.

Guest Distribution No changes to guest distribution would be anticipated. Certain areas of Steamboat’s SUP area would continue to exhibit operational inefficiencies due to higher concentrations of users in those areas. The base area would continue to be challenged by the ingress and egress of guests combined with simultaneous use of this area as teaching terrain under the current lift configurations and capacities. As highlighted in Table 3.1-2, there would be a “portal capacity deficiency” associated with the current out- of-base lift capacity.

Ski Patrol Steamboat’s ski patrol operation and practices would not change from the existing conditions. It is anticipated that occasional responses to accidents in the area adjacent to the existing Pony Pod would continue to be difficult. Based on the current levels of use in the Pioneer Ridge backcountry, safety measures and egress for emergencies would remain insufficient.

Multi-Season Recreation No changes would occur to Steamboat’s multi-season recreation opportunities. Activities would continue to include hiking, mountain biking, disc golf, and dining and special events at various on- mountain locations.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 94 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Facilities and Guest Services There would be no changes to facilities or guest services. Restaurants in the base area and the Rendezvous Saddle would continue to have the greatest deficiency of seats. None of these restaurants have a surplus of seating, indicating that none of these facilities are being underutilized.

Visitation Visitation to Steamboat and the City of Steamboat Springs would not be expected to change from its current trend, which is relatively flat. Visitation during the summer months is expected to continue increasing more rapidly, anywhere from 3 percent to 18 percent based on recent trends. These trends in both the summer and winter months are expected to be reflected in the City of Steamboat Springs.

While it is expected that visitation during the summer months would continue to grow, there would not be any additional summer activities offered. The aforementioned numbers are approximate; however, it can be assumed that there is a natural increase of visitation in both the summer and winter months occurring at Steamboat and the surrounding areas independent of an action alternative being selected.

3.1.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Pioneer Ridge Backcountry Terrain The majority of terrain previously accessed as backcountry adjacent to the Pioneer Ridge Area, would be incorporated into Steamboat’s operational boundary. This would not encapsulate all the terrain one could access from the existing Pony Express chairlift; however, the 355-acre operational boundary increase would include the popular Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw. The Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon areas would remain as backcountry beyond the proposed operational boundary. New access points would be constructed to provide backcountry users with entry to this area; the number of access points and locations would be determined in the ski area’s winter operating plan.

To serve the proposed Pioneer Ridge area, Steamboat would construct a new fixed-grip or detachable quad chairlift (Pioneer chairlift); create 95 acres of gladed skiing; conduct 40 acres of hazard tree removal and vegetation management; install a bridge over Burgess Creek and construct an associated collector ski-way (Trail F); and define multiple gladed trails and egress routes to connect with existing and proposed terrain and facilities. The skier experience in the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area would be designed to resemble a backcountry skiing experience through the use of glading and natural corridors to create an expert ability level area. However, the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would reflect a controlled and maintained skiing experience as is provided in other parts of Steamboat’s operational boundary and would no longer exist as backcountry.

Additionally, the incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary would alleviate existing challenges within this area associated with inadequate ingress and egress paths, return routes to other mountain lifts, skier safety, and ski patrol response. To create a safer and more efficient path for ski patrol toboggan evacuations, and to guide skiers toward the Pioneer chairlift and BC Skiway, a 30-foot-wide groomable collector ski trail (Trail F) is proposed along the new operational boundary.

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

Overall, the proposed Pioneer Ridge area is anticipated to have a positive impact on skier safety while improving upon the existing terrain network at Steamboat.

By developing approximately 355 acres of backcountry terrain accessible from the existing Pony Express chairlift, it is anticipated that backcountry use in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon as well as use in other areas within the Fish Creek Canyon drainage, adjacent to the proposed operational boundary would likely receive higher use. Approximately 25 to 250 backcountry skiers per day would be displaced by the incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area into Steamboat’s operational boundary, based on the existing use of the Pioneer Ridge backcountry. This is anticipated to contribute to higher use of the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon and other areas within the Fish Creek Canyon drainage as users, who would presumably be looking for a similar backcountry experience (e.g., ease of access, proximity to lift-served terrain), would move into this new area immediately adjacent to the proposed operational boundary. As previously mentioned, backcountry access to this area would be provided, along the new border of the proposed operational boundary. While portions of Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon would become more accessible, this terrain and terrain beyond this area (NFS lands outside of the existing SUP boundary), are not anticipated to replace the loss of the existing immediate backcountry (i.e., Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw). To travel to certain portions of Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon and NFS lands beyond the SUP boundary, users would need additional over-snow travel equipment (e.g., climbing skins, , etc.) and would be required to exert greater energy to reach these areas. This is a different experience than is currently provided by the adjacent Pioneer Ridge backcountry, as the majority of current users access this area without ever taking off their skis and only must hike when returning to lift-served terrain. It is assumed that as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative, users would travel further into Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon and adjacent NFS lands; however, the adjacent terrain is not anticipated to accommodate all of the users displaced by inclusion of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary, as terrain in this area requires greater skills, fitness, and equipment to be accessed.

While the Proposed Action Alternative would address many of the existing issues with the most popular portion of the Pioneer Ridge backcountry area, similar issues may still exist under proposed conditions. Ski patrol responses would likely be generated by increased skiing in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon area; however, adequate ski patrol egress would be provided. Additionally, the location of backcountry access points and adequate return routes to the proposed Pioneer Ridge area are expected to reduce the number of issues related skiers being unable to navigate to the operational boundary or getting stranded in high consequence terrain.

Steamboat Terrain Network

Proposed Terrain Network The terrain network at Steamboat would be improved to include trails and tree skiing in the Pioneer Ridge Area; a new skier bypass (Trail A) to the proposed Rough Rider Learning Center; construction of two new ski-ways (Trail B and Trail C) from the realigned Bashor chairlift top terminal; a new novice trail (Trail D) in the Bashor Bowl area; construction of a ski-way from the junction of Lower Middle Rib and Chaps ski trails to the Storm Peak Express chairlift (Trail E); construction of a bridge over Burgess Creek and construction of an associated collector ski-way (Trail F); construction of an access road/ski trail

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 96 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(Trail G) originating from Lariat and connecting to the lower lift terminal and boundary collector ski trail (Trail F); construction of an exit ski trail (Trail H) to provide a midway exit for skiers in Pioneer Ridge, originating at the boundary collector ski trail (Trail F) and connecting to Lariat; and additional modifications to existing terrain.

Ski area terrain at Steamboat would include approximately 184 traditional cleared ski trails, ski-ways, and gladed ski trails that cover approximately 1,483 acres.

In total, the Proposed Action Alternative would add over 100 acres of terrain, distributed among a variety of ability levels. Table 3.1-4 depicts terrain distribution by ability level and highlights the impacts the proposed Rough Rider Learning Center and Pioneer Glading would have on the distribution of beginner and expert ability level terrain, respectively.

Table 3.1-4: Lift-Served Terrain Distribution by Ability Level – Proposed Action Alternative Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Steamboat Skier/Rider Ability Level Area Capacity Distribution Market (acres) (guests) (%) (%) Beginner 12 347 2 5 Novice 200 3,602 26 15 Low Intermediate 158 2,218 16 25 Intermediate 411 4,114 30 35 Advanced Intermediate 387 2,707 19 15 Expert 315 945 7 5 Total 1,483 13,933 100 100 Source: SE Group 2017a

Compared to existing conditions (Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative), the Proposed Action Alternative would address the current deficit of beginner ability level terrain, more than doubling the acreage of existing terrain from 5.1 acres to 11.6 acres. The distribution of low intermediate and intermediate ability level terrain would continue to remain lower than the skier market; however, it is important to note that the trail acreage of low intermediate and advanced intermediate terrain would increase by 4.4 acres and 12.8 acres, respectively. Intermediate trail acreage would experience a slight decrease due to the repurposing of certain segments of trail to trails of different ability levels (e.g., Main Drag).

Rough Rider Learning Center While it isn’t necessarily reflected in the shift in distribution of beginner ability level terrain, which would increase from 1 percent to 2 percent, the proposed Rough Rider Learning Center would have beneficial impacts to Steamboat’s teaching terrain. This would primarily occur by providing beginner ability level users an area of their own, separated from more advanced skier traffic. It is anticipated that the improvements that make up the Rough Rider Learning Center would provide for more effective and comfortable learning/teaching progression, helping to address the deficit of beginner ability level terrain.

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

Creation of the Rough Rider Learning Center would include the installation of a gondola (Bashor Gondola, located on private lands), construction of the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant (located on private lands), removal of the existing Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, installation of multiple moving carpet lifts, installation of a fixed grip or detachable chairlift (Rough Rider chairlift), removal of the existing Rough Rider platter lift, and construction of a new skier bypass from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center (Trail A). Details regarding these improvements are provided in the following paragraphs.

The proposed Bashor Gondola located on private lands would alleviate many of the current issues associated with the Christie Peak Express and the mixing of ability levels that can be especially troublesome during maximum staging capacity. This mixing of ability levels is intimidating for lower level skiers, and the proposed Bashor Gondola would address this issue by transporting beginner ability level skiers away from the heavy traffic of the lower mountain and base area, to an area that would be utilized by skiers of similar ability.

Additionally, a proposed fixed-grip or detachable chairlift, identified as the Rough Rider chairlift, would replace an existing platter lift and provide round-trip skiing in Rough Rider Basin. Several surface lifts would also be installed immediately adjacent to the Bashor Children’s Facility building for use by novice and beginner students. These surface lifts would be designed to provide a learning progression from beginner to novice.

The proposed Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would be located at the top terminal of the proposed Bashor Gondola on private lands. Among other amenities this facility would include a children’s ski school.

Lastly, the Rough Rider Learning Center would include the construction of a new skier bypass (Trail A) from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center. This bypass would improve Learning Center access for beginners, as well as allow more experienced skiers to bypass the Learning Center as they move toward Thunderhead Express.

These projects would serve to create a previously nonexistent beginner ability level terrain pod in its own area of the mountain, addressing the existing deficiency in beginner ability level terrain that currently exists at Steamboat.

Pioneer Ridge Glade Skiing The proposed operational boundary expansion into the Pioneer Ridge area would also have a positive impact to the terrain network at Steamboat, by providing additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings. Steamboat would expand its existing operational boundary by approximately 355 acres to encompass additional terrain within the Pioneer Ridge area that previously existed as backcountry terrain. The proposed new terrain within the Pioneer Ridge area of Steamboat is currently within the SUP area but outside the existing operational boundary. Included in this operational boundary expansion would be the creation of 95 acres of gladed skiing; installation of a bridge over Burgess Creek and construction of an associated collector ski-way (Trail F); and creation of multiple

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 98 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

gladed trails and egress routes to connect with existing and proposed terrain and facilities. Details of these proposed projects are provided in the following paragraphs.

Glading corridors would be created within Pioneer Ridge to allow for functional skiing lines. Glade skiing is needed to provide guests with more terrain variety, as well as additional skiable acres. Although additional expert terrain is not needed from a terrain deficiency standpoint, the additional terrain is needed to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings; a stated component of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Alternative. More specifically, the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area would enhance the recreation experience for expert ability level skiing and riding guests and would provide a unique experience that is not currently available at Steamboat. There is a growing demand for backcountry style skiing, which has resulted in many skiers seeking terrain beyond the boundaries of ski areas in recent years.52 Although incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary would mean that this area would no longer exist as backcountry, it would create an off-piste skiing opportunity that resembles backcountry skiing and is becoming an expected part of the experience for higher ability level guests visiting resorts in the western United States. The additional 90.4 acres of glade skiing and trails would be designed to retain the naturalness and character of the area, characteristics that are highly desirable in terms of guest expectations. Adding variety in the form of undeveloped terrain for guests of these ability levels is important, as even though Steamboat has existing terrain to meet the expert ability level skier market, terrain diversity is what keeps higher ability level guests interested and is needed to address the Purpose and Need for additional lift served terrain capable of meeting guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings.

By addressing other deficiencies and identified challenges through proposed trails of lower ability levels, Steamboat can also focus on providing experiences like those in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area that appeal to a higher ability level guest. To serve the proposed Pioneer Ridge area, the Pioneer chairlift would also be constructed.

Additionally, to create a safer and more efficient path for ski patrol toboggan evacuations, and to guide skiers toward the Pioneer chairlift and BC Skiway, a 30-foot-wide groomable collector ski trail (Trail F) would be constructed along the new operational boundary. The ski trail would originate from the top of the Pony Express chairlift, traverse north to Pioneer chairlift, and follow along the proposed northern operational boundary to the bottom of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area. The ski trail would then cross Burgess Creek and connect to BC Skiway. Permanent boundary fence, fence posts, and signage may also be installed to ensure skier usage of this area would occur within the newly defined operational boundary of Steamboat and prevent unintentional skiing in adjacent backcountry areas.

To provide a midway exit for skiers in Pioneer Ridge, Steamboat would also construct an exit ski trail (Trail H). Trail H would originate at the boundary collector ski trail (Trail F) and connect to Lariat. The trail would be logged; however, no grading is proposed. Grooming would only occur when snow conditions permit.

52 USDA Forest Service, 2012a

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

Lastly, the Burgess Creek Bridge would be constructed in the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area to facilitate egress out of the proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain by exiting onto the existing BC Skiway.

Proposed Terrain Capacity The Proposed Action Alternative would address some of the issues associated with Steamboat’s aging lift network and would add additional capacity. In particular, the Bashor chairlift which was the second oldest chairlift on the mountain would be replaced and realigned to better serve the area near Christie III and the existing Gondola. The Pony Express chairlift, would be better utilized through the addition of 27 chairs that would increase the chairlift’s capacity to 1,800 pph. This increase in capacity would better transport skiers through the Pony Pod and would complement access to the proposed Pioneer chairlift. The additional capacity associated with the proposed Pioneer chairlift would have the greatest impact on the existing CCC as they would provide previously non-existent uphill vertical lift supply to downhill vertical skiing demand in their respective areas. All the improvements to the lift network would contribute to an increase in Steamboat’s CCC from 12,670 to 14,420 guests

Trail Density and Skier Circulation Trail density and skier circulation would be improved. Additional trail acreage associated with each lift pod would increase the average trail density at Steamboat from 7 skiers per acre to 8 skiers per acre, which is 20 percent lower than the industry standard of 10 skiers per acre. While it seems counter- intuitive that skier density would increase, it is important to consider that desired trail density also increases commensurate to an increase in CCC. The additional terrain acreage and terrain pods that would be constructed would maintain low trail densities across Steamboat’s operational boundary, when compared to the industry standard of 10 skiers per acre. Overall, the proposed conditions depict a positive recreational experience, as lower skier/rider densities correlate to a higher quality recreational experience.

The following paragraphs discuss specific project components that are designed to further improve skier circulation.

Bashor Gondola, Rough Rider Chairlift, and Carpet Lifts The Bashor Gondola would be constructed to transport guests from the base area to the Rough Rider Learning Center. The proposed Bashor Gondola would reduce skier traffic congestion at the base area by transporting up to 2,400 pph to the proposed teaching terrain in the Rough Rider Basin. Although out-of- base capacity would increase, it is not anticipated that there would be measurable impacts to egress at the end of the day. Additional skiers would be present in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider areas; however, it is anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the additional skiers would download the Bashor Gondola and the remainder would not exacerbate the existing egress situation. The gondola would operate during the evening hours in both winter and summer seasons and would operate at full capacity for ski school use during the peak morning hours.

A proposed new fixed-grip or detachable chairlift, identified as the Rough Rider chairlift, would replace an existing platter lift and provide round-trip skiing in Rough Rider Basin. The improved Rough Rider chairlift would be approximately 1,200 linear feet, constructed to a capacity of 1,800 pph, and operate at

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 100 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

a speed of approximately 350 feet per minute to provide comfortable loading and unloading for beginners.

Several new moving carpets (surface lifts) would be installed immediately adjacent to the Bashor Children’s Facility building for use by novice and beginner students. These surface lifts would be approximately 200 to 250 feet long and designed to provide a learning progression from beginner to novice.

Ski Trail A and Boulevard Re-grading A new skier bypass (Trail A) would be constructed from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center. This bypass would improve circulation by providing direct Learning Center access for beginners, as well as allowing more experienced skiers to bypass the Learning Center as they move toward Thunderhead Express.

Bashor Chairlift Replacement and Realignment Replacement and realignment of the Bashor chairlift would accommodate greater utilization of surrounding terrain and resolve circulation issues associated with the current alignment.

The existing Bashor chairlift would be removed and replaced with a fixed-grip or detachable quad chairlift approximately 1,500 feet in length with a capacity of 2,400 pph. The new chairlift would be repositioned to the east to provide better service to the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park. Additionally, the realignment would help serve the surrounding beginner skier terrain and through-traffic. The top terminal would be moved to a higher elevation, allowing skiers to more easily access Big Foot, the new novice Trail D (described below), and Giggle Gulch, located north and east of the chairlift. On the west side of the chairlift, the realignment would allow easier access to Vogue. The replacement and realignment would necessitate the relocation of the existing NASTAR ski race course. This relocation is not anticipated to impact the guest experience. Realignment and replacement of the chairlift would require the construction of a new access road, which would also serve to create two new ski-ways emanating eastward (Trail B) and westward (Trail C) from the top terminal. The bottom terminal would be relocated to keep both the terminal and the maze out of through-traffic and separate the Giggle Gulch through-traffic from Bashor Bowl return-cycle ski traffic.

Grading at the base of the existing Bashor chairlift would be conducted to reform the hill and create a more uniform slope, thereby reducing skier circulation interruption and improving functional use of Bashor Bowl.

Rabbit Ears Terrain Park Expansion To reduce crowding and increase utilization within the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park, regrading that would extend the terrain park and tie into the new eastern ski-way emanating from the top terminal of the realigned Bashor chairlift (Trail B) would occur.

Mavericks Superpipe Relocation Steamboat would relocate the currently underutilized Mavericks Superpipe, thus improving the circulation and use of the overall Bashor Bowl skiing terrain. The existing topography would be regraded,

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

using soil from the Bashor chairlift construction as much as possible, into a smooth, skiable slope consistent with the adjacent terrain. The existing guest experience provided by the Mavericks Superpipe would be lost until Steamboat creates a new location for this activity.

Novice Ski Trail D Steamboat would construct novice ski trail (Trail D), which would improve circulation by providing terrain for novice skiers transitioning from the proposed Rough Rider Learning Center to Bashor Bowl. This trail, which would be approximately 950 feet long, would connect from Yoo Hoo near the intersection with Big Foot and continue to Giggle Gulch east of the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park.

Pony Express Pod Trail Corridor Enhancements Several trails would be renovated to increase the utilization of the Pony Pod and enhance skiability. Proposed trail renovations include portions of Longhorn, Middle Rib, and the Crux. Portions of Longhorn would be widened, and portions of Longhorn and Middle Rib would be re-contoured in areas severely off fall line and containing rock obstructions to facilitate snow grooming. The Crux, the major collector for the Pony Pod, would be regraded and is anticipated to require rock blasting. Additional enhancements would include select tree removal and mowing. As previously mentioned, the Crux is a major collector for the Pony Pod yet is very narrow and experiences inconsistent early season snow conditions. The regrading and rock blasting included in the Proposed Action Alternative is anticipated to address circulation issues associated with the Crux.

Increase Pony Express Chairlift Capacity The Pony Express chairlift was originally constructed at a capacity of 1,200 pph, although approval at the time of construction allowed for a capacity of 1,800 pph. Steamboat would add an additional 27 chairs to the existing chairlift to increase lift capacity to the previously approved capacity of 1,800 pph. The improved chairlift would reduce future wait times in the currently underutilized Pony Pod and would support additional terrain and infrastructure in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area by circulating guests into this area of the mountain.

Ski Trail E Ski Trail E would be constructed to improve access between the Pony Express and Storm Peak chairlift areas and increase utilization of the Pony Pod. This ski-way would be constructed from the junction of Lower Middle Rib and Chaps ski trails to the Storm Peak Express chairlift (Trail E).

Pioneer Chairlift and Gladed Terrain A 6,450-foot-long fixed-grip or detachable chairlift with a capacity of approximately 1,800 pph would be constructed to serve the proposed Pioneer Ridge area. The addition of the proposed Pioneer chairlift and associated gladed terrain would improve skier circulation in Pioneer Ridge, as currently users who choose to exit the Steamboat’s operational boundary to ski this terrain end up hiking out. Not only is this time consuming for skiers, but it creates management challenges for Steamboat and often times, skiers inexperienced with the area need to be rescued by ski patrol as they cannot easily make their way back to the operational boundary. Additionally, the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would better meet guest

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 102 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

expectations by providing terrain variety in the form of a natural, unstructured, “semi-backcountry” experience that industry studies have shown to be desired by visitors.

The installation of the Pioneer chairlift and gladed terrain would be the primary driver for an increase in CCC at Steamboat, from, 12,670 to 14,420 guests. As is discussed in the following paragraph, multiple egress routes would improve this access, when compared with existing conditions.

Boundary Collector Ski Trail F, Burgess Creek Bridge, and Exit Ski Trail H Included in the Proposed Action Alternative are Boundary Collector Ski Trail F and Exit Ski Trail H, which would create a safer and more efficient path for ski patrol toboggan evacuations, and guide skiers toward the Pioneer chairlift and BC Skiway. Steamboat would construct a 30-foot-wide groomable collector ski trail (Trail F) along the new operational boundary. The ski trail would originate from the top of the Pony Express chairlift, traverse north to Pioneer chairlift, and follow along the proposed northern operational boundary to the bottom of the Pioneer Ridge pod. The ski trail would then cross Burgess Creek via the proposed Burgess Creek Bridge (discussed in the following paragraph) and connect to BC Skiway. Permanent boundary fence, fence posts, and signage may also be installed to define the operational boundary.

The Burgess Creek Bridge is proposed to provide a much less arduous, safer, and more efficient egress out of the proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain by exiting onto the existing BC Skiway, which is anticipated to have positive impacts to skier circulation in this area. The bridge would be designed at a height to span Burgess Creek and at a width to accommodate slope maintenance vehicles such as snowcats.

To provide a midway exit for skiers in the Pioneer Ridge area, Steamboat would construct an exit ski trail (Ski Trail H). Trail H would originate at the boundary collector ski trail (Ski Trail F) and connect to Lariat.

Snowmaking New and upgraded snowmaking infrastructure would be installed in existing and proposed terrain within the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, and Pony Pod areas. Snowmaking within the proposed Pioneer Ridge area is not anticipated at this time. However, new trails within the Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Bowl would require snowmaking coverage and new infrastructure. Existing trails that receive high skier traffic and wind wear impacts, or are underutilized due to insufficient snow, would also require new snowmaking coverage and infrastructure. Finally, antiquated snowmaking equipment originally installed in 1981 would be replaced by new and more efficient equipment and snowmaking techniques.

Within the Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Bowl, new areas requiring snowmaking would include the new teaching areas and trails, areas surrounding the Rough Rider chairlift and surface lifts, the new bypass connecting Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center, and existing Short Cut trail. Within the Pony Pod, installation of snowmaking infrastructure would occur to provide coverage to Upper and Lower Middle Rib, the Crux, Upper and Lower Longhorn, Lower Pony Express lift line, Upper and Lower Storm Peak Express Connectors, BC Skiway, and Chaps.

Ultimately, improved snowmaking infrastructure on existing and proposed terrain would improve skier circulation within the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, and Pony Pod areas. By improving snowmaking in areas

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

that receive high skier traffic and wind wear impacts, or are underutilized due to insufficient snow, skier circulation issues would be addressed.

Guest Distribution The industry standard goal is to have enough out-of-base lift capacity to be able to stage the full CCC of the resort onto the mountain in an hour and a half. As previously discussed in Section 3.1.2.2, there is a “portal capacity deficiency” resulting from the existing CCC being higher than the existing portal capacity. There would be enough out-of-base capacity to stage the full CCC onto the mountain in less than the hour and a half time period, resulting in a “portal capacity surplus.” Table 3.1-5 highlights how the portal capacity would be improved.

Table 3.1-5: Portal Capacity Analysis – Proposed Action Alternative Proposed Portal Capacity 14,565 Proposed CCC 14,4200 Portal Capacity Surplus 145 Source: SE Group 2017a

Ski Patrol Ski patrol operations are expected to be improved throughout Steamboat’s SUP area. Although ski patrol has previously responded to issues in the Pioneer Ridge area, ski patrol safety operations would extend into the 355 acres of the Pioneer Ridge area that would be included in the operational boundary. Inclusion of this area as a part of the inbounds terrain network, and construction of appropriate egress routes, is anticipated to improve skier safety and ski patrol response times in the Pioneer Ridge area. There would still be a portion of Pioneer Ridge accessible as backcountry from the proposed operational boundary; however, conditions are also expected to improve response times in this area. Specifically, construction of the Boundary Collector Ski Trail F, Burgess Creek Bridge, and Exit Ski Trail H within the proposed operational boundary, would all address ongoing egress issues that generate ski patrol responses in the Pioneer Ridge area. Boundary Collector Ski Trail F would create a safer and more efficient path for ski patrol toboggan evacuations, and to guide skiers toward the Pioneer chairlift and BC Skiway. The Burgess Creek Bridge, Trail F, and Exit Ski Trail H could also serve as egress routes during skier evacuation but would primarily provide skiers with defined routes out of the Pioneer Ridge area and the adjacent backcountry, preventing the need for ski patrol response in the first place.

To patrol the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area, it is anticipated that approximately one additional ski patrol supervisor and 10 additional ski patrollers would be added to Steamboat’s staff.53 This would result in approximately six to seven patrollers per day covering the proposed Pioneer Ridge area.54 As the Pioneer Ridge area is not currently within the operational boundary, regular patrol would be a new addition to the area. Current avalanche safety procedures and avalanche control devices would be capable of addressing avalanche concerns associated with the additional terrain in the Pioneer Ridge area.55 While

53 Miles and Feiges, 2017 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 104 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

inclusion of the heavily used Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary, and enhanced ski patrol operations in this area, are expected to greatly improve ski patrol response times and skier safety, many challenges associated with adjacent backcountry terrain would continue to exist. The proposed operational boundary would still be adjacent to backcountry terrain in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon areas, and access would still be provided through access gates. As such, ski patrol responses to incidents outside of the operational boundary would persist. Better signage, mapping, and measures such as monetary charges for people generating ski patrol responses outside the operational boundary have proven successful in reducing the number of incidents in the backcountry adjacent Steamboat’s operational boundary, and would continue to be implemented.56 New access points that would be provided to adjacent backcountry from the proposed operational boundary would be strategically placed to steer skiers away from dangerous cliff bands and towards lines that ski more directly to the improved egress routes contained within Steamboats proposed terrain network.

Additionally, to reduce ski patrol response times within the existing operational boundary and provide additional manpower and equipment in the Pony Pod, a ski patrol hut and restroom would be constructed and maintained at the top terminal of the Pony Express chairlift, which is currently occupied by a temporary yurt. This patrol hut would act as a satellite station for ski patrol during day operations for six to ten people, as well as supplementing search and rescue needs both within the SUP boundary and out-of-bounds areas. Storage for ski patrol and lift operations would be included, as would restrooms for ski patrol, lift operations, and the public as needed. The additional ski patrol operations in the Pony Pod would address existing issues, while also planning for potential future issues that could be compounded by increasing the capacity of the Pony Express chairlift and supporting new ski patrol operations in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area.

Multi-Season Recreation The Proposed Action Alternative includes infrastructure that would be operated during the summer months; however, the proposed summer offerings, which include the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant and the Bashor Gondola, would support existing summer and multi-season recreation opportunities at Steamboat rather than create new summer recreation opportunities. The gondola would provide additional access to this area during the summer months and the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would provide additional on-mountain dining during the summer months that could also accommodate special events. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.3, existing summer recreation opportunities in the Bashor area include hiking, mountain biking, and disc golf. While the proposed improvements in the Bashor area would support and ultimately enhance these existing recreation opportunities, short-term construction impacts would likely displace these activities and would necessitate relocation in areas where structures are proposed. It is anticipated that construction of the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant and the Bashor Gondola would result in a temporary loss of the existing multi-season guest experience in this area. However, after relocation of these activities it is not anticipated that long-term impacts to the guest experience would occur.

56 Ibid.

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

Facilities and Guest Services A Children’s Facility and Restaurant would be located at the top terminal of the proposed Bashor Gondola on private lands. Designed for both winter and summer use, the proposed Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would be constructed with a footprint of approximately 8,000 square feet; however, the final design would be subject to design regulations, review, and approval by the City of Steamboat Springs. This facility would include a children’s ski school, restaurant with a seating capacity of approximately 400 guests at one time, small retail shop, special events area, and storage.

Table 3.1-6 highlights how the additional restaurant seating associated with the Bashor restaurant would alter seating capacities at Steamboat.

Table 3.1-6: Recommended Restaurant Seats – Proposed Action Alternative Base Thunderhead Four Points Rendezvous Bashor Total Area Restaurant Restaurant Saddle Restaurant Resort Lunchtime Capacity (CCC) 5,460 3,472 1,206 3,460 1,544 15,141 Average Seat Turnover 2.5 3 3 3 3 N/A Existing/Proposed Seats 1,560 1,120 250 914 450 4,472 Required Seats 2,184 1,157 402 1,153 515 5,411 Difference -624 -37 -152 -239 -65 -1,117 Existing/Proposed seating capacity (existing/proposed seats x 3,900 3,360 750 2,742 1,350 12,102 turnover) Source: SE Group 2017a

The addition of the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would increase the total resort seating capacity from 10,746 to 12,102. The Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would have a seating capacity of 1,350, slightly increasing the resorts total seating deficiency from -941 to -1,117. The increased capacity and subsequent increase in CCC that would be driven by the Proposed Action Alternative would negate the Bashor Restaurant’s ability to measurably impact seating capacity. Bashor restaurant would maintain the existing guest experience commensurate to growing CCC and would accommodate the increased number of guests that are expected. Despite the largest deficiency of seats being in the base area, none of the non-Steamboat restaurants in the base area are considered but provide additional seating capacity. Thus, as is the case under current conditions, it is assumed that the seating deficiency in the base area that would be present would be in part made up by these private restaurants.

Visitation Steamboat would continue to operate as a four-season resort, attracting guests in both the winter and summer seasons. It is anticipated that the additional offerings associated with the proposed projects would increase the already growing rate of visitation in the winter season.

For the purposes of this analysis, summer visitation is expected to remain in its current trend; components of the Proposed Action Alternative that would be operated during the summer season are

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 106 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

not designed to increase summer visitation to the ski area. Rather, the proposed summer offerings, which include the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant and the Bashor Gondola, would complement existing summer and multi-season recreation opportunities at Steamboat but would not generate additional visitation on their own.

Steamboat winter season visitation is expected to increase by 1.4 percent annually, or approximately 8 to 10 percent by 2028 (three years following project implementation and the completion of construction). This increase in visitation rate can be attributed to the projects located in the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas of Steamboat. These projects would expand upon the existing terrain network, ski related infrastructure, and winter operations at Steamboat, improving the recreation experience and increasing CCC. Improvements to terrain, both in terms of variety and acreage would be the primary driver of increasing visitation that would occur.

The proposed Pioneer Ridge area would provide a more natural, unstructured, “semi-backcountry” experience through the creation of 95 acres of gladed skiing, that industry studies have shown to be desired by visitors. Additional developed ski trails and improvements, would also enhance the existing network, but would not provide variety to the extent that the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would. It is evident that by increasing the terrain variety, particularly through the establishment of the Proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain pod, that Steamboat would cater to market expectations and generate additional visitation.

There are no non-skiing winter recreation opportunities included in the Proposed Action Alternative; proposed facilities like Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would ultimately serve the purpose of supporting ski related recreation at Steamboat.

3.1.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.1.5.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of recreation resources extend from 1963 when Steamboat first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

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

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

3.1.5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A 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 below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Ski Area Expansion 1996 EIS • Steamboat Summer Trails Environmental Assessment (EA) 2011 • Steamboat Proposed Improvements 2006 EA • Steamboat Ski Area Projects 2015 Categorical Exclusion (CE) • Steamboat Ski Area Thunderhead Disk Golf Course CE • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Lodge Supplemental Information Report (SIR) and CE • Steamboat Ski Area 2010 Summer Maintenance Projects CE • Steamboat Ski Area 2009 Maintenance Projects CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2005 CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2003/04 CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2002 CE • Steamboat Mountain Bike Trail Reroute CE • Steamboat Snowmaking Line Construction CE • Steamboat Mountain Bike Trail Construction CE • Steamboat Mountain Bik Reroute CE (1997) • Emerald Mountain Park Master Plan • Steamboat Springs Open Space and Trails Master Plan 2008 • Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Commercial Recreation Permitting Programmatic EA • Storm Peak Hang Gliding Association Permit Reissuance CE • Winter Non-Motorized Trail Development CE • Steamboat Powdercats Trail Improvements CE • Buffalo Pass Trails EA • Steamboat Springs Running Series Permit Issuance

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 108 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Recreation within the Steamboat Special Use Permit Area Recreation at Steamboat 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 have gained Steamboat international recognition as “Ski Town U.S.A.” During the summer, recreation opportunities such as mountain biking, hiking, disc golf and horseback riding have been available, although in a more passive environment than winter recreation. Past projects, as listed above, have affected recreational opportunities at Steamboat, primarily bolstering the winter recreation opportunities available within the Steamboat SUP area but expanding the summer and multi-season recreation opportunities in more recent years.

This cumulative effects analysis analyzes the potential impacts of all projects in Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA, including those that are not included in the Proposed Action Alternative. As these unimplemented projects are accepted in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA but not approved under environmental review, they are considered here as reasonably foreseeable future projects. Included in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA but not in the Proposed Action Alternative is one proposed lift and three upgrades to existing lifts: Sunshine II, a detachable quad chairlift, would be constructed; the Thunderhead Express and the Elkhead Express, both of which are currently detachable quad chairlifts would be upgraded to detachable six passenger chairlifts; and the South Peak chairlift, which is currently a fixed triple would be upgraded to a detachable quad chairlift.

Associated with these additions to the lift network would be approximately 66.6 acres of novice and low intermediate ability level terrain, which would be primarily served by the future Sunshine II detachable quad chairlift. Table 3.1-7 highlights how the addition of novice and low intermediate ability level terrain would impact the terrain distribution at Steamboat.

Table 3.1-7: Lift-Served Terrain Distribution by Ability Level – Reasonably Foreseeable Future Conditions Trail Skier/Rider Skier/Rider Steamboat Skier/Rider Ability Level Area Capacity Distribution Market (acres) (guests) (%) (%) Beginner 11.6 347 2 5 Novice 232.5 4,185 28 15 Low Intermediate 184.1 2,577 17 25 Intermediate 420.2 4,202 28 35 Advanced Intermediate 386.8 2,707 18 15 Expert 315.1 945 6 5 Total 1,550.3 14,963 100 100 Source: SE Group 2017a

As shown in Table 3.1-7, reasonably foreseeable future upgrades included in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA would increase the acreage of novice and low intermediate terrain, positively impacting the distribution of terrain for these ability levels. The additional lifts and terrain, accepted in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA but withheld from this environmental review, would also increase the existing CCC

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

from 12,670 guests (14,420 guests under the Proposed Action Alternative) to 16,070. Steamboat’s trail density is not anticipated to be measurably impacted by these reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Additionally, two new restaurants, the Sunshine and Tomahawk restaurants, are included in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA but not in the Proposed Action Alternative. There are also previously approved seats at the Four Points restaurant, which would increase the seats from 250 to 428 at this location. It is anticipated that construction of these restaurants and additional seating would add 1,500 seats and would increase Steamboat’s existing seating capacity from 10,746 seats (12,102 seats under the Proposed Action Alternative) to 15,411 seats.

The accepted upgrades from the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA that are not analyzed under the Proposed Action Alternative could be expected to contribute to additional visitation. At this time, it is not certain the percent increase these improvements would have but considering the increase in CCC it is reasonable to expect that visitation during the winter season would experience slight increases as a result of these reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Also, included in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA are a variety of summer recreation opportunities that include trails for mountain biking and hiking, mountain biking skills areas, an alpine coaster, a low impact mini golf, a disc golf course, a zipline, and support facilities for summer activities. As the proposed Bashor Gondola and the Bashor Children’s Facility would be designed for both winter and summer use it is expected that these project components would have a beneficial impact when considered cumulatively with reasonably foreseeable future projects included in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA. Cumulatively during the summer season, the proposed Bashor Gondola and the Bashor Children’s Facility could facilitate increased summer visitation by providing necessary support facilities and infrastructure for expanded summer recreation opportunities that may be offered in the future. These facilities are analyzed as connected actions for the winter season.

Recreation Opportunities beyond the Steamboat Special Use Permit Area Beyond Steamboat and in the broader context of the Yampa Valley, opportunities for recreational activities are abundant—on both private and public lands (NFS, Routt County, and other municipal land). During the winter months, activities outside of the NFS lands within Steamboat’s SUP area include snowmobile tours, horseback rides, fly fishing, backcountry skiing, and Nordic skiing opportunities. These activities are typically done both through guided opportunities and at one’s own accord if users have the appropriate gear and skill sets to do so. Similarly, the number of activities in the area, combined with the scenery, atmosphere and altitude (with cooler temperatures) draw many visitors during the summer months. Popular summer recreation opportunities beyond Steamboat’s SUP boundary range from fly fishing to hot air balloon rides, and more dispersed activities like hiking, biking, and camping that one can engage in on the vast amount of NFS lands and designated wilderness in the surrounding area.

Visitors of NFS lands outside of the Steamboat SUP are also increasing due to population growth, the natural resources present, and array of dispersed activities that exist in the area. When this is considered with the numerous outfitters throughout Routt County that provide guided services for activities such as rafting, fishing and horseback riding, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed projects at Steamboat

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 110 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

would cumulatively add to increasing use and visitation of municipal and NFS lands in and around Steamboat.

As highlighted in the list of projects with potential to cumulatively affect the recreation resource, there is a demand for a wide range of recreation opportunities throughout the entire Yampa Valley. Both the Emerald Mountain Park Master Plan and the Steamboat Springs Open Space and Trails Master Plan (2008) are focused on providing additional open space and recreation opportunities on City of Steamboat lands, while other projects like the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Commercial Recreation Permitting Programmatic EA, Storm Peak Hang Gliding Association Permit Reissuance CE, Winter Non-Motorized Trail Development CE, Steamboat Powdercats Trail Improvements CE, and Buffalo Pass Trails EA are focused towards recreation opportunities on NFS lands. As shown by these projects, providing recreation opportunities is multi-faceted and involves federal and local governments.

The Forest Service currently experiences pressure to expand the range of outfitter and guide permittees and operations. The Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Commercial Recreation Permitting Programmatic EA is reflective of this trend and analyzes the Forest Service’s decision to grant certain commercial recreation service permits across the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District through a programmatic EA. Permit applications that fit within the scope of this programmatic EA would be eligible to be issued, and it could be expected that this would increase the number of outfitter and guide permittees on NFS lands.

The Storm Peak Hang Gliding Association Permit Reissuance CE and the Steamboat Powdercats Trail Improvements CE provide for the continuation of existing recreation opportunities on NFS lands through the re-approval of permits and potential authorization of improvements, respectively. Other projects like the Winter Non-Motorized Trail Development CE and Buffalo Pass Trails EA are focused on adding additional trail acreage for unguided users to travel on in the winter and summer months. By maintaining existing recreation opportunities and providing additional recreation opportunities for a variety of user types the breadth of recreation opportunities on NFS lands is expanding.

The proposed projects at Steamboat would add cumulatively to the variety and supply of recreation in the City of Steamboat, Routt County, and surrounding NFS, and other state and county lands. As is highlighted in the cumulative projects recently approved or pending approval, there is an existing demand for recreation opportunities that would likely be added to by the additional recreational opportunities within the Steamboat SUP. Adding additional visitors could increase demand for outfitter and guided activities, both on and off NFS lands in Routt County. As such, it is likely that the Forest Service would experience additional pressure to increase the amount of operating days for outfitter and guide permittees, as well as permit new outfitters and guides for both existing activities and new activities not currently permitted.

3.1.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Development of additional lift-served terrain in the Pioneer Ridge area would represent irretrievable effects to backcountry recreation resources within the SUP area. However, the vegetation and ground disturbance required to provide lift-served skiing for the Proposed Action Alternative could be reclaimed and revegetated, thus restoring its backcountry characteristics during the winter season. Therefore, this commitment of the recreation resource is not considered irreversible in nature.

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

3.2 SOCIAL-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 3.2.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The proposed projects have the potential to affect not only the physical environment but also the social and economic 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 seasonal tourism, population, visitor spending, employment, personal income, and tax revenues, all of which are assessed and disclosed herein. The area of economic effect, or Project Area, for the proposed project is defined as Routt County, Colorado.

3.2.1.1 Definitions Terminology specific to economic analysis is used throughout this section. To help the reader, the following definitions are provided: Economic Impact Theory – A significant body of prior research regarding ski area operations makes it clear that by drawing non-local visitation to an area, resorts such as Steamboat can generate economic activity in the form of employment and visitor sales. These benefits accrue to both the resort and to local businesses that benefit from spending by visitors. Perhaps just as important, the direct dollars spent at resort areas and local businesses have a secondary (multiplier) impact, creating additional sales/jobs within the local and regional economy. Economic Impacts – Economic impacts are typically defined at two levels: 1. Direct – Direct impacts include employment and sales created as a direct impact of a business. On- and off-site construction jobs, resort-based jobs and non-resort jobs generated by visitor expenditures are included in this category. 2. Secondary – Secondary impacts include indirect and induced impacts: ○ Indirect – Employment and sales created by industry-to-industry spending. For instance, increased food and beverage spending at Steamboat would result in the purchase of more supplies from food vendors. This revenue would allow the food vendors to create more employment. These are indirect jobs.

○ Induced – Employment created by increased household spending. The additional jobs and income created by direct spending would allow consumers to increase their spending on goods and services. This spending would allow a number of businesses to create more jobs. These are induced jobs.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 112 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.1.2 Methodology and Assumptions Economic impacts of the existing conditions and Proposed Action Alternative were projected using a computer-based model (IMPLAN3).57 IMPLAN3 is a broadly accepted model used by the Forest Service for making projections regarding employment and economic impacts, and is often used by the Forest Service in the preparation of environmental analysis documents as part of the NEPA process. IMPLAN3 economic modeling requires the estimation of annual visitation, visitor spending, resort employment, and construction costs in order to simulate the effect of these activities on the economy in terms of sales, employment, labor income, and tax revenues. While IMPLAN3 modeling utilizes the most current observed industry interdependencies calibrated to the local and regional economy of Routt County, the results of any economic model are only as accurate as the data used to describe the proposed change (i.e., an alternative). Therefore, certain estimations and assumptions related to the existing conditions and Proposed Action Alternative were made. As a result, the projected values presented in this analysis should not be considered precise, but rather accurate estimates of the potential economic impacts under all alternatives.

Construction activity at the resort and year-round visitation to the resort area generate economic activity in Routt County. In order to analyze the economic impacts of the proposed projects, the Forest Service and Steamboat have made reasonable estimates of the proposed construction budget and anticipated visitation to Steamboat. For the purposes of this analysis, construction of the project components is expected to occur over the eight-year period from 2018 through 2025. The projection period for visitation-based impacts is from three years after implementation and projections of annual spending are based on 2028 values. IMPLAN3 model values related to the Affected Environment, or existing condition, are estimated for 2017.

For the purposes of this analysis, summer visitation is expected to remain in its current trend under each alternative (i.e., neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action Alternative are designed, or expected, to increase summer visitation to the ski area). Therefore, the existing economic impact of summer visitors to Steamboat is disclosed in the Affected Environment, but only changes in winter visitation are analyzed for each alternative. Based on visitation trends from the past ten years, new winter visitation to Steamboat is expected to remain in its current trend.

57 IMPLAN3 software guides users through the task of creating an impact study that tracks the effects of a modeled event (such as each alternative) against 440 unique sectors in the U.S. The result is a detailed summary of economic impacts including: changes in jobs, household incomes, tax impacts, and GRP that can be used to show the effect of firms moving into an area, special events, introduction of new technologies, recreation and tourism, military base closures, changes in government spending, and many more events. Additional information regarding IMPLAN3 software and be found at http://implan.com/index.php?option=com_content &view=article&id=889&Itemid=1482 and data used for the economic analysis is contained in the project file and attached as an appendix to this Technical Report.

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

In this analysis, existing and prospective new jobs are discussed as “employment positions” or “FTEs.” An employment position may be a year-round or seasonal job and either full-time or part-time, whereas one FTE provides sufficient work to keep one person employed full-time for one year. In seasonal industries, such as ski areas, one FTE may represent several employment positions.58

3.2.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION The Forest Plan does not provide management direction specific to social and economic resources. However, the Forest Plan does broadly discuss social and economic resources in its Forest-wide goals and objectives. In particular, Goal 3 and its objectives discuss the relationship activities on the Forest should have with social and economic resources. Forest Goals and Objectives: • Goal 3: Cooperate with local governments and communities to develop opportunities that contribute to economic viability. • Objectives: ○ Support development and maintenance of a sustained flow of market and nonmarket products to regional and local economies. ○ Develop programs and projects that are complementary to local community objectives and plans. ○ Assist local governments in developing specific programs that promote economic stability.

The extent the proposed projects at Steamboat meet the Forest-wide goals and objectives that address social and economic resources would be the extent that Forest Plan direction is considered in the analysis of social and economic resources.

3.2.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.2.3.1 Steamboat Visitation Steamboat is a four-season resort whose primary purpose is for winter recreation. Over the past ten years, Steamboat has experienced modest fluctuations in winter and summer visitation, and while visitation trends and amounts have been analyzed, specific visitation values are not disclosed in this document as they are deemed confidential business information.

Employment As is true for most mountain resorts, Steamboat employs more workers in the winter than in the summer. Steamboat currently employs approximately 1,008 FTEs in the winter and approximately 473

58 A full time, year-round job is one FTE, but a part time seasonal job is half the hours every week and half of the year, equating to one-quarter of an FTE (i.e., “half-of-a-half”).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 114 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FTEs in the summer, including full-time positions.59 These are direct resort jobs (i.e., employees of Steamboat) and are ongoing employment positions that are created each year in response to visitation to Steamboat. Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2 summarize the existing employment at Steamboat.

Table 3.2-1: Steamboat Baseline Employment Employment Type FTEs Year-Round Employment 333 Winter Seasonal Employment 675 Summer Seasonal Employment 141 Total Employment 1,149 Source: SSRC 2017a; annual employment 2017

Table 3.2-2: Steamboat Baseline Employment by Season Winter FTEs Summer FTEs 1,008 473 Source: SSRC 2017a; annual employment 2017

Economic Impact of Steamboat on the Routt County Economy Based on projections from the IMPLAN3 model, winter visitors currently spend approximately $187.1 million each year. This direct spending generates a total annual output of approximately $283.6 million into the economy, which includes direct and secondary impacts. Approximately 3,100 FTEs and $111.8 million in labor income are generated each year in response to Steamboat spending.60 This includes the 1,008 FTEs currently provided by Steamboat in the winter. Steamboat’s economic impact currently accounts for approximately $180.3 million (10.2 percent) of the GRP of Routt County. Approximately $28.5 million in federal taxes and approximately $22.9 million in state and local taxes are generated each year by this economic activity. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the impact of existing winter visitation.

Table 3.2-3: Baseline Impact of Winter Visitation at Steamboat Employment Total Value Added Total Output Impact Type Labor Income (FTEs) (GRP) (Sales) Direct Effect 2,390 $81,003,000 $123,541,000 $187,058,000 Secondary Effect 710 $30,799,000 $56,746,000 $96,581,000 Total Effect 3,100 $111,802,000 $180,287,000 $283,639,000 Source: IMPLAN Group LLC 2017

59 FTEs are explained under Scope of the Analysis. 60 The Congressional Labor Office defines labor income as income that is derived from employment. This includes all compensation that is a return from work effort, and typically includes labor earnings (wages and salaries), employer-provided benefits (health insurance, life insurance, etc.) and taxes paid to the government on behalf of the employees. Employment created by the operation of and visitation to Steamboat produces labor income for employees and businesses in Routt County.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 115 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Based on projections from the IMPLAN3 model, Steamboat’s summer visitors currently spend approximately $9.9 million each year. This direct spending generates a total annual output of approximately $15.0 million into the economy, which includes direct and secondary impacts. Approximately 170 FTEs and $5.9 million in labor income are generated each year in response to Steamboat spending. Steamboat’s summer economic impact currently accounts for approximately $9.5 million (0.54 percent) of the GRP of Routt County. Approximately $1.5 million in federal taxes and approximately $1.2 million in state and local taxes are generated each year by this economic activity. Table 3.2-4 summarizes the impact of existing summer visitation.

Table 3.2-4: Baseline Impact of Summer Visitation at Steamboat Total Value Added Total Output Impact Type Employment (FTEs) Labor Income (GRP) (Sales) Direct Effect 130 $4,297,000 $6,477,000 $9,901,000 Secondary Effect 40 $1,640,000 $2,981,000 $5,087,000 Total Effect 170 $5,937,000 $9,457,000 $14,987,000 Source: IMPLAN Group LLC 2017

To put winter versus summer visitor spending into context, the total effect of Steamboat’s winter visitor spending ($283.6 million) is more than 18 times that of the summer visitors ($15.0 million).

3.2.3.2 Population Routt County’s population has been steadily increasing since the 1970s; in 2015 it was approximately 24,000 full-time residents.61 The percent change in population from decade to decade in Routt County shows that historically, the population is increasing at a decreasing rate, ranging from approximately 100 percent growth between 1970 and 1980 to 20 percent growth between 2000 and 2010.62 This increasing trend is projected to continue in both the State of Colorado and Routt County, with Colorado projected to reach 7.8 million residents by 2040 and Routt County population projected to reach approximately 39,000 by 2040.63 The total projected population growth in Routt County accounts for an approximately 63 percent change over the twenty-five-year period from 2015 to 2040. The projected percent change in population indicates that Routt County has already experienced the majority of its population growth and is anticipated to grow at a much slower rate, fluctuating between 0.5 percent to 2.4 percent annually from now until 2040.64

3.2.3.3 Housing Housing has been a focal point in Routt County and the City of Steamboat Springs for several decades, due to growing demand and scarcity issues. In 2009 Routt County adopted the Routt County Housing Needs Assessment, a study led by the Yampa Valley Housing Authority (YVHA). The Routt County Housing Needs Assessment also incorporates the findings of the 2008 Steamboat Springs Workforce Housing Demand Analysis, another study led by the YVHA that looked more specifically at the housing trends

61 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 62 Ibid. 63 Colorado Department of Local Affairs – State Demography Office, 2016 64 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 116 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

within the City of Steamboat Springs. Both housing studies identified a housing shortage in certain areas of the county that was more impactful to different groups, particularly the low to middle income workforce. A large portion of the analysis in both of these studies was dedicated to determining if the average-wage worker can afford to rent in Routt County and the City of Steamboat Springs, determining the largest gaps in supply and demand for housing, and identifying future needs to accommodate the workforce. The results of these reports, coupled with more current housing metrics define the existing conditions of housing in Routt County.

Most of Routt County’s residents are married couples and households with children, while only 25 percent of the county’s households are single people or people living with roommates.65 As stated in the discussion of population, Routt County’s population has been and is continuing a trend of steady growth. At the time of the Routt County Housing Needs Assessment, the number of housing units grew by 31 percent in Routt County over a seven-year period, reaching a total of 14,679 units.66 During this same time period, the overall vacancy rate of Routt County also grew by 8 percent, reaching 37 percent in 2007.67 As of 2015 the total housing units is estimated at 16,378 units and the vacancy rate has grown to 42 percent, reflecting a trend similar to what was shown in the Routt County Housing Needs Assessment but at a slower growth rate.68 What this shows is that while housing is increasing with population, many of these are seasonal homes and are not necessarily accommodating the workforce that is growing to meet the demands of the increasing population.

When more seasonal housing units are driving up the cost of housing, this can create a higher cost burden for homeowners. Cost burden is defined as a household paying more than 30 percent of their household incomes in housing costs, which has the potential to make them vulnerable to evictions and foreclosures.69 In 2008 the percent increase of “for sale homes” prices was rapidly growing, increasing by 75 percent from 2000 to 2008, as many of the homes being built were seasonal homes.70 The percent increase in rental costs, which grew by 5 percent during this same time period, wasn’t nearly as drastic. When these factors were considered with a 17 percent increase in incomes during this same time period, it is evident that the cost burden for owners is dramatically increasing while the cost burden for renters is slightly decreasing. This transition is shown in the shift in percent of income spent on housing costs for both renters and owners in Table 3.2-5. Since 2007, the percent of income spent on housing costs has again shifted for both renters and owners. As of 2015, both renters and owners are significantly cost burdened with housing costs accounting for 47 percent of renter’s household income, and 43 percent of owner’s household income. These transitions are highlighted in Table 3.2-5.

65 BBC Research and Consulting, 2009 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016 69 BBC Research and Consulting, 2009 70 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 117 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.2-5: Percent of Income Spent on Housing 2000, 2007, and 2015 2000 2007 2015 Year Renters Owners Renters Owners Renters Owners Percent of income spent on 42% 37% 34% 48% 47% 43% housing costs Source: Routt County Housing Needs Assessment 2009; U.S. Department of Commerce 2016 Notes: Percentages are based on median home/rental values; household income is based on per capita income and median household income

Both owners and renters comprise the workforce in Routt County and the City of Steamboat Springs. Many owners are workers with families or plans to have children, while the rental market is more likely to consist of single people that are in many cases short-term or seasonal employees. Without balanced housing options, the workforce is particularly susceptible to the trends of a limited housing market that can make it hard to retain families and attract long-term workers to the county. The 2008 Steamboat Springs Workforce Housing Demand Analysis determined that housing is negatively impacting the workforce as supply does not match demand.71 Finding an affordable single-family home in Routt County is a challenge that is particularly visible within the City of Steamboat Springs. Conversely, the vast majority of affordable condos for rent are located in the City of Steamboat Springs. These rental units are more affordable but are generally small (studios or one-bedrooms with less than 600 square feet) and difficult for larger households to occupy. Mobile homes are the other affordable alternative. The City of Steamboat Springs’ affordable housing stock is more oriented towards single people living with roommates or couples not planning to expand their household size.72 As such, affordable single family housing is limited to small rental units or mobile homes in the City of Steamboat Springs, or larger rental units and potentially older homes in other parts of the county (e.g., Oak Creek or Hayden).73 These conclusions were based off assumptions around a per capita income of $38,376 in 2009 that has since decreased to $36,472 in 2015, indicating that these conclusions are likely still valid if not exacerbated.74

Steamboat Employee Housing Steamboat currently provides 442 beds within their employee housing located at The Ponds.75 The Ponds provides employee housing during the winter season of November through April and is unable to provide non-employee housing during that time. During the months of May through September, housing for non-employee tenants is based on availability.

Typically, every bed is occupied by an employee at the start of the winter season and remain above 90 percent full throughout the entire season.76 The Ponds accommodates approximately 26 percent of the seasonal workforce employed by Steamboat during the winter season.77 Seasonal employees not living at The Ponds either live year-round in Steamboat and already have housing, or find other options such as

71 RCLCO, 2008 72 BBC Research and Consulting, 2009 73 Ibid. 74 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016 75 Miles, 2017 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 118 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

renting a single room elsewhere in the community.78 Some find affordable accommodation in South Routt County, the Town of Hayden, or Moffat County, where cheaper housing is available.79

3.2.3.4 Schools Routt County includes the Hayden School District, the Steamboat Mountain School, the North Routt Community Charter School, the South Routt School District, and the City of Steamboat Springs School District. Preschool through grade 12 are offered in various districts throughout the county. Colorado Mountain College, which offers undergraduate and professional courses, is also located within the county. As of 2015 it was estimated that 22 percent of Routt County’s population was enrolled in school and that 97 percent of the total population were high school graduates.80 In terms of national standards, 13 percent of the population does not have a high school degree, while in Routt County only 3 percent of the population does not have a high school degree.81 Further, 50 percent of Routt County’s population has obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to the national standard of 30 percent bachelor’s degree obtainment, which would suggest that Routt County has very high levels of educational attainment.82

3.2.3.5 Race Racial diversity is limited in Routt County—95 percent of the county’s population is White, which includes the majority of people from Hispanic or Latino ethnicities.83 The racial breakdown of Routt County is provided in Table 3.2-6.

Table 3.2-6: Race Within Routt County (2015) Race Population Percent White 22,400 94.9 Black or African American 99 0.4 American Indian and Alaska Native 84 0.4 Asian 245 1.0 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 Some Other Race 454 1.9 Two or More Races 324 1.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 Notes: Hispanics may be of any race and are included in applicable race categories. The data in this table are calculated by American Census Survey using annual surveys conducted during 2009–2015 and are representative of average characteristics during this period.

78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 119 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.3.6 Economy Base industry economic drivers are defined by industries such as mining, manufacturing, agriculture, national and regional services, government and households, which draw money into the area from other regions. Within Routt County tourism is the largest base industry, generating approximately 40 percent of all employment in the county.84 This calculation includes not only those working in the travel and tourism industry, but those whose jobs are attributable to the travel and tourism industry (i.e., construction). The second largest base industries are household -retirees at approximately 16 percent, followed by regional center/national services at approximately 13 percent.85

In 2013 Colorado’s Gross Domestic Product was $288.8 billion.86 In 2015 Routt County’s GRP was approximately $1.8 billion, with travel and tourism contributing approximately $617.2 million to Routt County’s GRP.87 In addition to winter visitors of Steamboat, which contribute approximately $187.1 million each year, Steamboat also generates visitation during the summer months through non-skiing recreation opportunities within its SUP area. Further, an abundance of recreational opportunities exist beyond the ski area and support the travel and tourism economy of Routt County.88

The surrounding Yampa Valley is home to many guide and outfitter services (some of which operate on NFS lands), that offer a multitude of activities other than skiing for both guests and residents to participate in during both the summer and winter months. During the winter months, activities range from guided snowmobile tours and horseback rides to unguided adventures in the vast amounts of public lands for those with the skills and experience to explore on their own.89 During the summer, recreation opportunities outside of the ski resort range from fly fishing to hot air balloon rides, and more dispersed activities like hiking, biking, and camping that one can engage in on NFS lands and designated wilderness in the surrounding area.90

In this context, travel and tourism consists of sectors that provide goods and services to visitors to the local economy, as well as to the local population.91 For the purposes of this analysis these sectors include: retail trade, passenger transportation, arts, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation and food services. Travel and tourism accounts for about 15 percent of total employment nationally and about 18 percent in the State of Colorado. In comparison, Routt County is much more dependent on tourism with approximately 35 percent of the total employment in the county being in the travel and tourism sectors.92 It should also be noted that the percentage of employment related to travel and

84 Colorado Department of Local Affair – State Demography Office, 2017 85 Ibid. 86 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016 87 Ibid. 88 SSRC, 2017c 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Without additional research such as surveys, it is not known what exact proportion of the jobs in these sectors is attributable to expenditures by visitors, including business and pleasure travelers, versus by local residents. Some researchers refer to these sectors as “tourism-sensitive.” They could also be called “travel and tourism-potential sectors” because they have the potential of being influenced by expenditures by non-locals. In this report, they are referred to as “travel and tourism.” 92 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 120 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

tourism in Routt County is higher than reported, as second home construction and some other tourism related activities are not included in this calculation. As stated earlier in this section, under the discussion of base industry economic drivers, total employment attributable to tourism is approximately 40 percent.93

3.2.3.7 Employment Status Employment status is a measure of the number of people who are jobless or employed in the local labor force. In 2016 Routt County had a labor force of approximately 14,500, with about 13,800 persons employed and 700 persons unemployed.94 This estimate is based on a five-year average from December 2011 to December 2016. During this time, the labor force in Routt County fluctuated between 13,215 and 15,714 people, with the low occurring in May and the high in January.

The most common metric of employment status is the unemployment rate, calculated as the number of people who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work divided by the labor force. In 2016 the five-year average for Routt County’s unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, which was lower than the state five-year average of 5.7 percent. The labor force numbers in Routt County and the State of Colorado are provided in Table 3.2-7. Routt County experiences seasonal fluctuation in unemployment rate with high unemployment typically occurring in May and June and low unemployment in December and January. The unemployment in the last five years for Routt County has ranged from 2.1 to 9.0 percent.

Table 3.2-7: Average Routt County Labor Force, 2011–2016 Unemployment Rate Area Labor Force Employed Unemployed (%) Routt County 14,507 13,830 677 4.7 State of Colorado 2,804,219 2,644,378 159,840 5.7 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017

3.2.3.8 Income and Poverty Household income and the proportion of the population below the poverty level are important measures of the ability of households and individuals to achieve economic security. In 2015 Routt County had a higher median household income ($64,963) and a lower percentage of the population below the poverty level (10.2 percent) than both the State of Colorado and the U.S. as a whole.95 It is important to note that this figure is based on total personal income, from both labor (e.g., wages) and non-labor (e.g., investment income) sources. These figures are presented in Table 3.2-8.

93 Colorado Department of Local Affairs – State Demography Office, 2017 94 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017 95 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 121 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.2-8: Routt County Median Household Income and Percentage of Population below the Poverty Level, 2015 Median Household Income Percentage of Population Geographic Area including Benefits Below the Poverty Level United States $53,889 15.5 Colorado $60,629 12.7 Routt County $64,963 10.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016

3.2.3.9 Social Services Social services include public transportation, public health services, family services, child care, and other services provided by Routt County, the City of Steamboat, and local nonprofit organizations. These programs and organizations provide services to individuals living in the community who cannot afford to maintain a healthy and comfortable lifestyle. These services are being used by some Steamboat employees to supplement the high cost of living in a mountain resort town and seasonal work patterns.

Use of Routt County’s social services fluctuates throughout the year with influxes of need primarily in the “shoulder seasons” of spring and fall, when the ski area is no longer operating.96 Even within the winter operating season, periods of low visitation or marginal snow result in temporary layoffs and a greater demand for social services.97 Typically, residents of Routt County and employees of Steamboat in particular rely on social services during their off season, and use these services primarily as a safety net rather than being fully dependent.98

Routt County offers Child and Adult Protective Services; Child Care Assistance Program; Child Support Services; Family Preservation; Fatherhood Program of Routt County; First Impressions, Early Childhood Council; Food Assistance; Low Income Energy Assistance Program; Medicaid and Medicaid Transportation; Old Age Pension; Temporary Assistance to Needy Families through Colorado Works; and Self-Sufficiency programs. Review of all the social services in Routt County, indicated that child-care services are the most challenged and are in essence at capacity.99 All services in the county receive relatively high levels of use but are not burdened to the extent that child-care is and are not likely to be affected by future growth.

There is a waitlist for child-care services regardless of income levels and particularly for infant/toddler care, and the waitlist is expected to remain in place for the foreseeable future.100 To address this capacity issue, Routt County provides financial incentives to encourage qualified home providers (e.g., stay-at- home parents capable of watching additional children) to provide equipment and materials home providers may need such as fencing, playgrounds, and toys.101 This effort has shown some success but

96 Clark, 2017 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 122 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

not at a scale that improves the existing conditions. Additionally, First Impressions, Early Childhood Council works with employers in the area, including Steamboat, to help them understand the needs of their employees. This include asking employers to consider adding infant/toddler centers during remodeling efforts to advocating for better pay, and also working to incentivize qualified providers.102

Also in high demand are food assistance programs, which portions of the Routt County population also rely upon, primarily due to the fluctuation in schedule or seasonal employment. Overall food assistance services are well-functioning and are not at capacity, and the recently implemented “Colorado Employment First” program is working to ensure that this remains the case into the future.103 “Colorado Employment First” promotes self-sufficiency and independence by preparing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients for employment through job seeking skills training, work experience, and monthly job search support activities. The greater stringency associated with work requirements has resulted in an almost 20 percent decrease in the food assistance load.104

Medical/insurance services, including cash assistance programs supported by state and federal funding, are also well-functioning.105 While the county is able to provide social services to the lowest income brackets, residents slightly above the income threshold limits are at the greatest risk of not receiving support through social services. Seasonal work fluctuations and unpredictable weekly schedules are the greatest challenge to qualifying for social services, as oftentimes workers are not financially eligible for services but may be in need or have dependents in need on a weekly or monthly basis.106

Public Transportation Public transportation is provided through Steamboat Springs Transit (SST), which offers local, regional, and ADA paratransit public transportation throughout Routt County. At the local level, SST provides a fixed route transit service throughout the City of Steamboat Springs. The local bus route is a “free to user” system and year-round bus service is provided daily around town and between the downtown area and the Steamboat base area.107 A regional bus service is available between the City of Steamboat Springs and the City of Craig. Summer service provides two daily buses that depart the City of Craig at approximately 5:50 a.m. and 6:50 a.m., arriving in the City of Steamboat Springs at approximately 6:40 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., respectively. The evening buses depart the City of Steamboat Springs at approximately 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., arriving in the City of Craig at approximately 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., respectively. The cost is $6.00 each way from the City of Craig, $5.00 each way from Hayden, $3.50 each way from the community of Milner, and $1.50 each way from the community of Steamboat Springs II.108 Punch cards are available for $40.00 and provide $60.00 worth of rides.109 SST provides

102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 City of Steamboat Springs, 2017 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 123 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

demand responsive curb-to-curb service for ADA paratransit eligible passengers. Service is application based and SST determines eligibility for this service.110

Local transportation accounts for the largest portion of ridership, serving approximately 975,812 riders in 2016, 1,036,942 riders in 2015, and 1,124,061 riders in 2014.111 Comparatively, regional transportation accounted for 26,283 riders in 2016 and paratransit transportation accounted 1,700 riders in 2016.112 Table 3.2-9 shows that ridership has remained close to 1,000,000 riders in the past three years.

Table 3.2-9: Monthly Public Transportation Ridership in 2014–2016 Month 2014 2015 2016 January 178,141 153,608 169,412 February 169,491 149,742 164,172 March 171,718 144,938 160,860 April 72,556 58,531 66,515 May 42,182 38,534 39,770 June 56,766 57,144 60,127 July 85,344 85,336 93,458 August 66,511 64,923 68,024 September 48,347 50,370 55,638 October 47,177 44,095 45,478 November 53,877 50,314 52,358 December 131,951 129,190 147,569 Total 1,124,061 1,026,725 1,123,381 Source: City of Steamboat Springs 2017

As highlighted in Table 3.2-9, the majority of ridership in all three years has occurred from December to March, during the peak of ski season. SST begins to reach capacity at approximately 1.3 million to 1.4 million riders.113 This was determined in 2008, which had the highest historic ridership at 1,292,423 riders and indicated that SST was nearing capacity.114 Overall, the majority of riders are tourists or others using the transit system to commute to locations other than work. However, during certain times of the day the transit system is used primarily by workers commuting to and from their places of employment. To accommodate commuters traveling to and from work, a service time block from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. was added to the transit schedule.115 Currently, SST is capable of accommodating increased ridership for both tourists and workers.

110 Ibid. 111 Flint, 2017a 112 Ibid. 113 Flint, 2017b 114 Ibid. 115 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 124 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.3.10 Environmental Justice Environmental justice speaks to concerns that federal decisions could disproportionately impact people of a particular ethnic or cultural heritage group, or people with low incomes. EO 12898 relates to environmental justice and requires, in brief, that each federal agency 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 and low-income populations.

The CEQ provides the following definitions in order to provide guidance for compliance with environmental justice requirements in NEPA: • “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.”

As previously stated, racial diversity is limited in Routt County—95 percent of the county’s population is White, Hispanic or Latino.116 The racial breakdown of Routt County is provided in Table 3.2-6. No existing minority populations were 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. Likewise, while approximately 10 percent of the population of Routt County are considered below the poverty level, no low-income populations were identified in the Project Area that would experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects.

3.2.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.2.4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives While the Proposed Action Alternative would generate economic activity in the form of sales, employment labor, income, and tax revenues, the overall social and economic trends in Routt County (population growth, housing, racial diversity, a travel and tourism-based economy, income and poverty, and environmental justice) are expected to remain within their current trends under both the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

116 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 125 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Population Population growth projections expect Colorado and Routt County’s baseline resident population to grow in the coming years. Colorado is expected to reach 7.8 million residents by 2040, an increase of about 2.3 million.117 Routt County population is expected to reach 39,000 by 2040, an increase of about 15,000.118 Although some workers may relocate to Routt County to fill the new employment positions created by the Proposed Action Alternative, this population projection accounts for a reasonable amount of job creation in the county such as what would be experienced. Thus, population growth resulting from the Proposed Action Alternative is expected to have a negligible effect on the baseline population trend, which would also be experienced.

Housing Housing availability in the Yampa Valley and the City of Steamboat Springs is an ongoing issue; however, neither the Proposed Action Alternative nor the No Action Alternative are anticipated to measurably affect the housing markets of the City of Steamboat Springs or Routt County. The majority of workers are anticipated to already be living in the area.

As indicated in Section 3.2.3.3, Steamboat currently provides 442 beds in its employee housing units at The Ponds, accommodating approximately 26 percent of the winter seasonal workforce.119 Based on current capacities, which are typically at or near capacity for the duration of the winter season, the workforce housing currently available at Steamboat would not accommodate any additional employees. Due to the severe lack of affordable housing available within Routt County, Steamboat would need to implement alternate means of providing employee housing, likely by renting and subsidizing additional housing units within Routt County.120 The additional employee housing that would be provided by Steamboat is necessitated by the ongoing issue of Routt County’s lack of affordable housing; the additional employees would not create new housing issues or measurably impact the housing markets of the City of Steamboat Springs or Routt County.

Schools Routt County has very high levels of educational attainment and a robust public school system, with multiple districts that are capable of providing enrollment for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 students. Neither alternative is anticipated to measurably affect the ability of the public school system in Routt County to continue to provide adequate educational opportunities.

Race Racial diversity is limited in Routt County, with about 95 percent of the Routt County population identifying as white. Neither alternative is anticipated to measurably affect the racial composition of the county.

117 The Coloradoan, 2015 118 Colorado Department of Local Affairs – State Demography Office, 2016 119 Miles, 2017 120 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 126 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Economy Travel and tourism has been an important component of the Routt County economy. Currently, at least 35 percent of all employment in Routt County is in the travel and tourism sectors.121 Neither alternative is anticipated to affect this overall economic condition. Steamboat is expected to remain one of the primary economic drivers in Routt County for the foreseeable future under both alternatives.

Income and Poverty Measures of individual prosperity are closely related to the overall economic condition in a local economy. Travel and tourism is expected to remain a primary economic driver in Routt County under both alternatives, and as such, the nature of employment opportunities and compensation is also expected to remain in its current trend. Under both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative, Routt County can be expected to retain its relatively higher median household income ($64,963) and a lower percentage of the population below the poverty level (10.2 percent) than both the State of Colorado and the U.S. as a whole.122

Social Services Employees generated by the Proposed Action Alternative are likely to earn less than the annual mean income in Colorado, and as a result, could require social services. Social services such as public transportation, public health services, and child care services could see an increase in demand; however, the effect to social services is not anticipated to be driven by changes in employment at Steamboat. Child-care services would continue to be severely challenged. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.9, partnerships between employers like Steamboat and social service providers in Routt County would continue to be formed, with an increased emphasis anticipated in the future.

Environmental Justice No changes or modifications would be approved under any alternative that would directly or indirectly affect minority or low-income populations in Routt County. The baseline conditions presented in Section 3.2.3.10 would be expected to continue into the future under each alternative.

3.2.4.2 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Visitation The proposed projects on NFS lands would not be constructed and winter visitation to Steamboat is expected to remain in its current trend. Steamboat projects located on private lands may still occur; however, increases or decreases to visitation related to these projects would be negligible and would not drive visitation beyond current trends.

121 U.S. Department of Commerce, 2016 122 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 127 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Employment The proposed projects on NFS lands would not be constructed and Steamboat would continue to employ approximately 1,008 FTEs in the winter season. Steamboat projects on private lands may still occur; however, it is not anticipated these projects would result in increases or decreases in employment.

Economic Impact of Steamboat Resort Operations on the Routt County Economy As new visitation to Steamboat is expected to be negligible, minimal changes to the existing economic impact of winter visitation at Steamboat are anticipated. Steamboat’s winter visitors would continue to spend approximately $187.1 million each year. This direct spending would continue to generate a total annual output of approximately $283.6 million into the economy, which includes direct and secondary impacts. Approximately 3,100 FTEs and $111.8 million in labor income would continue to be generated each year in response to Steamboat spending. This would include the approximately 1,008 FTEs currently provided by Steamboat during the winter season. Steamboat’s winter economic impact would continue to account for approximately $180.3 million (10.2 percent) of the GRP of Routt County. Approximately $28.5 million in federal taxes and approximately $22.9 million in state and local taxes would continue to be generated each year by this economic activity.

3.2.4.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Visitation Steamboat winter season visitation is expected to increase by 1.4 percent annually, or approximately 8 to 10 percent by 2028 (three years following project implementation and the completion of construction).

Economic Impact of Steamboat Resort Operations on the Routt County Economy Based on projections from the IMPLAN3 model, new winter visitors to the region would spend approximately $26.0 million each year. This direct spending would generate a total annual output of approximately $39.5 million into the economy, which includes direct and secondary impacts. Approximately 430 FTEs and $15.6 million in labor income would be generated each year in response to this spending. This value includes 37 new FTEs that would be directly employed by Steamboat in the winter. The new economic activity anticipated would contribute approximately $25.1 million to the GRP of Routt County. Approximately $4.0 million in federal taxes and approximately $3.2 million in state and local taxes would be generated each year by this economic activity. Table 3.2-10 summarizes the impact of this new winter visitation to the region. As these impacts would result from new visitation to the region, they would be created each year in addition to the baseline impact of Steamboat’s current visitors presented in the Affected Environment discussion.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 128 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.2-10: Impact of Winter Visitation at Steamboat – Alternative 2 Total Value Added Total Output Impact Type Employment (FTEs) Labor Income (GRP) (sales) Direct Effect 330 $11,303,000 $17,231,000 $26,071,000 Secondary Effect 100 $4,294,000 $7,915,000 $13,471,000 Total Effect 430 $15,597,000 $25,146,000 $39,541,000 Source: IMPLAN Group LLC 2017

Construction Impacts Construction of the Proposed Action Alternative is expected to occur in eight construction seasons, from 2018 through 2025. The construction budget for the Proposed Action Alternative projects was input to the IMPLAN3 model to provide estimates of direct and secondary employment, labor income, total value added and total output associated with the construction activity. Construction of the project components would generate a total output of approximately $46.5 million, which includes direct and secondary impacts. Approximately 350 FTEs and $19.0 million in labor income would be generated in the years of construction. This construction activity would account for approximately $24.6 million (1.4 percent) to the GRP of Routt County. Approximately $4.0 million in federal taxes and approximately $1.5 in state and local taxes would be generated by the construction activity. These impacts would be short term—only affecting the economy from 2018 to 2025, the years in which construction activity would occur. Table 3.2-11 summarizes the potential impact of construction of the Proposed Action Alternative on the Routt County economy.

Table 3.2-11: Impact of Construction – Alternative 2 Total Value Added Total Output Impact Type Employment (FTEs) Labor Income (GRP) (sales) Direct Effect 250 $14,453,000 $16,745,000 $32,918,000 Secondary Effect 100 $4,565,000 $7,885,000 $13,629,000 Total Effect 350 $19,018,000 $24,630,000 $46,546,000 Source: IMPLAN Group LLC 2017

3.2.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.2.5.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for social and economic resources extend from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963 through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat 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 Routt County, Colorado.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 129 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects 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 social and economic resources and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Summer Trails EA 2011 • Base Area Development • Continued build out of the City of Steamboat Springs • Continued build out of Routt County

Forest Service decisions within the Steamboat SUP area, as well as the approval of private land development by Routt County, have contributed to economic growth trends within the county over the past few decades. As previously detailed in Section 3.2.3.6, travel and tourism is an important economic component of Routt County and Steamboat is an important part of this industry in Routt County. Steamboat attracts both visitors and employees. As Steamboat grows, they need to hire more employees and attract new visitors, incrementally adding to the economic and social impacts to the region. As noted, the estimation of economic impacts is related to visitation, as expenditures by visitors generate industry sales and support new jobs. Independent of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the Steamboat SUP area, both the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County are growing and generating economic activity in the Project Area.

When considered cumulatively with new residential and commercial development that are needed to accommodate the growing population, the economic activity and additional employment generated by projects at Steamboat could incrementally contribute to the build out of Routt County and the City of Steamboat Springs. While there are quantifiable economic impacts associated with increased visitation, they are minor in the context of Routt County and no cumulative effects are anticipated.

3.2.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There would be a commitment of social and economic resources in the form of construction labor, long- term employment, housing, and social services. 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 and social services); therefore, no irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of economic resources have been identified in association with either of the alternatives analyzed in this document.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 130 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3 TRAFFIC AND PARKING 3.3.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This analysis summarizes the Traffic Technical Report for the Steamboat Environmental Impact Statement (Traffic Technical Report), which is available in the project file.123 The focus of this analysis and the Traffic Technical Report is on the primary roadways accessing Steamboat, including Highway 40/Lincoln Avenue between Pine Grove Road and Walton Creek Road; Mt. Werner Road, Steamboat Boulevard, and Mt. Werner Circle; and roads accessed by Mt. Werner Circle including Burgess Creek Road, Ski Time Square Drive, Apres Ski Way, and Eagle Ridge Drive (refer to Figure 3.3-1). The existing state of traffic and parking at Steamboat, as well as projected conditions under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative, are disclosed in this section.

3.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County are popular year-round destinations for regional, national and international visitors. Steamboat is one of two ski areas in the Yampa Valley and is the primary driver of visitation to the area, particularly during the winter months.124 Winter visitation is much higher than summer—averaging 926,307 annual winter visits compared to 52,233 annual summer visits over the last five years.125

Current visitation was analyzed within the context of three types of characteristic visitation days: a winter weekend day (10th busiest), the median winter day, and a typical summer weekend day.126 Visitation on these days were used to estimate the existing number of vehicle trips per day (refer to Table 3.3-1). These trips were distributed on the roadway network to obtain the number of daily trips for each segment of road. Considered with visitation data were estimates of on-site visitors, transit visitors, and shuttle visitors to infer the number of private automobile visitors within the visitation numbers. An average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.85 was used to convert visitor numbers into vehicle numbers. A ratio of 20 passengers per vehicle was used to infer vehicles from visitors taking shuttles or public transit.

Table 3.3-1: Existing Daily Vehicle Trips Type of Day Daily Vehicle Trips Winter Weekend Day (10th Busiest) 2,189 Median Winter Day 1,246 Typical Summer Weekend Day 357 Source: SE Group 2017b

123 SE Group, 2017b 124 Howelsen Hill is a much smaller ski area that does not draw visitation to the area in a manner comparable to Steamboat. 125 SSRC, 2017b 126 Confidential visitation information from the 2015/16 season was used to secure visitor totals for the 10th busiest day, the median winter day, and a typical summer day.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 131 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following paragraphs describe the existing traffic and parking conditions within the roadway network used to access Steamboat, providing a baseline for traffic and parking to compare impacts associated with the alternatives throughout this analysis. Included in this portion of the analysis is information about Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes on relevant roadways, daily trip numbers and distribution, and parking availability.

3.3.2.1 Traffic Traffic volumes on roads accessing Steamboat were obtained from Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) Transportation Data Management System Website.127 AADT data from 2016 was gathered for five different locations along the routes most vehicles take to Steamboat: (1) Mt. Werner Road, (2) Mt. Werner Circle, (3) Apres Ski Way, (4) Lincoln Avenue South of Mt. Werner Road, and (5) Lincoln Avenue North of Mt. Werner Road. Figure 3.3-1 depicts these roadways and provides a graphic representation of their traffic volumes based on AADT, which is discussed further in the following paragraph and Table 3.3-2.

Figure 3.3-1: Existing Traffic Representative of 2016 Conditions

Source: SE Group 2017b; CDOT 2016

127 CDOT, 2016. This site contains an inventory of transportation data across the state.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 132 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

AADT is an average of counts taken at various points throughout the year, the basic intent being to provide traffic volumes that best approximate the use of a given highway section for a typical day of year. Examination of a nearby CDOT traffic data station revealed that AADT in the summer months can be 20 to 35 percent higher than in the winter months. This trend is likely due a greater number of visitors to the area arriving by vehicles rather than public transportation during the summer months. Therefore, these are conservative estimates for winter traffic volumes and may be slightly underestimating summer traffic volumes. Seasonal or monthly data was not available for this analysis. Table 3.3-2 summarizes the AADT of the roadways included in this analysis as depicted in Figure 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-2: 2016 AADT at Key Locations Location AADT 1. Mt. Werner Road 8,093 2. Mt. Werner Circle 3,862 3. Apres Ski Way 3,231 4. Lincoln Avenue (South of Mt. Werner) 21,764 5. Lincoln Avenue (North of Mt. Werner) 23,049 Source: CDOT 2016

Based on visitation information from the 2015/16 season, the existing daily vehicle trips to Steamboat for a winter weekend day (10th busiest), the median winter day, and a typical summer day were calculated. To calculate daily vehicle trips for these different scenarios it was assumed that 20 percent of visitors would use public transit, 20 percent of visitors would use private shuttles, 30 percent of visitors are on-site guests and would not be taking daily vehicle trips to access the resort, and vehicle occupancy for both summer and winter is 1.85.128 Based on these assumptions and the 2015/16 season visitation data, it was estimated that 2,189 vehicle trips to Steamboat occur on a winter weekend day (10th busiest), 1,246 vehicle trips occur on an average winter day, and 357 trips occur on an average summer weekend day (refer to Table 3.3-1). These values represent one-way trips to Steamboat. One-way trips are doubled to account for increases in AADT, which counts all vehicles that cross a point; therefore, a trip would cross this place twice. Greater detail regarding the methodology and assumptions used to calculate Steamboat’s contribution to existing traffic can be found in Traffic Technical Report, located in the project file.

To quantify Steamboat’s contribution to vehicular traffic on specific roadways accessing the ski resort, trip distribution percentages based on a previous traffic study were applied to the daily vehicle traffic calculations.129 Figure 3.3-2 graphically depicts the trip distribution of vehicles to and from Mt. Werner Road, the primary access to Steamboat.

128 Ecosign, 2008 129 Fehr & Peers, 2008

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 133 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-2: Approximate Trip Distribution of Vehicles Traveling to Steamboat

Source: SE Group 2017b; CDOT 2016

As highlighted in Figure 3.3-2, the majority of those traveling to Steamboat originate from Lincoln Avenue. This analysis uses the assumption that 65 percent are coming from the north (City of Steamboat Springs) and 35 percent are coming from the south.130 Mt. Werner Road is the primary access to Steamboat, so it is assumed all traffic that is not local is using Mt. Werner Road. From Mt. Werner Road, about 10 percent of traffic turns left onto Steamboat Boulevard, while 90 percent continues onto Mt. Werner Circle, which is further segmented between Burgess Creek Road (10 percent), Ski Time Square Drive (45 percent), Apres Ski Way (30 percent), and Eagle Ridge Drive (5 percent).

Using the approximate trip distribution of vehicles traveling to Steamboat discussed in the previous paragraph and shown in Figure 3.3-2, multiplied with the total number of vehicles going to Steamboat per day, the existing number of vehicles on specific roadways accessing Steamboat can be approximated and these calculations are disclosed in Table 3.3-3.

130 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 134 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.3-3: Existing Daily Vehicle Trip Distribution Due to Visitation Type of Day Trip Distribution Average Winter Weekend Median (Percentage and Trips) (Vehicle Trips/day) Summer Day (10th busiest) Winter Day Weekend Day From Lincoln (North of Mt. Werner Road) – 65% 1,423 810 232 From Lincoln (South of Mt. Werner Road) – 35% 766 436 125 Subtotal – 100% 2,189 1,246 357 Mt. Werner to Steamboat Boulevard – 10% 219 125 36 Mt. Werner to Burgess Creek Road – 10% 219 125 36 Mt. Werner to Ski Time Square Drive – 45% 985 561 161 Mt. Werner to Apres Ski Way – 30% 657 374 107 Mt. Werner to Eagle Ridge Drive – 5% 109 62 18 Subtotal – 100% 2,189 1,247 358 Source: SE Group 2017b Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding

3.3.2.2 Parking Steamboat has thirteen parking lots for both public and private use. Table 3.3-4 lists each parking lot, its type, and the number of spaces available.

Table 3.3-4: Existing Parking Lots Parking Lot Name Type Spaces Surplus Parking Dirt 50 Lot 3 Parking Paved 60 Knoll Parking Paved 450 Underground Parking Paved 45 Gondola Square Parking Paved 195 Ski Time Square Parking Paved 195 Slope Maintenance Parking Concrete 30 Thunderhead Parking (Summer only lot) Dirt 20 Short-Term Parking and KVC Drop Concrete 20 Meadows Parking Paved 1,200 RP Steamboat Paved 5 RP Steamboat Dirt 18 Strings Parking Paved 150 Total 2,438 Source: SE Group 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 135 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The existing number of parking spaces at Steamboat is adequate for the existing visitation levels. Assuming that transit and shuttles do not need parking, the 2,438 spaces available accommodate the number of vehicles visiting Steamboat on a winter weekend day (10th busiest).

3.3.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Independent of the proposed projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative, traffic volumes on the primary roadways accessing Steamboat are anticipated to increase. This growth is described as background traffic growth, which is currently estimated at 1.26 percent per year on all roadways considered in this analysis. The No Action Alternative projections reflect this background traffic growth while the Proposed Action Alternative projections reflect the background growth as well as the additional trips due to increased visitation that is anticipated to be generated by the proposed projects.

Growth in summer visitation has fluctuated over the last five years. A growth rate of 5 percent per year was used to estimate future summer visitation. The growth rate of future summer visitation would be 5 percent per year under both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative; the proposed projects are not anticipated to impact summer visitation in terms of growth.

It is assumed that trip distribution of vehicles traveling to Steamboat as shown in Figure 3.3-2 would remain constant in both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative.

3.3.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Traffic The proposed projects on NFS lands would not be constructed and winter and summer visitation to Steamboat would be expected to remain consistent with its current trend. Steamboat projects located on private lands may still occur; however, increases or decreases to visitation would be negligible. Therefore, there are no anticipated increases in traffic related to visitation or construction vehicle trips associated with this alternative. Accordingly, traffic volumes would only increase by the background traffic growth of 1.26 percent per year on the five roadways directly accessing Steamboat (Mt. Werner Road, Mt. Werner Circle, Apres Ski Way, Lincoln Avenue South of Mt. Werner Road, and Lincoln Avenue North of Mt. Werner Road) considered in this analysis, resulting in a 13.3 percent increase between 2016 and 2026. Improvements such as new traffic signals, stop signs, and roundabouts were suggested in a 2008 Steamboat Base Area Master Transportation Study (2008 Transportation Study) to mitigate traffic impacts from already planned development in the area and natural growth in traffic volumes.131

Steamboat’s contribution of vehicles on the primary roadways accessing the ski resort are anticipated to be distributed in similar percentages as shown in Figure 3.3-2.

Future AADT, projected for ten years based on the No Action Alternative conditions, is shown on the roadway network in the following Figure 3.3-3.

131 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 136 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-3: Projected AADT, 2026 Conditions – No Action Alternative

Source: SE Group 2017b; CDOT 2016

Parking There would be no changes to the current parking lot configuration at Steamboat. There is adequate parking capacity for existing visitation and future visitation that is expected under current growth trends.

3.3.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Traffic Visitation is projected to grow 1.4 percent per year and result in just below a 15 percent increase in visitation between 2016 and 2026. The increase in employment is negligible; therefore, employee travel will not be analyzed separately in this analysis. Similar to the No Action Alternative, background traffic growth remains at 1.26 percent; however, visitation generated trips during the winter season are also added to background growth to compute future AADT. The proposed projects are not anticipated to impact summer visitation in terms of growth, and identical to the No Action Alternative, a 5 percent per year growth assumption was used for visitation on a typical summer weekend day.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 137 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The same methodology and assumptions used in Section 3.3.2.1 for calculating vehicle trips per day from visitation numbers was used for calculating projected conditions that would occur. Based on an annual visitation growth rate of 1.4 percent during the winter season and an annual visitation growth rate of 5 percent for the summer season, traffic is projected to generate 2,585 vehicle trips to Steamboat on a winter weekend day (10th busiest), 1,471 vehicle trips on an average winter day, and 598 trips on an average summer weekend day. Greater detail regarding the methodology and assumptions used to calculate Steamboat’s contribution to future traffic volumes can be found in Traffic Technical Report, located in the project file.

Over the next ten years, the number of vehicles traveling to Steamboat is projected to grow by 18 percent in the winter, and by 67 percent in the summer. Projected vehicle trips were also assumed to use the same trip distribution pattern as existing vehicle trips, as discussed in Section 3.3.2.1. Table 3.3-5 depicts how projected vehicle trips are distributed on the roadway network.

Table 3.3-5: Projected Daily Vehicle Trip Distribution Due to Visitation – Alternative 2 Type of Day Trip Distribution Winter Average Median (Percentage and Trips) (Vehicle Trips/day) Weekend Day Summer Winter Day (10th busiest) Weekend Day From Lincoln (North of Mt. Werner Road) – 65% 1,680 956 388 From Lincoln (South of Mt. Werner Road) – 35% 905 515 209 Subtotal – 100% 2,585 1,471 597 Mt. Werner to Steamboat Boulevard – 10% 258 147 60 Mt. Werner to Burgess Creek Road – 10% 258 147 60 Mt. Werner to Ski Time Square Drive – 45% 1,163 662 269 Mt. Werner to Apres Ski Way – 30% 775 441 179 Mt. Werner to Eagle Ridge Drive – 5% 129 74 30 Subtotal – 100% 2,583 1,471 598 Source: SE Group 2017b Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding

Table 3.3-6 summarizes the difference between existing and projected trips on the roadway network due to the increase in visitation that would occur as a result of the projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 138 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.3-6: Additional Daily Trips on Roadways Due to Visitation Type of Day

Winter Average Trip Distribution (Percentage and Trips) (Vehicle Trips/day) Median Weekend Day Summer Winter Day (10th busiest) Weekend Day

Additional Vehicles Traveling to Steamboat 396 225 241 Lincoln Avenue (North of Mt. Werner Road) – 65% 257 146 156 Lincoln Avenue (South of Mt. Werner Road) – 35% 138 79 84 Subtotal – 100% 396 225 241 Mt. Werner to Steamboat Boulevard – 10% 40 23 24 Mt. Werner to Burgess Creek Road – 10% 40 23 24 Mt. Werner to Ski Time Square Drive – 45% 178 101 108 Mt. Werner to Apres Ski Way – 30% 119 68 72 Mt Werner to Eagle Ridge Drive – 5% 20 11 12 Subtotal – 100% 397 226 240 Source: SE Group 2017b Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding

To determine the traffic impacts from increased visitation at Steamboat that would occur, the additional daily trips on roadways accessing Steamboat were multiplied by two to account for increases in AADT (the additional daily trips only count one-way trips), which was added to the existing AADT adjusted to the percent annual natural growth. This is described in the following formula, which was used to determine future AADT from increased visitation at Steamboat on the roadway network:

[Existing AADT x [(1+(0.0126/1))^10) to represent 1.26 percent annual natural growth in traffic over 10 years)] + Δ of (Existing and Projected Trips)*2 = Future AADT

Future AADT is displayed on the roadway network for the Proposed Action Alternative summer and winter scenarios in Figure 3.3-4.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 139 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-4: Projected AADT, 2026 Conditions – Proposed Action Alternative

Source: Source: SE Group 2017b; CDOT 2016

As depicted in Figure 3.3-4, projected AADT within the roadway network would increase for a winter weekend day (10th busiest), median winter day, and the typical summer weekend day. The following bullet points summarize the percent growth in AADT that would occur, compared to the projected AADT of the No Action Alternative depicted in Figure 3.3-3. • A winter weekend day (10th busiest) would experience 23.1 percent growth in traffic on Mt. Werner Road, 24.6 percent growth on Mt. Werner Circle, 20.7 percent growth on Apres Ski Way, 14.6 percent growth on Lincoln Avenue (north of Mt. Werner Road), and 15.6 percent growth on Lincoln Avenue (south of Mt. Werner Road). These variations are due to differences in the distribution of trips along the roadway network. • The median winter day would experience 18.9 percent growth in traffic on Mt. Werner Road, 19.8 percent growth on Mt. Werner Circle, 17.5 percent growth on Apres Ski Way, 14.1 percent growth on Lincoln Avenue (north of Mt. Werner Road), and 14.6 percent growth on Lincoln Avenue (south of Mt. Werner Road). These variations are due to differences in the distribution of trips along the roadway network.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 140 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Summer visitation is expected to remain in its current trend, identical to the No Action Alternative. A typical summer weekend day would experience 19.3 percent growth in traffic on Mt. Werner Road, 20.2 percent growth on Mt. Werner Circle, 17.8 percent growth on Apres Ski Way, 14.1 percent growth on Lincoln Avenue (north of Mt. Werner Road), and 14.7 percent growth on Lincoln Avenue (south of Mt. Werner Road). These variations are due to differences in the distribution of trips along the roadway network.

As highlighted in the preceding bullet points, traffic volumes (AADT) are expected to grow by between 14.6 percent and 24.6 percent on the roadway network. No information was available about the design capacity of the roads themselves for this analysis. However, a 2008 Transportation Study included a capacity analysis at multiple intersections in the roadway network. At that time, all the intersections operated at a level of service (LOS) of B or better. An LOS of B indicates that there is “generally a good progression of vehicles, with slight delays” for a signalized intersection and that for stop-controlled intersections the “minor street approach begins to notice absence of available gaps.”132 The purpose of the 2008 Transportation Study was to anticipate new developments in or near the base of Steamboat that were planned to occur through 2025. However, the recession reduced both traffic volumes and the speed of development. Traffic volumes have returned to pre-recession levels in recent years and are remarkably similar to those recorded in 2007/08.

The 2008 Transportation Study recommended a set of improvements at key intersections. Increased visitation from the Proposed Action Alternative adds a similar stress to the roadway network. Therefore, if the following recommendations are implemented it can be determined that traffic impacts would be mitigated appropriately: • A traffic signal at Mt. Werner Road/Steamboat Boulevard • An all-way stop control at Mt. Werner Circle/Ski Time Square Drive or possibly a single-lane roundabout • Additional signing and striping on Burgess Creek Road to provide two approach lanes at the intersection with Mt. Werner Circle. • A traffic signal at Mt. Werner Road/Mt. Werner Circle Construction Traffic The construction of structures and other elements of the proposed activities would necessitate truck trips both for tree and debris removal from Steamboat, 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 3.3-7 shows the number of truck trips needed to complete the proposed timber removal included in the Proposed Action Alternative. For a complete description regarding the assumptions and methodology for calculating truck trips refer to the Traffic Technical Report, located in the project file.

132 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 141 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.3-7: Construction Trips for Tree and Debris Removal – Proposed Action Alternative Tree Removal 40% Glading Tons of Timber Removed Truck Loads Truck Trips (acres) (acres) 37 92 2,952 118 236 Source: SE Group 2017b

As highlighted in Table 3.3-7, 236 truck trips are anticipated for tree and debris removal from Steamboat. An additional 2,000 truck trips are anticipated for construction and staging of projects. The construction of proposed infrastructure in the Proposed Action Alternative is planned to take place starting in 2018. Between 2018 and 2026 it is estimated that approximately 1,000 truckloads (2,000 one-way trips) would be necessary to bring needed equipment and materials to Steamboat. Most construction would take place on summer weekdays, where 10 to 30 additional trips per day are anticipated for construction workers may also occur. Assuming that construction takes place at an even pace each year, a typical summer day may experience an additional 4 to 8 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. This would be less than a 1 percent increase in AADT for any of the traffic locations noted in this study with the exception of Burgess Creek Road, which does not have AADT data available.

As stated in the assumptions, vehicle distribution onto Burgess Creek Road from Mt. Werner Circle is approximately 10 percent of Mt. Werner Circle’s AADT. Table 3.3-2 indicates that Mt. Werner Circle’s AADT is approximately 3,862. As the summer road network at Steamboat originates at Burgess Creek Road, it is assumed that this roadway would receive 100 percent of construction traffic, which could be as high as 38 vehicle trips per day (accounting for both construction traffic of timber removal and staging/building trucks and construction worker trucks). Therefore, it is anticipated that there could be a short-term increase of up to 10 percent in vehicle traffic on Burgess Creek Road, based on the assumption that its AADT would resemble 10 percent of Mt. Werner Circle.

Parking Impacts There would be no changes to the current parking lot configuration at Steamboat. There is adequate parking capacity for the projected visitation that is expected to occur as a result of the proposed projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative.

Visitation is projected to grow 1.4 percent per year and result in just below a 15 percent increase in visitation between 2016 and 2026, which would correlate to approximately 2,239 private automobiles that would travel to Steamboat on a busy winter weekend day (10th busiest). This calculation uses the same assumptions that were used in Section 3.3.2.1, including 20 percent of visitors would use public transit, 20 percent of visitors would use private shuttles, 30 percent of visitors are on-site guests and would not be taking daily vehicle trips to access the resort, and vehicle occupancy for both summer and winter is 1.85. Without accounting for parking space turnover, the existing 2,438 spaces should be adequate to accommodate the increased visitation numbers.

The existing parking capacity can accommodate the projected number of private automobiles for a winter weekend day (10th busiest); therefore, parking on a median winter day and a typical summer

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 142 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

weekend day, both of which result in less visitor trips than a winter weekend day (10th busiest), would also be accommodated by the existing parking configuration at Steamboat.

3.3.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.3.4.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for traffic and parking resources extend from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963 through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for traffic and parking resources are limited to public and private lands in Routt County, Colorado (including the primary roadways accessing Steamboat and along Lincoln Avenue north and south of Mt. Werner Road).

3.3.4.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects 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 and parking resources and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Base Area Development • Continued buildout of the City of Steamboat Springs • Continued buildout of Routt County • Steamboat Springs Open Space and Trails Master Plan 2008 • East Steamboat Springs US Highway 40 Access Study 2016 • Steamboat Base Area Master Transportation Study 2008 • Downtown Steamboat Springs Parking Analysis 2014 Projects at Steamboat Development of Steamboat over the past five decades has attracted an increasing number of recreation visitors. 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 Steamboat. 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 Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA would continue to increase

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 143 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

visitor trips and thus traffic volumes on the primary roadways accessing Steamboat. Additionally, visitation generated by the remaining projects in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA would likely necessitate the expansion of parking at Steamboat.

Future development of the base area, which supports all the residential and commercial development associated with Steamboat, would likely also contribute to increased traffic volumes on the primary roadways accessing Steamboat. Private ownership of the developed and undeveloped properties creates an ongoing potential for development and redevelopment of the base area. Construction activities could also sporadically contribute to spikes in traffic in the future. However, the 2008 Transportation Study, discussed throughout this section, indicates that roadways in the base area are capable of accommodating future increases in traffic volumes and concluded that all studied intersections operate acceptably. The plan recommends various improvements and projects, which are also discussed throughout this traffic and parking section as they relate to accommodating increased visitation to ensure that future growth in traffic volumes and adequate circulation are accommodated.133

Projects in the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County Residential and commercial development in the City of Steamboat would generate additional trips to, from and within the City of Steamboat Springs and its surrounding area. As stated in the land use capacity and buildout analysis of the 2004 Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan (amended 2014), 25 percent of the Urban Growth Boundary is vacant or agricultural, 20 percent is open space and recreation use land, and 55 percent is developed for residential and non-residential uses.134 As such, there is room for additional growth in the City of Steamboat Springs’ Urban Growth Boundary. Based on current trends of population growth it is expected that buildout of the area would continue and accordingly, traffic volumes and congestion would increase. The 2003 Routt County Master Plan identifies similar trends as the 2004 Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan (amended 2014) centered on addressing the anticipated future county growth through the recommendation of appropriate land use and development with an emphasis on promoting expansion of urban growth centers and discouraging development outside these areas.135

Considering increasing development in the City of Steamboat Springs, which would cumulatively increase vehicles traffic and congestion in the downtown are, the Downtown Steamboat Springs Parking Analysis was prepared in 2014 to evaluate the current downtown parking system and make recommendations, based on current best practices and technologies, to better allocate, manage and operate parking in downtown of the City of Steamboat Springs. The analysis used case studies from peer ski towns to recommend the addition of parking meters in certain areas while maintaining free parking lots in others, as well as improving existing spaces. The recommendations of this analysis would likely address future parking issues with the continued buildout of the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County.136

133 Ibid. 134 Routt County, 2004 135 Routt County, 2003 136 Desman Associates, 2014

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 144 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Additionally, in 2016 a transportation plan, the East Steamboat Springs US Highway 40 Access Study 2016, was prepared to provide effective and efficient travel for traffic on Highway 40; provide safe, effective, and efficient access to and from Highway 40, while supporting previous planning efforts, including the development of alternative transportation modes. The plan includes access improvements and implementation guidelines to meet its desired goals and objectives that would support future increases in visitation to Steamboat as its primarily road network is accessed via Highway 40 (Lincoln Avenue).137

The development of alternative transportation modes would also support the future increases in traffic volumes in the City of Steamboat Springs. In 2008 an Open Space and Trails Master Plan was prepared for the City of Steamboat Springs.138 The plan takes a comprehensive and regional approach to the development of a trail system, linking existing trails, giving neighborhoods access to trails, and connecting urban and rural trails to public lands. While not directly addressing vehicular traffic, increased trail connectivity as recommended by the 2008 Open Space and Trails Master Plan would cumulatively contribute to a variety of plans in place, like the Downtown Steamboat Springs Parking Analysis and the East Steamboat Springs US Highway 40 Access Study, that address anticipated increases in traffic volumes in the City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County.

3.3.5 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.

3.4 VISUALS 3.4.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The scope of this visual resources analysis includes Steamboat’s entire 3,738-acre Forest Service- administered SUP area as well as the 245 acres on private lands but focuses on both those portions of the SUP and private lands where new projects are proposed, specifically the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Pod, and Pioneer Ridge areas.

Views from within the SUP area as well as from surrounding areas were assessed as part of the analysis, depending on the particular proposed project component analyzed. Two critical viewpoints were identified by the ID Team as appropriate for simulating the scenic quality of the Project Area under existing and proposed conditions. • Critical Viewpoint 1 – Base of existing Thunderhead Express chairlift looking south (view of proposed Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl projects). Due to the large number of projects proposed in the Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl area, as well as local topography and presence of tall vegetation between project components, a “bird’s eye” view was selected for this critical viewpoint to allow for a more comprehensive view of the projects in this area (refer to Figure 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-2).

137 Stolfus & Associates, Inc., 2016 138 EDAW and AECOM, 2008

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 145 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Critical Viewpoint 2 – Fish Creek Falls Road looking southeast (view of proposed new Pioneer Ridge and existing Pony Pod areas; refer to Figure 3.4-3 and Figure 3.4-4).

In addition to these two critical viewpoints, additional viewpoints were considered for simulation. A discussion of these potential viewpoints and rationale for dismissal are presented in the Visual Technical Report located in the project file.139

3.4.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION 3.4.2.1 Forest Service Visual Management System While the Scenery Management System (SMS) was published in 1995, the Forest Plan was developed based on the previously published Visual Management System (VMS). The VMS was “developed to help meet the public’s expectation for scenic beauty, while allowing for multi-resource use in a way that works with natural process to achieve a desired landscape condition.”140

In 1998 the Forest documented the “existing visual condition” (EVC) of all lands within the Forest except for designated wilderness, which are managed for preservation. These EVCs are disclosed in the Forest Plan Final EIS. The existing EVC for the Project Area is discussed in Section 3.4.3. The following are definitions for the EVC categories: • Type I Naturally Evolving Landscapes: Areas in which only ecological change has taken place, except for trails needed for access. These areas appear to be untouched by human activities. • Type II Natural-Appearing Landscapes: Areas in which changes in the landscape are not visually evident to the average person, unless pointed out. The landscape changes appear to be unnoticed. • Type III Slightly Altered Landscapes: Areas in which changes in the landscape are noticed by the average Forest visitor, but do not attract attention. The natural appearance of the landscape still remains dominant. Alterations appear to be the result of minor disturbances. • Type IV Moderately Altered Landscapes: Areas in which changes in the landscape are easily noticed by the average Forest visitor and may attract some attention. The landscape changes appear to be the result of disturbances but resemble natural patterns. • Type V Heavily Altered Landscapes: Areas in which changes to the landscape would be obvious to the average Forest visitor. These changes dominate the landscape, yet they are shaped to resemble natural patterns when viewed from a distance of 3 to 5 miles or more. They appear to be the result of major disturbances. • Type VI Drastically Altered Landscapes: Areas in which changes in the landscape are in glaring contrast to the natural appearance. Almost all Forest visitors would be displeased with the effect. They appear to be the result of drastic disturbances.

139 SE Group, 2017c 140 USDA Forest Service, 1998

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 146 Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3.4-1 Critical Viewpoint 1 Rough Rider/Bashor Area

3D Perspective - Existing

Existing Conditions View Location

Perspective Details

Date: May 2018

Prepared By: This 3D perspective depicts existing conditions in the Rough Rider/Bashor area [ View is looking south towards the top terminals of the Christie III and Christie Peak Express lifts Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 148 Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3.4-2 Critical Viewpoint 1 Rough Rider/Bashor Area

3D Perspective - Proposed ! 3D Perspective View Location! Perspective Details

This 3D perspective depicts proposed activities in the Rough Rider/Bashor area, including:

1) Bashor Gondola 2) Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant 3) Rough Rider Learning Center Moving Carpet Lifts 4) Rough Rider Chairlift

5) New Trail A ! 6) Re-Located Bashor Chairlift 7) New Trail B 8) New Trail C 9) Removed Mavericks Superpipe

10) Rabbit Ears Terrain Park Expansion Date: May 2018

11) New Trail D Prepared By: [ View is looking south towards the top terminals of the Christie III and Christie Peak Express lifts Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 150 Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3.4-3 Critical Viewpoint 2 Fish Creek Falls Road

Existing Conditions

View Location

Existing Conditions

Viewpoint Details

Viewpoint Elevation = 7,277’ Date: May 2018

Approximate Distance to SUP Boundary = 1.12 miles Prepared By: Photograph taken by SE Group using a Sony SLT A55V camera with a 52mm focal length (35mm equivalent) on 10/20/2016 at 4:30 PM. [ Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 152 Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3.4-4 Critical Viewpoint 2 Fish Creek Falls Road

Visual Simulation !

View Location! !

Visual Simulation

Viewpoint Details

Viewpoint Elevation = 7,277’ Date: May 2018

Approximate Distance to SUP Boundary = 1.12 miles Prepared By: Photograph taken by SE Group using a Sony SLT A55V camera with a 52mm focal length (35mm equivalent) on 10/20/2016 at 4:30 PM. [ Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 154 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In addition to EVCs, the Forest Plan Final EIS assigned and disclosed visual quality objectives (VQO) to describe the allowable amount of visual alteration within the Forest. Visual Quality Objectives are allocated for all NFS lands through the Forest Plan. Three visual resource factors, including visual sensitivity, distance zones, and variety class, were mapped to support development of Forest Plan VQOs. Visual sensitivity was determined by mapping viewpoints and corridors and assigning sensitivity based on the level of visitation and existing recreation development. Landscapes were then divided into three distance zones: • Foreground: This zone is usually limited to areas within 0.0 to 0.5 mile (not to exceed 0.5 mile) of the observer. Generally, detail of landforms is more pronounced when viewed from within the foreground zone. Individual leaves, flowers, twigs, bark texture, and other details are visible closest to the observer. • Middleground: Alterations to the middleground (0.5 to 4 miles from the observer) are less distinctive. Texture is normally characterized by the masses of trees in stands or uniform tree cover. • Background: This zone extends from middleground (minimum of 4 miles between the observer and the area being viewed) to infinity. Shape may remain evident beyond 10 miles, especially if it is inconsistent with other landscape forms. Beyond 10 miles, alteration in landscape character becomes obscure.141

Landscapes were identified by variety class as either distinctive, common, or minimal. This determination was made based on a comparative analysis of landform, vegetation, and water form.

The entirety of Steamboat is located with Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts: Existing/Potential, is assigned a VQO of Modification. This VQO is described as follows:142 Alterations and management activities may be evident, but they must be of like form, line, color, texture, and scale to the surrounding natural landscape. Modification is usually the objective along less frequently used roads and trails. It is also the objective for background areas as seen from more popular viewpoints and for landscapes where the desired visual condition is modification, such as ski areas and intensely managed timber areas.

It should be noted that the Forest has mapped small portions at the northern-most edge of the SUP area with VQOs of Retention (approximately 187 acres, or 5 percent of the SUP area) and Partial Retention (approximately 63 acres, or 2 percent of the SUP area); however, as the entire SUP area is within Management Area 8.22, the entire SUP area is assigned a VQO of Modification.143

141 USDA Forest Service, 1995; USDA Forest Service, 1998 142 USDA Forest Service, 1998 143 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 155 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.2 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines In addition to the VMS, the Forest Plan contains Forest-wide standards and guidelines that apply to resources across the Routt National Forest. The following Scenery Management standards and guidelines are applicable to this project:144 • Scenery Management Standard 1: Apply the VMS to all NFS lands. Travel routes, use areas, and water bodies determined to be of primary importance are sensitivity level one and appropriate visual quality objectives are established according to the VMS. • Scenery Management Standard 2: Prohibit management activities which are inconsistent with the visual quality objective unless a decision is made to change the visual quality objective. Document the decision to change the visual quality objective in a project-level NEPA decision document. • Scenery Management Guideline 1: Rehabilitate all existing projects and areas that do not meet the visual quality objectives specified for each management area prescription. Consider the following when setting priorities for rehabilitation:

○ Relative importance of the area and the amount of deviation from the visual quality objectives. ○ Length of time it would take natural processes to reduce the visual impacts so that they meet the visual quality objective. ○ Length of time it would take rehabilitation measures to meet the visual quality objectives. ○ Benefits to other resource management objectives to accomplish rehabilitation. • Scenery Management Guideline 2: Meet the visual quality objectives of retention and partial retention in one year after completion of a project. Meet the modification visual quality objective in three years after completion.

Management Area 8.22 standards and guidelines applicable to this project and scenery resources include: • Standard: Design and construct structures to blend and harmonize with the natural features of the area. • Guideline: Meet the adopted visual quality objective of modification.

Furthermore, the following information on the desired condition for scenic values is contained in Management Area 8.22: Ski runs will be designed to blend and harmonize with the natural terrain. Recreation facilities, such as buildings, lifts, and groomed trails, will be evident. At the base development, services and facilities will be designed to complement the overall forest setting and will serve the needs of forest visitors. Opportunities to experience solitude will be very limited during the winter sports season.

144 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 156 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Changes to vegetation composition and structure will result in forested areas interspersed with openings of varying widths and shapes. Forested areas will be managed for esthetics and recreation and for their resistance to windthrow, fire, and insect and disease infestations.

3.4.2.3 The Built Environment Image Guide The Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) is a manual for the “thoughtful design and management” of the built environment contained within the national forests by province.145 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.”146 The BEIG divides the U.S. into eight provinces that combine common elements from the ecological and cultural contexts over large geographical areas; the MBRTB is within the Rocky Mountain Province. Site development, sustainability, and architectural character should conform to BEIG guidelines described for this Province.

3.4.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.4.3.1 Scenic Characteristics of the Steamboat Special Use Permit Area Steamboat is located on the western slope of Mount Werner in the Mountains, west of the Continental Divide and Rabbit Ears Pass, and within the Yampa River Valley. Elevations in the in the vicinity of Steamboat range between 10,568 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at Steamboat’s summit to 6,800 feet amsl along the Yampa River, approximately 0.8 mile west of Steamboat’s base area.

Vegetation cover throughout the SUP area is influenced by elevation changes, slope aspect, and gradient. Vegetation communities are limited to those that occur in the montane (5,500 to 9,000 feet amsl) to subalpine (9,000 to 11,500 feet amsl) zones of Colorado. Present within the Steamboat SUP area are aspen forests, mixed conifer forests primarily composed of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir, lodgepole pine forests, and native subalpine meadows, and open grass habitats associated with existing ski trails.147

The development of ski trails, chairlifts, infrastructure, and skier facilities has occurred on NFS lands at Steamboat since the ski area’s inception in 1963. Skiing terrain within Steamboat’s SUP area is located below treeline. Steamboat’s base area and terrain is readily visible to drivers along Highway 40 in the middleground as they pass on their approach to, or descent from, Rabbit Ears Pass. Discernable existing infrastructure from Highway 40 include Thunderhead Lodge, Gondola, Christie Peak Express chairlift, night-time skiing light poles, and various ski trails throughout the mountain.

145 USDA Forest Service, 2001 146 Ibid. 147 Western Ecological Resource, 2017

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 157 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Forest has inventoried the majority of the developed Steamboat SUP area as EVC Type V, Heavily Altered Landscapes; however, smaller portions of the Steamboat SUP area have been inventoried as Type I, Naturally Evolving Landscapes and Type IV, Moderately Altered Landscapes.

3.4.3.2 Scenic Characteristics of Areas Proposed for Alteration Project areas associated with specific proposed project elements are discussed below to define the baseline visual conditions of potentially affected areas. Analysis of the impacts of the proposed projects and activities is included in Section 3.4.4.

Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl The Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl areas are primarily visible from within the SUP area, although some portions of these areas are also visible in the foreground from residences to the north along Burgess Creek Road. The top terminal of the existing Bashor chairlift is visible, though faint, in the middleground from Highway 40. Rough Rider is primarily west-facing, while Bashor Bowl is mainly north-facing. The vegetation within this area is dominated by agricultural grass species and weeds within the ski trails, interspersed with stands of lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and aspen. The lodgepole pine stands have been greatly impacted by mountain pine beetle, resulting in selective logging that has reduced the forested vegetation in the area.148

Ski trails and infrastructure, such as the Thunderhead Express chairlift, Rough Rider platter lift, Bashor chairlift, and terrain park features, dominate the landscape of this area. Summer multi-use trails are also visible. This area is visible from Critical Viewpoint 1 (Figure 3.4-1). The Forest has inventoried this area as Type V, Heavily Altered Landscapes, and allocated a VQO of Modification.

Steamboat’s night skiing occurs adjacent to the Bashor Bowl area. Illuminated ski trails include All Out (closed to public), See Me, Sitz, and Vogue, as well as trails near the base area. While these trails may be accessed from Bashor Bowl and the Bashor chairlift during daylight hours, during night skiing, the Bashor chairlift is not operational and the trails must be accessed using the Christie Peak Express chairlift. Night skiing occurs until 8:30 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., depending on the time of year. Other after-dark activities occur elsewhere in the SUP area, and include snowshoeing, night-time dining, and gondola/snowcat/sleigh rides; however, no projects are proposed in the areas where these after-dark activities occur.

Pony Express The Pony Pod is visible in the middleground from Highway 40 and Fish Creek Falls road and is west- facing. Existing at a higher elevation that the Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl areas, the Pony Pod exhibits subalpine vegetation communities intermixed with rock outcrops.149 Ski trails and infrastructure, such as the Pony Express chairlift, dominate the landscape. The Forest has inventoried this area as Type V, Heavily Altered Landscapes, and allocated a VQO of Modification.

148 Ibid. 149 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 158 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Pioneer Ridge The new Pioneer Ridge area, while frequently skied, is undeveloped except for a portion of the existing Pioneer Trail, a summer multi-use trail. The vegetation communities within this primarily west-facing area include aspen forests at lower elevations and subalpine meadows and spruce/fir forests at higher elevations.150 The upper portion of the new Pioneer Ridge area is partially visible in the middleground from Highway 40 and is also visible from Critical Viewpoint 2 on Fish Creek Falls Road (refer to Figure 3.4- 3). The Forest has inventoried this area as Type I, Naturally Evolving Landscapes, and allocated a VQO of Modification.

3.4.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.4.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative No changes or modifications are included in the No Action Alternative that would affect the scenic quality of Steamboat’s SUP area; however, projects on private lands within Steamboat may occur. Generally speaking, the SUP area would continue to meet, and in some cases exceed, the VQO of Modification. Similarly, the SUP area would continue to be inventoried by their existing EVCs.

No changes or modifications would be approved that would change these existing conditions. Critical viewpoints serve as the baseline for which to illustrate and compare the effects of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. • Critical Viewpoint 1 – Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl: Existing visible infrastructure includes the Bashor chairlift, Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, Mavericks Superpipe, Rough Rider platter lift, Thunderhead express chairlift, Christie Peak Express top terminal, and various ski trails. The existing condition as viewed from this critical viewpoint is portrayed in Figure 3.4-1. • Critical Viewpoint 2 – Fish Creek Falls Road: Existing visible infrastructure includes the Pony Pod (Pony Express chairlift and surrounding terrain) and Four Points Pod (Bar UE chairlift, Storm Peak Express chairlift, and surrounding terrain). The existing condition as viewed from this critical viewpoint is portrayed in Figure 3.4-3.

3.4.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would incrementally contribute to the developed character of Steamboat’s SUP area, which is identified in the Forest Plan as Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts: Existing/Potential. With adherence to PDC, identified in Table 2-1, none of the proposed projects are expected to increase visual resource impacts to the character of the SUP area, such that it would not meet the VQO of Modification. With the exception of the addition of ski area infrastructure and terrain in the new Pioneer Ridge area, 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 compared to projects implemented in previously undisturbed areas. Impacts by proposed project are described in detail below.

150 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 159 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Rough Rider/Bashor Bowl The proposed projects within the Rough Rider area include construction of the Rough Rider Learning Center, comprising the installation of the Bashor Gondola, located on private lands; construction of the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant, also located on private lands; removal of the existing Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities; installation of multiple moving carpet lifts; installation of the Rough Rider chairlift; removal of the existing Rough Rider platter lift; construction of a new skier bypass from Boulevard to the Rough Rider Learning Center (Trail A); installation of snowmaking infrastructure; and grading and overstory vegetation removal for associated novice and beginner terrain.

The proposed projects within the Bashor Bowl area include replacement and realignment of the outdated Bashor chairlift, located on private lands; construction of two new ski-ways (Trail B and Trail C) from the realigned Bashor chairlift top terminal; re-grading at the base of Bashor Bowl; expansion of the Rabbit Ears Terrain Park; relocation of the Mavericks Superpipe, located on private lands; construction of a new novice trail connecting Yoo Hoo to Big Foot (Trail D); and installation of snowmaking infrastructure.

Projects located on private lands would be subject to City of Steamboat Springs permits, design reviews, and approvals, such as the City of Steamboat Springs Mountain Base Area Design Standards.151 Final design of these projects would conform to these standards; however, for the purpose of this analysis, preliminary designs were depicted in the foreground site perspective simulation in Figure 3.4-3.

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.2, the projects proposed on NFS lands within the Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl areas would be located within an area dominated by existing ski trails and lift infrastructure, and visual impacts are anticipated to be similar to these existing ski trails and lift infrastructure in terms of line, form, color, texture, and scale. The projects would be visible in the immediate foreground for skiers within those areas, as well as skiers at higher elevations such as terrain serviced by the existing Gondola and Thunderhead Express, and those visiting Thunderhead Lodge. Bashor Gondola and the Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant would also be visible in the middleground from Highway 40. Construction of those projects on NFS lands would conform with BEIG concepts and criteria, along with PDC identified in Table 2-1.

There is potential for after-dark use of the proposed Bashor Restaurant, primarily during the winter season as use in the summer would occur before dusk unless during special events or late-night dining. Lighting would include interior illumination as well as the potential for illumination of the immediate exterior of the restaurant and gondola loading area. While these lights would be visible from higher- elevation vantage points in the SUP area, there would be a negligible impact in the noticeable amount of lighting, as there are existing lights associated with the existing night skiing located approximately 1,000 feet south of the proposed restaurant. Due to the close proximity of the proposed Bashor restaurant to the existing night skiing, combined with the limited brightness associated with restaurant lighting, impacts to visual resources from after-dark use of the proposed Bashor Restaurant are not expected to be greater than current conditions.

151 City of Steamboat Springs, 2009

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 160 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Overall, the projects within the Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl areas would be consistent with the VQO of Modification.

Pony Express The proposed projects within the Pony Pod include enhancements to trail corridors through vegetation removal, grading, and rock blasting; installation of snowmaking infrastructure; increased capacity of the Pony Express chairlift by adding carriers to the existing chairlift; installation of winch cat anchors; construction of a ski-way from the junction of Lower Middle Rib and Chaps to the Storm Peak Express chairlift (Trail E); and construction of a patrol hut and restroom building at the top terminal of Pony Express chairlift.

The majority of projects proposed would cause minor to no impacts to visual resources. The addition of carriers to the existing Pony Express chairlift would not result in ground disturbance or lift tower modifications. Similarly, trail corridor enhancements, which include widening and re-contouring of existing trails such as the Crux and installation of snowmaking pipelines, would not be discernable beyond the immediate foreground to a familiar visitor. No after-dark activities are proposed within Pony Express; therefore, there would be no anticipated impacts from lighting.

The construction of Trail E and patrol hut building would cause the greatest visual impact within the Pony Pod; however, these impacts are also anticipated to be minor. Trail E would integrate visually with the surrounding trails and would be constructed to blend into the surrounding terrain by using variable density cutting techniques to create a more natural edge (refer to PDC in Table 2-1). The patrol hut building would be located east of the Pony Express chairlift in an area currently occupied by a temporary yurt, and view of this building from Critical Viewpoint 1 or Critical Viewpoint 2 would be obstructed by the ridge topography and existing structures. The final design of the patrol hut building would conform with BEIG concepts and criteria, along with PDC identified in Table 2-1. No after-dark activities are proposed.

Overall, the projects within the Pony Pod would be consistent with the VQO of Modification.

Pioneer Ridge The proposed projects within the new Pioneer Ridge area would include construction of the Pioneer chairlift; creation of 95 acres of gladed terrain; completion of 40 acres of hazard tree removal and vegetation management; installation of a bridge over Burgess Creek; construction of a collector ski-way (Trail F); and definition of several multiple gladed trails and egress routs to connect with existing and proposed terrain and facilities (Trail G and Trail H).

Several projects proposed in the new Pioneer Ridge area would be visible from Critical Viewpoint 2 (refer to Figure 3.4-4). In particular, the Pioneer chairlift and collector ski-way Trail F would create linear features in an otherwise natural landscape, despite the application of PDC. Gladed trails and hazard tree removal would also modify the color and texture composition of forested areas by reducing the number of coniferous trees, and the effect would be similar to other existing gladed areas within Steamboat. As with the construction of Trail E in the Pony Pod, these trails and areas of tree removal would be

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 161 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

constructed to blend into the surrounding terrain by using variable density cutting techniques to create a more natural edge.

Several other projects would result in visual impacts to views originating from within the new Pioneer Ridge area, and include the Burgess Creek Bridge, Pioneer chairlift bottom terminal, and access roads. While these projects would not be visible from Critical Viewpoint 2, visual impacts from these projects are anticipated to be similar to those observed from Critical Viewpoint 2 in terms of form, line, color, and texture, but at a smaller scale due to periodic obstruction by topography and vegetation in the foreground view. Burgess Creek Bridge is proposed to span Burgess Creek at a height of over 100 feet above water level. The bridge would be constructed of a combination of wood and steel materials, and the span height would allow native riparian and wetland vegetation to be avoided for much of the length of the stream crossing. Access roads would be constructed to provide construction and maintenance access to Burgess Creek Bridge as well as the Pioneer chairlift and would be visible in the non-skiing season. The Pioneer chairlift and Burgess Creek Bridge would conform with BEIG concepts and criteria, along with PDC identified in Table 2-1.

The change in developed character of the Steamboat SUP area from the Proposed Action Alternative would be most apparent in the new Pioneer Ridge area, which currently is inventoried at an EVC of Type I. Construction of the Pioneer chairlift, ski trails, glading, and Burgess Creek Bridge would alter this area to Type IV. However, the projects within the new Pioneer Ridge area would be consistent with the VQO of Modification.

3.4.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.4.5.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of visual resources extend from 1963 when Steamboat first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

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

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

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 162 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following current and upcoming projects could have cumulative impacts on visual resources and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Base Area Development

Evidence of developed recreation at Steamboat dominates the scenic character of the City of Steamboat Springs, particularly along Highway 40. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, combined with the completion of those future projects identified in the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA and anticipated base area development, would add incrementally to the modified nature of the area, and would further detract from the natural character of visual resources along the heavily-traveled Highway 40.

As discussed in Section 3.4.2, the Forest Plan includes mechanisms for the management of visual resources Forest-wide. While the Forest Plan includes numerous management prescriptions that could impact visual resources across the Forest, the application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines will support the maintenance or improvement of the scenic quality on NFS lands. No significant cumulative impacts to visual resources would occur under either the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action Alternative.

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

3.5 CULTURAL/HERITAGE 3.5.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This cultural/heritage resource assessment is mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of a federal undertaking on any cultural resource that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Cultural resources may refer to sites, areas, buildings, structures, districts, and objects which possess scientific, historic, and/or social values of a cultural group or groups as specified by 36 CFR § 296.3. Other applicable laws include: The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), (P.L. 101- 601), The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 96-341), and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 1-3-141).

NRHP eligibility is evaluated in terms of the integrity of the resource; its association with significant persons, events, or patterns in history or prehistory; its engineering, artistic, or architectural values; or its information potentially relative to important research questions in history or prehistory. The MBRTB determines the Project Effect to Historic Properties based on NRHP eligibility and then requests concurrence by State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on Project Effect.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 163 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Forest Service archaeologists conducted a Class II (sample) cultural resource survey on the MBRTB for the undertakings associated with this FEIS, A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Steamboat Ski Area Improvements EIS (R2016020603005) Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt County, Colorado (Steamboat Cultural Resource Inventory), which is summarized in this analysis and contained in the project file. Of the 757 acres in the Project Area, 690 acres are federally managed by the Forest Service, 422 acres were surveyed during the 2016 field season, and 299 acres of the Project Area have been previously surveyed and considered adequate for evaluating the proposed undertaking. The objective of the additional cultural resource survey documented in the Steamboat Cultural Resource Inventory was to identify if cultural resources were present in the APE for the proposed undertakings and assess the potential effects of the undertakings on historic properties. Consistent with 36 CFR § 800.16(d), the APE for this undertaking has been defined as the geographic areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. In order to account for indirect effects, a review of cultural resource inventories and sites within the Project Area was conducted. The APE can have physical, visual, or auditory effects, and should be evaluated as direct, indirect, or cumulative. The APE for this project is limited to the undertaking’s effects on federally managed lands.

3.5.1.1 Native American Consultation As part of the Section 106 NHPA consultation process, fourteen tribes were notified of the project by mail on August 11, 2016. These tribes include the Northern Arapaho Tribe, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Commission, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Crow Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Shoshone Cultural Committee, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Northern Ute Tribe, Ute Business Committee, Southern Ute Tribal Council, and Ute Tribe. No responses were received in response to the August 11, 2016 outreach. The Tribes were notified of the DEIS publication, and no responses were received during this outreach as well.

3.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Project Area lies in the MBRTB within the high mountains and parks of north-, in the Southern physiographic province.152 Major mountain ranges within the Forest include the Park Range to the west, the and the Williams Fork Range to the south, the in the center, and the Medicine Bow and the Never Summer Ranges to the east. North Park and Middle Park are large intermountain basins which are surrounded by the previously mentioned mountain ranges. The northwestern portion of the Routt National Forest also falls within the Wyoming Basin, while the southwestern portion is located on the White River Plateau. Three major rivers drain the Routt National Forest: the North Platte on the east side of the Continental Divide in North Park; the Colorado River in the southern part of the Forest (Middle Park); and the Yampa River on the north, west of the Continental Divide. The Project Area is drained by Burgess Creek, as well as the respective unnamed tributaries to this permanent water source, and the Yampa River.

152 Thornbury, 1965

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 164 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The terrain surrounding the Project Area is varied in aspect with slopes ranging from 0 to approximately 80 degrees. Soils in the Project Area vary from organic rich silt loams to clay based soils. The soils are generally well-drained in areas away from valley bottoms and waterways. Sediment depths range from deep organic rich alluvial deposits near water ways and in valley bottoms to exposed bedrock or regolith on slopes and uplands.

Elevation within the Project Area varies from approximately 7,800 to 9,800 feet amsl, which places it in the Hudsonian and Canadian life zones. The Hudsonian life zone falls between 9,000 and 11,000 feet and consists of alpine fir, spruce, and willows. The Canadian life zone falls between 8,000 and 9,000 feet and consists primarily of Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and aspen.153 The area has a typical montane climate, with temperature extremes from -26 to +81 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation averages 12 to 25 inches per year. Due to the short growing season, hay is the only major agricultural commodity.

3.5.2.1 Regional History For a complete discussion of Steamboat’s regional history refer to the Steamboat Cultural Resource Inventory report, located in the project file. The following paragraphs summarize the discussion contained in the Steamboat Cultural Resource Inventory report.

Prehistoric occupation of the Routt National Forest appears to have been fairly continuous if not intensive from at least 13,000 years before present until historic contact with the Ute, Shoshone, and Arapaho tribes. During this time period, hunter-gatherers focused primarily on hunting big game that roamed the North American landscape, groups established more defined territorial zones with patterned seasonal settlement rounds within these zones, and the introduction of the bow and arrow, as well as the limited use of ceramic vessels, occurred in the mountains of northern Colorado during this time period.154 The peak of communal bison hunting occurred during this time period and some of the earliest rock art dating to the beginning of the Late Prehistoric was also recorded.155

Horses, guns, and other Euroamerican trade items such as trade beads were introduced to Plains cultural groups beginning in the late 1600s, becoming an integral part of their cultural systems and lifeways from that point on.156 During the period between prehistory and history, the Ute occupied the MBRTB for at least 500 to 600 years. The Arapaho, Shoshone, Apache, Cheyenne, and possibly Kiowa, utilized the mountains of this area to a lesser extent until the 1700s. After 1810, the Ute and Arapaho were the primary groups in the area and competed over hunting territory. The majority of the MBRTB is considered to be traditional Ute territory. While other tribes came and went during the historic period, the Utes remained until they were forcibly removed to Utah in 1879. Even after their removal, the Ute often returned to visit and hunt.

Trappers conducted some of the earliest Euro-American exploration in . Because of the demand for pelts in the early 1800s, people explored the country around the Green and Yampa River valleys for beaver and game. By the mid-1800s the beaver and big game population had been

153 IMACS, 2001 154 Frison, 1991; Frison and Mainfort, 1996 155 Frison, 1991 156 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 165 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

severely impacted by the trapping industry. The shortage of resources, in addition to a decreased European demand for imported fur, caused the fur trade to decline. Although a few trappers clung to their way of life in northwestern Colorado as late as 1878, others eventually entered the region with different objectives.

Exploration and mapping for the U.S. government, in connection with the Louisiana Purchase, or simply for adventure, brought a wider range of people to the west. Although the region was opened for exploration after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, many of the earliest explorers in northwestern Colorado did not arrive until the early 1830s. The discovery of gold in 1859 near brought flocks of Easterners to Colorado, which brought more intense exploration of the parks and valleys surrounding what is now the Routt and Arapaho National Forests, as well as northwestern Colorado in the vicinity of Steamboat. The most significant gold ores in northwestern Colorado were located around Hahns Peak and on the western slope of the Continental Divide and by 1872 Hahns Peak was a booming mining town. Hahns Peak was the primary population center in the area until 1875 and was the county seat for Routt County.

Gold was the primary ore, but silver, lead, copper and zinc were also extracted in the region. Later mining enterprises focused primarily on coal, copper and oil. The Yampa coal beds located between the City of Steamboat Springs, the Town of Hayden, and the Town of Oak Creek were discovered in the 1880s and to this day they are mined for high-quality coal. Livestock ranching, however, proved to be the most important long-term economic activity in the north central portion of Colorado. Although the imminent failure of the mines prompted many early settlers to begin raising livestock, it was some time before crops and methods suitable to the basins and high alpine meadows of northern Colorado were developed.157 The short growing season and variable precipitation patterns of the region dictated that the most successful agricultural product was hay, not only for cattle, but also for the horses and mules utilized in the region’s mining camps. Livestock ranching and agriculture continue to be present in Routt County to this day.

3.5.2.2 Files Search and Inventory Results Class I Survey A Forest Service archaeologist of the MBRTB conducted a Class I archaeological inventory for this FEIS on August 4, 2016. This literature search utilized Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation sites and survey records (Compass), the MBRTB cultural resource atlas, relevant cultural resource management reports and General Land Office plat maps. A total of sixteen previous cultural resource inventories were identified within 1 mile of the current project APE, and eighteen previously recorded cultural resources are in the vicinity (1 mile) or within the Project Area. Table 3.5-1 documents the previously recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of Steamboat that were identified during the Class I archaeological inventory.

157 Mehis, 1984

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 166 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.5-1: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of Steamboat Smithsonian Forest Service Site Most Recent APE or Eligibility Date Site Type Number Number Eligibility Buffer 5RT809 02060300249 Not Eligible 03/11/1992 P APE 5RT10 02060300081 Not Eligible 10/01/1974 P Buffer 5RT11 02060300082 Needs Data 10/01/1974 P Buffer 5RT37 02060300118 Not in Compass 05/01/1974 P Buffer 5RT38 02060300119 Not in Compass 08/01/1975 P Buffer 5RT39 02060300121 Not in Compass 08/01/1975 P Buffer 5RT117 02060300083 Not Eligible 08/01/1975 P Buffer 5RT455 02060300124 Not Eligible 06/20/1985 H Buffer 5RT530 02060300155 Eligible 08/26/1987 H Buffer 5RT3299 02060301230 Not Eligible 09/15/2015 H Buffer 5RT1586 02060300577 Not Eligible 04/09/2002 H Buffer 5RT2361 02060300393 Not Eligible 04/11/2007 H Buffer 5RT2362 02060300394 Not Eligible 05/16/2006 H Buffer 5RT2363 02060300395 Not Eligible 05/19/2006 H Buffer 5RT810 02060300396 Not Eligible 03/11/1992 P Buffer 5RT811 02060300397 Not Eligible 10/14/1991 P Buffer 5RT977 02060300398 Not Eligible 10/07/1994 H Buffer 5RT2617 02060300424 Not Eligible 06/25/2008 H Buffer Notes: P = Prehistoric, H = Historic

Class II Survey Forest Service archaeologists of the MBRTB conducted a Class II sample pedestrian survey for the proposed undertakings analyzed in this FEIS on June 20 and 21, and July 28, 2016. The Class II survey was conducted using parallel pedestrian transects spaced no greater than 30 meters apart. Areas with standing water/marshes and/or steep slopes were spot checked for cultural materials.

Cultural manifestations were sought in the form of prehistoric and/or historic period artifacts, features, structures, and unusual ground disturbances. The methods used to survey these acres and the results reported comply with current cultural resource standards and are considered adequate to assess the effect of the current undertaking. As previously mentioned, 299 acres within the current APE had been previously surveyed; those surveys comply with current cultural resource technical standards and thus a total of 422 acres were surveyed for this FEIS.

Previously identified cultural resource 5RT809 (refer to Table 3.5-1), located on private lands, was not revisited during the cultural resource inventory. During the 1991 and 1998 visits, it was determined not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP and received concurrence on the determination by SHPO in March 1992.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 167 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The lands managed by the Forest Service and permitted to the Steamboat are less amenable to habitation, primarily due to slopes that are too steep. Further, extensive cultural resource inventory has been conducted on NFS lands within Steamboat’s SUP area. A limited amount of cultural material (both pre- and historic) has been identified. The surfaces of the ski area, as currently managed, are highly disturbed through ongoing operations and improvements. These operations and improvements over time include installation of snowmaking lines, lift lines and associated structures, slope grading for ski runs, development of access roads, summer bike trails, disc golf courses, and service buildings, among a variety of other operations and management related activities. The likelihood of additional unidentified resources within ski area boundaries are limited to high probability areas otherwise surveyed to the eastern extreme of the SUP area, or to subsurface areas that have not been disturbed through previous construction, retain stratigraphic integrity, and would represent a different topographic layout than visible from current surface topography.

3.5.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative New development projects within the Steamboat SUP area would not occur. Steamboat would continue to operate under its current configuration and capacity. There would be no direct or indirect impacts to heritage resources. The implementation of the No Action Alternative would not change or alter the significant characteristics or the integrity of heritage resources within the APE.

3.5.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Direct Effects Proposed Action Alternative undertakings associated with snowmaking; ski trail grading and contour grading; construction or maintenance of new and/or existing trails, roads, skid trails, staging areas, buildings, and bridges; tree removal; and installing ski lifts and magic carpets can be considered a ground-disturbing activity. Impacts to cultural resources from these activities include the potential alteration or destruction of artifacts or cultural features on the surface, as well as damage to site soil matrices and depositional strata. There is a potential for ground disturbance in the form of vehicles, personnel, and other equipment used to implement the Proposed Action Alternative. Disturbance and/or destruction of surface cultural material is the greatest threat of the proposed undertaking; however, shallow subsurface deposits (i.e., 1 to 20 centimeters below the ground surface) are also in danger of disturbance and/or destruction. Heavy disturbance activities also pose a threat to deposits as deep as 5 feet below the ground surface.

During the Class II cultural resource inventory, no cultural properties were identified within the APE. Only one previously recorded cultural resource has been identified within the APE (5RT809) and was determined to be not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The results of the analysis of the APE and determination of effect were documented in the A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Steamboat Ski Area Improvements EIS (R2016020603005) Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, Routt County, Colorado. This finding was transmitted to the SHPO on February 28, 2017; and in a letter dated March 16, 2017 the SHPO concurred with the determination of No Historic

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 168 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Properties Affected (36 CFR § 800.4 (d)(1)) under Section 106 for the tiered projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative. No active cultural resource monitoring or changes in the design of the undertaking are necessary for the protection of historic properties.

The NHPA requires that if newly discovered cultural resources are identified during project implementation, work in that area must stop and the responsible agency Authorized Officer be notified immediately (36 CFR § 800.13). The NAGPRA requires that if inadvertent discovery of Native American Remains or Objects occurs, activity must cease in the area of discovery, a reasonable effort made to protect the item(s) discovered, and immediate notice made to the Authorized Officer, as well as the appropriate Native American group(s) (IV.C.2). Notice may be followed by a 30-day delay (NAGPRA Section 3(d)). Further actions also require compliance under the provisions of NHPA and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act.

If additional prehistoric or historic materials are found during the course of this project, work in that area would cease until the Hahns Peak Bears Ears District Ranger and Zone Archaeologist have been notified. Work in the area of the cultural resource may not resume until a professional archaeologist has evaluated the cultural materials and potential effects. The discovery must be protected until notified in writing to proceed by the authorized officer (36 CFR §§ 800.11 and 800.112, 43 CFR § 10.4).

Indirect Effects Potential indirect effects associated with the recreational use of projects and activities may impact archaeological contexts due to ground disturbance and any resultant erosion, vandalism, or artifact collection as access to areas across the Project Area increase.

Potential indirect effects, from the construction of the Proposed Action Alternative projects and activities, including artifact collection, vandalism, and erosion on the surveyed portion of the Project Area are not expected to increase. The discovery and education stipulation requires all persons associated with operations authorized by the Forest Service be informed that cultural resources cannot be collected, damaged, or moved. When placed in contracts and permits, the stipulation may help reduce potential indirect effects and may help protect unidentified buried deposits during project implementation.

3.5.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for cultural resources extend from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963 through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for cultural resources are limited to public and private lands in Routt County, Colorado.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 169 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.5.4.1 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 project could have cumulative impacts on cultural resources and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA From a cumulative perspective, since implementation of projects contained in the action alternative were determined to have no effect on known NRHP listed or eligible historic properties, by definition, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources are identified specifically related to the Steamboat projects.

All reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Appendix A, which include those from the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA that are unimplemented and not included in this analysis, would require the completion of requisite cultural surveys and to satisfy state and federal requirements.

3.5.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Non-renewable resources may be impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative, but the loss is limited to cultural resources not meeting qualifying criteria as sites (i.e., isolated finds), or the effect is considered to not affect those characteristics of a site that make it important, or the potential for effect is considered very low. Thus, there would be no irreversible commitment of cultural resources associated with any of the alternatives analyzed in this document

Provided that no new historic properties were identified within the APE, there would be no irretrievable commitment of cultural resources associated with the current undertaking (per 36 CFR Part 800). Actions associated with the Proposed Action Alternative are considered to have no effect to historic properties if the sites have been shown to be ineligible or the impacts to the qualities that make the heritage resource important are modified or reduced so as to not diminish those characteristics or integrity, as defined in 36 CFR § 800.9(c)1.

3.6 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 3.6.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The purpose of this air quality and climate change review is to provide a screening assessment of the impacts that air emissions from activities related to development projects at Steamboat would have on air quality and climate change in the region. This analysis summarizes the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report contained in the project file.158 Air emissions for on-road and non-road mobile sources were estimated using the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (version MOVES2014a from December 2015).159

158 SE Group and Terra-Technologies, 2017 159 USEPA, 2015

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 170 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 north- central Rocky Mountains of Colorado with similar climate, ecology, wildlife, and plant species. This region is expected to experience similar effects from climate change, and represents the range of what may occur at Steamboat. The temporal scope of this analysis spans from the ski area’s inception in 1963 through 2050, the date climate change literature uses as a benchmark in discussion of climate change effects.160

3.6.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION 3.6.2.1 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines The following Forest Plan air quality standards and guidelines are applicable to this project: • Air Standard 1: Conduct all land management activities to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local air quality standards and regulations including: a. Federal: The Clean Air Act, as amended, 1990, (P.L. 95-95) b. State of Colorado: The Colorado Air Quality Control Act, Colorado Statutes 25-7-101 through 25-7-505

3.6.2.2 Forest Service Manual The Forest Service Manual section 2580 reiterates the direction in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 1602), to protect and, where appropriate, improve the quality of soil, water, and air resources.

3.6.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.6.3.1 Climate Overview The climate of Colorado is characterized by frequent sunshine, low humidity, and large temperature variations. The City of Steamboat Springs, located at an elevation of 6,732 feet amsl, receives an average of 25.6 inches of precipitation per year. The average winter temperature is about 18ºF and the average summer temperature is about 64ºF.161 Average winter snowfall is about 180 inches per year.162

The effects of climate change have already been observed in both Colorado and the north-central region Colorado Rocky Mountains. In the last fifty years, the annual average temperature in Colorado has increased by 2.5ºF.163 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,

160 Gordon and Ojima, 2015 161 NCDC, 2017 162 NCDC, 2011 163 Lukas et al., 2014

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 171 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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.164 These changing conditions are part of the baseline of this chapter and related resources, such as water resources.

Global change models predict a warming trend will continue into mid-century (2050) and beyond.165 These models are complex, integrated computer simulations of earth’s physical processes that projects how the global climate system will respond to increasing greenhouse gas 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 Yampa River Valley region, models predict that summer temperatures will increase +4.0ºF to +5.0ºF in the period between 2035 to 2064, and precipitation will increase 10 percent to 20 percent between December and April and decrease 5 percent to 10 percent in the summer.166

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 will likely increase the frequency and severity of heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and extreme precipitation events.167

3.6.3.2 Nearest Class I, Class II, and Non-Attainment Areas Colorado is home to numerous state and national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. Among these are a number of federal Class I areas. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments established Class I, II, and III areas, where emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are restricted. The restrictions are most severe in Class I areas and are progressively more lenient in Class II and III areas. Mandatory Class I Federal lands include various national wilderness areas, national parks, national memorials, and some international parks based on acreage or existence prior to 1978. Federal land managers are charged with direct responsibility to protect the air quality and AQRVs, including visibility, of Class I lands and to consider, in consultation with the USEPA, whether proposed industrial facilities would have an adverse impact on these values. Federal land managers are also required to determine whether existing industrial sources of air pollution must be retrofitted to reduce impacts on Class I areas to acceptable levels. The Class I areas within approximately 62 miles (100 km) to Steamboat include: • (approximately 7.5 miles north) • Wilderness (approximately 28.5 miles southwest) • (approximately 45 miles east-northeast)

164 Gordon and Ojima, 2015 165 Gordon and Ojima, 2015; Lukas et al., 2014 166 Lukas et al., 2014 167 Melillo et al., 2014; Lukas et al., 2014

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 172 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Rocky Mountain National Park (approximately 45 miles east) • (approximately 48 miles south-southeast)

The nearest Class II area is Sarvis Creek Wilderness Area, about 18.5 miles from Steamboat. Refer to the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report for more details about Class II air quality areas.

Steamboat is not located in any USEPA designated non-attainment area for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. However, it is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less) attainment and maintenance area of the City of Steamboat Springs.168

The Forest Plan does not explicitly define AQRVs; however, NAAQS are often used as a proxy for understanding the relative health of an airshed. Such impacts analyses to AQRVs are also sometimes determined by comparison to a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment. A PSD increment is the amount of pollution an area is allowed to increase. PSD increments prevent the air quality in clean areas from deteriorating to the level set by the NAAQS.

3.6.3.3 Current Ambient Air Quality Monitoring A variety of ambient air quality monitors are within 100 miles of Steamboat. These include the following: • Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) – Monitoring program whose goal is to measure atmospheric concentrations of pollutants and identify sources of the pollutants associated with diminished visibility in Class I areas; • National Atmospheric Deposition Program – Monitoring program whose goal is to provide data on the amounts, trends, and geographic distributions of acids, nutrients, and base cations in precipitation; • Clean Air Status and Trends Network – Monitoring program whose goal is to provide data to assess trends in air quality, atmospheric deposition, and ecological effects due to changes in air pollutant emissions; and • Ambient Air Monitoring Program – USEPA’s ambient air quality monitoring program is conducted by USEPA, state, and local agencies through the National Air Monitoring Stations, State and Local Air Monitoring Stations, Special Purpose Monitoring Stations, and the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations.

Refer to the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report for more details about the various models listed above, and the data that was used from them in this analysis.

3.6.3.4 Air Quality Assessment in Areas Near Steamboat Table 3.6-1 lists the current NAAQS for selected criteria pollutants that are important for monitoring in the Steamboat area. Refer to the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report in the project file for more details regarding the type, observed level, and regulatory standard of various pollutants.

168 CDPHE, 2011

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 173 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-1: Air Quality Assessment in Areas near Steamboat Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS Level Notes for Pollutant Levels in Steamboat Vicinity

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

1 hour 100 ppb Steamboat is not located in a designated non- Nitrogen Dioxide 1 year 0.053 ppm attainment area for nitrogen dioxide. Observed measurements are generally slightly Ozone 8 hours 0.070 ppm below the NAAQS for ozone. Steamboat is not located in a designated non- PM2.5 1 year 12.0 ug/m3 attainment area for particulate matter; however, (particulate matter observed measurements are consistently well of 5 microns or less) 24 hours 35 ug/m3 below the NAAQS for PM2.5. Steamboat is not located in a designated non- PM10 attainment area for particulate matter. Observed (particulate matter 24 hours 150 ug/m3 measurements are consistently well below the of 10 microns or less) NAAQS for PM10. 1 hour 75 ppb Steamboat is not located in a designated non- Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours 0.5 ppm attainment area for sulfur dioxide. Source: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table Notes: ppm=parts per million; ug/m3= micrograms per cubic meter

Among other parameters, PM2.5 and PM10 are measured twice each week for a 24-hour period at each IMPROVE site. The three IMPROVE monitors consistently register measurements well below the NAAQS for both PM10 and PM2.5.

As part of the IMPROVE program, visibility is estimated from the measured data. There is no National Standard to achieve for visibility. Instead, the Regional Haze Rule governing visibility in Class I areas requires states to establish goals for each affected Class I area to: 1. improve visibility on the haziest days, and 2. ensure no degradation occurs on the clearest days over the period of each implementation plan.169 The visibility metric has units of deciviews, where a 1 deciview change is what is perceptible to the human eye.170 Lower deciview readings indicate better visibility with a zero-reading indicating no visibility degradation due to haze. The poorest visibility is roughly 13 deciviews (equivalent to visibility of about 65 miles) and the best visibility is about 1.5 deciviews (equivalent to visibility of about 217.5 miles). The visibility is consistently below 10 deciviews.

169 USEPA, 2001 170 USEPA, 2003

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 174 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.6.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Steamboat resources would remain in their existing conditions and the ski area would continue to operate under existing management policies. The contribution of activities at the ski area to climate change would remain unchanged. Similarly, the effects of climate change on Steamboat would continue to follow current climate change trends. No new effects from the Proposed Action Alternative to GHG emissions or air quality would occur. Steamboat would continue to experience changes in the timing and amount of precipitation that falls as snowpack; the timing and duration of the winter season and snowmelt/runoff; and changes to minimum and maximum temperatures due to climate change. Ongoing air quality and climate-induced effects would be expected to continue, and could have effects on snowmaking capacity, visibility, visitation season, and ski resort operations.

3.6.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Three major categories of activities that would result in increased emissions to the atmosphere due to the Proposed Action Alternative at Steamboat were considered: (1) non-road construction operations; (2) on-road visitor and construction trips; and (3) pile burning of cleared timber and brush. The USEPA model MOVES2014a was used to estimate emissions from on-road and non-road activities.171 The Joint Fire Science Program Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions Calculator was used to estimate the potential emissions from piling burning based on different piling and fuel loading scenarios.172 These emissions could contribute to air quality degradation and climate change impacts at Steamboat and nearby. Refer to the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report in the project file for more information about how these models were used.

The general approach to use MOVES2014a was to run the model for a base case assuming standard defaults to provide a baseline estimate of the emissions for Routt County. The default conditions were then modified to account for activities associated with the non-road and on-road phases for proposed projects at Steamboat. Roadway segments impacted by increased traffic described in Section 3.3 and in the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report.

On-road Vehicle Trips As part of the analysis of air quality impacts from the Proposed Action Alternative, on-road vehicle trips were calculated for current (2018) and projected (2026) trips under various conditions and times of year, such as an average winter day and an average summer day, the 10th busiest weekend day, and traffic from construction vehicles during the summer construction season. On-road vehicle trips were calculated for a variety of road segments and incorporated into MOVES2014a. Refer to the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report in the project file for more information about the output of the on- road vehicle trip calculations for each modeled road segment and time period.

171 USEPA, 2015 172 Joint Fire Science Program, 2010

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 175 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

MOVES2014a was updated to account for the projected increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the year 2026 and the model was run to estimate the change in emissions due to the projected increase in VMT. Table 3.6-2 presents the emissions estimates for the base case MOVES2014a run, the MOVES2014a run accounting for the increased VMT, and the difference between the two MOVES2014a simulations for the winter season (January 2026). Table 3.6-3 presents the same information except that it is for the summer season (July 2026).

Table 3.6-2: Estimated Increase in 2026 Winter Season On-road Mobile Source Emissions Due to Projected Increase in VMT from the Proposed Action Alternative Weekend Day Week Day Pollutant Base Case Projected Difference Base Case Projected Difference (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) VOC 0.025 0.026 0.001 0.028 0.029 0.001 CO 0.882 0.905 0.023 0.981 1.005 0.024 NOX 0.201 0.207 0.006 0.220 0.227 0.007 SO2 0.002 0.002 0 0.002 0.002 0 PM2.5 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.006 0.006 0 PM10 0.006 0.006 0 0.007 0.007 0 CO2 275 279 4 309 313 4 N2O 0.004 0.004 0 0.005 0.005 0 CH4 0.016 0.016 0 0.021 0.021 0 CO2(e) 277 281 4 311 315 4

Table 3.6-3: Estimated Increase in 2026 Summer Season On-road Mobile Source Emissions Due to Projected Increase in VMT from the Proposed Action Alternative Weekend Day Week Day Pollutant Base Case Projected Difference Base Case Projected Difference (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) VOC 0.042 0.043 0.001 0.047 0.047 0 CO 1.468 1.487 0.019 1.610 1.621 0.011 NOX 0.249 0.253 0.004 0.273 0.276 0.003 SO2 0.002 0.002 0 0.003 0.003 0 PM2.5 0.007 0.007 0 0.008 0.008 0 PM10 0.007 0.008 0.001 0.008 0.008 0 CO2 345 349 4 386 388 2 N2O 0.004 0.004 0 0.005 0.005 0 CH4 0.009 0.009 0 0.011 0.011 0 CO2(e) 347 351 4 388 390 2

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 176 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Non-road Construction Operations In order to estimate construction traffic emissions, MOVES2014a-NONROAD was run for a July 2026 weekday for Routt County, Colorado. According to the traffic analysis for construction-related activities, a small increase in the non-road vehicle population is projected to occur. The projected population increase is from the following non-road vehicles: • Tandem Axle Dump Truck • Concrete Truck • Tractor Trailer Logging Truck • Tandem Axle Flatbed Truck • Flatbed Semi Tractor Trailer • Log Skidder

Table 3.6-4 presents the emissions estimates for the base case MOVES2014a-NONROAD run, the MOVES2014a-NONROAD run accounting for the increased non-road vehicles, and the difference between the two MOVES2014a-NONROAD simulations. As construction activities are expected to only occur on weekdays, only the results for the NONROAD model runs for weekdays are presented.

Table 3.6-4: Estimated Increase in 2026 Summer Season Non-road Mobile Source Emissions Due to Projected Increase in Non-Road Vehicle Population from the Proposed Action Alternative Week Day Pollutant Base Case (tons/day) Projected (tons/day) Difference (tons/day) VOC 0.100 0.101 0.001 CO 1.419 1.420 0.001 NOX 0.077 0.082 0.005 SO2 0.001 0.001 0 PM2.5 0.003 0.004 0.001 PM10 0.003 0.004 0.001 CO2 73 75 2 N2O Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated CH4 0.006 0.006 0 CO2(e) 73 75 2

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 177 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Impact Summary of Non-Road and On-Road Maximum Estimated Emissions A summary of the maximum increase in MOVES2014a emission estimates due to the Proposed Action Alternative at Steamboat is presented in Table 3.6-5.

Table 3.6-5: Summary of the Maximum Estimated Increase in MOVES2014a Emissions Due to Projected Activities at Steamboat for 2026 Non-Road On-Road Maximum Pollutant Base Case Projected Difference Base Case Projected Difference Increase (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) (tons/day) VOC 0.100 0.101 0.001 0.028 0.029 0.001 0.002 CO 1.419 1.420 0.001 0.981 1.005 0.024 0.025 NOX 0.077 0.082 0.005 0.220 0.227 0.007 0.012 SO2 0.001 0.001 0 0.002 0.002 0 0 PM2.5 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.002 PM10 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.008 0.001 0.002 CO2 73 75 2 345 349 4 6 Not Not Not N2O 0.004 0.004 0 0 estimated estimated estimated CH4 0.006 0.006 0 0.009 0.009 0 0 CO2(e) 73 75 2 347 351 4 6

The information presented in Table 3.6-5 indicates that there is a very small increment in the emissions from on-road mobile sources predicted to occur from projected activities at Steamboat, and a negligible increase from non-road mobile sources. From a qualitative point of view, given the small increments in estimated emissions due to projected expansion activities at Steamboat of approximately 6 additional tons of CO2(e) per day, it is expected that there would be little impact to the existing air quality and climate change in and immediately surrounding at Steamboat from the Proposed Action Alternative. As a comparison, fossil fuel consumption in the State of Colorado releases approximately 251,000 metric tons of CO2 per day.173

Pile Burning Activities Because tree removal activities may include the burning of timber piles, pile burning scenarios were developed for input to a Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions Calculator. Refer to Section 3.8 for more information about fire and fuels, and the Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Report in the project file for more information about the calculation of emissions from pile burning. Table 3.6-6 summarizes the potential emissions from the burning of 35 piles of timber burned.

173 U.S. EIA, 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 178 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-6: Summary of the Maximum Estimated Emissions from Pile Burning (35 piles) Due to Projected Activities at Steamboat for 2026

Total Emissions from 35 Piles Pollutant (tons)

VOC 0.963 CO 16.2 NOX Not estimated SO2 Not estimated PM2.5 2.88 PM10 3.30 CO2 709 N2O Not estimated CH4 1.19 CO2(e) 734

A comparison of the maximum increase for on-road/non-road activities to pile burning indicates that pile burning is predicted to have substantially larger emissions on per day basis, though emissions from pile burning are projected to occur only over a two-day span. During the two-day span when burning may occur, it is possible that noticeable impacts to local air quality may be observed; however, other intervening factors, such as wind speed and direction, are also determinants to the impact on predicted air quality. As in determining the predicted impacts to air quality from on-road and non-road mobile sources, it would be necessary to use a photochemical model or dispersion model to fully elucidate the predicted impacts on air quality due to emissions from pile burning. Given the small increment in emissions predicted from on-road and non-road mobile sources, it is unlikely that an established PSD increment would be consumed, should such a PSD increment exist. On the other hand, emissions from projected pile burning may consume some amount of an established PSD increment, should it exist.

3.6.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of air quality and climate change extend from 1963 when Steamboat first opened as a ski area through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of air quality and climate change on the Steamboat SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Routt County, Colorado.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 179 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.5.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects analysis area, the reader is referred to Appendix A. Past ski 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 air quality and climate change: • Steamboat Ski Resort 2011 MDPA • Base Area Development • Continued build-out of the City of Steamboat Springs • Continued build-out of Routt County

In addition to those projects identified in Appendix A, the following efforts and projects could also have cumulative impacts: • Sustainable Slopes Climate Challenge: Steamboat participates in the National Ski Areas Association’s Climate Challenge, by “developing carbon inventories, setting goals for carbon reduction, and measuring success in reducing their overall carbon footprint.”174 Steamboat has programs to optimize vehicle routes and snowmaking equipment, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce food and water waste. In addition, they participate in programs to promote energy efficiency and renewable resources.175 • Yampa Valley sustainability initiatives: Community-wide efforts such as those promoted by the Yampa Valley Sustainability Council and Colorado Mountain College – Steamboat Springs aim to reduce GHG emissions and water use and provide support for “green” building codes and construction, among other activities. Some of these projects include SSRC collaboration.176

Continued development and use of fossil fuels at Steamboat, throughout Routt County, and around the world will continue to escalate the issue of climate change and could contribute to vehicular and other types of emissions. In combination with the small additional amounts of emissions generated, these projects may have small effects on increased temperatures, water use, weather variability, and air quality degradation. The Proposed Action Alternative would contribute a small amount of emissions to overall Routt County emissions. These effects increase risks such as wildfire and heavy precipitation events, change the amount and timing of snowfall and snowmelt, and affect visibility. Temperature increases may result in shortened ski seasons. Sustainability measures at Steamboat and in the Yampa Valley 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.

174 NSAA, 2016 175 NSAA, 2016; SSRC, 2013 176 YVSC, 2017

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 180 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.6.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The addition of new trails, snowmaking capability, and infrastructure at Steamboat 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 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.

3.7 BOTANY, INCLUDING TIMBER AND FOREST HEALTH 3.7.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The Project Area for botanical resources, including timber and forest health, is approximately 500 acres in size and encompasses all proposed project activities on NFS lands within a portion of the Steamboat SUP area, and adjacent private lands. This analysis summarizes the more detailed Botanical Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report (BA/BE) and the Timber and Forest Health Report contained in the project file.177 Additionally, a memorandum describing noxious and other invasive weeds present within the Project Area is summarized in this analysis and contained in the project file.178 The BA/BE and this analysis describe the existing condition and disclose anticipated impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species, Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species, and MBRTB SOLC present in the Project Area. Likewise, the Forest Health Report and the noxious and other invasive weeds memorandum are summarized in this analysis to describe the existing condition and disclose anticipated impacts to forest communities and botanical resources within the Project Area.

3.7.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT General vegetation habitats that occur within the Project Area include aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests, mixed conifer forests mainly comprised of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), lodgepole pine forests (Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia), native subalpine meadows, open ski trail habitats, rock outcrop vegetation, and riparian and wetland habitats. There are no alpine habitats present nor are there any wetland fens present within the Project Area (refer to Section 3.12 for a discussion specific to wetlands and wetland impacts). More detailed vegetation descriptions of the proposed project locations are provided in Section 3.7.3.1.

A site-specific field reconnaissance for sensitive and other rare plants was conducted in August of 2016. The reconnaissance traversed all habitats in the Project Area and had two objectives: 1) to look at a representative sample of all plant community types; and 2) to focus the search on habitats known to contain target plants. Some of the projects were conceptual in nature at the time of assessment. Should project activities change, PDC would be implemented to ensure that additional surveys be conducted prior to project disturbance.

177 Western Ecological Resource, 2017a; Western Bionomics, 2017a 178 Western Ecological Resource, 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 181 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

An additional site-specific field reconnaissance for noxious and other invasive weeds was conducted in August and September of 2016.

3.7.2.1 Forest Health of Steamboat The forest communities currently occupying proposed project locations within the Steamboat SUP area are a product of many influences, both natural and human-caused. Ecological processes including plant community succession, wildfire, above and below ground microbe and invertebrate activity, forest pathogens and various damaging agents, all function together over time and space to produce a continually changing mosaic of forest plant communities and cover types.

Approximately 70 percent of the Project Area is forested. Stands composed of predominantly lodgepole pine, or those where pine is a substantial component, are found throughout the northwest portion of the Project Area. Stands of nearly pure aspen and those composed of both aspen and conifers are predominant throughout the mid-elevations, and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir stands are dominant throughout the upper elevations of the Project Area. Additionally, two stands in the western extent of the Project Area have a substantial component of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).

Pony Pod and Pioneer Ridge Area The Pony Pod and Pioneer Ridge area are located at the northeastern corner of the SUP area. The Pony Pod is currently within the ski area operational boundary and forest types are fragmented by numerous ski trails. The Pioneer Ridge area is currently undeveloped except for a portion of the existing Pioneer trail, a summer multi-use trail constructed within the last few years.

Aspen Stands A mosaic of single- and two-storied aspen stands occupies the proposed project locations in the Pony Pod and Pioneer Ridge area. Small, widely scattered clumps and individual mature subalpine fir are present, and conifer seedlings and saplings are common but unevenly distributed throughout the understory. Generally, the dominant overstory is mature and size classes ranging from 5 to 12 inches in diameter are well represented. However, there are small pockets and larger expanses where the dominant trees are much smaller, and somewhat gnarly with poorly formed boles. Stocking varies between stands, and aspen sprouts are common where stocking is less dense and abundant along the outer stand perimeters where trees have been cleared to create open runs and there is full exposure to the sun. Evidence of fungal infection and fungal conks are evident on a few trees, but these pathogens are not affecting the stands as a whole. Some mortality has occurred within the smaller diameter understory trees from competition and suppression.

A lush, continuous layer of vegetation covers the forest floor. Tall clumps of Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana) and mountain maple (Acer glabrum) are interspersed among vetch (Vicia americana), meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), mountain ash (Sorbus scopulina), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and a host of forbs. Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) and sticky laurel (Ceanothus velutinus) often surround rock outcrops within aspen stands.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 182 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mixed Conifer/Aspen Stands These stands are occupied by a complex mosaic of lodgepole pine, spruce, fir, and aspen. The aspen component takes the form of scattered clumps and individuals that are co-dominant with the conifers. Stand structure is an assortment of single and two stories where pine is the dominant component, and multiple stories, where pine, subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce tower over an abundant, but unevenly distributed understory of seedlings saplings and smaller sawtimber. Stocking is fairly uniform and all size classes from 6 to 14 inches in diameter are well represented.

Generally, the spruce and fir display good bole form and crown development. Most of the understory trees appear robust with fully developed conical crowns. Roughly 90 percent of the mature pine has died due to Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) attack. Some of the aspen appears to be dying back, probably from a combination of old age and the stress brought about by competition with the dominant conifers present. Fungal conks were noted on several mature aspen trees throughout these sites.

Lodgepole Pine Stands Two dense stands of standing dead lodgepole pine occupy portions of the Pioneer Ridge area. Stand structure is a mosaic of both single and two stories, stocking is uniform and all size classes from 6 to 14 inches in diameter are well represented. Basal area averages over 170 square feet per acre. Recent mortality from mountain pine beetle attack is over 90 percent and regeneration is sparse to non- existent.

Down fuel loading is light, ranging from 2 to 20 tons per acre. Forest floor vegetation includes grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), elk sedge (Carex geyeri), mountain ash, buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis), ferns, Engelmann aster (Eucephalus engelmannii), grape (Mahonia repens), serviceberry, wild rose (Rosa acicularis), and meadowrue.

Lodgepole Pine/Aspen Stands One stand in the Pioneer Ridge area is composed of co-dominant lodgepole pine and aspen. Stocking is uniform with basal area approximately 175 square feet per acre, and all size classes from 6 to 16 inches in diameter are well represented. Very widely scattered spruce and subalpine fir seedlings and saplings are established across the forest floor. The aspen is mature, but still appears healthy with good bole form and full, rounded crowns. Over 90 percent of the pine component has died recently due to MPB attack. Forest floor vegetation includes vetch, golden aster (Heterotheca villosa), giant hyssop (Agastache urticifolia), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), service berry, meadowrue, mountain ash, and thimbleberry.

Engelmann Spruce/Subalpine Fir Stands Stands along the upper portion of the Pioneer Ridge area are uneven aged, multi-storied spruce and subalpine fir. Large diameter spruce and subalpine fir tower over an abundant, but unevenly distributed understory of seedlings, saplings, and small sawtimber. Stocking is somewhat variable due to small, sparsely stocked openings (basal area ranges from 100 to well over 200 square feet per acre). All size classes from 4 to 18 inches in diameter are well represented, and the dominant trees are estimated to be between 120 and over 200 years old. Although trees are generally healthy and display good bole form and crown development, there are a few older individuals that have sparse rounded crowns and/or dead

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 183 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

tops, an indication that they beginning to die back. The root disease and bark beetle complex is causing a small amount of mortality in widely scattered pockets of subalpine fir. Grouse whortleberry, Engelmann aster, wild rose, cranesbills (Geranium), pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens) and lovage (Ligusticum porteri) cover the forest floor.

Non-Forest Small open subalpine meadows and shrublands are found intermittently throughout otherwise forested portions of the Pioneer Ridge area. Native, persistent emergent wetlands are present as narrow, long linear areas adjacent to the perennial and intermittent streams that dissect the landscape. Wetland vegetation occupying these sites includes willow (Salix), sedges (Cyperaceae), rushes (Juncaceae), bluejoint reed grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), cow parsnip (Heracleum maximum), chiming bells (Mertensia ciliata), monkshood (Aconitum columbianum), and marsh marigold (Caltha leptosepala) (refer to Section 3.12 for a discussion specific to wetlands and wetland impacts).

Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Bowl Areas The Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Bowl areas are generally comprised of forested vegetation types of lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and aspen that are interspersed with open ski trail habitats and wetlands. The lodgepole pine stands have experienced measurable mortality by MPB over the last decade, which left numerous mature standing dead trees or led to selective logging to improve forest health.179 Overall, the vegetation types of this area are heavily impacted and fragmented, and numerous weeds are present. Weeds are most common in the ski trails; however, they are also present in forested habitats (particularly lodgepole pine), where selective logging for forest health has occurred. Common weeds include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and scentless chamomile (Tripleurospermum perforatum), all of which are designated Colorado Noxious Weeds, as well as tarweed (Madia glomerata), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) and red cover (Trifolium pratense).

Mixed Conifer Stands Mixed conifer stands in the Bashor Bowl area are similar to those described above for the Pioneer Ridge area, with exception of the aspen component; aspens are not present in the mixed conifer stands of the Bashor Bowl area.

Lodgepole Pine Stands A MPB outbreak over the last decade and forest health logging has resulted in a very young forest of regenerating lodgepole pine and aspen in the Rough Rider Learning Center and Bashor Bowl areas. Common plant associates include shrubs such as Scouler willow, mountain ash, Gambel oak, serviceberry, sticky gooseberry (Ribes viscosissimum), and sticky laurel (Ceanothus velutinus); and lower growing herbaceous species such as elk sedge, Oregon grape, fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus), Engelmann’s aster, fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium), and others.

179 Western Bionomics, 2011

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 184 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Aspen Stands An aspen stand similar to that described above for the Pioneer Ridge area is located in upper portion of the Bashor Bowl area, on either side of Main Drag and uphill of Boulevard.

Douglas Fir The uppermost portion of the Bashor Bowl area is dominated by Douglas fir. Stand structure is a mosaic of single and two stories. Large diameter Douglas fir and lodgepole pine overtop an abundant, but unevenly distributed understory of Douglas fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce seedlings and saplings. Mature subalpine fir and aspen, and aspen sprouts, are a minor component scattered throughout this site. Stocking is fairly uniform with basal areas approximately 160 square feet per acre. The Douglas fir displays excellent bole form and crown development; however, most of the pine has died recently due to MPB attack. Grouse whortleberry, sunflower, Oregon grape, asters, and common juniper (Juniperus communis) are well established in the understory.

Grass/Forb Ski trail habitats in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider Learning Center areas are dominated by agricultural grasses and weeds. The agricultural grasses include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), timothy-grass (Phleum pratense), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), a native grass, has also been observed. Native forbs are also occasionally present and include yarrow (Achillea millefolium), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), white hawkweed (Hieracium albiflorum), and wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota). Burnet (Sanguisorba minor), a non-native forb that was likely seeded, also occurs in these areas.180

3.7.2.2 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 located within the Project Area. Therefore, federally listed and proposed plant species will not be discussed further as neither the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action Alternative would impact these species.

3.7.2.3 Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Forest Service Manual 2670 defines a sensitive plant as one that is not presently listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS, but for which concerns about the population viability have been identified as evidenced by: 1. Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 2. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

The Regional Forester has identified 87 Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species, 35 of which are known or have potential to occur on the Forest.181 Documented and suspected occurrences of sensitive plants on the

180 Western Ecological Resource, 2017a 181 Amendment 2670-2016-1 to FSM 2670; approved 08/08/2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 185 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Forest are listed in Table 3.7-1. In general, those species that exclusively occupy alpine habitats, fens, sagebrush habitats, or other unique geology were excluded as these habitat types do not occur within the Project Area. In addition, some species were excluded because the Project Area is outside the known distribution of the species or outside the known elevation range of a species. Species excluded from analysis will not be discussed further in this document. The remaining twelve species were analyzed and are identified in Table 3.7-1.

Table 3.7-1: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the Routt National Forest Known Species Suitable from Rationale for (Scientific Name, General Habitat Description Habitat Project Exclusion Common Name) Present? Area? Armeria maritima subsp. Grassy tundra slopes, on wet, sandy, sibirica or spongy organic soils; elevation No No No alpine habitats Siberian sea thrift 11,460–12,580’ Riparian, streamside, swales, often Astragalus leptaleus amongst sedges and willow or wet No Yes Species analyzed Park milkvetch aspen; elevation 6,000–9,000’ Botrychium ascendens Disturbed but stabilized subalpine No Yes Species analyzed Upswept moonwort habitats; elevation 8,000–10,840’ Outside known Botrychium campestre Grassy hills and forest openings of No No distribution of Prairie moonwort the Black Hills species Moist meadows, sparsely vegetated Botrychium paradoxum upland, disturbed but stabilized No Yes Species analyzed Paradox moonwort subalpine habitats Montane and subalpine wetland fens; on floating and non-floating Carex diandra moss mats, pond edges, and No wetland fens No No Lesser panicled sedge hummocks. Water chemistry is present often influenced by limestone; elevation 6,100–9,700’ Floating mats, bogs, fens, and marls No wetland fens or Carex livida dominated by Carex species, often other appropriate No No Livid sedge on wet hummocks; elevation 6,400– wetland habitats 10,000’ present Cypripedium parviflorum Moist forests including ponderosa Lesser yellow lady’s pine, Douglas-fir and aspen; No Yes Species analyzed slipper elevation 6,000–9,500’ Alpine on rocky and gravelly slopes Draba exunguiculata No alpine habitats or fell fields; elevation 11,700– No No Clawless draba present 14,000’ Alpine and subalpine on tundra, Draba grayana No alpine habitats gravelly slopes or fell fields; No No Gray’s draba present elevation 11,600–14,100’

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 186 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.7-1: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the Routt National Forest Known Species Suitable from Rationale for (Scientific Name, General Habitat Description Habitat Project Exclusion Common Name) Present? Area? Among sphagnum peat moss on the No wetland fens or Drosera rotundifolia margins of ponds, fens, and floating No No floating peat mats Roundleaf sundew peat mats; elevation 9,100–9,800’ present Barren to semi-barren plains and Eriogonum exilifolium hills in cushion plant bunchgrass No suitable habitat No No Dropleaf buckwheat communities with low total cover at present elevations of 6,900–8,600’ Fens; elevation 10,160–13,200’ Eriophorum chamissonis Eriophorum altaicum var. neoganum No wetland fens No No Slender cottongrass now subsumed here per Flora of present . Eriophorum gracile Fens on floating mats of peat; No wetland fens No No Slender cottongrass elevation 8,100–11,140’ present Festuca hallii Alpine and subalpine grasslands and No Yes Species analyzed Plains rough fescue meadows; elevation 8,500–11,500’ Rocky, gravelly, open sites and with Ipomopsis aggregata sagebrush, and other shrub species. subsp. weberi Openings in coniferous forest Yes Yes Species analyzed Rabbit Ears gilia slopes. Endemic. Elevation 7,200– 10,000’ No fens or moist Kobresia simpliciuscula Fens and moist alpine areas; No No alpine areas Simple kobresia elevation 8,970–12,800’ present Machaeranthera Gravelly areas in mountain parks, coloradoensis slopes and rock outcrops up to dry No Yes Species analyzed Colorado tansyaster tundra; elevation 7,600–13,000’ Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda Shaded streamside, mossy wet No Yes Species analyzed White adder’s-mouth areas; elevation 7,200–8,000’ orchid Granitic seeps, slopes, and alluvium Mimulus gemmiparus in open sites within spruce-fir and No granitic seep Rocky Mountain, budding No No aspen forests; elevation 8,500– habitats present or Weber monkeyflower 10,500’ Alpine and subalpine, in wet rocky Project Area is Parnassia kotzebuei areas, amongst moss mats and below known Kotzebue’s grass of No No along streamlets; In Colorado, elevation range of Parnassus elevation 10,500–12,000’ species Sagebrush communities, often on Penstemon harringtonii No sagebrush calcareous substrates; elevation No No Harrington’s beardtongue habitats present 6,800–9,000’

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 187 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.7-1: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species for the Routt National Forest Known Species Suitable from Rationale for (Scientific Name, General Habitat Description Habitat Project Exclusion Common Name) Present? Area? Subalpine or montane granitic outcrops amongst ponderosa or Outside known Potentilla rupincola limber pine; elevation 6,900– No No distribution of Rock cinquefoil 10,500’, Colorado species endemic Ranunculus grayi Alpine slopes among rocks and No suitable alpine No No Ice cold buttercup scree; 12,000–14,100’ habitats Rubus arcticus subsp. Wetlands in willow carrs and mossy acaulis No Yes Species analyzed streamsides; elevation 7,000–9,720’ Dwarf raspberry Found in calaceous, rich and Salix candida No wetland fens extremely rich fens; elevation No No Silver willow present 8,900–10,400’ Permanently saturated soils where Salix serissima No wetland fens peat is present (fens); elevation No No Autumn willow present 7,800–10,200’ Marshy areas and wet spruce Outside known Selaginella selaginoides forests. Nearest known locations are No No distribution of Club spikemoss from northwestern Wyoming species Sphagnum angustifolium Acidic fens with high concentrations No wetland fens No No Narrowleaf peatmoss of iron and other ions present Sphagnum balticum Acidic fens with high concentrations No wetland fens No No Baltic peatmoss of iron and other ions present Meadows, grasslands, sagebrush, pinyon-juniper woodlands, aspen Triteleia grandiflora woodlands, pine forests, and No Yes Species analyzed Largeflower triteleia scattered woodlands; elevations up to 9,800’ Utricularia minor Shallow water of subalpine ponds No Yes Species analyzed Lesser bladderwort and fens elevation 8,200–>10,000’ Riparian and riparian transition to Viburnum opulus var. Project Area is cottonwood, river birch and americanum above known hawthorn; elevation 6,000–7,000’ No No American cranberrybush, elevation range of Moist wooded hillsides, thickets, or or mooseberry species low woodlands Viola selkirkii Cold mountain forests, moist woods No Yes Species analyzed Selkirk’s violet and thickets elevation 8,500–9,100’ Source: Region 2 Sensitive Species List (Amendment 2670-2016-1 to FSM 2670; approved 08/08/2016); Ackerfield 2015; CNHP 1997+; CNHP 2015; WYNDD 2012; USDA Forest Service 2016a; Weber and Wittmann 2012

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 188 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Occupied habitat for the Region 2 sensitive Rabbit Ears gilia (Ipomopsis aggregata subsp. weberi) was identified during the field reconnaissance performed for this analysis in 2016. Additionally, multiple occurrences have been previously identified in the Project Area.182 However, the field reconnaissance in 2016 resulted in the discovery of additional previously unmapped occurrences. In total, nine new occurrences of this plant were observed in the vicinity of the top of the proposed Pioneer chairlift and the existing Pony Express chairlift. No other Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species were observed or are suspected to occur in the areas affected by proposed project activities. Table 3.7-2 describes the results of the 2016 field reconnaissance as they relate to the presence of Rabbit Ears gilia in the Project Area.

Table 3.7-2: Rare Plant Survey Results – Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Acres of Occupied Number of Estimated Number of Name Habitat in Occurrences in Individuals in Project Area Project Area Project Area Ipomopsis aggregata subsp. weberi 5.4 9 5,000–8,500 Rabbit Ears gilia Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017a

3.7.2.4 Species of Local Concern Plant SOLC are not designated sensitive and carry no legal status. However, they are a component of the biological diversity on the Forest, which is required to be maintained by the National Forest Management Act and Forest Service direction. Botanical surveys identified three SOLC, including broad- leaved twayblade (Listera convallarioides), white-veined wintergreen (Pyrola picta) and lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina). These plants occur in the Pioneer Ridge area, outside the current operational boundary of Steamboat but within the proposed operational boundary that would be extended into the Pioneer Ridge area. The lady fern and broad-leaved twayblade primarily occur along the North Fork of Burgess Creek, while the white-veined wintergreen occurs in the mixed coniferous forests northeast of the creek. Table 3.7-3 describes the results of the 2016 field reconnaissance as it relates to the presence of SOLC in the Project Area.

Table 3.7-3: Rare Plant Survey Results – SOLC Acres of Occupied Number of Estimated Number of Name Habitat in Occurrences in Individuals in Project Area Project Area Project Area Athryium filix-femina 1.8 2 200–300 Lady fern Listera convallarioides 0.1 2 200–300 Broad-leaved twayblade Pyrola picta <0.1 6 30 White-veined wintergreen Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017a

182 CNHP, 2015

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 189 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.7.2.5 Weeds – Noxious, Invasive, and Non-Native Plants Six species of Colorado-listed noxious weeds were documented within the Project Area. These include whitetop or hoary cress (Cardaria draba), Canada thistle, bull thistle, yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scentless chamomile. In addition, Reed canarygrass, an invasive wetland grass species, was also observed (refer to Table 3.7-4).

Field reconnaissance in 2016 found that Canada thistle and scentless chamomile are the most common noxious weeds in the Project Area and are most abundant along roadsides and in other disturbed zones where past grading, construction activities, and forest health logging have taken place. Bull thistle and houndstongue were also observed. In general, weeds are much more abundant in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider Learning Center areas; however, there are also scattered weeds in the Pony Pod and only very few in the Pioneer Ridge area. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data provided by SSRC shows additional populations of whitetop present around the base area and in the Bashor Bowl area, and a few locations of yellow toadflax along roadsides near the Burgess Creek chairlift and the Thunder Head Express chairlift. SSRC has been actively treating noxious weeds per requirements of the Forest Service, primarily through the use of herbicides. The noxious weeds currently being treated include houndstongue, whitetop, Canada and bull thistles, and yellow toadflax. Table 3.7-4 describes the six species of noxious weeds documented within the Project Area.

Table 3.7-4: Documented Non-Native Plants and Noxious/Invasive Weeds Species Noxious Weed? Management Status (Scientific Name, Common Name) Perennial Graminoids Phalaris arundinacea No; but Invasive N/A Reed Canarygrass Perennial Forbs Cardaria draba* Yes, Class B Suppression Whitetop; Hoary cress Cirsium arvense (Breea) Yes, Class B Suppression Canada thistle Cirsium vulgare Yes, Class B Suppression Bull thistle Linaria vulgaris * Yes, Class B Suppression Yellow toadflax Annual/Biennial Forbs Cynoglossum officinale Yes, Class B Suppression Houndstongue Tripleurospermum perforatum Yes, Class B Suppression Scentless chamomile Source: Colorado Department of Agriculture 2016a,b Notes: Data reported by SSRC, not directly observed by the author. “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.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 190 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 at Steamboat. However, there are six List B species, all of which are slated for suppression in Routt County. These management plans are regularly reviewed, updated, and detailed in the Rules Pertaining to the Administration and Enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, also known as the Noxious Weed Rule (8 Colorado Code of Regulations 1206-2).

Additionally, one invasive plant species that is not on the Colorado Noxious Weed List also occurs within the Project Area. Reed canarygrass is a rhizomatous perennial that grows 2 to 4 feet tall. Reed canarygrass is native to temperate regions of Europe, Asia and North America.183 However, a Eurasian ecotype has been planted throughout the U.S. since the 1800s and has become naturalized in much of the northern half of the U.S. It is thought that most Colorado populations are the Eurasian ecotype. Within the Project Area, reed canarygrass is common in the Bashor Bowl area and also occurs sporadically along Burgess Creek and along the ski area access road at the western edge of the Pony Pod and Pioneer Ridge area. When reed canarygrass invades a wetland, it quickly spreads via underground rhizomes and forms extremely dense stands. These stands then suppress native vegetation and reduce plant species diversity and would outcompete rare wetland species such as broad-leaved twayblade, which is present along the North Fork of Burgess Creek. Reed canarygrass is difficult to eradicate and no single control method works particularly well.

In August 2015 a ROD for Invasive Plant Management for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland was signed by the Forest Supervisor. Included in this decision and associated Final EIS are standards and guidelines that apply to herbicide use, as well as protection measures to minimize negative effects to native plant communities and other resources.

3.7.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Forest Health of Steamboat None of the proposed activities would occur and current management conditions would continue. Forest succession and existing levels of skier use would continue, and existing ski area infrastructure such as trails and lift corridors would continue to be maintained. Barring disturbances such as insects, disease, and wildfire, lodgepole pine stands that are currently composed of standing dead lodgepole, aspen seedlings, lodgepole pine seedlings, shrubs, grasses, and forbs would regenerate to pure lodgepole, lodgepole/aspen mix, or pure aspen stands. The natural process in beetle killed lodgepole pine stands would continue with additional trees deteriorating and falling to the ground to either decompose naturally or accumulate on the forest floor. Removal of overhead safety hazards in the form of deteriorating dead tree would not occur, and skier safety would not benefit. These stands would proceed through the successional pathway to climax spruce/fir communities. Existing spruce/fir stands would continue to exist as uneven-aged forest similar to those which exist at the current time.

183 Culver and Lemly, 2013

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 191 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species 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 likely occur, but these projects have already undergone site-specific analysis and approval under NEPA.

One of the occurrences of Rabbit Ears gilia that was located during field reconnaissance occurs at the top of the existing Pony Express chairlift and is within the current operational boundary of the ski area. Individual plants are likely experiencing some direct impacts through lift maintenance activities, vehicle parking, material storage, and minor construction activities. Although individual plants may be crushed, trampled, or smothered, these impacts are not of sufficient scale or magnitude to cause a loss of population viability within the Project Area. In addition, Rabbit Ears gilia appears to be tolerant of disturbance and hence would likely re-colonize any lightly to moderately disturbed habitats.

None of the other eleven plant species carried forward into the analysis are known to occur in the Project Area or the vicinity of the Steamboat. In addition, the project-specific field surveys conducted in 2016 did not locate any of these plants. The field surveys were completed by highly qualified botanists during the appropriate time of year and none of these plants were found in the Project Area. Therefore, these plants are presumed to be absent and there are no direct or indirect effects.

A determination of may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing (MAII) is warranted for Rabbit Ears gilia, Ipomopsis aggregata subsp. weberi, and no impact (NI) for the eleven other plant species carried forward into the analysis for the No Action Alternative. The rationale for the determinations for the No Action Alternative are listed below: • A determination of MAII is warranted for Rabbit Ears gilia because there are occurrences of this species within the Project Area, which are likely currently being impacted by ski area activities. Because the disturbances are relatively minor and Ipomopsis is a disturbance tolerant species, these impacts are not of sufficient magnitude or scale to cause a significant effect. • A determination of NI is warranted for the eleven other plant species carried forward into the analysis because field reconnaissance determined that these species are absent from areas that would be affected by proposed project activities.

Species of Local Concern There would be a continuation of existing management practices; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the three plant SOLC, which were all located in the Pioneer Ridge area, outside the existing operational boundary of SSRC.

Weeds – Noxious, Invasive, and Non-Native Plants There would be a continuation of existing management practices. There would be no new recreational facilities and no additional snowmaking coverage. Noxious weeds would continue to be managed under the existing Forest Service and SSRC agreements.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 192 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.7.3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Forest Health of Steamboat The impacts of the various projects, by cover type, are displayed in Table 3.7-5. Glading would preserve 60 to 70 percent of the existing basal area, on average. Therefore, a complete cover type conversion would not occur in gladed areas.

Table 3.7-5 indicates that a total of approximately 228.4 acres of disturbance would occur within the various vegetation cover types that compose the Project Area. Of the 228.4 acres, approximately 151.6 acres would occur as overstory vegetation removal and 76.8 acres would occur a ground-based vegetation removal. Approximately 6 acres of tree clearing, including 1.7 acres of grading, are proposed to occur within the Burgess Creek WIZ as a result of projects such as trail opening, road construction, and installation. For a complete discussion of impacts to the WIZ, refer to Section 3.11.

Table 3.7-5: Vegetation Cover Type Impacts Glading: Hazard Tree Removal: Vegetation Vegetation 40% Basal Area 20% Basal Area Grading Clearing and Total Cover Type Clearing Reduction Reduction (acres) Grading (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Grass/Forb 1.6 0.3 33.6 1.8 3.3 40.5 Mountain Shrub 0.2 0 2.0 0 <0.1 2.2 Aspen 65.9 0.1 5.3 13.7 13 98.0 Lodgepole Pine 13.7 0 6.6 17.3 6.5 44.1 Spruce/Fir 10.4 14.4 4.2 12.2 2.12 43.6 Grand Total 91.8 14.8 51.7 45.0 25.1 228.4 Source: Western Bionomics 2017a

Hazard tree removal areas in spruce/fir stands are located near the base of the proposed Pioneer chairlift, and again near the summit of Pioneer Ridge, where standing dead lodgepole pine (MPB mortality) and subalpine fir (fir root rot mortality) constitute the majority of trees targeted for removal. Similar to glading impacts, the remnant spruce/fir stand would not represent a cover type conversion. Hazard tree removal in spruce/fir, as well as in lodgepole pine, would improve skier safety in an area that is already utilized by skiers during the winter.

Hazard tree removal in lodgepole pine stands would essentially be clearcutting, as almost 100 percent of lodgepole pines were killed by MPB. Lodgepole pine and aspen would likely regenerate in these sites; however, unless barriers are placed surrounding these stands to prevent skier access, it is likely that skier damage would prevent trees from reaching maturity.

Clearcutting within aspen, spruce/fir, and lodgepole stands for ski trails, lifts, the Burgess Creek Bridge, summer access roads, and for communication and electrical line installations would convert forested habitats to grass/forblands or shrublands.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 193 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species The only Forest Service sensitive plant known to occur within the Project Area is Rabbit Ears gilia. As indicated by Table 3.7-2, approximately 5.4 acres of occupied habitat were identified within the Project Area. Of this habitat, 1.4 acres would be directly impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative. Approximately 1.0 acre would be permanently impacted, and 0.3 acre would be temporarily impacted (refer to Table 3.7-6). The 1.0 acre of permanent loss of occupied habitat includes 0.4 acre for the top terminal of the proposed Pioneer chairlift, 0.2 acre for the proposed road to the top of the proposed Pioneer chairlift, and 0.4 acre for the Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restrooms. Any existing plants in these areas would be destroyed by grading or buried under fill or other infrastructure and would be permanently lost.

Temporary impacts involve grading activities in locations that would later be reclaimed. It is anticipated that Rabbit Ears gilia plants would recolonize these areas following disturbance and reclamation. Thus, these impacts represent a temporary loss of occupied habitat. However, if aggressive weedy species or non-native grasses become established in these reclamation areas, a permanent loss of habitat would occur as the Rabbit Ears gilia plants appear to be poor competitors. The estimated temporary impacts include 0.3 acre for buried utilities and staging areas at the proposed Pioneer chairlift and less than 0.1 acre for a snowmaking line at the Pony Express chairlift.

Table 3.7-6 summarizes the permanent and temporary impacts to Rabbit Ears gilia occupied habitat that would occur.

Table 3.7-6: Summary of Direct Impacts to Rabbit Ears Gilia Occupied Habitat Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Project Name (acres) (acres) Pioneer Chairlift Pioneer Chairlift Top Terminal 0.4 Proposed Road 0.2 Electrical Line 0.2 Staging Areas <0.1 Subtotal Pioneer Chairlift 0.6 0.2 Pony Express Chairlift Patrol Hut and Restrooms 0.4 Snowmaking <0.1 Subtotal Pony Express Chairlift 0.4 <0.1 Grand Total 1.0 0.3 Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017a

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 194 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect effects to Rabbit Ears gilia could also occur as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. 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 and impacted individuals may die or show reduced growth and reproduction. Snow compaction from grooming activities may also affect these plants. However, several BMPs and PDC have been identified and would be implemented in order to avoid or lessen the magnitude of any potential indirect effects to this species. Generally, these include promptly revegetating disturbances, implementing appropriate erosion control features, and weed control (refer to Table 2-1 for a complete list of BMPs and PDC).

While multiple occurrences of Rabbit Ears gilia were found in the Project Area and throughout the Routt National Forest, occurrences are not equivalent to populations. It is unlikely that implementation of the proposed projects would eliminate this occurrence in its entirety, but rather just reduce the overall extent. Furthermore, there are likely numerous other, yet undocumented occurrences of this plant in the general vicinity.

The direct and indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative are expected to adversely affect occupied habitat of Rabbit Ears gilia within the Steamboat SUP area. When combined with other cumulative impacts across the Routt National Forest, there are potential viability concerns for Rabbit Ears gilia Forest-wide. However, with implementation of the following recommended conservation measure, a determination of may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing (MAII) is warranted. • The acreage of Rabbit Ears gilia directly impacted by the selected alternative will be replaced in kind within the Project Area. Replacement may include, but is not limited, to seeding and live planting of Rabbit Ears gilia into appropriate habitat elsewhere within the planning unit.

The effect determination of MAII for Rabbit Ears gilia and Forest Plan compliance are based upon this PDC being implemented.

A determination of no impact (NI) for the eleven other plant species carried forward into the analysis for the Proposed Action Alternative is warranted as these species do not occur within the Project Area. Table 3.7-7 summarizes the determinations for Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 195 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.7-7: Summary of Determinations for Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Species Alternative 1 – Alternative 2 – (Scientific Name, Common Name) No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative Astragalus leptaleus NI NI Park milkvetch Botrychium ascendens NI NI Upswept moonwort Botrychium paradoxum NI NI Paradox moonwort Cypripedium parviflorum NI NI Lesser yellow lady’s slipper Festuca hallii NI NI Plains rough fescue Ipomopsis aggregata subsp. weberi MAII MAII Rabbit Ears gilia Machaeranthera coloradoensis NI NI Colorado tansyaster Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda NI NI White adder’s-mouth orchid Rubus arcticus subsp. acaulis NI NI Dwarf raspberry Triteleia grandiflora NI NI Largeflower triteleia Utricularia minor NI NI Lesser bladderwort Viola selkirkii NI NI Selkirk’s violet Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017a Notes: NI = No Impact, MAII = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Species of Local Concern There would be no direct impacts to habitat occupied by the three SOLC: lady fern, broad-leaved twayblade and white-veined wintergreen. However, overstory vegetation removal associated with glading (40 percent tree removal) and ski trails (100 percent tree removal) has the potential to indirectly affect these species. The potential loss or reduction of forested overstory shading would increase the light intensity reaching the forest floor and cause negative impacts to shade loving species. Such impacts could include increased solar radiation that may burn plant tissues, change in the microclimate outside the environmental tolerances of the plant species, or increased sun exposure that may favor other plant species that would outcompete the SOLC. Snow compaction also has potential to indirectly affect these species. Indirect effects would be greatest in any trail that would be groomed daily and would not likely be of concern in gladed areas, which would remain ungroomed.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 196 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.7-8 summarizes the indirect impacts to SOLC that would occur.

Table 3.7-8: Summary of Indirect Impacts to SOLC under the Proposed Action Alternative Species Name (Scientific Name, Common Name) Acres of Disturbance and Proposed Project Athryium filix-femina, Lady fern Glading – 40% tree removal 1.2 Trail H – 100% tree removal <0.1 Subtotal 1.3 Listera convallarioides, Broad-leaved twayblade Trail H – 100% tree removal <0.1 Subtotal <0.1 Pyrola picta, White-veined wintergreen Glading – 40% tree removal <0.1 Subtotal <0.1 Grand Total 1.3 Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017a

Weeds – Noxious, Invasive, and Non-Native Plants The existing populations of noxious and invasive weeds could potentially spread into the uninfested Pioneer Ridge area and increase in abundance and density in the locations of other proposed projects. Due to reed canarygrass’ aggressive nature and difficulty in eradication, it may be more prudent to control its spread into uninfected areas by effectively cleaning construction and logging equipment. In addition, an “early detection – rapid response” approach to eradicate or suppress new populations of this plant may be necessary to prevent it from becoming established in the Pioneer Ridge area.

A high risk of noxious weed dispersal is expected for projects located in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider Learning Center areas, where weed abundance is high. Conversely, there is a moderate risk for projects located in the Pony Pod, where weed abundance is lower. Throughout the Project Area, 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.

Adherence to the BMPs and PDC included in Table 2-1 would lessen the threat of increased weed spread. As previously mentioned, a ROD for Invasive Plant Management for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland was signed by the Forest Supervisor. Therefore, PDC has been designed with the consideration of standards and guidelines included in the decision document to ensure that any additional herbicide use by SSRC is in compliance with the 2015 ROD.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 197 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.7.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.7.4.1 Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. The projects listed below are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on botanical resources and forest health of the Steamboat SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands. Cumulative effects are only evaluated for forest health as a whole, and for the species with direct or indirect impacts from the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative, namely the Rabbit Ears gilia.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for botany resources extends from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963, through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

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

3.7.4.2 Past, Present and Reasonable 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 botanical resources and forest health are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Ski Area Expansion 1996 EIS • Steamboat Summer Trails 2011 EA • Steamboat Proposed Improvements 2006 EA • Steamboat Ski Area Projects 2015 CE • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Springs 2015 CE • Steamboat Ski Area Beetle Mitigation Fuels Reduction Project 2007 and 2010 CEs Botanical Resources Cumulative effects to Rabbit Ears gilia would occur. As previously discussed, some minor adverse impacts to individual plants are likely occurring within the Steamboat SUP area as a result of ongoing ski area operations. In addition, past disturbances on the ski area were seeded with both non-native grass seed and non-local genetic native grass mixes, resulting in an overall loss of forb species that are critical to

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 198 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

pollinators. Although no non-native species appear to be currently threatening the Rabbit Ears gilia occurrences in the Project Area, it is feasible that the non-native species would spread, and may affect rare plant individuals, populations, and habitat in the future. Finally, other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects outside of the ski area have also cumulatively impacted this plant species. However, on lands managed by the MBRTB, conservation measures are generally implemented to reduce, mitigate, or completely avoid impacts to this taxon.

Cumulative effects for Proposed Action Alternative would generally be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative; however, the magnitude would be greater under the Proposed Action Alternative, as there is a direct loss of 1.0 acre of occupied Rabbit Ear’s gilia habitat. Combined with other individual losses throughout the Routt National Forest, and given that this species is geographically restricted, any negative impacts at the population level could potentially affect viability over the entire Forest Service Planning Area.184 However, Adherence to the BMPs and PDC included in Table 2-1 would lessen the cumulative effects to this taxon.

Forest Health Cumulatively, the Proposed Action Alternative would add to the cover type conversion of forests to grass/forbland or shrublands that has occurred within the Steamboat SUP area since its inception as a resort in 1963. These activities would also cumulatively add to the overall loss of forest cover that has occurred across the MBTRB as a result of the MPB epidemic.

When considered cumulatively with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within and adjacent to the Steamboat SUP area, the Proposed Action Alternative has the potential to increase the presence of noxious weeds and non-native invasive plants on the Forest. However, as stated in Section 3.7.3, adherence to the BMPs and PDC included in Table 2-1 would reduce the potential spread of these species and the Proposed Action Alternative is not anticipated to have a measurable cumulative effect on the increase in noxious weeds.

3.7.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The act of 100 percent clearing within forest stands for chairlifts, roads, ski trails, and hazard tree removal under the Proposed Action Alternative represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. Glading (up to 40 percent tree removal) would similarly represent an irretrievable commitment of resources. Additionally, ground disturbance related to the multi-season recreation projects would represent an irretrievable effect to botanical resources within the SUP area. Should ground disturbance occur to the point where potential habitat or Rabbit Ear’s gilia occupied habitat is removed entirely, an irreversible commitment of this resource could occur. However, all other activities are not considered an irreversible commitment because most botanical resources are a renewable resource.

184 Ladyman, 2004

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 199 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.8 FIRE AND FUELS 3.8.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The Project Area for this analysis includes Steamboat’s entire 3,738-acre Forest Service-administered SUP area as well as the 245 acres on private lands within Steamboat’s operational boundary. This analysis summarizes the Fuels/Fire Report prepared for the Steamboat Ski Area Environmental Impact Statement (Fire and Fuels Report) that is contained in the project file.185 Included in the Fire and Fuels Report are various models that simulate different scenarios of vegetation management that could occur under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative, which would have the potential to impact fuel loading and fire intensity in the Project Area. Estimates of the amount and arrangement of residuals from both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative; discussion of compliance with Fire and Fuels Standard 1 for Management Area 8.22 under each alternative; and an analysis of management activity fuels to determine if treatment would reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease, are the focus of this analysis.

Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) data and Landfire data, provided by the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District, were used in the preparation of this section and the supporting Fire and Fuels Report.186

3.8.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION The Forest Plan provides direction for the management of fire and fuels specific to Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts: Existing and Potential, which Steamboat is located in. The management of fire and fuels in Management Area 8.22 is guided by the following Fire and Fuels Standards: 1. To allow direct attack, treat management activity fuels to reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease. 2. Use direct control or perimeter control as the wildland fire management strategy in this management area. The direction provided by the Forest Plan will be used to guide the analysis, which will include an evaluation of compliance with Fire and Fuels Standard 1 for both the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative and an analysis of management activity fuels to determine if treatment would reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease.

3.8.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Historically, fire was the major disturbance agent affecting the landscape within and surrounding the Steamboat SUP area. Fire helped establish, maintain, and modify the historical vegetation of the area depending on the frequency, intensity, and patch-size of the fire event. Since the early 1900s, fire suppression and a lack of vegetation management addressing the historic range of natural variability have resulted in forest vegetative communities that are altered from their historic composition. Decades of fire exclusion has resulted in a change in species composition, higher fuel loadings, an increase in

185 Western Bionomics, 2017b 186 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 200 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ladder fuels, and a departure in the frequency and intensity of fires that are thought to have historically occurred.187

The WFDSS was utilized to model flame length and fuel models. Flame length is the distance measured from the average flame tip to the middle of the flaming zone at the base of the fire, and is an indicator of fire intensity (e.g., rate of spread, fuel, consumption, and heat yield); therefore, flame length can be used to infer the feasibility for direct attack, which is limited when flame length or fire intensity is too high.188

Direct attack is a method of suppression in which the fire perimeter of burning edge is treated by wetting, cooling, smothering, or chemically quenching the fire, or by mechanically separating the fire from unburned fuel.189 In summary, the results of flame length and fuel models were used to determine how feasible it would be to suppress a fire with a particular arrangement of fuels in the Project Area. Modeling flame length in WFDSS is based on a representative day, which in the case of this analysis was selected during the prime fire season for the Steamboat area on a day that most closely matches historic averages for fuel moisture and weather conditions.

The WFDSS model, which is located in the Fire and Fuels Report contained in the project file, revealed that under current conditions, the majority of the Project Area is modeled as having short flame lengths.190 While there are bands of medium to tall modeled flame lengths in portions of the Project Area, the WFDSS model indicates that in the event of a wildfire, fire intensity would not preclude the feasibility of direct attack.191 As such, Fire and Fuels Standard 1 is currently being met as potential fire intensity in the Project Area allows for direct attack.

3.8.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative None of the proposed activities would occur. Forest succession and existing levels of skier use would continue throughout the Project Area. Barring disturbances such as insects, disease, and wildfire, lodgepole pine stands that are currently composed of standing dead lodgepole, aspen seedlings, lodgepole pine seedlings, shrubs, grasses, and forbs would regenerate to pure lodgepole, lodgepole/aspen mix, or pure aspen stands. These stands would proceed through the successional pathway to climax spruce/fir communities. Existing spruce/fir stands would continue to exist as uneven- aged forest similar to those which exist at the current time. Modeled flame lengths would continue to exist in conditions similar to those currently forecasted in the Project Area.192 Residual fuels would not be added to the Project Area; therefore, the No Action Alternative would not preclude the feasibility of direct attack and would adhere to Fire and Fuels Standard 1. Additionally, there would be no necessary

187 Ibid. 188 WFDSS, 2017 189 Ibid. 190 Western Bionomics, 2017b 191 Ibid. 192 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 201 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

treatment of management activity fuels to reduce fire intensity levels, as there is no vegetation removal associated with the No Action Alternative.

3.8.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Vegetation removal would occur for trail and lift line clearing, glading, and hazard tree removal. Flame lengths were modeled for three different management scenarios that could occur, where removed vegetation is considered as residual fuel: 1) if treated residual fuels are left on site; 2) if residual fuels are left on site with the exception of Trail F and hazard tree areas where the fuels would be removed; and 3) if all residual fuels are removed. Models of the three management scenarios are available in Fire and Fuels Report contained in the project file.

The models revealed that if all cleared vegetation was lopped and scattered (i.e., left on site), the addition of residual fuels to the Project Area, in terms of amount and arrangement, would prevent Fire and Fuels Standard 1 from being met. Fire and Fuels Standard 1 would not be met because flame length, and corresponding fire intensity, would be too high for direct attack. Additionally, Landfire data was used to predict the treatment of management activity fuels. Landfire data indicated that either forms of treatment, lop and scatter or removal of vegetation in proposed gladed areas, would reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease. Conversely, Landfire data did indicate that lop and scatter of vegetation in Trail F, hazard tree areas, and lift lines would not reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease; therefore, vegetation would need to be removed in these areas to meet Fire and Fuels Standard 1.

The weather prescription for pile burning at Steamboat can be difficult to meet, reducing the likelihood that all residual fuels could be removed; however, as indicated by Landfire data, fuel load reduction and/or fuel manipulation would need to be utilized in hazard tree areas, Trail F, lift lines, and road corridors areas, where vegetation removal would occur to meet Fire and Fuels Standard 1. This would be accomplished through pile burning, tree removal, and/or mastication and is anticipated to reduce fire intensity levels within three years after management activities cease

The anticipated volume of pile burning that would occur is 60,800 cubic feet. As recommended in the PDC contained in Table 2-1, piles would be restricted to 20-foot-high piles, 20 feet wide by 12 feet in length. This would allow for more opportunities to burn and reduce possible smoke issues and would account for approximately 30 to 35 piles that could likely be burned by one to two people in one to two days. Pile burning and potential impacts to air quality are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.6.

If mastication is used, chips would need to be spread out to be less than 6 inches in depth on the forest floor. No piling of chips for burning would be allowed, per State of Colorado burning regulations which generally prohibit the burning of products derived from wood processing. This is recommended by the PDC contained in Table 2-1.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 202 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.8.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for fires and fuels extend from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963 through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis of fire and fuels are limited to NFS lands within the Steamboat SUP area, and adjacent private lands.

3.8.5.1 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 fire and fuels in the Project Area and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Ski Area Beetle Mitigation Fuels Reduction Project 2007and 2010 CEs • Steamboat Front Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project EA • Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Precommercial Thinning • Big Red Timber Management Analysis EA • Invasive Plant Management EIS for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Historic management of the Steamboat SUP area has primarily emphasized fire exclusion, and has resulted in a change in species composition, higher fuel loadings, an increase in ladder fuels, and a departure in the frequency and intensity of fires that are thought to have historically occurred in the area. Past projects implemented in recent years, like the Steamboat Ski Area Beetle Mitigation Fuels Reduction Project 2007 and 2010 CEs and the Steamboat Front Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project EA, have taken a direct approach addressing the increased fuel loadings that have resulted from historical management of the Steamboat SUP area and surrounding NFS lands. Other projects like the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Precommercial Thinning, Big Red Timber Management Analysis EA, and the Invasive Plant Management EIS for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland have indirectly addressed fire and fuels in the Project Area through the treatments prescribed for vegetation removal in and around the Steamboat SUP area.

Future actions on the ski area with potential to impact fire and fuels would meet the Forest Plan standards for fire and fuels and follow similar criteria to the current PDC provided in Table 2-1 in order to

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 203 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

be compliant with the Forest Plan, state laws, and other governing bodies that overlap the Project Area. Therefore, it is anticipated that future actions associated with projects unimplemented and not included in this FEIS from the Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA would result in minimal cumulative effects within the Project Area.

3.8.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The act of clearing, piling, and burning trees that would occur under the Proposed Action Alternative in order to adhere to Fire and Fuels Standard 1 represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. This is not considered an irreversible commitment because timber is a renewable resource.

3.9 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 3.9.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This wildlife and fisheries analysis is tiered to the Forest Plan and to the 2008 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment.193 Species analyzed include federally threatened, endangered, and proposed species, Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species, migratory birds, and SOLC. A Biological Assessment (BA) and a Biological Evaluation (BE) have been prepared and are included in the project file.194 These documents are incorporated by reference and summarized herein. The spatial extent of the wildlife analysis encompasses Steamboat SUP boundary but varies in scope depending on the individual life history and range of individual species.

3.9.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION There are numerous Forest Plan standards and guidelines that are relevant to the project. A Forest Plan Consistency Analysis, which includes a complete listing and analysis of all Forest Plan standards and guidelines, is included in Appendix B and considers the alternatives in the context of the applicability and relevance of each standard/guideline.

3.9.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.9.3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Federally threatened and endangered species that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in the Steamboat SUP area were retrieved from the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) website. Species included in the IPaC Trust Resources Report are shown in Table 3.9-1.195 A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, evaluate habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance was needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included Forest Service records and files, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program database, CPW information, and published research. Informal consultation under Section 7 of ESA was completed with USFWS on October 25, 2017.

193 USDA Forest Service, 1998 and 2008 194 Western Bionomics, 2017c,d 195 USFWS, 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 204 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the Project Area, or for which no suitable habitat is present or affected by proposed activities. Table 3.9-1 documents the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, additional survey is required, unless presence is assumed, and potential effects evaluated.

The landscape within and surrounding the Project Area was surveyed for the existence of habitat for federally listed wildlife species during site visits conducted during the summer of 2016.

Table 3.9-1: Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Wildlife Species Species Typical Suitable Rational, if not carried Statusa (Scientific Name, Common Name) Habitatb Habitat? forward for analysis Mammals Lynx canadensis A, C, D, E, T Yes Carried forward Canada lynx G Gulo gulo luscus There is currently no wolverine P O No North American wolverine population in the State of Colorado Birds Coccyzus americanus T C No No cottonwood/riparian habitat Yellow-billed cuckoo Fish Ptychochelius lucius E J Yes Colorado pikeminnow Xyrauchen texanus E J Yes Razorback sucker Gila cypha E J Yes Carried forward Humpback chub Gila elegans E J Yes Bonytail chub Oncorhynchus clarki stomias T E Yes Greenback cutthroat trout Source: Information for Planning and Conservation. Steamboat Recreation Improvements Projects, Trust Resources Report. Generated December 2, 2016. Included in the project file. Notes: a Status: T=Threatened; E=Endangered; P=Proposed b Habitat Key: A=Aspen; B=Cliff/Rock/Scree; C=Cottonwood/Riparian; D=Conifer Forest; E=Headwaters/Willow Riparian; F=Lakes/Rivers; G=Marsh/Wetlands/Beaver Complexes/Fens; H=Rangelands/Sage; I=Creek w/Limestone drips; J=Colorado River; Green River, Lower Yampa & White Rivers; K=Above timberline; L=Mountain parks; M=Piñon Juniper; N=Soils derived from Pierre, Niobrara, and Troublesome formations; O=High elevations with deep, persistent, and reliable spring snow cover.

Yellow-billed cuckoo and North American wolverine were dropped from detailed analysis because their current distribution does not include the analysis area, and habitat required during their life history is not found within the Project Area. The effects of the proposed projects on Canada lynx, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and greenback cutthroat trout are analyzed in detail.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 205 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish The Upper Colorado River Basin is home to fourteen native fish species, including the endangered humpback chub, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. These endangered fish are found only in the Colorado River system.

The USFWS has determined that water depletions are among the current activities with the greatest impact on all four of these endangered fish. Activities resulting in water depletion in the Yampa River Basin may jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish. The proposed projects are expected to increase consumptive water use at Steamboat and create additional depletions to the Yampa River basin. Therefore, the impacts of the project on the four big river fish are carried forward for analysis. Life history information for these four endangered fish is included in the BA in the project file.

Activities resulting in water depletion in the Yampa River Basin may jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish. Therefore, analysis of the proposed projects’ impact on the Yampa River basin is appropriate.

The information presented in Table 3.9-2 summarizes current water use at Steamboat.

Table 3.9-2: Summary of Yampa River Depletions at Steamboat – Existing Conditions (acre-feet) Description Diversions Depletions Return Flows Snowmaking 313.1 71.9 241.2 Restaurants 10.7 0.5 10.1 Revegetation Projects 5.3 3.7 1.6 Total 329.1 76.1 252.9 Source: Western Bionomics 2017d

Steamboat’s total depletions from the Yampa River at the current time equal 76.1 acre-feet, which is less than the 91.7 acre-feet that was approved by USFWS in 2006 (Consultation # ES/GJ-6-CO-04-F-012- YP013).

Greenback Cutthroat Trout Until recently resource managers were under the assumption that CRCT were the only native trout subspecies present in the upper parts of the Colorado River watershed including the Yampa River. New genetic analyses have revealed genetic differentiation among native cutthroat trout populations on the Western Slope.196 What is known is that a genetic signature associated with greenback cutthroat trout has been observed in a number of cutthroat trout collected on Colorado’s western slope.197 Populations having this genetic signature are sometimes called greenback-lineage or GB-lineage cutthroat trout. Cutthroat trout populations lacking the greenback genetic signature are called Colorado River-lineage or CR-lineage cutthroat trout.

196 Metcalf et al., 2007 197 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 206 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

These fish are endemic to cold water streams and lakes with adequate spawning habitat (riffles), often with shading cover; young shelter in shallow backwaters. They are known from 15 counties west of the Continental Divide in Colorado; however, there are no GB-lineage cutthroat populations known to exist in the Yampa River drainage.198

Canada Lynx The SUP area is located within the Mount Werner Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), which is approximately 54,865 acres in size.199 The SUP area occupies about 3,738 acres, or 6.8 percent of the LAU. Approximately 2 percent of this LAU has been mapped as unsuitable for Canada lynx.

Steamboat is unique among Colorado ski resorts, in that the upper limits of the ski area are below timberline. In many of Colorado’s mountain ranges, lynx habitat is present as a narrow band of forested habitat bounded by agricultural hay meadows and residential development in the valley bottoms and by alpine ecosystems (which lynx avoid during winter) above timberline. The summit of Mount Werner is below timberline, and as a consequence, suitable travel, denning, and forage habitat surrounds Steamboat. As a result, the SUP area does not present the impediment to lynx travels that is present in many Colorado ski areas. Lynx desiring to avoid the SUP area are able to simply shift their movements eastward to avoid the ski area.

Across the managed portion of the SUP area, effective lynx habitat has been fragmented by ski trail development; however, suitable forested areas remain between ski trails that may be used by a lynx while traveling. The majority of forest stands within the managed portion of the SUP Boundary are skied throughout the winter. As a result of the disturbance by skiers, most stands are not likely to provide habitat suitable to meet life requisites for lynx or hares.

Lynx habitat is present within the majority of the Pioneer Ridge area, as well as in forested portions of the Bashor and Rough Rider areas. However, MPB mortality is high in lodgepole forests in all of these areas. As a result, lodgepole forests that were historically considered as lynx habitat are currently unsuitable for lynx, as they no longer provide cover hare, pine squirrel, or other lynx prey; nor do they provide cover for traveling lynx.

3.9.3.2 Region 2 Sensitive Species Based on documented habitat affinities, the species listed in bold in Table 3.9-3 were determined to have potential habitat in the Project Area. Sensitive species for which there is no habitat in the Project Area were eliminated from further analysis. The sensitive species analysis is included in the project BE, contained in the project file.

198 Henderson, 2016; Rogers, 2010 199 Lynx Analysis Units approximate the size of an area used by an individual lynx and are the scale at which the effects of management activities are evaluated for lynx.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 207 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-3: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species for the Routt National Foresta Species Occurrence Detailed Rationale for (Scientific Name, Common Habitat Association on Forest? Analysis? Exclusion Name) Mammals

Semidesert shrublands, pinyon-juniper, Corynorhinus townsendii open montane forests; caves and No No No habitat present. Townsend’s big-eared bat abandoned mine roosts.

Montane forests, pinyon-juniper open Euderma maculatum semidesert shrublands; rocky cliffs for No No No habitat present. Spotted bat roosts.

There is currently no Gulo gulo High elevations with deep, persistent, wolverine population No No North American wolverine and reliable spring snow cover. in the State of Colorado.

Solitary tree roosting bat using mixed Lasiurus cinereus conifer, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Yes Yes Carried forward. Hoary bat pinyon-juniper, cottonwood, and willow.

Riparian habitats that traverse a variety Lontra canadensis of other habitats. Mainly larger river Yes No No habitat present. River otter systems. Mesic, dense coniferous forests with complex physical structure. During Martes Americana winter, prefer mature conifer. Stand Yes Yes Carried forward. American marten structure may be more important than species composition. Low elevation saxicoline brush and Douglass fir on eastern slope; elsewhere Myotis thysanodes in Colorado inhabits juniper and No No No habitat present. Fringed myotis ponderosa pine, oakbrush, shrublands; caves, mines, building roosts. Rocky, steep, or rugged terrain for Ovis canadensis escape cover with open grass-dominated canadensis habitats nearby for foraging. Summer Yes No No habitat present. Rocky Mountain range at high elevation and winter range bighorn sheep in valley bottoms or where snow depth is minimal. All captures in the southern Rockies have been upper montane/subalpine, in wet, spruce or spruce/fir or lodgepole pine Sorex hoyi with coarse woody debris, dense stream Yes Yes Carried forward. Pygmy shrew networks, bogs, marshes, and other wetlands. All captures in Colorado above 9,600’ elevation.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 208 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-3: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species for the Routt National Foresta Species Occurrence Detailed Rationale for (Scientific Name, Common Habitat Association on Forest? Analysis? Exclusion Name) Birds

Accipiter gentilis Open forests, mainly mixed conifer and Yes Yes Carried forward. Northern goshawk aspen, above 7,500’ elevation.

Mature spruce-fir or spruce-fir-lodgepole Aegolius funereus pine interspersed with meadows. Widely Yes Yes Carried forward. Boreal owl distributed in Colorado between 9200’ and 10,400’ elevation.

Artemisiospiza nevadensis Sagebrush shrublands. No No No habitat present. Sagebrush sparrow

Centrocercus urophasianus Large sagebrush shrublands. No No No habitat present. Greater sage-grouse

No suitable habitat Circus cyaneus Marshes, wetlands, grasslands, alpine No No other than during Northern harrier tundra during fall migration. migration.

Contopus borealis Breeds in mature spruce-fir and Douglas Yes Yes Carried forward. Olive-sided flycatcher fir, especially on steep slopes.

Nests behind waterfalls; forage at high Cypseloides niger elevations over montane and lowland Yes No No habitat present. Black swift habitats.

Falco peregrinus anatum Nest on cliffs, forage over forests and Yes No No habitat present. American peregrine falcon shrublands.

In Central Colorado, primarily uses low elevation riparian habitat along the Haliaeetus leucocephalus Colorado, Eagle, and White River No nest habitat Yes No Bald Eagle drainages and their major tributaries. present. Roosts and nests in trees near open water.

Outside of CPW Lagopus leucurus Alpine tundra, high-elevation willow mapped range. No Yes No White-tailed ptarmigan thickets, krummholz, spruce-fir (winter). alpine willow habitat in Project Area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 209 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-3: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species for the Routt National Foresta Species Occurrence Detailed Rationale for (Scientific Name, Common Habitat Association on Forest? Analysis? Exclusion Name)

Open riparian areas with scattered nest trees, grasslands, open shrublands Lanius ludovicianus (especially semidesert shrublands), and Yes No No habitat present. Loggerhead shrike sometimes pinyon-juniper. Below 9,000’ elevation.

Melanerpes lewis Lowland and foothill riparian forests, No lowland or foothill No No Lewis’ woodpecker mature cottonwood groves. riparian forest.

Fire-regulated boreal and montane Picoides arcticus coniferous forests. Southernmost Outside limits of No No Black-backed woodpecker distribution in Rocky Mountains is known range. northwest Wyoming.

Progne subis Breeds in mature aspen near water and Yes Yes Carried forward. Purple martin parks.

Aspen, aspen-mixed conifer, pinyon- Psiloscops flammeolus juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine; to Yes Yes Carried forward. Flammulated owl 10,000’ elevation. No sagebrush Sagebrush shrublands, mountain parks; Spizella breweri shrublands, mountain may be found in alpine willow stands. Yes No Brewer’s sparrow parks, alpine willow Not known from Routt County. stands. No sagebrush, Tympanachus phasianellus Mid elevation mountain mountain shrub, or columbianus sagebrush/grassland habitat usually Yes No grassland habitat. Columbian sharp-tailed adjacent to forested areas. South of geographic grouse range. Amphibians

Subalpine forest habitats with marshes, Anaxyrus boreas boreas wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds, Yes Yes Carried forward. Boreal toad and lakes.

Lithobates pipiens Wet meadows, marshes, ponds, beaver No suitable habitat Yes No Northern leopard frog ponds, streams. present.

Colorado breeding ponds usually less No populations in Lithobates sylvatica than 0.6 acre, less than 1 meter deep, No No Project Area; outside Wood frog fish-free, with emergent vegetation. known range

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 210 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-3: Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species for the Routt National Foresta Species Occurrence Detailed Rationale for (Scientific Name, Common Habitat Association on Forest? Analysis? Exclusion Name) Fish Throughout west on both sides of Catostomus Continental Divide, clear cold creeks and platyrhynchus Yes Yes Carried forward. small to medium rivers with rubble, Mountain sucker gravel, or sand substrate. Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Headwater streams and lakes. Yes Yes Carried forward. Colorado River cutthroat trout Insects Impacts to montane High elevation areas, most frequently in Suspected and subalpine habitat Bombus occidentalis montane and subalpine meadows with but No insignificant in Western bumblebee abundant and diverse wild flower unconfirmed comparison with populations. available habitat. Forests, woodlands, shrublands, Danaus plexippus Suspected grasslands, cropland, and urban areas. No milkweed in plexippus but No Dependent on milkweed, the larval host Project Area. Monarch butterfly unconfirmed plant.

Somatochlora hudsonica Outside known range Boggy ponds. No No Hudsonian emerald for this species.

Molluscs Boulder and cobble substrates in shallow Acroloxus coloradensis water of high elevation lakes in the Rocky Mountain capshell Rocky Mountains; requires high Yes No No habitat present. snail concentrations of bound carbonates, dissolved oxygen and alkaline pH. Source: Western Bionomics 2017d Notes: a Regional Foresters List of Sensitive Species, July 13, 2017 (FSM 2600-2017-1).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 211 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.9.3.3 Raptors The term “raptor” is a generic term referring to birds of prey that have sharp talons and a strong curved beak, both of which are used to prey upon a variety of animals for food. Raptors include eagles, osprey, kites, true hawks, buteos, harriers, vultures, falcons, and owls. Of these raptors, habitat exists in the Project Area for the following birds: northern goshawk, Coopers hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, flammulated owl, great horned owl, northern pygmy owl, long-eared owl, boreal owl, and northern saw-whet owl.

Raptors that have been observed within the Project Area include red-tailed hawk, Coopers hawk, northern goshawk, and boreal owl.200 Of these, red-tailed hawk and Coopers hawk have been documented to have historically nested within the Project Area.201 There are currently two known stick nests in existence within the Pioneer Ridge area that have been historically used by nesting raptors. Both of these nests were unoccupied in 2017 (refer to Figure 3.9-1).202 Additional surveys for nesting raptors were conducted in 2017; no new nests, active or inactive, were located during these surveys.

3.9.3.4 Migratory Birds In 2008 the Forest Service Chief signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (#08-MU-1113-2400- 264) with the USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds.203 This MOU was pursuant to EO 131866, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.204 The EO 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.

No bird nests were detected in the Project Area during field surveys, although suitable nesting habitat is present for some of the birds on the USFWS list for the Southern Rockies/. Table 3.9-4 summarizes birds of conservation concern for Bird Conservation Region 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau) and lists potential occurrence in the Project Area.

200 USDA Forest Service, 2016b 201 USDA Forest Service, 2016c 202 Western Bionomics, 2017d 203 USDA Forest Service and USFWS, 2008 204 66 Federal Register 3853

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 212 Priest Creek Lift Sundown Express

Patrol Hut & Restroom !

Bar UE

Four Points

Pony Express Storm Peak Express Elk Head

Pioneer Chairlift

The Crux Burgess Creek

Burgess Creek Bridge !

Thunderhead Express

Gondola

Rough Rider

Bashor Relocation !

Bashor Gondola

Steamboat Ski Resort VooDoo

Bashor Children's Christie Peak Express Environmental Impact Statement Facility & Restaurant Figure 3.9-1: Proposed Action Alternative Raptor Nest Areas

Existing Proposed [ Lifts Lifts

Christie lll Roads Lift Upgrades Preview

SUP Boundary Lift Removal

Wildlife Habitat Alternative 2 Projects Raptor Nest Area (1/8 mile ! buffer) Operational Boundary Steamboat Ski Resort Date: May 2018 0 375 750 1,500 ' Prepared By: Base Area Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-4: USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern Species Occurrence Occurrence in Scientific Name, Habitat Association on MBR Project Area? Common Name Centrocercus minimus, Sagebrush, No No Gunnison sage-grouse Botaurus lentiginosus, Large wetlands with dense No No American bittern emergent vegetation

Foraging likely, nesting on Forest only one site in North Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Cottonwood/conifer nests adjacent Park near State line. Nesting – No Bald eagle to large rivers and lakes Numerous nests on Foraging – Likely private lands adjacent to the Forest.

Buteo regalis, Yes, but only during Prairie grasslands and shrub-steppe Yes, migration only Ferruginous hawk migration Yes, portions of MBR Aquila chrysaetos, Cliff or tree nests. Forage over may be part of large Yes, foraging only Golden eagle grasslands, sagebrush, alpine. hunting range. Cliff nests. Hunt predominately Falco peregrinus anatum, Yes; closest eyrie 14 No, too far from over pinyon/juniper, ponderosa, Peregrine falcon miles closest occurrence spruce/fir Falco mexicanus, Cliff nests. Hunt over grasslands, No No Prairie falcon woodlands, shrublands.

Charadrius nivosus, Reservoir shorelines No No Snowy plover

Charadrius montanus, Prairie grasslands No No Mountain plover Numenius americanus, Shortgrass prairies No No Long-billed curlew Coccyzus americanus occidentalis, Deciduous Riparian No No Yellow-billed cuckoo Aspen-mixed conifer forests, aspen Psiloscops flammeolus, Scattered records forest, P-J woodlands, ponderosa Likely Flammulated owl across MBR pine; to 10,000’ elevation Athene cunicularia, Plains/grasslands No No Burrowing owl

Melanerpes lewis, Mid-elevation riparian cottonwood No No Lewis’s woodpecker

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 214 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-4: USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern Species Occurrence Occurrence in Scientific Name, Habitat Association on MBR Project Area? Common Name Empidonax traillii, Middle and high elevation willow Likely Likely Willow flycatcher and alder carrs Vireo vicinior, Open P/J woodlands No No Gray vireo

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus, P/J woodlands No No Pinyon jay

Baeolophus ridgwayi, P/J woodlands No No Juniper titmouse Catharus fuscescens, Riparian thickets, deciduous No Likely Veery woodland

Toxostoma bendirei, Rare spp of arid areas No No Bendire’s thrasher

Setophaga graciae, Ponderosa pine/scrub oak No No Grace’s warbler Spizella breweri, Sagebrush shrublands, mountain No No Brewer’s sparrow parks.

Ammodramus savannarum, Prairie grasslands No No Grasshopper sparrow

Calcarius ornatus, Prairie grasslands No No Chestnut-collared longspur Leucosticte atrata, Alpine cliffs Unknown No Black rosy-finch

Eucosticte australis, Alpine cliffs, talus, mines, caves, Unknown Yes Brown-capped rosy-finch bldgs

Haemorhous cassinii, Conifers Yes Yes Cassin’s finch Source: Kingery 1998; Western Bionomics 2017d

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 215 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.9.3.5 Species of Local Concern The Forest Service selected American elk and moose as a species that warrants individual analysis for this project due to public concern.

Elk CPW estimates elk herd populations and sets management objectives at the scale of “Data Analysis Units” (DAUs). The Steamboat SUP area is located within DAU E-2 (Bears Ears Herd), which encompasses portions of Moffat and Routt counties and is bounded on the north by the state line, the west by the Little Snake River, the south by the Yampa River, Colorado Highway 318, and U.S. Highway 40, and on the east by the Continental Divide.205 The Bears Ears herd population increased steadily from 1975, when CPW (then Colorado Division of Wildlife [CDOW]) estimated approximately 10,000 animals, through 1999, at which point it peaked at approximately 37,000 animals. By 2008, the population was estimated at 32,000 animals. The most current post-hunt population data estimates the population within E-2 at 22,910, with a ratio of 18 bulls/100 cows.206 The population objective is 15,000 to 18,000 animals, thus the DAU is slightly above the population objective. The sex ratio objective is 20 to 25 bulls/100 cows. The cow-to-calf ratio has remained stable at 55 calves/100 cows since 1975.207

Evidence of elk utilization is apparent throughout the Pioneer Ridge area. The entire Project Area is mapped by CPW as elk summer range. The lower portions of the Pioneer Ridge area provide winter range, while the entire Bashor area is within CPW-mapped winter range and overlaps severe winter range. During the early portion of the ski season, generally between Thanksgiving and Christmas, elk tracks are readily apparent along the lower mountain, below Christie Peak. During the early winter and the early spring portion of the ski area’s winter operating period, elk are commonly observed on the south-facing slopes of the Burgess Creek drainage immediately below the Pioneer Ridge area.

While there are no portions of the Project Area mapped as elk production range, it is likely that some elk utilize the Pioneer Ridge area during parturition, depending on snow conditions. In general, elk calve at the point where climatic factors have made an area accessible at the time of parturition, typically mid- May to mid-June. This, in turn, is related directly to the receding snowline and plant phenology.

While there is little evidence of annually repeated use of calving areas by specific cows beyond the normal happenstance of a herd being at about the same locality during migration in successive years.208 There are exceptions that suggest habitual use of calving areas by certain elk cows.209 In fact, cow elk normally calve on transitional spring ranges at about the same locations, but in years of abnormal weather conditions, they may calve above or below this range. It is, therefore, likely that in springs that follow winters with heavy snowfall, elk calve lower. During springs following winters with light snow, they likely calve higher.

205 CDOW, 2008 206 CPW, 2015a 207 CDOW, 2008 208 Skovlin, 2002 209 Zahn, 1974, in Skovlin, 2002

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 216 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Typical calving habitat includes hiding cover that is within easy reach of each cow if she does not actually calve within that cover type. Sagebrush is generally preferred calving habitat, where available. Most calving occurs in the vicinity of the edge between rather open foraging areas and adjacent forest escape cover. Free water is important, and calving areas are usually located within 1,300 feet of a water source. Calving areas are often located on gentle slopes (20 to 30 percent) with southerly exposures that offer ground cover concealment in the form of broken terrain, shrubs or down logs, and other coarse debris.

Private land development related to growing human populations in Routt County takes place to a great extent in transitional and wintering areas used by elk. Since much of the Bears Ears DAU is interspersed with large tracts of private land, management of elk winter and transition range is a challenge.210 The fat deposited during the 4- to 6-week period that elk are utilizing fall transition range is important to winter survival. Fall transition range is, therefore, also important habitat for the Bears Ears herd.

In general, winter range may be the most limiting habitat factor for the Bears Ears herd, especially during winters with deep snow. In the vicinity of the Steamboat, wintering grounds extend roughly along the Gambel oak/mountain shrub zone from Harrison Creek to Copper Ridge, and thence up the Elk River Valley. Previous aerial surveys conducted by Western Bionomics in the vicinity of the Steamboat have revealed up to 300 elk wintering along the “Steamboat Front” area between the ski area and Harrison Creek.211

Moose Historical records dating back to the 1850s indicate that moose occasionally wandered into northern Colorado from Wyoming but were transient and never established a stable breeding population. In 1978 Colorado wildlife managers arranged for the first transplant of 12 moose to North Park near Walden. These initial moose came from Utah, and, in 1979 another dozen from Wyoming were released in the same region, in the Illinois River drainage. This early population reproduced quickly, and some began to move into the Laramie River Valley. In 1987 a transplant of 12 moose from Wyoming helped establish a strong population in that valley as well.

Before long, North Park’s moose population was doing so well that some were moved to the upper Rio Grande drainage. Between 1991 and 1992 about 100 moose from Wyoming, Utah, and North Park were released in southern Colorado near Creede.

Since the transplants, moose have thrived and expanded their range into suitable habitat. Colorado’s moose population is currently estimated at 2,550 animals statewide.

Moose prefer habitat near lakes, rivers or wetlands, where they feed on young plants including shrubs, aquatic plants, grasses, mosses, willow, and aspen. The moose in Colorado and throughout the Rocky Mountains in the United States belong to the Shiras subspecies, which are smaller than the Gigas and Andersoni subspecies found in Alaska and Canada.

210 CDOW, 2008 211 Western Bionomics, 2017d

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 217 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Similar to other game animals, CPW estimates moose herd populations and sets management objectives at the scale of DAUs. The Steamboat SUP area is located within DAU M-3 (the “Gore Moose” unit).212 This DAU encompasses Game Management Units 14 and 15 in Routt County, all of Grand and Summit Counties, and a portion of Eagle County.213 The extensive area within this DAU does not lend itself to management in the context of the current much expanded moose population in Northwest Colorado. There are now twelve distinct moose populations in the state and soon each will have its own DAU designation.214 The 2014 post-hunt population estimate for DAU M-3 is 370.215

Evidence of moose utilization is apparent throughout the Pioneer Ridge area, and several moose (bulls, cows, & calves) were observed during field surveys. The entire ski area is located within a large area mapped by CPW as moose summer range. The lower portions of the Pioneer Ridge area provide winter range, while the entire Bashor area is within CPW-mapped winter range. During the early spring portion of the ski area’s winter operating period, moose are commonly observed on the south-facing slopes of the Burgess Creek drainage immediately below the Pioneer Ridge area. In the past few years, moose have begun to regularly wander onto ski trails during the winter operating period, creating safety concerns for the recreating public.

CPW, in collaboration with the Forest Service and Steamboat, is in the early stages of preparing a plan to manage moose in the vicinity of Steamboat.

3.9.3.6 Management Indicator Species The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1600) directs the Forest Service to select certain plant communities and/or vertebrate or invertebrate species to monitor as indicators of maintenance, improvement, or decline in habitat for numerous species. The Routt National Forest list of MIS is included in Table 3.9-5.

The Code of Federal Regulations, at 36 CFR § 219.19(a)(6), states, “population trends of the management indicator species (MIS) will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined.” MIS are monitored in collaboration with implementation of the Forest Plan. The current MBR MIS list is included in Table 3.9-5.216 The species were selected based on major management issues including: 1) spruce-fir timber management; 2) lodgepole pine timber management; 3) rangeland residual forage; and 4) herbivory in riparian areas.

212 CDOW, 1995 213 CPW, 2016 214 Yost, 2016 215 CPW, 2015b 216 USDA Forest Service, 2007a

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 218 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-5: List of Routt National Forest MIS and Rationale for Excluding from Further Analysis Species Habitat Anticipated Anticipated Species Addressed Present in Present in Habitat Effects to (Scientific Name, Management Issue in other Project Project Changes Under MIS Under Common Name) Analyses? Area? Area? Alternatives? Alternatives? Regulus satrapa, Spruce-fir timber Golden-crowned No Yes Yes Yes No management kinglet Accipiter gentilis, Lodgepole timber Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, BE Northern goshawk management Pooecetes Rangeland residual gramineus, No No No No No forage Vesper sparrow Wilsonia pusilla, Herbivory in Unk Yes No No No Wilson’s warbler riparian areas Aquatic habitat Oncorhynchus clarkii fragmentation; pleuriticus, Sedimentation of Yes Yes No No Yes, BE Colorado River riparian areas & cutthroat trout aquatic habitats Aquatic habitat fragmentation; Salvelinus fontinalis, Sedimentation of Noa Yes No No No Brook trout riparian areas & aquatic habitats Source: Western Bionomics 2017d Notes: a Native CRCT were recently found in Burgess Creek within the SUP area. To improve habitat for CRCT, the Forest Service has been removing brook trout from reaches inhabited by CRCT.

There is no habitat in the Project Area for vesper sparrow, so this species will not be analyzed for this project. Habitat does exist for golden-crowned kinglet, northern goshawk, Wilson’s warbler, CRCT, and brook trout. Mixed conifer stands that provide habitat for golden-crowned kinglet exist in the Project Area. Northern goshawks have been observed in the Project Area in the past. CRCT are known to exist in Burgess Creek. While brook trout do exist in Burgess Creek, the Forest Service is currently trying to eradicate these non-native trout, in order to improve habitat for native CRCT. Consequently, brook trout will not be evaluated further. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the potential exists for impacts to golden-crowned kinglet, northern goshawk, Wilson’s warbler, and CRCT, thus these species will be carried forward in the analysis.

3.9.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Over the short term (less than twenty years), vegetation within the Project Area would remain much the same as described in Affected Environment and would continue to provide habitat for species that are present. Disturbance to these species would remain at current levels. Implementation of the No Action

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 219 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative would have no impact on threatened, endangered, Region 2 sensitive species, migratory birds, elk, moose or MIS.

3.9.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Threatened and Endangered Species

Upper Colorado Endangered Fish The USFWS has determined that water depletions are among the current activities with the greatest impact on all four of the Big River endangered fish (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub). The actions proposed under this alternative with potential to increase water depletions within the Yampa River Watershed include construction of the Bashor Restaurant and installation of additional snowmaking infrastructure. None of the other components of the Proposed Action Alternative have the potential to impact these Big River Fish. Existing consumptive use of water that results in depletions to the Yampa River were documented in the Affected Environment.

The Steamboat Recreation Improvements Projects would add 8.6 acre-feet to the total depletions from the Yampa River Watershed for snowmaking, restaurants, and revegetation (Table 3.9-6). The grand total for SSRC depletions would rise to 84.7 acre-feet.

Table 3.9-6: Depletions to the Yampa River Watershed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Source Annual Water Depletiona Total SSRC Water Depletionsa New Depletions (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Snowmaking Depletionsa,b 71.9 8.4 76.8 Restaurant Depletionsa,d 0.5 0.2 0.6 Revegetation Depletionsa,c 3.7 0 3.7 Grand Total Depletions 76.1 8.6 84.7 a Resource Engineering 2017a b Assumes 23% is lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses. The remaining 77% returns to the Yampa River as snowmelt during the ensuing spring and summer months. Colorado Ski Country USA Consumptive Use Model allows for consumptive percentages to range from 18 to 26% depending on site-specific climate data. c Assumes 70% irrigation efficiency. d Wastewater generated at SSRC restaurants is treated by Mount Werner Water & Sanitation District. The consumptive use associated with municipal wastewater treatment plants is 5% (Colorado Division of Water Resources, Policy 2003-2; cited in Resource Engineering, 2017a).

SSRC’s total depletions would be less than the 91.7 acre-feet that was approved by USFWS in 2006 (Consultation # ES/GJ-6-CO-04-F-012-YP013).

The Proposed Action Alternative would result in visitation growth, and thus additional consumptive water use in existing facilities through the year 2026. The new Bashor Restaurant would also contribute to increased consumptive water use, as would additional proposed snowmaking. Water used to irrigate revegetation areas would remain the same as that described in the Affected Environment. The total increased water usage would result in an increased depletion of water within the Yampa River watershed. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative would adversely affect the four Big River

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 220 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

endangered fish (Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub). On January 10, 2005, the Service issued the final programmatic biological opinion on the Management Plan for Endangered Fishes in the Yampa River Basin (Yampa River PBO). The USFWS has determined that projects that fit under the umbrella of the Yampa River PBO would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for depletion impacts to the Yampa River basin. For projects involving water depletions less than 100 acre-feet/year to fit under the umbrella of the Yampa 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. Therefore, the requirements have been met to fit under the umbrella of the Yampa River PBO.

Greenback Cutthroat Trout The Proposed Action Alternative includes PDC to disconnect existing connected disturbed areas and provides a range of PDC to be implemented for projects within the watershed influence zone, including the requirement to prepare a grading plan and erosion control plan prior to project implementation. There are currently no GB-lineage cutthroats in the Burgess Creek drainage; nor are they known from anywhere in the Yampa River watershed. However, Burgess Creek may provide suitable habitat for these GB-lineage fish. With the PDC, the proposed projects would not affect trout habitat in Burgess Creek.

The results of the hydrology analysis, in combination with the fact that GB-lineage trout are absent from the Yampa River drainage, leads to a finding that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on greenback cutthroat trout.

Canada Lynx The Proposed Action Alternative would have the following effects on lynx: • Convert 55 acres of suitable and currently unsuitable lynx habitat to non-habitat within the Mount Werner LAU. The effectiveness of this habitat has been diminished with tree skiing since inception of the ski area. Decreased effectiveness would continue with expansion of the operational boundary. • Reduce the effectiveness, via glading, of 92 acres of snowshoe hare winter habitat in the Pioneer Ridge Area. This entire winter habitat area has already been diminished in effectiveness as a result of several decades of side country tree skiing. Decreased effectiveness would continue with expansion of the operational boundary. • Increase skier numbers on 408 acres of suitable and 24 acres currently unsuitable lynx habitat in Pioneer Ridge and Fish Creek Canyon. Again, this habitat is of low effectiveness since it is already heavily skied and would continue to offer impaired habitat effectiveness with approval of the project. • Increase traffic by 3 percent on Highway 40 through lynx habitat on Rabbit Ears Pass and within the Muddy Pass Lynx Linkage Area. Traffic volume would remain below the threshold of 3,000 to 5,000 AADT thought to impair lynx habitat.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 221 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In large part because lynx are known to remain on the periphery of the operational boundary of ski areas during the winter, and do not utilize habitat within Colorado ski area boundaries, but also because tree skiing reduces the effectiveness of snowshoe hare habitat, the effectiveness of habitat within the currently managed ski area and within the proposed operational boundary expansion has been compromised. The proposed projects on their own would have mostly insignificant and/or discountable effects on lynx. However, taken together, these projects would directly reduce the availability of lynx habitat, and would continue to indirectly impair lynx habitat that would not be directly impacted. The projects would not compromise the ability of the Mount Werner LAU to support foraging, denning, or traveling lynx. As a consequence, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx.

Region 2 Sensitive Species The Proposed Action Alternative would impact seven species on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, but would not be likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area (Routt National Forest), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. The seven impacted species are: American marten, hoary bat, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, and flammulated owl. For all other species, there would be no impact. A summary of these determinations is included in Table 3.9-7.

Table 3.9-7: Region 2 Sensitive Species and Determination Summary

Species Proposed Action Alternative (Scientific Name, Common Name) Determination/Criteria

Euderma maculatum NI. No habitat present. Spotted bat

Lontra canadensis NI. No habitat present. River otter

MII. The combined effect of tree clearing in marten habitat and Martes americana increased recreational use of marten habitat during the winter may Marten reduce the carrying capacity of the area for martens.

Myotis thysanodes NI. No habitat present. Project area well above known elevation Fringed myotis range.

Lasiurus cinereus MII. Individual bats could be killed if they are roosting in trees that Hoary Bat are cleared during the construction.

Plecotus townsendii townsendii NI. No caves or abandoned mines. Townsend’s Big-eared bat

Ovis canadensis canadensis NI. No habitat present. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

Sorex hoyi MII. Individuals could be crushed during project implementation. Pygmy shrew

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 222 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-7: Region 2 Sensitive Species and Determination Summary

Species Proposed Action Alternative (Scientific Name, Common Name) Determination/Criteria MII. Forest Plan amendment that would remove protections for Accipiter gentilis nesting raptors during the construction phase of the Proposed Northern goshawk Action may result in nest abandonment and nestling mortality. MII. Boreal owl nests that are not detected during wildlife surveys Aegolius funereus may be eliminated or disturbed to the point where nests are Boreal owl abandoned and nestlings perish.

Amphispiza belli NI. No sagebrush habitat. Sage sparrow

Buteo regalis NI. No grassland habitat. Ferruginous hawk

Centrocercus urophasianus NI. No sagebrush habitat. Greater sage-grouse

Circus cyaneus NI. No habitat present. Northern harrier

MII. Avian surveys required by PDC may alleviate, but not eliminate, Contopus borealis the potential for cutting a nest tree or otherwise disturbing nesting Olive-sided flycatcher individuals, leading to nestling mortality.

Cypseloides niger Black swift NI. No waterfall habitat.

Falco peregrinus anatum NI. No habitat present. American peregrine falcon

Haliaeetus leucocephalus NI. No habitat present. Bald Eagle

Lagopus leucurus NI. No habitat present. White-tailed ptarmigan

Lanius ludovicianus NI. No habitat present. Loggerhead shrike

Melanerpes lewis NI. No habitat present. Lewis’ woodpecker

MII. Flammulated owl nests that are not detected during wildlife Otus flammeolus surveys may be eliminated or disturbed to the point where nests are Flammulated owl abandoned and nestlings perish.

Progne subis NI. No habitat present. Purple martin

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 223 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-7: Region 2 Sensitive Species and Determination Summary

Species Proposed Action Alternative (Scientific Name, Common Name) Determination/Criteria

Spizella breweri NI. No habitat present. Brewer’s sparrow

Tympanachus phasianellus columbianus NI. No habitat present. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

NI. No known BT occurrences in the Burgess Creek drainage, Project Bufo boreas boreas Area breeding habitat outside migration range, stream health and Boreal toad water quality will remain good, and surveys failed to detect their presence.

Rana pipiens NI. No known populations closer than Park. No suitable Northern leopard frog habitat in Project Area.

Catostomus discobolus NI. No large, western slope rivers impacted by project. Bluehead sucker

Catostomus latipinnis NI. No large, western slope rivers impacted by project. Flannelmouth sucker

Catostomus platyrhynchus NI. No impacts from the project on water quality or stream health Mountain sucker

Gila robusta NI. No large, western slope rivers impacted by project. Roundtail chub

MII. During construction, extreme weather events have the Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus potential to temporarily increase turbidity which would negatively Colorado River cutthroat trout affect CRCT.

Bombus occidentalis NI. Impacts to montane and subalpine habitat insignificant in Western bumblebee comparison with available habitat.

Danaus plixippus plexippus NI. No milkweed in Project Area. Monarch Butterfly

Speyeria nokomis nokomis NI. No impacts to wetland habitat. Great Basin silverspot

Notes: NI = No Impact MII = May impact individuals, but not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 224 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The seven Region 2 sensitive species with potential impacts are addressed in the following discussion.

American Marten Several sightings of martens have been documented within the Steamboat SUP area, and it is assumed that martens are present in suitable spruce/fir and lodgepole pine habitat throughout the ski area. Project components would directly impact 87.70 acres of potential marten habitat. Furthermore, the indirect impact of increased skier presence within Pioneer Ridge and Fish Creek Canyon during the winter would impair the functionality of habitat such that during the winter martens may avoid Pioneer Ridge, and perhaps the skiable portions of Fish Creek Canyon, upon implementation of the operational boundary expansion and construction of the Pioneer chairlift. Snow compaction that would result from increased skiing within the entirety of the 360-acre Pioneer Ridge area, as well as within the 279-acre Fish Creek Canyon, may eliminate the presence of subnivean spaces upon which marten depend during the winter. While these impacts would not likely lead to direct impacts on survival of martens, natality and/or fecundity may be impacted as the carrying capacity of the Project Area for martens may be reduced. The proposed projects would add to cumulative impacts to the species rangewide. As a result, the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Hoary Bat The proposed project would convert 87.70 acres of forested hoary bat habitat to non-habitat. While it is not known whether hoary bats exist within the Project Area, it is possible that individual bats could be killed if roosting in trees that are cleared during the construction period. The response of hoary bats to recreational disturbance is not known; however, they are the most common bat species killed by wind turbines. Consequently, since roosting individuals could be killed during tree clearing, Forest Service approval of the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Pygmy Shrew It is likely that pygmy shrews exist in suitable habitat within the Steamboat SUP area, including within the current Project Area. Proposed projects would impact 127.43 acres of habitat that could be occupied by pygmy shrews. Where suitable moist, boreal environments are present, suitable habitat for shrews is available. Should shrews inhabit any portions of the Project Area, it is possible that construction equipment and activities could crush or otherwise kill individual shrews. Upon termination of construction activities, shrew habitat would still be present in gladed areas. Therefore, the proposed activity may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Northern Goshawk The Proposed Action Alternative would impact 184.56 acres of conifer and aspen forests that provide potentially suitable goshawk habitat. The impacts would vary from thinning trees in goshawk habitat to 100 percent clearing of trees, building roads, and installing chairlifts. All these areas would still provide goshawk foraging habitat following implementation. However, potential nest habitat would be eliminated on 36.42 acres of suitable habitat where forest is permanently converted to non-forest

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 225 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

habitat. Gladed areas and hazard tree removal sites in spruce/fir and aspen would retain potentially suitable forage and nest habitat.

There are two raptor nests currently identified in the Pioneer Ridge area. Since Forest Service monitoring began in 1994, these nests have not been used by goshawks. Hazard tree removal, glading, road construction, and ski trail construction projects are proposed in close proximity to all two of these nests. The Forest Plan prescribes standards for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife, which includes the goshawk. Specifically, Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 8 and PDC that are incorporated into this project require wildlife surveys at known raptor nests prior to implementation of any projects. If goshawks are found to be nesting at these sites, appropriate protections will be implemented to minimize viability concerns and protect important breeding, nesting, or young rearing areas.

Although direct and cumulative effects are anticipated, northern goshawk populations have declined across the planning unit and would likely return to stable in 80 to 200 years as the lodgepole pine community returns to late seral or mature forest conditions.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Boreal Owl Boreal owls have been located calling from roost trees during surveys conducted previously within the Steamboat SUP area. Responses from boreal owls were heard in the vicinity of the lower Pony Express/Pioneer Ridge area, and in the Morningside area of the mountain. The location of nest trees used by these birds was not discovered.

Project components within the Proposed Action Alternative would be implemented in 87.70 acres of potentially suitable boreal owl habitat; many projects would take place in the vicinity of the location where boreal owls have responded to surveys. Construction activities associated with the proposed projects during the nesting season (April 15–July 31 in Colorado) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project.217 If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging of the nestlings, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings.

Hazard tree removal operations would target standing dead trees that provide nest habitat for boreal owls. This component of the project would likely remove all potential nest trees for boreal owls in the polygons in which they occur.

As a consequence of the foregoing information, the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

217 Hayward, 1989

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 226 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Olive-sided Flycatcher Olive-sided flycatchers were detected during wildlife surveys within the Pioneer Ridge area, and they are common throughout the SUP area. The Proposed Action Alternative would be implemented in 87.70 acres of forest stands that provide suitable habitat for this species. Olive-sided flycatchers typically choose open forest habitat patches with unusually tall, standing dead trees on which to perch and sing. The hazard tree elimination component would be likely to reduce habitat quality by removing perch snags preferred for these birds. Conversely, glading, lift alignment clearing, and ski trail construction would increase forest edge habitat that is preferred by olive-sided flycatchers. It is likely that overall, olive-sided flycatchers may benefit, in terms of increased acreage of improved quality habitat, from implementation the proposed projects. However, construction activities associated with the proposed projects during the nesting season (May 15–July 30) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project. If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings. Avian surveys required by PDC may alleviate, but not eliminate, the potential for cutting a nest tree. Because of the difficulty of detecting individual nests high in the tree canopy, it is likely that even with focused surveys, nests would remain undetected.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Flammulated Owl The proposed projects would impact 141.54 acres of potentially suitable habitat for flammulated owls. Because this species is somewhat of a forested habitat generalist, most projects in forested habitat, other than standing dead lodgepole pine stands, provide suitable habitat for these owls. Construction activities associated with the proposed projects during the nesting season (June 1–July 31 in Colorado) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project.218 If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings.

Hazard tree removal operations would target standing dead trees that provide nest habitat for flammulated owls. This component of the project would likely remove all potential nest trees for flammulated owls in the polygons in which they occur. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout CRCT exist within Burgess Creek. Proposed activities have the potential to increase turbidity and water yield within Burgess Creek, both of which would impact CRCT. However, PDC to disconnect existing connected disturbed areas and reduce erosion are intending to compensate for soil disturbances or avoid new impacts to stream health and water quality. Severe weather events could still temporarily

218 Kingery, 1998

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 227 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

impact stream health; therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

Raptors Activities proposed under the Proposed Action Alternative would impact 184.56 acres of conifer and aspen forests that provide potentially suitable raptor nesting habitat. The impacts would vary from thinning trees to 100 percent clearing of trees, building roads, and installing chairlifts. All these areas would still provide raptor foraging habitat following implementation. However, potential nest habitat would be eliminated on 36.42 acres of suitable habitat where forest is permanently converted to non- forest habitat. Gladed areas and hazard tree removal sites in spruce/fir and aspen would retain potentially suitable forage and nest habitat.

A raptor survey was conducted in the Project Area during the nesting period in 2017. The survey did not discover new active or inactive raptor nests; however, two historically active nests are known to exist in the Pioneer Ridge area (refer to Figure 3.9-1). The project has been designed, to the extent practicable, to minimize raptor impacts at these nests, if active during construction. However, the Proposed Action Alternative includes a Forest Plan amendment to allow construction-related disturbances at known active and/or inactive raptor nests.219 Species-specific no-disturbance buffers and timing restrictions would remain in place during the maintenance and operation phase of the project.

If construction and/or tree clearing activities are conducted adjacent to an active raptor nest, habitat effectiveness would likely be impaired during construction. It is likely that during construction, affected nesting raptors would experience reduced recruitment (young being added to the population). Such impacts would be temporary in scope and limited to a low number of individual birds. Over the long term, non-cleared and thinned forest would continue to provide habitat for nesting raptors; the proposed projects would not measurably affect long-term raptor abundance or community composition in the Steamboat SUP area. The Forest Plan amendment would not allow active or inactive raptor nest trees to be removed; therefore, direct mortality of raptors is not anticipated with the Proposed Action Alternative. Additionally, raptor nest surveys would be conducted at known raptor nests between June 15 and July 31 of each year of construction to identify active nest sites. Project-related construction activities are permitted prior to the beginning of the June 15 survey window, unless active goshawk nest sites were previously identified within 0.25 mile of the construction activity.

Migratory Birds There would be 228.39 acres of vegetation removal and grading within potential forest, shrubland, and grassland nest habitat for migratory birds. PDC requires nest surveys to be conducted prior to construction. The project has been designed, to the extent practicable, to minimize incidental take during construction through the implementation of this PDC. Construction may occur within the nesting period if surveys show no active bird nests present, or as otherwise approved by the Forest Service.

219 This Forest Plan amendment would not apply to Forest Service sensitive species, including northern goshawk, flammulated owl, and boreal owl. These three raptors are subject to additional Forest Plan Standards that protect sensitive species and their habitat.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 228 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

However, it is possible that undetected active nests of migratory birds could occur in the Project Area during tree removal, possibly resulting in the incidental take of eggs, nestlings, or adults. Furthermore, the Proposed Action Alternative includes a component to complete a Forest Plan amendment to allow disturbance within the nest period of forest raptors.

Avian nesting and foraging effectiveness could be impaired adjacent to the gladed areas, the Pioneer Ridge lift line, and other areas of tree removal. While some affected birds could experience reduced recruitment, such potential effects would be limited to a low number of individual birds and would not measurably affect bird abundance or community composition in the Steamboat SUP area.

The Proposed Action Alternative would be consistent with the Forest Service/USFWS Migratory Bird MOU because of the requirements of PDC intended to avoid the incidental take of migratory birds.

Species of Local Concern

Elk All of the proposed activities have the potential to impact seasonal elk habitat, primarily summer and spring/fall transition ranges. Because of the existing level of development, projects in the Bashor area would have the least impact, while projects in the Pioneer Ridge area would have the greatest impacts due to their location in the currently secluded area outside the managed operational boundary. Yearly operations and maintenance activities in the Pioneer Ridge area may disturb elk using the area during calving season, adversely affecting fecundity, natality, and calf recruitment, and it may lead to elk avoidance of the area. PDC require elk surveys of the Project Area prior to project implementation to ascertain the level of elk use during the calving period. If large numbers of elk are calving in Pioneer Ridge, Forest Service personnel, in consultation with CPW, will develop mitigation measures to minimize impacts. It should be noted that the population of the Bears Ears elk herd is currently above the stated CPW objective, it is not likely that reduced calving habitat would be detectable at the scale of the Bears Ears DAU.

Moose Direct impacts to moose habitat would arise from activities that remove cover, such as glading (tree thinning) and some forest clearing. Both would likely increase understory shrubs (e.g., lower portions of Pioneer Ridge). Because moose forage on shrubby twigs, these activities would increase the forage base over time. The direct impact of clearing forest vegetation would likely have little impact on moose in the long term. Greater impacts would be indirect, such as construction activities temporarily displacing moose from certain areas. Similarly, summer operations may compel moose to avoid certain areas.

Other negative impacts would likely result from increased presence of skiers in the Bashor area. Moose often use ski trails as travel routes during the winter because of the ease of movement and are regularly seen on the Bashor and Rough Rider trails. As those two areas become served by the new gondola and are converted to the central location for beginning and intermediate ski school clients, the number of skiers present in that area would increase, increasing moose/human encounters. Design criteria are included in Alternative 2 that direct CPW, SSRC, and the MBR to collaborate on a moose management plan to mitigate such encounters.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 229 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Species There is no habitat in the Project Area for vesper sparrow, so this species will not be analyzed for this project. Habitat does exist for golden-crowned kinglet, northern goshawk, Wilson’s warbler, CRCT, and brook trout. Mixed conifer stands that provide habitat for golden-crowned kinglet exist in the Project Area. Northern goshawks have been observed in the Project Area in the past. CRCT are known to exist in Burgess Creek. While brook trout do exist in Burgess Creek, the Forest Service is currently trying to eradicate these non-native trout, in order to improve habitat for native CRCT. Consequently, brook trout will not be evaluated further. The potential exists for impacts to golden-crowned kinglet, northern goshawk, Wilson’s warbler, and CRCT, thus these species will be carried forward in the analysis.

Golden-crowned Kinglet The overall impact of the Proposed Action Alternative on the forest kinglet population would not likely be detectable, and the proposed projects would not produce measurable changes in kinglet habitat or population trends. Although suitable habitat exists in the Project Area, golden-crowned kinglets have not been detected during previous surveys. Proposed projects would impact 43.6 acres of kinglet habitat. Associated construction during the nesting season (May 15–July 30) may disturb nesting adults if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project. If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, adults may abandon the nest by the adults, resulting in the death of the nestlings. Avian surveys required by PDC may alleviate, but not eliminate, the potential for removal of nest trees. Because of the difficulty of detecting individual nests deep within the tree canopy, it is likely that even with focused surveys, nests would remain undetected. Golden-crowned kinglet population numbers are not exactly known for the Routt National Forest but are expected to remain stable or to slightly decrease due to the bark beetle epidemic. Direct mortality due to nest abandonment in combination with habitat changes that would remove suitable habitat may reduce the total available habitat within the SUP area.

Northern Goshawk The proposed activity may impact individual goshawks, but is not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. More details are provided under the Region 2 Sensitive Species discussion in this section.

Wilson’s Warbler The Proposed Action Alternative would not impact population or habitat trends for Wilson’s warbler. The proposed projects do not include impacts within habitat suitable for Wilson’s warbler; therefore, there would be no direct impacts to habitat for this species. However, activities conducted during the nest period (June 15–July 30) may lead to nest abandonment if conducted within 50 feet of suitable willow/riparian habitat when nests are present, leading to death of nestlings. PDC that requires nest surveys prior to project implementation will reduce, but not eliminate the potential for such impacts. However, impacts would be of limited scope and duration and would not occur following construction.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 230 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout The Proposed Action Alternative would not adversely affect water quality or stream health in the Project Area, so would have no impact on CRCT or its habitat. More details are provided under the Region 2 Sensitive Species discussion in this section.

Mountain Sucker The natural range of the mountain sucker is usually found in stream in mountainous regions of western North America. Aquatic surveys in Burgess Creek have not detected the presence of mountain sucker; suitable stream habitat is not present in the Project Area. A known population exists in Steamboat Lake north of the Project Area. Proposed PDC in the Burgess Creek watershed will be consistent with forest plan standards and will not adversely impact the health of the Creek. The proposed projects will not directly or indirectly impact the mountain sucker.

3.9.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.9.5.1 Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The projects listed below are cumulatively expected to have short- and long-term effects to wildlife and/or wildlife habitat in the Steamboat SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Routt County, Colorado.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for wildlife and fisheries extends from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963, through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

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

3.9.5.1 Past, Present and Reasonable 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 wildlife and fisheries are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Ski Area Expansion 1996 EIS • Steamboat Summer Trails 2011 EA • Steamboat Proposed Improvements 2006 EA

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 231 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Steamboat Front Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project EA • Burgess Creek Culvert Replacements Project • Invasive Plant Management EIS for the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland

Threatened and Endangered Species Urban expansion and development has fragmented a naturally patchy distribution of general wildlife habitat in Colorado, including in Routt County. Development within and on the lower slopes bounding the Yampa Valley continually erodes the amount of riparian, grassland, shrubland, ranchland, aspen forest, and coniferous forest habitats. The expansion of homes and some municipal facilities up mountain slopes, into forests of aspen, lodgepole pine, and to a lesser degree spruce-fir, adds to the fragmentation of a naturally fragmented landscape. The cumulative effect of private land development and expansion of recreational facilities in and adjacent to wildlife habitat, and lynx habitat in particular, may reduce the ability of lynx to move throughout their home range, or interact with other individuals in the larger subpopulation.

Aside from the presence of Steamboat, the Mount Werner LAU remains relatively free from development. Below the elevation of the LAU within the Yampa Valley, private land development that includes 35-acre ranchettes, residential subdivision, and the resort base area complex would be likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Development within the City of Steamboat Springs and surrounding rural area has been increasing for fifty years. Most of this development has occurred on the valley floor and in mountain shrub vegetative communities that do not provide high quality lynx habitat in most cases.

The currently proposed projects would occur within the bounds of the existing Steamboat SUP area, where habitat has been previously fragmented as a result of ski area development and the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The project would not add significantly to the cumulative effects of snowshoe hare winter habitat loss that has occurred as a result of increasing skier use of the ski area and associated side country. The effect of the project on the local snowshoe hare population, and thus on lynx foraging energetics, would not be detectable at the scale of the LAU. The cumulative effects of this and other incremental losses in hare habitat have undoubtedly had an incremental effect on lynx energy expenditures while hunting. With each loss of habitat for a single hare, there is an immeasurable cost to the energetics of foraging lynx. Cumulatively, these incremental losses become measurable, but have not been documented.

Finally, SSRC intends to implement an additional 43.9 acres of snowmaking coverage in the future. This new coverage would require 19.5 acre-feet of diversions and result in 4.5 acre-feet of new depletions. This coverage is not being analyzed in the Proposed Action Alternative; however, in the interest of consumptive use recordkeeping and NEPA cumulative effects for the four Big River Fish, Table 3.9-8 includes these proposed 43.9 acres of snowmaking coverage.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 232 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.9-8: Cumulative Effects Depletion Analysis Depletions Source (acre-feet) Previously Approved (ES/GJ-6-CO-04-F-012-YP013) 91.7 Existing Depletions 76.1 Proposed and Analyzed in current EIS 8.6 Subtotal Proposed Action Depletions 84.7 Future Depletions (43.9 acres of snowmaking coverage) 4.5 Total Cumulative Depletions 89.2 Source: Western Bionomics 2017a

Total cumulative depletions, including future planned snowmaking coverage, are still within the 91.7 acre-feet that have been previously approved by USFWS in 2006. Although these future snowmaking projects will need to comply with the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, no additional USFWS consultation for the Big River Fish will be required.

Region 2 Sensitive Species

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects with relevance to wildlife are listed in Appendix A.

The Proposed Action Alternative would result in varying levels of cumulative impacts for the variety of species considered. For example, urban expansion and development in Colorado has in some cases eliminated, and in other cases fragmented, habitat for a variety of species on the MBR’s sensitive species list. Valley floor development continually erodes the amount of non-forest and riparian habitat for species such as fringed myotis, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike. The expansion of homes and some municipal facilities up mountain slopes, into forests of aspen and conifer habitat reduces forested habitat and increases fragmentation of habitat for sensitive species including marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, American peregrine falcon, boreal toad, flammulated owl, and purple martin. The cumulative effect of private land development has reduced and fragmented forest cover types for these species throughout Routt County and elsewhere in Colorado.

Large scale MPB timber salvage projects occurring across the Routt National Forest, in combination with unharvested stands that have succumbed to mortality as a result of the MPB epidemic are likely to cause negative, cumulative effects over the short and mid-term for several species, including pine marten, hoary bat, and northern goshawk. These three species’ populations are expected to display short-term population stability with potential for mid- or long-term (less than twenty years) declines due to MPB- induced changes in habitat until the lodgepole pine community regenerates to mature forest conditions.

As ski areas are developed, they add to the overall fragmentation of the landscape in Colorado. If these developed areas occur jointly with other ski areas or abut the expansion occurring on private land, then fragmentation and cover type conversion pose increased cumulative effects.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 233 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Past development of the Steamboat as a winter recreational area and associated maintenance activities have converted mixed conifer forest to the grass/forb cover type within the SUP area. Mixed conifer forest provides cover and/or forage habitat for sensitive species including marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, American peregrine falcon, and boreal toad.

Similarly, past development and maintenance of Steamboat has converted aspen stands to subalpine grasslands. Such stands provide cover and/or forage habitat for sensitive species including northern goshawk, flammulated owl, and purple martin.

For some of these species, habitat conversion has reduced the availability of suitable habitat and may be associated with population declines. For other species, such as the northern goshawk and pygmy shrew, habitat conversion may not be associated with population declines.220

In the case of the goshawk, the USFWS does not believe that habitat is limiting the overall populations or that significant curtailment of the species’ habitat or range is occurring.221 The goshawk forages in both forested stands and along the edges of openings; therefore, the initial development of the ski area and subsequent maintenance activities are unlikely to have had a substantially positive or negative effect on this species.

The pygmy shrew is able to survive under a variety of ecological conditions, including subalpine forests of spruce/fir and lodgepole pine, clear cuts, selectively logged forests, forest meadow edges, boggy meadows, willow thickets aspen fir forests, and subalpine parklands. Ski trail construction is unlikely to have had a long-term positive or negative effect on this species. Construction and maintenance of existing ski trails may periodically impose short-term impacts on shrew habitat and/or individuals, but the long-term population effects are likely negligible.

Some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified above have cumulatively affected habitat for sensitive species. Designation of the Mount Zirkel Wilderness provided conservation of potential habitat for most of the species described above. However, wildfire prevention and control may have reduced cavity nesting opportunities for species such as the purple martin.

Increased traffic on highways providing access to mountain towns and resort communities increase the amount of habitat fragmentation, conversion, and loss in the Colorado Mountains. Agricultural, residential, and commercial development along the major drainages adjacent to the Steamboat SUP area has reduced potentially suitable habitat for many riparian dependent species such as boreal toad and northern leopard frog. This development, which is occurring in a variety of cover types, adds to the fragmentation of naturally fragmented habitats found within region. Activities that occur on private lands can add to the cumulative effects of management actions planned on the Forest.

Finally, ongoing recreational activities during the summer and winter throughout NFS lands and within the Steamboat SUP area may impact sensitive species, such as the pine marten, which are documented to avoid areas of intensive human activities. Summer recreation programs are offered by SSRC. This

220 Pettus and Lechleitner, 1963; Western Bionomics, 2017b 221 Western Bionomics, 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 234 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

elevated level of human activity and presence is likely to have led some species to avoid the summer recreation portions of the SUP area. Others that are not typically averse to human presence (olive-sided flycatcher) are not likely to have been affected.

Potential future activities that have not yet been proposed or approved may add to this impact, if and when they are approved by the Forest Service.

The currently proposed projects would be implemented within the existing SUP area that is currently subject to winter and, in the Bashor area, summer recreation. The projects would contribute further to recreation-related fragmentation of forest habitat; they would add to the cumulative zone of disturbance due to human recreation that has taken place throughout Colorado, Routt County, and the landscape within the Steamboat SUP area. These activities would add incrementally to the effects of human recreation on marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, purple martin, and boreal toad.

Species of Local Concern

Urban expansion and development in DAU E-2 has eliminated, fragmented, and/or decreased the available seasonal habitat for elk. Yet somehow, they adapt and persist, as evidenced by the DAU E-2 population exceeding CPW objectives. Residential development in Routt County and the Yampa Valley has in the past and would undoubtedly in the future been concentrated on elk winter and severe winter range. Such development has also intruded on historic calving range. Summer range has been modified through wildfire prevention and control, timber management, livestock grazing, ski area habitat conversion, the MPB infestation, and human recreational activities.

Designation of the Mount Zirkel Wilderness provided conservation of summer range for elk and has provided a summertime refuge for the Bears Ears elk herd.

Road construction and reconstruction has increased the amount of habitat fragmentation, conversion, and loss in Routt County. Residential and commercial development associated with road construction has reduced potentially suitable habitat for elk. Such activities add to the fragmentation habitats found within region.

Approval of the Proposed Action Alternative would add to the cumulative impact of human-induced direct habitat fragmentation and disturbance within Moose DAU M-3. However, based on the rapid moose population growth rate in this DAU since the original introduction in 1979, moose have not adversely impacted by habitat fragmentation in Northwest Colorado.

The more important cumulative impact relates to the potential for adverse moose/human interactions, as the two species increase their presence in habitats occupied by the other. Several individuals within or near to the Steamboat Springs City Limit have been injured by moose in the past few years. Development of the ski school facility at Bashor/Rough Rider would have an additive impact of increasing the potential for adverse moose/human interactions.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 235 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Migratory Birds The temporal and spatial bounds for this migratory bird analysis are the same as that described above for sensitive species. 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. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that would have effects on migratory bird habitat.

Large numbers of birds are killed due to collisions with human structures and equipment, poisoning by pesticides and contaminants, and attacks by cats and other introduced predators. Diseases such as botulism, avian cholera, salmonellosis, and emerging West Nile virus can also have significant population impacts. Human activities, such as overuse of pesticides (enhancing the survival of pesticide-resistant mosquitoes), for example, can help spread certain diseases. The greatest threat to birds, and all wildlife, continues to be loss and/or degradation of habitat due to human development and disturbance. For migratory birds and other species that require multiple areas for wintering, breeding, and stopover points, the effects of habitat loss can be complex and far-reaching. Added to deaths from natural causes, such as adverse weather, predation, or starvation, human-related bird deaths may result in greater mortality than a population can withstand.

While the impact of the current project may not result in detectable impacts at the scale of the SUP area or the Forest, the impacts inherent within the Proposed Action Alternative are additive to the sum of all cumulative effects on migratory birds nation-wide.

3.9.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Tree removal related to summer development would represent an irretrievable effect to some habitat for some threatened and endangered, and Region 2 sensitive species within the SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because the habitat (vegetation) is a renewable resource.

In terms of the Proposed Action Alternative, potential resources include construction materials, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and water. Potential impacts include permanent loss of habitat from new buildings and lift lines; habitat conversion or modification through forest clearing, tree thinning (glading), and hazard tree removal; decreased use of habitat due to habitat conversion or continuing or increased disturbance, such as from more skiers; loss of individual animals during project implementation; and water depletions, such as from additional snowmaking. The impacts of these resource commitments are offset somewhat by ongoing habitat impacts and disturbance from existing ski area facilities and operations.

3.10 SOILS 3.10.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The Project Area for this analysis includes Steamboat’s entire 3,738-acre Forest Service-administered SUP area as well as the 245 acres on private lands within Steamboat’s operational boundary. This

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 236 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

analysis summarizes the Soils Specialist Report Steamboat Ski Area Resort Projects (Soil Specialist Report) contained in the project file.222

Soil descriptions and potential impacts to soil resources were based on the Draft Soil Resource Inventory Report of the Routt National Forest and from the online USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey.223 The impacts analyzed for soil resources include soil erosion hazard, mass movement potential, soil compaction, and changes to soil physical and chemical characteristics.

3.10.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION Both the Forest Plan and the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) provide soil management measures (MMs) to guide land treatments on the Forest. A goal of the WCPH is to protect soil quality, which includes soil depth, structure, organic matter, and nutrients.224 Applicable standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and MMs in the WCPH are presented in Section 3.10.2.1 through Section 3.10.2.3.225

3.10.2.1 Forest Plan Standards and Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measures • Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into stream and wetlands (Soils Standard 2; MM 10). • Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion (Soils Standard 3; MM 11). • Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage (Soils Standard 4; MM 12). • 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 (Soils Standard 5; MM 13). • Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands (Soils Standard 6; MM 14). • Do not degrade ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and drainage patterns in wetlands (Water and Aquatic Standard 7; MM 6).

3.10.2.2 Forest Plan Guidelines • Perform an on-site slope stability examination on slopes over 30 percent prior to design of roads or activities that remove most or all the forest cover (Soils Guideline 2). • Reduce resource damage in areas that have a mass movement potential (Soils Guideline 1).

222 Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc and Western Ecological Resource, 2017 223 USDA Forest Service, 1994; USDA-NRCS, 2017 224 USDA Forest Service, 2006 225 USDA Forest Service, 1998; USDA Forest Service, 2006

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 237 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.10.2.3 National and Regional Policies for the Forest Plan • Soils should not be overly compacted (Soils National and Regional Policy 2). • Maintain adequate plant cover to protect the watershed and maintain plant health consistent with the soil type (Soils National and Regional Policy 3). • Plan areas for timber harvest only if assured, based on existing technology and knowledge, that long-term soil productivity will not be degraded (Timber National and Regional Policy 2).

3.10.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Elevations of the Project Area range from 6,900 feet near the Gondola and base area to 10,565 feet on top of Mount Werner. Most of the soils within the Project Area formed in glacial till, slope alluvium, colluvium or residuum derived from Precambrian crystalline rocks. They occur on steep mountain slopes, summits, and ridges with slopes typically ranging from 10 to 60 percent. The soils are commonly rocky, weakly developed, and have low fertility. The cold climate and high elevation of the Project Area limit the rate of soil formation.

3.10.3.1 Soil Map Units There are nineteen map units within the Project Area, including twelve soil map units and two miscellaneous map units on NFS lands, and five soil map units on private land. The soil map units contain either one dominant soil or a complex, which contains two or more dissimilar components that could not be reasonably mapped separately, and a miscellaneous map unit is one that has little or no soil. The acreages of each soil map unit that occur within the Project Area and soil characteristics important to revegetation are listed in the Soil Specialist Report located in the project file.226

There are four soil map units on private land (50C, 94, 113, and 119) and seven soil map units on NFS lands (28, 38, 39, 48, 49, 56, and 76) that would be affected by the Proposed Action Alternative. Soils types overlapping the proposed project locations are classified as predominantly rocky (coarse-loamy and loamy-skeletal), but do range to finer, loamy soils (fine, fine-loamy). Drainage class ratings for these soils range from moderately well drained to excessively drained and have variable runoff potential (low to high) and low to high available water holding capacity.

3.10.3.2 Soil Organic Matter A Forest Service goal is to maintain or improve long-term levels of soil organic matter and nutrients. The thickness of mineral A and organic O horizons at proposed projects locations that would involve grading were measured on NFS lands only and were measured in the field in September 2016 by a certified soil scientist along transects. The measurement locations, range of thicknesses, and the field notes for proposed project locations that would involve grading are detailed in the Soil Specialist Report located in the project file.

226 Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting and Western Ecological Resource, 2017

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 238 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The measurements revealed that organic horizons are generally very thin (<1-inch thickness), which is common for mountain forested soils. Surface mineral horizons (A, A/E and E horizons) averaged 6 inches thick throughout the proposed disturbances where grading is anticipated.

Soil compaction was also estimated in the field using criteria outlined in the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol.227 These criteria included soil structure, wheel tracks, and resistance to penetration, and were in part based on past operations, equipment trails, and bladed trails. Moderately to very compacted soils occur in prior disturbances, such as access roads, around buildings/lift terminals, and on some ski trails. Undisturbed areas and most ski trails where proposed disturbances would involve grading were not observed to be compacted.

3.10.3.3 Soil Interpretations Soil interpretations predict soil behavior for specified soil uses and under specified soil management practices. For this analysis, soil interpretations that could affect ski area development and impact surrounding lands are provided in Table 3.10-1. These interpretations are based on the characteristics of soil map units and soil organic matter measurements, and include soil erosion hazard, mass movement potential, soil compaction potential, and limitations for unsurfaced roads. The most severe rating of each interpretation for each map unit was used to represent the entire map unit.

Table 3.10-1: Limitations for Map Units within Proposed Disturbance Areas Mass Movement Soil Compaction Map Unit Erosion Hazard Unsurfaced Roads – Limitations Potential Hazard Soil Map Units on Private Lands 50C Moderate Low High/moderate Moderate – low strength Severe – slopes, erosion, low 94 High Moderate High/moderate strength 113 High Moderate High Severe – slope, erosion 119 High Moderate High/moderate Severe – slope, low strength Soil Map Units on NFS Lands 28 High Moderate High Moderate – low strength, erosion 38 High High High Severe – slope, unstable slopes 39 High Moderate Low Severe – slope High/moderate/ 48 Moderate Low Severe – wetness high 49 High High High Severe – unstable slopes Low/moderate/h 56 High Low Severe – slope igh 76 High Low High Severe – erosion Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc. and Western Ecological Resource 2017

227 Page-Dumroese et al., 2009

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 239 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soil erosion hazard is the risk of soil loss when the soil has been disturbed from unsurfaced roads and trails. A low rating means little or no erosion is likely; moderate means some erosion is likely, occasional maintenance may be needed, and simple erosion control measures are needed. High rating means significant erosion can be expected, roads may require frequent maintenance, and costly erosion control measures may be needed. Most soil types overlapping the proposed project locations have a high erosion hazard potential.

Mass movement potential is an estimate of the stability behavior of a landscape. Factors contributing to mass movement are: saturated soil materials, steep slopes or cuts greater than 60 percent, fine textures or poorly graded soils, unstable geologic formations, north aspect (north slopes are more prevalent to mass movement), and inadequate vegetation cover. Two soil map units have high mass movement potential: soil map units 38 and 49. Mass movement is a concern within the SUP area, as there has been a slump observed at the lower portion of the Valley View ski trail in the past several years, and older slides observed on the Thunderhead ski trail, at the base of the Thunderhead chairlift, at the junction of Mother Nature and Concentration ski trails, and a large failure on the Vertigo ski trail. Slope failures typically occur where a cut slope is over-steepened, where fill material is not compacted, or where cuts in natural soils encounter groundwater.228

Soil compaction ratings describe the risk of inducing soil compaction through timber harvest or recreation activities. The physical, chemical, and biological effects of compaction tend to restrict plant growth, reduce infiltration, and increase surface runoff, all of which encourages erosion. Most map units overlapping the proposed project locations have a high potential for compaction. Undisturbed areas and most ski trails where proposed disturbances would involve grading were not observed to be compacted. Compacted soils generally occur in prior disturbances, such as access roads, around buildings/lift terminals, and in a few areas on some ski trails.

Suitability for unsurfaced road, or natural roads, is for the use by trucks or the transport of logs and other materials. Most map units have severe limitations for unsurfaced roads because of one or more limitations including steep slopes, high erosion hazard, unstable slopes (high mass movement potential), and low strength. A severe rating implies the limitations generally make the use of the site for natural roads very difficult or unsafe. Even though most map units overlapping the proposed project locations have severe limitations for unsurfaced roads, this does not imply that the map unit is entirely unsuitable for that use but can usually be overcome with proper design. However, a severe rating indicates that frequent maintenance and costly erosion control measures may be required.

3.10.3.4 Bare Ground Analysis A bare ground analysis was conducted within the Project Area to assist with the soil impact analysis and identify existing areas that are potentially contributing to existing soil erosion and sedimentation (refer to Table 3.10-2). The majority of the bare ground present within the Project Area is due to roads and past grading activities. Bare ground areas of likely past grading include cut-and-fill slopes along roads and

228 Keller and Sherar, 2003

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 240 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

at facilities, buildings, edges of ski trails, berms, and bare areas on ski trails. Table 3.10-2 depicts the results of the bare ground analysis conducted within the Project Area.

Table 3.10-2: Bare Ground Related to Anthropogenic Causes Category Acres Buildings and facilities 6.6 Staging areas 2.7 Likely past grading 63.8 Roads and trail surfaces 75.8 Total 148.9 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc and Western Ecological Resource 2017

Of the 63.8 acres of bare ground related to past grading, there are 36.1 acres that are in soils having high erosion hazard and 2.1 acres in soils having high mass movement potential. The majority of the bare ground in soils with high erosion hazard occurs in the lower (western) half of the Project Area, generally below the Four Points chairlift lower lift terminal. The bare ground that occurs in soils with high mass movement potential is in the vicinity of the lower lift terminal of the Thunderhead Express chairlift (soil map units 38 and 49) and in the vicinity of the upper lift terminals of the Thunderhead Express chairlift and the existing Gondola (soil map unit 38).

3.10.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.10.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative The proposed recreation projects on NFS lands would not occur; however, other recreation projects, such as bike trails or projects on the private land, could potentially be developed. Steamboat would continue to operate under its current design and capacity. There would be no direct or indirect effects on soils resources, and soil erosion initiated by construction activities would not occur. Soil losses from erosion, due to rainfall, runoff and wind, would continue to occur at existing rates. Most soil erosion would likely continue to be from existing roads and from bare ground and low vegetative cover areas. Mass movement hazards would likely remain the same or similar as under current operating and climatic conditions.

Soil resources on NFS lands would continue to be managed in a way that resembles the current conditions. The Forest Service would continue to be responsible for managing the soil resources such that physical, chemical and biological processes and functions of the soil are maintained or enhanced.229

3.10.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in the disturbance of approximately 228.4 acres and would affect 12 soil maps units. This would include approximately 210 acres and 7 soil map units on NFS lands, and approximately 18 acres and 4 soil map units on private lands. The majority

229 USDA Forest Service, 2006

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 241 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the proposed disturbance (approximately 135 acres, or 80 percent) would occur on NFS lands in soil map unit 76. Table 3.10-3 and Table 3.10-4 depict soil impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative by disturbance type and proposed activity.

Table 3.10-3: Disturbance by Type under the Proposed Action Alternative Disturbance on NFS Lands Disturbance on Private Lands Disturbance Type (acres) (acres) Grading 37.1 14.5 Vegetation clearing and grading 23.5 1.6 Vegetation clearing only 43.4 1.6 Glading and hazard tree removal 106.6 0.0 Total 210.6 17.7 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting and Western Ecological Resource 2017 Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding

Table 3.10-4: Disturbance Acres by Proposed Activity under the Proposed Action Alternative Soil Disturbed by Soil Disturbed by Soil Disturbed by Vegetation Clearing Vegetation Clearing Grading Only and Grading Only Disturbance Type (acres) (acres) (acres) NFS Private NFS Private NFS Private Chairlifts 1.1 0.2 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.0 Bashor Gondola 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 Burgess Creek Bridge and access roads 0.7 0.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Communication/electric/water lines 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Communication line above ground 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.0 Ski trails 8.5 1.2 13.1 0.1 7.2 0.0 Snowmaking pipelines 19.5 5.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grading projects 4.7 6.1 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 Staging areas 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restroom 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Glading – 40% tree removal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.8 0.0 Hazardous Trees: 100% tree removal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 20% tree removal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 Total 37.1 14.5 23.5 1.6 150.0 1.6 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting and Western Ecological Resource 2017 Notes: Grading projects include: Bashor Gondola bottom terminal, Rough Rider Learning Center, Yoo Hoo summer road reclamation, and Mavericks Superpipe relocation. Numbers may not total due to rounding.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 242 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Different disturbance types would have varying impacts on soil resources. The soil disturbance from grading and grading/vegetation clearing would displace the soil organic (O) and mineral (A) soil surface layers at a minimum. Soil disturbance would also result from areas of vegetation removal without grading, where some soil displacement is inevitable. Areas of only vegetation clearing should, however, experience significantly less soil disturbance than graded areas.

The direct impacts resulting from the Proposed Action Alternative would increase soil erosion and sedimentation, change soil physical and chemical characteristics reducing soil productivity, generate an increase in mass movement potential from grading activities, and result in some permanent loss of soil resources. Table 3.10-5 provides a summary of the direct impacts to soil resources that would occur.

Table 3.10-5: Direct Impacts to Soil Resource from the Proposed Action Alternative NFS Lands Private Lands Disturbance Type (acres) (acres) Grading disturbance in areas having high erosion hazard 58.3 15.7 Grading disturbance in areas having high mass movement potential 4.6 0 Graded areas that would be later reclaimed, resulting in changes to ~50 ~11.6 soil physical and chemical characteristics Permanent loss of soil resources ~5.3 ~1.0 Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc and Western Ecological Resource 2017

Disturbance from grading would affect 74 acres of soils having a high erosion hazard (58.3 acres on NFS lands and 15.7 acres on private land), although some soil loss from all disturbances is expected. Grading would affect about 4.6 acres of soils on NFS lands that have a high mass movement potential. There would be about 50 acres graded on NFS lands that would later be reclaimed following project completion, and about 11.6 acres on private land that would later be reclaimed. These areas include snowmaking pipelines, communication lines, electric lines, water lines, the Yoo Hoo summer road removal, graded areas on ski trails, staging areas, the Mavericks Superpipe relocation, the Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities removal, and the Bashor chairlift removal. There would be about 5.3 acres of soils on NFS lands and 1 acre on private land that would be permanently disturbed due to construction of roads and structures. It was assumed that each lift terminal would permanently replace 0.1 acre of soil.

Initial soil loss 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 and potential spills from fueling equipment and leaks, 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 and in areas where spills occur, and likely would require many years for soil productivity to return to pre-disturbance conditions. The loss of soil resources due to roads and structures would be long term and permanent.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 243 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soil Interpretations As discussed in Section 3.10.3.3, mass movement is a concern within the SUP area, as slope failures have occurred in the past.230 Only soil map units 38 and 49 on NFS lands, which occur in the Bashor Bowl area, have high mass movement potential. Approximately 4.6 acres of disturbance is proposed in areas identified as having a high mass movement potential. However, given the history of mass movement at Steamboat, high mass movement potential is also considered for areas with certain characteristics in order to provide a realistic estimate of mass movement potential within the SUP area. The following characteristics will also be used to classify high mass movement potential: • Proposed graded areas in soils classified as having high mass movement potential (map units 38 and 49) on slopes greater than 30 percent, • Proposed graded areas on slopes greater than 30 percent that are either in or near up gradient wetlands, and • Proposed graded areas on slopes greater than 60 percent.

Site specific surveys for soils on private lands were not conducted, and as a result, national classifications were applied to those map units which were then broadly categorized as having a high mass movement potential. Based on the high mass movement potential criteria as described in the previous paragraph, the soils on private lands have relatively shallow slope gradients of less than 30 percent and are absent of wetlands. Therefore, the mass movement rating was changed to moderate for these map units.

Disturbance areas of moderate mass movement concern include proposed grading that would affect 21.7 acres. Grading in these areas poses an increased risk in mass movement. Mass movement concerns in these areas can be mitigated with proper BMPs and PDC as listed in Table 2-1. In addition, pursuant to Soil Guideline 2 of the Forest Plan, on-site slope stability examinations would be conducted prior to design of roads or activities that remove most or all of the forest cover on slopes over 30 percent, and in other areas having mass movement concerns.

Table 3.10-6 shows qualitative risk assessments of the proposed projects that involve grading and provides reasons for the assigned risk (refer to Limitations column). The assessment is based on the limitations of the soils including potential erosion, compaction (refer to Table 3.10-1), and mass movement potential (as previously discussed in this section). The risks are rated low, moderate, and high.

230 Keller and Sherar, 2003

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 244 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.10-6: Qualitative Mass Movement Potential Risk by Projects with Grading Project Risk Limitations Rough Rider Learning Center High erosion and compaction potential, Bashor Children’s Facility and Restaurant Moderate/High moderate mass movement potential, but 0.03 acre have high mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Bashor Gondola and Carpet Lifts Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Rough Rider Chairlift Replacement Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion hazard, high mass movement Boulevard and Trail A Moderate/High along portions of Boulevard and Trail A and where they cross Vertigo ski trail Bashor Bowl

High erosion and compaction potential, Bashor Chairlift Replacement Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Rabbit Ears Terrain Park Expansion Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Mavericks Superpipe Relocation Moderate moderate mass movement potential

Novice Trail Connecting Yoo Hoo to Big Foot High erosion and compaction potential, low Moderate (Trail D) mass movement potential

Pony Express Area

High erosion and compaction potential, high The Crux Enhancement High mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Middle Rib Enhancement Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Longhorn Enhancement Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, low Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restroom Moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, low The Crux to Dropout Ski-way (Trail E) Moderate mass movement potential

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 245 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.10-6: Qualitative Mass Movement Potential Risk by Projects with Grading Project Risk Limitations Pioneer Ridge Area

High erosion and compaction potential, low Pioneer Chairlift Moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Trail G Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, Trail F Moderate moderate mass movement potential

High erosion and compaction potential, high Burgess Creek Bridge High mass movement potential.

Snowmaking Pipelines Pipeline above Bashor Chairlift Relocation, Section at South End of Lower Upper Storm High erosion and compaction potential, high Peak Express Connector, Section Near High mass movement potential Boulevard/Trail A, and Section Below Upper Middle Rib

High erosion and compaction potential, low to Other Snowmaking Pipelines Moderate moderate mass movement potential

Source: Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting, Inc and Western Ecological Resource 2017

Most projects are rated moderate due to high erosion and compaction hazards. These hazards can be overcome with appropriate BMPs and PDC (refer to Table 2-1). Projects having a high risk are due to high mass movement potential. A site-specific slope stability analysis should be conducted in the other areas that are rated high for mass movement potential to ensure that the slopes can be stabilized with the BMPs and PDC listed in Table 2-1.

Bare Ground Analysis Forest Plan Soils Standard 5, MM 13 states that land treatments must be managed 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. The Proposed Action Alternative would create about 5.3 acres of soil resource loss on NFS lands from roads, staging areas, buildings, and other structures. These areas would be detrimentally compacted and soils displaced.

There are currently 148.9 acres of bare ground on NFS lands within the SUP area (refer to Section 3.10.3.4) that are most likely detrimentally compacted and soils are displaced. The total detrimentally affected areas on NFS lands within the SUP area, including those affected by the Proposed Action Alternative, would be 154.2 acres, which accounts for a total of about 4.1 percent of the NFS lands within the SUP area. Most graded areas would be restored following project completion to maintain soil quality.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 246 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.10.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.10.5.1 Scope of the Analysis The past actions of the development of Steamboat, primarily from roads and trails, have increased erosion rates and increased the potential for mass movement in comparison to undisturbed areas in the Project Area. The Forest Service requires the implementation of BMPs and PDC 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

The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative. The projects listed below are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects on soil conditions in the Steamboat SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Routt County, Colorado.

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for soil resources extend from Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963 through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for soil resources are limited to NFS lands within the Steamboat SUP area, and adjacent private lands.

3.10.5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects For a detailed description of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects 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 below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA projects • Steamboat Ski Area Expansion 1996 EIS • Steamboat Summer Trails EA 2011 • Steamboat Proposed Improvements 2006 EA • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Springs CE • Steamboat Ski Area Maintenance Projects FY13 CE • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Lodge SIR and CE • Steamboat Ski Area 2010 Summer Maintenance Projects CE • Steamboat Ski Area 2009 Summer Maintenance Projects CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2005 CE

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 247 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Steamboat Construction Projects for 2003/04 CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2002 CE • Steamboat Fiber Optic Line CE • Steamboat Mountain Bike Trail Reroute CE • Steamboat Communication Cable Replacement CE • Steamboat Snowmaking Line Construction CE • Steamboat Mountain Bike Trail Construction CE • Steamboat Mountain Bike Reroute CE

Cumulatively, development on NFS lands and private land within the Project Area has changed sediment yield, soil compaction, and has caused soil loss from erosion and loss of soil productivity. In addition, ski development within the Project Area has increased impermeable surfaces and soil compaction, and reduced soil productivity between pre-development and present conditions. Changes in sediment yield and soil compaction from temporary disturbances associated with construction activities would be short term once restored following project completion; however, permanent structures such as roads and buildings would result in increased impermeable surfaces causing higher runoff and higher mass movement potential.

If PDC and BMPs are properly implemented and maintained, onsite erosion, risks of mass movement, and potential increases in sedimentation to waterways would be minimized.

3.10.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES There would be approximately 5.3 acres of soil resources on NFS lands and about 1 acre of soil resources on private land under the Proposed Action Alternative that would be replaced with roads and structures. This loss of soil resources would be long term, but not irreversible or irretrievable. There also would be an irreversible and irretrievable loss of soil from erosion entering streams and exiting the watershed, and from proposed blasting activities, but with the proper implementation of BMPs and PDC this loss would be minimal.

3.11 HYDROLOGY 3.11.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS This analysis summarizes the Hydrology Report for the Steamboat Environmental Impact Statement (Hydrology Report), which is available in the project file.231 All of the projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative would be located within the Burgess Creek watershed; therefore, the scope of this analysis focuses on the stream and riparian resources within the Burgess Creek watershed. The watershed is 2,560 acres in surface area and spans from the summit of Mount Werner to the confluence of Burgess Creek with the Yampa River.

231 Resource Engineering, 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 248 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.11.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION The Forest Plan includes the following Forest-wide and management area-specific standards and guidelines that are relevant to this analysis.

Forest-wide Water and Aquatic Standards and Guidelines: • Water and Aquatic Standard 1: Do not remove naturally occurring debris from stream channels unless it is a threat to life, property, or important resource values, or otherwise covered by legal agreement. • Water and Aquatic Standard 2: Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff. • Water and Aquatic Standard 3: Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to prevent harmful increased runoff. • Water and Aquatic Standard 4: 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. • Water and Aquatic Standard 5: 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. • Water and Aquatic Standard 6: Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are maintained or improved toward robust stream health. • Water and Aquatic Standard 7: Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per CWA Section 404 regulations. • Water and Aquatic Standard 8: Manage stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment. • Water and Aquatic Standard 9: Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams. • Water and Aquatic Standard 10: Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water. • Water and Aquatic Standard 11: Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water. • Water and Aquatic Standard 12: Apply chemicals using methods which minimize risk of entry to surface and ground water. • Water and Aquatic Standard 13: To prevent conditions toxic to fish, avoid human-caused disturbances that result in suspended sediment peaks above 250 milligrams per liter for more than one-hour duration in any stream reach or of more than 500 milligrams per liter at any point in time.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 249 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Water and Aquatic Guideline 1: Incorporate appropriate practices and design criteria from the WCPH into all project design, analysis, and decision documents.

Management Area 8.22 Transportation Standards and Guidelines • Transportation Standard 1: Design, construct, and maintain roads with good alignment, drainage and grades. Minimize cuts and fills and ski trail crossings. • Transportation Guideline 1: Surface main roads with gravel and maintain for truck and heavy equipment travel. Construct secondary roads to a lower standard, sufficient for occasional maintenance vehicle use. Surface with local materials and/or allow to revegetate with grass.

3.11.2.1 Applicable Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Management Measures Pursuant to the Forest Plan, as amended, stream health MMs and PDC are provided in the WCPH to ensure applicable federal and state laws are met on NFS lands in Region 2.232 The WCPH contains several MMs that are environmental goals to protect aquatic and riparian systems. Those MMs of relevance regarding hydrologic resources are outlined below: • 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-12. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage. • MM-13. Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15 percent of any activity area.

3.11.2.2 Relevant Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Definitions Additionally, the WCPH provides definitions for some terms that are important to conveying information in this analysis: • Aquatic Ecosystem: The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water and biotic communities, and the habitat features that occur therein. • At-Risk Stream Health Class: Stream exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, as represented by a suitable reference condition. For a quantitative analysis, moderate integrity is indicated by conditions that are 59 to 73 percent of a reference condition. Physical, chemical, and/or biologic conditions suggest

232 USDA Forest Service, 1998; USDA Forest Service, 2006

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 250 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

that state-assigned water quality uses (beneficial, designated, or classified) are at risk and may be threatened.233 • 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. • Diminished Stream Health Class: Stream exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, as represented by a suitable reference condition. For a quantitative analysis, low integrity is indicated by conditions that are less than 58 percent of a reference condition. Physical, chemical, and/or biologic conditions suggest that state-assigned water quality uses (beneficial, designated, or classified) may not be supported.234 • 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. • 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. • Riparian Areas: Geographically delineable areas with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. • Riparian Ecosystem: A transition area between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem; identified by soil characteristics or distinctive vegetation communities that require free or unbound water. • Robust Stream Health Class: Stream exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, as represented by a suitable reference condition. For a quantitative analysis, high integrity is indicated by conditions that are 74 percent to 100 percent of a reference condition.235 Physical, chemical, and/or biologic conditions suggest that state- assigned water quality uses (beneficial, designated, or classified) are supported.

233 Plafkin et al., 1989; USEPA, 1999; CDPHE, 2002 234 Ibid. 235 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 251 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Stream Health: The condition of a stream versus reference conditions for the stream type and geology, using metrics such as channel geometry, large woody debris, substrate, bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry, and aquatic biota. • 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, 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.

3.11.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.11.3.1 Project Area Description As previously stated, all of the projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative would be located in the Burgess Creek , a second-order watershed. The watershed is 2,560 acres in surface area, spanning from the summit of Mount Werner at 10,565 feet in elevation to the confluence of Burgess Creek with the Yampa River at an elevation of approximately 6,760 feet. A total of 52,208 feet of stream channels were identified and mapped for the Burgess Creek watershed. Of this total, approximately 7,251 feet (or about 14 percent) correspond to sections of the stream network that have been piped or covered with half sections of corrugated metal pipe. The Project Area streams were mapped using a combination of GIS tools, high resolution aerial photography, and field verification with GPS.236 Refer to Figure 3.11-1 for a depiction of water resources identified within the Project Area.

Table 3.11-1 displays a summary description of the various streams that drain the Burgess Creek watershed; a map of the watershed is included in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file.

Table 3.11-1: Burgess Creek Watershed – Summary Description of Stream Channels Perennial Streams Intermittent Streams Total Stream Network Total Total Description Total Length Piped Piped Piped Length Length (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Burgess Creek 27,212 1,197 6,692 0 33,904 1,197 (NFS Lands) Burgess Creek 15,990 5,066 2,314 988 18,304 6,054 (Private Lands) Total 43,202 6,263 9,006 988 52,208 7,251 Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

236 USDA, 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 252 The Crux Inset Priest Creek Lift Sundown Express

Patrol Hut & Restroom !

Bar UE

Four Points

Pony Express Storm Peak Express Elk Head The Crux

Pioneer Chairlift See Inset

Burgess Creek

The Crux

Burgess Creek Bridge !

Thunderhead Express

Gondola

Rough Rider

Bashor Relocation !

Bashor Gondola Bashor Children's Facility & Restaurant VooDoo

Christie Peak Express

Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3.11-1: Proposed Action Alternative Water Resources

Existing Water Resources Proposed

Christie lll Lifts Springs and Seeps Lifts Preview

Roads Streams Lift Upgrades

Wetlands SUP Boundary Lift Removal

0 375 750 1,500 ' Alternative 2 Projects

Steamboat Ski Resort Date: May 2018 [ Operational Boundary Prepared By: Base Area Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Baseline (pre-development) conditions were estimated from analysis of aerial photography taken prior to the creation of the ski area.237 The historical photography shows that land use within the lower elevations of the Burgess Creek watershed corresponded mostly to agricultural activities, and that approximately 2,135 acres of subalpine forests existed in this watershed. The agricultural use of the lower elevation lands has been replaced by urban development and by the construction of the base area. Ski trails and chairlifts, on-mountain restaurants, service roads, and hiking and biking trails are examples of developments that have taken place in the watershed within the last forty to fifty years. Construction of these projects involved the removal of approximately 357 acres of trees (14 percent of the total watershed area) in the Burgess Creek watershed. Table 3.11-2 displays a comparison of the forested areas between the baseline and existing conditions for the Burgess Creek watershed.

Table 3.11-2: Burgess Creek Watershed – Baseline and Existing Conditions Above Tree- Total Area Forests Openings Percent Condition line (acres) (acres) (acres) Openings (acres) Baseline 2,558 2,135 124 299 12% Existing 2,558 1,778 124 656 26% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b Note: Forest openings correspond to natural meadows and areas where trees have been removed due to urban and ski area development.

3.11.3.2 Watershed Yield Burgess Creek hydrographs 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.238 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 that are based on data recorded at several different gauging stations. The simulated hydrographs represent 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. The water yield hydrographs do not represent streamflow per se, but rather a time distribution of basin-wide water yield available to the receiving waters. In other words, the WRENSS Model was developed to simulate expected changes in streamflow as the result of silvicultural activities, not streamflow itself. Additionally, the WRENSS model does not account for changes in impervious surfaces (roads, graded terrain, etc.) in the watershed and their effect of routing runoff to channels more efficiently. Therefore, peak flow

237 USGS, 1953 238 USEPA, 1980; MATCOM, 2003; CSCUSA, 1986

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 254 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

estimates generated by the model may be lower than actual conditions. The model, however, is considered the appropriate model for this analysis.

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 additional water in the form of snowmaking. The water yields and peak flows for both baseline and current conditions were calculated using the WRENSS Model assuming average precipitation and temperatures, and are summarized in Table 3.11-3. 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 flow characteristics reflective of the current development and snowmaking applications. In general, snowmelt hydrographs influenced by vegetation clearing and snowmaking have higher intensity peak flows that occur earlier in the runoff season than pre- development, or baseline, conditions. For example, the WRENSS model calculations show that, on average, baseline peak streamflows occurred around June 7th; however, under existing conditions peak flows occur approximately two weeks earlier, around May 26th. 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) to the Burgess Creek watershed. Such changes to the hydrology of the 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 3.11-3 summarizes the water yields and peak flows calculated using the WRENSS Model, for both baseline and current conditions assuming average precipitation and temperatures.

Table 3.11-3: Burgess Creek Watershed – WRENSS Model Output for Baseline and Existing Conditions (Average Year) Condition Baseline Existing Percent Difference Water Yield (acre-feet) 3,622 4,360 20% Peak Flow (cfs) 30.5 53.9 77% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

An increase of 77 percent in peak flow on an average year equates to the ten-year flow event occurring in average years. It is important to note that watershed yield and the temporal distribution of streamflows shown in Table 3.11-3 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

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 255 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

cover, soil moisture, and occurrence of wind, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation and temperatures.239

Although continuous records of Burgess Creek streamflow do not exist, changes in watershed yield and peak streamflows can be estimated using hydrologic models such as WRENSS. For example, yield and peak flows were computed for typical wet and dry years, with a 25 percent and 75 percent probability of exceedance respectively, such as occurred in 2006 and 1994. In these examples, the wet year watershed yield was 29 percent higher than the average, while the dry year yield was calculated at 15 percent lower than the average. Table 3.11-4 compares the modeled water yields and peak flows of the Burgess Creek watershed for the temperatures and precipitation corresponding to the typical dry, average, and wet years.

Table 3.11-4: Comparison of Burgess Creek Watershed Yield and Peak Flows for Dry (1994), Average, and Wet (2006) Conditions Dry Wet Condition Percent Average Percent Amount Amount Change Change Water Yield (acre-feet) 3,707 -15% 4,360 5,645 29% Peak Flow (cfs) 47.3 -12% 53.9 64.9 20% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

3.11.3.3 Stream Health and Watershed Condition The WCPH defines stream health as the condition of a stream compared to the condition of a 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. In 2011 and 2017, the Forest Service measured Burgess Creek through a stream health assessment survey using metrics such as streambank stability, percent fines, median substrate particle diameter (D50), residual pool depths, and a longitudinal profile. Resource Engineering conducted a qualitative assessment on a reach upstream of the Forest Service stream survey reach using the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP), which was developed by the USDA NRCS specifically for small perennial and intermittent streams.240 This tool provides a means for the investigator to assess physical, chemical, and biological features within a study reach by analyzing and scoring up to sixteen different assessment elements. The overall score for the assessed stream reach is then calculated as the average of the various scores. Table 3.11-5 shows the SVAP health ratings.

239 Chow et al., 1988; Eagleson, 1970 240 Resource Engineering, 2017b; USDA-NRCS, 2009

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 256 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.11-5: 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

The condition of the Burgess Creek watershed was analyzed not only in terms of stream health, but also by considering the indicators in the Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (WCC Guide).241 According to the WCC Guide, the condition of a watershed reflects “… a range of variability from natural pristine (functioning properly) to degraded (severely altered state or impaired).” Table 3.11-6 displays the three watershed condition classes described in the WCC Guide.

Table 3.11-6: Watershed Condition Classification Watershed Class Watershed Condition Class 1 Functioning Properly (Good) Class 2 Functioning at Risk (Fair) Class 3 Impaired Function (Poor) Source: USDA Forest Service 2011b

Despite being smaller than the scale of watershed classification used in the Watershed Condition Framework, indicators outlined in the WCC Guide remain relevant for analysis and discussion of the Burgess Creek watershed condition particularly as it relates to impacts associated with roads and trails.242 A complete discussion of the watershed classification scale and indicators used to assess hydrologic conditions under the WCC Guide is contained in the project file.

Potential Management Effects to Stream Health As described under Section 3.11.2, the Forest Plan and the WCPH include direction for projects that may affect hydrologic 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.243 For example, increased streamflows and sediment loads can result from implementation of tree clearing, terrain grading, and snowmaking. Stream channel adjustments have been shown to be strongly related to an increase in drainage density (e.g., CDA). These impacts, in turn, can degrade stream health in metrics such bank stability, percent of fine sediments, and undercut banks. Table 3.11-7

241 USDA Forest Service, 2011b 242 Ibid. 243 David et al., 2009; Burroughs and King, 1989; Troendle and Olsen, 1994

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 257 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

lists various metrics of stream health and their associated causal mechanisms. The metrics and causal mechanisms included in Table 3.11-7 are defined in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file.

Table 3.11-7: 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 2017b

The following paragraphs use the metrics and causal mechanisms from Table 3.11-7 to describe the existing conditions of the study watershed.

Existing Stream Health A qualitative stream channel condition survey was completed on Burgess Creek following the guidelines of the SVAP methodology, as described previously in this section. Three stream segments were selected for the assessment: two reference reaches (Jones Gulch and South Barton Gulch) and one study reach (Burgess Creek). The Hydrology Report contained in the project file describes the criteria for reference reaches and the conditions they are representative of.

Fourteen assessment elements were analyzed and scored under the SVAP methodology. 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 7 points (from a corresponding recommended range of 6 to 8) because the study reach was observed to be “stable, with gradient control provided by boulders and exposed bedrock forming step-pool patterns. No evidence of aggradation or degradation was observed and riparian vegetation appeared to be well established.” The assessment elements relevant to stream health are summarized in Table 3.11-8.

Table 3.11-8: Stream Health – Summary of SVAP Stream Health Element Ratings SVAP Element Jones Gulch South Barton Gulch Burgess Creek Channel Condition 8.00 8.00 7.00 Hydrologic Alteration 9.00 8.00 6.00 Bank Condition 9.00 9.00 6.00 Riparian Area Quantity 9.00 7.00 5.00 Riparian Area Quality 8.00 8.00 8.00 Pools 9.00 8.00 7.00 Overall Score and Classification 8.67 / Good 8.0 / Good 6.50 / Fair Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 258 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The study reach is located approximately 1,600 feet upstream from a quantitative stream survey site surveyed by Forest Service personnel in 2011 and 2017. Although the 2011 and 2017 surveys followed a different methodology, some of the measured or assessed elements are common to the qualitative 2016 study. Both the 2011 and 2017 survey determined that 70 percent of the streambanks were stable and 30 percent of the streambanks were unstable. The greenline transect for the survey reach had an overall stability rating of “Poor to Moderate,” which reflected the presence of upland species and bare ground. The Forest Service quantitative survey indicates a stream health rating of “at risk” as defined in the WCPH and references in the Forest Plan Water and Aquatic standards. The Forest Service stream health assessment, printout of the SVAP worksheet, photographs, and field notes are included in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file.

The following list summarizes the different attributes that can affect stream health. While each of these is a unique indicator or factor, the potential interaction between all of these attributes must be considered when evaluating overall watershed function and stream health. • Peak flows in an average year have been increased by 77 percent due to a combination of tree clearing and snowmaking • 14 percent of the stream channel network is contained within culverts or covered by half culverts • 28 percent of the WIZ has been affected by past ski area development • 30 percent of Burgess Creek streambanks were rated unstable in 2011 and 2017 • The stream channel network has experienced 14 percent extension • Presence of very high road and trail densities with some associated mass wasting impacts

Past ski area development, combined with snowmaking, has increased peak flows. These increased peak flows are more efficiently routed to the stream channel through CDAs and the channel network having been extended by 14 percent, which are discussed in greater detail in the section below. The high percent of unstable banks and “at risk” stream health rating in Burgess Creek is likely due to increased peak flows and efficient routing to the stream. There is also a high probability that the road and trail density of over 12 miles per square mile and graded terrain has altered the hydrologic regime (timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution), although this is difficult to demonstrate without instrumentation over multiple years.

Existing Connected Disturbed Areas A field investigation completed during fall of 2016 in the Burgess Creek watershed 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. In particular, the field investigation focused on the condition of roads and mountain bike trails within the Burgess Creek watershed and in the vicinity of stream channels to determine if such disturbed 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. Indicators of direct hydrologic connection include surface erosion (rilling, gullying, headcutting), and

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 259 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

sediment deposition near or within the stream channel. Generally, roads, mountain bike trails, and ski trails at Steamboat were found to be in good condition; however, there exist sections of roads and trails where evidence of drainage flowing directly into the creek was observed. As a result, these sections were classified as CDAs. Areas of soil erosion due to snowmelt drainage not connected to the stream were also identified. These areas were deemed not CDAs because they would discharge in well vegetated areas where flow would disperse and/or infiltrate. Table 3.11-9 shows the length and density of existing roads and trails in the Burgess Creek watershed.

Table 3.11-9: Burgess Creek Watershed Roads and Trails – Existing Conditions Existing Roads and Trails Watershed (feet) (miles) (feet/acre) (miles/square mile) Burgess Creek 266,302 50.4 104 12.6 Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

Field observations and GPS data collected during the investigation, including the field-measured widths of roads and trails, was incorporated into a GIS database. By utilizing GIS tools, the length of roads and trails that were determined to be CDAs was computed.

The calculated acreage of disturbed areas that is connected to the stream system is small relative to the spatial extent of bike trails and roads in the Burgess Creek watershed (refer to Table 3.11-10); however, the length of mountain bike trails and roads that are connected to the stream, estimated at 7,560 feet, represents a 14 percent increase over the length of the natural stream channel network (refer to Table 3.11-11). PDC included under MM-2 in the WCPH (which corresponds to Forest Plan Water and Aquatic Standard 2) states that CDAs should be limited “so the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10 percent.” Although this MM applies to watersheds containing third order and larger streams, the practice is still relevant to the Burgess Creek watershed in order to attain the Forest Plan direction.

Table 3.11-10: CDAs within the Study Watershed – Existing Conditions Roads and Trails CDA Percent of Roads and Watershed (acres) (acres) Trails that are CDAs Burgess Creek at Forest 52.1 1.7 3% Service Boundary Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

Table 3.11-11: Channel Length Increase – Existing Conditions Natural Stream Road Drainage Percent Increase of Watershed Channel Length Connected Length Channel Length (feet) (feet) Burgess Creek 52,208 7,560 14% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 260 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Several studies have shown that roads and trails can increase streams’ peak discharges by increasing the watershed’s flow-routing efficiency. The increase in streamflows due to the presence of roads and trails can be attributed to two mechanisms: (1) overland flow generated by precipitation or snowmelt is intercepted by compacted road and trail surfaces, which have low infiltration capacities, and routed downslope at a higher velocity as compared to sheet flow velocities over undisturbed surfaces; and (2) shallow groundwater flows can be intercepted by road and trail cutbanks and converted to surface runoff, which is then routed at a much higher velocity relative to groundwater flows.244 The overall condition of the ski area biking trails and roads has likely contributed the “at risk” stream health rating Burgess Creek. The relatively low score of 6 points given to the stream bank condition and 30 percent unstable banks in Burgess Creek can be attributed, in part, to the length of connected trails and roads.

Roads and trails is one of the indicators used by the WCC Guide and addresses changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes due to the density, location, distribution, and maintenance of roads and trails within the watershed. More specifically, this indicator includes four attributes: (1) Open road density; (2) Road and trail maintenance; (3) Proximity to water; and (4) Mass wasting. These attributes are assessed individually and then considered together to determine the overall score of the roads and trails indicator.

Based upon the scores given to the attributes discussed above, the roads and trails indicator under current conditions exhibits an “impaired” rating for two attributes and an “at risk” rating for two attributes (refer to Table 3.11-12), which could be considered to overall be on the border between functioning “at risk” and “impaired.”

Table 3.11-12: Scoring of Roads and Trails Indicator Roads and Trails Attributes Rating Description Open road density 3 Poor Road maintenance 3 Poor Proximity to water 2 Fair Mass wasting 2 Fair Overall indicator rating 2.5 Fair-Poor Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

An in-depth analysis of scoring for individual roads and trails attributes can be found in the Hydrology Report contained in the project file.

244 Wemple et al., 1996

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 261 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Existing Impacts to the Water Influence Zone As highlighted in Table 3.11-7, 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 3.11-13 compares the extent of the WIZ that is forested estimated for pre-development, or baseline, against existing conditions.

Table 3.11-13: WIZ Forested Areas – Baseline vs. Existing Conditions Baseline Existing Existing Watershed (acres) (acres) (% of Baseline) Burgess Creek at Forest Service Boundary 149.5 107.5 72% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

3.11.3.4 Water Quality Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that States prepare a list of water quality-limited, or impaired, stream segments. The state’s Water Quality Control Commission has included Burgess Creek and other tributaries to the Yampa River in Segment 3 of the Upper Colorado Basin, under Water Body Identification COUCYA03, and more specifically under Assessment Unit (AUID) COUCYA03_A. 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 2016.245 The Report classified AUID COUCYA03_A under Category 1 (attaining water quality standards for all classified uses). It is important to note that water quality data is not available for Burgess Creek; although, the Category 1 classification assigned to the streams under AUID COUCYA03_A includes Burgess Creek, and the analysis was based on data obtained from other streams in the Unit.

Water is diverted from the Yampa River and utilized for snowmaking purposes at Steamboat. A portion of the man-made snow is applied on trails tributary to Burgess Creek; when artificial snow melts during the late-spring and summer months, some of the water originally diverted from the Yampa River flows into Burgess Creek. An in-depth study of the potential effects of Yampa River snowmaking water on the quality of Burgess Creek water would require an extensive water quality dataset to compare conditions on the Yampa River and various locations on Burgess Creek (e.g., upstream and downstream from snowmaking applications). Such dataset does not exist, and therefore, the potential effects of Yampa River water on the quality of Burgess Creek are unknown.

A summary of water quality-related SVAP parameters for the reference and study reaches is provided below in Table 3.11-14.

245 CDPHE, 2016b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 262 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.11-14: Water Quality – Summary of SVAP Water Quality Element Ratings SVAP Element Jones Gulch South Barton Gulch Burgess Creek Canopy Covera 9.00 7.00 6.00 Water Appearance 8.00 8.00 8.00 Nutrient Enrichment 9.00 9.00 9.00 Manure or Human Waste 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 8.50 8.25 Average Excellent Good Good Source: Resource Engineering 2017b Notes: a Canopy cover affects temperature; therefore, this parameter is included in the assessment of water quality.

3.11.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.11.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Steamboat would continue its current summer and winter operations. The ski area improvements and activities associated with the Proposed Action Alternative, including removal of vegetation, terrain grading, and/or implementation of additional snowmaking would not occur with selection of the No Action Alternative. The existing impacts to hydrologic resources within the Project Area would continue with implementation of this alternative.

Watershed Yield The Burgess Creek watershed yield would continue to resemble the current conditions depicted in Table 3.11-3. The current conditions reflected in Table 3.11-3 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. Any variability to watershed yield would be a result of natural conditions and would not be driven by projects at Steamboat.

Stream Health and Watershed Condition Burgess Creek stream health is expected to remain “at risk”; however, on-going adverse effects are anticipated to Burgess Creek due to ski area operations. 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 Burgess Creek would be a result of natural and/or human induced factors beyond the scope of this analysis.

The length of roads and trails that are connected to streams in the Burgess Creek watershed would remain at approximately 3 percent. As discussed in Section 3.11.3.3, roads, mountain bike trails, and ski trails at Steamboat were generally in good condition; however, sections of roads and trails where evidence of drainage flowing into the creek was observed were classified as CDAs. Existing disturbance, such as CDAs and channel network extension, would remain.

Impacts to the WIZ would continue to resemble those depicted in Table 3.11-13. There is no tree clearing or grading on NFS lands associated with the No Action Alternative.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 263 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Quality No cause of impairment has been identified for Project Area streams (those considered by the Water Quality Control Commission in segment COUCYA03). 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 water quality would be a result of natural and/or human induced factors beyond the scope of this analysis.

3.11.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative includes the removal of hazard trees, creation of new ski terrain, installation of new ski lifts, construction of a new ski learning center, and implementation of 53 acres of additional snowmaking coverage. Table 3.11-15 summarizes the acreage that would be impacted for each type of disturbance.

Table 3.11-15: Summary of Disturbance associated with the Proposed Projects Area Disturbance Type (acres) Grading only 24.4 Tree Clearing 47.3 Vegetation removal and grading 22.8 Glading (40% tree clearing) 91.8 Thinning (20% tree clearing) 14.8 Temporary Grading 27.1 Total 228.2 Note: Discrepancies in disturbance acreage with other resource analysis may occur and are attributable to differences in GIS data used for that particular resource.

As a result of the disturbances that would occur, the acreage of cleared forested in the Project Area would increase. Table 3.11-16 provides a comparison between pre-development, existing, and proposed conditions, as it relates to acreage of forest.

Table 3.11-16: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Acreage of Forested Areas Existing Cleared Areas Proposed Cleared Areas Baseline Watershed Forests Area Percent of Area Percent of (acres) Baseline (acres) Baseline Burgess Creek 1,682.6 341.4 20.3% 404.4 24.0% (NFS Lands) Burgess Creek 452.4 314.5 69.5% 321.6 71.1% (Private Lands) Total 2,135.0 655.9 30.7% 726.0 34.0% Source: Resource Engineering 2017

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 264 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In addition, the proposed additional snowmaking coverage would require an increase in the snowmaking water diversions of approximately 37 acre-feet. Table 3.11-17 displays the existing and proposed snowmaking coverage.

Table 3.11-17: Snowmaking Coverage and Associated Water Demands – Existing vs Proposed Snowmaking Coverage (acres) Snowmaking Water (acre-feet) Watershed Existing Proposed Cumulative Existing* Proposed Cumulative Burgess Creek 138.7 43.6 182.3 84.3 28.6 112.9 (NFS Lands) Burgess Creek 106.5 9.7 116.2 133.2 8.2 141.5 (Private Lands) Total 245.3 53.3 298.5 217.6 36.8 254.4 Source: Resource Engineering 2017 Notes: * Includes snowmaking water uses for terrain parks and snow features

Watershed Yield Hydrologic computations performed using the WRENSS hydrologic model show that water yields and peak runoff flow rates originating from the Burgess Creek watershed under Proposed Action Alternative conditions would increase by approximately 4 percent and 1 percent relative to existing condition. 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. Introduction of snowmaking water into the watersheds further increases the water yield. Table 3.11-18 displays the changes in annual water yield and peak runoff flow rates modeled for the Proposed Action Alternative under average climatic conditions. Note that computations completed by the WRENSS model do not include routing of runoff water through the watershed to the stream system. Therefore, the effects of terrain grading on peak flows are not considered in this analysis.

Table 3.11-18: Burgess Creek Watershed – Computed Water Yield and Peak Flows Estimated Change Relative to Existing Conditions % Change Relative to Condition Baseline Existing Proposed Baseline Existing Water Yield (acre-feet) 3,622 4,360 4,535 25% 4% Peak Flow (cfs) 30.5 53.9 54.7 80% 1% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

The 4 and 1 percent increases in yield and runoff peak flow computed for the Proposed Action Alternative are small as compared to the natural variability of the study watershed’s hydrology. As discussed in Section 3.11.3.2, watershed yield and peak streamflows can vary by approximately -15 and +30 percent from one year to the next due to natural changes in precipitation and temperature values and temporal patterns. Therefore, the calculated increases in peak discharge and runoff volume that

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 265 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

would occur with implementation of the proposed projects would not result in significant impacts to the existing watershed condition.

It is also important to note that the hydrograph modeled for the Proposed Action Alternative displays slight increases in watershed yield and peak flow but does not show a change in timing. In other words, the WRENNS model predicts that peak flows would continue to occur, on average, at approximately the same time of the year. A portion of the modeled increase 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 cause, in turn, the area springs, ephemeral and intermittent streams to flow at an increased rate during late April and early May, as compared to existing conditions. A potential implication of this hydrologic change would be the creation of new drainage channels and/or an expansion of the extent of wetland vegetation.

Stream Health and Watershed Condition As discussed in Section 3.11.3.3, Burgess Creek stream health was determined to be ‘at risk.’ Trail construction, terrain grading, and/or tree removal within the WIZ can negatively affect stream health by increasing the extent of CDAs (which may impact stream bank stability, and channel sedimentation), increasing water yield, increasing peak flows and by reducing recruitment of woody debris.

Construction and implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative within the Burgess Creek watershed following the PDC included in Table 2-1 has the potential to cause a decline in stream health, but is not expected to decline to the degree of resulting in “Diminished” stream health in Burgess Creek. This would ‘maintain’ the stream health class per the Forest Plan standard of “maintain or improve,” but would not move towards robust stream health in the next planning period.

The following paragraphs describe the effects to the WIZ, riparian areas, and CDAs, all of which are components of stream health, that could be affected as a result of trail construction, terrain grading, and/or tree removal included in the Proposed Action Alternative.

Impacts to the Water Influence Zone MM-3 of the WCPH and Forest Plan Water and Aquatic Standard 4 states that only those projects that maintain or improve long-term stream and riparian ecosystem health should be allowed in the WIZ next to perennial and intermittent streams. Approximately 6.5 acres of tree clearing, including 1.7 acres of grading, are proposed to occur within the Burgess Creek WIZ as a result of projects such as trail opening, road construction, and chairlift installation. Approximately 4 of the 6.5 acres of tree clearing within the WIZ would be associated with hazard tree removal projects, which are anticipated to revegetate over time, reducing long-term impacts within the WIZ. With the implementation of PDC, which includes disconnecting existing CDAs and WIZ restoration projects, identified in Table 2-1, the Proposed Action Alternative is anticipated to maintain stream health within the ‘at-risk’ category and be consistent with Water and Aquatic Standard 4. Table 3.11-19 summarizes the acreage of forested areas in the Burgess Creek WIZ under baseline, existing, and proposed conditions.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 266 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.11-19: Comparison of Forested Areas in Burgess Creek Water Influence Zone % Change from Proposed Action Baseline Existing Proposed Watershed Relative to (acres) (acres) (acres) Baseline Existing Burgess Creek (NFS Lands) 149.5 107.5 101.7 68% 95% Source: Resource Engineering 2017b

In addition to projects proposed to be constructed within the WIZ, other projects have the potential to impact stream health and watershed condition. Of particular concern would be the roads to the proposed Pioneer chairlift top and bottom terminals. This project would contribute to an increase in the open road density attribute (refer to the Existing CDA discussion in Section 3.11.3.3) by adding approximately 4,705 linear feet (approximately 0.9 mile) to the existing road network. Conversely, the proposed projects also include reclamation of the Yoo Hoo summer road, which would deduct 1,315 feet (0.25 mile) from the road network. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative would result in a net increase of the Burgess Creek watershed road density by 0.2 mile per square mile.

Approximately 1,000 feet of the access road for the proposed Pioneer chairlift terminals would be constructed on steep slopes (i.e., larger than 60 percent, or approximately 30 degrees). Although soils in these slopes have been mapped as having low mass movement potential, it is recommended to assume a high mass movement potential due to the relatively steep slopes of 60 percent or more (refer to Section 3.10 for a complete discussion of soils and mass movement potential in the Project Area). Thus, roads and trails within areas with high potential for mass movement would increase by less than 0.2 mile, which would not impact the ‘fair’ rating of the roads and trails mass wasting attribute (refer to the Existing CDA discussion in Section 3.11.3.3).

Included in the proposed disturbance described above are four projects that also have the potential to impact Burgess Creek stream health and watershed condition: (1) construction of a bridge over Burgess Creek to connect the bottom terminal of the proposed Pioneer chairlift (and Pioneer Ridge area terrain) with the existing BC Skiway; (2) construction of a ski trail (Trail F) that would include an at-grade crossing of the North Fork of Burgess Creek; (3) re-grading of the Crux terrain, which may require rock blasting within riparian areas, and (4) re-grading of Bashor Bowl.

Both of the Burgess Creek crossings would have a width sufficient to accommodate a snowcat (approximately 30 feet). All construction activity and bridge components, such as piers and abutments, would be sited outside of the ordinary high-water mark of the creek. The North Fork of Burgess Creek is a perennial stream and the proposed Trail F crossing would likely need a culvert or bridge in order to accommodate grooming equipment and ski patrol snowmobiles.

The Crux would be regraded and is anticipated to require rock blasting. An intermittent tributary to Burgess Creek exists in the Crux area, with a narrow band of wetland-type vegetation along the channel, and interspersed seeps and wetland-type plants within the riparian area. The hydrologic characteristics of the Crux area, with shallow groundwater occupying a substantial portion of it (underground stream, seeps, and wetlands) would require a detailed grading plan and careful planning and execution to minimize impacts to the hydrologic resources and comply with MM-3 of the WCPH.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 267 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Within the Bashor Bowl area, approximately 0.26 acres of permanent grading within the WIZ would occur on NFS lands and 1.2 acres of permanent grading within the WIZ would occur on private lands. The WIZ in these areas is associated primarily with palustrine wetlands and intermittent streams contained within. Those WIZ impacts on NFS lands would be primarily associated with the construction of Trail D and removal of the existing Bashor Pavilion and bathroom facilities, while those WIZ impacts on private lands would be primarily associated with the relocated Bashor chairlift bottom terminal and existing Bashor chairlift removal.

For additional detail regarding wetlands in these areas, including a description of PDC to minimize impacts to wetlands resources, the reader is referred to Section 3.12.

Impacts to Riparian Areas Impacts to riparian areas would be similar to those discussed for the WIZ since riparian habitats are generally included within the WIZ. Potential impacts to riparian areas outside of the WIZ would coincide with impacts to wetlands and are disclosed in Section 3.12. Direct and indirect impacts to riparian functions could result from the Proposed Action Alternative; however, these impacts would be minimized and avoided to the extent practicable by implementing the PDC included in Table 2-1, and by meeting the requirements of the state and federal permits that would be required prior to implementation of projects.

Connected Disturbed Areas The proposed tree removal and terrain grading projects included in the Proposed Action Alternative have the potential to increase the acreage connected to the stream. Burt and Rice (2009) found that terrain grading significantly increased erosion potential relative to ski runs that were only cleared, but not graded.246 The Proposed Action Alternative would heavily grade approximately 25 acres within the Bashor Bowl area, and approximately 7 acres in the Pioneer Ridge area. Some grading would occur within 100 feet of stream channels or border wetlands connected to stream channels, which would increase CDAs. Implementation of these projects along with PDC, including installation and maintenance of BMPs for erosion and sediment control, would minimize the potential increase of CDAs.

Moreover, analysis of field observations recorded during the fall 2016 site visits indicates that approximately 3,300 feet of existing connected trails and roads within the Burgess Creek watershed could be effectively disconnected from the stream network by properly implementing and maintaining standard BMPs (refer to the Hydrology Report contained in the project file for Proposed Mitigation Measures to Disconnect Existing CDAs).This would reduce the length of roads and trails drainage that is connected to the stream from the current 3 percent to approximately 2 percent, which would improve the “fair” rating of the proximity to water attribute of the roads and trails indicator of watershed condition (refer to the Existing CDA discussion in Section 3.11.3.3). Furthermore, disconnecting 3,300 feet of roads and trails from the channel network would comply with design criteria included in MM-1 of the WCPH by reducing the expansion of the total stream network from the existing 14 percent to 8 percent.

246 Burt and Rice, 2009

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 268 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Quality The primary potential effects to water quality associated with the Proposed Action Alternative would be from (1) increased snowmaking diversions to the quality of water in the Yampa 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 water in Burgess Creek.

As stated in Section 3.11.3.4, the State of Colorado has determined that streams included in Segment COUYYA03_A (which includes Burgess Creek) have a water quality attaining to the corresponding numeric standards for all classified uses.

Steamboat utilizes water diverted from the Yampa River to make artificial snow (on average, 224 acre- feet per year). Implementation of the proposed snowmaking coverage would require an additional 37 acre-feet of Yampa River water. Of this amount, approximately 23 percent would be lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses; therefore, the net amount of additional Yampa River water input to the watershed that would be available to the stream is approximately 28.5 acre-feet. This represents a 16 percent increase from existing conditions.

The segment of the Yampa River from where Steamboat draws its snowmaking water is included in the CWA Section 303(d) list; the impaired uses stated in the list are aquatic life due to temperature and water supply due to arsenic. The segment has been placed in Category 5 in the Integrated Report: “Not meeting applicable water quality standards for one or more classified uses by one or more pollutants.” The input of Yampa River water to the Burgess Creek watershed in the form of man-made snow has the potential to impact the water quality of Burgess Creek. Snowmaking operations have been taking place in the Burgess Creek watershed for decades; however, Burgess Creek is a Category 1 stream, as compared with the Category 5 Yampa River.

A higher watershed yield and associated surface runoff resulting from tree clearing and implementation of additional snowmaking in the watershed has the potential to impact water quality by increasing the amount of sediment loading in Burgess Creek. Projects of particular concern are those that involve tree clearing and terrain grading within the WIZ. In addition to the PDC outlined in Table 2-1, these projects would require proper design, construction, and maintenance of drainage features in order to minimize soil erosion and consequent transport of sediment into the stream.

3.11.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.11.5.1 Scope of the Analysis The effects analyzed in the Cumulative Effects discussion apply to both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative. The projects listed below are expected to cumulatively have short- and long-term effects to hydrologic resources in the Steamboat SUP area and on adjacent NFS and private lands, as well as throughout Routt County, Colorado.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 269 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for hydrologic resources extend from pre- development before Steamboat’s inception as a resort in 1963 through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate.

Spatial Bounds The spatial bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for hydrologic resources include the Yampa River immediately downstream from its confluence with the streams that flow through the Steamboat. These include Burgess Creek, Beaver Creek and Priest Creek, all three tributaries to Walton Creek (HUC12 140500010405). The Yampa River below the confluence with Walton Creek is included in the Yampa River watershed at Steamboat Springs (City of Steamboat Springs-Yampa River, HUC12 140500010409).

3.11.5.2 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 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 hydrologic resources and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Mountain Bike Reroute CE • Steamboat Mountain Bike Trail Construction CE • Steamboat Snowmaking Line Construction CE • Steamboat Communication Cable Replacement CE • Steamboat Fiber Optic Line CE • Steamboat Ski Area Expansion 1996 EIS • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2002 CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2003/04 CE • Steamboat Construction Projects for 2005 CE • Steamboat Proposed Improvements 2006 EA • Steamboat Ski Area 2009 Maintenance Projects CE • Steamboat Ski Area 2010 Summer Maintenance Projects CE • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Lodge SIR and CE • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Summer Trails 2011 EA • Steamboat Ski Area Maintenance Projects FY13 CE • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Spring CE

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 270 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The effects on hydrologic resources of existing and proposed activities that take place at Steamboat would be most evident in the reach of the Yampa River immediately downstream from its confluence with the streams that flow through the Steamboat SUP area. In addition to Burgess Creek these include Beaver Creek and Priest Creek, which are all tributaries to Walton Creek (HUC12 140500010405). The study watershed (Burgess Creek), discussed in the Affected Environment discussion of this section, is much smaller in surface area as compared to the Yampa River watershed at the City of Steamboat Springs (City of Steamboat Springs-Yampa River, HUC12 140500010409). The Burgess Creek watershed comprises, at its confluence with the Yampa River, 4.5 square miles, while the Yampa River at the City of Steamboat Springs drains an area of 520 square miles. However, water used for snowmaking is diverted from the Yampa River along with additional municipal and agricultural diversions and return flows that have a significant impact on the basins’ hydrology. Thus, the Yampa River at the City of Steamboat Springs defines the downstream spatial boundary for the hydrologic resources cumulative effects analysis.

When considered cumulatively with the No Action Alternative, 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 hydrologic resources. Existing impacts to hydrologic resources include changes to streamflow hydrology (e.g., due to storage projects and 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 and ski area operations. Existing concerns regarding the stream health and water quality of the Yampa River watershed would be expected to continue. Future implementation of projects would require site-specific studies to determine whether additional water depletions for snowmaking would be necessary, and impacts to hydrologic resources would be minimized to the extent practicable.

The following paragraphs disclose cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative.

Watershed Yield The Burgess Creek watershed yield is anticipated to increase by 4 percent in an average year (approximately 176 acre-feet) as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Computations completed with the WRENSS model, at the scale of the Burgess Creek watershed, indicate that ski area and urban developments over the last fifty years have increased yield by approximately 25 percent relative to pre- development conditions, and peak flows have been increased 80 percent above baseline. Increased peak flows are efficiently routed to the stream through the 14 percent channel network extension, increased CDAs, and deforestation of 32 percent of the WIZ. While the Proposed Action Alternative would result in relatively small increases in these impacts, overall impacts compared to baseline conditions have severely altered the hydrologic regime in Burgess Creek. PDC to reduce channel network extension would help offset the proposed increases from terrain grading and new road construction.

At the scale of the Yampa River, the Burgess Creek watershed contributes approximately 1 percent of the total yield. An analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge at the City of Steamboat

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 271 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Springs, which contains records from 1910 through present, shows that the average water yield of the Yampa River at this location prior to 1960 was 341,140 acre-feet per year. The average annual yield over the last fifty years is 326,201 acre-feet. The effects of the Proposed Action Alternative on watershed yield would result in a slight, but probably un-measurable, change at the scale of the Yampa River watershed (the watershed yield increase is estimated to be on the order of 0.05 percent relative to the annual yield of the Yampa River). Similar to the No Action Alternative, it is expected that climate change would result in additional impacts to water yield, streamflows, and water quality.

Stream Health and Watershed Condition Past ski area development has cumulatively affected riparian areas on NFS lands within the Steamboat SUP area. Urban and commercial development on private lands have also resulted in impacts to the watershed. Regarding ski area development at Steamboat, there have been cumulative impacts to the watershed from ground disturbance activities related to construction of ski trails, mountain restaurants, and ski lifts. The Proposed Action Alternative would add 70 acres of tree removal, 47 acres of terrain grading (some of these acreages overlap), and 107 acres of forest glading and thinning. As discussed in Section 3.11.3.3, connected roads and trails increase the intensity of surface runoff and constitute a source of sediment input into the stream system, and road and trail densities within the Burgess Creek watershed are well above the 2.4 miles per square mile that constitutes a ‘poor’ rating for this attribute. The total length of existing roads within the spatial extent of the cumulative effects analysis is approximately 850 miles, with a corresponding road density of 1.6 miles per square mile. Although a study of road and trail connectedness at the spatial extent of the cumulative effects analysis was not completed, the proposed activities would implement PDC and mitigation measures (including 0.25 mile of road decommissioning and reclamation) that would reduce the length of connected roads within the Steamboat SUP area (refer to Table 2-1). This would reduce some of the existing cumulative effects, although there would still be an overall increase in road and trail density.

Direct project effects of 5.7 acres of clearing and 3.4 acres of grading within the WIZ in the Burgess Creek watershed, when considered cumulatively in addition to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would maintain the “at risk” stream health rating through successful implementation of PDC described in Table 2-1 and Section 3.11.4.2 above. While stream health class would be maintained, overall stream health would not improve toward robust health within the next planning period.

Water Quality Historic activities that have taken place within the Yampa River watershed, such as agricultural, commercial, and urban developments, caused ground disturbance and vegetation removal. These activities contribute to increased erosion and sediment input into the streams, with consequent impacts to water quality; however, because there are no impacts to water quality anticipated from any of the project components within the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be no cumulative impacts to water quality, including concentration of fine sediments and changes to water temperature.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 272 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.11.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The additional 36.8 acre-feet of water diversions from the Yampa River (8.4 acre-feet of associated depletions) that would be required for production of man-made snow would result in a new irretrievable loss of the hydrologic resource. Similarly, the 2.9 acre-feet of diversions and 0.2 acre-foot of corresponding depletions 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 and restaurant operations) 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 Alternative.

3.12 WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 3.12.1 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The Project Area for wetland resources is 500 acres in size and encompasses both private lands and NFS lands within and adjacent to a portion of the Steamboat SUP area. This analysis summarizes the Wetland Specialist Report prepared for the Steamboat Ski Area Environmental Impact Statement (Wetland Specialist Report) that is contained in the project file.247 Along with waters of the U.S., including wetlands, this analysis addresses GDE within the Project Area. The term GDE refers to ecosystems that are supported by groundwater, which include springs and seeps, cave and karst systems, phreatophytic ecosystems, and, in many cases, rivers, wetlands, and lakes.248 The majority of the wetlands in the Project Area are supported, at least in part, by groundwater—whether at spring/seep locations or along the alluvial aquifer of perennial and intermittent streams. However, it is important to recognize that some wetlands in the Project Area are not supported by groundwater, but are formed from water that originates exclusively from precipitation, much of which is man-made snow and associated surface runoff. These wetlands are primarily located within the Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider project locations where snowmaking is currently used. The extent to which these wetlands are supported exclusively by snowmaking or high groundwater tables is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Within the Project Area, the limits of the riparian habitat roughly correspond to wetland habitat; therefore, they were not mapped as a distinct vegetation type. Thus, the wetlands and riparian habitat are quantified and described together in this analysis. The following paragraphs consider and disclose impacts that could affect riparian habitats; however, the reader is referred to Section 3.11 for a complete discussion of riparian resources.

247 Western Ecological Resource, 2017c. Phreatophytic ecosystems refer to those made up of plants that are mostly or entirely dependent on water from a permanent ground supply. 248 USDA Forest Service, 2012b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 273 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.12.2 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION 3.12.2.1 Forest Plan Standards A Forest Plan Consistency Analysis was prepared, which considers the alternatives in the context of the applicability and relevance of each standard/guideline contained in the Forest Plan. The most applicable standard for wetlands is Water and Aquatic Standard 7, which states: • Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations.

3.12.2.2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook Standards Soils, aquatic, and riparian system MMs 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 Routt National Forest. Applicable WCPH MMs include: • 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 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.

3.12.2.3 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 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands. EO 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent practicable, long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. More specifically, EO 11990 directs federal agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands unless there is no reasonable alternative. EO 11990 states further that where wetlands cannot be avoided, the Proposed Action Alternative must include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. As required by EO 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 2-1) that would be implemented in order to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 274 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Finally, the USACE’s policy of no net loss of wetlands requires compensatory 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. Impacted wetlands that are not jurisdictional and not protected by Section 404 of the CWA would require compliance with Forest Plan Water and Aquatic Standard 7 and EO 11990, and restoration, establishment, or enhancement of wetlands would be determined by the Forest Service.

3.12.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT In total, 17.5 acres of wetlands occur within the 500-acre Project Area, including 3.8 acres of wetlands in the Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider area, 5.1 acres of wetlands in the Pony Pod, and 8.6 acres of wetlands in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area. Additionally, 22,454 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams were identified throughout the Project Area. Wetland vegetation was classified into a Palustrine system and forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland classes.249 In general, the proposed project locations within the existing ski area operational boundary (Bashor Bowl, Rough Rider, and Pony Pod) support a greater extent of emergent wetlands, while those wetlands in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area support a higher number of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands. Figure 3.11-1 depicts the water resources, included wetlands, identified within the Project Area. Table 3.12-1 contains a summary of the type and the 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 Wetland Specialist Report contained in the project file.

249 Cowardin et al., 1979

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 275 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.12-1: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.

Wetland Type* Area (acres) Length (feet)

Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider Area

PFO 0.1 0

PEM 3.7 0

Unnamed Perennial Stream 0 604

Intermittent Streams 0 2,734

Subtotal 3.8 3,338

Pony Pod

PFO 0.3 0

PSS 3.7 0

PEM 1.1 0

Intermittent Streams 0 3,408

Subtotal 5.1 3,408

Pioneer Ridge Area

PFO/PSS 5.2 0

PFO 2.0 0

PSS 1.2 0

PEM 0.1 0

Burgess Creek (Perennial) 0 2,506

North Fork Burgess Creek (Perennial) 0 7,051

Intermittent Streams 0 6,151

Subtotal 8.6 15,708

Grand Total 17.5 22,454

Source: Cowardin et al. 1979 Notes: PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent The area of intermittent and perennial streams is included within wetlands. Numbers may not total due to rounding.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 276 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.12.3.1 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. Wetland functions can be generally categorized into three major groups: hydrology, water quality and habitat. 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.

The major wetland functional groups evaluated in this analysis include: hydrology functions (groundwater discharge, groundwater recharge, velocity reduction, erosion protection, and floodwater retention/peak flood reduction); water quality functions (sediment removal, nutrient retention and removal); and wildlife habitat functions including uniqueness.250 Uniqueness was measured using the Floristic Quality Assessment, which assesses how human disturbances have affected plant community composition. 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. The assessments represent average conditions for each group of wetlands or wetland complex. A summary of the rankings is presented below in Table 3.12-2.

Table 3.12-2: Qualitative Wetland Assessment Rankings Ranking Description Available observations and/or data confirm absence or prevention of a function. Dominated by None non-native plants. Short duration, small volumes of water, or absence of opportunity cause the function to be Low insignificant. Commonly found in non-natural areas. The combined effects of size, frequency, and opportunity indicate the function occurs regularly Moderate but is not high quality or the dominant function. Equally found in natural and non-natural areas. Function is very effective, because the wetland covers a large area and/or receives a large High volume of water, there is a long duration, or it provides an unusual quality. Obligate to natural areas but can sustain some habitat degradation. Extremely significant function owing to its uniqueness, size, duration, and opportunity. Very High Obligate to high quality natural areas (relatively unaltered from pre-European settlement). Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017c

Table 3.12-3 provides a summary of the functions and values of wetlands in the Project Area that are overlapped by proposed project locations. A more detailed, narrative discussion of wetland functions and values in each of the proposed project locations is included in Wetland Specialist Report contained in the project file.

250 Adamus et al., 1991

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 277 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.12-3: Summary of Functions and Values for Wetlands Overlapped by Proposed Project Locations Location Function Rating Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider Groundwater Discharge Low Groundwater Recharge Low Velocity Reduction Low to moderate Hydrology Functions Erosion Protection Low to moderate Floodwater Retention/Peak Flood Low Reduction Sediment Removal Low Water Quality Functions Nutrient Retention/Removal Low Wildlife Habitat Value Low Habitat Functions Uniqueness None to low Pony Pod Groundwater Discharge Moderate to high Groundwater Recharge Low Velocity Reduction Low to moderate Hydrology Functions Erosion Protection Low to moderate Floodwater Retention/Peak Flood Low Reduction Sediment Removal Low Water Quality Functions Nutrient Retention/Removal Low Wildlife Habitat Value Low to moderate Habitat Functions Uniqueness Moderate to high Pioneer Ridge Area Groundwater Discharge Moderate to high Groundwater Recharge Low to moderate Velocity Reduction Moderate to high Hydrology Functions Erosion Protection Moderate to high Floodwater Retention/Peak Flood Moderate (Burgess Creek wetlands); Low Reduction (wetlands along smaller streams) Sediment Removal Moderate to high Water Quality Functions Nutrient Retention/Removal Moderate to high Wildlife Habitat Value High Habitat Functions Moderate (Burgess Creek wetlands); High Uniqueness (spring/seep wetlands) Source: Western Ecological Resource 2017c

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 278 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.12.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative There would be a continuation of existing management practices. There would be no new recreational facilities and no additional snowmaking coverage. The effects of snowmaking in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider areas would continue to increase the hydrologic budget of wetlands in those locations. The aging infrastructure of existing snowmaking pipes would likely necessitate periodic repairs that could adversely affect wetlands in the vicinity of the pipes. Should these activities be required, SSRC would consult with the USACE and Forest Service to obtain necessary permits and approvals. In the Pony Pod and Pioneer Ridge area, where there is no existing snowmaking infrastructure, no effects are anticipated except for the minor effects of pruning shrubby wetland vegetation in ski trails.

3.12.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative Table 3.12-4 summarizes the direct and indirect wetland impacts that would occur. 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 Wetland Specialist Report contained in the project file.

Table 3.12-4: Wetland Impact Summary – Proposed Action Alternative

Direct Impact Indirect Impact Wetland Project Name a Permanent Temporary Area of Tree Area of Class Impact Area Impact Area Removalb Dewateringc (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

Bashor Bowl/Rough Rider Area

Bashor Gondola, Trail D PFO -- -- 0.1 --

Bashor Chairlift Bottom Terminal, Trail A, Rough Rider Learning Center, Trail PEM <0.1 ------B Widening, Trail Enhancements Snowmaking Infrastructure, Yoo Hoo Re-grade, Bashor Chairlift PEM -- 0.5 -- 1.1 Replacement and Realignment

Subtotal <0.1 0.5 0.1 1.1

Pony Pod

Glading PSS -- -- 0.2 --

Trail E PSS ------0.1

The Crux Grading and Rock Blasting PEM 0.1 -- -- <0.1

Snowmaking Infrastructure PSS/PEM -- 0.2 -- 0.2 (Middle Rib)

Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 279 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.12-4: Wetland Impact Summary – Proposed Action Alternative

Direct Impact Indirect Impact Wetland Project Name a Permanent Temporary Area of Tree Area of Class Impact Area Impact Area Removalb Dewateringc (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

Pioneer Ridge Area

Glading, Pioneer Chairlift, Trail H PFO/PSS -- -- 2.2 --

Trail F, Glading PFO <0.1 -- <0.1 --

Burgess Creek Bridge, Glading PSS -- <0.1 0.7 --

Subtotal <0.1 <0.1 3.0 --

Grand Total 0.1 0.7 3.3 1.4

Sources: Western Ecological Resource 2017c and Cowardin et al. 1979 Notes: a PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent b Impact calculated for the area of wetlands with overstory tree removal c Impact calculated for potential area of dewaterings, extending ~100 feet from edge of grading The temporary impact for snowmaking pipelines based on a 40-foot-wide disturbance corridor. However, actual disturbance area would be less with PDC applied.

In accordance with EO 11990, the Proposed Action Alternative was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands wherever possible. For example, the Bashor chairlift bottom terminal would be constructed in an upland area in order to avoid and minimize impacts to adjacent wetlands. In the Pony Pod, the proposed Trail E near the Storm Peak Express chairlift was moved upslope to avoid impacting a wetland spring/seep complex. As previously mentioned, PDC included in Table 2-1 have been developed to limit the effects of the direct and indirect impacts that would occur. All direct impacts to wetlands would be coordinated with the USACE and the Forest Service hydrologist. Finally, monitoring is recommended to ensure proposed projects are properly implemented and no additional direct or indirect effects occur.

Direct Wetland Impacts Table 3.12-4 describes the specific project components that would account for direct impacts in the form of permanent wetland impacts and temporary 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 disturbance is reclaimed and the area resumes functioning as a wetland. 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.251

There would be 0.1 acre of permanent wetland impact and 0.7 acre of temporary wetland impacts. However, the temporary impact calculation is based on a 40-foot-wide disturbance corridor. With the

251 40 CFR § 1508.8

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 280 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

implementation of avoidance and minimization PDC, it is likely that the temporary impact would be reduced to 0.4 acre or less. As described previously, the permanent and temporary wetland impacts would require coordination with the USACE and Forest Service Hydrologist, and restoration, enhancement, or establishment as appropriate.

In order to prevent any unintentional impacts, all wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed projects would be delineated and flagged by a qualified individual prior to construction. In addition, appropriate sediment control measures (e.g., straw wattles, sediment fencing) would be installed where necessary to contain sediment.

Indirect Wetland Impacts Indirect 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, alteration of hydrologic patterns, snow compaction, competition from invasive and noxious weeds, and/or increased soil erosion or sedimentation. Therefore, indirect impacts to wetlands potentially include the effects due to overstory vegetation removal, wetland dewatering due to pipeline construction or grading, increased snow compaction, increased noxious weed invasion, and erosion and sedimentation. However, with the implementation of construction BMPs and PDC, these indirect impacts would not be significant.

Overstory Vegetation Removal The indirect impact to 3.3 acres of wetlands through forest overstory removal could potentially cause a change in wetland vegetation composition and structure. This change could affect some functions such as groundwater discharge, which may increase due to reduced evapotranspiration rates from tree removal. Any increases in groundwater discharge as a result of forest overstory removal could potentially cause an increase in the size and extent of wetlands within the Pioneer Ridge area. If point discharges are of sufficient magnitude and duration, then additional drainage channels may form, leading to the potential for erosion and sedimentation. However, it is unlikely that the 40 percent tree removal for the glading in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would lead to any significant increases in runoff.252

Wetland habitat functions could also potentially change due to overstory vegetation removal. For example, the removal of overstory trees would reduce the nesting habitat for some cavity nesting species of birds; however, over time the understory vegetation may become dominated by willows or other shrubs that provide nesting habitat for another suite of species.

Other functions, such as velocity reduction, erosion protection, and the water quality functions, would stay the same, as shade-loving forbs would be replaced by sun-loving sedges, grasses and small shrubs which generally have deep binding root masses that slow the velocity of water, control erosion, and uptake sediments and nutrients. In particular, many of the wetlands in the areas affected by overstory vegetation removal are dominated by alders and willows that would likely be trimmed down in height in order to provide a safe skiing experience. Because these shrubs are extremely resilient, this activity is not expected to cause negative effects, and may in fact, lead to a greater shoot density over the long term.

252 Resource Engineering, 2017b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 281 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Willows and alders are able to re-sprout from the dormant buds on the root crown or lower stems and are tolerant of disturbance.253

Wetland Dewatering A wetland supported by groundwater, such as the Crux wetland, could be affected if there are changes in the pattern of groundwater flow into and through the wetland, or a reduction in the groundwater recharge area for a wetland. Changes to a wetland’s hydrology could potentially reduce the size of the wetland, change its species composition, or lead to a conversion to another wetland type or to upland habitat. As disclosed in Table 3.12-4, the proposed regrading of the Crux terrain would result in 0.1 acre of direct wetland impact. There would also be an indirect impact as the proposed regrading would result in a cut slope that could potentially drain the subsurface hydrology that supports another system of wetlands (<0.1 acre) adjacent to and upslope of this location. Additionally, Trail E would be located directly upslope of a small spring-fed wetland. If grading associated with this trail intercepts and diverts the subsurface hydrological flows, this wetland (<0.1 acre) may be adversely affected.

The installation of underground pipeline trenches for snowmaking through or adjacent to wetlands may intercept the high groundwater table, which would potentially result in the dewatering of a wetland so that it no longer is in a functioning condition. Preliminary estimates based on a 100-foot-wide effect zone show that this could impact another 1.1 acres of wetlands in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider areas and 0.2 acre in the Pony Pod. Although there is potential to drain additional wetlands through alterations in subsurface hydrology, groundwater patterns throughout the entire Steamboat SUP area are unknown at this time and the estimates provided above may not be accurate. Any adverse effects to wetlands through alterations of groundwater flow, if they were to occur, may require additional actions to comply with the Forest Plan. In addition, the potential adverse effects would be mitigated by a recommended site-specific PDC contained in Table 2-1. Specifically, the PDC states that clay-cut off walls would be installed in any trench where high groundwater is encountered within or adjacent to any wetland resource. The installation of the clay cutoff walls in any snowmaking or utility pipeline trench would ensure that no dewatering would occur to adjacent wetland resources.

Snow Compaction Snow compaction may also lead to changes in wetland function. Snow compaction would be greatest along any groomed ski trails or over-the-snow skid trails used during logging operations. Regular use by skiers may also compact snow. At the Pioneer Ridge area, there are numerous spring/seep complexes that support organic rich soils, and thus there could be potential effects of snow compaction. These effects would be variable depending on whether the area is an intensively groomed ski trail or an off-trail ski glade. Most of the Pioneer Ridge area would be gladed and grooming would be limited to a few ski trails away from sensitive wetland habitats. In addition, the high interannual variability in mountain snowpack would likely be greater than any anthropogenic effects from snow compaction, except in areas receiving early, frequent, and intense use.254

253 Uchytil, 1991; Fryer, 2011 254 Gage and Cooper, 2013

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 282 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Noxious Weed Invasion Potential for adverse effects to wetlands due to noxious weed invasion is high in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider areas where numerous stands of noxious weeds were observed. Canada thistle has an affinity for mesic habitats and would likely be the greatest threat to wetlands in the Bashor Bowl and Rough Rider areas. For the other areas, noxious weed abundance was either much lower or practically non-existent. With proper implementation of the BMPs and PDC included in Table 2-1, the threat of noxious weeds invading existing or temporarily disturbed wetlands would be lower; however, the threat does remain. Refer to Section 3.7 for a detailed discussion of noxious weeds in the Project Area.

Erosion and Sedimentation With any construction project, the threat of erosion and sedimentation affects to wetlands is present. However, with the implementation of the numerous BMPs and PDC included in Table 2-1, these indirect impacts would not be significant.

3.12.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 3.12.5.1 Scope of the Analysis Temporal Bounds The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis for wetland resources extends from Steamboat’s inception as a resort, through the foreseeable future in which Steamboat can be expected to operate. There is a reasonable understanding of the actions that would occur in this area (on public and private lands) for the future ten years.

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

3.12.5.2 Past, Present and Reasonable 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 wetland resources and are analyzed below: • Steamboat Ski Area 2011 MDPA • Steamboat Ski Area Expansion 1996 EIS • Steamboat Summer Trails EA 2011 • Steamboat Proposed Improvements 2006 EA • Steamboat Ski Area Projects 2015 CE • Steamboat Ski Area Four Points Springs CE

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 283 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Steamboat Ski Area Beetle Mitigation Fuels Reduction Project 2007and 2010 CEs • Steamboat Front Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project EA

Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative effects to wetlands would continue to occur. Historically, ski areas such as Steamboat have likely directly impacted wetlands especially prior to implementation of the CWA. However, over the last few decades SSRC 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 Steamboat 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 Steamboat 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 Alternative would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative; however, the magnitude would be greater under the Proposed Action Alternative as there is a potential direct impact to 0.8 acre of wetlands through permanent and temporary disturbances. In addition, another 3.3 acres of wetlands may be indirectly affected by the Proposed Action Alternative through forest overstory removal, and 1.4 acres may potentially be affected through changes in hydrologic regime due to adjacent grading and snowmaking pipeline construction. 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, Steamboat’s compliance with wetlands laws and guidance, as well as the BMPs and PDC identified in Table 2-1 of this document, with the implementation of enhancement, establishment, and/or restoration the cumulative impact to wetlands would meet the intent of Forest Plan standards and EO 11990.

3.12.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The 0.1 acre of permanent wetland impact and 0.1 acre of potential indirect wetland impact due to grading at the Crux and Trail E are considered an irreversible commitment of wetland resources for the Project Area. However, offsetting actions would be employed through the CWA 404 permitting process and Forest Service input; hence, overall there would be no net irreversible loss of wetlands.

The 0.7 acre of temporary wetland impact 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.

Any indirect impacts due to forest overstory removal, snow compaction, wetland dewatering, noxious weed invasion, erosion, and sedimentation would be mitigated with PDC so that they would be negligible.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 284 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.13 OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES NEPA at 40 CFR § 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

In addition to NEPA and Forest Plan direction, the Proposed Action Alternative complies with the following other federal laws, regulations, and EOs. All of the following laws regulations, and EOs have been considered in this analysis, although the chapters and sections referenced below may only discuss those relevant to the Proposed Action Alternative.

Procedural laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Chapter 1 and subsequent decision documents) • 36 CFR Part 251 B – Special Uses • 36 CFR Parts 215 and 220 – Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for NFS Projects and Activities; NEPA Compliance • 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 – CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA • 7 CFR § 1.2 and 43 CFR § 2.15 – FOIA; Multitrack Processing

Air Quality and Climate Change laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.6) • Clean Air Act, as amended, 1990 • The Colorado Air Quality Control Act, Colorado Statutes 25-7-101 through 25-7-505

Wildlife resource laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.9) • USFWS, ESA Section 7 Consultation • Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Water resource laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.11 and Section 3.12) • Safe Drinking Water Act • USACE, CWA and any necessary permits/certifications under Sections 401, 402, or 404 • EO 11988, Floodplain Management • EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands • 40 CFR Part 112 – Oil Pollution Prevention • State of Colorado, Stormwater Management Plan

Cultural resource laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.5) • NHPA • NAGPRA

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 285 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 96-341) • Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 1-3-141)

Environmental Justice laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.2) • EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations

Vegetation resource laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.7) • National Forest Management Act

Fire and Fuels resource laws, regulations, and executive orders (refer to Section 3.8) • State of Colorado, Burn Permit 3.13.1 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES Compliance with federal laws, regulations, and EOs that parallel the NEPA process are disclosed throughout this FEIS (refer to the previous list for resource sections that correspond with specific disclosures). The Proposed Action Alternative is in compliance with all of the relevant federal laws, regulations, and EOs that parallel the NEPA process; however, certain processes are ongoing. The Forest Service has completed consultation with the USFWS for potential impacts to TES species and completed consultation with the SHPO for potential impacts to NRHP eligible cultural resources.

Additionally, BMPs and PDC will be applied to ensure applicable federal and state laws are met on NFS lands overlapped by the Proposed Action Alternative. As it specifically relates to the CWA and necessary permits/certifications under Sections 401, 402, or 404, separate permits may be required pending site- specific analyses. Further, future site-specific PDC may also be identified following site-specific analyses.

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative will be based on concurrence with these agencies and completion of site-specific analyses.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 286 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 PREPARERS 4.1.1 FOREST SERVICE TEAM The following people participated in initial scoping, were members of the ID Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this FEIS. Russell Bacon Forest Supervisor, Responsible Official Chad Stewart Hahns Peak/Bears Ears District Ranger Erica Dickerman Special Uses Permit Administrator, ID Team Leader Ryan Adams Soil Scientist Marti Aitken Botanist Mark Cahur Timber Management Assistant/Forester Melissa Dressen Wildlife Biologist Kevin Thompson Fire Management Officer Rick Henderson Fishery Biologist Bridget Roth Archeologist Liz Schnackenberg Hydrologist

4.1.2 CONSULTANT TEAM The use of a third-party consulting firm for preparation of an EIS is addressed in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 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, as indicated below: Except as provided in §§ 1506.2 and 1506.3 any environmental impact statement prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor selected by the lead agency or where appropriate under § 1501.6(b), a cooperating agency. It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, or by the lead agency in cooperation with cooperating agencies, or where appropriate by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency, or where appropriate the cooperating agency, specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project. If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit any agency from requesting any person to submit information to it or to prohibit any person from submitting information to any agency.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 287 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

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.255 Per this CEQ direction: When a consulting firm has been involved in developing initial data and plans for the project, but does not have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the decision, it need not be disqualified from preparing the EIS. However, a disclosure statement in the draft EIS should clearly state the scope and extent of the firm’s prior involvement to expose any potential conflicts of interest that may exist.

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

4.1.2.1 SE Group Travis Beck Director of Environmental Services/Project Manager/Document Review Ashley Smith Assistant Project Manager/Document Review/Visual Resources Scott Prior Recreation/Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice/Botany, including Timber and Forest Health/Fire and Fuels/Wildlife and Fisheries/ Soils/Hydrology/Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Drew Pollak-Bruce Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Gabby Voeller Traffic and Parking Larissa Reed Air Quality and Climate Change Mitch Lefevre Visual Resources Kristen Carey Geographic Information Systems Paula Samuelson Document Production

4.1.2.2 Western Bionomics, LLC Kelly Colfer Wildlife Biologist/Botanist/Ecologist

4.1.2.3 Western Ecological Resource, Inc. Rea Orthner Botanist

4.1.2.4 Resource Engineering, Inc. Raul Passerini, P.E. Water Resources Engineer

4.1.2.5 Alpine Geophysics, LLC James Wilkinson Senior Engineer

255 CEQ, 1981

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 288 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

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

4.2 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED

4.2.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Bureau of Land Management Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Park Service

4.2.2 TRIBAL GOVERNMENT Northern Arapaho Tribe Shoshone Cultural Committee Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Northern Cheyenne Commission Northern Ute Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe Ute Business Committee Crow Tribe of Indians Southern Ute Tribal Council Eastern Shoshone Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

4.2.3 STATE GOVERNMENT Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Parks and Wildlife Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado Department of Public Health and Colorado State Forest Service Environment, Water Quality Control Division

4.2.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT City of Steamboat Springs Routt County Commissioners City of Steamboat Springs Parks and Community Routt County Planning Commission Services Steamboat Springs Chamber of Commerce City of Steamboat Springs, Historic Preservation

4.2.5 LOCAL MEDIA Laramie Boomerang Steamboat Pilot

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 289 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4.2.6 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS256 Alliance for Sustainable Colorado Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative Biodiversity Legal Foundation Rocky Mountain Wild Colorado Environment Routt County Riders Colorado Environmental Coalition Sierra Club -- Rocky Mountain Chapter Colorado Environmental Coalition Ski Area Citizens’ Coalition Colorado Ski Country USA The Nature Conservancy- Colorado Field Office Conservation Colorado Western Resources Advocates Historic Routt County Western Watersheds National Wildlife Federation WildEarth Guardians National Wildlife Federation Wilderness Society National Ski Areas Association

4.2.7 INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED DURING SCOPING OR WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE NEPA PROCESS257 Susan Albers Eric Phalen Anon Anon Cindy Ptach Anonymous Anon Jean Public Will Beihoffer JT Romatzke Scott Bever Suzie Romig Paul Draper Johnny Sawyer Gail Eulestein Mike Schwartje Avrom Feinberg Philip Strobel Hans Geier Ben Tiffany Kathleen Geuder Anna White Peter Hanson Tim Widmer Kenneth Held Dave Hunter David Hurd John Witcher Michal Marschewski Pete With Stephanie Martin Karen Wray Seth Mathey Wade Wykert Brook Moore Thomas Zehner Matt Newman

256 Inclusion as an organization does not imply eligibility for Objection to the Record of Decision 257 Inclusion as an individual being involved in the NEPA process does not imply eligibility for Objection to the Record of Decision

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 290 Chapter 5. References

5. REFERENCES

In Text Citation Reference

8 CCR 1206-2. 2015. Code of Colorado Regulation. Rules Pertaining to the 8 CCR 1206-2 Administration and Enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Revised December 10, 2015. 40 CFR §§ 1500–1508.28. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 40 CFR §§ 1500–1508.28 Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended July 1, 1986. 66 Federal Register 3853. 2001. Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001, 66 Federal Register 3853 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 66 FR 11, 3853– 3856. Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Botanical Research Institute of , Ackerfield, 2015 Fortworth, Texas. 818 pp. Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain, Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, and R.D. Smith. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume 1: Literature Review Adamus et al., 1991 and Evaluation Rationale: Vicksburg, Miss. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2. BBC Research and Consulting. 2009. Routt County Housing Needs Assessment. BBC Research and Consulting, Prepared on behalf of the Yampa Valley Housing Authority. Accessible at 2009 http://www.co.routt.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/274. Accessed February 2017.

Bell, D.A., D.P. Gregoire, and B.J. Walton. 1996. Bridge use by peregrine falcons in the San Francisco Bay area, in Raptors in Human Landscapes, Adaptation to Bell, D. A. et al. Built and Cultivated Environments, D.M Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J Negro (eds). Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Burroughs, E.R. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. Burroughs and King, 1989 G.T.R INT-264, Ogden, UT. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Burt, J. and Rice, K. 2009. Not all ski slopes are created equal: Burt and Rice, 2009 Disturbance intensity affects ecosystem properties. Ecological Applications, 19(8), pp. 2242–2253. Buscher Soil & Environmental Buscher Soil & Environmental Consulting and Western Ecological Resource. Consulting and Western 2017. Soils Specialist Report Steamboat Ski Area Resort Projects. May. Ecological Resource, 2017 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2016. Transportation Data Management System. Accessible at CDOT, 2016 http://cdot.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc =Cdot&mod=. Accessed March 2017. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1995. Moose Data Analysis Unit Plan M-3. CDOW, 1995 On file at the HPBE Ranger District, Steamboat Springs, CO.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 291 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Elk Management Plan for E-2 (Bears Ears) CDOW, 2008 Data Analysis Unit. CDOW Meeker Service Center, Meeker, CO. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2002. Provisional Implementation Guidance for Determining Sediment Deposition CDPHE, 2002 Impacts to Aquatic Life in Streams and Rivers. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission Policy 98-1. CDPHE. 2011. Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. Accessible at CDPHE, 2011 https://yosemite.epa.gov/r8/r8sips.nsf/e5e850cc767bc8b3872573a9004cad73/ 5683b6c9c37b1d9187257eed004b632f/$FILE/Steamboat%20Springs%20PM10 %202nd%20ten%20Year%20Maint%20Plan_01_30_12.pdf Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2016. Integrated CDPHE, 2016 Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Water Quality Control Commission. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions CEQ, 1981 Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Accessible at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/G-CEQ-40Questions.pdf.

Chow V.T., D.R. Maidment, and L.W. Mays. 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw- Chow et al., 1988 Hill International Editions, Civil Engineering Series.

City of Steamboat Springs. 2009. Mountain Base Area Design Standards. City of Steamboat Springs, Updated by City Council July 7, 2009. Accessible at 2009 http://steamboatsprings.net/ DocumentCenter/View/3854. Accessed March 2017. City of Steamboat Springs, City of Steamboat Springs. 2017. Transit. Accessible at 2017 http://steamboatsprings.net/index.aspx?nid=166. Accessed February 2017.

Clark, V. 2017. Personal Communication with Vickie Clark, Director of Routt Clark, 2017 County Department of Human Services. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1997+. Colorado Rare Plant Guide. CNHP, 1997+ Latest update: June 30, 2014. Accessible at www.cnhp.colostate.edu/rareplants/. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2015. Element Occurrence Geodatabase by CNHP, 2015 Colorado Quadrangle (11/30/2015) by Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Accessible at http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/ Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2016. County Weed Programs. Last Colorado Department of updated January 2016. Accessible at Agriculture, 2016a https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/ county-weed-programs. Accessed May 2017. Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2016. List B Species. Last updated January Colorado Department of 2016. Accessible at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious- Agriculture, 2016b weed-species#b. Accessed May 2017.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 292 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Colorado Department of Local Affairs – State Demography Office. 2016. Colorado Department of Local Population Forecast for Routt County. Accessible at Affairs – State Demography https://gis.dola.colorado.gov/ Office, 2016 apps/demographic_dashboard/. Accessed February 2017. Colorado Department of Local Affairs – State Demography Office. 2017. Base Colorado Department of Local Industries Analysis for Routt County. Accessible at Affairs – State Demography https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/economy-labor-force/data/base- Office, 2017 analysis/. Accessed February 2017. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and CPW, 2008. seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. CPW, Denver, CO. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2015. Post-Hunt Population & Sex Ratio Estimates. CPW, 2015 Accessible at http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/ Statistics/Elk/2015ElkPopulationEstimates.pdf. CPW. 2015b. Moose 2015 Post Hunt Population Estimates. Accessible at CPW, 2015b http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Moose/2015M oosePopulationEstimates.pdf. CPW. 2016. Moose DAUs (hunted GMUs only). April 2016. Accessible at CPW, 2016 http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Maps/MooseDAU_GMUs.pdf.

Colorado Ski Country USA (CSCUSA). 1986. Final Report on the CSCUSA Water CSCUSA, 1986 Management Research Project. Prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Charles F. Leafe. Denver, CO. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of Cowardin et al., 1979 wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C., 103 pp. Culver, D. and J. Lemly. 2013. Field Guide to Colorado’s Wetland Plants. Identification, Ecology and Conservation. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Culver and Lemly, 2013 Protection Agency, Region 8. Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado, 694 pp. David G.C.L., B.P. Bledsoe, D.M. Merritt, and E. Wohl. 2009. The Impacts of Ski David et al., 2009 Slope Development on Stream Channel Morphology in the White River National Forest. Journal of Geomorphology 103, 375–388. Desman Associates. 2014. Downtown Steamboat Springs Parking Analysis. Desman Associates, 2014 Accessible at http://steamboatsprings.net/DocumentCenter/View/6700. Accessed June 2017.

Eagleson, 1970 Eagleson, P.S. 1970. Dynamic Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Ecosign Mountain Resort Planners (Ecosign). 2008. Steamboat Transportation Ecosign, 2008 Data Collection and Surveys Summary Report. Accessed February 2017. EDAW and AECOM. 2008. Steamboat Springs Area Open Space and Trails EDAW and AECOM, 2008 Master Plan. Accessible at http://steamboatsprings.net/documentcenter/view/303. Accessed June 2017.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 293 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Fehr & Peers. 2008. Steamboat Base Area Master Transportation Study. Fehr & Peers, 2008 Accessible at http://steamboatsprings.net/documentcenter/view/5839. Accessed March 2017. Feiges, 2017 Feiges, J. 2017. Personal communication with John Feiges, Ski Patrol Supervisor at Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. Flint, J. 2017a. Public Transportation Data provided by Jonathan Flint, Transit Flint, 2017a Manager of Steamboat Springs Transit. Flint, J. 2017b. Personal Communication with Jonathan Flint, Transit Manager of Flint, 2017b Steamboat Springs Transit. Frison, G.C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New Frison, 1991 York, New York. Frison, G.C., and R.C. Mainfort. 1996. Archeological and Bioarcheological Frison and Mainfort 1996 Resources of the Northern Plains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 47. Fryer, J.L. 2011. Alnus incana. Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Fryer, 2011 Laboratory. Accessible at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed March 2017.

Gage, E. and D.J. Cooper. 2013. Evaluating Snow Compaction Effects to Fen Gage and Cooper, 2013 Wetlands on Rabbit Ears and Buffalo Pass of the Routt National Forest. Prepared for Routt National Forest.

Gordon, E. and D. Ojima (eds). 2015. Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Gordon and Ojima, 2015 Study: A Report by the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University to the Colorado Energy Office. Hayward, G.D. 1989. Habitat use and population biology of boreal owls in the Hayward, 1989 northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Henderson, R. 2016. Personal Communication with Richard Henderson, RNF Henderson, 2016 Fisheries Biologist.

IMACS. 2001. Intermountain Antiquities Computer System (IMACS) Guide. IMACS, 2001 Electronic documents. Accessible at http://www.anthro.utah.edu/imacs.html. Accessed December 11, 2009. IMPLAN Group LLC. 2017. IMPLAN. Accessible at http://implan.com/ IMPLAN Group LLC, 2017 ?option=com_content&view=article&id=889&Itemid=1482. Accessed February 2017. Joint Fire Science Program. 2010. Interactive Piled Fuels Biomass and Emissions Joint Fire Science Program, Calculator. Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory. Accessible at 2010 https://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/piles/. Keller, G. and J. Sherar. 2003. Low-Volume Roads Engineering, Best Management Practices Field Guide. USDA Forest Service, p.109. Accessible at Keller and Sherar, 2003 https://www.blm.gov/bmp/low volume engineering/M_Ch11. Accessed April 2017.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 294 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Kingery, 1998 Kingery, H. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Knight, R.L., and S.A. Temple. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management. Pages 327-333 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Knight and Temple, 1995 Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through research and management. Island Press, Covelo, CA. 372 pp. Ladyman, J.R.A. 2004. Ipomopsis aggregata (Pursh) V. Grant ssp. weberi V. Grant and Wilken (scarlet gilia): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Ladyman, 2004 Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessible at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ipomopsisaggregatasspweb eri.pdf Lee, J.A. 1981. Habituation to human disturbance in nesting accipiters. Raptor Lee, 1981 Research 15:48–52. Lukas, J., J. Barsugli, N. Doesken, I. Rangwala, and K. Wolter. 2014. Climate Change in Colorado, A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Lukas et al., 2014 Adaptation, Second Edition – August 2014. A Report for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. MATCOM Corporation. 2003. The Impact of Forest Service Activities on the MATCOM, 2003 Stream Flow Regime in the Platter River. Prepared for: The U.S. Forest Service. Mehis, S.F. 1984. Colorado Mountains Historic Context. Colorado Historical Mehis, 1984 Society, Denver, Colorado.

Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds). 2014. Highlights of Climate Melillo et al., 2014 Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 148 pp. Metcalf, J. L., V.L. Pritchard, S.M. Silverstri, J.B. Jenkins, J.S. Wood, D.E. Cowley, R.P. Evans, D.K. Shiozawa, and A.P. Martin. 2007. Across the Great Divide: Metcalf et al., 2007 Genetic Forensics Reveals Misidentification of Endangered Cutthroat Trout Populations. Molecular Ecology 16:4445–4454.

Miles, L. 2017. Personal Communication with Lance Miles, Project Coordinator Miles, 2017 Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. Miles, L. and J. Feiges. 2017. Personal communication with Lance Miles, Project Miles and Feiges, 2017 Coordinator and John Feiges, Ski Patrol Supervisor. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2011. NOAA’s 1981–2010 Climate NCDC, 2011 Normals. Accessible at www.ncdc.noaa.gov. Accessed February 2017. National Climatic Data Center. 2017. Data for Steamboat Springs, Colorado. NCDC, 2017 Accessed at www.ncdc.noaa.gov. Accessed February 2017. National Ski Areas Association (NSAA). 2016. Climate Challenge: “Sustainable NSAA, 2016 Slopes” Annual Report. Accessible at http://www.nsaa.org/media/276021/ SSAR2016.pdf. Accessed March 2017.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 295 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott and T.M. Rice. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Page-Dumroese et al., 2009 Monitoring Protocol, Volume 1: Rapid Assessment. General Technical Report WO-82a. USDA Forest Service. Pettus, D., and R.R. Lechleitner. 1963. Microsorex in Colorado. J. Mamm. Pettus and Lechleitner, 1963 44:119. Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Plafkin et al., 1989 Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Postovit, H.R., and B.C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Postovit and Postovit, 1987. Pages 183-208 in Natl. Wildl. Fed. Raptor Manage. Tech. Manual, Sci. Tech. Ser. No. 10. Resource Engineering. 2017a. March 30 Memo re: Steamboat Ski & Resort – Resource Engineering, 2017a Updated Calculations or Total Depletions by the SSR. On file at the HPBE Ranger District Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. Resource Engineering, Inc. 2017b. Hydrology Specialist Report for Steamboat Ski Resource Engineering, Inc., Area Projects. Prepared for the Routt National Forest and SE Group. Glenwood 2017b Springs, Colorado. RCLCO. 2008. Steamboat Springs Workforce Housing Demand Analysis. Prepared on behalf of the Yampa Valley Housing Authority. Accessible at RCLCO, 2008 http://www.co.routt.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/278. Accessed February 2017.

Rogers, K. 2010. Appendix A, Recent developments in cutthroat trout taxonomy: implications for Colorado River cutthroat trout, in Hirsch, C., M. Rogers, 2010 Dare, and S. Albeke. Range-Wide Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus). Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins. Rosenfield, R.N, J. Bielefeldt, J.L. Affeldt, and D.J. Beckmann. 1996. Urban nesting biology of Cooper’s hawks in Wisconsin, in Raptors in Human Rosenfield et al., 1996. Landscapes, Adaptation to Built and Cultivated Environments, D.M Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J Negro (eds). Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Routt County. 2003. Routt County Master Plan. Available at: Routt County, 2003 http://www.co.routt.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/275. Accessed June 2017. Routt County. 2004. Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan (amended in Routt County, 2004 2014). Available at: http://www.co.routt.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/277. Accessed June 2017. SE Group. 2017a. Recreation Technical Report for the Steamboat Ski Resort SE Group, 2017a Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest. SE Group. 2017b. Traffic Technical Report for the Steamboat Ski Resort SE Group, 2017b Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest. SE Group. 2017c. Visuals Technical Report for the Steamboat Ski Resort SE Group, 2017c Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 296 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

SE Group and Terra-Technologies. 2017. Air Quality and Climate Change SE Group and Terra- Technical Report for the Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Technologies, 2017 Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest Skirvin, R.M., E. Kohler, H. Steiner, D. Ayers, A Laughnan, M.A. Norton, M. Skirvin et al., 2000. Warmund. The use of genetically engineered bacteria to control frost on strawberries and potatoes. Scientia Horticulturae 84 (2000) 179-189. Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2002. Elk habitat selection and Skovlin, 2002 evaluation. Toweill, D.E. and J.W. Thomoas, eds, In North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 962 pp. Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation (SSRC). 2011. Master Development Plan SSRC, 2011 Amendment. Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. 2013. “Steamboat Recognized for SSRC, 2013 Industry-Leading Environmental Programs.” Accessed March 2017.

Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. 2017. Communication with the Forest SSRC, 2017a Service. Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. 2017b. Confidential Visitation SSRC, 2017b Information.

Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation. 2017c. Things to Do in Steamboat. SSRC, 2017c Accessible at https://www.steamboat.com/things-to-do/. Accessed February 2017. Squires, J.R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment Squires and Kennedy, 2006 of current knowledge and information needs for conservation management. Studies in Avian Biology 31: 8-62. Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association. 2015. 2015 Annual Report. Steamboat Springs Chamber Accessible at http://sscra.cms.digital-ridge.com/media/655372/annual- Resort Association, 2015 report.pdf. Accessed April 2017.

Stolfus & Associates, Inc. 2016. East Steamboat Springs US Highway 40 Access Stolfus & Associates, Inc., 2016 Study. http://steamboatsprings.net/DocumentCenter/View/8112. Accessed June 2017. Suter, G.W., II, and J.L. Joness. 1981. Criteria for golden eagle, ferruginous Suter and Joness, 1981 hawk, and prairie falcon nest site protection. Raptor Res. 15:12-18. The Coloradoan. 2015. Colorado Expects 7.8 Million Population by 2040. The Coloradoan in association with Rocky Mountain PBS News. Accessible at The Coloradoan, 2015 http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2015/12/26/colo-expects- population/77853936/. Accessed March 2017. Thornbury, W.D. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Thornbury, 1965 Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Troendle, C.A. and W.K Olsen. 1994. Potential Effects of Timber Harvest and Water Management on Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. Troendle and Olsen, 1994. Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management. U.S. Forest Service Gen Tech Rep RM-247.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 297 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Uchytil, R.J. 1991. Salix drummondiana. Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Uchytil, 1991. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Accessible at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. Labor Force, Employment and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment for Routt County in Multiple Time Periods. Accessible at 2017 https://www.bls.gov/lau/. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. State and County Quickfacts. Accessible at U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 http://quickfacts.census.gov/. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Median Household Income and Percentage of U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 Population below the Poverty Level. Accessible at https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. 2015 Aerial Photography of Routt County, USDA, 2016 CO. Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. 1986 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Book. USDA Forest Service, 1986 Accessible at https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/ROS-RecCapacity/ROS1986,ch1,2.pdf. Accessed March 2017.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Draft Soil Resource Inventory Report of the Routt USDA Forest Service, 1994 National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook 701. December. Accessible at USDA Forest Service, 1995 https://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/landscape_aesthetics_handbook_ 701_no_append.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2017. USDA Forest Service. 1998. Routt National Forest Land and Resource USDA Forest Service, 1998 Management Plan. Accessible at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbr/ landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev3_025110. Accessed October 2016. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed USDA Forest Service, 2006 Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). Denver, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Routt National Forest Plan Amendment 04. Update USDA Forest Service, 2007a to List of Management Indicator Species. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Lynx Habitat Mapping and Timber Salvage Sale USDA Forest Service, 2007b Coordination. November 21, 2007. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Environmental Assessment for Steamboat Ski Area USDA Forest Service, 2011a Summer Trails. Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, HPBE Ranger District, Routt County, Colorado. USDA Forest Service FSH 1909.15. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. USDA Forest Service, 2011b Amendment No.: 1909.15-2011-4. Effective September 2011. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the USDA Forest Service, 2012a Breckenridge Ski Resort Peak 6 Project. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. Colorado.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 298 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems: Level 1 Inventory Field Guide. Inventory Methods for Assessment and Planning. Gen. USDA Forest Service, 2012b Tech. Repot WO-86a. Dated March 2012. Accessible at https://www.fs.fed.us/ biology/resources/pubs/watershed/groundwater/GDE_Level_I_FG_final_March 2012.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Species Conservation Assessments – Web USDA Forest Service, 2016a Published. Accessible at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/ ?cid=stelprdb5206999 USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Natural Resource Information System. On file at USDA Forest Service, 2016b the Hahns Peak/Bear Ears District Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2016. Burgess Creek NOGO History. Unpublished nest USDA Forest Service, 2016c occupancy documentation on file at the HPBE District Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2017c. A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the USDA Forest Service, 2017 Steamboat Ski Area Improvements EIS (R2016020603005) Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, HPBE Ranger District, Routt County, Colorado. February 2017. USDA Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. USDA Forest Service and Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture USFWS, 2008 Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264, Washington DC.

USDA National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2009. National USDA-NRCS, 2009 Biology Handbook Subpart B -Conservation Planning. Part 614, Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Version 2. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2017. Web Soil Survey. Accessible USDA-NRCS, 2017 at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed February 2017.

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2016. Census Bureau, American Community 2016 Survey Office, Washington, D.C. Accessed February 2017. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2016. State of Colorado data. U.S. EIA, 2016 Accessible at https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. WRENSS: An Approach to USEPA, 1980 Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (A Procedural Handbook). EPA-600/8-80-012. USEPA. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadable Streams and USEPA, 1999 Rivers. Second Edition. EPA Office of Water, Washington DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Visibility Report to Congress – USEPA, 2001 November 2001. Accessible at https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-report- congress-november-2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule. Accessible at USEPA, 2003 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ RHRNaturalConditions.pdf.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 299 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator USEPA, 2015 (MOVES2014a). Accessible at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. IPaC Species List for the USFWS, 2016 Steamboat Recreation Improvements Projects. Accessed December 2016. On file at the HPBE Ranger District Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1953. Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc. United States. Army Map Service. Photo taken September 23, 1953. Accessible through the USGS, 1953 USDI U.S. Geological Survey and the Arthur Lakes Library, Colorado School of Mines Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Weber and Wittmann, 2012 Edition. University Press of Colorado. 608 pp. Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel Network Extension by Wemple et al., 1996 Logging Roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32(6): 1195-1207.

Western Ecological Resource. 2017a. Botanical Biological Assessment, Biological Western Ecological Resource, Evaluation and Specialist Report for Steamboat Ski Resort Projects. Prepared for 2017a Routt National Forest and SE Group. Western Ecological Resource. 2017b. Steamboat Ski Resorts Project EIS – Western Ecological Resource, Noxious Weeds Memorandum. Prepared for Routt National Forest and SE 2017b Group. Western Ecological Resource, Western Ecological Resource. 2017c. Wetland Specialist Report Steamboat Ski 2017c Resort Projects. Prepared for Routt National Forest and SE Group.

Western Bionomics. 2011. Vegetation Management Plan. Steamboat Ski & Western Bionomics, 2011 Resort Corporation. 41 pp.

Western Bionomics. 2017a. Timber and Forest Health Report for the Steamboat Western Bionomics, 2017a Ski Area Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest and SE Group. Western Bionomics. 2017b. Fuels/Fire Report for the Steamboat Ski Area Western Bionomics, 2017b Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest and SE Group. Western Bionomics. 2017c. Biological Assessment for the Steamboat Ski Area Western Bionomics, 2017c Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest and SE Group. Western Bionomics. 2017d. Biological Evaluation, Migratory Bird Report, Species of Local Concern Repot, Management Indicator Species Report for the Western Bionomics, 2017d Steamboat Ski Area Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for Routt National Forest and SE Group.

Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). 2017. Accessible at WFDSS, 2017 http://wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss/WFDSS_Home.shtml. Accessed June 2017.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 300 Chapter 5. References

In Text Citation Reference

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2012. Plant Species of Concern WYNDD, 2012 Database and Species Abstract. Accessible at www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/species- of-concern/plants/. Yost. 2016. Personal Communication with Jeff Yost, Biologist, Colorado Parks Yost, 2016 and Wildlife. Yampa Valley Sustainability Council (YVSC). 2017. Program information YVSC, 2017 accessible at http://www.yvsc.org/.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 301 Chapter 5. References

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 302 Chapter 6. Glossary

6. GLOSSARY

Ability level: The relative rank of a skier or snowboarder, or the relative rank given to alpine terrain. The six ability levels are as follows: beginner, novice, low-intermediate, intermediate, advanced- intermediate, and expert. Acre foot: The amount of water necessary to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equals 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons. Action alternative: Any alternative that includes upgrading and/or expansion of existing winter and summer recreational development within the SUP. Affected environment: The physical, biological, social, and economic environment that would or may be changed by actions proposed and the relationship of people to that environment. Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs): A resource that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. The resource may include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource for a particular area. Airshed: A geographical area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same air. The Clean Air Act establishes three air quality classes (I, II, and III), each with defined air quality standards. Class I airsheds are areas designated for the most stringent degree for protection from future degradation of air quality. Class II airsheds are areas where a moderate amount of development could occur. Class III airsheds are areas where significant development could occur as long as National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not exceeded. Alternative: One of several conceptual development plans described and evaluated in an 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 Clean Water Act by regulation of dredge and fill activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Artifact: A simple object (such as a tool or ornament) showing early human workmanship or modifications. At-risk stream health class: Stream exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, as represented by a suitable reference condition. For a quantitative analysis, moderate integrity is indicated by conditions that are 59 to 73 percent of a reference condition. Physical, chemical, and/or biologic conditions suggest that state-assigned water quality uses (beneficial, designated, or classified) are at risk and may be threatened. Backcountry access point: Signed locations along the ski area operational boundary where it is permitted to leave the maintained terrain of the resort to enter unmaintained terrain outside the operational boundary.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 303 Chapter 6. Glossary

Backcountry terrain: All terrain that is beyond the ski area operational boundary (defined below). Within this FEIS, backcountry terrain is described both within and beyond the ski area SUP boundary (defined below). Backcountry terrain offers an undeveloped, unmaintained experience with the feeling of solitude. Background: A landscape viewing area visible to a viewer from approximately 4 miles to infinity. Also, in economics, naturally occurring; uninduced. Baseline condition: The existing dynamic conditions prior to development, against which potential effects are judged. Best Management Practices (BMPs): 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 Evaluation (BE): An evaluation conducted to determine whether a proposed action is likely to affect any species listed as sensitive, candidate, or other special designations. Candidate species: Those plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may become threatened or endangered. Not protected under the Endangered Species Act. 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. CO2e: The carbon dioxide equivalent is a metric used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. Clean Water Act: An act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1977 to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. This act was formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344). Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE): The State of Colorado Department responsible for overseeing water quality regulation within Colorado. Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC): Comfortable Carrying Capacity is a planning tool used to determine the optimum level of utilization that facilitates a pleasant recreational experience. This is a planning figure only and does not represent a regulatory cap on visitation. CCC is used to ensure that different aspects of a resort’s facilities are designed to work in harmony, that capacities are equivalent across facilities, and sufficient to meet anticipated demand. CCC is based on factors such as vertical transport and trail capacities. Consumptive use: Use of a resource that reduces the supply. 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.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 304 Chapter 6. Glossary

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental matters. Cover: Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators and weather conditions, or in which to reproduce. Critical habitat: A formal designation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act that 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 of the context of the Endangered Species Act. Cubic feet per second (cfs): Unit measure of streamflow or discharge, equivalent to 449 gallons per minute or about 2 acre-feet per day. Cultural resource: Cultural resources are the tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, living and dead, that are valued by a given culture or contain information about the culture. Cultural resources 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. Day skier: A visitor that arrives in the morning to ski and drive back home at the end of the day (as opposed to a “destination visitor”). Destination visitor: A visitor that stays overnight within the resort community (as opposed to a “day skier”). 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. Diminished stream health class: Stream exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, as represented by a suitable reference condition. For a quantitative analysis, low integrity is indicated by conditions that are less than 58 percent of a reference condition. Physical, chemical, and/or biologic conditions suggest that state-assigned water quality uses (beneficial, designated, or classified) may not be supported. Direct attack: Any treatment of burning fuel, such as by wetting, smothering, or chemically quenching the fire or by physically separating burning from unburned fuel.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 305 Chapter 6. Glossary

Direct impact: An effect which occurs as a result of an action associated with implementing the proposal or one of the alternatives, including construction, operation, and maintenance. Dispersed recreation: Recreation that occurs outside of a developed recreation site and includes such activities as scenic driving, hunting, 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 (refer to individual entries). District Ranger: The official responsible for administering the NFS lands on a Forest Service District. Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan. Ecosystem: The system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their environment, for example, marsh, watershed, or lake. Effects: Results expected to be achieved from implementation of the alternatives relative to physical, biological, economic, and social factors. Effects can be direct, indirect, or cumulative and may be either beneficial or detrimental. Endangered species: An official designation for any species of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species must be designated in the Federal Register by the appropriate Federal Agency Secretary. Environmental analysis: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short- and long-term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social and environmental design factors and their interactions. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A disclosure document required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that documents the anticipated environmental effects of a proposed action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): The federal agency charged with lead enforcement of multiple environmental laws, including review of Environmental Impact Statements. Erosion: The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by wind, water, ice, or gravity. Erosion control: Materials, structure, and techniques designed to reduce erosion. Erosion control may include rapid revegetation, avoiding steep or highly erosive sites, and installation of cross-slope drainage structures. Erosion hazard: Soil ratings to predict the erosion hazard or potential to be eroded. Existing Visual Condition (EVC): An analysis tool for evaluating the visual effect of existing and/or proposed management activities. There are six EVC categories: Type I, Naturally Evolving Landscapes; Type II, Natural-Appearing Landscapes; Type III, Slightly Altered Landscapes; Type IV, Moderately Altered Landscapes; Type V, Heavily Altered Landscapes; and Type VI, Drastically Altered Landscapes. Fall-line: The fall-line is defined as the path an object would naturally take as it descends a slope under the influence of gravity. Fall-line paths indicate the natural flow of potential trails, from the top of ridges

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 306 Chapter 6. Glossary

to the elevations below. Fall-line terrain allows skiers and snowboarders to make equally weighted, left and right turns. Fire exclusion: Prevention of wildfire from occurring within a management area. Fire suppression: All work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operation, beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. Flame length: The distance between the flame tip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of the flame (generally the ground surface); an indicator of fire intensity. Forage: All browse and non-woody plants used for grazing or harvested for feeding livestock or game animals. Forb: Any non-grass-like plant having little or no woody material on it. A palatable, broadleaved, flowering herb whose stem, above ground, does not become woody and persistent. Foreground: The landscape area visible to an observer from the immediate area to 0.5 mile. Forest Service: The agency of the United States Department of Agriculture responsible for managing National Forests and Grasslands. Forest Supervisor or Responsible Official: The official responsible for administering the NFS lands in a Forest Service administrative unit who reports to the Regional Forester. 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 Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was approved in 1998. Fuel: Plants, both living and dead, and woody vegetative materials capable of burning. Full-Time Equivalent (FTEs): Sufficient work to keep one person employed full-time for one year. In seasonal industries one FTE may be represented by several employment positions. GIS: Geographic information system, a computer mapping system composed of hardware and software. 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. GPS: Global Positioning System, a satellite-based surveying system. Gradient: The vertical distance divided by the horizontal distance, usually measured as percent. Gradient is used to describe streams and ski slopes. Grading: the practice of moving or re-contouring earthen materials to achieve a specified slope in the landform. Grooming: The preparation and smoothing of the developed trail network’s snow surface, using large over-the-snow vehicles (commonly referred to as “snow cats” or “groomers”). Groomers are equipped with front-mounted blades to push snow and rear-mounted implements to flatten and/or till the snow to the desired consistency. Groundwater: Subsurface water in the part of the ground that is wholly saturated.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 307 Chapter 6. Glossary

Guest services facilities or guest services: Facilities or services that are supplied by a resort—both on- mountain and at the base area—to accommodate guests’ needs and to enhance the quality of the recreational experience. Examples of guest services facilities include: restaurants, warming huts, general information desks, resort lost and found departments, restrooms and lounges, ski school, daycare, public lockers and ski-check facilities, ski patrol, first aid clinics, etc. Guideline: A preferred course of action designed by policy to achieve a goal, respond to variable site conditions, or respond to an overall condition. Habitat: The sum of environmental conditions of a specific place that is occupied by an organism, a population, or a community. Habitat type: A classification of the vegetation resource based on dominant growth forms. The forested areas are more specifically classified by the dominant tree species. Hydric soils: Soils characterized by, or requiring an abundance of moisture, used in the identification of wetlands. Impacts: See effects. Indicator species: An animal species used to represent a group of species that utilize the same habitat. For monitoring purposes, the well-being of the indicator species is assumed to reflect the general health of the community. Indirect impact: Secondary consequences to the environment resulting from a direct impact. An example of an indirect impact is the deposition of sediment in a wetland resulting from surface disturbance in the upland. Instream flow: The volume of surface water in a stream system passing a given point at a given time. Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team): A group of individuals each representing specialty resource areas assembled to solve a problem or perform a task through frequent interaction so that different disciplines can combine to provide new solutions. K-factor: A measure of soil erodibility based on soil texture, organic matter, structure and runoff potential. Ladder fuels: Vegetative structures or conditions such as low-growing tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees that allow fire to move vertically from a surface fire to a crown fire.

Lift-line wait times: Time spent in lift lines throughout the course of the season. Management direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. Management emphasis: Long-term management direction for a specific area or type of land. 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 practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 308 Chapter 6. Glossary

Master Development Plan (MDP): A document that is required as a condition of the ski area term special use permit, designed to guide resort planning and development in the long and short term, typically across both public and private lands. Middleground: The landscape area visible to a viewer from 0.5 mile to about 4 miles. Mitigation: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse environmental impacts. Modification: Under the Visual Management System, modification is a VQO meaning man’s activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when view in the foreground or middleground. Mountain roads: On-mountain primary and secondary roads that provide summertime access to mountain buildings and lift terminal locations. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Established under the Clean Air Act of 1963, there are primary standards, designed to protect public health, and secondary standards, designed to protect public welfare from known or anticipated air pollutants. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): A law enacted by Congress in 1969 that requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of all major federal activities that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of regulations to guide that development. National Forest System (NFS) lands: National Forests, National Grasslands, and other related lands for which the Forest Service is assigned administrative responsibility. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): An act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1966 to protect historic sites and artifacts (16 U.S.C. § 470). Section 106 of the Act requires consultation with members and representatives of Indian tribes. National Register of Historic Places: A listing maintained by the National Park Service of areas 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. Nighttime: Starting approximately 30 minutes after sunset in both the summer or winter seasons. 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. Off-piste: Refers to skiing terrain that is left in its natural alpine snow condition, receive very infrequent grooming (if any), and presents natural, variable surface conditions and textures. Peak day visitation: Days during which skier visitation exceeds the CCC by as much as 25 percent.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 309 Chapter 6. Glossary

Piste: A term borrowed form French vernacular meaning skiing terrain that provides a traditional, groomed, prepared sliding surface. Pod: A lift and all of the terrain that is serviced by that lift. Preferred alternative: The alternative selected from the range of alternatives which is favored by the lead agency. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment: The maximum increases in ambient pollution concentrations allowed over baseline concentrations. 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 Proposed Action. PDC are incorporated into the Proposed Action Alternative. Record of Decision (ROD): A document prepared within thirty (30) days after the Final EIS is issued which states the agency’s decision and why one alternative was favored over another, what factors entered into the agency’s decision, and whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why not. Revegetation: The re-establishment and development of self-sustaining plant cover. On disturbed sites, this normally requires human assistance such as seedbed preparation, reseeding, and mulching. Revegetation potential: The ability or capacity of a site to be revegetated after a disturbance, which often depends on the quantity and quality of topsoil remaining in place. Rilling: Erosion by concentrated overland flow. 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, lake shores, etc.). Robust stream health class: Stream exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, as represented by a suitable reference condition. For a quantitative analysis, high integrity is indicated by conditions that are 74 percent to 100 percent of a reference condition. Physical, chemical, and/or biologic conditions suggest that state-assigned water quality uses (beneficial, designated, or classified) are supported Scoping process: A process that determines the issues, concerns, and opportunities, which should be considered in analyzing the impacts of a proposal by receiving input from the public and affected agencies. The depths of analysis for these issues identified are determined during scoping. Sediment: Solid material, both organic and mineral, that has been transported from its site of origin by air, water, or ice. Sensitive species: Species which have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed additions to the endangered or threatened species list; those which are on an official State list or are recognized by the Regional Forester to need special management in order to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 310 Chapter 6. Glossary

Short-term: In this analysis, short-term describes the period from construction up to five years after project completion. Significant impact: A somewhat subjective judgement based on the context and intensity of the impact. Generally, a significant impact is one that exceeds a standard, guideline, law, or regulation. Ski area operational boundary: Within the SUP boundary, the boundary which defines the current extent to which ski patrol conducts snow safety activities and maintains a presence. The ski area operational boundary includes developed (i.e., maintained) and undeveloped (i.e., hike-to and off-piste) terrain. Skier: At ski areas, one may see people using Alpine, snowboard, telemark, cross-country, and other specialized ski equipment, such as that used by disabled or other skiers. Accordingly, the terms “ski, skier, and skiing” in this document encompass all lift-served sliding sports typically associated with a winter sports resort. Skier circulation: How guests navigate throughout a ski area; specifically, how a guest would migrate from one side of the ski area to the other and potentially back again. Skier visit: One skier utilizing the ski area for any length of time; a skier visit is typically recorded as a ticket scan. Regardless of how many times a single ticket is scanned, it counts a one skier visit. Soil: A dynamic natural body on the surface of the earth in which plants grow, composed of mineral and organic materials and living forms. Soil productivity: The capacity of a soil for producing plant biomass under a specific system of management. It is expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year. Special Use Permit (SUP): A legal document, similar to a lease, issued by the U.S. Forest Service. These permits are issued to private individuals or corporations to conduct commercial operations on National Forest System lands. They specify the terms and conditions under which the permitted activity may be conducted. SUP area: That area of NFS lands encompassed within the permit boundary held by SSRC and designated for recreational use (e.g., downhill skiing and Nordic skiing). Excludes private land. SUP boundary: The extent of the special use permit area, within which SSRC is permitted to provide operational facilities and guest services. Stand: A community of trees or other vegetation, which is sufficiently uniform in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities and to thus, form a management entity. Standard: A course of action which must be followed; adherence is mandatory. Stream health: The condition of a stream versus reference conditions for the stream type and geology, using metrics such as channel geometry, large woody debris, substrate, bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry, and aquatic biota. 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. Trail density: The number of skiers per acre on any trail at one time.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 311 Chapter 6. Glossary

Understory: Low-growing vegetation (herbaceous, brush or reproduction) growing under a stand of trees. Also, that portion of trees in a forest stand below the overstory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The agency of the Department of the Interior responsible for managing wildlife, including non-ocean going species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Vehicle trips: The number of times vehicles use a segment of road. Visual Management System (VMS): System to identify and classify the scenic quality of the existing landscape, and to establish quality objectives for alteration of the visual resource. Visual Quality 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. Visual resource: The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. Water rights: The legal right to use water. Watershed: The entire area that contributes water to a drainage system or stream. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH): A Forest Service Region 2 handbook (FSH 2509.25) suggesting design criteria and guidelines for watershed projects. Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP): A computer erosion model developed by the USDA Agricultural Research service (ARS) in cooperation with the Forest Service to model the physical processes involved in soil erosion mechanics, to produce erosion estimates. 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 Environmental Protection Agency’s Handbook An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 312 Chapter 7. Index

7. INDEX

1 Colorado River cutthroat trout ...... 14, 211, 219, 224, 297 Comfortable Carrying Capacity ...... 51, 53, 55, 68, 87, 1998 Routt National Forest Land and Resource 89, 91, 94, 100, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 304, 309 Management Plan ...... 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 18, 19, 34, Connected Disturbed Areas ...... 42, 73, 74, 251, 259, 35, 37, 38, 46, 48, 69, 79–81, 83, 114, 146, 155, 156, 260, 263, 266, 268, 271 159, 163, 171, 173, 195, 200, 203, 204, 218, 223, 226, Council on Environmental Quality ...... 2, 10, 17, 21, 79, 125, 228, 229, 237, 238, 244, 246, 249, 250, 257, 259, 260, 233, 285, 288, 293, 305 266, 274, 275, 282, 284, 285, 299, 307, 309, 316 critical habitat ...... 185, 221 critical viewpoints ...... 12, 59, 145, 146 2 cultural resource ...... 60, 163, 164, 166–170, 286 2011 Steamboat Ski Area Master Development Plan Amendment ...... 2, 4, 50, 108–110, 130, 143, 163, D 170, 180, 198, 203, 204, 231, 247, 270, 283 dispersed recreation ...... 93 A diversity ...... 99, 119, 125, 126, 189, 191 Air Quality Related Values ...... 12, 61, 172, 173, 303 E airshed ...... 173 egress ...... 8, 10, 11, 31, 32, 48, 53, 55, 85, Average Annual Daily Traffic .... 57, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 88, 90, 94–96, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 161 140–142, 221, 303 emissions ...... 12, 13, 58, 61, 62, 170, 172, 173, 175–181, 300, 304 B employee housing ...... 11, 57, 118, 126 backcountry ...... 10, 53–55, 80, 83–85, 88, 89, 93–96, endangered species...... 13, 181, 204, 306, 311 98, 99, 103–105, 107, 110, 111, 304 Environmental Protection Agency ...... 61, 289, 294, backcountry access point ...... 53, 54, 83, 93, 96 297, 300, 301, 306, 312 bare ground ...... 15, 71, 240, 241, 246, 259 erosion ...... 15, 18, 36, 39, 40, 42–44, 48, 71, 72, Bashor Bowl .... 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 76, 81, 169, 195, 221, 227, 237, 239–241, 243–250, 49, 53, 59, 70, 88, 94, 96, 100–103, 107, 145, 158–161, 259, 268, 269, 272, 274, 277, 281, 283, 284, 306, 312 184, 185, 190, 191, 197, 244, 245, 267, 268, 273, 275, Executive Order 11990 ...... 274 276, 278, 279, 282, 283 existing visual condition ...... 146 BC Skiway ...... 6, 7, 32, 33, 44, 47, 84, 88, 94, 95, 99, 100, 103, 104, 267 F Best Management Practice ...... 35, 295, 304 Fire and Fuels Standard 1 ...... 13, 37, 66, 200, 201, 202, 204 Best Management Practices ...... 1, 8, 16, 21, 35, 42, Forest Plan Amendment ...... 1, 8, 19, 34, 299, 316 43, 44, 62, 65, 73, 74, 76, 195, 197, 199, 244, 246–248, Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species ..... 18, 37, 38, 81, 268, 281, 283, 284, 286, 304 204, 207, 220, 222, 225, 228, 233, 234, 236 Biological Assessment ...... 181, 204, 206, 301 Biological Evaluation ...... 181, 204, 207, 219, 301, 304 G Built Environment Image Guide ...... 59, 157, 160–162 groundwater dependent ecosystems...... 16, 41, 75 Burgess Creek ...... 7, 8, 11, 14, 31, 32, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 57, 64, 70, 72–75, 95, 96, 98, L 99, 100, 103, 104, 131, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 158, 161, 162, 164, 189–191, 193, 216, 218, 219, 221, lynx ...... 14, 39, 67, 68, 69, 205, 207, 221, 222, 232 224, 227, 230–232, 242, 246, 248, 252, 254–272, 276, lynx analysis unit ...... 207, 221, 222, 232 278, 280, 300 M C Management Indicator Species ...... 14, 67, 218, 219, Colorado Department of Public Health ...... 173, 251, 262, 220, 230, 299, 301, 308 289, 293, 304 mass movement ...... 15, 40, 71, 72, 237, 239–241, Clean Air Act ...... 171, 172, 285, 303, 309 243–248, 267 Clean Water Act ...... 16, 19, 45, 74, 249, 262, 269, Master Development Plan...... 2, 298, 309 274, 284–286, 303, 304 Medicine Bow-Routt Thunder Basin ...... 2, 4, 9, 13, 34, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit ...... 275, 284 63, 73, 157, 163–167, 181, 199 climate change ...... 13, 62, 170, 171, 175, 178–181, 272

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 313 Chapter 7. Index

Mountain Pine Beetle ...... 63, 64, 183–185, 193, Special Use Permit ...... 2, 4–7, 10, 12–16, 19, 30, 31, 199, 207, 233, 235 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, 80, 82–84, 89, 91–94, 96, 98, 104, 105, 107, 109–111, 120, 130, 145, N 155, 157–160, 162, 163, 168, 179, 181, 182, 195, 198– National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 12, 61, 173, 200, 203, 204, 207, 216, 218, 219, 225–232, 234–236, 174, 303, 309 240, 244, 246, 247, 269, 271–273, 282–284, 303, 304, National Register of Historic Places ...... 12, 60, 163, 167, 309, 311 168, 170, 286, 309 Species of Conservation Concern ...... 14, 67 northern goshawk ...... 38, 68, 69, 209, 212, 219, 222, Species of Local Concern ...... 13, 14, 63, 67–69, 181, 223, 226, 228, 230, 233, 234, 235, 298 189, 192, 196, 197, 204, 216, 229, 235, 301 noxious weeds ...... 13, 16, 65, 184, 190, 191, 199, 281, standards and guidelines...... 2, 18, 35, 156, 163, 171, 283, 301 191, 197, 204, 237, 249, 307, 308 stream health ...... 14, 15, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 70, P 73, 74, 224, 227, 231, 249–252, 255–259, 261–263, 266, 267, 271–274, 303, 305, 310 parking capacity ...... 11, 58, 137, 142 survey ...... 37, 39, 46, 73, 164, 166, 167, 205, 228, Partial Retention ...... 155, 156, 312 256, 258, 259 particulate matter ...... 58, 61, 172–174 Pioneer Ridge area ...... 4, 6–8, 12, 21, 23, 30–32, T 34, 36, 37, 39, 47, 50, 53, 55, 58, 59, 63, 65, 67, 68, 76, 83, 84, 89, 95, 96, 98, 99, 102–105, 107, 111, 145, 159, the Crux ...... 6, 30, 33, 38, 45, 49, 88, 94, 102, 103, 161, 162, 182–185, 189–192, 197, 207, 212, 216, 218, 161, 245, 267, 279, 282, 284 225–229, 267, 268, 275, 279, 281, 282 threatened species ...... 310, 311 Pony Pod ...... 6, 8, 29, 30, 32, 33, 49, 53–55, 63, 83, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species ...... 38, 63, 84, 87–89, 93, 94, 100, 102, 103, 105, 145, 146, 158, 286 159, 161, 182, 190, 191, 197, 275, 276, 278–280, 282 U Prehistoric ...... 60, 165, 167, 169, 295 Project Area ...... 2, 10–17, 33, 36, 38, 53, 54, 57, 61, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...... 19, 43, 45, 274, 279–281, 63–71, 74, 75, 79, 112, 125, 130, 143, 145, 146, 164– 284, 285, 289, 292, 303 166, 169, 170, 180–182, 185–205, 207, 209–212, 214, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 19, 38, 185, 204, 206, 216, 219, 224, 225, 228–231, 236, 238, 240, 241, 247, 212, 214, 220, 221, 229, 233, 234, 285, 286, 289, 294, 248, 252, 263, 264, 267, 270, 271, 273, 275, 277, 279, 300, 301, 304, 312 283, 284, 310 Project Design Criteria .... 1, 8, 10, 16, 21, 30, 35, 38, 43, 46, V 58, 59, 65, 73, 74, 76, 159–162, 181, 195, 197, 199, visitation ...... 10, 11, 12, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 80, 87, 202, 203, 221, 223, 226–231, 244, 246–248, 250, 260, 91–95, 106, 107, 110–116, 120, 122, 127, 128, 130, 262, 266, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274, 280–284, 286, 310 131, 133, 136–139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 155, 175, 181, proposed species ...... 204 220, 304, 309 R Visual Management System ...... 146, 156, 312 Visual Quality Objectives ...... 58, 59, 155, 158, 159, Riparian ...... 15, 37, 41, 45, 72, 162, 181, 186, 188, 205, 161, 162, 309, 312 208–210, 214, 215, 218, 219, 230, 232–234, 248, 249– 252, 258, 262, 266–268, 272–274, 310, 312 W roadless areas ...... 16 Water Influence Zone ...... 13, 15, 40, 43–46, 64, 73, 74, Rough Rider Basin ...... 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 193, 252, 258, 259, 262, 263, 266–269, 271, 272, 312 29, 32, 33, 36, 42, 49, 51, 53, 59, 76, 88, 94, 96–98, 100, water yield...... 15, 73, 227, 254–256, 265, 266, 271, 272 101–103, 107, 145, 147, 149, 158–161, 184, 185, 190, waters of the U.S...... 16, 43, 75, 273–275, 279 197, 207, 229, 235, 242, 245, 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook ...... 237, 250, 282, 283 256, 257, 259, 260, 262, 266, 267, 268, 274, 299, 312 S wilderness ...... 93, 110, 120, 146, 172, 312 Wildlife Standard 6 ...... 7, 8, 19, 34, 46, 47, 48 Scenery Management System ...... 146 scenic integrity ...... 12, 58 Y sediment ... 15, 39–44, 48, 73, 237, 248–251, 256, 257, 260, Yampa River ..... 33, 62, 67, 68, 74, 157, 164, 165, 172, 206, 261, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274, 277, 281, 308 207, 216, 220, 221, 248, 252, 262, 269, 270–273 slope instability ...... 15, 71, 72

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement 314

Appendices

Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis for Forest-wide and Management Area 8.22 Standards and Guidelines Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment Appendix D. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

APPENDIX A. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS PROJECTS

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Steamboat Ski Resort Projects

Steamboat prepared a Master Development Plan Amendment (MDPA), which was accepted by the Forest Service in January 2013. This is the most recent Master Plan and revises the previous MDPA submitted Air Quality and Climate by Steamboat in 2004. It proposed replacing Change and upgrading the Sunshine chairlift and the Cultural/Heritage Thunderhead Express chairlift, as well as Areas within Botany and Timber adding snowmaking, adding a couple of new the 3,738-acre Fire/Fuels Within the Steamboat trails, regrading several existing trails, SUP area and Hydrology Steamboat Special Use Permit (SUP) adding and improving several mountain on the 245 Recreation Ski Area and on adjacent private restaurants, reconfiguring the skiing in Accepted 2013 acres of private Social-Economic and 2011 MDPA lands within the ski area Bashor Bowl and adding several summer land owned or Environmental Justice operational boundary trails and expanding the disc golf course. used under Soils Approximately half of these items were easement by Traffic and Parking implemented; the items not implemented Steamboat Visuals from the 2004 proposal were reconsidered Wetlands and for inclusion in 2011 MDPA. The projects in Waters of the U.S. the 2011 MDPA that are not part of the Wildlife and Fisheries Proposed Action would require site specific NEPA analysis prior to implementation but are considered reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-1 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

In 1996 an EIS was prepared to analyze a 788 acres of proposed expansion of the existing National Forest Steamboat Ski Area. This includes expansion System (NFS) of the Steamboat Ski Area into two separate lands within areas, Morningside Park and Pioneer Ridge. the permit Botany and Timber Additional infrastructure and construction Steamboat Ski boundary in the Hydrology of skiable terrain were proposed in the Area Expansion Within the Steamboat SUP Pioneer Ridge Recreation expansion areas. On March 7, 1996, the Approved 1996 1996 and on adjacent private expansion area, Soils Forest Supervisor issued a Record of and partially Environmental lands within the ski area and 170 acres Visuals Decision, deciding to amend the SUP implemented Impact Statement operational boundary of NFS lands Wildlife and Fisheries boundary of Steamboat to include (EIS) within the Wetlands and Morningside Park and Pioneer Ridge within permit Waters of the U.S. the SUP area. Following that decision, the boundary in the Morningside lift (1996) and Pony Express lift Morningside (1998) were installed. Several projects Park expansion approved in this EIS have not been area. implemented.

In response to growing demand for summer recreation, Steamboat proposed the construction of additional summer trails. Botany and Timber Mountain biking is an important part of the Hydrology Steamboat summer recreation base in the City of Recreation Within the Steamboat SUP Summer Trails Steamboat Springs. The trails within the ski Partially Social-Economic and and on adjacent private 2011 area’s summer operational boundary are Implemented 36 miles Environmental Justice lands within the ski area Environmental part of a larger network of trails in the 2012 Soils operational boundary Assessment (EA) Steamboat area. The 2011 EA analyzed and Wetlands and subsequently approved up to 36 miles of Waters of the U.S. new trail construction;15 miles machine- Wildlife and Fisheries built, and 21 miles hand-built. The Decision Notice was issued in June 2011.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-2 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

The 2006 EA analyzed lift removal, realignment, and construction; ski trail construction, realignment and widening; Botany and Timber new snowmaking installation and Areas within Hydrology improvements to existing snowmaking the existing Recreation Steamboat Within the Steamboat SUP infrastructure; building construction, Approved 2007 2,768 ski area Soils Proposed and on adjacent private expansion, and renovation; and summer and partially boundary and Visuals Improvements lands within the ski area trail construction. The proposed action all implemented adjacent 245 Wetlands and Waters of 2006 EA operational boundary project elements were located within the acres of private the U.S. existing ski area boundary or adjacent lands. Wildlife and Fisheries private lands. On May 12, 2006 a DN/FONSI was released selecting the Proposed Action alternative.

The FY15 Ski Area Projects included Steamboat Ski Within the Steamboat SUP infrastructure improvements. These Botany and Timber Area Projects and on adjacent private improvements were analyzed as a Implemented <5 acres Hydrology 2015 Categorical lands within the ski area categorical exclusion and a Decision Memo 2016 Recreation Exclusion (CE) operational boundary approving the proposed actions was issued in October 2016.

In 2014 a CE analyzed the reestablishment of a disc golf course on the ski area. Several disc golf courses have been hosted on the Steamboat Ski Within the Steamboat SUP ski area in the past, but due to logging and Area and on adjacent private trail reconfiguration there has not been a Implemented Thunderhead <5 acres Recreation lands within the ski area course in place for some time. This course 2015 Disk Golf Course operational boundary closely resembles a previous iteration, with CE modifications made to reduce possible user conflicts. This action was approved in a Decision Memo issued June 2014.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-3 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Two existing springs needed to be upgraded to increase flow within existing water rights. The springs provide sanitation and drinking Botany and Timber Within the Steamboat SUP water as well as supply fire protection Steamboat Ski Hydrology and on adjacent private equipment at ski area facilities. The Implemented Area Four Points <5 acres Soils lands within the ski area subsequent Decision Memo, released in 2015 Springs CE Wetlands and operational boundary September 2014, authorized the Waters of the U.S. maintenance and efficiency measures needed for optimization of these two spring developments.

Minor projects on the Steamboat Ski Area to maintain and improve infrastructure such as Steamboat Ski Within the Steamboat SUP snowmaking lines, minimal regrading, Area and on adjacent private Implemented Hydrology technology improvements and other <5 acres Maintenance lands within the ski area 2014 Soils marginal activities not previously analyzed Projects FY13 CE operational boundary were completed following a Decision Memo issued in July 2013.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-4 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

The Four Points Lodge expansion and an expanded septic system were initially approved through the 2006 Proposed Improvements at Steamboat Ski Area EA. In 2012 a revised proposal for the building increased the size of this facility, which was Steamboat Ski documented in a Supplemental Information Area Four Points Within the Steamboat SUP Report tiered to the 2006 EA. However, with Hydrology Lodge and on adjacent private the revised proposal an expanded septic Implemented Recreation Supplemental <5 acres lands within the ski area system was deemed undesirable; instead, a 2014 Soils Information operational boundary sewer line would be better suited to handle Visuals Report (SIR) and the waste products from this revised CE building proposal. Since the sewer proposal was not analyzed in the EA, additional analysis was necessary, and a CE was prepared. A subsequent Decision Memo in July 2013 approved the installation of the sewer line.

Summer maintenance and improvement Steamboat Ski Within the Steamboat SUP projects on the Steamboat Ski Area were Area 2010 Hydrology and on adjacent private approved in a 2010 Decision Memo. All Implemented Summer <5 acres Recreation lands within the ski area projects were designed to repair or enhance 2010 Maintenance Soils operational boundary existing systems previously authorized Projects CE under the Steamboat Ski Area Term SUP.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-5 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

In 2009 Decision Memo approved a proposal to resolve a confined space issue at the Rainbow water system facility and to repair or replace existing snowmaking and Steamboat Ski Within the Steamboat SUP water lines. All projects were previously Hydrology Area 2009 and on adjacent private Implemented authorized under the special use permit. <5 acres Recreation Maintenance lands within the ski area 2009 Maintenance projects included Soils Projects CE operational boundary infrastructure replacements at the Rainbow Saddle Water Treatment Facility Building, the Four Points Spring, and snowmaking line replacements.

In 2005 a Decision Memo approved the Steamboat Within the Steamboat SUP construction of snowmaking pipeline on Hydrology Construction and on adjacent private Implemented Lower High Noon ski area, Mountain Watch <5 acres Recreation Projects for 2005 lands within the ski area 2005 Kiosks; creekside bridges, lift maze dozing, Soils CE operational boundary and a re-route of the sunshine bike path. In 2004 a Decision Memo approved an Steamboat Within the Steamboat SUP upgrade of the Burgess Creek double Hydrology Construction and on adjacent private chairlift, and the burial of a pipeline to Implemented <5 acres Recreation Projects for lands within the ski area transport water from the Rainbow water 2004 Soils 2003/04 CE operational boundary tank to the Rendezvous water supply facility. In 2002 a Decision Memo approved a proposal to consolidate ski area construction materials in one location Steamboat Within the Steamboat SUP already used for that purpose and also Hydrology Construction and on adjacent private Implemented allowed the ski area to move and clearly <5 acres Recreation Projects for 2002 lands within the ski area 2002 identify a section of the Operational Soils CE operational boundary Boundary located near the South Peak chairlift to the same location as the SUP boundary.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-6 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

In 2002 a Decision Memo approved the Within the Steamboat SUP installation of a fiber optic cable from the Steamboat Fiber and on adjacent private Implemented Thunderhead building to the Rendevous <5 acres Soils Optic Line CE lands within the ski area 2002 building via Spur Run road and Broadway ski operational boundary trail. In 2000 a Decision Memo approved a Within the Steamboat SUP Steamboat proposal to reroute a steep section of the Hydrology and on adjacent private Implemented Mountain Bike Creekside mountain bike trail to reduce <5 acres Recreation lands within the ski area 2000 Trail Reroute CE erosion and decrease the difficulty of the Soils operational boundary trail.

Steamboat Within the Steamboat SUP In 1999 a Decision Memo approved the Communication and on adjacent private replacement and upgrade of an existing Implemented <5 acres Soils Cable lands within the ski area overhead communication cable within 1999 Replacement CE operational boundary Steamboat’s SUP area.

In 1998 a Decision Memo approved the Within the Steamboat SUP Steamboat construction of a snowmaking line, and on adjacent private Implemented Recreation Snowmaking Line expanding the mountain system to include <5 acres lands within the ski area 1998 Soils Construction CE upper Buddy’s Run, Storm Peak, and operational boundary Rainbow ski trails.

Steamboat Within the Steamboat SUP In 1998 a Decision Memo approved the Hydrology Mountain Bike and on adjacent private construction of a mountain bike trail to Implemented <5 acres Recreation Trail Construction lands within the ski area connect two existing trails: Pete’s Wicked 1998 Soils CE operational boundary Trail and Sunshine Trail.

Within the Steamboat SUP In 1997 a Decision Memo approved the Steamboat Hydrology and on adjacent private Reroute of the Zig-Zag mountain bike trail Implemented Mountain Bike <5 acres Recreation lands within the ski area between Vagabond Saddle and Burgess 1997 Reroute CE (1997) Soils operational boundary Creek ski-way.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-7 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

In 2007 a Decision Memo authorized Steamboat Ski Area to salvage dead and/or dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than 0.5 mile of temporary road construction. In 2010 Steamboat updated their Vegetation Management Plan to address mountain pine beetle caused mortality of lodgepole pine Steamboat Ski Within the Steamboat SUP trees and the hazard to the recreating Area Beetle Implemented and on adjacent private public. Prescriptions were developed to Botany and Timber Mitigation Fuels 2008 and <50 acres lands within the ski area actively manage the forest stands within the Fire and Fuels Reduction Project ongoing operational boundary ski area boundary where lodgepole pine is a 2007& 2010 CEs significant component. The proposed treatment area was 190 acres. The recommended treatment for stands in the project area is individual tree selection (sanitation/salvage). The emphasis was the removal of all dead and dying lodgepole pine trees and any other potential hazard trees such as dead aspen, spruce, and fir.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-8 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Regional Projects

The resort base area is located on private lands approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the city of Steamboat Springs, and it supports all the residential and commercial 100+ acres of Air Quality and development associated with a major land adjacent Climate Change destination resort. Private ownership of the to the 245 Hydrology Base Area 0–1 mile developed and undeveloped properties Ongoing acres of private Social-Economic and Development creates an ongoing potential for land within the Environmental Justice development and redevelopment of the Steamboat Ski Traffic and Parking base area. Construction activities, human Area boundary Visuals induced alterations, and disturbances are anticipated to occur in this area into the future.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-9 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

As stated in the land use capacity and buildout analysis of the 2004 Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan (amended 2014), 25 percent of the Urban Growth Boundary is vacant or agricultural, 20 percent is open space and recreation use land, and 55 percent is developed for residential and non-residential uses. As Air Quality and Continued such, there is room for additional growth in Climate Change buildout of the the Steamboat Springs’ Urban Growth Hydrology 0–7 miles Ongoing 6,500 acres City of Steamboat Boundary. Based on current trends of Social-Economic and Springs population growth it is expected that Environmental Justice buildout of the area will continue. Further, Traffic and Parking the 2008 Steamboat Springs Workforce Housing Demand Analysis s identified a housing shortage in certain areas of the county, including the City of Steamboat Springs, that was more impactful to different groups, particularly the low to middle income workforce.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-10 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Routt County has experienced steady growth since the 1970s, and projections show the continuation of this trend (although at a decreasing rate). The 2003 Routt County Master Plan is centered on addressing the anticipated future county growth through the recommendation of appropriate land use and development. Air Quality and Since its acceptance in 2003, this plan has Climate Change Continued guided and will continue to guide new Hydrology buildout of 0–40 miles Ongoing 1,515,520 acres residential, commercial and industrial Social-Economic and Routt County developments with an emphasis on Environmental Justice promoting expansion of urban growth Traffic and Parking centers and discouraging development outside these areas. Additionally, the 2009 Routt County Housing Needs Assessment identified a housing shortage in certain areas of the county that was more impactful to different groups, particularly the low to middle income workforce.

The Emerald Mountain Park Master Plan reflects the City of Steamboat Springs community’s passion for the outdoors, focus Emerald on recreation, and appreciation for heritage Mountain Park 3–3.5 miles and the environment. The plan includes Accepted 2014 586 acres Recreation Master Plan recommendations that intend to preserve Emerald Mountain Park’s wilderness qualities, natural resources, and unique recreational experience.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-11 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

In 2008 an Open Space and Trails Master Plan was prepared for the City of Steamboat Springs. The focus of this plan was to develop a well-financed and well maintained open lands program to protect the physical Steamboat beauty, the open spaces, the special places, Springs Open Recreation 0–7 miles and the healthy ecosystem of the Yampa Accepted 2008 6,500+ acres Space and Trails Traffic and Parking Valley in perpetuity. The plan takes a Master Plan 2008 comprehensive and regional approach to the development of a trail system, linking existing trails, giving neighborhoods access to trails, and connecting urban and rural trails to public lands. In 2014 the USACE evaluated a permit City of Steamboat application to enhance whitewater Springs recreation on a 1,350-foot segment of the Whitewater Yampa River, which would result in Recreation U.S. permanent impacts to approximately 3,503 3–5 miles Approved 2014 0.15 acre Hydrology Army Corps of square feet (0.08 acre) of the Yampa River. Engineers The permit application included in-stream (USACE) developments in the form of rock structures application to divert water and modify the rafting experience. The City of Steamboat Springs applied for a Nationwide Permit for the Casey’s Trail City of Steamboat Pond project. The project involved the Springs Casey’s 0.05 acre of Wetlands and Waters of <0.1 mile discharge of dredged or fill material into Approved 2012 Pond Trail USACE wetlands the U.S. waters of the U.S. in order to construct a Permit pedestrian path abutting portions of Casey’s Pond. The Nationwide Permit was granted.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-12 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Transportation

In 2016 a transportation plan was prepared to provide effective and efficient travel for traffic on US Highway 40; provide safe, 19 miles of US East Steamboat effective, and efficient access to and from Highway 40 on Springs US US Highway 40, while supporting previous the east side of Highway 40 1.5–20.5 miles Accepted 2016 Traffic and Parking planning efforts, including the development Steamboat Access Study of alternative transportation modes. The Springs, 2016 plan includes access improvements and Colorado implementation guidelines to meet its desired goals and objectives.

The 2008 Steamboat Base Area Master Transportation Study highlights travel characteristics of the area that are unique to 100+ acres of the resort nature of the base and to the land adjacent Steamboat Base season. Under existing conditions, the to the 245 Area Master 0–1 mile analysis concluded that all studied Accepted 2008 acres of private Traffic and Parking Transportation intersections operate acceptably. The plan land within the Study 2008 recommends various improvements and Steamboat ski projects to ensure that future growth in area boundary traffic volumes and adequate circulation are accommodated.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-13 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

The primary purpose of the parking analysis was to evaluate the current downtown parking system and make recommendations, based on current best practices and technologies, to better allocate, manage and operate parking in Downtown downtown Steamboat Springs. The analysis Steamboat 2.5–3.5 miles used case studies from peer ski towns to Accepted 2014 6,500 acres Traffic and Parking Springs Parking recommend the addition of parking meters Analysis 2014 in certain areas while maintaining free parking lots in others, as well as improving existing spaces. The availability of parking in the most desirable areas of the city is closely tied to visitor customer turnover and circulation.

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (MBRTB) Projects – Under Analysis and Recently Approved

Currently under analysis on the MBRTB is Areas within Hahns Peak/ the decision to grant certain commercial the 500,000 Bears Ears recreation service permits across the Hahns acres of the Commercial 0–45 miles Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District through a Under Analysis Hahns Recreation Recreation programmatic EA. Permit applications that Peak/Bears Permitting fit within the scope of this programmatic EA Ears Ranger Programmatic EA would be eligible to be issued District

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-14 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

The Storm Peak Hang Gliding Association has launched from the Steamboat Ski Area Storm Peak Hang for several decades. The permit allowing this Gliding The Storm Peak use of Steamboat Ski Area expired in 2016. Association area of 0 mile The reissuance of a new permit was Approved 2016 Recreation Permit Steamboats’ reviewed and approved in 2016 through a Reissuance SUP Decision Memo that granted the Storm Peak CE Hang Gliding Association a new permit for another ten years.

In 2015 an EA evaluated fuels treatments and habitat improvements within the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District. The fuels treatments analyzed include mastication, prescribed burning of shrubs and aspen, and Approximately Steamboat Front treatment/removal of beetle-killed pine. 24,749 acres, of Botany and Timber Hazardous Fuels 0–25 miles The project is in close proximity to the Approved 2015 which 5,908 Fire and Fuels Reduction Project Steamboat Springs wildland urban interface. would be Wildlife and Fisheries EA Also analyzed was the implementation of treated seasonal closures for big game winter range. A Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) authorizing these actions was released in

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-15 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Treatment is Currently under analysis as a CE is the use of proposed in six chainsaws to thin overstocked, naturally previous timber Hahns Peak/ regenerated harvest units totaling sale areas, all Bears Ears Ranger approximately 220 acres on the Hahns Peak located north Botany and Timber District 15–35 miles Ranger District of the MBRTB. Under Analysis of Steamboat Fire and Fuels Precommercial Precommercial thinning would occur in Springs, CO, on Thinning stands dominated by lodgepole pine the Hahns saplings. A Decision Memo is anticipated in Peak/Bears early 2017. Ears Ranger District

Areas being Currently under analysis as a CE is the considered for decision to designate existing non-system designation Winter Non- trail routes as system trails. Snowshoe within the Motorized Trail routes would be designated as trails on 5–10 miles Under Analysis 500,000 acres Recreation Development Rabbit Ears Pass. A snowshoe/skier loop of the Hahns CE near Dry Lake would be designated at Peak/Bears Buffalo Pass. A Decision Memo is Ears Ranger anticipated in early 2017. District

Currently under analysis as a CE is trail work for modifications to less than 0.01 mile of Steamboat snow trail. The modifications are proposed Powdercats Trail 1–5 miles to increase sight distances through tree Under Analysis 0.01 mile Recreation Improvements CE removal or slight realignment of snow trails at Steamboat Powdercats’ currently permitted location of operation.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-16 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Starting in 2015 the MBRTB began analyzing the development of approximately 40 miles of trails near Steamboat Springs in the Buffalo Pass area as an EA. A DN/FONSI was released in August of 2016 approving a total of approximately 43 miles of trail to be Botany and Timber incorporated into the Forest Service trail Buffalo Pass Wetlands and 6 miles system. Included in the 43 miles of trail and Approved 2016 43 miles Trails EA Waters of the U.S. 8 miles of existing user-created trail that Recreation meet, or can be improved to meet, Forest Service standards, and approximately 30 miles of new trail and the incorporation of approximately 4.5 miles of existing Forest Service Level 1 Road into the designated trail network.

Starting in 2015 the MBRTB began an EA analyzing the management of approximately 1,764 acres of NFS lands in the Big Red Timber analysis area. The primary intent of Big Red Timber the Big Red Timber Management Analysis Management Botany and Timber 20 miles Project is to utilize silviculture, timber Approved 2016 1,764 acres Analysis Fire and Fuels harvest and other forestry related practices EA to manage merchantable timber stands that have been significantly affected by mountain pine beetle. In August 2016, a DN/FONSI approved the Proposed Action. 1n 2016 a CE and subsequent Decision Burgess Creek Memo analyzed and approved replacement Approved 2016 Culvert Hydrology 0 mile of two culverts to bottomless arch pipe to and partially 1 acre Replacements Wildlife and Fisheries foster movement of cutthroat trout in implemented Project Burgess Creek.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-17 Appendix A. Cumulative Effects Projects

Table A-1: Cumulative Effects Matrix

Project Location Project Resources Potentially Project Project Area Project (Straight Line Distance to Approval/ Affected that Apply to Description (acres/length) Steamboat SUP Area) Implementation this FEIS

Areas where use is In 2014 a CE and subsequent Decision permitted Steamboat Memo analyzed and approved the issuance within the Springs Running 0.1–7 miles of a five-year recreation event permit to the Approved 2014 500,000 acres Recreation Series Permit Steamboat Springs Running series for of the Hahns Issuance various recreation events. Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District

Forest Service Programmatic Projects

In 2015 the MBRTB initiated an EIS for the management of invasive plant species forest wide. The proposal would continue an integrated approach to the treatment of noxious weeds and invasive species such as annual bromes to manage critical wildlife Invasive Plant habitats and fuels treatments across the Areas within Botany and Timber Management EIS 0–275 miles entire forest and grassland. In June 2016 a Approved 2016 the 2,222,313 Fire and Fuels for the MBRTB Record of Decision was released approving acres of MBRTB Wildlife and Fisheries the Proposed Action, expanding the current invasive plant management to include treatment of a broader range of invasive weed species, with improved herbicides and applications, and greater protection measures.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement A-18 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

APPENDIX B. FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR FOREST-WIDE AND MANAGEMENT AREA 8.22 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Appendix B presents Forest-wide and Management Area 8.22 standards and guidelines relevant to the Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Goals have been omitted from this analysis. The Forest Plan states, “[s]tandards are actions which must be followed or are required limits to activities in order to achieve forest goals. Deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in a forest plan amendment. Guidelines are advisable courses of action which should be followed to achieve forest goals but are optional. Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project level analysis and documented in a project decision document but do not require a forest plan amendment” (USDA Forest Service 1998).

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines

AIR RESOURCES Standards 1. Conduct all land management activities to comply with all applicable Consistent. No operational emissions would Consistent. There would be no change in federal, state, and local air quality standards and regulations exceed ambient air quality standards. compliance with air quality regulations due to the including: Proposed Action. Current measurements of PM10 a. Federal: The Clean Air Act, as amended, 1991, (P.L. 95-95) and PM2.5, as well as other metrics such as ozone b. State of Colorado: The Colorado Air Quality Control Act, Colorado and deciviews, are not expected to change due to Statutes 25-7-101 through 25-7-505 the effects of the Proposed Action.

MINERAL AND ENERGY – LEASABLE MATERIALS Standards 1. Recommend consent to lease with appropriate lease terms or stipulations, as set forth in the forest Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis N/A Record of Decision and updated by this Forest Plan, the FEIS, and ROD.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-1 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 2. Recommend against or deny consent to the Bureau of Land Management for issuance of leases, permits, or coal exploration licenses where operational damages to surface resources would not be reclaimed to acceptable conditions (per forest plan direction). N/A Operational damages to surface resources include impacts from surface-based access, product transportation, and ancillary facilities necessary to production and related operations.

MINERAL AND ENERGY – LOCATABLE MINERALS Standards 1. Provide permits for appropriate prospecting and collecting proposals for vertebrate fossils and minerals by noncommercial, scientific, or educational institutions, and provide appropriate opportunities for N/A recreational collection of mineral and nonvertebrate fossil materials, where consistent with forest plan goals and objectives. 2. Allow rockhounding (hunting and collecting rocks and minerals) on Consistent. No alterations to Steamboat’s current Consistent. Rockhounding would still be National Forest System lands without a permit, except in designated capacity for rockhounding would occur. permitted. wilderness, providing the activity does not interfere with existing rights and that specimens are used for personal, noncommercial uses. 3. Allow recreational panning, sluicing, and dredging outside of wilderness, where such activities do not interfere with the rights of mining claimants protected under the 1872 Mining Law. Evaluate N/A these activities on a case-by-case basis to determine if an operating plan is needed by the authorized Forest Service official. 4. For designated wilderness, and “wild” segments of proposed wild and scenic rivers: a. For private land surface and mineral estate inholdings, provide for reasonable access of the type necessary to the purpose of proposed operations, and for restoration of disturbed federal N/A lands to their natural condition when they are no longer needed for operations. b. For private mineral estates under the federal surface, provide for reasonable surface use as described in the ownership deed.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-2 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 5. For other classified lands not withdrawn from operations under the general mining laws (research natural areas, national recreation areas, special interest areas such as scenic and geologic, national historical sites, and scenic and recreation segments of wild and scenic rivers): a. Check the status of classified lands, with respect to withdrawal, N/A before an operating plan is approved. b. Provide for reasonable protection of the purposes for which the lands were classified. c. Reclaim disturbed lands to a condition suitable for the purposes for which the lands were classified. d. Pursue withdrawals where required.

MINERAL AND ENERGY – RESERVED AND OUTSTANDING RIGHTS Standards 1. Negotiate surface management for private oil and gas minerals with the owner and operator to be as close as possible to the standards N/A used for federal minerals. Prohibiting such development is not an alternative.

SOILS Standards 1. Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible Consistent. No new roads would be constructed Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative was number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of on NFS lands. designed to minimize proposed roads and other specific operations, local topography, and climate. disturbed sites. 2. Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment Consistent. No roads would be constructed on Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternatives discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands. NFS lands. includes PDC requiring the construction of roads and other disturbed sites be designed to minimize sediment into streams, lakes, and wetlands. 3. Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and Consistent. No new disturbance would occur on Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative after construction to control erosion. NFS lands; therefore, disturbed areas would not includes PDC requiring roads and other disturbed require stabilization or maintenance. sites to be stabilized and maintained during and after construction to control erosion.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-3 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, Consistent. No new disturbance would occur on Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative to prevent resource damage. NFS lands; therefore, disturbed areas would not includes the reclamation of portions of the require reclamation. existing Yoo Hoo summer access road, as well as PDC to restore intentional and unintentional bare ground acres. Additional PDC, such as reclamation of disturbed areas promptly after construction, would result in preventing resource damage. 5. Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and Consistent. There would be no change to the Consistent. PDC included in the Proposed Action detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more amount of severely burned and detrimentally Alternative to minimize erosion, compaction, and than 15% of any land unit (FSH 2509.18) compacted, eroded, and displaced land on NFS construction on areas with high mass movement lands within the Project Area. potential, will also minimize the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced land within the Project Area. 6. Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and Consistent. No new ground disturbance would Consistent. While organic layers within disturbed nutrients on all lands. occur on NFS lands; therefore, thickness of areas would be impacted by mixing and mineral A and/or organic O horizons would displacement, PDC such as separation and re- continue to increase or decrease at existing rates. spreading of organic layers and revegetation would maintain long-term levels of organic matter in disturbed soils. Guidelines 1. Resource damage and investment loss will be reduced in areas that Consistent. No new disturbance would occur on Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative have a mass movement potential. NFS lands in areas of mass movement potential. would disturb approximately 4.6 acres of soil having high mass movement potential; however, resource damage and investment loss will be minimized with PDC, including site restoration following disturbance and completion of site- specific slope stability analyses. 2. On-site slope stability examination will be performed on slopes over Consistent. No new disturbance would occur on Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative 30% prior to design of roads or activities that remove most or all of NFS lands on slopes over 30%. includes PDC requiring site-specific slope stability the timber canopy. Limit intensive ground-disturbing activities on analyses for areas rated high for mass movement unstable slopes identified during the examinations. potential, and approval from the Forest Service Engineer and Hydrologist prior to implementation should avoidance not be possible.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-4 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

WATER AND AQUATIC Standards 1.Do not remove naturally occurring debris from stream channels Consistent. No new activities would occur on NFS Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative unless it is a threat to life, property, or important resource values, or lands within stream channels. includes a PDC prohibiting the removal of otherwise covered by legal agreement. naturally occurring debris from stream channels unless it is a threat to life, property, or important resource values, or otherwise covered by legal agreement. 2. Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect Consistent. No new activities affecting site Consistent. The calculated increases from existing long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff. moisture would occur on NFS lands. conditions in peak discharge and runoff volume that would occur would not result in additional significant impacts to the watershed condition, including stream health and site moisture. 3. Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover Consistent. No new ground disturbance would Consistent. While organic layers within disturbed in each land unit to prevent harmful increased runoff. occur on NFS lands; therefore, thickness of areas would be impacted by mixing and organic O horizons would continue to increase or displacement, PDC included in the Proposed decrease at existing rates. Action Alternative, such as separation and re- spreading of organic layers and revegetation, would maintain long-term levels of organic ground cover in disturbed areas. 4. In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent Consistent. No new disturbance would occur on Consistent. Approximately 6 acres of disturbance streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those land treatments NFS lands within the WIZ. would occur within the WIZ under the Proposed actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and Action Alternative. Approximately 4 of the 6 acres riparian ecosystem condition. (New wording per Errata May 5, 1999) of tree clearing within the WIZ would be associated with hazard tree removal projects, which are anticipated to revegetate over time, reducing long-term impacts within the WIZ. With the implementation of PDC identified in Table 2-1 of this FEIS, the Proposed Action Alternative is anticipated to maintain long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-5 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 5. Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream Consistent. No new stream crossings would be Consistent. The two stream crossings that would structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, pass normal constructed on NFS lands. occur under the Proposed Action Alternative are flows, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of the Burgess Creek Bridge and at-grade crossing of resident aquatic life. (New wording per Errata May 5, 1999) North Fork Burgess Creek. A PDC is included in the Proposed Action Alternative requiring all crossings to provide for passage and flow of sediment and withstand expected flood flows. Additionally, the Burgess Creek Bridge must allow for free movement of aquatic life. 6. Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are Consistent. No new disturbance to streams or Consistent. In addition to over twenty PDC that maintained or improved toward robust stream health. surrounding upland areas would occur on NFS would apply to those projects within the WIZ and lands. that are intended to maintain existing stream health, the Proposed Action Alternative also includes the disconnect of specific existing connected disturbed areas to mitigate impacts to stream health. 7. Do not degrade ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, or flow Consistent. No new disturbance to wetlands Consistent. While approximately 5.5 acres of patterns in wetlands. Maintain long-term ground cover, soil would occur on NFS lands. wetlands would be impacted, application of structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in wetlands to sustain compensatory mitigation identified through the their ecological function, per 404 regulations. (New wording per CWA Section 404 process, as well as additional Errata May 5, 1999) actions required by the Forest Service, would result in an overall maintenance of wetland ecological function within the Routt National Forest. 8. Maintain enough water in perennial streams to sustain existing Consistent. No new activities affecting stream Consistent. Analysis of the Proposed Action stream health. Return some water to dewatered perennial streams flows would occur on NFS lands. Alternative estimates that watershed yields and when needed and feasible. Manage stream flows under appropriate peak runoff flow rates would increase by authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish approximately 1 to 4% relative to existing and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment. condition. (New wording per Administrative Correction #3 March 8, 2007) 9. Manage water-use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to Consistent. No new water-use facilities would be Consistent. Proposed water-use facilities under prevent sediment and bank damages to streams. constructed on NFS lands. the Proposed Action Alternative include the snowmaking system. Water use from these sources would be managed to prevent erosion and damage to streams

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-6 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 10. Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where Consistent. No new sources of chemical and Consistent. New sources of chemical and such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water. pathogenic pollutants would be constructed on pathogenic pollutants, such as the composting NFS lands. toilets or leach field associated with the proposed Pony Express Patrol Hut and Restroom, would be constructed per federal, state, and local regulations. 11. Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from Consistent. No new activities that would result in Consistent. Runoff controls to disconnect new surface and ground water. new pollutant sources would occur on NFS lands. pollutant sources from surface and ground water are included in the Proposed Action Alternative through PDC in Table 2-1 of this FEIS, such as proposed PDC to disconnect existing CDAs. 12. Apply chemicals using methods which minimize risk of entry to Consistent. No new sources of chemicals would Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative surface and ground water. be applied on NFS lands. includes PDC related to chemical applications, such as the use of pesticides and herbicides treating noxious and invasive species, that would require review by the District/Forest Manager prior to use and ensure chemical entry to surface and ground water is minimized. 13. To prevent conditions toxic to fish, avoid human-caused Consistent. No new activities that would result in Consistent. Application of PDC and BMPs to disturbances that result in suspended sediment peaks above 250 disturbances and associated suspended sediment projects that have the potential to influence mg/l for more than one-hour duration in any stream reach or of peaks would occur on NFS lands. sediment loads, including those projects located more than 500mg/l at any point in time. within the WIZ, would reduce the amount of sediment entering streams. 14. Maintain enough additional water in streams to sustain the water- dependent recreation values. Generally, Standard #8 provides for most recreation-related water uses, but additional water may be needed for special recreation features and heavy-use recreation N/A areas. Deleted per Administrative Correction #3 March 8, 2007

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-7 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Guidelines 1. Protect instream flows at outstanding recreation features. Such Consistent. No new project-related activities Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative features include designated/study wild, scenic, or recreational rivers; would occur on NFS lands; however, other future incorporates the WCPH into the design and stream segments used for commercial boating; stream segments actions would require incorporation of the analysis process. having developed recreation sites or vistas; and national practices and design criteria from the WCPH. recreation/historic/scenic trails or scenic byways from which the segments are clearly visible. Protection of water quantity and quality is vital to recreation experiences. Refer to Table 1-6 in FEIS Appendix 1 for listing of sites with outstanding recreation features. Changed per Administrative Correction #3 March 8, 2007, to “[i]ncorporate appropriate practices and design criteria from the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) into all project design, analysis, and decision documents.” 2. For existing dams and diversions where water is being bypassed or returned to the stream and is available for recreation and aesthetic N/A uses, secure and maintain these flows where needed. Deleted per Administrative Correction #3 March 8, 2007 3. For new dams and diversions, obtain bypass flows at the point of diversion or storage that protects water-dependent recreation N/A values. Deleted per Administrative Correction #3 March 8, 2007

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Standards 1. Develop prescriptions prior to timber harvest to identify the Consistent. No project-related vegetation removal Consistent. SSRC has developed a Vegetation amount, size(s), and distribution of down logs and snags to be left or timber harvesting would occur, and future Management Plan, including identification of on-site, as well as live, green replacement trees for future snags. On harvesting on NFS lands would require the priority stands, prescriptions, and implementation forest sites, retain snags and coarse woods debris (where materials development of prescriptions prior to harvest. In guidelines, for the SUP area. In addition, prior to are available) in accordance with the average minimums specified in addition, implementation of the projects, the Forest Table 1-1. Service would perform a timber cruise. 2. Retain all soft (rotten) snags unless they are a safety hazards. Consistent. No project-related tree removal Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative would occur, and all soft (rotten) snags would be contains PDC to retain trees, both retained unless they are identified as safety dead/unhealthy trees and live trees, unless hazards. identified as safety hazards.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-8 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 3. Use genetically local (at the sub-section level), native plant species Consistent. No project-related revegetation Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative for revegetation efforts where technically and economically feasible. activities would occur; other future revegetation includes PDC requiring revegetation seed mixes Use weed-free seed mixtures. While native perennial are becoming efforts on NFS lands would be reviewed by a be Forest-Service approved, and incorporate established, nonnative annuals or sterile perennial species may be Forest Service specialist to comply with native vegetation as much as possible. used to prevent soil erosion. recommended seed mixtures. Guidelines 1. Maintain aspen, even at the expense of spruce/fir or other late- Consistent. Consistent. The limited scope of the Proposed successional species. No project-related clearing of aspen would occur Action Alternative would not affect aspen stand on NFS lands. occurrence or extent in the geographic area, in particular due to limited harvest.

RANGE Standards 1. Provide mitigation measures to protect national forest resources from animal damage control activities conducted by other governmental entities. Mitigation measures emphasize protection of N/A public safety; threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; water quality; and other resource values. 2. Phase out season-long grazing systems that allow for livestock grazing use in an individual unit during the entire vegetative growth N/A period, except where determined to achieve or maintain the desired plant community. 3. Remove livestock from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization on key areas will exceed allowable-use criteria in the N/A forest plan or allotment management plan. 4. Manage all suitable rangeland to move toward satisfactory N/A management status. 5. Manage rangeland vegetation for a mixture of seral stages. Manage vegetation to allow for successional progress towards a desired seral N/A status.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-9 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Guidelines 1. Develop site-specific vegetation utilization and residue guidelines during rangeland planning, and document them in allotment management plans. In the absence of updated planning or an N/A approved allotment management plan, apply the utilization and residue guidelines in Tables 1-2 and 1-3. 2. Manage sheep grazing to minimize trampling of vegetation and soil N/A resources. Limit grazing to a “one time over” basis per area.

SILVICULTURE Standards 1. Use a 40-acre maximum size for openings created by even-age management, regardless of forest type, with the following exceptions: a. Where proposals for larger openings are approved by the Regional Forester after a 60-day public review. N/A b. Where larger openings are the result of natural catastrophic conditions of fire, insect or disease attack, or windstorm. c. Where the area that is cut does not meet the definition of created opening. 2. Use the scientifically defined silviculture systems which meet the management objectives for the landscape or individual stands of trees within a landscape setting. These systems are shown, by forest cover type, in Table 1-4. Both even-aged and uneven-aged management systems can be used and applied at scales ranging from a few acres to hundreds of acres. Apply these sylvicultural N/A systems in a manner that will ensure natural regeneration where artificial regeneration is not necessary for other resource objectives. Have certified silviculturists approve tree stand vegetation management treatments. The sylvicultural systems identified below can be used to convert uneven-aged stands to even-aged management and even-aged stands to uneven-aged management.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-10 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 3. Base the size of the uncut forest areas between openings on the management objective for the landscape unit being analyzed. If these objectives include creating a mix of vegetation types to benefit the kinds of wildlife associated with early successional stages and N/A edges, the uncut units can be small. If the objectives include provisions for old-growth associated species, the uncut units should be large enough to function as an ecological system not overly influenced by edge. 4. When trees are harvested in suitable lands, the cutting should be made in such a way that there is the assurance that the technology and knowledge exist to adequately restock these areas with trees N/A within 5 years after final harvest. Minimum restocking levels are defined in Table 1-5. 5. Use artificial regeneration methods when it is unreliable to count on the natural sequence of events or environmental conditions to N/A regenerate the stand within 5 years. 6. Five years after final harvest means 5 years after clearcutting, 5 years after the final overstory removal in the shelterwood and seed tree systems, or 5 years after selection cutting. The requirement for N/A adequate restocking within five years is initiated by the final harvest. The timing of the first and third year restocking surveys is initiated by the reforestation treatment. 7. No minimum seedling height requirements are specified. Seedlings must have survived a minimum of one year and be expected (on the basis of research and experience) to be able to produce the desired future stand condition specified for the area in the forest plan. The N/A number of seedlings in Table 1-5 represents the minimum number of seedlings required, considering natural mortality, to produce a merchantable timber stand at rotation age, without intermediate teatments. 8. In order to assure that adequate restocking of openings created as a result of final harvest is accomplished, as a minimum, conduct stocking surveys at the end of the first and third growing seasons, N/A following reforestation treatment. Adequate stocking cannot be certified until after the third-year growing season survey.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-11 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 9. Where disease can be spread from an uncut stand to a newly regenerated stand, it is desirable to cut the adjacent infected stand N/A before the newly regenerated stand reaches a height of 6 feet. 10. Leave large woody debris on harvested or thinned sites to help Consistent. No new silvicultural treatments would Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative retain moisture, trap soil movement, provide microsites for occur on NFS lands. includes silvicultural treatments that would be establishment or forbs, grasses, shrubs and trees, and to provide implemented in accordance with PDC. habitat for wildlife. 11. When trees are to be harvested on other than suitable lands, Consistent. No new silviculture treatments would Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative exceptions to the 5-year restocking standard are appropriate as occur on NFS lands. includes specific management practices and documented in project decisions when the harvest meets one of the prescriptions for silviculture treatments and following criteria: serves specific management direction. a. for permanent openings that serve specific management direction, b. where provided for in specific management practices and prescriptions, c. where it is desirable to delay the onset of regeneration and crown closure to meet specific desired conditions and management objectives. Guidelines 1. If the silviculture system being applied to a particular area of the landscape is uneven-aged, designate harvest trees for commercial N/A timber production based on the desired density as determined by age class or size and the objective for the area. 2. Silvicultural standards and guidelines should be applied at the watershed and landscape level, as well as to individual stands of trees. The standards and guidelines must be applied to perpetuate N/A this range of environmental conditions while supplying goods and services to people. 3. Do not consider artificially created openings as openings when the trees average 6 feet in height and have reached a density listed in N/A Table 1-5.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-12 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4. The landscape should be the primary unit of analysis for silviculture. A landscape is defined as a distinct landform, such as a mesa, or a 4th-order watershed. There is a great variety of landscape types within the region. Some landscapes may contain more than a single forest species. Some landscapes are fine-grained, characterized by many small areas in various stages of plant succession. Others are N/A large-grained, characteristically forested with large, unbroken expanses of trees and few openings. There are areas in the region which have become a patchwork of forest and open places as a result of human use prior to establishment of national forests, past Forest Service management practices, and natural disturbances (wind, fire, insect activity, and earth movement). 5. In most circumstances, use silviculture systems which ensure N/A regeneration of forest stands through natural seeding and suckering. 6. Use thinning practices which consider genetic diversity, competition among trees for water, nutrients, and light. The frequency of N/A thinning should depend upon the tree species, financial efficiency, and the site growing conditions. 7. Where appropriate, reduce competition between desired trees and other vegetation. N/A 8. Except for treatments designed to enhance meadows, avoid altering more than one-third of the edge of a natural opening whenever an artificially created opening lies adjacent to a natural opening. N/A Additional edge should not be created until previously treated areas are considered closed. 9. The choice of a silviculture system should allow emulation of the pattern, timing, and frequency of natural disturbances found in the N/A landscape being treated. 10.Regeneration harvests of even-aged timber stands should not be undertaken until the stands have generally reached or surpassed 95% culmination of the mean annual increment measured in cubic N/A feet. Exceptions may be made where resource management objectives or special resource considerations require earlier harvest such as:

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-13 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action a. Stands which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attach. b. Wildlife habitat improvement. c. Scenery resource enhancement or rehabilitation. d. Ecosystem restoration. e. Areas managed for Christmas tree production. 11. Design sylvicultural prescriptions for existing regenerated stands N/A within riparian management zones to achieve riparian goals. 12. No minimum or maximum stand acreage size limits should be applied where an uneven-aged structure can be maintained N/A throughout.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, SENSITIVE SPECIES, AND WILDLIFE Standards 1. Apply seasonal restrictions on use of travelways under Forest Consistent. No new habitat disturbance would Consistent. Sensitive big game areas have been Service jurisdiction to reduce disturbance in sensitive big game occur on NFS lands. considered through the analysis, and PDC have areas, such as birthing areas and winter ranges. This does not imply been included, as necessary. that all birthing areas and winter range are considered equally important, and not all will be considered “sensitive.” 2. Manage human disturbance at caves and abandoned mines where bat populations exist. When closing mines or caves for safety or N/A protection reasons, reduce disturbance to resident bat populations and provide access for bats. 3. Provide adequate cover to maintain screening, through time, along Consistent. No new habitat disturbance would Consistent. Intertrail tree islands provide roads where timber management activities are taking place to occur on NFS lands. adequate screening to minimize disturbance to minimize disturbance and harassment of deer and elk. deer and elk. 4. In areas where tall dense cover is desired for ground-nesting birds, Consistent. No new habitat disturbance would Consistent. The analysis considers impacts to retain adequate residual cover from previous growing seasons since occur on NFS lands. ground-nesting birds and adequate cover would some species begin nesting in April and May before spring growth. be maintained. 5. Some bird species prefer to nest in undisturbed cover. In areas where these species are a primary consideration, manage livestock N/A grazing to avoid adverse impacts to nesting habitat.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-14 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 6. Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of the Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Inconsistent. Activities are proposed within protection will be based on proposed management activities, human would not be authorized and would not impact proximity known inactive nests, which may activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, known active and inactive raptor nest areas. become active in the near future, and during the vegetative cover, and other factors. A non-disturbance buffer nest site selection to fledging timeframe. An around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to amendment to this standard is incorporated in fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when the Proposed Action Alternative should these animals are adapted to human activity. nests become active or additional nests be identified. This amendment would require a no- disturbance buffer around active nest sites from nest-site selection to fledging, except during active construction of proposed projects. Existing and proposed SSRC winter operational activities that may occur in March and April, such as operating ski lifts and grooming trails, are considered consistent with this standard and may continue without a non-disturbance buffer as nesting raptors would be considered adapted to human activity. 7. Where newly discovered threatened, endangered, proposed, or Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative sensitive species habitat is identified, conduct an analysis to would not be authorized and would not result in contains PDC requiring project activities to be determine if any adjustments in the forest plan are needed. potential impacts to threatened, endangered, suspended in the immediate vicinity should proposed, or sensitive species. specific impacts to threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species be identified. 8. Manage activities to avoid disturbance to sensitive species which Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. Several PDC are incorporated with the would result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of population would not be authorized and would not result in a intent of minimizing impacts to the Northern viability. The protection will vary depending on the species, potential trend toward federal listing or loss of population Goshawk, a sensitive species that, if impacted by for disturbance, topography, location of important habitat viability. the proposed project, could result in a loss of components, and other pertinent factors. Give special attention population viability. In addition, several PDC are during breeding, young rearing, and other times which are critical to incorporated with the intent of minimizing survival of both flora and fauna. impacts to Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-15 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 9. Avoid disturbing threatened, endangered, and proposed species Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. It is anticipated that the projects will (both flora and fauna) during breeding, young rearing, or at other would not be authorized and would not result in have no effect on greenback cutthroat trout and times critical to survival by closing areas to activities. Exceptions may disturbance to threatened, endangered, and may affect, but not likely to adversely affect, occur when individuals are adapted to human activity, or the proposed species. Canada lynx. Colorado Big River fish are activities are not considered a threat. anticipated to be adversely affected; however, the proposed projects would be included in the previously analyzed Yampa River programmatic biological opinion, and further action or coordination with the USFWS is not required. 10. In forested ecosystems, maintain habitat effectiveness for deer and Consistent. No new habitat disturbance would Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative elk at 50% or greater, as measured at the Geographic Area scale. occur on NFS lands. would not result in a detectable decrease in habitat effectiveness for deer or elk within the Middle Yampa Geographic Area. 11. Restrict new developments, including new facilities, roads and trails, and concentrations of humans, within a one-mile sight distance of bighorn sheep lambing and mountain goat kidding areas N/A if they would adversely impact lambing or kidding. Restrictions on activities are usually required from April 1 to June 30. 12. Prevent interaction between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep, N/A where feasible. Guidelines 1. Protect wildlife habitat values when enhancing watchable wildlife N/A opportunities for the public.

CANADA LYNX (SOUTHERN ROCKIES LYNX MANAGEMENT DIRECTION) Note: Footnote references have been retained from the Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. Please refer to this Management Direction for all source notes, as they are not contained as part of this Appendix. ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL): The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to all management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat and in linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use. Standard44 ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments33 and vegetation Consistent. The No Action Alternative would not Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative management50 projects36 must maintain26 habitat connectivity16 in an create additional habitat disturbance and would would maintain habitat connectivity within the LAU21 and/or linkage area22. therefore maintain habitat connectivity. Mount Werner LAU and between this and other LAUs.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-16 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Guideline15 ALL G1 Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways18 or forest highways12 across N/A federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses. Standard44 LAU S1 Changes in LAU21 boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat N/A information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office. HUMAN USE PROJECTS (HU): The following objectives and guidelines apply to human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, and mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas. Guideline15 HU G1 When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made Consistent. The No Action Alternative would not Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody develop or expand the ski area. would not reduce the size of inter-trail islands debris4, so winter snowshoe hare habitat51 is maintained. below that which is necessary to maintain snowshoe hare habitat, nor would projects decrease the presence of coarse woody debris in inter-trail islands or inter-glade islands. Guideline HU G2 When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging habitat should Consistent. The No Action Alternative would not Consistent. Lynx foraging habitat effectiveness is be provided consistent with the ski area’s operational needs, especially develop or expand the ski area. currently diminished as a result of ski area where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across development and foraging habitat would mountain slopes. continue to be provided within the operational boundary. Guideline HU G3 Recreation development and recreational operational uses should be Consistent. The No Action Alternative would not Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain the develop or expand the ski area. would maintain habitat connectivity within the effectiveness of lynx habitat23. Mount Werner LAU and between this and other LAUs. Guideline HU G4 Remote monitoring of mineral and energy development sites and N/A facilities should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-17 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Guideline HU G5 A reclamation plan should be developed (e.g., road reclamation and vegetation rehabilitation) for closed mineral and energy development N/A sites and facilities that promote the restoration of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G6 Methods to avoid or reduce effects to lynx habitat connectivity16 should be used when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels N/A 4 or 527, where the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or contribute to development or increases in human activity. Guideline HU G7 New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, Consistent. No new road development would Consistent. No new road development would or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity16. New occur. occur in areas important for lynx habitat permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested connectivity. stringers. Guideline HU G8 Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads25 should be N/A done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety. Guideline HU G9 If project level analysis determines that new roads adversely affect lynx, then public motorized use should be restricted. Upon project36 N/A completion, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. Guideline HU G10 Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not Consistent. No new snow compaction would Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless occur. would not expand snow compacted areas beyond designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This Pioneer Ridge and Fish Creek Canyon, which is may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of skied under existing conditions to an extent that immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski snow is compacted and moguls develop. area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, Furthermore, the project areas are located within to accessing private inholdings, or to access regulated by Guideline HU the current Steamboat SUP Area boundary, all of G12. which, by definition, is considered to be a snow compaction area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-18 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Guideline HU G11 When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating Consistent. No new access roads or lift termini Consistent. Habitat will be maintained in the state access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security would be developed. in which it currently exists, including suitable and habitat10. likely effective habitat between the proposed Pioneer Ridge upper lift terminal and North Saint Pats. Guideline HU G12 Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration and development should be limited to designated routes8 N/A or designated over-the-snow routes7. LINKAGE AREAS (LINK): The following standard and guidelines apply to all projects within linkage areas in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. Standard44 LINK S1 When highway18 or forest highway12 construction or reconstruction is N/A proposed in linkage areas22, identify potential highway crossings. Guideline15 LINK G1 National Forest System lands should be retained in public ownership. Consistent. Consistent. Guideline LINK G2 Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats43 should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or N/A late-seral stages28, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

FIRE Guideline 1. When feasible and appropriate, use broadcast burning to dispose of Consistent. Under the No Action Alternative, Consistent. The Proposed Action alternative slash in order to return the inorganic and organic chemicals in the there would be no changes to the current includes pile burning, and may include broadcast foliage and small woody material to the soil, to reduce fire hazard, potential use of broadcast burning. burning if suitable conditions are present. and to provide seed beds for natural regeneration.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-19 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

INSECTS AND DISEASE Guidelines 1. Plan management activities with consideration for potential insect Consistent. No changes to the current Consistent. Hazard tree removal would occur in or disease outbreaks. Design management to meet or enhance management activities for potential insect or areas heavily affected by Mountain Pine Beetle management area objectives. disease outbreaks on NFS lands would occur. and with the intent to improve forest health and skier safety. 2. Manage vegetation in high-use recreation areas to provide for public Inconsistent. Hazard trees in small portions of the Consistent. Hazard tree removal would occur in safety, to improve forest health, and to maintain or improve the ski area would not be treated, which could lead to areas heavily affected by Mountain Pine Beetle desired recreation setting(s). a public safety concern. This area is outside of the and with the intent to improve forest health and winter operational boundary. skier safety. 3. Use integrated pest management techniques, including sylvicultural Consistent. Management area objectives are Consistent. Management area objectives are treatments, to meet management area objectives. Treatment generally being met. being met. activities will be based on values of, and risks to, wildlife habitat and adjacent private lands, as well as public land. Priority should be given to areas in which values to be protected exceed the cost of protection; for example, areas adjacent to subdivisions, metropolitan areas, recreation sites, or areas of concentrated public use. 4. Use preventative vegetation management practices to meet Consistent. Management area objectives are Consistent. Hazard tree removal would occur in objectives and reduce the risk of insects and disease. Give priority to generally being met. areas heavily affected by Mountain Pine Beetle cover types identified as high risk. and with the intent to improve forest health and skier safety. 5. In project plans, consider existing infestation of insects or disease Inconsistent. Hazard trees in small portions of the Consistent. Hazard tree removal would occur in within the project area. Design activities to minimize the risk of ski area would not be treated, which could lead to areas heavily affected by Mountain Pine Beetle spreading the infestation while still providing habitat for those a public safety concern. This area is outside of the and with the intent to improve forest health and wildlife species dependent upon the presence of insects and disease. winter operational boundary. skier safety.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-20 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

UNDESIRABLE SPECIES Standards 1. Control nonnative and noxious plants throughout the Forest, with Consistent. NFS lands would continue to be Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative priority given to designated wilderness. managed as directed in the Final Environmental contains PDC designed to minimize the spread of Impact Statement for Invasive Plant Management noxious and invasive plant species, such as for the Medicine Bow – Routt National Forests cleaning equipment prior to entering weed free and Thunder Basin National Grassland and Record areas, submitting a Pesticide Use Proposal, and of Decision (ROD) dated August 2015. monitoring/treatment of the project area for a minimum of three years following project completion. 2. Use only certified noxious weed free hay, seed, straw, or other Consistent. The projects proposed on NFS lands Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative materials for feed or revegetation projects on the forest. would not be authorized and certified noxious contains PDC that require weed-free materials be weed free materials would not be necessary. used for revegetation of the project area. Guidelines 1. Develop a noxious weed and pest management program that Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative addresses awareness, prevention, inventory, planning, treatment, would not be authorized and a noxious weed and contains PDC that requires compliance with the monitoring, reporting, and management objectives. Priorities for pest management program would not be Final Environmental Impact Statement for implementing a program for undesirable plants include: required. Noxious weeds would continue to be Invasive Plant Management for the Medicine Bow a. New invaders. managed under the existing Forest Service and – Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin b. New areas. SSRC agreements. National Grassland and Record of Decision (ROD) c. Spreading or expanding infestations. dated August 2015, as well as development of a Pesticide Use Proposal. d. Existing infestations.

HERITAGE Standards 1. Conduct all land management activities to comply with all applicable Consistent. No new activities impacting Consistent. Forest Service archaeologists federal, state, and local regulations. Heritage resource values can be cultural/heritage resources would occur on NFS conducted a Class I archaeological inventory and protected effectively through application of the provisions of the lands. Class II cultural resource survey for the Proposed following Acts: Action Alternative, and the State Historic • The National Historic Preservation Act Preservation Office concurred with a No Effect on • Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act cultural resources. In addition, 14 tribes were • American Religious Freedom Act notified of the project by mail.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-21 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

RECREATION – GENERAL Standards 1. Base availability of outfitter/guide special-use permits on capacity N/A study. 2. Do not issue further permits when capacity has been met for a certain special-use activity. N/A 3. Require valid advanced first-aid certification or equivalent approved qualifications from all outfitter/guides conducting activities with N/A high-risk or frequency of serious injury, such as snowmobiling, whitewater boating, etc. 4. Allow mountain bikes on roads and trails Forest-wide (outside of Consistent. No new activities prohibiting Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative does wilderness), unless prohibited. mountain bike on roads and trails within the SSRC not prohibit mountain bikes on roads and trails SUP boundary would occur. within the SSRC SUP boundary. Guidelines 1. Consider concessionaire operations where appropriate. N/A 2. Use Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace techniques in education and Consistent. Selection of the No Action Alternative Consistent. Selection of the Proposed Action interpretation. would not result in changes to the current Alternative would not result in changes to the implementation of Tread Lightly and Leave No current implementation of Tread Lightly and Trace techniques in education and interpretation Leave No Trace techniques in education and within the Steamboat SUP area. interpretation within the Steamboat SUP area.

RECREATION – DEVELOPED RECREATION Standards 1. Design and manage developed recreation sites according to the Consistent. No new developed recreation sites Consistent. With application of identified PDC, adopted recreation opportunity spectrum class and the adopted would be constructed, and the area would conditions would continue to comply with the visual quality objective(s). continue to comply with the requirements of the requirements of the Urban and Roaded Natural Urban and Roaded Natural classifications under classifications under the ROS, as well as meet the the ROS, as well as meet the visual quality visual quality objective of Modification. objective of Modification. 2. Provide a range of universally accessible opportunities, within the Consistent. The ski area maintains accessibility. Consistent. The ski area maintains accessibility. limits of the site characteristics, at all new or reconstructed New facilities would be built according to developed recreation sites. Architectural Barriers Act standards.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-22 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 3. Develop and maintain vegetative management plans for all Consistent. A vegetation management plan exists Consistent. A vegetation management plan exists developed sites to enhance the natural setting and maintain or for the ski area. for the ski area. develop the desired vegetation. 4. Set camping stay limits to meet management objectives. N/A 5.Withdraw developed recreation areas from locatable mineral entry. Consistent. The Steamboat SUP area has been Consistent. The Steamboat SUP area has been withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. 6. Provide parking, trailhead panels for trail Consistent. No new summer trails or trailheads Consistent. No new summer trails or trailheads information/interpretation, and appropriate sanitation facilities at would be constructed. are proposed. Public parking at the Thunderhead trailheads. Construct these facilities to be consistent with the Express chairlift bottom terminal would be recreations setting. retained. Guidelines 1. Consider standard design of facilities when constructing or reconstructing recreation sites. Design quality facilities that require N/A low maintenance, are cost effective, and include universal design concepts. 2. When campground occupancy averages less than 20% during normal operating season, conduct an analysis to decide whether to close the N/A campground. 3. When determining opening and closing dates for campgrounds, consider the following: a. Use and demand. b. Budget constraints. c. Weather, site, and road conditions. N/A d. Popularity. e. Impacts to dispersed sites. f. Adjacent available facilities. g. Concessionaire’s needs. h. The role of volunteers.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-23 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4. When offering less than full service, use the following priorities for allocation of funds: a. Health and cleanliness. b. Safety and security. N/A c. Presence of a campground host or patrols. d. Heavy maintenance needs. e. Amount of use. 5. Where it is not possible to screen them, design recreational facilities Consistent. Elements within the ski area strive to Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative to blend with the elements found in the natural landscape. They be consistent with the Built Environment Image would comply with the Built Environment Image should remain subordinate to the overall visual strength of the Guide. No new structures are proposed. Guide through the application of PDC. surrounding landscape. 6. Have each ranger district document backlog maintenance and rehabilitation needs and associated costs and update at intervals not N/A exceeding 2 years. 7. Provide readily available off-site and on-site information on N/A recreation opportunities for developed sites.

RECREATION – DISPERSED RECREATION Standards 1. Close or rehabilitate dispersed sites or otherwise mitigate impacts when: a. Campsite condition reaches Cole’s class “heavy” or “severe.” b. Site occupancy does not meet the adopted visual quality N/A objective. c. Documented social use conflicts exist. d. Unacceptable environmental damage is occurring. 2. Where forage is limited, require users camping overnight with recreational livestock to carry cubed, pelleted, or rolled feed free of N/A viable noxious weed seeds. 3. Only allow camping outside a 100-foot zone surrounding lakes and N/A streams, unless otherwise designated.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-24 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Guidelines 1. Manage recreation use to stay within the capacity for the recreation Inconsistent. Current Steamboat Comfortable Inconsistent. Current and proposed Steamboat opportunity spectrum objective shown in Table 1-6. Carrying Capacity is outside of the recommended Comfortable Carrying Capacity are outside of the ROS capacity. recommended ROS capacity. Deviations from this guideline are disclosed and analyzed in this FEIS. Terrain capacity is analyzed in the Recreation Technical Report. 2. If use exceeds the area capacity for a given ROS class, employ the following management actions, in order of priority, to address the impacts or effects to the recreation setting: a. Inform the public and restore or rehabilitate the site. N/A b. Regulate use. c. Restrict the number of users. d. Close the site. 3. Manage trail development at a broad scale to coordinate with trail systems developed by municipalities, counties, states, other federal N/A agencies, and partners. 4. Plan different accessibility challenge levels, depending on the nature of the improvement and the principal form of recreation being N/A provided. 5. Consider universal design for all new construction or rehabilitation N/A proposals in trail system analyses and decisions. 6. Consider the following in new trail construction: a. Proximity to population centers. b. Feasibility of loop trails. c. Feature attractions, campgrounds, and interpretive opportunities. N/A d. Types of trail users to be served. e. Partnership opportunities. f. Protection of habitats and wilderness. g. Accessibility or universal design opportunities. 7. Give higher priority for reconstruction, operation, and maintenance to Congressionally-designated national historic, scenic, or recreation N/A trails and the (Reference FSM 2352.3 and 2353.4).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-25 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

SCENERY MANAGEMENT Standards 1. Apply the Visual Management System (VMS) to all NFS lands. Travel Consistent. No new activities would occur, and Consistent. With application of identified PDC, the routes, use areas, and water bodies determined to be of primary the area would continue to meet the visual visual quality objective of Modification would be importance are sensitivity level one and appropriate visual quality quality objective of Modification. met. objectives are established according to the VMS. 2. Prohibit management activities which are inconsistent with the Consistent. No new activities would occur, and Consistent. With application of identified PDC, the visual quality objective unless a decision is made to change the the area would continue to meet the visual visual quality objective of Modification would be visual quality objective. Document the decision to change the visual quality objective of Modification. met. quality objective in a project-level NEPA decision document. Guidelines 1. Rehabilitate all existing projects and areas that do not meet the visual quality objectives specified for each management area prescription. Consider the following when setting priorities for rehabilitation: a. Relative importance of the area and the amount of deviation from the visual quality objectives. N/A b. Length of time it will take natural processes to reduce the visual impacts so that they meet the visual quality objective. c. Length of time it will take rehabilitation measures to meet the visual quality objectives. d. Benefits to other resource management objectives to accomplish rehabilitation. 2. Meet the visual quality objectives of retention and partial retention Consistent. None of the proposed projects would Consistent. With application of identified PDC in one year after completion of a project. Meet the modification be authorized on NFS lands. including regrading and revegetation visual quality objective in three years after completion of a project. requirements, the visual quality objective of Modification would be met within three years after completion of the project.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-26 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM Standards 1. Conduct management activities to comply with the requirements of Consistent. No management activities are Consistent. With application of identified PDC, the adopted ROS class and the visual quality objective in the proposed, and the area would continue to comply conditions would continue to comply with the management area prescription. with the requirements of the Urban and Roaded requirements of the Urban and Roaded Natural Natural classifications under the ROS, as well as classifications under the ROS, as well as meet the meet the visual quality objective of Modification. visual quality objective of Modification.

WILDERNESS Standards 1. Prohibit recreational livestock within 100 feet of lake shores and N/A streambanks, except during watering and through travel. 2. Implement a permit system (for either day-use or overnight-use) or other measures, such as area closures, to manage use-levels and N/A use-patterns when conditions are outside the standards and guidelines established for the management area prescription. 3. In pristine management areas of a wilderness, do not reduce the standard of naturalness in order to disperse recreation use from N/A other portions of the wilderness. 4. Limit the maximum party-size to 25 people, recreational stock, or combination thereof. Establish smaller party-size limits for people and stock where biological and physical resource capability cannot N/A support that level of use. Issue permits on a case-by-case basis for parties that are larger than established limits, when the use is compatible with other wilderness management objectives. 5. Prohibit pets from harassing wildlife or other people. Voice control N/A or physical restraints are acceptable. 6. Do not develop specific trail improvement work to reduce the level N/A of challenge to accommodate the disabled within wilderness areas. 7. Use natural-appearing techniques to protect wetlands if alternate trail locations are unavailable. N/A

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-27 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 8. Prohibit construction of new facilities or structures. Do not replace existing facilities if they become uninhabitable or are substantially N/A damaged. 9. Permit only those uses authorized by wilderness legislation which cannot be reasonably met on nonwilderness lands. N/A 10. Manage special-uses to minimize impact on wilderness values. N/A Guidelines 1. Control natural insect and disease outbreaks in wilderness only when justified by predicted loss of resource values outside of N/A wilderness. 2. Refer to the Animal Damage Management annual work plan for N/A control of problem wild animals. 3. Manage wildfires in accordance with an approved wilderness fire N/A management plan. 4. Prohibit trailing of permitted livestock unless there is no feasible N/A alternative access to an allotment. 5. Meet the current visual quality objective of preservation. N/A 6. Vegetative restoration projects may be needed where human activities have altered natural ecosystems, and there is no reasonable expectation of natural revegetation. Use native species N/A in restoration efforts. Where nonnative species must be used, select plants based on the likelihood that they will not persist beyond the rehabilitation period. 7. Minimize human impacts in wilderness using the following actions: a. Limiting the number of private and outfitter/guide camps. b. Encouraging the use of self-contained stoves and discourage the use of wood-fueled fires. c. Using a permit system. N/A d. Limiting party size and number of pack animals. e. Prohibiting dogs or requiring all dogs to be on a leash. f. Implementing minimum impact suppression tactics when managing wildfires.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-28 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 8. Provide interpretive information using brochures or signs located outside the wilderness, rather than on-site signing. N/A

INFRASTRUCTURE – FACILITIES Standards 1. Do not retain facilities acquired from land donation, exchange, or purchase unless they serve a definite future purpose and funding is N/A available for their maintenance.

INFRASTRUCTURE – TRAVELWAYS Standards 1. Use restricted roads for administrative purposes when: Consistent. No changes to the use of restricted Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative a. Prescribed in management prescriptions. roads on NFS lands would occur. would include the construction of several access b. Authorized by the Deciding Officer. roads that would be restricted as prescribed in c. In case of emergency. the 8.22 Management Area direction. 2. Allow motorized use on new or designated travelways (see Glossary) Consistent. No new or designated travelways Consistent. Motorized use would be allowed unless a documented decision shows that: would be constructed. under a permit system as prescribed in the 8.22 a. Motorized use conflicts with the purpose for which the travelways Management Area direction. were constructed. b. Motorized use is incompatible with the ROS class. c. Travelways are located in areas closed to motorized use and are not “designated routes.” d. Motorized use creates user conflicts that result in unsafe conditions unrelated to weather. e. Physical characteristics of travelways preclude any form of motorized use. f. Travelways do not serve an existing or identified future public need. g. Financing is not available for maintenance necessary to protect resources. 3. Prohibit all summer motorized use in Management Areas 1.11, 1.12, Consistent. Management Area 8.22 allows for Consistent. Management Area 8.22 allows for 1.13, 1.32, 2.2, and 8.22. permitted motor-vehicle use. permitted motor-vehicle use.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-29 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4. Prohibit motorized use with wheeled vehicles on lands outside Consistent. Ski area maintenance would continue Consistent. Ski area maintenance and designated travelways unless a forest order indicates that such use is to occur via the existing road network. construction would occur via the existing and specifically allowed. proposed road network. 5. Prohibit winter motorized use in Management Areas 1.11, 1.12, Consistent. Management Area 8.22 allows for Consistent. Management Area 8.22 allows for 1.13, 1.5, 2.2, 5.41, and 8.22. Allow motorized use in the remaining permitted motor-vehicle use. permitted motor-vehicle use. areas, unless restricted in the future following site-specific analysis. 6. Prohibit motorized access from private land where access for the Consistent. SSRC’s SUP allows motorized access Consistent. SSRC’s SUP allows motorized access general public is not available, except by special permit. from private land while restricting this access from private land while restricting this access from the general public. from the general public. Guidelines 1. Consider developing new trail systems that expand the range of Consistent. None of the proposed projects on NFS Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative recreation opportunities, provide for user safety, and disperse lands would be authorized; however, selection of includes new ski trails that are intended to existing use into different areas. the No Action Alternative would not preclude expand the range of recreation opportunities, consideration of other future trail proposals provide for user safety, and disperse existing use intended to meet this guideline. into different areas. 2. Obliterate, revegetate and slope to drain those system travelways Consistent. None of the proposed projects on NFS Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative which are no longer needed to achieve management objectives or lands would be authorized and existing includes the reclamation of portions of the where resource damage cannot be mitigated. travelways, including the existing Yoo Hoo existing Yoo Hoo summer access road that would summer access road, would continue to be no longer be required. needed. 3. Manage motorized use by seasonal use restriction if: Consistent. None of the proposed projects on NFS Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative a. Use causes unacceptable damage to soil and water resources due lands would be authorized and no seasonal would require a Forest Plan amendment to to weather or seasonal conditions. restrictions would be required. Wildlife Standard 6 due to the proximity of b. Use causes unacceptable wildlife conflict or habitat degradation. proposed projects, including roads, to known c. Use results in unsafe conditions due to weather conditions. raptor nests. While the amendment would remove the applicability of the standard during d. The road or trail serves a seasonal public or administration need. the construction phase of the project, timing and e. The area accessed has seasonal need for protection or nonuse. spatial stipulations would remain in place during f. Competing uses create conflicts. other phases of the project; therefore, no unacceptable wildlife conflict or habitat degradation would occur.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-30 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4. Do not cross new roads or trails which are restricted with roads or Consistent. No new roads or trails would be Consistent. Proposed and existing roads and trails trails open to motorized vehicles. If this cannot be avoided, provide constructed on NFS lands, and existing roads and within the SUP area would be restricted as adequate signing, closure devices, or both to clearly distinguish the trails would continue to be restricted as required required by the Management Area. open routes from the closed routes. by the SUP. 5. Provide a wide range of recreation opportunities and difficulty levels, both motorized and nonmotorized, with the trail systems. a. With conflicting uses, decide which trails are available for separate uses and which are to be shared. Where clearly necessary, trails N/A may be dedicated to a single use to resolve conflicts, b. Consider a wide range of universally accessible opportunities for all new construction or rehabilitation proposals. c. Clearly indicate the appropriate modes of travel at each trailhead.

REAL ESTATE – LAND ADJUSTMENTS Standards 1. In land adjustment activities, give priority to acquiring lands that contain habitat identified by Fish and Wildlife Service as necessary N/A for recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species. 2. In land adjustment activities including land exchange, purchase, disposal, and donation, consider the following: a. Evaluate and balance the overall combination of all resource values and factors including wildlife habitat, fisheries habitat, riparian areas, wetlands, cultural resources, recreation opportunities, scenic value, watershed protection, timber resources, rangelands, public access, better federal land management, and other factors. In all land adjustment activities, consider the important impacts to issues and resources identified N/A during site-specific scoping. b. Consider the effect of land adjustments on sensitive species habitat. Avoid land adjustments which could result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability for any sensitive species. Ownership of sensitive species habitat can be conveyed if conveyance would not result in a trend toward federal listing or adversely impact the population viability of the species or if effects could be mitigated.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-31 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action c. Acquire lands that contain resource values identified during scoping as important in contributing toward national forest system resource management goals and objectives as stated in the forest plan. Examples include: wetlands, riparian areas, essential wildlife habitat, threatened or endangered species habitat, sensitive species habitat, significant cultural resources, timber lands, rangelands, or other areas. Guidelines 1. Consider the following when disposing of federal lands or acquiring nonfederal lands by purchase or exchange: a. Reduction of Forest Service administrative costs and improvement of management efficiency. This includes: reducing miles of landline boundaries and number of corners, special-uses, title claims, rights-of-way grants and easements, numbers of N/A allotments and intermingled ownership livestock pastures, and other factors which decrease administrative costs and improve management efficiency. b. Reduction of conflicts between Forest Service and private landowner objectives, especially when conflicts are adversely impacting National Forest System management.

REAL ESTATE – RIGHTS-OF-WAY Standards 1. Retain existing access rights, where needed, to meet forest plan goals and objectives. N/A

SPECIAL-USES – GENERAL Standards 1. When the permit expires, phase out current uses and do not approve new uses where the primary activity is storage or disposal N/A of hazardous materials, including landfills.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-32 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

UTILITY CORRIDORS Standards 1. Conserve existing and designated inventoried rights-of-way needed Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. During analysis of the Proposed for implementation of the forest plan. would not be authorized and existing and Action Alternative, no conflicts with existing or designated inventoried rights-of-way need for designated inventoried rights-of-way needed for implementation of the Forest Plan would be implementation of the Forest Plan were conserved. identified. 2. Authorize proposals to utilize designated utility corridors without alternative route analysis, subject to site specific environmental N/A N/A analysis. 3. Do not authorize conflicting uses or activities within transportation Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. No conflicting uses within and utility corridors. would not be authorized and conflicting uses transportation or utility corridors were identified would not occur. for the Proposed Action Alternative. 4. Bury electrical utility lines of 33 kilovolts or less, and telephone lines, Consistent. No electric or telephone utility lines Consistent. All electric and telephone utility lines unless one or more of the following applies: would be approved on NFS lands. would be buried, except within portions of lift a. Visual quality objectives of the area can be met using an overhead corridors where the communications utility lines line. would be collocated with aboveground lift cables. b. Burial is not feasible due to geologic hazard or unfavorable geologic conditions. c. Greater long-term site disturbance would result. d. It is not technically feasible. Guidelines 1. Consolidate occupancy of transportation or utility corridors and sites Consistent. The proposed utilities on NFS lands Consistent. Utilities were proposed within existing wherever possible and compatible. would not be authorized. roadways and utility corridors where possible. 2. To the extent possible, manage activities within linear corridors to Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. The utility corridors included in the be compatible with the goals of the individual management area would not be authorized, and linear corridors Proposed Action Alternative are consistent with prescriptions through which corridors pass. would not require management. the standards and guidelines of Management Area 8.22. 3. Ensure utility corridors are consistent between adjoining forests, Consistent. The utility corridors included in the Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands regions and other federal and state land management agencies. Proposed Action Alternative are consistent with would not be authorized, and utility corridors other similar projects within the Planning Area would not be required. and Forest Service Region 2.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-33 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4. Utilize current utility corridors fully. Provide corridors in the future in Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. Utilities included in the Proposed areas which meet the needs of society while protecting the integrity would not be authorized, and utility corridors Action Alternative would be collocated within of the environment. would not be required. existing road or utility corridors or with other proposed utilities where feasible.

TIMBER UTILIZATION Standards 1. Use the utilization standards for live and dead trees shown in N/A Table 1-7. Management Area 8.22

MINERALS Standard 1. Withdraw areas from entry for locatable materials Consistent. The Steamboat SUP area has been Consistent. The Steamboat SUP area has been withdrawn. withdrawn. 2. Do not allow oil and gas leasing Consistent. No new activities would occur that Consistent. Oil and gas leasing is not proposed would allow oil and gas leasing. under the Proposed Action Alternative.

RANGE Guideline 1. Where grazing is allowed, modify allotment management plans to N/A emphasize and retain recreation values.

VEGETATION Standard 1. Use only those vegetation management practices necessary to meet Consistent. SSRC would continue to manage Consistent. SSRC would continue to manage specific resource objective other than wood production. Timber vegetation as prescribed under the existing vegetation as prescribed under the existing harvest is not scheduled and does not contribute towards the Steamboat Ski Area Vegetation Management Steamboat Ski Area Vegetation Management allowable sale quantity. Plan. Plan.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-34 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

WILDLIFE Guideline 1. Provide opportunities to educate visitors and interpret wildlife and Consistent. Wildlife education, particularly Consistent. Wildlife education, particularly habitat. regarding moose, will continue to be incorporated regarding moose, will continue to be incorporated into signage around the resort and appropriate into signage around the resort and appropriate customer interactions, such as ski lessons. customer interactions, such as ski lessons.

FIRE AND FUELS Standards 1. To allow direct attack, treat management activity fuels to reduce fire Consistent. Residual fuels would not be added to Consistent. To allow direct attack, the Proposed intensity levels within three years after management activities the Project Area; therefore, the No Action Action Alternative incorporates PDC, such as pile cease. Alternative would not preclude the feasibility of burning, to reduce flame length. direct attack and would adhere to Fire and Fuels Standard 1. 2. Use direct control or perimeter control as the wildland fire Consistent. No changes to the wildland fire Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative management strategy in this Management Area. management strategies would occur under the would allow direct control or perimeter control as No Action Alternative. the wildland fire management strategy.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Standard 1. Focus pest management activities and methods on enhancing or Consistent. Noxious weeds would continue to be Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative protecting site vegetation and facilities. managed under existing Forest Service and SSRC incorporates BMPs and PDC to lessen the threat agreements. Forest health logging to address of increased weed spread, such as cleaning areas impacted by mountain pine beetle would construction and logging equipment prior to not occur, except in existing ski terrain where entering weed-free areas. In addition, removal of safety hazards may exist. hazard trees caused by mountain pine beetle is included as part of the Proposed Action Alternative.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-35 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

RECREATION Guidelines 1. Manage for an ROS class of urban at large base areas, rural where Consistent. The proposed projects on NFS lands Consistent. Application of the projects proposed there are concentrated developments and lifts, roaded natural in the would not be implemented and the Steamboat under the Proposed Action Alternative would large, undeveloped areas, and semi-primitive at more remote sites. SUP area would continue to meet the ROS class of continue to meet the ROS class of Urban at the Urban at the base area and Roaded Natural in the base area and Roaded Natural in the remainder of remainder of the SUP area. the SUP area. 2. Develop nonmotorized recreation activities consistent with a four- Consistent. No changes to recreation activities Consistent. The projects proposed are consistent season resort. Allow nontraditional uses on National Forest System would occur on NFS lands under the No Action with nonmotorized recreation activities lands only if they are in the public’s interest. Alternative, and the SUP area would continue to appropriate for a four-season resort. be managed as a four-season resort. 3. Make all resource management activities compatible with recreation Consistent. No modifications to current resource Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative opportunities. Minimize impacts to other resources. management activities would occur. resource management PDC are compatible with the recreation opportunities of Steamboat while minimizing impacts to other resources.

VISUALS Guideline 1. Meet the adopted visual quality objective of modification. Consistent. The proposed projects would not be Consistent. Analysis of the Proposed Action developed and the visual quality objective of Alternative, including visual simulations from Modification would continue to be met. critical viewpoints, demonstrates the projects would continue to meet the visual quality objective of Modification.

FACILITIES Standard 1. Design and construct structures to blend and harmonize with the Consistent. No new structures would be approved Consistent. Structures located on NFS lands would natural features of the area. on NFS lands. be built according to the Built Environment Image Guide, reflectivity guidelines, and other PDC in order to blend and harmonize with the natural features of the area.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-36 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

SPECIAL USES Standard 1. Issue permits for all commercial recreation activities to one entity in Consistent. No changes to SSRC’s SUP would Consistent. No changes to SSRC’s SUP would order to reduce potential conflicts between competing recreation occur. occur. permit holders. Do not allow this to result in exclusive use of the area.

TRANSPORTATION Standard 1. Design, construct, and maintain roads with good alignment, Consistent. No new roads would be constructed Consistent. The Proposed Action Alternative drainage and grades. Minimize cuts and fills and ski trail crossings. on NFS lands. incorporates PDC specific to road design, construction, and maintenance to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Example PDC include “stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion,” and “during winter operations, maintain roads as needed to keep the road surface drained during thaws and break-ups.” 2. Prohibit use unless a permit is issued. Consistent. The area is permitted under an SUP. Consistent. The area is permitted under an SUP. Guideline 1. Surface main roads with gravel and maintain for truck and heavy Consistent. No new roads would be constructed Consistent. PDC are included in the Proposed equipment travel. Construct secondary roads to a lower standard, on NFS lands. Action Alternative to stabilize and maintain roads sufficient for occasional maintenance vehicle use. Surface with local during and after construction. materials and/or allow to revegetate with grass.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-37 Appendix B. Forest Plan Consistency Analysis

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement B-38 Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment

APPENDIX C. STEAMBOAT IMPROVEMENTS EIS PROJECT- SPECIFIC FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... C-1 AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH FOREST SERVICE NEPA PROCEDURES (§ 219.13(B)(3)) ...... C-1 HOW THE 2012 PLANNING RULE APPLIES TO THE PLAN AMENDMENT ...... C-2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT (§ 219.13(B)(1)) ...... C-2 COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE’S PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS ...... C-2 USING THE BEST SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION TO INFORM THE PLANNING PROCESS (§ 219.3) ...... C-2 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (§ 219.4) AND PROVIDING PUBLIC NOTICE (§ 219.16; § 219.13(B)(2)) ...... C-3 FORMAT FOR PLAN COMPONENTS (§ 219.13 (B)(4); § 219.7(E)) ...... C-3 THE PROJECT-SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS (§ 219.13) ...... C-3 OBJECTION OPPORTUNITY (§ 219.50 THROUGH § 219.62) ...... C-3 EFFECTIVE DATE (§ 219.17(A)(3)) ...... C-3 SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE AMENDMENT ...... C-3 DOCUMENTING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE’S APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ...... C-4

Introduction

Under the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 219 (2012 Planning Rule), a plan may be amended at any time. 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 Routt National Forest Land Management Plan (Routt Forest Plan 1998) and to determine the scope and scale of any amendment.

Amendment Consistent with Forest Service NEPA Procedures (§ 219.13(b)(3))

The resource effects of the proposed project-specific amendment are documented in the Steamboat Improvements Environment Impact Statement (EIS) following Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures at 36 CFR 220. Because this amendment applies only to this project, and effects would be for a limited duration (see p. 2) and spatial extent, it is not considered a significant change to the Routt Forest Plan for purposes of the National Forest Management Act (§ 219.13(b)(3)).

How the 2012 Planning Rule applies to the plan amendment1

The proposed project-specific amendment to the Routt Forest Plan has been prepared under the 2012 planning rule. The 2012 planning rule replaced the 1982 planning rule procedures that the Forest Service

1 Amendment that applies to all future projects

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement C-1 Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment

used to develop the existing Forest Plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment must comply with the procedural provisions of the 2012 rule, and not the obsolete 1982 rule.

Purpose of the amendment (§ 219.13(b)(1))

The purpose of this project-specific amendment is to temporarily exempt the proposed action from complying with Routt National Forest Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species and Wildlife Standard 6:

Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of the protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. A no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when animals are adapted to human activity (Forest Plan p. 1-14). (Forest Service 1998)

The exemption would apply only during the construction phase of project implementation and is necessary to facilitate infrastructure improvements. Construction timeframes in the area are short due to annual snowpack, and nest locations and occupancy can change yearly; without an exemption, construction of many improvements would substantially increase costs because construction would span multiple seasons.

The proposed action requires a Forest Plan amendment due to inconsistency with the timing restrictions and potentially unknown or new nests establishing during project implementation. Although the amendment would exempt the proposed action during the construction phase only, project design criteria would be applied to reduce potential impacts to raptors. Future operations and maintenance, as well as future actions in the project area, would not be exempt from Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species and Wildlife Standard 6.

Compliance with the Rule’s Procedural provisions

As explained below, this amendment complies with the procedural provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule (§ 219.13(b)).

Using the best scientific information to inform the planning process (§ 219.3)

There is a general consensus by wildlife biologists (Squires and Kennedy 2006, CPW 2008) that disturbing an occupied nest before fledging may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings. This science was considered during the analysis process; however, it was determined that this project would not adversely impact raptor population viability at the Forest level or contribute to a loss of species viability range-wide due to the scale of the project (DEIS, BE).

Providing opportunities for public participation (§ 219.4) and providing public notice (§ 219.16; § 219.13(b)(2))

It was not determined at the time of scoping and Notice of Intent (September of 2016) for the project that a project-specific plan amendment would be considered. Therefore, the proposed amendment was not included during this time of public participation.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement C-2 Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment

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 will be combined into one notification and comment period. The comment period will be at least 45 days (§ 219.16(a)(2)). Public notifications will be made by publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register; 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 news 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 site- specific amendment (36 CFR 218.5).

Format for plan components (§ 219.13 (b)(4); § 219.7(e))

This project-specific amendment to the Forest Plan would remove Wildlife Standard 6 for the Steamboat Improvements project. All future projects in this area would need to be compliant with Wildlife Standard 6.

The project-specific plan amendment process (§ 219.13)

When the Notice of Intent for this project was published in the Federal Register (9/6/2016), it was not known that a project-specific amendment would be necessary; the need for the amendment became apparent during the analysis process. Therefore, the effects of this project-specific amendment are analyzed and disclosed in conjunction with this project’s EIS. The adjoined analysis will be available for public comment and objection periods following the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 218.

Objection opportunity (§ 219.50 through § 219.62)

The 36 CFR 218 project-level objection procedures applies to both the project and this project-specific amendment (§ 219.59(b)).

Effective date (§ 219.17(a)(3))

This site-specific Forest Plan amendment is subject to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B and will, therefore, comply with requirements for project decisions outlined at 36 CFR 218.12 (36 CFR 219(a)(3)). The project may be implemented no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register (40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2)).

Scope and scale of the amendment

The scope and scale of the proposed amendment is site-specific and covers a small portion of the Forest (less than 1/1,000 of a percent). It is also project-specific, and does not apply to future projects on the Forest. The amendment is limited to one specific resource -- raptors -- and is limited to the project area during project construction.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement C-3 Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment

Documenting Compliance with the Rule’s Applicable Substantive Provisions2

The 2012 planning rule requires that substantive rule provisions within § 219.8 through § 219.11 that are directly related to the amendment must be applied to the amendment.

The NEPA analysis indicated that the proposed amendment would have direct adverse effects on raptors. Therefore, I applied the rule provisions outlined in § 219.9(a)(1): Diversity of plant and animal communities- Ecosystem integrity. While the proposed action adversely effects this provision, due to the limited scope and scale of the amendment it is not considered a substantial lessening of protections (§ 219.13(b)(5)(ii)(A)).

Due to the limited scope and scale of the project, overall diversity of plant and animal communities and ecosystem integrity as a substantive requirement of § 219.9(a) would be maintained throughout the Forest under existing Forest Plan direction without amending additional plan components. 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 direct 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 only have an indirect, negligible impact on ecological integrity at the ecosystem scale due to the limited scope and scale of the exempted timing restriction.

• § 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. Timing restrictions do not directly impact these resources.

• § 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 only have an indirect, negligible impact on ecological integrity at the watershed scale due to the limited scope and scale of the exempted timing restriction.

• § 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 project would not have a direct effect that is outside the scope of existing forest plan direction on social and economic sustainability (§219.8(b)). Timing restrictions do not directly impact social and economic sustainability.

2 The applicable substantive provisions of the Rule are within 36 CFR §§ 219.8–219.11. (81 FR 90723, December 15, 2016).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement C-4 Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment

• § 219.8(b)(2) Social and Economic Sustainability – Sustainable Recreation – The project has been designed to be compliant with recreation direction in the forest plan regarding sustainable recreation including recreation settings, opportunities, access, and scenic character

• §219.8(b)(5) Social and Economic Sustainability – Cultural and Historic Resources and Uses – The project 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(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.

• § 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 nature of the project has no direct impact on integrated resource management to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses.

• § 219.10(b)(i) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Sustainable Recreation – The project 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)(ii) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Protection of Cultural and Historic Resources – The project would have no effect on forest plan direction for cultural and historic resources.

• § 219.10(b)(iii) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Management of Areas of Tribal Importance – The project would have no effect on forest plan direction for management of areas of tribal importance. The project does not occur in areas of tribal importance.

• § 219.10(b)(iv) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Congressionally Designated Wilderness – The project would have no effect on forest plan direction congressionally designated areas or areas recommended for wilderness designation. The project does not occur in areas of wilderness or recommended wilderness.

• § 219.10(b)(v) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Wild and Scenic Rivers – The project would have no effect on forest plan direction for wild and scenic rivers. The project 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.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement C-5 Appendix C. Steamboat Improvements EIS Project-Specific Forest Plan Amendment

• § 219.10(b)(vi) Requirements for Plan Components for a New Plan or Plan Provision – Appropriate Management of Other Designated Areas – The project is proposed in an area suitable to the management of ski areas with no other designations or proposed designations within the project area.

§ 219.11 Timber Requirements based on the NFMA

• The project 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)).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement C-6 Appendix D. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS

APPENDIX D. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Comment letters on the DEIS were submitted by the following agencies:

• United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 • Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement D-1 Appendix D. Federal, State, and Local Agency Comment Letters on the DEIS

This page intentionally left blank.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement D-2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1-I 29 Phone 800-227-8917 www.epa.gov/region08 MAR O5 2018 Ref: 8EPR-N

Russell Bacon, Forest Supervisor Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland c/o Erica Dickerman, Project Leader 2468 Jackson Street Laramie, Wyoming 82070

Dear Supervisor Bacon:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 has reviewed the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service's January 2018 Medicine Bo'Y-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (MBRTB) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (CEQ No. 20180005) that analyzes the Steamboat Ski Resort improvement projects, pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to removal of some existing resort features, projects include the installation of new facilities, lifts, trails, and upgraded snowmaking infrastructure. Tree removal, vegetation management and additional snowmaking coverage are also proposed.

The EPA provided scoping comments for this Draft EIS on September 15, 2016, which focused on assessing the project's potential to impact wetlands and waters of the U.S, water quality and air quality. The Draft EIS was responsive to the scoping comments and we appreciate the USFS's willingness to engage and answer our questions. The air quality analysis in this Draft EIS followed a sound approach and the technical analysis was well planned and presented, particularly with respect to the methods used to evaluate the mobile source emissions. For other resources, the Draft EIS includes design criteria and best management practices that are useful in avoiding and minimizing impacts. This letter highlights several water quality concerns associated with project activities that we recommend be investigated in the Final EIS.

The EPA is rating the Draft EIS as EC-2, Environmental Concerns - Insufficient Information. The EPA' s primary concerns are related to potential project impacts to water resources associated with altered hydrology, water quality and deposition of sediment from the proposed activities. New details provided in the Draft EIS discuss additional water withdrawals for snowmaking from the Yampa River, which is currently listed on the Colorado State 303(d) list as impaired under the Clean Water Act for temperature and arsenic. The enclosed .detailed comments recommend an approach for assessing whether the proposed project has the potential to exacerbate temperature issues in the Yampa River or to impact the water quality in Burgess Creek from increased surface water runoff. Terrain grading and tree removal may also result in additional sediment loading to Burgess Creek and potential impacts to aquatic habitats. Because key water quality-related data relevant to this project are not available, additional protective measures are recommended to ensure project impacts are minimized. While we support the efforts of the Forest Service to avoid and minimize impacts through Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Best Management Practices (BMPs), we also recommend the development of additional water monitoring to be included in the existing monitoring protocol within the mitigation plan, particularly in the absence of data. Our recommendations are provided for your consideration in the enclosure. A description of the EPA's rating system can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/nepa/environmental-impact-statement-rating-system-criteria.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the review of the Draft EIS. We are committed to working with you as you prepare the Final EIS. If further explanation of our comments would be helpful, please contact me at (303) 312-6704, or your staff may contact 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

The EPA considers protection of aquatic resources to be among the most important issues to be addressed in the NEPA analysis for these types of project activities. The Draft EIS states that there will be wetland and watershed impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Offsetting actions would be employed through the CWA 404 permitting process and Forest Service input so that there would be no net irreversible loss of wetlands. The Draft EIS also states that irreversible and irretrievable impacts to stream health and water quality are not expected to occur as a consequence of implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Our comments below identify areas where potential impacts to water quality may occur, and we offer recommendations for additional protective measures, for your consideration, to ensure project impacts are minimal.

Water Quality: We note that the segment of the Yampa River (COUCYA02B) from where Steamboat draws its snowmaking water is included on the Colorado State 303(d) list, as impaired for arsenic and temperature. The segment has been placed in Category 5 on the State's Integrated Report for not meeting applicable water quality standards. Based on the project description, approximately 39 acre-feet of additional water withdrawal is proposed, and the Draft EIS is not clear on whether this proposed withdrawal may exacerbate temperature issues.

The Draft EIS explains that water for snowmaking would be taken from an existing diversion point on the Yampa River between October and January. Because less water in the river will result in less ability to buffer instream temperatures from external thermal drivers, this additional depletion could result in different instream temperatures than would otherwise occur with more water. To ensure that the project does not contribute to exceedances of the State's temperature water quality standard, it would be valuable to include a discussion in the Final EIS on the temperature data that resulted in impairment status to determine whether the time period of anticipated water withdrawals coincides with the timing of the original exceedances of the temperature standard. In the event that snowmaking withdrawals overlap with periods of temperature exceedances, an expanded analysis of the additional withdrawals would be warranted to evaluate whether they would exacerbate current temperature issues and result in regulatory or biological impacts, or both. In that case, we would also recommend that mitigation procedures and a monitoring plan be designed and implemented to ensure there are no project-related impacts that contribute to exceeding the instream water quality standards for temperature. Please note that for Cold Water, Tier II streams such as the Yampa, the temperature standards become more stringent on November 1 to protect the thermal seasonality inherent in naturally functioning mountain streams and the colder thermal regimes required for successful salmonid reproduction and recruitment. If the project does have the potential to contribute to water quality standard exceedances, we recommend you coordinate closely with the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to resolve the matter.

The Draft EIS states that the input of Yampa River water to Burgess Creek watershed in the form of manmade snow has the potential to impact the water quality of Burgess Creek. Water quality data are not available for Burgess Creek. There is a Category 1 classification assigned to the streams under the Assessment Unit COUCY A03 A that includes Burgess Creek; however, the analysis was based on data obtained from other streams in the Unit. The Draft EIS explains "An in-depth study of the potential effects of Yampa River snowmaking water on the quality of Burgess Creek water would require an extensive water quality dataset to compare conditions on the Yampa River and various locations on Burgess Creek (e.g., upstream and downstream from snowmaking applications). Such dataset does not exist, and therefore, the potential effects of Yampa River water on the quality of Burgess Creek are unknown" (DEIS, 2018, p. 258). There is a potential water quality concern associated with transporting water with elevated arsenic levels into a segment that currently is not impaired. Additional considerations for Burgess Creek would be to monitor arsenic concentrations both pre- and post-project to detect whether there are any detectable effects caused by the additional snowmaking.

There is also a potential to increase the amount of sediment loading in Burgess Creek based on higher watershed yield from snowmaking and associated runoff resulting from tree clearing and terrain grading. Some of this clearing and grading will take place within the water influence zone (WIZ) .. The Forest Service stream health assessment identified Burgess Creek as "at risk," and among other findings, rated 30 percent of its stream.banks as unstable in 2011 and 2017. Increased sediment loading has the potential to negatively impact macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life, and degrade spawning habitat for fish . . We therefore recommend that prior to implementing the project, Burgess Creek's baseline be assessed in terms of Colorado's Narrative Sediment Water Quality Standard, Regulation #31, Section 31.11 (l)(a)(i), to evaluate the difference between current conditions and impairment based on the sediment standard. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has provided guidance on implementing the Narrative Sediment Standard. This guidance can be found at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/wqcc­ policies. If monitoring is conducted prior to the Final EIS, we recommend that a qualitative or semi­ quantitative analysis be included in the document that discusses the narrative sediment standard and outlines in what manner the anticipated increase in sediment loading compares to the standard. We also recommend that sediment monitoring on Burgess Creek be conducted during and after project implementation as part of the mitigation and monitoring protocol.

We also recommend tree removal and grading be avoided within the WIZ to the greatest extent possible due to the potential for increased sedimentation and negative effects to bank stability as a result of increased water yields influenced by vegetative clearing and snowmaking. The combination of these activities could affect the intensity of runoff. We recognize that grading plans for projects greater than 1 acre will be developed to meet the requirements for stormwater permitting through the State of Colorado Stormwater Management Program. Additional snowmelt and runoff from snowmaking, as a non-point source, would not require a permit. Because some of these impacts cannot be avoided based on the project design, we support the monitoring plan outlined in the Draft EIS that is included as part of the mitigation and project design details in order to maintain the stream health condition of Burgess Creek. Additionally, because spring spawning cutthroat trout are found in Burgess Creek, we recommend considering whether higher peak flows anticipated during spring runoff may negatively impact cutthroat spawning success as you continue consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wetlands: Although a waters/wetlands resources map was included in the Draft EIS, the scale does not provide sufficient detail to understand the impacts to various types of wetland plant communities from proposed ski area features. Larger scale maps are necessary to discern impacts from specific ski area features proposed in aquatic resources and to assist with future avoidance and minimization efforts with

2 final design. We recommend the Final EIS include 1 inch equals 100-feet scale mapping for wetland plant communities and associated riparian areas impacted by ski area features, illustrating direct, indirect/secondary, temporary, and vegetation removal types of impacts.

The Draft EIS describes tree removal impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative to wetlands/waters from trail and lift crossings within the Pioneer Ridge Expansion Area as a sum total of 2.2 acres (p. 276). It is our experience that tree removal at ski areas often includes understory removal (i.e. shrub removal/willow mowing) in wetland areas. These montane, slope and riverine shrub/forested wetlands associated with the impacted tributaries provide a broad array of functions, including, but not limited to: sediment retention, nutrient uptake, flood attenuation, bank stability, concentration areas for wildlife, and primary production/food chain support. The Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to "take actions to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities ... " The two proposed gladed trails with the most clearing impacts appear to reduce the natural and beneficial functions for approximately 30-40% of the length of the tributary (see DEIS, Figure 3.11-1, p. 249). We recommend that loss of habitat associated with the potential for adverse impacts to wetlands vegetation be quantified and disclosed in the Final EIS to adequately assess mitigation requirements in the Wetlands Protection Executive Order 11990.

3 COLORADO Parks and Wildlife

Departm en t of Natural Resources

Northwest Regional Office 711 Independent Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81505 P970.255.6100 I F970.255.6111

February 26, 2018

Russell Bacon C/0 Erica Dickerman Project Leader United States Forest Service 2468 Jackson Street Laramie, WY 82070

ATTN: Steamboat Ski Resort Draft EIS

Dear Mr. Bacon,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed projects from Steamboat Ski Resort. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to be actively engaged throughout the NEPA process. We encourage Steamboat Ski Resort and the Hahn's Peak-Bears Ears Ran ger District of the Routt National Forest to afford the highest protection for Colorado's wildlife species and their habitats while considering the many benefits of enhancing and creating responsible and sustainable outdoor recreation.

The Proposed Action consists of the fallowing elements:

1) Rough Rider and Bashor Bowl a. Construction of Bashor Children 's Facility and Restaurant b. Installation of Bashor Gondola c. Removal of existing Bashor Pavilion and bathrooms d. Installation of multiple moving carpet lifts, a fixed-grip chairlift (Rough Rid er lift), removal of existing ,Rough Rider platter lift, construction of new skier bypass, grading of associated novice and beginner terrain, and installation of snowmaking equipment e. Replacement and realignment of Bashor lift f. Construction of two new skiways, regrading at base of Bashor Bowl, expansion of Rabbit Ea rs Terrain Park, removal of Mavericks Superpipe, construction of new novice trail, and reconfiguration of existing snowrnaking infrastructure

2) Pony Express a. Trail enhancements through vegetation removal, grading, and rock blasting b. Addition of carriers to Pony Express lift to increase capacity c. Cons truction of ski patrol and restroom facility at top of Pony Express lift d. Installation of winch ca t anchors and new snowmaking infrastructure

Bob D. B

CPW staff has reviewed the proposed projects, project maps, and the project design criteria ' s (PDC's) supplie'd within the Draft EIS document. CPW maintains that ihe projects, as proposed, are not anticipated to have extreme adverse effects on wildlife.

In reference to CPW's comment letter on the scoping documents from 2016, CPW believes that the majority of the outlined concerns surrounding aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, and raptors and migratory birds were adequately addressed in an attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible. CPW would like t o reemphasize that future plans for Pioneer Ridge will be important to consider for multiple reasons:

1) Through the use of satellite GPS collars and observational evidence, CPW has demonstrated that multiple moose regularly inhabit the Pioneer Ridge area, particularly in the winter months which may lead to increased human/ wildlife conflicts during ski season (Appendix A). 2) Drainages within and surrounding Pioneer Rid ge are travel corridors between summer and winter ranges for moose and elk. 3) Pioneer Ridge lies adjacent to a known elk production (calving) area and increased use in Pioneer Ridge may affect elk summer production. 4) Summer recreation including mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding may increase the overall disturbance in this area.

To avoid and minimize these impacts CPW recommends the following:

1) The Steamboat Ski Resort realign the Northern ski trail and consider a seasonal closure from April 1st•June 31 't. 2) The Steamboat Ski Resort perform equipment maintenance and inspections in Pioneer Ridge after June 3pt, 3) The Steamboat Ski Resort work closely with CPW to finalize a moose management and communication plan. Additionally, CPW urges Steamboat Ski Resort to contact wildlife officers immediately if there are moose or other wildlife demonstrating aggressive behavior towards people. It is recommended that documentation be kept when moose are observed within ski area boundaries.

Additionally, CPW has invested approximately $50,000 for the ongoing Steamboat Urban Moose Management Study surrounding and incorporating the Steamboat Ski Resort. The purpose of the study is to learn how to best manage moose in urban settings including a major ski area, in an effort to avoid and minimize human/wildlife conflicts. CPW recommends that the Steamboat Ski Resort consider contributing $50,000 for wildlife habitat improvement. The primary goal for habitat improvement is to provide quality winter range for moose outside of the ski area in order to draw moose that would normally spend the majority of the winter within the ski resort . This could potentially alleviate and minimize human-moose conflicts which are common at Steamboat Ski Resort and will likely increase with the development of Pioneer Ridge. CPW has been working to establish a Wildlife Habitat Improvement Local District (WHILD) endowment fund, which will be managed by the Yampa Valley Endowment Bank in Steamboat Springs. This fund can be used to pay for wildlife habitat improvement. If a monetary donation to the WHILD were not the appropriate mechanism to fund habitat improvement to reduce conflicts on the ski area between moose and humans, we would recommend a small fee on ski lift passes that would be used to contribute to the WHILD fund for the purposes mentioned above.

Finally, CPW would like to reaffirm that vegetation thinninf and clearing done responsibly can benefit many species of wildlife. Disturbances help reset forest succession and provide additional edge effect habitat that many species utilize or even require.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to review and submit comments for this project. We look forward to working with Forest Service staff throughout the NEPA process to formulate a plan that meets the goals of Steamboat Ski Resort while protecting our local wildlife species and their habitats. If there are any questions or needs for additional information, please feel free to contact District Wildlife Manager, Kyle Bond , at (970) 457- 0075 .

JT Romatzke ~torth West Regional Manager

Cc. Kris Middledorf, Area Wildlife Manager (CPW) Kyle Bond, District Wildlife Manager (CPW) . '

Appendix A

Cumulative Points as of 02/08/2018 Cumulative locations for moose collars: 39672-Green 39674-Red 39676-Yellow 39677-WMe

Figure 1 Satellite locations of moose on the Steamboat Ski Resort. Locations are cumulative since aerial captures in November 2017 to February 2018. Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

APPENDIX E. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... E-2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...... E-3 1. Purpose and Need ...... E-3 2.0 Alternatives ...... E-8 3.0 Botany, Including Timber and Forest Health ...... E-11 4.0 Wildlife and Fisheries ...... E-12 5.0 Hydrology ...... E-20 6.0 Recreation ...... E-23 7.0 Wetlands and Waters of the United States ...... E-34 8.0 Socio-Econ ...... E-35 9.0 Traffic/Parking ...... E-37 10.0 Issues/Resources Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ...... E-37 11.0 Visuals ...... E-37 12.0 Air Quality and Climate Change ...... E-38 13.0 Design Criteria/Conservation Measures ...... E-40 14.0 Sustainability ...... E-42

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-1 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

INTRODUCTION

As is required by USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, public involvement will occur 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, public interest and involvement is expected throughout the EIS process. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018, initiating the DEIS comment period that remained open until March 5, 2018. Notification of the DEIS’s availability was mailed to approximately 97 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 DEIS and elicit public comments during the 45-day comment period and provide instructions for public involvement and resources for additional information.

Additional information was available on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland (MBRTB) website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48246) 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 DEIS comment period, the MBRTB received 30 comment submittals. All comment letters were reviewed for substantive comments, and contact information for each commenter was entered into a master database. One comment was received following the close of the comment period. This comment was reviewed and processed; however, the commenter would not have standing to object as their comments were received outside of the 45-day comment period as initiated by the publication of the NOA in the Federal Register.

A total of 119 comments were extracted from the letters across 15 broad categories. Not all 119 comments were substantive; non-substantive comments were included to illustrate public opinion on the project and DEIS. These 119 comments provide the foundation for which this Response to Comments document is based. Comments were grouped further by subcategory and theme in order to facilitate the recording and response process. Similar comments were combined to be representative of common themes that were expressed by numerous individuals. Comments that resulted in an update to a particular component of the analysis between the DEIS and Final EIS (FEIS) are indicated as such.

Names of those individuals who submitted comments on the DEIS 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 D of this FEIS.

Susan Albers Dave Hunter JT Romatzke John Witcher Will Beihoffer Michal Marschewski Suzie Romig Pete With Scott Bever Stephanie Martin Johnny Sawyer Karen Wray Paul Draper Seth Mathey Mike Schwartje Wade Wykert Avrom Feinberg Brooke Moore Philip Strobel Thomas Zehner Kathleen Geuder Matt Newman Ben Tiffany Kenneth Held Eric Phalen Anna White Peter Hansen Cindy Ptach Tim Widmer

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-2 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

1. PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 In regard to EIS Page 113, 1st Paragraph: Steamboat's statement that the terrain is not needed, only to "meet guest expectations" is difficult to find these clients on any given day. The last sentence regarding "keeping guests interested" is clearly not relevant when adding terrain which is suitable for 5% of the clientele. As noted, this is a short-lived marketing ploy, or perhaps an effort to one day control Fish Creek Canyon. The Pioneer Ridge area is within Steamboat’s existing SUP area and is designated by the Forest Plan as Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts (Existing/Potential), supporting its development and inclusion into Steamboat’s operational boundary.

The Proposed Action meets the Purpose and Need for Action described in Section 1.5 of the FEIS. The need for additional terrain diversity is further described in Section 3.1, which states that “the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would better meet guest expectations by providing terrain variety in the form of a natural, unstructured, ‘semi-backcountry’ experience that industry studies have shown to be desired by visitors” (FEIS p. 103). The need for additional terrain is further supported in the Recreation Technical Report for the Steamboat Ski Resort Environmental Impact Statement (Recreation Technical Report) that is contained in the project file. The skier market percentages stated in the analysis are regional/national planning metrics, and guest expectations vary from ski area to ski area and can also vary day to day based on snow conditions. The Forest Service also recognizes that guest expectations are changing, and the Pioneer Ridge area is expected to meet current and future guest expectations.

1.1 In regard to EIS Page 6, bullet point 10 “Additional chairs would be added to the Pony Express chairlift to increase the design capacity from 1,200 pph to 1,800 pph. No ground disturbance would be required.” This scenario diminishes what is great about the area. Right now, the wide-spaced chair configuration slows the impact to the zone from an ecology standpoint, yet the rider benefits from a quick ride to the top. This keeps conditions in better shape as opposed to dumping 600pph more into an already congested zone. The commenter correctly cites the DEIS. No ecological impacts associated with the proposed capacity of the Pony Express were identified in the FEIS. The additional chairs are needed to address the anticipated increase in use of the chairlift in response the proposed terrain improvements and the development of the new Pioneer Ridge area. As stated in Section 3.1.4.2, “The Pony Express chairlift, would be better utilized through the addition of 27 chairs that would increase the chairlift’s capacity to 1,800 pph. This increase in capacity would better transport skiers through the Pony Pod and would complement access to the proposed Pioneer chairlift” (FEIS p. 100). In summary, when coupled with other project components that would address operational inefficiencies and circulation of existing terrain, and the new access role in supporting the proposed Pioneer Ridge area, increasing capacity the Pony Express chairlift is appropriate.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-3 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

1.2 In regard to EIS Page 22, bullet Point 3 “Provide for additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings” As seen in Table 3.1-1 the expansion into Pony/Pioneer does not suit guest expectations as opposed to something like Sunshine 2 (page 123, 2nd paragraph), which already exists in Steamboat’s master plan. The overwhelming majority of clients Steamboat attracts will not use expanded Pony terrain more than a couple days of year. The rest of the time, it will lie dormant and unused. Why ruin the ecosystem for such small gains? It is common knowledge amongst locals that the ski area felt the original Pony expansion was a total flop. As they state in the EIS, the current lift is underutilized, hard to maintain, and difficult to open due to issues related to climate change. This will continue into the future, as seen with below average seasons experienced this decade. Expanding this area only makes this situation worse since it will greatly impact the zone due to construction and require massive water needs for snowmaking. The commenter correctly cites the DEIS; however, the construction of the Sunshine 2 chairlift and development of associated terrain did not meet the Purpose and Need for Action and was eliminated from detailed study. An addition was made to the FEIS to include the Sunshine 2 chairlift and terrain as an alternative eliminated from detailed study in the new Section 2.6.9 which states, “An alternative was considered to construct a chairlift (Sunshine 2) and associated terrain within the Sunshine Bowl area of Steamboat. The Sunshine 2 development would replace the proposal for the new Pioneer Ridge area. The Sunshine 2 chairlift was identified in the 2011 MDPA to service the mountain to the south of the existing Sunshine chairlift. In addition to the chairlift, the 2011 MDPA identified approximately 60 acres of associated new traditional cleared ski trails and another 60 acres of tree skiing. While this alternative includes some tree skiing, it does not meet the Purpose and Need for Action to provide diverse terrain options to the same degree as the gladed terrain proposed within the new Pioneer Ridge area. Dismissal of this alternative in this FEIS does not preclude SSRC’s ability to develop the Sunshine 2 chairlift and terrain in the future. Development of the Sunshine 2 chairlift and terrain would require separate NEPA review and approval” (FEIS p. 50).

Further, Table 3.1-1 is not reflective of an inconsistency with the Purpose and Need for Action to “[p]rovide additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings”. Table 3.1-1 highlights the terrain distribution by ability level as compared to the skier market. This table highlights deficiencies in the existing terrain network, which would in part be addressed by the Proposed Action Alternative, as it would result in more than double the acreage of existing beginner ability level terrain from 5.1 acres to 11.6 acres (FEIS p. 86). The proposed Pioneer Ridge area would not address terrain deficiencies, although its glades are essential to addressing the component of the Purpose and Need for Action cited by the commenter. As stated in Section 3.1.4.2 of the FEIS, “Although additional expert terrain is not needed from a terrain deficiency standpoint, the additional terrain is needed to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings; a stated component of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Alternative. More specifically, the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would enhance the recreation experience for expert ability level skiing and riding guests and would provide a unique experience that is not currently available at Steamboat. There is a growing demand for backcountry style skiing, which has resulted in many skiers seeking terrain beyond the boundaries of ski areas in recent years” (FEIS p. 99).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-4 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

As described throughout the FEIS, snowmaking is proposed in the existing Pony Pod; however, snowmaking within the proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain is not anticipated at this time. The FEIS characterizes snow conditions in the Pony Pod as inconsistent during the early season, and goes on to state that, “[e]xisting trails that receive high skier traffic and wind wear impacts, or are underutilized due to insufficient snow, would also require new snowmaking coverage and infrastructure” (FEIS p. 103).

For a discussion of effects to hydrology from proposed snowmaking the commenter is referred to Section 3.11, which states, “Implementation of the proposed snowmaking coverage would require an additional 37 acre-feet of Yampa River water. Of this amount, approximately 23 percent would be lost to evaporation, sublimation, evapotranspiration, and other system losses; therefore, the net amount of additional Yampa River water input to the watershed that would be available to the stream is approximately 28.5 acre-feet. This represents a 16 percent increase from existing conditions” (FEIS p. 269). Impacts associated with these water needs are further disclosed in Section 3.11.

1.3 If visitation is believed to remain at current levels (flat), why invest in this potentially costly and harmful expansion? If the resort will not be able to build more profitability as a result of the expansion, then why put the ecosystem at risk? This makes no business sense, let alone sustainability. The commenter is referred to Section 1.5 of the FEIS, which describes the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Alternative. The purpose of the proposed projects is to improve the skiing experience at Steamboat; there is no purpose or need to generate additional visitation or respond to increased visitation. Further, the commenter is incorrect in their understanding of how the proposed project would affect visitation. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, “Summer visitation is expected to remain in its current trend. Although components of the Proposed Action Alternative would be operated during the summer season, they are not designed to increase summer visitation to the ski area. Steamboat winter season visitation is expected to increase by 1.4% annually, or approximately 8 to 10% by 2028 (three years following project implementation and the completion of construction). Improvements to terrain, both in terms of variety and acreage would be the primary driver of increasing winter visitation that would occur” (FEIS p. 55).

1.4 In regard to Table 3.1-1: Clearly, this shows that the expansion into Pioneer is not in the best interest of the resort. By their own forecast, they expect growth to be flat (page 105, 3.13.5) and they currently have roughly 5% of their current clientele that would be utilizing this new expansion area, who likely already do and prefer it in its current form. (Table 3.1-1). Further, in the above paragraph, they acknowledge the greatest need for growth is in the lower levels of beginner and intermediate terrain. This is where expansion plans should focus, to alleviate the issues currently in place. Why expand into terrain not demanded by clients and hurt the environment? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.3.

1.5 The resort makes the point of acknowledging that even in the best years, this area is snowmaking dependent. With the average temperature set to rise (page 186, 2nd paragraph), this is a “hope” strategy at best as to whether this pod would be utilized in the next decades.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-5 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

In regard EIS Page 105 Section 3.1.3.5, statement “Over the past ten years, visitation during the winter months has fluctuated considerably. The last ten years include growth as high as 12 percent from one season to the next; and declines in visitation as high as 13 percent from one year to the next.” This is largely due to the amount of natural snow received. As seen during the 2017/18 season, Steamboat has good snow compared to other resorts in Colorado. As a result, Steamboat is experiencing a good year relative to I-70 counterparts. Even with that, by their statement, the growth of 12% is negated or even diminished by the fact that they lose 13% visitation the next year. Why expand if the trend shows that visitations is at best flat or perhaps even declining? Both the DEIS and FEIS are prepared by the Forest Service and throughout our analysis we acknowledge that there is a need for snowmaking in the Pony Pod. Snowmaking is proposed in the Pony Pod as its natural terrain, coupled with inconsistent early season snow conditions, creates challenging conditions for guests. For a discussion of the proposed projects relationship to visitation, the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.4.

1.6 In regard to EIS Page 112 1st paragraph: As seen in Table 3.1-4, the majority of Steamboat market, (95%) will not be utilizing the expert Pony Pod and surrounding terrain on a daily, or even weekly basis. Again, if one looks at the current utilization of the Pony Express lift, it is largely vacant most days. Further, the resort goes on to state in the next paragraph “Although additional expert terrain is not needed from a terrain deficiency standpoint, the additional terrain is needed to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings; a stated component of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Alternative.” (page 113, 2nd paragraph). This demonstrates that there is no perceived need for this expansion, just Steamboat’s ability to market more “expert” level glade skiing. This does not benefit anyone besides SSRC. SSRC continues to contradict this perceived need of more expert terrain with the statement “though Steamboat has existing terrain to meet the expert ability level skier market” (page 113, 2nd paragraph” proving this expansion is not needed, nor demanded by the clientele Steamboat largely markets to. This expansion is a cash/marketing grab on behalf of SSRC. The commenter correctly cites the DEIS; however, as is further explained throughout Section 3.1, higher ability level skiers require a diversity of terrain in order to remain interested. As stated in Section 3.1.4.2, “Adding variety in the form of undeveloped terrain for guests of these ability levels is important, as even though Steamboat has existing terrain to meet the expert ability level skier market, terrain diversity is what keeps higher ability level guests interested and is needed to address the Purpose and Need for additional lift served terrain capable of meeting guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings” (FEIS p. 99). For additional clarification as to how the proposed Pioneer Ridge area relates to the Purpose and Need for Action, the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.3.

1.7 The 2011 [MDP] proposal is correct. There is little to no demand for a Pioneer expansion. The perceived needs are outlined in the next paragraph “Associated with these additions to the lift network would be approximately 66.6 acres of novice and low intermediate ability level terrain, which would be primarily served by the future Sunshine II detachable quad chairlift. Table 3.1-7 highlights how the addition of novice and low intermediate ability level terrain

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-6 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

would impact the terrain distribution at Steamboat.” Correct, the actual need for expansion to address the clientele of Steamboat is in the Sunshine and Rough Rider areas. This is the core audience, families with their kids learning to ski/ride in a friendly environment. For a discussion of the Sunshine 2 alternative and rationale for elimination, the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.3. The Pioneer Ridge area is identified in the Forest Plan as Management Area 8.22 – Ski Area Based Resorts (Existing/Potential). Demand for the proposed Pioneer Ridge area is documented throughout Section 3.1 and further articulated in the response to Comment 1.7.

1.8 In regard to EIS statement “The letter updates and clarifies this statement as not describing the present needs and objectives for the Pioneer Ridge area, as SSRC has determined there is a need for the Pioneer chairlift and related elements that were not included in the 2011 MDPA.” Clearly, this statement showcases that the guests of Steamboat are not really looking for this type of expansion. As seen by the Table 3.1-1 the majority of skiers and snowboarders are beginner to intermediate (80%), with this proposal even stating that there is greater need for lower skill level of expansion as opposed to expert level expansion needs. In 2011, there was no need for this lift, nor is there today. The Steamboat clientele has not changed that dramatically, nor will it in the future. It is unclear how the DEIS text quoted by the commenter “showcases that the guests of Steamboat are not really looking for this type of expansion.” The letter provided by Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation (SSRC), and referenced by the commenter, is intended to clarify past and current planning efforts by SSRC rather than describe consensus (or lack thereof) among visitors of SSRC. For clarification as to the information depicted in Table 3.1-1, the commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 1.3 and Comment 1.7. 1.9 This addition would not only alter a great area of the mountain, it will negatively impact Steamboat Resort’s target market. I highly advise moving the expansion to the south side of the resort. Comment noted.

1.10 This resort is predominantly blue and green terrain with the majority of users identifying as blue and green skiers. Expansion of expert terrain is unnecessary for this user group and, given the low angle topography in the target expansion area, will never compete with slope angles and ski run-lengths currently sought on the I-70 corridor. The commenter is incorrect that the topography of the Pioneer Ridge area is low angle; the slopes of Pioneer Ridge meet the requirements for expert terrain. As described in Section 1.5, there is a need to “Provide additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings”, which would primarily be addressed by the Proposed Pioneer Ridge area (as further described in Section 3.1). 1.11 Additionally, adding chairs to pony is a complete waste of time and money. There is rarely ever a line at pony, and the area is congested and funnels at the bottom, and requires limited drop offs. The commenter misunderstands the need for adding chairs to the Pony Express chairlift as part of the Proposed Action Alternative. The additional chairs are not intended to reduce current lift lines; rather,

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-7 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

the proposed terrain improvements in the Pony Pod and the development of the new Pioneer Ridge area are anticipated to increase utilization of the Pony Express chairlift. The additional chairs are in anticipation of this increased utilization. Section 2.4.3.2 of the FEIS was updated to state “To accommodate the increased use of the Pony Express chairlift anticipated to occur from the proposed trail corridor enhancements and development of the new Pioneer Ridge area, SSRC proposes to add an additional 27 chairs to the existing chairlift to increase chairlift capacity to the previously approved 1,800 pph” (FEIS p.102).

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Again, a shorter season for a proposed lift which is located lower in elevation relative to other expansion choices higher on the mountain makes no sense. In 50 years this lift and expansion will be obsolete. Who will pay to remove and restore the ecosystem? The commenter is correct that the bottom terminal of the Sunshine 2 chairlift, a potential future chairlift described in the 2011 MDPA, is located at a higher elevation than the bottom terminal of the proposed Pioneer Ridge chairlift. The location of proposed chairlift infrastructure is based on master planning efforts that considered entirety of the Steamboat SUP and operational areas, as well as adjacent areas plausible for incorporation into the operational area. For a discussion of the Sunshine 2 alternative and rationale for elimination, the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.3. Steamboat’s SUP obligates the permittee to remove equipment and infrastructure at the cost of the permittee. Section F of the SUP requires SSRC “to sell or remove all structures and improvements, except those owned by the United States, within a reasonable period prescribed by the authorized officer and to restore the site to the satisfaction of the authorized officer. If the holder fails to sell or remove all structures or improvements within the prescribed period, they shall become property of the United States and may be sold, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of without any liability to the United States. However, the holder [SSRC] shall remain liable for all costs associated with their removal, including costs of sale and impoundment, cleanup, and restoration of the site.” 2.2 I’m sure it would take some planning and permits, but I would look at building a pond near Last Chance at BC ponds to facilitate snowmaking. I would think the energy it takes to pump water to the upper mountain is expensive, going down hill makes more sense. The same for Sunshine Bowl. Comment noted. This comment is beyond the scope of this analysis.

2.3 Please do not close the Maverick half pipe...past and future Olympians NEED the pipe to effectively compete and train in snowboarding. Keep the pipe! As described in the response to Comment 2.4, the Mavericks Superpipe is proposed to be removed from Bashor Bowl; however, the Mavericks Superpipe is now planned to be relocated to Steamboat’s private lands. The FEIS has been updated accordingly.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-8 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

2.4 The Forest Service should correct the DEIS to note that the Mavericks Superpipe is being removed from Bashor Bowl and that Steamboat is currently exploring its options and intends to move it to private land at the resort. The DEIS incorrectly states that the Superpipe will not be relocated. Section 2.4.2.3 of the FEIS has been updated to read, “[a] site for the relocation has not yet been identified; however, the site and all ground disturbance associated with the project would occur entirely on private lands” (FEIS p. 29). Additionally, the statement that “Relocation of this activity [in reference to Mavericks Superpipe] is not proposed at this time” in Section 3.1.4.2 has been deleted.

2.5 In regard to 3.1.3.2: The patrol station bathrooms should flush and there should be adequate water reserves to insure good hygiene and sanitation. Last chance should be widened and then groomed to the bottom of second pitch for safety egress. First chance should be improved at the top turnaround for safety and patrol egress. A run be developed from the top of the Morningside lift down mt werner in line with and join Skeeter s run to lessen crowding on upper buddies run. It would be gladed and groomed. Comment noted. 2.6 I have had the opportunity to ski in the expansion area in Pioneer Ridge, I have helped with the boundrys with Ski Area staff, along with skiing that area on my own. I am in agreement with extending the road Lariat from Outlaw upwards towards the proposed 2nd lift. In my opinion I would see how that works for a year or so then plan from there. It seems that the proposed 2nd lift would be too low for skiers to utilizes the proposed road. That area as many know is where most skiers and riders end up from skiing Fish Creek canyon and Golf Course Fields. I don’t think a bridge is the best option to go to B.C. Ski way. A surface lift to the proposed road may work, possibly cheaper, or a Lift to Vagabond Flats as discussed with others. When skiing in the proposed area there are many drainages along with ridges, some of the trails that are proposed do not look feasible. Comment noted.

2.7 The plan specifies several changes to the bashor area but does not specify changes to the NASTAR race area and the Steamboat Training Center located in the bashor area. Section 2.4.2 of the FEIS states that, “As part of the development proposed within Bashor Bowl, it is anticipated that relocation, reclamation, and/or abandonment of disc golf, bike trails, and National Standard Race (NASTAR) race shacks would occur. Additional NASTAR race shacks and associated utility lines may be installed within the areas of proposed disturbance” (FEIS p. 28). Additional specifications regarding changes to the NASTAR race area and the Steamboat Training Center are not available at this time.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-9 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

2.8 The proposed location for the lift is an area that receives little natural snowfall and will need extensive snowmaking to ensure it could be used. In seasons like this, photos showcase how little snow is naturally in this area. If you push more people into this zone, there we be ever more difficulties in trying to keep up with the needs of snowmaking acreage. The commenter is referred to Section 2.4.4, which states that, “SSRC is not proposing snowmaking within the new Pioneer Ridge area as part of this Proposed Action Alternative” (FEIS p. 31). Furthermore, historical data of the Pony Pod’s opening and closing dates highlights that the area has typically opened between mid- to late-December, with few exceptions where lift service to this area was postponed and hike-to access was provided in a similar time frame. Closing dates reflect a similar trend, generally closing one to two weeks prior to closing day. This is consistent with other extents of the mountain that typically open after opening day and close prior to the mountain’s closing date. It is anticipated that the proposed Pioneer Ridge area will operate on a similar timeline without snowmaking.

2.9 In regard to the Alternative Pioneer Bottom Terminal and Operational Boundary Location alternative considered but dismissed: The following EIS statement (page 63, 3rd bullet point) is unsupported by the scientific literature: Raptors that establish nests after construction activities commence, or during the operational phase of the project, would be considered acclimated to the activity.” Raptor tolerance levels to construction activity are site and species-specific, and there is no scientific consensus regarding suitable buffer zone distances less than 0.5 miles from active nesting sites. Raptor ability to acclimate (habituate) to construction activity is highly uncertain. Disturbance to any of a number of key physiographic features can lead to nest failure or territory abandonment, including availability of preferred habitat (elevation, slope, and aspect), habitat diversity, prey availability, nest height, and nest substrate. Lastly, there is ample research showing that post-operational phase impacts can be equally destructive to long-term population viability, raptors which successfully nest during a disturbance may abandon the nesting territory the year following the disturbance. The commenter is incorrect in their assertion that the statement made in the FEIS and referenced above is unsupported by scientific literature. Raptor buffer zone distances, such as those recommended by CPW (2008), are general recommendations.1 Additional factors, such as intervening terrain, vegetation screens, and the cumulative impacts of activities should also be considered when applying appropriate buffers to an individual nest. Furthermore, variation often exists within a species in individual responses to disturbance. Some individuals habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests.2 Furthermore, scientific literature affirms that the impacts of human activities on wildlife are often reduced when raptors are shielded visually from such activities.3 Examples exist in the scientific literature of individual raptors’ habituation to human disturbances.4 In most of these examples, the individual birds chose to nest in proximity to human activity, and remained to successfully fledge their young while the disturbance was ongoing. These examples demonstrate the individuals’ habituation, or acclimation, to disturbance. If a raptor fails to

1 CPW, 2008 2 Ibid. 3 Postovit and Postovit, 1987; Knight and Temple, 1995; Suter and Jones, 1981 4 Squires and Kennedy 2006; Bell et al., 1996; Rosenfield et al., 1996; Lee, 1981

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-10 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

return to the nesting territory in the year following the disturbance, that failure does not equate to mortality, or any other harm to the individual birds; it simply equates to the individuals choosing to nest elsewhere.

2.10 My area of particular concern is the proposals for the Pioneer Ridge section of the ski mountain. I believe it is not good planning to limit the proposed actions to either all of the ski area management proposals or to take no action at all. There is much merit to some of the proposals concerning the base area and the Bashor Bowl area, less so for those concerning Pioneer Ridge. I think that the various areas being considered should be separate, and this considered separately. The range of alternatives considered, including alternatives considered but dismissed and their rationale for elimination, are presented in Section 2.6 of the FEIS. As discussed in Section 1.7 of the FEIS, “Based on the analysis documented within this FEIS, the Responsible Official will decide whether to select the Proposed Action Alternative, the No Action Alternative, or a combination of the two alternatives. The Responsible Official is not required to choose either the action alternative or the No Action Alternative described herein but may select components of the action alternative or develop an entirely new alternative created from components of each.”

3.0 BOTANY, INCLUDING TIMBER AND FOREST HEALTH 3.1 Specific year-round management strategies for all three SOLC are required for Pioneer Ridge development. The three SOLC, broad- leaved twayblade (Listera convallarioides), white- veined wintergreen (Pyrola picta) and lady fern (Athyrium filixfemina), are highly susceptible to soil compaction in summer and snow compaction in winter. Winter snow compaction on- piste leads to decreased snow pack temperatures, increased rates of soil freezing, and reduction in soil microbial activity during the peak winter period and beginning of the growing season for all three SOLC (Banaš et al. 2010, Roux-Fouillet et al. 2011). Snow compaction also leads to mechanical and frost damage of SOLC, stunted growth and delayed germination. Early flowering species, those that develop buds under snow, suffer from delayed phonological development and restricted reproduction due to the decreased thermal insulation, colder soil temperatures under compacted snow, and longer snow duration associated with ski industry operations. Summer soil compaction due to ski industry machine grading limits all three SOLC by: lowering soil moisture content; increasing soil density (by more than 50%); increasing pH and C/N ratio; and decreasing total nitrogen concentrations (Roux-Fouillet et al. 2011). Ski runs create dry and nutrient-poor habitats with low vegetation cover, and failed or protracted species recovery post-disturbance. The three SOLC referenced by the commenter and impacts to these species associated with the Proposed Action Alternative are analyzed in Section 3.7. As stated in Section 3.7.3.2, “There would be no direct impacts to habitat occupied by the three SOLC: lady fern, broad-leaved twayblade and white- veined wintergreen. However, overstory vegetation removal associated with glading (40 percent tree removal) and ski trails (100 percent tree removal) has the potential to indirectly affect these species. The potential loss or reduction of forested overstory shading would increase the light intensity reaching the forest floor and cause negative impacts to shade loving species. Such impacts could include increased

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-11 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

solar radiation that may burn plant tissues, change in the microclimate outside the environmental tolerances of the plant species, or increased sun exposure that may favor other plant species that would outcompete the SOLC. Snow compaction also has potential to indirectly affect these species. Indirect effects would be greatest in any trail that would be groomed daily and would not likely be of concern in gladed areas, which would remain ungroomed.” Table 3.7-8 of the FEIS summarizes the indirect impacts to SOLC that would occur.

As these are SOLC and not listed plant species, Forest Service direction does not require that a Management Plan would be necessary to mitigate the indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative.

3.2 The negative impact on natural resources will far outweigh the gains for this project. Snowmaking for this zone alone will need to be quite intensive to enable consistent use. Further, this will put pressure on the local ecosystem since human-made snow is denser and thus, will put a harsh impact on the area from an ecology standpoint. The EIS identifies many species in this area and the harm this will likely do to their habitat. Impacts to botanical resources associated with proposed snowmaking coverage are described in detail in Section 3.7.3.2. As disclosed in the FEIS, the installation of proposed snowmaking line may impact less than 0.1 acre of Rabbit Ears Gilia (Region 2 sensitive) occupied habitat. Coupled with other project components, the Proposed Action Alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing (MAII).” The Proposed Action Alternative would have no impact to any other Region 2 Sensitive Species or Threatened and Endangered plant species.

4.0 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 4.1 In regard to EIS Page 26, 1st paragraph, this is prime elk, moose, and raptor habitat and also infringes on many natural springs, creeks, etc., which are critical to the survival of many species. Given that this will not benefit the majority of Steamboat skiers, why develop it? The Forest Service has analyzed impacts to elk, moose, and raptors, which are disclosed in Section 3.9 of the FEIS and supported by findings contained in the Biological Assessment (BA) and a Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for this project and included in the project file.

4.2 The requirement for skiers to traverse BC Skiway is positive for snow habitat and species conservation. The traverse naturally limits how many people can access the area on any given day and slows the “rush” of traffic on a busy powder day. Again, the reason people like to use this area is to enjoy getting away from the “resort” experience, SSRC states this as true in the EIS. If you put a lift in or make the access easier, you will naturally push people further into the backcountry, creating bigger rescue issues. Keeping this zone as is allows the “slackcountry” experience in a low-consequence area, all of which is better for the community, ecosystem and the ski area’s resources. Proposed construction of Pioneer chairlift will shift Pioneer area skier recreation-impacts on wildlife from limited (“slackcountry”) to intensive (winter resort use and summertime maintenance). On-piste skier disturbance and associated ski-trail maintenance

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-12 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

have significantly more impact on wildlife than limited off-piste skier disturbance. Resort infrastructure has been shown to increase stress response (acute and chronic nutritional stress), alter activity budgets, and disrupt seasonal refugia. The Forest Service DEIS articulates similar findings to those presented by the commenter in its discussion of the Pioneer Ridge Backcountry terrain in Section 3.1.4.2. The following discussion Section 3.1.4.2 summarizes anticipated changes in the Pioneer Ridge area, “While the Proposed Action Alternative would address many of the existing issues with the most popular portion of the Pioneer Ridge backcountry area, similar issues may still exist under proposed conditions. Ski patrol responses would likely be generated by increased skiing in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon area; however, adequate ski patrol egress would be provided. Additionally, the location of backcountry access points and adequate return routes to the proposed Pioneer Ridge area are expected to reduce the number of issues related to skiers being unable to navigate to the operational boundary or getting stranded in high consequence terrain” (FEIS p. 53). As it relates to wildlife impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative, Section 3.9.4 analyzes impacts on a species by species basis and considers increased recreational use, as well as the modification of habitat associated with the installation of proposed infrastructure, among other potential factors not specifically mentioned by the commenter.

4.3 Where will the Marten go? If the expansion pushes them into other areas, there are likely other martens in the area and the forest can only support so many species as it is. Impacts to marten, a Region 2 Sensitive Species carried forward in the analysis, are disclosed in Section 3.9. As stated in Table 3.9-7, the Proposed Action Alternative May impact individuals, but not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide for marten, as “the combined effect of tree clearing in marten habitat and increased recreational use of marten habitat during the winter may reduce the carrying capacity of the area for martens” (FEIS p. 222).

4.4 The DEIS’s discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences relating to wildlife and fisheries should more accurately reflect that these resources are already affected by existing use of the Pioneer Ridge area. The discussion of raptors (including northern goshawks), American marten, elk, and moose should clarify that: the Pioneer Ridge terrain is inside Steamboat’s existing special use permit and allocated to skiing in the Forest Plan, the Forest Service made the long-term decision to dedicate the lands for skiing in the Forest Plan and in a series of permits issued to Steamboat over a period of decades, and the current significant levels of use by skiers and snowboarders is the baseline. Any impacts resulting from Alternative 2 to those wildlife resources are incremental increases above existing conditions under which significant use occurs, not an increase above a zero-impact threshold. Steamboat encourages the Forest Service to clarify in the DEIS sections about wildlife and fisheries in Pioneer Ridge that the existing conditions involve significant human presence and recreational use. This will give the reader a more accurate picture of the incremental environmental effects of the Pioneer Ridge portion of the Project. The commenter is correct in that the Pioneer Ridge area is within Forest Plan Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts (Existing/Potential). The commenter is referred to the BA/BE prepared for this project

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-13 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

and included in the project file. This report provides the basis of the findings related to wildlife reported in Section 3.9 of the FEIS. The environmental baseline of skier traffic in the Pioneer Ridge area and associated side country is described as “SSRC estimates that the current usage of this terrain runs between 50 and 500 skiers per day, depending on snow conditions and weather. This use is evidenced by the occasional presence of moguls in these areas, as well as exit paths and other compacted ski ways, all formed by skiers rather than through any management by the Ski Area. SSRC further estimates that half of these side country skiers ski the Pioneer Ridge area, and half venture into Fish Creek Canyon” (BA/BE p. 27). The existing use of the Pioneer Ridge area is considered in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences discussions of the BA/BE and Section 3.9 of the FEIS.

Existing use of the Pioneer Ridge area is highly variable, with usage fluctuating on a weekly and even daily basis. Based on a proposed comfortable carrying capacity of 690 guests per day in the proposed Pioneer Pod (as disclosed in the Recreation Technical Report) this variability would be greatly reduced, highlighting that existing and proposed uses of the Pioneer Ridge area are not necessarily comparable or incremental from a wildlife standpoint. No edits related to information provided by the commenter have been made to the FEIS.

4.5 A new lift and easier access to this terrain will lead to more lost skiers endangering themselves, place unnecessary risk on search and rescue operations, and create unreparable ecological damage to a sensitive ecosystem used by wintering wildlife. A discussion of skier safety associated with existing conditions and the Proposed Action Alternative is provided in Section 3.1. As described in in Section 3.9.6, there would be no irretrievable commitment of resources associated with wildlife associated with selection of the Proposed Action Alternative.

4.6 This expansion only adds to the number of people in the area needing rescue, adding pressure to wildlife and harming the environment. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 4.5.

4.7 So why continue forward with this proposal? If SSRC acknowledges that the lynx, moose, and elk are all at risk, shouldn’t we as a community say enough is enough? The expansion does not suit the current clientele, so why push for an expansion into an area that SSRC acknowledges will cause harm to the ecosystem? The commenter is reminded that the DEIS and FEIS were prepared by the Forest Service, not SSRC. For a discussion of the Purpose and Need for the Pioneer Ridge area, the commenter is referred to response to Comment 1.1. It is worthwhile to note that elements of the Proposed Action Alternative consider anticipated future conditions at Steamboat, in addition to current conditions. Examples of future conditions include trends in guest expectations or increased utilization of the Pony Pod due from trail corridor enhancements, among others.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-14 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

4.8 The environmental impact statement does say there is wildlife in this area but does not address how the infiltration of more people will be handled when conflicts arise. There should be a written comprehensive plan in place prior to this expansion getting approved and the special use permit issued. As it relates to certain wildlife species analyzed in the FEIS, a need to develop a management plan for moose was identified. As stated in Table 2-1, “SSRC, in concert with the Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), will develop a moose management plan” (FEIS p. 39). Management plans were not identified as necessary for any additional species.

4.9 The proposal to expand will degrade and disturb essential habitat for a number of species, via both direct and indirect impacts associated with construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed area. Negative impacts include: compacted snow and compacted soils (habitat loss for subnivean vertebrate prey species); nesting habitat disturbance or removal (goshawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and boreal owl nest failure/abandonment), disturbance of viable Canada lynx habitat (lynx habitat and prey resources will expand with MPB damage and succession); and increasing loads of man-made snow melt (flood pulse melting into Yampa River tributaries, threat to native trout species habitat). The commenter is referred to Section 3.9 of the FEIS, which discusses prey species, impacts to goshawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and boreal owl habitat; impacts to Lynx habitat; and impacts to greenback cutthroat trout associated with the Proposed Action Alternative. The commenter is also referred to the response to Comment 4.13, which addresses mountain pine beetle and lynx habitat.

Regarding the effects of snowmaking on streamflow within Burgess Creek, Section 3.11.4.2 of the FEIS states, “The 4 and 1 percent increases in yield and runoff peak flow computed for the Proposed Action Alternative are small as compared to the natural variability of the study watershed’s hydrology. As discussed in Section 3.11.3.2, watershed yield and peak streamflows can vary by approximately -15 and +30 percent from one year to the next due to natural changes in precipitation and temperature values and temporal patterns. Therefore, the calculated increases in peak discharge and runoff volume that would occur with implementation of the proposed projects would not result in significant impacts to the existing watershed condition.”

4.10 The DEIS should be clarified to make clear that the two raptor nests located in the Pioneer Ridge area are inactive and have not been used by northern goshawks since surveying began in 1994. The DEIS accurately notes this on 222 but in other sections describing raptors and northern goshawks in particular, the DEIS notes only that the nests were “unoccupied in 2017” or that the nests were “historically active,” leaving the reader with a misleading impression of the nests’ status. The Forest Service should make clear that the two known raptor nests within the operational boundary have not been used in 24 years, and possibly longer than that. The Forest Service should clarify that the BMP and conditions related to raptors do not apply to winter operations. The Forest Service should clarify that the BMPs and conditions apply to construction, not operations. The Forest Service should clarify that if the construction phase is not complete by the end of the first construction season, winter skiing operations will not be subject to the prescribed no-disturbance buffer or otherwise affected. Because the two nest

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-15 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

sites within the project area have not been active since at least 1994, Steamboat requests the Forest Service to clarify that this BMP is not in effect unless and until an active goshawk nest site is established within the project area. The reference to raptor nests being “unoccupied in 2017” in the FEIS refers to the findings of surveys that were specifically completed for this project. Historical observations have identified nests occupied by a raptor as recently as 2009; however, the raptor was not a Northern goshawk. The discussion of nests in the context of past surveys and the nests being “historically active” includes raptor species other than Northern goshawk and use of this language throughout the FEIS is appropriate.

As described in the FEIS Appendix B – Forest Plan Consistency Analysis for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and Wildlife Standard 6, “Existing and proposed SSRC winter operational activities that may occur in March and April, such as operating ski lifts and grooming trails, are considered consistent with this standard and may continue without a non-disturbance buffer as nesting raptors would be considered adapted to human activity.” This would not apply to Northern goshawk. The active goshawk nest site seasonal buffer includes language that the buffer will apply if northern goshawks are discovered.

4.11 In regard to the Raptor Nest Protection Alternative: Specific raptor nesting deterrent methods and technologies need to be specified. Deterrent methods range from invasive (physical nest removal and mechanical perch-deterrent device installation) to unselective and broadly destructive. Although some perch deterrents appear to be effective in limited applications, the best available science is inconclusive overall, with no data available comparing the relative effectiveness of various recently developed perch deterrents. Raptors are sensitive to both direct and indirect habitat disturbance. Direct and indirect impacts to raptor habitat and nesting success. Direct impacts may include, but are not limited to: loss of foraging habitat from the project footprint, direct mortality of raptors (e.g., due to collisions with vehicles, electrocution on power lines), and loss of nest sites or winter roost sites. Indirect impacts may include, but are not limited to: noise disturbance, degradation of habitat adjacent to the project area, habitat fragmentation, contamination of food sources, and reduction or changes in available prey species. Pioneer chairlift construction, operation, and maintenance represent a long-term, persistent, and acute direct impact to raptor habitat. The proposal to remove associated gladed terrain east of the proposed ski-way (i.e., selection logging) introduces a chronic, indirect impact to raptor habitat. Logging of adjacent glades will lead to reduction in timber stand density, and likely result in: reduced stand structural complexity; degraded sub- canopy and subnivean raptor prey habitat; and marked shifts in raptor microclimate habitat suitability (e.g., shifting wind and temperature regimes). As described in Section 2.6.1, raptor nest deterrent measures were proposed in an alternative that was considered but eliminated from detailed consideration. Therefore, the specification of nesting deterrents that were never actually considered in detail would not add useful information to the analysis.

The commenter’s assertion of the impact of selective logging on stand density, complexity, prey habitat, and microhabitat may be accurate; however, they did not establish a link between these effects and the impact on any specific species’ population viability. NFMA requires the Forest Service to maintain viable

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-16 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

populations of ‘‘species of conservation concern,’’ such as federally threatened or endangered species, and/or Forest Service sensitive species. There are no species of conservation concern nesting in the Project Area; therefore, there are no viability concerns relative to any species that would result from these projects (as described throughout Section 3.9). Further, no raptors at all were found to be nesting in the project areas during pre-project surveys and PDC require pre-construction nest surveys during each year of construction. If active nesting is observed, PDC would protect these nests until after the young have fledged. As a consequence, the analysis and prescribed measures are compliant with NFMA.

4.12 The near-complete overlap between construction activity and existing Boreal owl habitat, and the systematic removal of nest trees will result in loss of species viability in the Pioneer Ridge area. In combination with degraded rodent habitat (winter snow compaction and summer soil compaction), Pioneer Ridge construction will result in rapid and catastrophic Boreal owl population decline due to nest abandonment and habitat destruction. Impacts to Boreal Owl associated with the Proposed Action Alternative are detailed in Section 3.9.4.2 of the FEIS. As described in this section, “Project components within the Proposed Action Alternative would be implemented in 87.70 acres of potentially suitable boreal owl habitat; many projects would take place in the vicinity of the location where boreal owls have responded to surveys. Construction activities associated with the proposed projects during the nesting season (April 15–July 31 in Colorado) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project.5 If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging of the nestlings, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings.

Hazard tree removal operations would target standing dead trees that provide nest habitat for boreal owls. This component of the project would likely remove some potential nest trees for boreal owls in the polygons in which they occur; however, Table 2-1 of the FEIS includes a PDC to “Maintain adequate snag habitat by preserving a minimum of 1 tree per acre for cavity nesting species such as woodpeckers, owls, purple martin, and bats as outlined in the Forest Plan Biological Diversity Standards (pages 1-8).”

As a consequence of the foregoing information, the Proposed Action Alternative may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a lack of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide” (FEIS p. 226).

As disclosed in the cited text, the possibility exists that a boreal owl nest tree could be cut down during the nest period; however, NFMA requires the Forest Service to maintain population viability at the level of the planning area, not at the project level. There is no evidence to suggest that the elimination of a boreal owl nest or habitat within the Steamboat SUP area would lead to a lack of population viability at the forest scale.

4.13 This habitat is not unsuitable lynx habitat. Following MPB, the increase in coarse wood and fir and spruce abundance will enhance Canada lynx habitat. Forest Service Region 2 guidance states “In mature, even-aged lodgepole pine stands, stands killed by bark beetles are converted to an early successional stage and therefore have moved into “currently

5 Hayward, 1989

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-17 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

unsuitable” lynx habitat. That status will not be changed by salvage harvest. While the dead trees may provide some cover for snowshoe hares, stands are not expected to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat for several decades, after vegetation establishes and grows above the height of the snow.”6 This guidance supports the classification of lodgepole pine stands impacted by mountain pine beetle at Steamboat as unsuitable. The Forest Service acknowledges that over time these areas may become suitable habitat for lynx as vegetation establishes over the next several decades.

4.14 The following statement is false: Lodgepole forests that were historically considered as lynx habitat are currently unsuitable for lynx, as they no longer provide cover snowshoe hare, pine squirrel, or other lynx prey; nor do they provide cover for traveling lynx. Contrary to this claim, the increase in coarse wood and fir and spruce abundance will enhance Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) habitat following MPB (Chan- McLeod, 2006), and protection of forest structure beneficial to lynx will conflict with fuel reduction priorities (Pelz et al. 2015). In addition, lynx prey populations are projected to increase post-MPB as lodgepole pine associated species mosaics regenerate. Harvested areas are projected to become important refugia for red squirrels and other conifer seed-dependent species in coming decades as regenerating conifer species matures to a point of sufficient cone production. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 4.13.

4.15 Steamboat requests the Forest Service to clarify that the prescribed best management practice in Table 2.1 - intended to “minimize the loss of suitable lynx habitat” - does not prevent removal of hazard trees in the Pioneer Ridge terrain or elsewhere at the resort. The PDC referenced by the commenter has been updated in Table 2-1 of the FEIS to state, “Minimize the loss of suitable lynx habitat by: 1) minimizing tree and vegetation removal, b) limiting the extent (percentage) of glading and tree removal within the Pony Express and Pioneer Ridge areas, and c) phasing in improved tree skiing over a five- to ten-year period as forest health improves across the Mount Werner Lynx Unit. This does not preclude hazard tree removal in any of the project areas included in this analysis” (see FEIS p. 39).

4.16 Additionally, because spring spawning cutthroat trout are found in Burgess Creek, we recommend considering whether higher peak flows anticipated during spring runoff may negatively impact cutthroat spawning success as you continue consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The commenter is referred to Section 3.9.4.2, which states that, “There are currently no GB-lineage cutthroats in the Burgess Creek drainage; nor are they known from anywhere in the Yampa River watershed. However, Burgess Creek may provide suitable habitat for these GB-lineage fish. With the PDC, the proposed projects would not affect trout habitat in Burgess Creek. The results of the hydrology analysis, in combination with the fact that GB-lineage trout are absent from the Yampa River drainage, leads to a finding that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on greenback cutthroat trout” (FEIS p. 221). There are two subspecies of cutthroat trout addressed in the EIS, Oncorhynchus clarki stomias (Greenback cutthroat), and O. clarki pleuriticus (Colorado River cutthroat). As the

6 USDA Forest Service, 2007b

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-18 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

commenter also mentioned USFWS consultation within the same sentence, this response assumes the commenter to be referencing the Greenback cutthroat.

The conclusion provided in Section 3.9.4.2 was based on the results of the hydrological analysis completed for the Proposed Action Alternative, which included analysis of the impact of post-project peak flows on stream health. Furthermore, the 4 percent and 1 percent increases in water yield and runoff peak flow computed for the Proposed Action Alternative are small as compared to the natural variability of the study watershed’s hydrology. Watershed yield and peak streamflows can vary by approximately -15 and +30 percent from one year to the next due to natural changes in precipitation and temperature values and temporal patterns. Since stream health would not be adversely impacted by higher peak flows, and since these increased peak flows are well within the natural range of variability for Burgess Creek, these increased flows would not impact cutthroat spawning success. Finally, there are no GB-lineage or Greenback cutthroat trout currently inhabiting Burgess Creek that could be affected by the project.

4.17 The following statement is false: Results of the hydrology analysis, in combination with the fact that GB-lineage trout are absent from the Yampa River drainage, leads to a finding that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no effect on greenback cutthroat trout. The increasing need to make artificial snow to combat warming climate will continue to negatively impact GB and BG-lineage fish habitat in Burgess Creek. Links between man-made snow pollution (endocrine-disrupting chemical constituents), fish species, and watershed health are being examined by land mangement agencies across U.S. ski resort locations this year, including the Forest Service in Colorado. The Yampa River is the source of snowmaking water for Steamboat. The Yampa River has not been identified as impaired for endocrine-disrupting chemical constituents. Steamboat, like most ski resorts, uses the snow inducer additive SNOMAX to enhance production of man-made snow; no other additives are used. SNOMAX does not contain any chemicals and is not an endocrine disruptor; the ice-nucleating proteins contained in SNOMAX are derived from a naturally-occurring bacterium called Pseudomonas syringae, which is not pathogenic to humans.7 The bacterium is deactivated during the production process, which includes freeze-drying, grinding, and sterilization to ensure no living micro-organisms remain in the final product.

4.18 In general, elk calve at the point where climatic factors have made an accessible at the time of parturition, typically mid- May to mid-June. This, in turn, is related directly to the receding snowline and plant phenology. Comment noted.

4.19 The resort already has a huge moose issue within the confines of the resort as it stands. Increasing utilization of this area will negatively impact the moose population. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 4.8.

7 Skirvin, R.M. et al., 2000

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-19 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

4.20 The DEIS notes that Steamboat, the Forest Service, and CPW are “in the early stages of preparing a plan to manage moose in the vicinity of Steamboat.” Steamboat encourages the Forest Service to add the detail summarized above to the DEIS, including reference to the program’s objectives, methods, and timeline, and the program’s goal to help to avoid or mitigate impacts to moose. The Forest Service acknowledges that Steamboat has partnered with the Forest Service and CPW to conduct an extensive moose GPS collaring, tracking, and management program in and around the ski area. We anticipate that the program will provide Forest Service, CPW, and other stakeholders with an increased understanding of moose range and behavior and help to minimize human-moose interactions and other adverse impacts. Plan components will likely include GPS tracking and monitoring by CPW, education of ski area personnel regarding how to recognize an agitated or defensive moose, prescribed responses to moose in the ski area, conflict prevention, and reporting. GPS collaring and monitoring activities have begun. As Steamboat, Forest Service, and CPW continue to jointly develop the plan through a cooperative effort additional information will be added to the project file; however, as plans are not finalized no edits have been made to the FEIS.

4.21 If the resort is facing more “adverse moose/human interactions and the expansion moves more people into moose habitat, then what? Why does the moose suffer for an expansion that is acknowledge as being not really needed or demanded by steamboat clientele? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 4.8 and Comment 4.20.

4.22 So if the resort already has a moose problem, how will displacing them make this situation better? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 4.8 and Comment 4.20.

4.23 This is prime elk and moose territory and SSRC is not addressing the long-term effect on these species. The commenter is referred to Section 3.9.4.2, which discusses both long and short-term impacts to elk and moose under the discussion of SOLC. Additionally, for details regarding the moose management plan, the commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 4.8 and Comment 4.20.

5.0 HYDROLOGY 5.1 the improvement will bring in a lot of more tourism which will have tax on the water system of steamboat Comment noted.

5.2 This would be a harmful impact on the surrounding environment, human enjoyment of the area and the “feel” or characteristics of the area. Why would anyone want to see 100’ bridge

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-20 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

over Burgess creek? Further, if this fails, what happens to all those steel posts that have damaged the area? How will Burgess creek watershed be marred by this bridge addition? The commenter is referred to Section 3.11.4, which described the impacts the construction of the Burgess Creek Bridge would have on the Burgess Creek watershed.

5.3 Because less water in the river will result in less ability to buffer instream temperatures from external thermal drivers, this additional depletion could result in different instream temperatures than would otherwise occur with more water. To ensure that the project does not contribute to exceedances of the State’s temperature water quality standard, it would be valuable to include a discussion in the Final EIS on the temperature data that resulted in impairment status to determine whether the time period of anticipated water withdrawals coincides with the timing of the original exceedances of the temperature standard. In the event that snowmaking withdrawals overlap with periods of temperature exceedances, an expanded analysis of the additional withdrawals would be warranted to evaluate whether they would exacerbate current temperature issues and result in regulatory or biological impacts, or both. In that case, we would also recommend that mitigation procedures and a monitoring plan be designed and implemented to ensure there are no project-related impacts that contribute to exceeding the instream water quality standards for temperature. Please note that for Cold Water, Tier II streams such as the Yampa, the temperature standards become more stringent on November 1 to protect the thermal seasonality inherent in naturally functioning mountain streams and the colder thermal regimes required for successful salmonid reproduction and recruitment. If the project does have the potential to contribute to water quality standard exceedances, we recommend you coordinate closely with the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to resolve the matter. United States Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station 09239500 Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colorado is located 1.6 miles downstream from the snowmaking diversion point and provides valuable data of streamflow rate and temperature. The station’s available data shows that the numeric standards for temperature (daily maximum and maximum weekly average) have not been exceeded during the months of October through January.8

While it is true that less water in the river could result in an increase of its temperature, a comparison of snowmaking diversion records against streamflows measured at the USGS station indicates that the impact of snowmaking diversions on the flow rate of the Yampa River is modest.9 For example, October diversions for snowmaking averaged 0.1 percent of the Yampa River streamflows; in November, December, and January, diversions represented 1.4 percent, 2.5 percent, and 0.5 percent of the Yampa River streamflows, respectively.

8 Temperature data, available for the period 2002 through 2004 and 2017 to present 9 Data compared for the period 2009 through 2016

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-21 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

5.4 The 36.8 acre-feet of additional water withdrawals needed for the proposed snowmaking coverage represents an increase of 12 percent over the total water currently diverted for snowmaking uses (298.5 acre-feet, 5-year average). Assuming an average increase of 12 percent, the proposed snowmaking diversions would represent between 0.1 percent (October) and 2.8 percent (December) of the Yampa River streamflows. It is reasonable to infer that the small increment in snowmaking diversions relative to the Yampa River flows would not cause stream temperatures to increase. There is a potential water quality concern associated with transporting water with elevated arsenic levels into a segment that currently is not impaired. Additional considerations for Burgess Creek would be to monitor arsenic concentrations both pre- and post-project to detect whether there are any detectable effects caused by the additional snowmaking. The proposed snowmaking water that would be applied to the Burgess Creek watershed, when added to existing snowmaking water use, would total 261 acre-feet. This total represents 5.6 percent of the natural snowpack for Burgess Creek (November through March) measured as snow-water equivalent. Although data is not available to quantify or estimate the potential impact of Yampa River water on the quality of Burgess Creek water, it appears reasonable to expect that the concentration of arsenic in Yampa River water, if any, would be diluted by the water produced by natural precipitation.

The commenter is referred to Section 2.5.2, which describes the monitoring plans that would be developed by the Forest Service and SSRC. Included in this list of plans are WIZ/stream health surveys that would occur, “Before and after construction and every other year for ten years after the project to understand project impacts” (FEIS p. 46). Consistent with information raised by the commenter, monitoring for arsenic would specifically be included in these surveys and has been added to Section 2.5.2.

5.5 There is also a potential to increase the amount of sediment loading in Burgess Creek based on higher watershed yield from snowmaking and associated runoff resulting from tree clearing and terrain grading. Some of this clearing and grading will take place within the water influence zone (WIZ). The Forest Service stream health assessment identified Burgess Creek as “at risk,” and among other findings, rated 30 percent of its streambanks as unstable in 2011 and 2017. Increased sediment loading has the potential to negatively impact macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life, and degrade spawning habitat for fish. We therefore recommend that prior to implementing the project, Burgess Creek’s baseline be assessed in terms of Colorado’s Narrative Sediment Water Quality Standard, Regulation #31, Section 31.11 (l)(a)(i), to evaluate the difference between current conditions and impairment based on the sediment standard. In response to information provided by the commenter, the following PDC has been added to Table 2-1, “Prior to and following implementation, assess sediment loading to Burgess Creek using Colorado’s Narrative Sediment Water Quality Standard, Regulation #31, Section 31.11 (l)(a)(i), to evaluate the difference between current conditions and impairment based on the sediment standard” (FEIS p. 40).

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-22 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

5.6 In regard to the EIS statement “Although there is potential to drain additional wetlands through alterations in subsurface hydrology, groundwater patterns throughout the entire SUP area are unknown at this time and the estimates provided above may not be accurate.” It would be in the best interest of the community for SSRC to have estimates on groundwater patterns that are accurate before anyone could move forward with such a project. The additional information requested by the commenter is not required and the Forest Service has not compiled estimates on groundwater patterns at this time. No additional information has been added to the FEIS as a result of this comment.

6.0 RECREATION 6.1 the lift that is in that area currently is one of the least used lifts at the ski resort. Why should another lift scar that beautiful forest, when the existing lift is so lightly used. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.1 for a discussion of how the proposed Pioneer Ridge chairlift would meet the Purpose and Need for Action. The commenter is also referred to the response to Comment 1.2 for a discussion of how the proposed Pioneer Ridge area and terrain improvements within the Pony Pod would increase utilization of the Pony Express chairlift. As discussed in Section 3.1.4.2, the Proposed Action Alternative is in part intended to improve the utilization of the existing Pony Express chairlift. Section 3.1.4.2 of the FEIS was updated to state, “The improved chairlift would reduce future wait times in the currently underutilized Pony Pod and would support additional terrain and infrastructure in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area by circulating guests into this area of the mountain” (FEIS p.102).

6.2 With regard to pioneer ridge. Steamboat resort already has countless thousands of acres dedicated to groomed lift access skiing. Pioneer ridge in it’s current state offers a different experience for those wanting something other than a sanitary groomed ski run. The commenter is referred to Section 3.1.4.2, which states “the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would enhance the recreation experience for expert ability level skiing and riding guests and would provide a unique experience that is not currently available at Steamboat. There is a growing demand for backcountry style skiing, which has resulted in many skiers seeking terrain beyond the boundaries of ski areas in recent years.10 Although incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary would mean that this area would no longer exist as backcountry, it would create an off-piste skiing opportunity that resembles backcountry skiing and is becoming an expected part of the experience for higher ability level guests visiting resorts in the western United States. The additional 90.4 acres of glade skiing and trails would be designed to retain the naturalness and character of the area, characteristics that are highly desirable in terms of guest expectations. Adding variety in the form of undeveloped terrain for guests of these ability levels is important, as even though Steamboat has existing terrain to meet the expert ability level skier market, terrain diversity is what keeps higher ability level guests interested and is needed to address the Purpose and Need for additional lift served terrain capable of meeting guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings” (FEIS p. 99).

10 USDA Forest Service, 2012a

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-23 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

As described in the quoted excerpt from Section 3.1.4.2, the intent of the Proposed Pioneer Ridge area is to offer an experience unique from the existing terrain network that primarily consists of traditional groomed ski trails.

6.3 1) all but two runs off the Pony Express funnel into a narrow, rocky and icy channel which is very dangerous, 2) there should be a trail near the bottom of the Longhorn run which would enable skiers to get on either the Storm Peak Express or Burgess Creek lifts, 3) the large catwalk which crisscrosses Twister has been widened with huge drop offs making what was one of the best advanced runs very dangerous. The commenter is referred to Section 2.4.3.1 of the FEIS, which describes trail corridor enhancements on both Longhorn and the Crux that are included in the Proposed Action Alternative.

6.4 Although the DEIS notes that the “average trail density” at Steamboat is 7 skiers per acre - below the industry average of 10 skiers per acre - this figure is misleading and overally general, and is not useful in the Forest Service’s determination whether to approve Alternative 2. Steamboat’s “average trail density” does not relate to the project’s purpose and need, which is to address specific constraints and needs at Steamboat to improve the overall skier experience. The commenter is correct in their assessment that improving trail density is not a component of the Purpose and Need for Action. However, trail density is a component of the overall recreation experience at Steamboat and speaks to issues and indicators identified for the recreation resource. By showing skier density under both the existing and proposed conditions at Steamboat, it is the intent of the FEIS to address potential impacts to skier circulation and congestion. Despite the fact that trail density would increase from 7 skiers per acre to 8 skiers per acre under the proposed conditions, overall this “depicts a positive recreational experience, as lower skier/rider densities correlate to a higher quality recreational experience” (FEIS p. 100).

6.5 In regard to EIS Page 25, 1st paragraph, by building a lift or the proposed bridge, the amount of use for this zone actually diminishes. The reason people cherish this area currently, is the fact that it holds good snow for days with very few people. Increasing access and clearing trees will increase the initial usage on a powder day but leave it dormant most user days. The ecosystem gets destroyed for the enjoyment of low level skiers who generally would rather ski somewhere else. For instance, if you look at Pony Express on any given day, you can ski right on the lift, any time, any day (holidays excluded). Just up the adjoining run, Storm Peak Express sees at least 3 to 4 times more traffic on a daily basis. This is the result of having a higher elevation exit point, where snow is consistently better, more options for terrain and better access to other ski area pods (80% of Steamboat skiers are intermediate or below-Table 3.1-1) Comment noted. For clarification as to the information depicted in Table 3.1-1, the commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 1.3 and Comment 1.7.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-24 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

6.6 Adding the proposed Pioneer chair yields no better or higher access than the current chair, creates a huge issue for snowmaking at the lower terminal due to a high melt rate and does not help circulation of riders, since they are largely self-contained in the Pony pod. This lift will get used for 2 hours on a powder day, then as it is tracked out, will be largely underutilized (or not in operation). The current configuration is what keeps people using the terrain as it is since it limits the amount of people able to access the area (all of this is for the better). The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.3. Snowmaking is not proposed in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area.

6.7 In regard to EIS Page 28 section 1.9.1.1 4th bullet “Quantification (acres) of existing and proposed terrain distribution in the Project Area and the ski area by ability level, in relation to the skier market and Steamboat’s specific client niche” Table 3.1-1 (EIS Page 100) shows this is not the case. The ski area is already divided in this way but is short on terrain clientele actually needs (beginner and intermediate, Table 3.1-1). The proposed Sunshine 2 lift (page 123, 2nd paragraph) and accompanying area in combination with the proposed Rough Rider enhancements is where the dollars for improvement should be spent, if at all. The commenter is incorrect in their understanding of the cited text. The fourth bullet of Section 1.9.1.1 is an indicator, meaning that it is used to provide additional context for an issue selected for detailed analysis. As stated in Section 1.9, “the use of issues to frame environmental analyses under NEPA is outlined in the Forest Service and CEQ regulations (FSH 1909.15 Section 11.5, Section 12.4, Section 15.24; and 40 CFR §§ 1500.4 and 1501.7). This guidance directs the Forest Service to focus the analysis on key issues and include brief rationale for other topics not analyzed in detail” (FEIS p. 10). Therefore, the cited text cannot be inconsistent with one another, as one is used to frame an issue and the other speaks to the issue itself. For clarification as to the information depicted in Table 3.1-1, the commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 1.3 and Comment 1.7.

The Forest Service relies on Steamboat’s expertise to plan appropriate projects based on the needs of their guests. For a discussion of the Sunshine 2 alternative and rationale for elimination, the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 1.3.

6.8 The current Pony Express lift can barely open as it is due to snow conditions. The proposed new reconfiguration will only draw more heavily on natural resources to support its function (i.e. snowmaking, impacts to Burgess Creek, etc.) The impacts of proposed snowmaking in the Pony Pod are described in Section 3.11. There is no snowmaking proposed in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area.

6.9 In regard to the EIS statement: “By developing approximately 355 acres of backcountry terrain accessible from the existing Pony Express chairlift, it is anticipated that the backcountry use in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon as well as use in other areas within the Fish Creek Canyon drainage, adjacent to the proposed operational boundary would likely receive higher

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-25 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

use.” Why move into this territory when SSRC knows it will further complicate the problems listed? The commenter is referred to Section 1.5, which describes the Purpose and Need for Action. As described in this section, and further articulated in Section 3.1, the proposed Pioneer Ridge area is needed to “[p]rovide additional lift-served terrain to meet guest expectations for diverse terrain offerings.” (FEIS p. 98) Resource impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative are described in Chapter 3 for all issues selected for detailed analysis.

6.10 I would like to see the Ski area have a plan for brush cutting,maybe a rotating schedule in areas like Shadows,Closets and Pioneer. This year in particular brush cutting would of helped. Pioneer opened for hike to ski with brush many feet high, I didn’t think it safe for many to ski,especiallyfor Patrol if we had do do a rescue for someone injuried. I realize the management whats to show skiable acres open early season,but I have to disagree. It wasn’t a good experience for the guest. Another area is Shadows. When you ride up Sundown Lift looking up towards the left, there are so many down trees, skiers and riders really can’t ski because of all the deadfall. So, I would like to see a plan to address what the Ski Area already has. It is important to note that the Pioneer Ridge area, in its existing state, as described by the commenter is not included in Steamboat’s operational boundary; therefore, a vegetation management included in an operating or summer construction plan cannot be provided for this area. Under the Proposed Action Alternative and described in Section 3.1.4.2, “the incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary would alleviate existing challenges within this area associated with inadequate ingress and egress paths, return routes to other mountain lifts, skier safety, and ski patrol response” (FEIS p. 95). Should the Pioneer Ridge area be incorporated into the operational boundary, vegetation management within the limitations outlined in Table 2-1, could be specified in a summer construction or operating plan.

Similarly, areas within the existing Pony Pod and the Sundown Pod, described by the commenter as needing vegetation management that are currently within Steamboat’s operational boundary, could receive the recommended treatments through specification in Steamboat’s operating plan or a summer construction plan.

6.11 In regard to EIS page 118 2nd paragraph “Better signage, mapping, and measures such as monetary charges for people generating ski patrol responses outside the operational boundary have proven successful in reducing the number of incidents in the backcountry adjacent to Steamboat’s operation boundary, and would continue to be implemented.” This is unproven. This policy just commenced in the prior season and any success can easily be accounted for less visitation due to lower snowfall compared to years prior. Years with higher natural snowfall have a much better chance or luring unsuspecting riders into dangerous terrain. This idea that this strategy has been successful can easily be chalked up to low snow

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-26 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

seasons since the strategies inception is so recent. A longer period of study would be necessary to draw any real conclusion. The Forest Service acknowledges that there is limited data to support the findings cited by the commenter and reported in the FEIS; however, this is the best available data and does indicate that operational measures taken to reduce ski patrol responses have proven successful.

6.12 The target expansion area is currently used by a small number of backcountry skiers willing to travel long distances with poor egress pathways for access to quiet, “short runs” distant from the intensely over-utilized on-piste terrain. Expansion to these areas will introduce inexperienced skiers to atypical terrain and result in marked uptick in injury incidences and rescue responses. The commenter is reminded that the Pioneer Ridge area is located within Forest Plan Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts (Existing/Potential) and is referred to Section 3.1.4.2, which in its discussion of Ski Patrol states that, “Ski patrol operations are expected to be improved throughout Steamboat’s SUP area. Although ski patrol has previously responded to issues in the Pioneer Ridge area, ski patrol safety operations would extend into the 355 acres of the Pioneer Ridge area that would be included in the operational boundary. Inclusion of this area as a part of the inbounds terrain network, and construction of appropriate egress routes, is anticipated to improve skier safety and ski patrol response times in the Pioneer Ridge area. There would still be a portion of Pioneer Ridge accessible as backcountry from the proposed operational boundary; however, conditions are also expected to improve response times in this area. Specifically, construction of the Boundary Collector Ski Trail F, Burgess Creek Bridge, and Exit Ski Trail H within the proposed operational boundary, would all address ongoing egress issues that generate ski patrol responses in the Pioneer Ridge area” (FEIS p. 104).

There is no discussion of injury frequency contained within the FEIS and reporting of this kind would be highly speculative. It is assumed that the incorporation of the Pioneer Ridge area into the operational boundary would have no greater frequency of injuries than other areas within the existing operational boundary. As compared to its existing condition, skier safety in the Pioneer Ridge area is anticipated to improve under the Proposed Action Alternative.

6.13 This expansion only adds to the number of people in the area needing rescue, adding pressure to wildlife and harming the environment. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 6.12.

6.14 Building a lift only adds to this problem, by increasing the number of people who would likely venture into this area (Fish Creek Canyon). The area proposed for expansion is not the problem area. There are very few cliffs on Pioneer Ridge and all of them can be easily skied around. The issue is with the surrounding Upper and Lower Fish Creek canyon, where massive cliffs, holes/tree wells, and other objective hazards exist. By building a bridge over Burgess Creek

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-27 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

and adding a lift, it is foreseeable that the ski area will definitely add more users to Fish Creek canyon, due to the ease of ingress/egress facilitated by this addition. The commenter is reminded that the Pioneer Ridge area is located within Forest Plan Management Area 8.22 – Ski Based Resorts (Existing/Potential) and is referred to Section 3.1.4.2, which in its discussion of the Pioneer Ridge Backcountry Terrain, states that “By developing approximately 355 acres of backcountry terrain accessible from the existing Pony Express chairlift, it is anticipated that backcountry use in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon as well as use in other areas within the Fish Creek Canyon drainage, adjacent to the proposed operational boundary would likely receive higher use. Approximately 25 to 250 backcountry skiers per day would be displaced by the incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into Steamboat’s operational boundary, based on the existing use of the Pioneer Ridge backcountry. This is anticipated to contribute to higher use of the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon and other areas within the Fish Creek Canyon drainage as users, who would presumably be looking for a similar backcountry experience (e.g., ease of access, proximity to lift-served terrain), would move into this new area immediately adjacent to the proposed operational boundary. As previously mentioned, backcountry access to this area would be provided, along the new border of the proposed operational boundary” (FEIS p. 96). As highlighted in the referenced quote, the information brought forward by the commenter is disclosed in the FEIS and will be considered alongside other impacts associated with the Proposed Action Alternative.

6.15 Because Pioneer Ridge already sees extensive use - primarily on power days but also on non- powder days - the Forest Service should revise and clarify the DEIS’s discussion of the incremental environmental effects of the Pioneer Ridge components of the Project to better and more accurately state that the terrain is inside the Steamboat project and routinely skied today The DEIS should be revised to clarify that, as to Pioneer Ridge, the comparison of alternatives is not one between no use and managed skiing. The appropriate comparison is between extensive skiing inside a ski area permit and managed skiing with a lift inside a ski area permit. As disclosed in the FEIS, it was estimated in Section 3.1.3.1 that use of the Pioneer Ridge area is “skied by 50 to 500 skiers that are assumed to be evenly split between the immediate backcountry (i.e., Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw) and Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon” (FEIS p. 84). This statistic is further qualified by conditions and proximity to the ski area boundary, “The Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon receives less use overall, as use is more likely to fluctuate with snow conditions. On the day of a storm when powder conditions exist, use of Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon is at its highest on the high side of the 50 to 500 range with approximately 100 of these skiers making multiple laps.11 A day or two after a powder day, less than 400 people will use this area and during periods of no snow, use of this area declines to 25 to 150 people.12 Use of the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon area declines on days without new snow due to tree density as well as difficult access in and out of Pioneer Ridge” (FEIS p. 84).

Based on the information cited above and disclosed in the FEIS, it is evident that the Affected Environment discussion of Section 3.1 acknowledges that there are existing skiing opportunities

11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-28 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

currently utilized in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area. The discussion of Environmental Consequences in Section 3.1.4.2 acknowledges how existing use of the Pioneer Ridge area would be impacted by the incorporation of this area into Steamboat’s operational boundary stating that, “Approximately 25 to 250 backcountry skiers per day would be displaced by the incorporation of the proposed Pioneer Ridge area into Steamboat’s operational boundary, based on the existing use of the Pioneer Ridge backcountry” (FEIS p. 96). Based on a proposed comfortable carrying capacity of 690 guests per day in the proposed Pioneer Pod (as disclosed in the Recreation Technical Report) the highly variable use that currently exists in the Pioneer Ridge area would be greatly reduced. Considered in this context, the commenter’s request to describe the change in existing and proposed uses of the Pioneer Ridge area as incremental are not regarded as accurate. Statements beyond those already included in the FEIS describing existing and proposed uses of the Pioneer Ridge area have not been added to the FEIS.

6.16 In regard to EIS Page 118 2nd paragraph “New access points that would be provided to adjacent backcountry form the proposed operational boundary would be strategically placed to steer skiers away from dangerous cliff bands and towards lines that ski more directly to the improved egress routes contained within Steamboats proposed terrain network.” The ski area is already using this strategy, which they have demonstrated throughout this proposal is clearly not working. How would this be different in the future? (spoiler alert-it will be worse, creating more headaches for NFS, S&R, etc.). The commenter correctly cites the DEIS. The placement of new access points would have the advantage of being located in areas that interface with the proposed additions to the Pioneer Ridge area and the Pony Pod, and would utilize knowledge of the area gained over the decades that the Pioneer Ridge area has existed as backcountry terrain.

6.17 The DEIS should reference Steamboat’s popular Mountain Coaster as part of its multi-season recreation offerings. In response to information provided by the commenter, the following text has been added to Section 3.1.3.3, “Additionally, there is a mountain coaster located near the Christie Peak Express chairlift that operates during both the summer and winter months and is highly popular with Steamboat guests” (FEIS p. 91).

6.18 Steamboat also encourages the Forest Service to clarify that the No-Action Alternative would result in adverse impacts to the environmental and recreation quality in the Pioneer Ridge area. Existing conditions in the Pioneer Ridge area include significant deadfall and dead timber from mountain pine beetle. Alternative 2 would result in removal of individual or groups of dead trees caused by beetle kill, thereby improving the long-term environmental conditions and improving guest safety and enjoyment. The Forest Service should clarify that under the No-Action Alternative, the deadfall, dead timber, and hazard trees in Pioneer Ridge will remain, and worsen, as standing hazard trees fall. Over time, these hazard trees will continue to fall and render the Pioneer Ridge area far less accessible to skiers, limit the availability of terrain, and eliminate entirely some of the best ski terrain there. A concentration of beetle kill trees also serves as fuel load, increasing the risk of catastrophic

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-29 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

wildfire. The DEIS should disclose that the long-term effects of the No-Action Alternative would decrease the recreational availability of Pioneer Ridge and increase the risk of wildfire. The commenter is referred to Section 3.7.3.1, which provides the following disclosure under discussion of the No Action Alternative, “Barring disturbances such as insects, disease, and wildfire, lodgepole pine stands that are currently composed of standing dead lodgepole, aspen seedlings, lodgepole pine seedlings, shrubs, grasses, and forbs would regenerate to pure lodgepole, lodgepole/aspen mix, or pure aspen stands. The natural process in beetle killed lodgepole pine stands would continue with additional trees deteriorating and falling to the ground to either decompose naturally or accumulate on the forest floor. Removal of overhead safety hazards in the form of deteriorating dead tree would not occur, and skier safety would not benefit” (FEIS p. 191). Additionally, the fire and fuels analysis does incorporate current conditions into modeling as described in Section 3.8, which finds that the fire intensity levels under the No Action Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action Alternative. Further, the commenter is referred to Section 3.1.4.1, which in its discussion of the No Action Alternative states that, “the entire 600-acre area of Pioneer Ridge adjacent to the Pony Pod and within the existing SUP boundary at Steamboat would remain as backcountry terrain as it would be outside the existing operational boundary. There would be no improvements to skier safety or the existing terrain network at Steamboat through the incorporation of this area into Steamboat’s operational boundary. Existing access to the popular Golf Course Fields and Outer Outlaw, as well as Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon backcountry areas would continue through the existing backcountry access points” (FEIS p. 93). Under the No Action Alternative, the existing recreation experience in the Pioneer Ridge backcountry would not change due to any action taken by SSRC or the Forest Service.

6.19 In regard to EIS Page 110 2nd paragraph “To travel to certain portions of Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon and NFS lands beyond the SUP boundary, users would need additional over- snow travel equipment (e.g., climbing skins, snowshoes, etc.) and would be required to exert greater energy to reach these areas.” This is largely nonsense. Only the furtherest reaches require over-snow equipment and are already utilized today. The result of this lift/terrain expansion will be to push more people deeper into the backcountry, adding to the time for rescue response, more lost tourists, and a deeper impact on surrounding ecosystems. SSRC clearly acknowledges that this change will increase usage in the surrounding areas, which rely on NFS and Search and Rescue for aid in rescues. Increasing ease of access only puts more people at risk and increases the problem. The commenter correctly cites Section 3.1.4.2 of the FEIS; however, by acknowledging that the “the furthest reaches [of Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon and NFS lands beyond the SUP boundary] require over-snow equipment and are already utilized today” and that people would likely venture further into the backcountry the are confirming the validity of this statement. For a discussion of skier safety in the Proposed Pioneer Ridge area the commenter is referred to the response to Comment 6.12.

6.20 In regard to EIS page 109 Section 3.1.4.2 2nd paragraph “The skier experience in the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area would be designed to resemble a backcountry skiing experience through the use of glading and natural corridors to create an expert ability level area. However, the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would reflect a controlled and maintained skiing experience as is

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-30 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

provided in other parts of Steamboat’s operational boundary and would no longer exist as backcountry.” This contradicts the SSRC statement earlier (page 97 Section 3.1.3.1) where the current demand from expert skiers/snowboarders is for solitude and self-awareness that cannot be experienced within the ski area, how dose opening this terrain accomplish this trend? The purpose of the Proposed Action Alternative is not to meet the conditions described in Section 3.1.3.1, which states that, “The backcountry offers a sense of adventure, solitude, and self-awareness that simply cannot be experienced when skiing inbounds at a developed ski area and is attractive to advanced and expert ability level skiers that visit Steamboat” (FEIS p. 83). This describes the existing condition of the Pioneer Ridge backcountry terrain rather than the condition that the proposed Pioneer Ridge area seeks to provide. For a discussion of how the proposed Pioneer Ridge area meets the Purpose and Need for Action, the commenter is referred to the responses to Comment 1.7 and Comment 1.8.

6.21 In regard to EIS Page 97 Section 3.1.3.1 the statement “The backcountry offers a sense of adventure, solitude, and self-awareness that simply cannot be experienced when skiing inbounds at a developed ski area and is attractive to advanced and expert ability level skiers that visit Steamboat. Additionally, backcountry terrain that is in close proximity to the operational boundary of a ski area can often attract skiers looking for untouched snow during a storm, or in the days immediately following a storm.” Exactly, why would the expansion help grow interest in this respect? If the goal is to have solitude and self-awareness that cannot be experienced within the ski area, how does opening this terrain accomplish this need? It is completely contradictory to this concept. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 6.20.

6.22 In regard to EIS Page 69, Table 1, Alternative 2: Ridiculous. The SSRC proposal acknowledges the growth in this type of user behavior, so how can they not acknowledge that by making access easier, signed, and patrolled, usage would be similar? If anything, they will double or triple the amount of people going into areas that 80-90% of users shouldn t be going into, which result in more issues for the resort, Search and Rescue and other community resources. The commenter is referred to Section 3.1.4.2 and its discussion of Ski Patrol, as well as the response to Comment 6.12 for a further discussion of the effects to skier safety associated with the Proposed Action Alternative.

6.23 It is obvious to anyone that the addition of a lift and bridge which eliminates “100 steps” would only result in a net increase in visitation to Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon, the terrain is not the sole determining factor. The EIS states this “it is anticipated that backcountry use in the Upper and Lower Fish Creek Canyon as well as use in other areas within the Fish Creek Canyon drainage, adjacent to the proposed operational boundary would likely receive higher use. (EIS Page 110, 2nd paragraph)” The snow quality, solitude, and escapism are what drives people to these areas. It is reflected in snow sport media and portrayed in snow sport films. By allowing easier access to more expert terrain, the ski area is putting more people at

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-31 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

risk and will become dependent on resources like Search and Rescue for support. This is not a benefit to the NFS, the community or the ecosystem in this area. Comment noted. The Commenter is referred to the response to the previous comment for additional context.

6.24 My greatest concerns with the entire draft EIS are in the Pioneer Ridge area. This is an area that is unique on the ski mountain, providing challenging trails and terrain for stronger skiers and riders. It is an area that ought to have minimum development because of its unique character, and efforts to make the area accessible to large numbers of users would ruin the experience for those most qualified to enjoy it. For this reason I strongly oppose the proposal to add a new chairlift to this area. A chairlift would essentially destroy the experience here, changing a challenging powder experience in tight trees to an open area full of bumps and moguls. There is already plenty of place son the ski mountain with that experience, why add more? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 6.2.

6.25 To see the effects that a chairlift would likely create, one only needs to view what has happened to the Chute One area on the East Ridge area of the mountain. A number of years ago the Morningside chair was added, resulting in a large increase in skiers and riders to the steep slopes of Chute One. Any honest observer can see the overuse that has resulted. Chute One is generally scraped down to a hard crust with large awkward bumps, regardless of how much snow falls. It has become essentially unskiable for many of the ski area’s guests, either because they lack the ability, or wish to preserve their equipment from the rocks, stumps, and other hazards that are regularly exposed there. Such a scenario is distinctly possible in Pioneer Ridge should a new chair be added. Overuse of the area would be very likely, and the experience would be ruined. Notions of “underutilized” areas do not apply here. Comment noted.

6.26 Another danger from adding a lift to this area would be the exposure of Fish Creek Canyon to many more users, many of whom would not be qualified to ski or ride in that area. Currently, there is something of a buffer zone between the ski area boundary and the canyon, which keeps the number of canyon users to a manageable number. If the area on the edge of the canyon is developed, it is naïve to think that sizeable increases in user numbers there won’t result. The ski patrol already has difficulty with the current usage; they could be overwhelmed by such increased usage, even if they added staff. Needless to say, much of the canyon skiing experience would be ruined by the increased usage as well. The commenter is referred to Section 3.1.4.2 and its discussion of Ski Patrol, as well as the response to Comment 6.12 for a further discussion of the effects to skier safety associated with the Proposed Action Alternative.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-32 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

6.27 I am opposed to the proposal to build a bridge across Burgess Creek. Such a bridge would naturally lead to considerable increases in user numbers to an area that does not need such increases. This bridge would not be aesthetically pleasing for most observers, a large object completely out of character for the landscape of this area. (It would be ugly, in other words.) The need to build roads and work areas for access to this area by workers will have severe impact visually and forever change its character. For a response to concerns regarding increased use of the Pioneer Ridge and Fish Creek areas, the commenter is referred to response to Comment 6.14. For a response to concerns regarding impacts to the visual character of Burgess Creek, the commenter is referred to response to Comment 11.1.

6.28 I am an avid skier at the Steamboat resort, as well as an avid hiker, biker and camper in the Routt National Forest and surrounding areas. I have reviewed Steamboat’s proposal to expand certain trails and terrain, and it will greatly enhance the experience of both novice and expert skiers at Steamboat and increase utilization of the national forest and private properties. It is a great use of the resources and does not appear that it will have any negative impact on the environment. To the contrary, it will maximize enjoyment of our natural resources. I fully support the proposed project. Comment noted.

6.29 I strongly support the planned project, in particular the new gondola and relocation of the ski school. As detailed in the project documents, Steamboat has a definite problem with mountain access on busy mornings and the plan will greatly assist with that problem. The base area is currently a mess and the proposal will greatly improve this situation. Comment noted.

6.30 The improvements being recommended and reviewed for the Steamboat Ski Resort are vital to keep it current and in the consideration set as a destination for skiers and their families. I believe it would also help with skier safety by opening up more terrain and spreading out the traffic which will only continue to increase. This is an investment in the future of the resort and town which relies heavily on vacationers. Comment noted.

6.31 I support the improvements in the Steamboat EIS for Alternative 2, described in the Jan 2018 Letter. I have skied in Steamboat since 1973, currently own two properties in Steamboat and plan to retire there. I agree that the improvements will enhance the Ski area, first by providing a much needed expansion for beginning skier in the Bashor area. Second by opening up additional terrain adjacent to the current pony express lift. Third by improving the terrain, trail access and snow coverage in the pony express area. I agree with statements in the scope that the terrain at Pony is good, but the trail converges in a narrow gully which gets over skied and has rock or becomes dangerously icy. Improving the trail by expanding, and providing access to storm peak is an excellent improvement. Comment noted.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-33 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

6.32 Moving the learning center out of the congested base is a terrific idea! With the sale to Alterra and upcoming multi-resort pass the crowds are bound to follow. Any plan to disperse these new visitors is a bonus for everyone. 100% in favor of these plans to spread out the crowds. In favor of these upgrades. Comment noted.

7.0 WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 7.1 It is our experience that tree removal at ski areas often includes understory removal (i.e. shrub removal/willow mowing) in wetland areas. These montane, slope and riverine shrub/forested wetlands associated with the impacted tributaries provide a broad array of functions, including, but not limited to: sediment retention, nutrient uptake, flood attenuation, bank stability, concentration areas for wildlife, and primary production/food chain support. The Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to “take actions to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities ... “ The two proposed gladed trails with the most clearing impacts appear to reduce the natural and beneficial functions for approximately 30-40% of the length of the tributary (see DEIS, Figure 3.11-1, p. 249). We recommend that loss of habitat associated with the potential for adverse impacts to wetlands vegetation be quantified and disclosed in the Final EIS to adequately assess mitigation requirements in the Wetlands Protection Executive Order 11990. As disclosed in Section 3.12.4 and more specifically in Table 3.12-4, the FEIS quantifies the acreage of wetlands potentially impacted by overstory clearing, including trimming of willow/alder shrubs. According to the table, approximately 2.2 acres of wetlands would be indirectly impacted by tree removal for Trail F, Trail H, Glading, and the Pioneer chairlift corridor (FEIS p. 279–280). In addition, the FEIS does disclose that “…many of the wetlands in the areas affected by overstory vegetation removal are dominated by alders and willows that would likely be trimmed down in height in order to provide a safe skiing experience. Because these shrubs are extremely resilient, this activity is not expected to cause negative effects, and may in fact, lead to a greater shoot density over the long term. Willows and alders are able to re-sprout from the dormant buds on the root crown or lower stems and are tolerant of disturbance” (FEIS, p. 281–282.) Finally, as stated in Section 2.5.2 of the FEIS, a monitoring plan would be developed and implemented as part of the Proposed Action Alternative. The monitoring would include wetland characterization before construction and every other year post construction for ten years (FEIS p. 46). The monitoring would aid the Forest Service in determining if adverse effects to wetlands are occurring from indirect impacts such as forest overstory clearing (including willow/alder trimming) and then develop suitable remedies if adverse impacts occur.

7.2 In regard to the following EIS statement: “At the Pioneer Ridge area, there are numerous spring/seep complexes that support organic rich soils, and thus there could be potential effects of snow compaction. These effects would be variable depending on whether the area is an intensely groomed ski trail or an off-trail ski glade.” Given the large amount of

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-34 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

snowmaking required to support this year, this statement alone shows the many reasons why this project is a non-starter. Potential effects to wetlands and waters of the United States, such as those cited by the commenter, are disclosed throughout Section 3.12.4. Additional comments noted.

7.3 Although a waters/wetlands resources map was included in the Draft EIS, the scale does not provide sufficient detail to understand the impacts to various types of wetland plant communities from proposed ski area features. Including wetland maps in the FEIS at the scale suggested by the commenter (USEPA) is not feasible due to the quantity of maps that would be required to cover all areas of disturbance. Detailed wetland maps are provided in the Wetland Specialist Report contained in the project file. In addition, the Forest Service would coordinate with the commenter to provide adequate mapping resources, potentially via GIS files, prior to the issuance of a Record of Decision.

7.4 In regard to the following EIS statement, “Additionally, Trail E would be located directly upslope of a small spring-fed wetland. If grading associated with this trail intercepts and diverts the subsurface hydrological flows, this wetland (<.1 acre) may be adversely affected.” Again, why expand and put these precious zones at risk for such a small population of human benefit? The commenter correctly cites Section 3.12.4 of the FEIS. Additional comments noted.

8.0 SOCIO-ECON 8.1 The ski area has experienced major staffing issues this decade, so given that this will require more employees who need housing, transportation, etc. and will only be used for a portion of the season, (since this pod is only utilized Jan-early March most years), where will the resort find and house these employees? The commenter is referred to Section 3.2.4.1, which provides the following information related to housing and employment, “Steamboat currently provides 442 beds in its employee housing units at The Ponds, accommodating approximately 26 percent of the winter seasonal workforce.13 Based on current capacities, which are typically at or near capacity for the duration of the winter season, the workforce housing currently available at Steamboat would not accommodate any additional employees. Due to the severe lack of affordable housing available within Routt County, Steamboat would need to implement alternate means of providing employee housing, likely by renting and subsidizing additional housing units within Routt County.14 The additional employee housing that would be provided by Steamboat is necessitated by the ongoing issue of Routt County’s lack of affordable housing; the additional employees would not create new housing issues or measurably impact the housing markets of the City of Steamboat Springs or Routt County.” Beyond Steamboat’s responsibility to provide employee housing, Steamboat’s ability to find adequate staffing is not regarded as an impact to socio-economic resources but rather a factor of Steamboat’s business model. The analysis contained in Section 3.2 discloses socio-

13 Miles, 2017 14 Ibid.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-35 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

economic impacts to resources associated with the projected employment needed to operate components of the Proposed Action Alternative, but does not extend into Steamboat’s ability to find employees.

As disclosed in this same Section 3.2.4.1, social services, including public transportation could see an increase in demand; however, the effect to social services is not anticipated to be driven by changes in employment at Steamboat.

8.2 In regard to EIS page 142 Section 3.2.4.3 “Steamboat winter visitation is expected to increase by 1.4 percent annually, or approximately 8 to 10 percent by 2028 (three years following project implementation and the completion of construction). Based on hope? The earlier SSRC statement states that visitation for winter is essentially flat. This proposal doesn’t reflect the actual demand for needs of the current clientele, SSRC’s ability to staff the expansion, or community resources available. The commenter is incorrect in their understanding of the Proposed Action Alternative’s impact to visitation. The cited text from Section 3.2.4.3, highlights the impact the Proposed Action Alternative would have on visitation. As stated in Section 3.1.4.2, “This increase in visitation rate can be attributed to the projects located in the Rough Rider, Bashor Bowl, Pony Express, and Pioneer Ridge areas of Steamboat. These projects would expand upon the existing terrain network, ski related infrastructure, and winter operations at Steamboat, improving the recreation experience and increasing CCC. Improvements to terrain, both in terms of variety and acreage would be the primary driver of increasing visitation that would occur” (FEIS p. 107). The commenter’s statement that visitation is “essentially flat” is supported by the FEIS; however, these statements are related to the existing conditions and not those cited by the commenter in Section 3.2.4.3.

For a discussion of Steamboat’s ability to staff the proposed projects, the commenter is referred to Comment 8.1.

8.3 In regard to EIS page 118 2nd paragraph “To patrol the proposed Pioneer Ridge Area, it is anticipated that approximately one additional ski patrol supervisor and 10 additional ski patrollers would be added to Steamboat’s staff.” Where would Steamboat find these additional patrollers when housing shortages are rampant in Steamboat? What will they do with the patrollers when this terrain is not open due to climate change delays? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 8.1.

8.4 How does the resort plan to staff this new expansion, knowing full well that the area will not be utilized throughout the entire season? This year they barely were able to open Pony Express due to labor shortages. With the trend in climate change to make this zone more difficult to open, what will the ski area due to retain these employees? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 8.1.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-36 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

8.5 As previously stated, how will adding terrain that will only be used part of the season (4-8 weeks) be addressed by SSRC with regard to the housing crisis and retaining employees? It’s already difficult at best to hire and retain good employees so how will this be handled given a short operating window? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 8.1.

9.0 TRAFFIC/PARKING 9.1 yes traffic needs to be addressed - parking, no idling, easier skier drop off for locals and visitors and SSWSC families, etc. Traffic and Parking, as well as impacts to this resource are disclosed in Section 3.3 of the FEIS.

10.0 ISSUES/RESOURCES DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS 10.1 The noise pollution will greatly effect the lives of the local steamboat community. The construction process will last a long time and will not be pleasant for the steamboat community. As disclosed in Section 1.9.2.1 of the FEIS, noise was dismissed from detailed analysis. The following rationale is provided, “All proposed projects would occur within the existing Steamboat SUP area. While the proposed projects would result in short-term noise associated with construction activities, such as use of helicopters for tower installation, long-term noise would primarily result from the operation of the proposed lifts and restaurant. Proximity of the lifts and restaurant to sensitive noise receptors, such as private residences, would be unchanged from current conditions. In addition, noise was not identified as a resource of concern during internal or external scoping. Noise will not be analyzed as a separate resource in this DEIS, but will be discussed in other resource sections as applicable” (FEIS p. 16).

11.0 VISUALS 11.1 The neighborhood of Burgess Creek, the community, and tourist all enjoy the serenity of the Creekside trail. Imagine a 100’ high bridge, will steel posts intruding on this zone. That will look rediculous and ruin this beautiful area, not to mention the ecological impact. Won’t it be nice to have rusty posts in Burgess Creek? The Creekside trail is located within Steamboat’s SUP boundary and is part of Steamboat’s multi-use trail network. Due to this trails proximity to existing ski area infrastructure, it was not identified as a critical viewpoint. Visual impacts to the Creekside trail are not specifically considered in this analysis. As presented in Section 3.4.4.2, “the projects within the new Pioneer Ridge area would be consistent with the VQO [Visual Quality Objective] of Modification.” The VQO of Modification is described as “Alterations and management activities may be evident, but they must be of like form, line, color, texture, and scale to the surrounding natural landscape. Modification is usually the objective along less frequently used roads and trails. It is also the objective for background areas as seen from more popular viewpoints and for landscapes where the desired visual condition is modification, such as ski areas and intensely managed timber areas.” The commenter is referred to Section 3.4 of the FEIS for a discussion of visual resources.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-37 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

Table 2-1 of the FEIS includes a PDC that would require all bridge abutments to be located outside of the high-water mark of Burgess Creek, avoiding the creek and associated wetlands.

11.2 This would be a harmful impact on the surrounding environment, human enjoyment of the area and the “feel” or characteristics of the area. Why would anyone want to see 100’ bridge over Burgess creek? Further, if this fails, what happens to all those steel posts that have damaged the area? How will Burgess creek watershed be marred by this bridge addition? The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 2.1, describing the requirement for SSRC to remove infrastructure upon the expiration of the SUP. The commenter is also referred to the response to Comment 11.1 for a discussion of the VQO for Steamboat and the Pioneer Ridge area.

11.3 The ski area expansion should not be allowed to impact the scenic beauty of the canyon hillside, meaning that ski runs and impacts should not be allowed to ‘turn the corner’ into the canyon nor should ski lifts be visible from either the Uraniaum Mine trail or the Fish Creek Falls trail. The SUP boundary may need to be adjusted as it was put into place prior to modern, tall lift towers became prevalent. As per Best Management Practices and Project Design criteria, the scenic character must be maintained not just when viewing the proposed expansion from other areas within the SUP, impacts to the scenic character must be considered from outside of the SUP specifically from the neighboring Fish Creek Canyon. In response to information provided by the commenter, the visibility of the projects from neighboring Fish Creek Canyon were specifically considered. Review of this viewshed determined that project related disturbance and infrastructure would be occurring on the other side of the ridge line and would not be directly in sight of the Fish Creek Canyon area. Due to the mountain’s topography, development on the upper extents of the mountain may be visible from portions of the Uranium Mine trail, but the majority of the Pioneer Ridge development would not be visible. The commenter is referred to the response to Comment 11.1 for a discussion of the VQO for Steamboat and the Pioneer Ridge area. No additional information has been added to the FEIS as a result of this comment.

12.0 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 12.1 Putting these ecosystems at risk for an area that will depend on snowmaking is a real threat to our environment and the species that reside in these areas. The need for water will only increase with climate change. Comment noted.

12.2 In regard to the EIS statement (EIS page 176 - first paragraph): “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 north-central Rocky Mountains of Colorado with similar climate, ecology, wildlife, and plant species. This region is expected to experience similar effects from climate change, and represents the range of what may occur at Steamboat. The temporal scope of this analysis spans from the ski area’s inception in 1963 through 2050, the date climate change literature uses as a benchmark in

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-38 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

discussion of climate change effects.” Additions in the Pioneer Ridge area only impact this further. Comment noted.

12.3 As noted, the change in temperature will render this expansion obsolete before it can generate any ROI. Why the resort is pursuing this is beyond explanation since they clearly acknowledge climate change is real and the expansion will rely on snowmaking. How will they pay for this? What happens if skiing goes by the wayside sooner than predicted? Will they then want to build more mountain biking trails in this area? As described throughout the FEIS, snowmaking is proposed in the existing Pony Pod; however, snowmaking within the proposed Pioneer Ridge terrain is not anticipated at this time. All other comments have been noted.

12.4 Snowmaking is a terrible way of propping up an already troubled scenario. It is evident to the reader that the ski area is well aware that this area already has issues with snow retention. This concern will continue into the future in their proposal, SSRC acknowledges in this document that by 2050, the temperature will rise by 5 degrees, rendering this area unskiable most of the season, every season. Consider how much more snowmaking water will be needed to facilitate this area. As clarification to the information provided by the commenter, the Forest Service acknowledges the Colorado Climate Change Vulnerability Study (2015) in Section 3.6.3 of the FEIS, which states that “the statewide average annual temperature is projected to change +2.5ºF to +5.0ºF by 2050” (FEIS p. 172). This does not correlate to a 5.0ºF temperature increase in the proposed Pioneer Ridge area by 2050 during the winter months, nor is snowmaking proposed in the Pioneer Ridge area at this time.

12.5 This concept of dryer winters and faster runoff only furthers the point of avoiding this expansion. Why build in an area dependent on human-made resources which tax a depleted natural resource? Comment noted.

12.6 Further, the inconsistencies with snow mean that this lift will be activated for four weeks on a low snow year, perhaps eight on a good year. What a waste of resources. Is the Forest Service prepared to pay to remove it when climate change makes this zone un-skiable? The Proposed Pioneer Ridge area is intended to be managed as close to its natural condition as possible with no snowmaking proposed. This is anticipated to keep skier utilization low and, as stated throughout the FEIS, would not require snowmaking. Further, the Pony Pod has typically opened between mid- to late December, with few exceptions where lift service to this area was postponed and hike-to access was provided in a similar time frame. Closing dates reflect a similar trend, generally closing one to two weeks prior to closing day. This is consistent with other extents of the mountain that typically open after opening day and close prior to the mountain’s closing date. It is anticipated that the proposed Pioneer Ridge area would operate on a similar timeline without snowmaking.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-39 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

13.0 DESIGN CRITERIA/CONSERVATION MEASURES 13.1 I am requesting that as condition of a new permit that the existing terrain be managed better. The existing trees and some of the trails have not been maintained as well as they should be. The treed sections to the mountain are covered in widow makers, snags and all sorts of hazards. The new growth has not been kept in check as well. Design criteria/conservation measures recommended by the commenter are not required by the Forest Service at this time, although the comments have been noted.

13.2 ANY additional development at Steamboat Ski Area must be required to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy sources. Even though Steamboat Ski Area has considered efficiency in some construction choices, it is extremely far behind other resorts on public lands because it only uses fossil fuels. Any new development must be required to be net zero for energy and emissions. The Steamboat Ski Area is a huge burden on the local energy grid and environment and generates tourism traffic that multiplies that burden exponentially. Design criteria/conservation measures recommended by the commenter are not required by the Forest Service at this time, although the comments have been noted.

13.3 I would like to see the use of renewable energy when creating these improvements. Maybe they power new projects, or maybe solar grids are installed to mitigate power use and is used for all energy usage at mountain. I would like materials to be sustainable whenever possible, and disturbance to the area to be limited to times when it has little impact on wildlife in the area. In addition to materials and future energy use, I would like the area to consider giving back to the community by supporting low income children who live here - more ski free days with gear available and instructors to provide instruction. POW - an organization working to support our winters should be involved in educating employees and visitors about Global Warming and how we can help protect our winters. Design criteria/conservation measures recommended by the commenter are not required by the Forest Service at this time, although the comments have been noted.

13.4 The Forest Service should increase the square footage threshold triggering a need for a topography plan portraying existing topography and cut/fill areas. The current minimum threshold, 2,000 square feet - should be increased to allow Steamboat to undertake construction projects of reasonable size without triggering this requirement. Information provided by the commenter is broader than the scope of the current analysis and has not been incorporated into the FEIS; however, the Forest Service will review and consider the commenter’s request.

13.5 Sundial opened this year with minimal snow,mother nature didn’t provide us with natural snow and it was difficult to make snow with warm tempertures. I suggest trail maintenence during the summer. When I worked at a ski area in the East, they would blast the rocks in the summer, making grooming easier in the winter. With so many guest using Sundial, I think this would improve the quality of guest services for the beginner / intermediate skiers. Middle Rib

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-40 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

is another area that could use some maintenance where the rocks are about the 3rd of the way down. There is an option of cutting trees to the left of the run and by passing the rocks. With the exception of Middle Rib, design criteria/conservation measures recommended by the commenter are not required by the Forest Service at this time, although the comments have been noted. Trail corridor enhancements, which include renovations to Middle Rib are included in the Proposed Action Alternative and are described in Section 2.4.3.1.

13.6 To avoid and minimize these impacts CPW recommends the following: 1) The Steamboat Ski Resort realign the Northern ski trail and consider a seasonal closure from April 1st-June 31st. 2) The Steamboat Ski Resort perform equipment maintenance and inspections in Pioneer Ridge after June 31st. 3) The Steamboat Ski Resort work closely with CPW to finalize a moose management and communication plan. Additionally, CPW urges Steamboat Ski Resort to contact wildlife officers immediately if there are moose or other wildlife demonstrating aggressive behavior towards people. It is recommended that documentation be kept when moose are observed within ski area boundaries. In response to the recommendation to realign the collector ski trail (Trail F), the trail was sited depending on required grades and fall lines necessary to accomplish the intended function of the trail. SSRC, CPW, and Forest Service will coordinate on potential modifications to the Trail F alignment during project implementation.

Development of a moose management plan and communication of human-big game conflicts is included as PDC in Table 2-1 of the EIS. A component of this plan may address seasonal closures to minimize wildlife impacts.

13.7 CPW recommends that the Steamboat Ski Resort consider contributing $50,000 for wildlife habitat improvement. The primary goal for habitat improvement is to provide quality winter range for moose outside the ski area in order to draw moose that would normally spend the majority of the winter within the ski resort. This could potentially alleviate and minimize human-moose conflicts which are common at Steamboat Ski Resort and will likely increase with the development of Pioneer Ridge. CPW has been working to establish a Wildlife Habitat Improvement Local District (WHILD) endowment fund, which will be managed by the Yampa Valley Endowment Bank in Steamboat Springs. This fund can be used to pay for wildlife habitat improvement. If a monetary donation to the WHILD were not the appropriate mechanism to fund habitat improvement to reduce conflicts on the ski area between moose and humans, we would recommend a small fee on ski lift passes that would be used to contribute to the WHILD fund for the purposes mentioned above. A component of the moose management plan may address habitat improvement in order to reduce human-moose conflicts.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-41 Appendix E. Response to Comments on the DEIS

14.0 SUSTAINABILITY 14.1 The ski area already has a difficult time meeting the needs of its clients in this respect. The proposed additions only tax resources in a way that Steamboat would be lucky to see a return on investment. If this fails, then what? Now there’s a 100’ bridge steel bridge, a useless lift with concrete pilings, and miles of rotting pipes. This seems totally at odds with the sustainability direction that the average skiing guest is now looking for in a resort. Comment noted.

Steamboat Ski Resort Final Environmental Impact Statement E-42