BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

December 2009

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

Proposed Action: Responsible Official: Further Information: Buttermilk Mountain Scott Fitzwilliams Roger Poirier Forest Supervisor Winter Sports Program Manager Location: White River National Forest (970) 945-3212 White River National Forest Glenwood Springs, CO or Pitkin County, Colorado Jim Stark Winter Sports Administrator (970) 945-3314

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Aspen-Sopris Ranger District White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado

Abstract: Buttermilk Mountain (Buttermilk) is located on the White River National Forest in Pitkin County, Colorado and operates in accordance with the terms and conditions of a 40-year Ski Area Term Permit issued by the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service). This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze a proposal designed to respond to current and anticipated consumer demands for public enjoyment and operational efficiencies on lands within Buttermilk’s special use permit (SUP) area. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to enhance operation and maintenance efficiencies of on- mountain infrastructure and improve winter and summer recreational opportunities on Buttermilk. In addition, the proposal would help Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) achieve its goals of broadening the variety of winter and summer sports activities offered at Buttermilk and providing youth programs in the Aspen Valley. This would be accomplished through the following projects: 1) constructing snowmaking water storage; 2) installing snowmaking infrastructure; 3) constructing a lift maintenance facility; 4) providing trails for horseback trail rides; and 5) constructing a Nordic jump training and competition venue. This EA discusses the Purpose and Need for the proposal, the process used to develop alternatives, potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3, and project design criteria (PDC). Following review of the EA, as well as review of public and agency comments on the EA, the Forest Supervisor will make a final determination as to which alternative best serves the public interest on National Forest System lands. The Selected Alternative can be a modification of alternatives presented.

Important Notice: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period for the EA. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time, and to use the acquired information in the preparation of subsequent documentation, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Comments on the EA should be specific and should address the adequacy of the EA and the merits of the alternatives discussed (36 CFR 215.14). Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this project and will be subject to review pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Comment Period: The comment period for the EA will extend 30 calendar days from the date on which the Legal Notice is published in the paper of record—the Glenwood Post Independent. Public notice of availability has also been provided in newspapers of local distribution. Please send comments to Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, c/o Roger Poirier, 900 Grand Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO 81602, FAX (970) 945-3266. Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ...... 1-1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-2 THE NEPA PROCESS ...... 1-7 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1-8 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS ...... 1-10 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ...... 1-10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 1-11 CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY...... 1-12 Land and Resource Management Plan Consistency ...... 1-12 Forest Service Management Direction ...... 1-13 RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS ...... 1-13 DECISION TO BE MADE ...... 1-13 OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION ...... 1-14 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 2-1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 2-1 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action ...... 2-5 Alternative 3 ...... 2-13 ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ...... 2-17 Lift Maintenance Facility ...... 2-17 Alternative Snowmaking Storage Reservoir Site ...... 2-17 Alternative Nordic Jump Alignment ...... 2-17 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX ...... 2-18 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-19 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 2-27 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 3-1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3-1 A. WATER RESOURCES ...... 3-7 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-7 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3-7 Affected Environment ...... 3-8 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-28 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-40 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-43 B. SOILS, GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ...... 3-49 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-49 Affected Environment ...... 3-49 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-53 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-59 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-60 C. VEGETATION ...... 3-63 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-63 Affected Environment ...... 3-63 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-67 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-69 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-69

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents

D. WILDLIFE ...... 3-70 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-70 Affected Environment ...... 3-70 Direct And Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-79 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-88 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-94 E. RECREATION AND MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS ...... 3-95 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-95 Affected Environment ...... 3-95 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-98 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-105 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-106 F. SCENERY RESOURCES ...... 3-107 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-107 Forest Service Direction ...... 3-107 Affected Environment ...... 3-111 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-112 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-115 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-116 G. TRAFFIC, PARKING AND SKI AREA ACCESS ...... 3-129 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-129 Affected Environment ...... 3-129 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-130 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-131 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-131 H. CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 3-132 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-132 Affected Environment ...... 3-132 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-133 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-133 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 3-134 I. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 3-135 Scope of the Analysis ...... 3-135 Affected Environment ...... 3-135 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ...... 3-136 Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-136 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 3-136 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 4-1 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 4-1 Forest Service Team ...... 4-1 Consultation Team ...... 4-1 Project Proponent Representative ...... 4-2 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED ...... 4-2 Federal Government ...... 4-2 Other Entities and Organizations ...... 4-3 Other Interested Individuals ...... 4-3 5. REFERENCES ...... 5-1

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment ii Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1: ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX ...... 2-18 TABLE 2-2: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 2-20 TABLE 2-3: PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA INCORPORATED INTO THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-28

TABLE 3A-1: BUTTERMILK PROJECT AREA SUB-DRAINAGES ...... 3-9 TABLE 3A-2: EXISTING SNOWMAKING ...... 3-10 TABLE 3A-3: BUTTERMILK SNOWMAKING WATER DIVERSIONS ...... 3-10 TABLE 3A-4: EXISTING TRAILS AND SNOWMAKING ...... 3-13 TABLE 3A-5: HYDROGRAPH CHARACTERISTICS EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3-14 TABLE 3A-6: CHANGES IN YIELD AND PEAK FLOW CURRENT VS. BASELINE ...... 3-14 TABLE 3A-7: AREAS OF RILLING/GULLYING ...... 3-17 TABLE 3A-8: FIELD-SURVEYED CONNECTED GRADED AREA ...... 3-23 TABLE 3A-9: STUDY AREA WETLAND ACREAGES ...... 3-27 TABLE 3A-10: STREAM CHANNEL ACREAGE/LINEAR FEET BY TYPE ...... 3-28 TABLE 3A-11: PROPOSED ACTION SNOWMAKING AND SNOWMAKING WATER USE ...... 3-29 TABLE 3A-12: PROPOSED ACTION TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND SNOWMAKING ...... 3-30 TABLE 3A-13: PROPOSED ACTION FLOW AND YIELD CHARACTERISTICS ...... 3-31 TABLE 3A-14: CHANGES IN YIELD AND PEAK FLOW PROPOSED ACTION VS. BASELINE ...... 3-31 TABLE 3A-15: ALTERNATIVE 2 SNOWMAKING ON AREAS WITH EXISTING GULLYING AND/OR RILLING ...... 3-32 TABLE 3A-16: WATERS AND WETLANDS IMPACTS ...... 3-35 TABLE 3A-18: ALTERNATIVE 3 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND SNOWMAKING ...... 3-38 TABLE 3A-19: ALTERNATIVE 3 FLOW AND YIELD CHARACTERISTICS ...... 3-39 TABLE 3A-20: CHANGES IN YIELD AND PEAK FLOW ALTERNATIVE 3 VS. BASELINE ...... 3-39 TABLE 3A-21: ALTERNATIVE 3 SNOWMAKING ON AREAS WITH EXISTING GULLYING AND/OR RILLING ...... 3-40 TABLE 3B-1: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MAPPED SOIL UNITS WITHIN PROJECT AREA ...... 3-51 TABLE 3B-2: MANAGEMENT LIMITATIONS OF MAPPED SOIL UNITS WITHIN PROJECT AREA ...... 3-52 TABLE 3C-1: USDA-FS SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST ...... 3-65 TABLE 3C-2: 2008 BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT VEGETATION IMPACTS ...... 3-68 TABLE 3D-1: ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE STATUS OF LYNX HABITAT IN THE MAROON BELLS AND SNOWMASS LYNX ANALYSIS UNITS ...... 3-72 TABLE 3D-2: EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEPLETIONS ...... 3-73 TABLE 3D-3: R2 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES THAT OCCUR ON THE WRNF AND IN THE BUTTERMILK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AREA ...... 3-74 TABLE 3D-4: MIS ON WRNF AND THEIR POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 3-77 TABLE 3D-5: BUTTERMILK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT VEGETATION AND LYNX HABITAT IMPACTS ...... 3-81 TABLE 3D-6: DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON R2 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES RESULTING FROM ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3 ...... 3-82 TABLE 3G-1: EXISTING PARKING SPACES ...... 3-130

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment iii Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ...... 1-5 FIGURE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS...... 2-3 FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2-11 FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 3 ...... 2-15 FIGURE 5: WATER RESOURCES ...... 3-45 FIGURE 6: EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ...... 3-47 FIGURE 7: GEOLOGY ...... 3-61 FIGURE 8-A: VISUAL SIMULATION #1 MAROON CREEK TOWNHOMES ...... 3-117 FIGURE 8-B: VISUAL SIMULATION #1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS–MAROON CREEK TOWNHOMES ...... 3-119 FIGURE 9-A: VISUAL SIMULATION #2 HIGH SCHOOL FIELD ...... 3-121 FIGURE 9-B: VISUAL SIMULATION #2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS–HIGH SCHOOL FIELD ...... 3-123 FIGURE 10-A: VISUAL SIMULATION #3 HIGHWAY 82 ROUNDABOUT ...... 3-125 FIGURE 10-B: VISUAL SIMULATION #3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS–HIGHWAY 82 ROUNDABOUT ...... 3-127

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment iv List of Acronyms

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ABA Architectural Barriers Act ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AF Acre-feet A-F/Y Acre-feet per year A-F/A/Y Acre-feet per acre per year APE Area of Potential Effect ASC Aspen Skiing Company AVSC Aspen Valley Ski Club 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 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFM Cubic Feet per Minute CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet (of water) per Second CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program CNPS Colorado Native Plant Society CPTSB Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board CWA Clean Water Act CWD Course Woody Debris DAU Data Analysis Unit DBH Diameter at Breast Height DN Decision Notice EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment v List of Acronyms

ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPCA Forest Plan Consistency Analysis FR Federal Register FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FWD Fine Woody Debris GIS Geographic Information System GPD Gallons per Day GPM Gallons per Minute GPS Global Positioning System GVU General Vegetation Unit HABCAP Habitat Capability Model HCI HABCAP Model Habitat Capability Index IDT Interdisciplinary Team IF Isolated Find LAA Landscape Assessment Area LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LCAS Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LWD Large Woody Debris mg/l Milligrams Per Liter MIS Management Indicator Species MMP Mountain Master Plan MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding NDIS Natural Diversity Information System NDT Non-Destructive Testing NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1970) NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act (1966) NRHP National Register of Historic Places OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment vi List of Acronyms

PDC Project Design Criteria PEM Palustrine Emergent PPH People per Hour PSS Palustrine Shrub Scrub R2 USFS Region Two Sensitive Species RGL Regulatory Guidance Letter ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SH State Highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIO Scenic Integrity Objectives SIR Supplemental Information Report SMS Scenery Management System SOC Species of Concern SUP Special Use Permit T&E Threatened and Endangered TEP Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed TEUI Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMP Travel Management Plan TSP Total Suspended Particulates TSS Total Suspended Solids g/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USCA United States Code Annotated USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of the Interior USFS US Forest Service USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation WCPH Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment vii List of Acronyms

WIZ Water Influence Zone WOUS Waters of the U.S. WQCC Water Quality Control Commission WRIS Wildlife Resource Information System WRNF White River National Forest

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment viii Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would potentially result from implementation of either of the two action alternatives or the No Action Alternative. The document is organized into five chapters:

Purpose and Need: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Forest Service’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Description of Alternatives: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the Forest Service’s Proposed Action for achieving the stated purpose, as well as the No Action Alternative and a third Alternative. This discussion also includes project design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring measures. Finally, this chapter provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the social and environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action, Alternative 3, and the No Action Alternative. This analysis is organized by resource area. The Forest Service ID Team determined that the following resources be discussed in detail within this EA: Water Resources; Soils, Geology and Geotechnical; Vegetation; Wildlife; Recreation; Scenery; Traffic, Parking and Ski Area Access; Cultural, Archaeological and Heritage; and Environmental Justice. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation, and finally, a comparison of the effects of the action alternatives.

Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies/organizations consulted during the development of the EA.

References: This chapter provides a scientific bibliography of studies that support the environmental analysis.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-1 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

INTRODUCTION

Buttermilk Mountain Ski Area (Buttermilk) is located on the Aspen Ranger District of the White River National Forest (WRNF); approximately 2 miles west-northwest of Aspen, Colorado (refer to Figure 1-1). The ski area is owned and operated by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC), under a Special Use Permit (SUP) with the Forest Service. Buttermilk first opened to the public in 1958 with a single T-bar, and the ski area has grown through the last five decades, becoming an integral component of the skiing experience in the Aspen area and the WRNF. Buttermilk now offers approximately 470 skiable acres within its 951-acre SUP boundary, utilizing three main chairlifts (Buttermilk Express, West Buttermilk Express, and Tiehack).

According to the terms of the SUP, ASC is required to create a Master Development Plan (MDP) to identify management direction and opportunities for future management of the ski area on National Forest System (NFS) lands. ASC submitted a MDP to the Forest Service for acceptance in May 2008, which amended the 1986 MDP. However, acceptance does not constitute approval; implementation of individual projects identified in the MDP is contingent upon subsequent site-specific analysis/approval in accordance with the NEPA process. The 2008 MDP amendment incorporates planning concepts and components from previous planning documents prepared by ASC, including previous environmental analyses, as well as newly proposed projects. Contingent upon completion of this NEPA process, implementation of any newly approved projects could potentially begin as soon as 2010.

This EA discloses site-specific review of the following project components:

Additional snowmaking coverage on approximately 91 acres: Ridge Trail (18 acres), Westward Ho (10 acres), Jacob’s Ladder (6 acres), Racer’s Edge (9 acres), Tiehack Parkway (17 acres), Teaser (5 acres), Uncle Chuck’s Glade (5 acres), Savio (9 acres), Tom’s Thumb (2 acres), Javelin (7 acres) and Homestead Road (3 acre).1

Construction of one on-mountain snowmaking storage reservoir.2

Construction of a chairlift maintenance facility.

1 Snowmaking proposed under Alternative 2 includes 80 acres on NFS lands and 4 acres on private lands. The proposed snowmaking would occur on Ridge Trail, Westward Ho, Jacob’s Ladder, Racer’s Edge, Tiehack Parkway, Teaser, Uncle Chuck’s Glade, Savio, Tom’s Thumb and Homestead Road. Snowmaking proposed under Alternative 3 reduces proposed snowmaking coverage by approximately 6 acres on Savio, and proposes snowmaking on 7 acres of lower Javelin. Approximately 81 acres on NFS lands and 4 acres on private lands of proposed snowmaking is included for Alternative 3. Combined, snowmaking proposed under Alternative 2 and 3 is 87 acres on NFS lands and 4 on private lands. 2 The upper and lower snowmaking reservoirs would be 9.1 acre-feet (AF) and 8.2 AF, respectively. The upper reservoir would be located on NFS lands. The lower reservoir would be located on private lands, but is analyzed in this project as a cumulative action. The upper and lower reservoirs could be constructed independently and implementation of either reservoir would not be required if approved.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-2 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Replacement/upgrade of the existing motor room (West Buttermilk).

Summer horseback riding within the ski area on existing roads and trails.

Construction of a Nordic jump venue on the Tiehack side of the mountain, including three jumps and associated infrastructure and a surface lift.

The ―Alternatives Considered in Detail‖ section in Chapter 2 provides a full description of these proposals under the ―Alternative 2‖ heading.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-3 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

This page intentionally left blank.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-4 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-5 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-6 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

Project Background The project proposal was provided to the public in December 2007 and June 2008. During each of these scoping periods, the proposal included, among other projects, the upgrade of the Tiehack chairlifts (Upper and Lower Tiehack) to a single high-speed chairlift (Tiehack Express) and the upgrade of an existing utility line between the main Buttermilk base area and the Cliffhouse Restaurant.3 These projects were previously approved by the Forest Service in a 2001 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI). Through internal Forest Service review, including a Forest Plan consistency analysis and a wildlife assessment, the Forest Service determined that these projects did not warrant further NEPA analysis and the 2001 approval could be reaffirmed via a Supplemental Information Report (SIR).4 Therefore, the upgrade of the Tiehack lifts and the utility line are no longer included in any alternative in this EA. Furthermore, the effects of these projects are not considered in the direct and indirect effect analysis, but rather, only in the cumulative effects analysis.

In addition, grading on Uncle Chuck’s Glade trail and a terrain park overpass on Teaser trail were included in the project proposal provided to the public during the two scoping periods. In January 2009, the Forest Service ID Team identified additional snowmaking and slope stability analyses that would be required as a result of snowmaking coverage in the proposal. Furthermore, the Forest Service determined that an EA and potential approval would not be achieved during the 2009 construction season, so the Uncle Chuck’s Glade and Teaser projects were considered independent of the other EA projects scoped to the public. During the review of these two projects, the Forest Service determined these projects have minimal environmental impacts and are separate and distinct from other project included in the proposal. Therefore, to expedite the review period and permit ASC to begin grading on Uncle Chuck’s Glade trail and the terrain park overpass on Teaser in June 2009, the Forest Service approved these projects through a Categorical Exclusion and Decision Memo.5 The Forest Supervisor determined that these two projects (grading on Uncle Chuck’s Glade trail and a terrain park overpass on Teaser trail) are consistent with the category 36 CFR 220.6 (e)(3): Approval, modification, or continuation of minor special uses of National Forest System lands that require less than five contiguous acres of land. Therefore, these projects are no longer included in any alternative in this EA. Furthermore, the effects of these projects are not considered in the direct and indirect effect analysis, but rather, only in the cumulative effects analysis.

THE NEPA PROCESS

The proposed improvements constitute a federal action, which have the potential to affect the quality of the human environment on public lands administered by the Forest Service. Therefore, the proposal must be analyzed pursuant to NEPA. Under NEPA, federal agencies must carefully consider environmental

3 The reader is referred to the ―Scoping and Identification of Key Issues‖ heading in this chapter for a description of the two scoping periods. 4 The SIR is located in the project file for this EA. 5 The Categorical Exclusion and Decision Memo are located in the project file for this EA.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-7 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need concerns in their decision making process and provide relevant information to the public for review and comment.

As previously discussed, this EA has been prepared to analyze the potential site-specific direct, indirect, and cumulative effects which are anticipated to result with implementation of any of the alternatives (including the No Action and the action alternatives). Additionally, it is intended to ensure that planning reflects the opportunities and constraints posed by the immediate and surrounding area and that it minimizes potential recreation and resource conflicts.

PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The overall purpose of the proposed improvements is to enhance operation and maintenance efficiencies of on-mountain infrastructure and improve winter and summer recreational opportunities on Buttermilk. The purpose and need specific to each project component are described in the following paragraphs.

Purpose and Need #1 There is a need for water storage at Buttermilk which can provide sufficient increased instantaneous flows to meet existing and future snowmaking needs of the resort.

Buttermilk lacks a snowmaking reservoir to store water that could aid in meeting snowmaking needs during early season, lean snow years and high skier visitation times. Operationally, Buttermilk typically needs approximately 50 acres of snowmaking coverage by December 1st and strives to cover a total of 86 acres of terrain (plus terrain park features) by January 1st.6 The existing diversion rates and lack of water storage capabilities limits Buttermilk’s ability to meet these snow production demands, as the current snowmaking system is unable to maximize snowmaking production during periods of cold temperatures when snowmaking conditions are optimal.

Additional water storage is desired to allow increased snowmaking production during shorter time frames when temperatures are colder and more suitable for efficient snowmaking. Additional water storage would also reduce the need for the instantaneous water withdrawal demand on Maroon Creek.

Purpose and Need #2 There is a need for improved early season/lean year snow coverage on high priority trails.

A lack of snowmaking coverage on eastern portions of Buttermilk results in circulation problems and negatively affects the recreation experience for users.

The eastern portion (Tiehack) of Buttermilk is underutilized during the early season and lean snow years due to a lack of snow (natural and man-made). Many of the guests who access Buttermilk via the Tiehack lift system disperse to other areas of the mountain, but need to return to the Tiehack side of Buttermilk at

6 Existing snowmaking acreage is based on GIS snowmaking coverage data.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-8 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need the end of the day. This creates an unbalanced skier distribution since most guests ski in areas with existing snowmaking coverage (currently limited to Main Buttermilk). This imbalance is especially prevalent during low-snow seasons.

Ridge Trail is the prime beginner terrain at Buttermilk and therefore receives a high level of use. Although Ridge Trail currently has no snowmaking, installing infrastructure on it would provide guaranteed coverage and maintain consistent snow conditions for lower ability level guests. Snowmaking on Ridge Trail would allow all ability levels to ski and ride the mountain from top to bottom throughout the season using the Summit Express lift. Providing snowmaking coverage on Savio would supplement the coverage on Ridge Trail reducing skier densities on these popular trails. Snowmaking coverage on Homestead Road (a critical egress trail for beginner skiers) would benefit beginner skiers navigating down the upper portion of the mountain during the early season.

Teaser, Uncle Chuck’s Glade and Jacob’s Ladder currently lack snowmaking infrastructure and coverage. Therefore, meeting the demand for a top to bottom terrain park cannot be accomplished in the early season. Snowmaking infrastructure on these key trails would allow Buttermilk to create terrain park features to meet guest expectations.

Snowmaking coverage is desired on Westward Ho trail to allow lower ability level guests to ski and ride the mountain between the top of Summit Express lift and the mid-load station of the West Buttermilk Express lift. Additional snowmaking coverage would provide consistent snow conditions and would allow beginner and intermediate guests to roundtrip the West Buttermilk lift using the mid-load station. In addition to ensuring consistent snow conditions, snowmaking coverage would help disperse guests across the mountain and better accommodate skier use of Tiehack Express when it is upgraded in the future.

Racer’s Edge trail is a prime ski racing venue for the Aspen Valley Ski and Snowboard Club (AVSC) and many other regional and national racing events. Not only is snowmaking desired on Racer’s Edge to improve early season racing conditions, but racing conditions typically benefit from the firmer snow surface provided by machine-made snow.

Purpose and Need #3 There is a need for a lift maintenance facility in close proximity to the top of Buttermilk.

A portion of Buttermilk’s lift maintenance is conducted in the old West Buttermilk lift motor room. With the upgrade of lifts at Buttermilk to detachable technology over the past decade, there is insufficient space to perform necessary lift maintenance and testing. Currently, Buttermilk does not have a dedicated lift maintenance facility near the summit to facilitate more efficient access between the lifts and the maintenance facility. A facility is needed in proximity to the top (drive) terminals of the West Buttermilk Express, Summit Express, and the previously-approved Tiehack Express detachable lifts to conduct

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-9 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need routine and scheduled annual maintenance including Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) for the grip mechanisms of the detachable lifts.

Purpose and Need #4 There is a need for summer recreation opportunities on the mountain.

Buttermilk is a popular destination for summer recreationists. Even though no ASC-managed on- mountain activities are offered to guests, the base area which is on private land provides guests with a diversity of activities throughout the summer season. It is desirable for guests to have on-mountain summer recreation experiences such as horseback riding, that are compatible with the summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for the SUP area, which they might not otherwise be able to access.

Purpose and Need #5 There is a need for a Nordic jump training and competition venue for AVSC youth programs and competitors in the Aspen Valley who currently travel out of valley to train and compete. Additionally, a Nordic jump venue would broaden the variety of winter sports activities offered at Buttermilk.

There has not been a local jumping venue in the Aspen Valley since the Willoughby jump was removed from the base of Aspen Mountain in the mid-1970s. As such, Nordic jumpers must travel out of the valley to train and compete. Currently, the nearest jumping venue is on Howelson Hill in Steamboat Springs. Coupled with the AVSC Alpine Training Center, the installation of Nordic jumps would enhance the opportunities for AVSC to further develop a well-rounded program.

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered within this environmental analysis. It includes the geographical, spatial, and temporal boundaries associated with the actions, alternatives, and impacts. Individual project elements are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and illustrated in Figures 2 through 4. A detailed scope of this environmental analysis is presented at the beginning of each resource section in Chapter 3. The study area and project area encompass approximately 1,000 acres (SUP area and areas of private lands) and 100 acres, respectively.7

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

In accordance with regulatory direction and in furtherance of cooperative management among agencies charged with oversight of environmental and natural resources; federal, state, local, and tribal entities with a likely interest and/or jurisdiction in the project proposal were sent a notice of this proposal and/or consulted prior to this EA.

7 In this document, ―study area‖ refers to the extent of lands with potential to be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected by the Proposed Action. ―Project area‖ refers to the area of lands that incorporates the disturbance footprint of the Proposed Action (i.e., the implementation area).

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-10 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In December 2007, a scoping notice was mailed to 33 community residents, interested individuals, public agencies, and other organizations. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns, and issues pertaining to the Proposed Action. The scoping package provided a brief description of the Proposed Action, the Purpose and Need for action, preliminary issues raised, and an illustrative map. In addition, a legal notice was published in the newspaper of record—Glenwood Post Independent—on December 20, 2007, initiating the 30-day scoping period. The scoping package was posted on the WRNF website and an e-mail address was provided for submitting electronic comments.

Three supportive comment letters, one comment letter from the Corps of Engineers, and one letter from the EPA were received during the scoping period. During the January 30, 2008 Forest Service Interdisciplinary (ID) Team meeting, ID Team members provided additional comments on the project and discussed issues that must be analyzed in the EA. Public scoping comments received, and issues raised by the ID Team, were used to formulate potential alternatives to the Proposed Action. Through ID Team consultation it was determined that the one key issue that would drive an additional action alternative was: the erosion effects from gullying and rilling and the resulting sedimentation related to additional snowmaking on Savio. Therefore snowmaking on portions of Savio is not included in Alternative 3.

Following the close of the first 30-day public scoping period, AVSC approached ASC regarding the use of lands within ASC’s SUP boundary and private lands as a Nordic jump venue. ASC notified the Forest Service of this proposal. After reviewing this new project component the Forest Service agreed to include this action into the ongoing site-specific NEPA review process. Subsequently, the Forest Service prepared a second scoping package in June 2008 for public review and comment. The second scoping package included the original scoping letter along with a Purpose and Need and detailed description of the Nordic jump venue project components, a map of all projects proposed and a map detail of the jump venue. A legal notice was published in the—Glenwood Post Independent—on June 16, 2008, initiating the second 30-day scoping period. Again, the scoping package was posted on the WRNF website and an e-mail address was provided for submitting electronic comments.

The Forest Service received five comment letters and emails during the second scoping period. Based on the comments received, the Forest Service identified additional issues to analyze in the EA. In addition, during a site visit to the Nordic jump venue it was determined that snowmaking on lower Javelin and a longer surface lift would better accommodate athletes using the venue as well as racers training on Javelin, thus these elements were added to Alternative 3. This additional alternative (Alternative 3) is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.The issues and indicators evaluated in this EA are outlined at the beginning of Chapter 3.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-11 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY

Buttermilk operations carried out on NFS lands within the SUP area must comply with the management direction as provided in the 2002 Revised White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2002 Forest Plan). The 2002 Forest Plan includes 33 separate Management Areas for different portions of the forest based on ecological conditions, historic development, and anticipated future conditions. The Buttermilk SUP area falls within the 8.25 Management Area (Ski Areas–Existing and Potential), which directs:

“Facilities may be intensively used throughout the year to satisfy a variety of seasonal recreational demands. Base areas that serve as entrance portals are designed as gateways to public lands. Forested areas are managed as sustainable cover with a variety of species and age classes in patterns typical of the natural landscape character of the area. Protection of scenic values is emphasized through application of basic landscape aesthetics and design principles, integrated with forest management and development objectives.”8

As part of this analysis, the alternatives and Purpose and Need were reviewed to determine consistency with the 2002 forest-wide goals and objectives as well as the specific standards and guidelines for Management Area 8.25. The alternatives were compared against pertinent forest-wide and management area standards and guidelines; no inconsistencies between the proposal and pertinent standards and guidelines were identified. The Forest Plan consistency analysis is contained in the official project file.

The Purpose and Need is consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan general recreation standards and guidelines. The 2002 Forest Plan (p. 2-31) acknowledges an increasing demand for recreation on the WRNF:

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

Furthermore, the Purposed and Need is consistent with the theme of Management Area 8.25 (p. 3-80):

“Ski areas are developed and operated by the private sector to provide opportunities for intensively managed outdoor recreation activities during all seasons of the year. This management area also includes areas with potential for future development.”

8 USDA Forest Service, 2002a

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-12 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The enabling authorities for the Forest Service are contained in many laws enacted by Congress and in the regulations and administrative directives that implement these laws.9 These authorities allow the Forest Service to provide recreation opportunities to facilitate the use, enjoyment, and appreciation of National Forests.

The Forest Service is authorized to approve certain uses of NFS lands under the terms of SUPs.10 Generally, SUPs for recreational developments are issued and administered for uses that serve the public, promote public health and safety, and protect the environment.

RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS

This EA incorporates by reference previous NEPA documents pertaining to previously-approved activities within the Buttermilk SUP area:

2001 Buttermilk Ski Area Proposed Improvements EA and Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI).

2008 Supplemental Information Report–2001 Buttermilk Ski Area Proposed Improvements EA.

2009 Categorical Exclusion–Uncle Chuck’s Glade Grading and Terrain Park Overpass on Teaser Trail.

DECISION TO BE MADE

This EA is not a decision document, rather it documents the site-specific environmental analysis for the two action alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative. The responsible official for this project is the WRNF Forest Supervisor. Based on the analysis documented within this EA, the responsible official will decide whether to approve, in whole or in part, either action alternative, or select the No Action Alternative. The Forest Supervisor is not required to choose either an action alternative or the No Action Alternative described in this EA but may select components of an action alternative or develop an entirely new alternative created from components of the No Action and the action alternatives analyzed in this document. A Decision Notice (DN) will document the responsible official’s decision. The decision will also include a determination of the significance of the effects and document the decision’s consistency with the 2002 Forest Plan.

In addition to determining whether or not to approve implementation of an action alternative analyzed in this document, the Forest Supervisor will also specify project design criteria to be implemented with the

9 These laws include: the Organic Administrative Act (1897), the Weeks Act (1911), the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974), the National Forest Management Act (1976), and the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act (1986). 10 16 USC 497

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-13 Chapter 1: Purpose and Need selection of an action alternative. The Forest Supervisor may also require additional project design criteria not discussed within this document.

OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION11

This EA is designed to serve as an analysis document for parallel processes at several levels of government. The Forest Service decision would apply only to NFS lands analyzed within this EA. However, potential effects resulting from implementation of an action alternative on lands and activities administered by other federal, state, and local jurisdictions are also disclosed within this EA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed protocols for the delineation of wetlands. These procedures were followed for the delineation of wetlands within or adjacent to project element areas.

Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this EA. While the Forest Service assumes no responsibility for enforcing laws, regulations, or ordinances 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, the following permits or approvals may be required to implement an action alternative:

State of Colorado, Stormwater Management Plan

Pitkin County, General Construction Permit(s)

United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit for any wetland impacts

11 Per 40 CFR 1502.25(b)

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 1-14 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, and Alternative 3. It includes a discussion of how alternatives were developed, an overview of project design criteria, mitigation and monitoring measures, a description of each alternative considered in detail, and a comparison of these alternatives. Chapter 2 is intended to present the alternatives in comparative form, defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the responsible official.12

Information used to compare alternatives at the end of Chapter 2 is summarized from Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. Chapter 3 contains the detailed scientific basis for establishing baselines and measuring the potential environmental consequences of each of the alternatives.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL13

The range of alternatives the Forest Service ID Team considered for this analysis was bound by the Purpose and Need underlying the Proposed Action, as well as by the issues that arose from internal and external scoping (detailed in Chapter 1). NEPA requires that an environmental analysis examine a range of alternatives, which are “reasonably related to the purpose of the project.”14 Furthermore, Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 directs the ID Team to “consider a full range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that address the significant issues and meet the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action.”15

Alternatives that are considered, but are not reasonable, have been eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for their elimination.16 A discussion of alternatives and design components considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, follows the description of alternatives considered in detail.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative essentially reflects a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. No new recreational opportunities, facilities, snowmaking infrastructure or stream health/trail condition improvements would be implemented as a result of this analysis.

12 40 CFR 1502.14 13 Refer to Table 2-1: Alternative Comparison Matrix for a summary of the differences between the three alternatives. 14 40 CFR 1502.14(a) 15 USDA Forest Service, 2008c 16 40 CFR 1502.14(a)

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-1 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

The following discussion is focused on existing facilities, operations and opportunities relative to the Proposed Action. For a map of the existing facilities and operations, refer to Figure 2–Existing Conditions, located at the end the No Action narrative.

Snowmaking Reservoir Capacity

Presently, Buttermilk diverts snowmaking water from Maroon Creek at a diversion point located approximately 400 feet east of the lower terminal of the existing Lower Tiehack lift. The maximum diversion rate is 2,700 gallons per minute (gpm). On average, Buttermilk diverts approximately 139 acre feet [AF] (45 million gallons) of water for snowmaking each year. Buttermilk lacks a snowmaking reservoir that could assist snowmaking efforts during early season and periods of high skier volume. Operationally, Buttermilk typically needs to cover approximately 50 acres of terrain by December 1st and cover a total of 86 acres of terrain (plus terrain park features) by January 1st. With the existing system, meeting these production targets is sometimes difficult because Buttermilk is limited in its ability to maximize snowmaking production during periods of cold temperatures when snowmaking conditions are optimal. The No Action Alternative does not include the development of a snowmaking storage reservoir on NFS lands.

Snowmaking Coverage

Buttermilk currently maintains approximately 86 acres of snowmaking coverage on seven ski trails, including Eagle Hill, Homestead Road, Bear, Lover’s Lane, Baby Doe, Government, and Spruce. No additional snowmaking coverage is proposed under the No Action Alternative.

Lift Maintenance Facility

Buttermilk’s lift maintenance is conducted in the old West Buttermilk lift motor room. The upstairs of the motor room is also used as a skier warming hut. Under the No Action Alternative, lift maintenance would continue at the West Buttermilk motor room and continuous Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), utilizing x- ray technology, for the grip mechanisms of the detachable lifts, would continue to be limited in space.

Summer Recreation

Since 2007, Buttermilk has conducted horseback trail rides from June to September authorized under the ski area summer operating plan on a trial basis. Guest use is approximately 30 riders per day. Under the No Action Alternative, the permit for horseback trail rides on NFS land would likely not be reauthorized. In addition, the base area (located on private lands) offers a variety of activities in a more urban setting.

Nordic Jump Venue

Although presently there is not a Nordic jump venue in the valley, Buttermilk is home to the Alpine Training Center and the freestyle venue which has hosted the ESPN Winter X Games at Buttermilk since 2002. The No Action Alternative does not include the construction of a Nordic jump venue.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-2 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

FIGURE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-3 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-4 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 2 – THE PROPOSED ACTION

For a map of the Proposed Action components, refer to Figure 3–Proposed Action, located at the end the Alternative 2 narrative.

Snowmaking Reservoir Capacity

As stated under the No Action Alternative, operationally, Buttermilk typically needs roughly 50 acres of snowmaking coverage by December 1st, and a total of approximately 86 acres of coverage (plus creation of terrain park features) by January 1st.

Water storage would allow increased snowmaking production during periods of cold temperatures, while not increasing instantaneous demand upon Maroon Creek. In order to meet this need, two on-mountain water impoundments are proposed for construction (one on NFS lands and one on private lands) at a general elevation of approximately 8,500 feet, at a location near the existing compressor building west of Homestead Road.17 The lined reservoirs would provide approximately 5.6 million gallons (17.3 AF) of combined storage. Both locations would utilize existing natural depressions and would be enlarged by excavating material to deepen the depressions.

The upper reservoir, located entirely on NFS lands, would have a capacity of approximately 9.1 AF. It would be constructed with an extra heavy duty to liner to prevent leaking and would require the construction of an earthen dam that would be designed to withstand potential shear forces. Material generated by excavation of the lower reservoir would be used only if it meets specifications in the final design. The dam would be approximately 20 feet high and roughly 120 feet wide (the top of the dam would be on contour with the adjacent ski trail) to fill the notch within the existing terrain, and would fall under the design criteria established by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources dam safety regulations. Project design criteria (PDC) related to construction, use and maintenance of the reservoirs are described in detail in Table 2-3.

The lower reservoir, located entirely on private lands outside the SUP area, would have a capacity of approximately 8.2 AF. Although the lower reservoir is not within the decision space of the Forest Service responsible official, environmental effects associated with its construction, maintenance and use are included in the cumulative effects analysis of this EA.

The reservoirs could be constructed independently and ASC would maintain the ability to construct either or both reservoirs (should the Proposed Action be approved), as long as the effects are within the range of what is analyzed in this EA and all other regulatory agency approvals are acquired.

17 Two reservoirs are proposed as opposed to one due to the two natural depressions that are present on the landscape.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-5 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Wetland impacts (approximately 0.11 acre) associated with the construction of the upper reservoir site will be mitigated on-site through the creation of wetlands on the southern end of the upper reservoir which is an ideal location due to its minimal slope and proximate hydrology source. The existing wetland that would be impacted is primarily an open water wetland (minimal vegetation due to the duration of inundation) with a fringe shrub wetland layer (willows). The wetland mitigation site would be an herbaceous/shrub wetland totaling approximately 0.15 acre. Wetland hydrology would be provided by the bisecting intermittent stream that would provide a hydrologic input during a sufficient portion of the growing season. The wetland mitigation site would be created concurrent with wetland impacts.

Snowmaking Coverage

Additional snowmaking coverage is proposed on approximately 80 acres of NFS lands within the SUP area and on 4 acres of private lands. This increase would augment Buttermilk’s existing snowmaking coverage of approximately 86 acres, bringing total snowmaking coverage to approximately 170 acres. The proposed snowmaking installation would occur on the following trails: Ridge Trail (18 acres), Westward Ho (10 acres), Jacob’s Ladder (6 acres), Racer’s Edge (9 acres), Tiehack Parkway (17 acres), Teaser (5 acres), Uncle Chuck’s Glade (5 acres), Savio (9 acres), Tom’s Thumb (2 acres), and Homestead Road (3 acre).18 It is intended that the proposed snowmaking installation would ensure consistent conditions for beginner and novice guests that frequent Buttermilk, and maintain satisfactory snow cover on the aforementioned trails.

In addition to ensuring high-quality snow conditions, snowmaking coverage on these slopes would help to disperse guests across the mountain and better accommodate skier use of the previously-approved Tiehack Express.

An approximately 60-foot wide (approximately 28,000 linear feet for all proposed snowmaking) temporary disturbance corridor is typically necessary to install the snowmaking pipelines. However, ASC and the Forest Service will work to minimize the disturbance corridor to the greatest extent practicable. All disturbed areas would be fully restored and re-vegetated according to the ASC Revegetation Plan and Forest Plan direction.

Field observations revealed that concentrated flows originating in Ridge Trail and Savio are contributing to downcutting and fine sediment transport along approximately 800 feet the existing channel between Ridge and Savio (refer to the Proposed Action figure). Restoration and/or armoring of identified segments of the channel that may be subject to downcutting/sediment loading along would better enable the intermittent stream channel to withstand potential increased flows from the proposed new snowmaking

18 These totals include coverage on private lands: 2 acres on Racer’s Edge and 2 acres on Jacob’s Ladder; Snowmaking on a segment of Homestead Road was not initially part of the Proposed Action. During EA planning and analysis it was determined that new snowmaking infrastructure on Lover’s Lane would impact wetlands within the trail. Installing snowmaking infrastructure on Homestead Road would avoid impacts to stream channels and wetlands.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-6 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives and the resultant possibility of downcutting/sediment loading. Refer to the PDC table in this chapter for a more detailed discussion of this project component.

Currently, snowmaking on general trails at Buttermilk is applied at a rate of 1.1 acre feet of water per acre (AF/ac). Alternatively, trails with terrain park features receive 1.7 AF/ac. To minimize the increase in water yield on historic landslides on Buttermilk Mountain, proposed snowmaking application rates would be reduced in identified landslide micro-drainages (refer to Figure 7).

Proposed snowmaking within the Zone A micro-drainage (refer to Figure 7 in Chapter 3B for “Landslide Micro-drainage Zones”) would receive 0.825 acre feet per acre of water (a 25 percent reduction) to cover trails with man-made snow. Proposed snowmaking within the Zone C micro-drainage (refer to Figure 7 in Chapter 3B for “Landslide Micro-drainage Zones”) would receive 0.825 acre feet per acre of water (a 25 percent reduction) to cover general trails and 1.275 acre feet per acre of water (a 25 percent reduction) to cover terrain park trails with man-made snow.

Additionally, a depth of snow equivalent to any man-made snow added would be mechanically pushed off of the amphitheater-shaped bowl within Zone A prior to peak snowmelt at the end of the ski season (refer to Table 2-3).

Lift Maintenance Facility

A new lift maintenance facility is proposed to be located approximately 500 feet west of the Cliffhouse Restaurant, between Tom’s Thumb and Ridge Trail. This single-level, approximately 3,000 square foot facility would have a 0.5-acre shop yard, including a 30-foot wide paved apron and access from the adjacent mountain road. The facility would provide maintenance services in close proximity to the top (drive) terminals of the West Buttermilk, Summit Express, and Tiehack Express detachable lifts, which require on-going and scheduled annual maintenance. A key component of the maintenance facility is the continuous NDT for the grip mechanisms of the detachable lifts.

An approximate 300 foot utility line extension with electricity, sewer, and gas is proposed to run from the Cliffhouse Restaurant to power the facility. The proposed facility would utilize water from the water storage tank located northeast of the West Buttermilk top terminal on skier’s right of Tom’s Thumb ski trail.

The installation of the proposed lift maintenance facility would result in replacing/refurbishing the existing old West Buttermilk motor room, located proximate to the West Buttermilk lift top terminal, with a facility that would accommodate existing skier use as a warming hut.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-7 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Summer Recreation

The Proposed Action includes continuation of summer horseback trail rides on Buttermilk as a permanent use, currently allowed on a trial basis during 2007 through 2009. The trail riding season would run from June 1st through September 30th, operating seven days/week between 8 am and 5 pm. A corral would be located on private lands approximately 150 yards above the main Buttermilk buildings. Trail rides would utilize existing summer roads and trails within the ski area boundary, allowing guests to ride a short trail loop (2.8 miles), a mid-length loop (3.6 miles) or a longer trail loop (5.2 miles) onto ski area and return to the base.

Anticipated guest use would total approximately 30 riders per day. Horses would only graze on private lands.

Nordic Jump Venue

A Nordic jump venue is proposed to be constructed between the lower portions of Racer’s Edge and Javelin trails on the Tiehack side of Buttermilk. The venue would consist of three permanent jump structures, a 65 meter (m), 35 m and 15 m jump; two seasonal, beginner jumps measuring 5 m and 10 m constructed entirely of snow; three 10 ft by 10 ft coaching platforms; a judging building; a surface lift; and a short segment of access road.

The jump venue would only operate in the winter season during daylight hours (i.e., no lighting or summer use is proposed), but may be open after normal ski area operating hours. The jumping venue would be monitored and operated by AVSC under the general management of the Aspen Skiing Company.

Nordic Jumps The 65 m and 35 m jumps would consist of a raised structure 18 feet wide at the top where the athlete loads, and 10 feet wide at the jump track. Athletes would access the 65 m in-run (jump structure) via a staircase at the top of the jump. A concrete foundation would be required at the base of each piling of the jump. The 65 m jump structure would be approximately 220 feet in length and 50 feet tall at its highest point. The 35 m and 15 m structures would be approximately 120 feet in length and 10 feet tall at its highest point. The 35 m and 15 m jump in-run structure would be constructed nearly on grade with existing terrain. For training and competition, elevated coaching platforms would be constructed adjacent to each jump, measuring approximately 10 feet tall. A two story building measuring 20 feet by 12 feet would be constructed on private land to house judging operations.

Approximately 0.5 acre of NFS lands would be disturbed by excavation, grading and construction related to the jump venue (and access road, discussed below), including approximately 0.25 acre of overstory vegetation clearing. Construction of the in-run of the 65 m and 15 m jumps would require approximately 500 cubic yards of fill on NFS land.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-8 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

The lower portion of the jump venue would be located on private land. Ground disturbance related to excavation, grading and construction on private land would total approximately 2 acres, including approximately 1 acre of overstory vegetation clearing. Approximately 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards of excavation, re-grading or re-contouring would be required to accomplish the desired slope and length for the 65 m jump. This material would be used to shape the run-outs of the three jumps, creating a gradual uphill run-out typical of Nordic Jumps. The in-runs of the 35 m and 15 m jumps can be built close to, if not completely, on-grade.

Surface Lift The jump venue would be serviced by one 500 foot long “platter” surface lift to provide repeat use of the jumps by the athletes. Approximately 180 feet of the surface lift would be located on NFS lands and would require minor grading along the lift corridor to reduce side slope and/or break-overs to allow efficient use by riders. The platter surface lift would be constructed and managed to comply with Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB) rules and regulations. The lift is located in a central position to all jumps; athletes would hike from the top of this lift to the jump locations. Furthermore, athletes using the 65 m jump would contour from the top of the surface lift to the jump structure and walk beneath, to the staircase.

Access Road A service road measuring approximately 875 feet in length would be required to access the jump structures. Part of the road alignment would use an existing maintenance road; a new road spur would be constructed to a location proximate to the top terminal of the surface lift and the top of the 35 m jump. Ground disturbance related to the road is anticipated to be approximately one-third of an acre, entirely on NFS lands.

Project Design Elements Jump structures would be constructed of wood and steel (when structurally required) and concrete column footing structures. The jump structures, coaching platform, and judges building would be colored to match the surrounding landscape (based on summer colors). Disturbed slopes (not to exceed 2:1) required to achieve the appropriate gradients would be revegetated with native plants and seeding/plantings; overstory vegetation clearing would occur in strategic locations. All clearing for jump corridors into existing tree stands would include “feathered” edges to minimize scenery impacts. The construction and maintenance of the proposed road would include proper drainage control features.

Maintenance and Operations Snowmaking associated with the Nordic jump venue would require a snowmaking line to be attached to each jump structure to maintain coverage of the track. The entire venue would be fenced off from the Racer’s Edge and Javelin ski trails, maintaining traffic flow on these trails similar to existing conditions.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-9 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Spectators would be required to walk or ski to the venue, which would be visible from lower Racer’s Edge.

The previously-approved Tiehack Express Lift would run during training and competition. The Tiehack Express lift would be engineered to span the jump venue at an elevation that would meet CPTSB requirements and provide appropriate clearance for the jump venue.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-10 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-11 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-12 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 3

Alternative 3 responds to environmental and recreational issues raised during scoping. Alternative 3 evolved throughout this NEPA process as on-site field verification conducted by resource specialists, mountain planners and Forest Service ID Team members revealed the unique resource and mountain planning challenges within certain project areas. For a map of the project components proposed under this alternative, refer to Figure 4–Alternative 3, located at the end the Alternative 3 narrative. This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action with the exception of the following:

Snowmaking Coverage

To respond to issues raised regarding stream health and soil conditions, Alternative 3 does not include snowmaking on portions of Savio (refer to Figure 4). This is a reduction of approximately 6 acres of snowmaking on the Main Buttermilk side of the mountain. With this reduction in proposed snowmaking coverage, the snowmaking application rate within Landslide Micro-Drainage Zone C would not need to be reduced below the existing snowmaking application rate of 1.1 AF/ac on general trails and 1.7 AF/ac on trails with terrain park features.

Approximately 7 acres of snowmaking is proposed on Javelin trail to accommodate the Nordic jump venue and race training (see below for further discussion). With this addition snowmaking coverage on Javelin, the proposed snowmaking application rate within Landslide Micro-Drainage Zone A would need to be reduced by 40 percent, from 1.1 to 0.7 AF/ac. Similar to the Proposed Action, man-made snow applied to the area tributary to the amphitheater-shaped bowl would be mechanically removed prior to peak snowmelt.

Therefore, a total of approximately 81 acres of snowmaking on NFS lands are proposed for Alternative 3.

Nordic Jump Venue

To respond to issues raised regarding the Nordic jump athlete training experience, Alternative 3 includes several differences from the Proposed Action, including an extended surface lift to a higher elevation and snowmaking on Javelin trail.

Surface Lift A surface lift is proposed from the landing area of the Nordic jumps (identical to the Proposed Action) to a natural bench approximately 970 feet from the bottom terminal. The extended surface lift would allow improved access to the 65 m and 35 m jumps as athletes would disengage from the platter lift approximately on contour with the top of the jump structure, eliminating a vertical hike. Vegetation clearing (18 feet in width to accommodate a grooming machine) is proposed between the top of the 65 m to where athletes would disengage from the surface lift to allow direct access. The extended surface lift could also be utilized by the AVSC for roundtrip alpine training purposes on Javelin trail.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-13 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

To accommodate temporary construction access to the surface lift top terminal, another road in addition to the access road proposed in the Proposed Action would be used. This second road would use the existing maintenance road and an existing (abandoned) two-track road to access the top terminal of the surface lift. No additional ground disturbance would be necessary for the use of this abandoned two-track road.

Snowmaking As stated above, snowmaking is proposed on approximately 7 acres of Javelin trail under Alternative 3. This snowmaking would accommodate more efficient round-trip skiing on Javelin trail for the AVSC race team. In addition, the installation of permanent snowmaking infrastructure on lower Javelin would provide coverage for the proposed surface lift track.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-14 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 3

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-15 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-16 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS LIFT MAINTENANCE FACILITY

Early in the planning process, an alternative lift maintenance facility location was identified west of the West Buttermilk Express top terminal. The project wildlife biologists determined that the site would create unnecessary impacts to Canada lynx habitat. Therefore, this location was removed from further site-specific analysis.

ALTERNATIVE SNOWMAKING STORAGE RESERVOIR SITE

During a site reconnaissance, an alternative snowmaking reservoir site was identified on the east side of Jacob’s Ladder trail. The site is relatively flat and near an existing ski trail. Because the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 snowmaking storage reservoir site would involve the impact of a relatively low quality, 0.11 acre, open water wetland, this alternative site was considered in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 that each requires the avoidance and minimization of wetlands. The alternative location was eliminated from further site-specific analysis due to its proximity to a higher quality kettle pond wetland, and existing benefits of the reservoir site in the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. The Proposed Action and Alternative 3 sites possess existing depressions (limiting necessary cut and fill requirements with excavation), would have less overstory vegetation removal requirement, and is immediately adjacent to previously-disturbed soils (minimizing new disturbance for power and plumbing). The proximity of the higher quality kettle pond to the alternative reservoir site was a concern because the kettle pond is groundwater fed. Furthermore, altering adjacent groundwater flows through the excavation of a reservoir could indirectly impact the existing kettle pond.

Other reservoir sites, on and off-site of the ski area, were considered through a study of aerial photography. Aerial photography indicates that sites proximate to Buttermilk do not possess the qualities of the proposed site. The proposed site will require less overstory vegetation removal (lynx habitat) and excavation that could affect groundwater flows. In addition, it was determined that having an on-site snowmaking reservoir would require less infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, pump stations, and utility corridors) than an off-site location. Additional infrastructure could create impacts to overstory vegetation (wildlife habitat) removal, hydrology/erosion effects, and soil compaction. The proposed site was determined to be the least environmentally damaging site when taking overall resource effects into account.

ALTERNATIVE NORDIC JUMP ALIGNMENT

Alternative Nordic jump alignments were considered to address overstory vegetation removal and scenery impacts associated with the proposed 65 m jump structure. The Nordic jump design team considered different alignments during a site visit on September 24, 2008, but due to the amount of additional ground

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-17 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

disturbance that would be required by moving the top of the jump structure to the east or west, the alternative was eliminated from further site-specific analysis.

ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX

Table 2-1 is provided to aid the reader in comparing and contrasting each of the three alternatives by project element.

Table 2-1: Alternative Comparison Matrix Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action SUP Boundary (acres) 951 951 951 Ski Area Comfortable Carrying 4,000 4,000 4,000 Capacity (CCC) (guests) 1 proposed 500-foot 1 proposed 970-foot Aerial and Surface Lifts 9 existing liftsa surface lift surface lift No Additional Coverage: 80 additional acres on 81 additional acres on Snowmaking Coverage 86 acres existing NFS lands NFS lands Ridge Trail No Yes: 18 acres Same as Alternative 2 Westward Ho No Yes: 10 acres Same as Alternative 2 Jacob’s Ladder No Yes: 4 acres Same as Alternative 2 Racer’s Edge No Yes: 7 acres Same as Alternative 2 Tiehack Parkway No Yes: 17 acres Same as Alternative 2 Teaser No Yes: 5 acres Same as Alternative 2 Uncle Chuck’s Glade No Yes: 5 acres Same as Alternative 2 Savio No Yes: 9 acres Yes: 3 acres Tom’s Thumb No Yes: 2 acres Same as Alternative 2 Homestead Road No Yes: 3 acres Same as Alternative 2 Lower Javelin (Nordic Jump Venue) No No: 0 acre Yes: 7 acres Yes: 2 Reservoirs Reservoir capacity on Snowmaking Storage Reservoirs No NFS lands: 9.1 AF Same as Alternative 2 Reservoir capacity on private lands: 8.2 AF Conducted in the old New 3,000 sq. ft. Lift Maintenance Facility West Buttermilk lift Same as Alternative 2 building motor room Yes: 65m, 35m, and Yes: 65m, 35m, and 15m jumps, 500-foot 15m jumps, 970-foot surface lift, one access surface lift, two access road (no grading roads (no grading Nordic Jump Venue No necessary), necessary), 0.9 acre of disturbance 0.9 acre of disturbance on NFS lands and 1.6 on NFS lands and 1.6 acres of disturbance on acres of disturbance on private land private land

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-18 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-1: Alternative Comparison Matrix Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Horseback trail rides (permanent No Summer: 11.6 miles Same as Alternative 2 use) Yes: 800 linear feet Stream channel restoration and/or No segment, where Same as Alternative 2 armoring appropriate a Nine lifts account for the number of lifts in 2009. The previously-approved Tiehack Express would replace two lifts; thereby reducing the lift total under the No Action Alternative to eight lifts.

SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE

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

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-19 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action

WATERSHED 86 additional (83 on NFS lands, 3 on 92 additional (88 on NFS lands, 4 on Water diversions for snowmaking (AF) 132 (20 on NFS lands, 112 on private) private) for a total of 218 AF private) for a total of 224 AF Acres of snowmaking proposed on identified areas of existing rilling and gullying (note: erosion problems would 1.4 acres with existing snowmaking 5.2 acres 4.1 acres be addressed before snowmaking would occur) Stream health (maintain or improve) Maintain Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 WETLANDS 0.11 acre of an open water wetland with a palustrine emergent/shrub scrub Narrative description of wetland wetland fringe would be impacted due to communities and riparian area development of the snowmaking classifications and quantification/ No wetland impacts would occur reservoir. Restoration and/or armoring Same as Alternative 2 disclosure of anticipated temporary and of identified segments of 800 feet of an permanent impacts (acres/linear feet) existing degraded intermittent stream channel would be armored for stream restoration purposes, where appropriate. Assessment of on-site wetland 0.15 acre of PSS/PEM wetland creation mitigation, including quantification and N/A adjacent to the proposed snowmaking Same as Alternative 2 qualification of the wetland mitigation reservoirs. site

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-20 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action

GEO-TECHNICAL Proposed snowmaking would increase the water yield within the Slide A sub- watershed by approximately 5%. A 5% Proposed snowmaking for Alternative 3 increase would be achieved by reducing would increase the water yield within the the normal snowmaking application rate Slide A sub-watershed by approximately for proposed coverage by 25% within 5%. A 5% increase would be achieved by the Slide A sub-watershed (application reducing the normal snowmaking rate would equal 0.825 AF/ac). application rate for proposed snowmaking Additional PDCs would offset water by 40% within the Slide A sub-watershed effects of snowmaking on Slide A. (application rate would equal 0.7 AF/ac). Additional PDCs would offset water Existing snowmaking drains onto Slide Proposed snowmaking would increase effects of snowmaking on Slide A. C during snowmelt. Independent of the water yield within the Slide C sub- Risk of reactivation of known landslides snowmaking this landslide has a low- watershed by approximately 5%. A 5% Proposed snowmaking for Alternative 3 due to snowmaking. moderate chance for reactivation in the increase would be achieved by reducing would increase the water yield within the form of slope creep. the normal snowmaking application rate Slide C sub-watershed by approximately for proposed snowmaking by 25% 5%. A 5% increase would be achieved within the Slide C sub-watershed on due to the 6 acres of reduced snowmaking NFS lands (application rate would equal coverage on Savio. 0.825 AF/ac on general trails and 1.275 AF/ac on terrain park trails). With PDCs, Alternative 3 is consistent with Forest Plan direction and risk of With PDCs, the Proposed Action is reactivation would not increase above a consistent with Forest Plan direction and 5% threshold compared to existing risk of reactivation would not increase conditions. above a 5% threshold compared to existing conditions.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-21 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Jump venue construction and operations Analysis of slope stability and are not anticipated to impact movement No geologic constraints geological constraints associated with of the Slide A (Tiehack); with Same as Alternative 2 (no Nordic jump). the Nordic jump venue implementation of PDC, the jump venue would not be impacted by the Slide A. VEGETATION Quantification (acres) and qualification No TEP or R2 sensitive plant species of existing TEP and R2 sensitive plant Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 were identified in the area. habitat by species No TEP or R2 sensitive plant habitat Quantification of total proposed habitat was identified in the area; therefore, 0 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 alteration (acres) by species acres of habitat alteration would occur. WILDLIFE The lift maintenance facility and The lift maintenance facility and snowmaking reservoirs would remove snowmaking reservoirs would remove 1.83 acres of “winter forage” and “other 1.83 acres of “winter forage” and “other suitable” lynx habitat. suitable” lynx habitat.

Impacts to R2 species habitat Impacts to R2 species habitat Pygmy shrew: Pygmy shrew: 1.17 acres tree clearing and 39.2 acres 1.17 acres tree clearing and 41.0 acres Quantification (acres) and qualification temporary ground disturbance temporary ground disturbance of altered/removed terrestrial wildlife No impact to wildlife habitat. Northern goshawk: Northern goshawk: habitat by species 2.90 acres of disturbance 2.95 acres of disturbance Boreal owl: Boreal owl: 0.76 acre tree clearing 0.76 acre tree clearing Olive-sided flycatcher: Olive-sided flycatcher: 0.76 acre tree clearing 0.76 acre tree clearing Flammulated owl: Flammulated owl: 2.0 acres of disturbance 2.1 acres of disturbance Purple martin: Purple martin: 1.8 acres of disturbance 1.9 acres of disturbance

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-22 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Boreal Toad: Boreal Toad: 1.0 acre tree clearing 1.0 acre tree clearing Impacts to MIS species habitat Impacts to MIS species habitat Elk: Elk: remove 2.46 acres of summer habitat. remove 2.49 acres of summer habitat. Canada lynx: may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx. For R2 sensitive pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl and purple martin: “may adversely impact individuals, Determination of impacts for terrestrial N/A but is not likely to result in a loss of Same as Alternative 2 TEP, R2 and MIS viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.” MIS elk: since there would be no impact to winter range or calving areas, Alternative 2 would have no impacts to elk populations or habitat.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-23 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Proposed snowmaking coverage and Proposed snowmaking coverage and reservoir storage on NFS lands under reservoir storage on NFS lands under Alternative 2 would result in 83.2 AF of Alternative 3 would result in 87.6 AF of Quantification and qualification of diversions and 21.6 AF of depletions. diversions and 22.8 AF of depletions. snowmaking water diversions and Current consulted upon water Alternative 2 may adversely impact Alternative 3 may adversely impact effects to Colorado River Fish due to depletions: 48 AF. individuals, but would not likely result individuals, but would not likely result in water depletions in a lack of viability in the planning a lack of viability in the planning area, area, nor cause a trend towards Federal nor cause a trend towards Federal listing listing or a loss of species viability or a loss of species viability rangewide. rangewide. RECREATION Alternative 3 includes an additional 81 acres of snowmaking on NFS lands and 4 Proposed Action includes an additional acres of snowmaking on private lands that 80 acres of snowmaking on NFS lands will allow the use of the three primary 86 acres existing snowmaking, limited to and 4 acres of snowmaking on private lifts during the early season/low snow Quantification of existing and proposed the bottom half of the Summit Express lands that will allow the use of the three years. Snowmaking would be offered on snowmaking coverage and the effects to lift pod and on Lower Tiehack, which primary lifts during the early season/low 171 acres. Without snowmaking on skier densities and dispersal across the creates higher skier densities on certain snow years. Snowmaking would be portions of Savio, congestion would ski area trails and prohibits even skier dispersal offered on 170 acres. This will in turn remain during busy periods on Savio due across the ski area. improve skier dispersal and reduce skier to a snowmaking coverage width of 100– densities. 150 feet in certain areas. Snowmaking on Javelin trail would assist athletes’ training. The construction of the Nordic jump The Alternative 3 Nordic jumping venue venue would improve the overall would improve the athletes’ experience training capabilities of athletes in the over Alternative 2. Alternative 3 includes Nordic jumping athletes (currently 10 to Analysis of anticipated changes to the Aspen Valley, as well as athletes on the a longer surface lift that would expedite 15 athletes) would continue to travel athlete training capabilities within the Western Slope, due to the minimal athlete training by allowing round trip use outside of the Aspen Valley to train and Aspen Valley amount of traveling required to train. In in a more efficient manner. Also, compete. addition, athlete participation is Alternative 3 includes snowmaking on anticipated to grow in the future as Javelin that would improve alpine race training and development progresses. training for the ski club.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-24 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action The Nordic jump venue would be located primarily between Racer’s Edge Identical to Alternative 2, with the and Javelin trails. The entire jump venue exception of the length of the proposed would be adequately fenced to separate surface lift. Under Alternative 3, the top Evaluate the effects of the Nordic jump The Nordic jump venue would not be uses. The venue would not affect skier terminal of the surface lift would be at an venue to skiers on Racer’s Edge, constructed; therefore, no effects are flow on Racer’s Edge and the area that existing bench on Javelin. The location of Javelin, and Lower Tiehack anticipated on adjacent ski trails. would be closed on Javelin is fairly flat the top terminal would be on the skier’s and not heavily utilized by guests. right edge of the trail and would not Therefore, only negligible effects to degrade the skiing experience on Javelin. skier circulation are anticipated. No new summer recreational activities Quantification and assessment of The proposed horseback trail ride proposed. The “trial” horseback rides existing and potential summer program would improve the recreational Same as Alternative 2 program would not be permitted for recreational activities offerings at Buttermilk. permanent use. Documentation of compliance with the Compliant with the Accessibility Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 “Accessibility Guidebook” Guidebook. SCENERY Documentation of the incremental effects to the scenic environment (as analyzed from critical viewpoints) Proposed projects would not resulting from implementation of the No effect significantly degrade the quality of the Same as Alternative 2 proposed projects compared to historic scenic environment. landscape alterations within the SUP area Documentation of compliance with a Compliant with and exceeds the SIO Remains compliant with and exceeds the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) of very designation of very low in several SIO designation of very low with the Same as Alternative 2 low under the existing conditions and instances. implementation of proposed projects. the action alternatives Several existing facilities may not fully The Nordic jump venue and associated Documentation of compliance with the meet the guidelines of the BEIG. No infrastructure would meet the BEIG, as Same as Alternative 2 Built Environment Image Guide new facilities are included in the No practicable. Action Alternative.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-25 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-2: Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indicator Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action

TRAFFIC Quantification of daily traffic volumes Existing baseline of 250 vehicle trips per 270 vehicle trips per day on Tiehack on Tiehack Road, and effects to Maroon Same as Alternative 2 day on a “peak” day on Tiehack Road. Road. Creek Townhome residents19 PARKING An existing total of 595 parking spaces No additional parking is proposed; Quantification of existing and projected at Buttermilk, of which 120 spaces are moreover, Alternative 2 would not drive parking capacities for day skiers/Nordic located at Tiehack. The existing parking Same as Alternative 2 additional skier visitation that would jump users at the Tiehack base area capacity is adequate to meeting daily drive additional parking needs. guest demands. CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL Documentation of presence or absence There were no cultural sites or isolated Identical to Alternative 1; therefore, no of archaeological resources in the Same as Alternative 2 finds observed within the project area. effects would occur. project area ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The City of Aspen provides No additional employee housing would approximately 2,600 employee housing be required. No low income or minority Quantification and discussion of units within Pitkin County. ASC also populations were identified as Same as Alternative 2 Aspen/Pitkin County affordable housing provides approximately 556 employee potentially being disproportionately beds. affected.

19 Vehicle use of Tiehack road is related to the ski area and other recreation, the high school, residential use and construction.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-26 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

In order to minimize potential resource impacts from construction and implementation of the proposed projects, the Project Design Criteria (PDC) detailed in Table 2-3 have been incorporated into the Proposed Action and Alternative 3.

PDC are devised in the pre-analysis and analysis phases to reduce potential environmental impacts associated with project elements. PDC come from federal, state, and local laws, regulations and policies; forest management plans, scientific recommendations, or from experience in implementing similar projects. The bulk of the PDC provided in Table 2-3 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 were designed by the Forest Service, ASC, and specialists involved in this analysis. The potential effects of implementing the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 (disclosed in Chapter 3) assume these PDC are applied.

In addition to the PDC prescribed below for each resource area, ASC would be required to prepare and submit for Forest Service approval the following documents:

Project construction and grading plans.

Pre-construction erosion control/drainage management plans.

Pre- and post-construction noxious weed control plans.

Post-construction erosion control plans.

Post-construction revegetation plans.

These plans would incorporate the PDC discussed below. Annual Summer Construction Plans will include strategies for monitoring compliance with the required project design criteria. Failure to comply with PDC required in any of the above mentioned plans or that are specified in the Forest Service Decision Notice would constitute a breach of the terms of the SUP and could temporarily suspend implementation of approved projects. Responsibility for ensuring that required PDC are implemented rests with ASC management and the Forest Service.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-27 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

VEGETATION

Understory vegetation will be preserved to the extent possible in all areas designated for flush cutting and/or overstory vegetation removal. Prior to construction, the disturbance limits of the site will be flagged. Pop fencing, flagging, or a staked rope line will be established to denote the limits of construction proximate to sensitive resource boundaries. Prior to removal of merchantable timber, decking areas and removal routes will be designated in the field and approved by the Forest Service. Topsoil replacement, seeding, and weed-free mulching (as necessary) will be used to stabilize disturbed soils in all areas where grading and soil disturbance will occur to promote native plant re-establishment. Revegetation should use native plants. Genetically local (at the ecological subsection level) seeds could be used if available. Seed mixtures and mulches should be noxious weed-free. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non-native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials become established. The Forest Service should approve the seed mixtures prior to implementation. Local seeding guidelines will be used to determine detailed procedures and appropriate mixes. Preference is given to local seed sources, cultivars, and species available commercially. To avoid weed contamination, all seed purchased shall be certified weed-seed free. Adequately mark leave trees, islands, and tree clearing limits to avoid mistakes in clearing limits during construction. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, identify and locate all equipment staging areas in the SUP. Treat existing noxious weeds in these areas prior to the staging of any equipment. Establish equipment wash stations at the base of the ski area for construction activities. Each station shall have a filter system, for example at least 6 inches of large cinder or gravel spread over an area 10’x 30’. Filter cloth may be used for temporary stations. The area will be a perched drainage to allow excess moisture to drain after being filtered. Equipment wash stations shall be located at least 200 yards from any natural drainage to avoid contamination. All soiled equipment shall be washed before entering and before leaving the project area. This includes construction personnel vehicles in addition to trucks and other heavy equipment. Equipment wash stations shall be monitored frequently and after completion of all construction activities. All weed materials shall be removed promptly. Monitor all construction areas and roadways within the SUP annually for at least five growing seasons and treat any noxious weeds found. Annually inspect all parking lots and areas surrounding guest service and maintenance facilities at the base of the ski area within the SUP and document and treat any new noxious weed infestations. Effective ground cover (mulch) upon completion of ground disturbing activities will meet minimum level of the pre-treatment habitat type.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-28 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

SOIL AND WATER

In areas of existing rilling and gullying where snowmaking is proposed, a restoration and management plan will be prepared jointly by ASC and the Forest Service and approved by the Forest Service. The goal of this plan will be successful re-establishment of adequate vegetation cover density on areas of Savio and Ridge Trail proposed to receive snowmaking, where bare soils currently predominate and no O-horizon is present. This plan may include the following components:

Pre-snowmaking monitoring of ground cover and drainage conditions. ASC would be required to implement drainage and erosion control measures prior to or concurrently with the installation of snowmaking. ASC and the Forest Service will design ground restoration activities as part of the sequencing of snowmaking infrastructure installation and operation. The Forest Service expects proactive involvement from ASC to improve surface drainage conditions in areas of critical concern. Post-snowmaking implementation monitoring of ground cover and drainage conditions. After implementation of snowmaking, areas of new snowmaking should be monitored each season during runoff conditions to check for development of or potential exacerbation of drainage problems. Should snowmaking negatively affect vegetative cover or result in either new or re-established rills on these trails, then responsive measures must be taken in order to address further drainage concerns in these critical areas. If post-implementation adaptive measures are unsuccessful in addressing development of identified drainage concerns, then operational practices would be adjusted so as to address problems in these areas of concern.

The measures outlined above would be paired with ongoing maintenance and improvement activities in order to maintain or improve ground cover and surface drainage conditions ASC will be required to submit detailed design plans for the snowmaking impoundments to the WRNF for review and approval prior to construction. The design plans must include specifications for outlet works that will enable a portion of the water stored in the reservoir to be drained into the water lines of the snowmaking system. Design plans shall also include an evaluation of culvert sizing and channel capacity for the channel downslope of the reservoirs, to ensure that it is capable of withstanding anticipated flows from the impoundment outlet works both during the course of normal operations and/or the potential need to drain the impoundments in the event of an emergency. The drainage that carries seasonal runoff to the proposed upper snowmaking pond would be protected from further bank erosion, head-cutting, and down-cutting by the design and construction of structures that would route excess water away from this area and potentially armor certain areas determined appropriate by the Forest Hydrologist. The intent is to stabilize the channel and prevent further bank destabilization and subsequent sediment loading. A grading and erosion control plan will be developed and submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval prior to implementation of proposed project elements that include grading. Soil-disturbing activities will not be initiated during periods of heavy rain, spring runoff or excessively wet soils.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-29 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

Immediately following completion of approved ground disturbing activities and seeding, all areas of ground disturbance will be mulched with weed- free straw, wood chips, bark, jute mat, etc. In all areas where grading or soil disturbance will occur, stockpile topsoil and re-spread topsoil following slope grading and prior to re-seeding. The stockpiled soil will be protected from wind and water erosion. Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to reduce bulk density and restore porosity. Vegetative buffers would be maintained adjacent to any intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands, to the extent possible. Check dams and sediment barriers (i.e., silt fence, weed-free hay bales, wattles, etc.) will be placed in all temporary erosion channels with minimum sufficient spacing to control runoff velocity and encourage sediment deposition. When check dams, sediment barriers, or sediment detention dams fill with sediment and exceed their design effectiveness, sediment will be excavated (by hand or mechanically) and removed from the site to a permanent upland storage area where erosion would not occur. Logs and logging debris removal will minimize dragging or pushing through soil to minimize disturbances. In areas where site conditions necessitate (i.e., excessively steep slopes and/or highly erosive soil types), temporary sediment detention basins will be created to detain runoff and trap sediment. Sediment basins will be created within the overall disturbance limits of the applicable project elements. Temporary sediment basins will be reclaimed following reestablishment of permanent vegetation and will likewise be revegetated. On steeper slopes (>30% slope gradient), areas exposed by grading may require implementation of jute-netting or other appropriate measures to further stabilize disturbed soils. Installation should include: Seeding and mulching of the disturbed area. Burial of the top end of the netting in a trench of at least 4 inches depth and 8 inches width. The trench shall be backfilled and tamped. Netting should extend beyond the edge of the mulched and/or seeded area at least 1 foot on the sides and 3 feet on the top and bottom. The netting should be rolled downslope and secured with staples or pins. Netting should overlap at least 4 inches on the sides and secured with staples 5 feet apart along the overlap. The lower end of the uphill strip should overlap the downhill strip at least 1 foot and should be secured with staples 1 foot apart. The drainage management plan will be implemented to disperse road surface runoff, prevent rill erosion, sediment delivery, and channel formation. Drainage features will be inspected seasonally, maintained, and cleared of sediment at regular intervals as necessary. Prior to construction, a construction access plan will be developed detailing access routes to pertinent project elements (i.e., lift terminals, building sites, pond locations). The construction access plan will also include construction access timing (during year and day). Fuel delivery and storage will be located, designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the potential and severity of spills.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-30 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

Fuel, oil and other hazardous materials will be stored in structures placed on impermeable surfaces with impermeable berms designed to fully contain the hazardous material plus accumulated precipitation for a period at least equal to that required to mitigate a spill. An oil spill contingency plan will be developed and approved prior to initiation of construction activities. Concrete truck washout areas will be designated in the field and approved by the Forest Service prior to construction commencement. Where snowmaking and utility lines will be installed on slopes greater than 30 percent, temporary check dams will be placed within open sections of trench when those open sections exceed 100’ in length.

GEOTECHNICAL

To reduce additional water infiltration inputs in Slide A and C, the reduced snowmaking application rate, as described in Table 2-2 and Chapter 3B, must be followed. Prior to jump venue development a detailed site plan including design criteria to protect slope stability would be submitted for Forest Service approval. To prevent future debris flows from potentially impacting the Nordic jump runouts, the lower northeast corner of the amphitheater would be raised to guide the debris flow north, away from the jump runout. The full depth of man-made snow should be mechanically removed only from the area tributary to the bowl-shaped amphitheater within Slide A prior to snowmelt. A drainage plan would be required prior to any developments on Tiehack to convey runoff/removed man-made snow to a suitable location. To accommodate potential movement of the Upper Tiehack slide the bottom terminal of the Nordic jump venue surface lift would be engineered to accommodate land movement or moved/located 50 feet southwest off of the Upper Tiehack slide. To avoid destabilizing a portion of the Upper Tiehack slide, no materials would be removed from the toe of the slope during use of the lower existing access road. The 65 m jump structure would be designed to permit debris flows to pass beneath the structure. The reservoir liner should be designed to resist tearing if earth movement should occur. The liner would also prevent infiltration which would decrease the risk of slope creep. The upper reservoir dam should be built to withstand potential earth movement and may include a bentonite layer to prevent water from the pond from saturating/inundating soils in the area of the ponds. Monitoring wells may be installed to detect changes in ground water level.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-31 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

The pond would be designed so that they could be drained if monitoring deemed it necessary.

WETLANDS

Underground utility and snowmaking lines would be installed in a manner that would prohibit or impede groundwater movement along utility or snowmaking line. This would involve the use of impervious structures/substances (e.g., clay collars) periodically spaced within the linear disturbance within affected wetland areas. In addition, trench backfill would be compacted to prohibit the diversion of subsurface flows within the pipeline corridor. These provisions would maintain wetland hydrology. Topsoil would be stockpiled during construction and replaced in order to preserve the wetland seed bank. Additional plantings (of approved native plant material) would be utilized where necessary in order to speed the recovery of the wetland community.

Apply BMPs for all ground disturbing activities to avoid sediment migration from ground disturbance into wetlands. Wetlands proximate to potential disturbance zones of project elements will be re-identified and flagged prior to the initiation of construction related activities. Construction limits will be clearly defined prior to construction.

DUST ABATEMENT

During construction under dry conditions, all exposed soil, including roadways, parking lots, buildings and lift terminal areas will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering or other dust abatement measures will be applied whenever construction activities occur and dry conditions exist. This measure excludes trail grading or other project elements that do not have sufficient road access to facilitate water truck access.

PARKING AND TRAFFIC

ASC will work with adjacent homeowners on road/parking signage, as necessary, on private lands minimize ski area access and construction related traffic impacts.

AIR QUALITY

Grading areas would be watered, as necessary and practical, to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In the absence of natural precipitation, watering of these areas would occur as practical. Burning of cleared timber would occur when air quality standards would not be compromised. All equipment will be properly tuned and maintained. Idling time will be minimized to the extent practical.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-32 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

SCENERY RESOURCES

Avoid straight edges where removing trees. The edges of lift lines, trails and structures, where the vegetation is removed, need to use a variable density cutting (feathering) technique applied to create a more natural edge that blends into the existing vegetative. Edges should be non-linear, and changes in tree heights along the edges of openings should be gradual rather than abrupt. Soften hard edges by selective removal of trees of different ages and heights to produce irregular corridor edges where possible. Stumps should be cut as low as possible to the ground to avoid safety hazard. Regrade to restore a natural terrain appearance. Prior to grading, strip topsoil and save for revegetation. Where there is disturbed ground for new lifts including terminals, towers and foundation placements, and water storage ponds and structures including the culverts, put any excess material back to the area with grading to avoid stockpile of material and maintain a natural appearance at transitions. Any site grading should blend disturbance into the existing topography to achieve a natural appearance and minimize cuts and fills at the transition with proposed grading and existing terrain. Utilities must be buried as per Forest Plan Standard. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. Seeding should be repeated until satisfactory revegetation is accomplished. Reseed with a native seed mixture using a variety of native seed grasses, wildflowers and forbs. Facilities or structures including buildings and lift terminals need to meet color and reflectivity guidelines. This includes any reflective surfaces (metal, glass, plastics, or other materials with smooth surfaces), that do not blend with the natural environment. They should be covered, painted, stained, chemically treated, etched, sandblasted, corrugated, or otherwise treated to meet the solar reflectivity standards. The specific requirements for reflectivity are as follows: Facilities and structures with exteriors consisting of galvanized metal or other reflective surfaces will be treated or painted dark non-reflective colors that blend with the forest background to meet an average neutral value of 4.5 or less as measured on the Munsell neutral scale. Structures, including lift towers, lift terminals, sign backs and posts, utility boxes and transformers, etc, should meet R2 color darkness standard of 4.5 on the Munsell Scale to blend into the summer background vegetation. Facilities or structures including buildings, lift terminals and towers, culverts need to meet color guidelines. Bright colors are inappropriate for the forest setting. The colors should be muted, subdued colors because they blend well with the natural color scheme. The Forest Service Handbook No. 617, “National Forest Landscape Management for Ski Areas, Volume 2, Chapter 7,” refers recommended colors for ski areas on page 37 of that handbook. The colors are darker colors; greens, browns, navy blue, grays and black.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

If undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are located during ground disturbing or planning activities associated with construction, they would be treated as specified in 36 CFR 800.11 concerning Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 2-33 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives

Table 2-3: Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Action Alternatives

WILDLIFE

Surveys of suitable habitat surrounding the proposed lift maintenance facility should be conducted during March, April, or May 2010 in order to confirm the presence or absence of nesting or roosting boreal owls in the project area. Surveys should be conducted again for flammulated owls and purple martin prior to construction of the snowmaking pond and Nordic jump venue. All construction activities should be confined to daylight hours, excluding emergencies. During construction of the facility, contractors are required by Pitkin County code to provide a bear proof container on site for all edible and food related trash in order to minimize conflicts with black bears. No food products or food containers can be thrown in the larger roll-off type dumpsters. No food/drink should be kept/stored in construction worker vehicles. All windows should be kept closed and doors locked on all vehicles to prevent bear entry. Construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site during construction.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-34 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has regulations for implementing NEPA that require federal agencies to consider the following types of impacts in an environmental document:20

ACTIONS

Connected Actions: actions that are dependent on each other for their utility.

Cumulative Actions: actions which, when viewed with other proposed actions, have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same analysis.

Similar Actions: actions which, when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together.

ALTERNATIVES

No Action.

The Proposed Action.

Other reasonable courses of actions identified in response to substantive issues.

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.

DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS

This chapter provides detail on both the biological and human environment. Each section within this chapter presents the existing conditions for a specific resource and addresses the direct, indirect and

20 40 CFR 1508.25

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-1 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences cumulative consequences associated with implementing each of the alternatives. The project area (as defined in Chapter 1 includes the disturbance footprint of all proposed projects) is approximately 100 acres in size and encompasses all project components within, and adjacent to, Buttermilk’s SUP boundary.

A description of the Affected Environment provides the baseline from which to assess the effects of implementation of the alternatives in the Environmental Consequences section. Therefore, a thorough analysis (both qualitative and quantitative) of the existing conditions will be provided for each resource area. The extent of the affected environment sections will vary according to scope of the analysis for each resource.

Based on an understanding of the proposal, familiarity of the project area and analysis of the issues raised during scoping, the line officer approved the following issues (listed below) to be considered in this analysis. The remainder of Chapter 3 is organized around these resource issues:

Hydrology 1. Additional snowmaking coverage may impact stream flows through water depletions and/or increased runoff.

2. Additional ground disturbing activities and/or application of machine-produced snow (individually and/or collectively) may result in increased erosion and sedimentation, thereby impacting stream health.

3. Proposed snowmaking on trails with existing rilling and gullying may exacerbate current conditions and/or create additional erosion concerns which would require design criteria to ‘maintain or improve’ stream health and aquatic MIS habitat (per FSH 2509.25 management measures) and maintain consistency with Forest Plan direction.

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

Indicators:

Quantification and discussion of existing water rights and snowmaking storage capacity

Quantification of existing/anticipated water diversions for snowmaking

Analysis of effects of snowmaking runoff to stream flows (i.e., analysis of the correlation between connected disturbed areas (CDAs), snowmaking, and increased sedimentation for existing and proposed conditions)

Model for quantification of anticipated total consumptive water losses (i.e., evaporation, evapotranspiration, sublimation) resulting from proposed snowmaking

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-2 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Assessment and quantification of surface drainage conditions within the study area (in accordance with WRNF and Region 2 protocols)

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Identified wetlands and riparian areas throughout the SUP area could be temporarily and/or permanently affected by construction and implementation of proposed projects.

Study Area: SUP area

Indicators:

Quantification of wetlands and stream channels within the study area (acres/linear feet) determined by delineation

Narrative description of wetland functions and values

Narrative description of wetland communities and riparian areas classifications and quantification/disclosure of anticipated temporary and permanent impacts (acres/linear feet)

Assessment of on-site wetland mitigation, including quantification and qualification of the wetland mitigation site

Soils and Geology Proposed ground disturbance (i.e., grading associated with the action alternatives) may contribute to increased rates of erosion in the project area. Additional snowmaking may result in slope instability and/or failure and subsequent sediment loading to streams.

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

Indicators:

Disclosure of existing geologic conditions

Analysis of possible effects of snowmaking on slope stability

Geotechnical Analysis Geotechnical feasibility and hazards associated with construction of the proposed snowmaking reservoirs, additional snowmaking and the Nordic jump venue.

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

Indicators:

Disclosure of effects of ground disturbance on soil and geologic conditions

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-3 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Risk of reactivation of known landslides due to snowmaking

Analysis of slope stability and geological constraints associated with the Nordic jump venue

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed and Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Ground disturbing activities may affect Threatened, Endangered and Proposed (TEP) and Region 2 sensitive plant species.

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

Indicators:

Quantification (acres) and qualification of existing TEP and sensitive plant habitat by species

Quantification of total proposed habitat alteration (acres) by species

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed and Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species and Management Indicator Species Ground/vegetation disturbing activities could potentially affect TEP and sensitive wildlife species, as well as Management Indicator Species (MIS), through direct or indirect impacts to habitat.

Study Area: SUP area, associated/overlapping wildlife management areas, and downstream fisheries

Indicators:

Quantification (acres) and qualification of existing wildlife habitat by species

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

Quantification of snowmaking water diversions and effects to Big River Fish due to water depletions

Recreation By design, proposed projects would alter the winter recreation experience within the SUP area. In addition, summer recreational experiences offered at Buttermilk would change with the introduction of new horseback riding trails.

Study Area: SUP area

Indicators:

Quantification of existing and proposed snowmaking coverage and the effects to skier densities and dispersal across the ski area

Evaluate the effects of the Nordic jump venue to skiers on Racer’s Edge, Javelin, and Lower Tiehack

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-4 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Quantification and assessment of existing and potential summer recreational activities

Documentation of compliance with the “Accessibility Guidebook”

Scenery Resources Construction of the proposed structures may affect scenery resources.

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

Indicators:

Documentation of the incremental effects to the scenic environment (as analyzed from critical viewpoints) resulting from implementation of the proposed projects compared to historic landscape alterations within the SUP area

Documentation of compliance with a Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) of very low under the existing conditions and the action alternatives

Documentation of compliance with the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG)

Assessment of visual simulations prepared to analyze the scenery impacts of the Nordic jump venue from identified critical viewpoints

Traffic and Parking Implementation of the proposed Nordic jump has the potential to increase vehicle trips to the Tiehack base area due to the construction and use of the Nordic jump.

Study Area: Private lands, base area lands, Tiehack Road, and Tiehack base area parking facilities

Indicators:

Quantification of daily traffic volumes on Tiehack Road, and effects to Maroon Creek Townhome residents

Quantification of existing and projected parking capacities for day skiers/Nordic jump users at the Tiehack base area

Cultural, Archaeological and Heritage Resources Proposed projects and associated ground disturbing activities could affect cultural and heritage resources. Study Area: Areas proposed for direct ground disturbance throughout the SUP area Indicator:

Documentation of presence or absence of archaeological resources in the project area

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-5 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Justice The proposed projects on Buttermilk may increase demand for town/county housing (in compliance with Executive Order 12898). Study Area: Aspen/Pitkin County Indicator:

Discussion of Aspen/Pitkin County affordable housing

RESOURCES NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL

The resources not analyzed in detail in this EA were determined to not require specific analysis due to the non-impactful nature of the project proposal with regards to those resources. This proposal will not increase Buttermilk’s existing comfortable carrying capacity (CCC) of 4,000 guests per day, nor is it projected to increase daily or annual visitation for Buttermilk. This eliminates the need to analyze the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for air quality and socio-economic resources. Project Design Criteria included in Chapter 2 would minimize any incidental air quality impacts due to the clearing of overstory vegetation or short-term construction activities to implement project elements.

For resources not analyzed in detail, this EA tiers to the following sections of the 2002 Forest Plan FEIS

Social and Economic Analysis included in Topic 3, Part 2 Ski Areas (p. 3-435)

Population and Housing Analysis included in Communities of Place–Demographics Affected Environment (p. 3-615)

The 2002 Forest Plan FEIS provides a description of the social and economic environment surrounding Buttermilk, including Pitkin County. Included in these analyses were population and housing statistics and future growth of the ski industry within specific counties in the WRNF. The 2002 Forest Plan FEIS stated that:

“The level of [skier] use [within Pitkin County] has been relatively constant since 1985. Mountain capacities and skier use are also expected to continue to remain flat in Pitkin County during the next planning period as a result of county and city restrictions on growth.”(p. 3-445)

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-6 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

A. WATER RESOURCES

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The scope of the analysis for water resources focuses on watersheds within the Buttermilk SUP boundary and adjacent lands at Buttermilk.

FOREST PLAN DIRECTION

Pursuant to the Forest Plan, as amended, stream health standards and design criteria are mandated by the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH).21 The WCPH contains several Management Measures of relevance regarding stream health and water resources effects:

Applicable WCPH Management Measures

1. Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff.

3. In the water influence zone (WIZ) next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.

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

8. Manage water use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams.

The Forest Plan also includes the following Management Area 8.25 watershed standard which is pertinent to this analysis.

Management Area 8.25 – Forest Plan Standard

3. Snow management, including snowmaking and snow farming, will be conducted in a manner that prevents slope failures and gully erosion, as well as bank erosion and sediment damage in receiving channels.

Relevant WCPH Definitions

FSH 2509.25 (The Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook) provides definitions for some terms that are key to conveying information in this report:

21 USDA Forest Service, 2005

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-7 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

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.

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.

Swale: A landform feature lower in elevation than adjacent hillslopes, usually present in headwater areas of limited areal extent, generally without display of a defined watercourse or channel that may or may not flow water in response to snowmelt or rainfall. Swales exhibit little evidence of surface runoff and may be underlain by porous soils and bedrock that readily accepts infiltrating water.

Gully: An erosion channel greater than 1 foot deep.

Rill: An erosion channel less than 1 foot deep.

Note that the WCPH stream-type and channel-type definitions differ from those used in the context of US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional Waters of the US findings.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Project Area Description

Buttermilk is situated 2 miles west of downtown Aspen, in Pitkin County, Colorado, and occupies elevations ranging from 7,870 to 9,900 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Average annual precipitation at Buttermilk ranges from 20 to 25 inches at the lower elevations, and from 25 to 30 inches per year at the higher elevations.22 Roughly 50 percent of annual precipitation occurs in the winter months of November through March. Mean high temperatures in winter months (November through March) range from approximately 25 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit. Mean high temperatures in the summer months (June through August) range from 66 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

Buttermilk is bounded by the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area to the south and State Highway 82 to the north. The headwaters of the Roaring Fork River are located near the continental divide on Independence Pass, east of Aspen, from which the river flows north and west approximately 60 miles to its confluence with the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs.

Within the Buttermilk SUP, there are three primary sub-drainages, portrayed in Figure 5 located at the end of the watershed section. The Tiehack sub-drainage captures the eastern portion of the Buttermilk

22 USDA Forest Service, 1994

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-8 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

SUP area and is tributary to lower Maroon Creek. The Main Buttermilk catchment is a north-facing sub-drainage that is a part of the upper Roaring Fork River watershed. The West Buttermilk sub-drainage is tributary to Owl Creek, an upper-watershed tributary of the Roaring Fork River. The attributes of these sub-drainages are described in Table 3A-1.

Table 3A-1: Buttermilk Project Area Sub-Drainages

Tributary to Sub-Drainage Area Sub-drainage HUC 7 ID HUC 7 Drainage (acres)

Tiehack Maroon Creek 14010004070101 369 Main Buttermilk Roaring Fork River 14010004040113 411 West Buttermilk Owl Creek 14010004040112 324

Snowmaking

Existing Snowmaking

Snowmaking coverage at Buttermilk is currently provided on approximately 13 acres of NFS lands, in addition to approximately 73 acres on private lands, for a total of approximately 86 acres. Of this total, approximately 69 acres are in the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage, while 17 acres of snowmaking are on the Eagle Hill terrain on lower Tiehack (Tiehack sub-drainage). The primary water supply for the snowmaking system is diverted from Maroon Creek and delivered to the snowmaking system via the Stapleton Brothers Ditch. The maximum rate of intake to the Buttermilk snowmaking system from the Stapleton Brothers Ditch off of Maroon Creek is 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm).

Snowmaking water is diverted from Maroon Creek under five separate water court decrees (W-812-78; 86CW117; 90CW110; 96CW275; 03CW57) that collectively affirm an absolute and unconditional 5.56 cfs diversion rate for snowmaking and/or recreation uses.

The following table portrays the breakdown of existing snowmaking by sub-drainage:

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-9 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Table 3A-2: Existing Snowmaking Existing Snowmaking Sub-drainage Ownership (acres) Private 14.9 Tiehacka Public 2.0 Total 16.9 Private 57.8 Main Buttermilkb Public 11.4 Total 69.2 Private 0.0 West Buttermilkc Public 0.0 Total 0.0 Total Private 72.7 Total Public 13.4 Total Snowmaking 86.1 a Tributary to Maroon Creek b Tributary to Roaring Fork River c Tributary to Owl Creek

Annual snowmaking diversions for the 2000–2009 seasons are portrayed in the following table:

Table 3A-3: Buttermilk Snowmaking Water Diversions Total Snowmaking Water Use Year (AF) 2000–2001 118.2 2001–2002 135.0 2002–2003 142.0 2003–2004 156.0 2004–2005 149.8 2005–2006 150.2 2006–2007 152.7 2007–2008 173.4 2008–2009 156.2 Average 148.2

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-10 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

On average, at Buttermilk’s elevation and climate regime, approximately 18 to 22 percent of water diverted for snowmaking is consumptively used via sublimation, evapotranspiration, wind scour, and other watershed loss processes, depending on trail aspect and shading.23

Snowmaking Water Storage

Buttermilk currently has no water storage capabilities for snowmaking purposes. Buttermilk typically opens 50 acres of snowmaking by December 1st and must cover the remaining 36 acres of terrain plus terrain park features by January 1st. Snowmaking production during optimal conditions (cold temperatures) is limited by the instantaneous diversion rate from Maroon Creek (2,500 gpm). As a result, Buttermilk sometimes has difficulty producing sufficient snow for adequate terrain coverage in order to serve critical early-season holiday skier demand.

Water Yield

The creation of openings for development projects involves tree harvest and, as a result, increases the amount of water potentially available for streamflow. The mechanisms for this include: 1) decreasing the amount of evapotranspiration (use of water by plants) through tree removal; 2) decreasing snow loss associated with interception (the trapping of snow in the forest canopy until it is sublimated or evaporated to the atmosphere); 3) increased solar exposure that accelerates runoff (more rapidly removing water from the forest thereby reducing the amount available on-site for plant use); and 4) increasing deposition in openings (reducing airborne snow particle ablation and loss.)24 Runoff hydrographs for existing average- year conditions were developed using water balance techniques and snowmelt modeling as outlined in detail in two publications: An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) and the Water Management Research Project Handbook.25

Present water yields from these watersheds are affected by the existence of the skiing trail system currently in place, as well as the input of additional water in the form of existing snowmaking. Determining existing runoff requires an estimation of the amount of runoff generated from forested and open areas under pre-developed conditions, and a subsequent determination of the relative change produced by the trail system and snowmaking.

To accomplish this, a water balance is computed that determines the amounts of precipitation and evapotranspiration associated with each contributing area, the remainder being water potentially available

23 Sublimation is the process of direct transformation of water directly from the solid phase to the gaseous phase without first melting. 24 Ablation is the mechanical destruction of snow and ice particles. 25 A hydrograph is a plot of the variation of discharge with respect to time.; Colorado Ski Country USA and Wright Water Engineers, 1986

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-11 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources for runoff. A computer model, called the Subalpine Water Balance Simulation Model, has been developed by the Forest Service to analyze these processes.26

In concept, the model takes seasonal precipitation applied to a locale that is defined in terms of vegetation type/density and aspect and then subtracts the evapotranspiration demands of the vegetation to compute the amount of water potentially available for runoff. To reflect changes in vegetation due to tree removal, the model modifies evapotranspiration demands to reflect altered vegetation density, defined as basal area or cover density.

The Subalpine Water Balance Model was used to develop a procedure and a set of nomographs to aid analysts in making non-point source pollution assessments; this procedure formed WRENSS.27 The numerous detailed data inputs required by the model were reduced in the WRENSS procedure by making a large number of model runs and using the results to develop the above-mentioned nomographs. This simplification and the use of evapotranspiration modifier coefficients facilitate the analysis while not significantly diminishing the value of the output.

The water balance of the WRENSS model is coupled with a snowmaking hydrology computation process developed as a result of the 1986 study, commissioned by Colorado Ski Country USA. This study assessed water consumption attributable to snowmaking uses. The study found that initial losses, those essentially occurring at the snowmaking gun, average approximately 6 percent.28 Additional watershed losses include sublimation, evaporation, and evapotranspiration, and occur as a function of aspect, elevation, and vegetation. Total consumptive loss is therefore estimated to range from approximately 18 to 26 percent.

The water balance computed via the WRENSS model is modified to reflect the contributions of snowmaking water computed via the above procedures. Together these calculations allow estimates for water yield hydrographs typical of subalpine mountain watersheds.29 It is important to note that this computational process does not account for routing of runoff water through the watershed to the stream system. Basin-wide stream flow routing is very complex in subalpine forested watersheds. Nonetheless, once the soil mantle has been saturated, the snowmelt water is frequently realized as direct stream flow in watersheds with distinct stream channels. In the case of watersheds which have a distinct stream channel systems, the resultant hydrographs may be conceptualized as streamflow. However, in the case of basins lacking distinct channel systems, it is important to keep in mind that the water yield hydrographs do not represent streamflow per se, but rather basin-wide water yield to the receiving waters. In all cases it is

26 Leaf and Brink, 1973a,b 27 Troendle and Leaf, 1980 28 Colorado Ski Country USA and Wright Water Engineers, 1986 29 Discharge is the volume of water flowing past a location per unit time (usually in cubic feet per second).

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-12 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources important to recognize that the hydrographs and yield calculations are computed as a basin-wide effect, and do not account for localized effects to streamflow or excess runoff.

The following table outlines acreages for the estimated trail clearing and snowmaking by drainage and sub-watershed:

Table 3A-4: Existing Trails and Snowmaking Trail Total Snowmaking Sub-drainage Construction Snowmaking Diversions (acres) (acres) (AF)a Tiehack 204.1 17.0 18.7 Main Buttermilk 129.3 69.2 113.7 West Buttermilk 106.7 0.0 0.0 Total 479.0 86.1 132.4 a Based on an average application rate. This per-area calculated use is somewhat lower than reported annual average diversions because the per-area computation does not account for water diversions used to support X Games terrain.

Current water yields and peak flows are summarized in Table 3A-5, which outline model-estimated yields and flows for both pre-developed and existing conditions for the average year. For the purposes of this table and the following discussion, the baseline is assumed to be watershed characteristics (peak flow, yield, etc.) reflective of fully-forested conditions in the relevant watersheds before any ski-resort related development. Throughout the Water Resources section of this document, yield and/or flow values for existing or proposed conditions are compared against baseline conditions. In addition, all flow and yield values are modeled results. All modeling was conducted for climate variables reflective of average annual conditions. Although model analyses were not performed for dry-year or wet-year conditions, a qualitative description of effects under these climatic extremes is possible. During dry-years, peak flow volume and duration would be reduced relative to average-year conditions, with correspondingly lower flow velocities and therefore reduced potential for stream channel and bank erosion effects. During wet years, snowmaking runoff would be a relatively minor component of the overall streamflow volume, and the effects of artificial snowmelt would be not as evident as a component of the runoff hydrograph. However, application of snowmaking water within a sub-drainage could be interpreted as effectively increasing the frequency with which wet-year runoff conditions occur.

Table 3A-5 displays peak flow and yield characteristics for the three primary sub-drainages of interest.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-13 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Table 3A-5: Hydrograph Characteristics Existing Conditions Baseline (Un-developed) Conditions Existing Conditions Sub-drainage Peak Flow Yield Peak Flow Yield (cfs) (AF) (cfs) (AF) Tiehack 3.4 291 4.1 384 Main Buttermilk 3.4 349 4.6 495 West Buttermilk 2.7 275 3.0 318

The following table reflects the changes in flow characteristics when compared to baseline conditions for the relevant sub-drainages.

Table 3A-6: Changes in Yield and Peak Flow Current vs. Baseline Yield Increase vs. Baseline Peak Flow Increase vs. Baseline Sub-drainage (AF) (%) (cfs) (%) Tiehack 93.0 32 0.6 19 Main Buttermilk 146.2 42 1.2 37 West Buttermilk 43.3 16 0.4 13

Flow hydrographs reveal runoff characteristics that reflect yield changes caused by the current trail system and snowmaking applications. In general, snowmelt hydrographs influenced by vegetative clearing and snowmaking have higher intensity peak flows of shorter duration as compared to pre- developed conditions, as a result of increased solar radiation due to the clearing of forested canopy, and the effects of added snowmaking water inputs. These hydrograph characteristics are also influenced by changes to watershed conditions before the development of the ski area, that reflect influences of tree clearing associated with logging activities, roads, as well as other human-related changes in land use and cover.

As shown in Table 3A-6, the greatest changes in yield have occurred in the Tiehack and Main Buttermilk drainages. Current conditions reflect water yields that are 32 percent and 42 percent above pre- development conditions, respectively. These increases in yield are primarily due to the historic tree removal to create the ski trail system, paired with snowmaking. It is important to recognize that the WRENSS runoff hydrographs represent integrated average behavior developed on the basis of many station-years of record from a number of experimental forest plots. In general, predictions of yield are more accurate than peak flow. The model tends to be more sensitive to peak flow changes for higher energy watershed aspects. In particular, the model predictions do not capture the more intense peak flow regime created by the heavy amount of grading and drainage channel alteration present on Tiehack and Main Buttermilk.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-14 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Drainage Conditions

For evaluation and management purposes, the WRNF measures and analyzes stream health for watersheds that contain at least a third-order or larger channel network. Because the channel networks within the three sub-drainages of Buttermilk’s SUP are second-order or smaller, quantitative sampling of watershed health metrics was not conducted by the WRNF during its forest-wide stream health assessment project. As a result the discussion of watershed health within this section will be qualitative, however the management directives of the WCPH and Forest Plan standards still apply to projects that potentially affect watershed resources on NFS lands. This analysis focuses on those areas of the mountain in which most of the proposed project activities would occur, primarily the Main Buttermilk and Tiehack sub-drainages.

With an understanding of the causal mechanisms that affect drainage health, project activities can be designed to limit or offset negative impacts to watershed resources and conform to WCPH directives. The primary causal mechanism related to land management at Buttermilk affecting drainage conditions is Connected Disturbed Area (CDA).

Metric: Sedimentation: The effect of land disturbances such as roads, roadside drainages, ski trail waterbars, and utilities corridors within forested watersheds tend to cause an increase in exposed and compacted surface soils and therefore increased erosion and sediment transport.

Causal Mechanism: Connected Disturbed Area (CDA):30 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 connected to the channel system. Ground disturbing activities located within the water influence zone should be considered connected unless site-specific actions are taken to disconnect them from streams. CDA provides a measure of the extent to which a stream reach is influenced by direct, channelized connections between disturbed soils and the stream network itself.

Existing Drainage Conditions

Field surveys of surface drainage conditions and connected disturbed areas paired with a qualitative discussion of existing surface drainage conditions serve as a useful baseline against which to analyze the effects of the action alternatives. Buttermilk is a comparatively dry mountain. Two of the three sub- drainages, Tiehack and Main Buttermilk lack any perennially flowing surface water. The channel system, as portrayed in Figure 5 at the end of this section, is comprised primarily of discontinuous 1st-order

30 USDA Forest Service, 2005

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-15 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources intermittent drainage pathways that carry water only during spring snowmelt or during heavy summer thunderstorms. The only perennial stream within the project area is a tributary of Owl Creek, which flows near the western boundary of the SUP, along the periphery of the West Buttermilk terrain pod.

Both the Main Buttermilk and Tiehack sub-drainages are intermittent, per the definition of intermittent provided by the WCPH. The channel for the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage is collected in a drop inlet located about 500 feet south of the top terminal of the Panda Peak beginner lift. From here it is routed through the Buttermilk base facilities in culverts. A vault separator diverts some portion of the drainage north through a culvert under Highway 82 where it is discharged into a stormwater pond at the Aspen golf course. The other portion is routed west in a culvert under the skier parking lot, and discharged into a marshy pasture to the west of the skier parking area. Though the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage is ultimately tributary to the Roaring Fork River, the drainageways exhibit no visible direct surface water connection.

The intermittent Tiehack sub-drainage is collected at a drop inlet approximately 300 feet southwest of the upper terminal of the Lower Tiehack lift. Part of the drainage is conveyed through base facilities stormwater infrastructure, while another portion flows into the drainage network of the Maroon Creek Golf Course.

Areas of Drainage Concern

Drainage concerns within the sub-drainages at Buttermilk are documented by the field review component of the Drainage Management Plan (DMP), which is included in the project administrative record. The primary areas of concern include regions of dissected Mancos shale that have been graded and compacted, in particular on Ridge Trail and Savio in the Main Buttermilk drainage, resulting in substantial gully development—in areas, existing gullies are 2 to 3 feet in depth. Areas of gullying and rilling are also present on West Buttermilk and Tiehack.

Areas of grading have removed the topsoil from outcrops of Mancos shale and exposed the underlying shale which has subsequently decomposed. These surfaces have little to no soils O-horizon and are incapable of supporting even marginal vegetative cover. The lack of vegetation and poor infiltration in these areas has led to the development of concentrated flows that create gullying/channelization and further erosion.

Figure 6, at the end of the watershed section, shows areas of poor ground cover where problematic drainage conditions such as gullying and/or rilling exist. The shaded areas denote zones of extensive gullying that cover a broad spatial extent, often coincident with surficial shales. Point locations denote isolated areas of rilling or downcutting.

The following table outlines the breakdown of areas of gullying/rilling by sub-drainage:

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-16 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Table 3A-7: Areas of Rilling/Gullying Total Area of Rilling/Gullying Sub-Drainage (acres) Tiehack 4.0 Main Buttermilk 2.3 West Buttermilk 1.9 Total 8.3

The Tiehack sub-drainage exhibits the greatest area impacted by gullying, despite having less existing snowmaking than the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage. This is likely due to gully development occurring along the heavily altered historic channel within the Tiehack drainage that was filled in during the initial construction of the ski area.

Main Buttermilk The Main Buttermilk sub-drainage exhibits the greatest concentration of drainage management concerns. A large percentage of the skiing terrain on the Main Buttermilk has been heavily graded. The effect of this connected graded terrain is to increase direct surface flows to the channel network, thereby increasing peak flows during runoff conditions.

Furthermore, the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage exhibits a number of drainage management issues resulting from the combination of several factors:

Snowmaking intensity: the amount of snowmaking within the lower Main Buttermilk sub- drainage is intensive to support features such as the competition half-pipe, terrain park, and other X Games venues.

Grading and earth disturbance: almost all of the skiing terrain within the Main Buttermilk sub- drainage has been heavily graded.

Cumulative effects: as one of the first areas of Buttermilk to be developed in the 1960s, the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage has accrued a large amount of change to the hydrologic regime over a long period of time.

Vegetative cover on areas of Ridge Trail and Savio is sparse to non-existent. Concentrated flow from the gullies on these trails is delivered into a drainage swale to skier’s left that leads into the channel flowing into the area of the proposed snowmaking ponds. Although the swale is fairly well-vegetated, the soils are fine-grained, and as a result, a receding headcut is forming within the swale, causing erosion and degraded drainage conditions. Photographs showing drainage conditions in this vicinity are shown following:

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-17 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Photo 1. Gullies, rills, sparse vegetation on Ridge Trail.

Photo 2. Deeply incised gully on Savio.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-18 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Photo 3. Gully and two-track flowpaths to drainage-way. Summit Express lift tower 24 in background.

Photo 4. Gullies/rills (foreground) on Teaser.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-19 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Within the Main Buttermilk drainage, many two-track travel corridors, as well as ATV/hiking trails are routed straight up the fall line. These areas are rilling and gullying due to the concentration of flows within the tracks. Road-side ditches within Main Buttermilk are poorly maintained. Cross-drainage is deficient to non-existent, and in many areas the ditches and culverts have become clogged with sediment and debris.

Another critical area of concern is a reach along approximately 800 feet of drainage channel upstream of the proposed snowmaking ponds that exhibits receding headcuts, raw exposed banks, and severe bank undercutting. Photographs of several of these areas of concern are shown below.

Photo 5. Raw and eroding unstable bank.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-20 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Photo 6. Receding headcut.

Photo 7. Severe undercut and fine sediment deposition.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-21 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Contributing peak runoff flows to this length of degraded drainage channel is a large and incised drainage ditch located upslope on lower Savio that collects water from the ski trail as well as an extensive length of the mountain access road.

Tiehack Like the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage, most of the skiing terrain within the Tiehack sub-drainage has been heavily graded and compacted. Vegetative cover on the Tiehack trails is fair to good, and only a small area of snowmaking exists near the bottom of the terrain pod on Eagle Hill (Lower Tiehack). The heavily graded area where trails converge on lower Tiehack exhibits evidence of gullying and headcutting, likely due to concentrated flows from grading impacts. While areas of poor drainage conditions exist on Tiehack, they are not as severe as the areas of rilling and concentrated flows found in areas of the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage.

West Buttermilk While heavily graded in the area where trails converge near the lower terminal of the West Buttermilk Express lift, the trails within the upper elevations of the terrain pod are not as heavily graded as those at Tiehack or on Main Buttermilk. West Buttermilk exhibits greater vegetated areas within inter-trail islands. One tributary branch of Owl Creek, the only perennial stream in the general proximity of the Buttermilk SUP, commences within a heavily graded zone of the Red’s Rover trail. However, after flowing along the trail for a length of about 0.25 mile, Owl Creek flows into a forested area to the west of the developed trail system, and for the most part is buffered from the trail complex and any graded terrain by 1,000 to 2,000 feet of forest cover.

The trails within the upper elevations of the terrain pod are not as heavily graded as those at Tiehack or on the Main Buttermilk. Existing levels of gullying and erosion, found primarily on the heavily graded lower areas of West Buttermilk where trails converge, can be significantly reduced through the implementation of BMPs throughout the drainage. Like the Main Buttermilk drainage, West Buttermilk also has many two-track travel corridors, as well as ATV/hiking trails that are routed straight up the fall line. These areas are rilling and gullying due to the concentration of flows within the tracks.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Photo 8: Channelization and rilling from culvert outlet on lower West Buttermilk.

Existing Connected Graded Area

A project-level survey of graded areas was also performed within Buttermilk’s SUP during July 2008. GPS field surveys were utilized to document the extent and connectedness of graded areas to the stream channel network. The following table outlines graded and connected graded area for the watersheds at Buttermilk.

Table 3A-8: Field-Surveyed Connected Graded Area Percent of % of Graded Connected Graded Area Drainage that is Terrain that is Graded Area Sub-drainage Graded Connected (acres) (%) (acres) (%) Tiehack 129 35 38 29 Main Buttermilk 132 32 42 32 West Buttermilk 72 22 10 14 Source: USDA Forest Service, 2006d

The results of the connected graded areas survey reinforce the discussion of existing surface drainage conditions highlighted previously. Both the Tiehack and Main Buttermilk sub-drainages exhibit high levels of grading impacts, with approximately one-third of the sub-drainage area having experienced grading. Of this graded terrain, almost one-third directly routes snowmelt flows into the channel network.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-23 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

The effect of this connected graded terrain is to increase direct surface flows to the drainage channels system, thereby increasing peak flows during snowmelt and contributing to incision and head-cutting.

Less than one-quarter of the West Buttermilk sub-drainage has been graded, and a larger portion of the sub-drainage has forested vegetation when compared to Tiehack or the Main Buttermilk. Perennially flowing Owl Creek is well-buffered from the trail complex by a zone of forested vegetation. Most of the trails in the West Buttermilk complex have good vegetative cover, and overall drainage characteristics in the West Buttermilk sub-drainage are satisfactory. Essentially all of the length of mountain access road on lower Main Buttermilk, Tiehack, and West Buttermilk has poor drainage conditions. Inslope ditches are poorly maintained and overtop in many areas, washing across the road surface and transporting concentrated flows and fine sediment from the road surface.

The routing of overland flow has been shown to be an important factor influencing the physical and biological condition of the watershed.31 Hydrologic connection also provides a conduit for the transport of sediment and other pollutants. This process has been observed at ski areas that have a dense network of waterbars and ditches on ski trails and roads.32 Generally, the effect of ditches on peak flows becomes negligible when they are disconnected by routing flow to permeable soils rather than into channels.33

Water Quality

The Roaring Fork River and all its tributaries are classified by the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment (CDPHE) Regulation 33 for the following beneficial uses: Aquatic Life Cold 1, Recreation E, Water Supply, and Agriculture. The Roaring Fork River and Maroon Creek currently meet all federal and state water quality standards.

The Roaring Fork Conservancy, a non-profit watershed conservation organization for the Roaring Fork, monitors water quality at several locations near Buttermilk. The Conservancy’s water quality program works closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), CDPHE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The Conservancy’s 2006 Roaring Fork Watershed Water Quality Report portrays water quality in the upper Roaring Fork watershed in the vicinity of Aspen as generally strong.34 The 2006 report characterizes water quality for the Roaring Fork above Aspen, monitored at Difficult Creek campground as excellent, with ―no major sources of pollution; excellent riparian habitat.‖

Impacts become evident through non-point source pollution as the Roaring Fork River flows through the City of Aspen. The Conservancy has placed several segments of the Roaring Fork River through Aspen

31 LaMarche and Lettenmaier, 2001; Bledsoe and Watson, 2001; Walsh, 2004; Wang et al., 2001 32 Markart et al., 1998; Shanley and Wemple, 2002 33 Tague and Band, 2001; LaMarche and Lettenmaier, 2001 34 Roaring Fork Conservancy, 2006

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-24 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources on its ―Watch List.‖ This is not a designation that has any regulatory meaning or consequence. However, the Conservancy defines its ―Watch List‖ as follows:

Stream sections that are on the Conservancy Watch List have good overall water quality but also exhibit data that prevent them from being identified on the Healthy Stream list. In most instances, the stream reach in question has exceeded a particular state standard several times since 2000 but at levels close to the state standard.

Descriptions of the following segments on the Watch List are excerpted from the 2006 Conservancy report:35

Roaring Fork at Mill Street Bridge (Aspen)

The Mill Street [storm drainage] outfall has suspended solids levels up to 8,370 mg/l, 55 times higher than the national average of 150 mg/l.

The new storm water retention work that the City of Aspen voters approved will help ensure that storm water runoff no longer directly enters the river, reducing the impact of this pollution source.

Roaring Fork at Slaughterhouse Bridge (Aspen)

Aluminum levels above chronic standards for aquatic biota in May of 2002 and 2003.

These results may indicate that storm water retention ponds such as [the] Jenny Adair [pond] and others around Aspen are unable to handle the higher volume of water during runoff. The Jenny Adair is between the Mill Street and Slaughterhouse Bridge sampling sites and historically has high levels of aluminum. Data from other sample sites, including Mill Street and Castle Creek do not show high aluminum levels.

Instream Flows

Maroon Creek

Buttermilk’s snowmaking water is supplied by Maroon Creek via the Stapleton Brothers Ditch. The headwaters of Maroon Creek are within the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. Approximately 2 miles downstream from the wilderness and Forest boundary, Buttermilk diverts water via the Stapleton Brothers Ditch headgate and pipeline. This conveyance flows along-contour to the primary pumping station near the existing lower terminal of the Lower Tiehack lift. From this location, 83 percent of water diversions from Maroon Creek are applied to Main Buttermilk (within the Roaring Fork drainage) through a

35 Ibid.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-25 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources secondary pump station on Panda Peak. As a result, snowmaking diversions to Buttermilk are 83 percent depletive to Maroon Creek (the sub-watershed of origin).

A review of the effects of snowmaking diversions and depletions upon the instream flow regime and fisheries habitat of Maroon Creek was conducted in March 2001.36 Snowmaking diversions are conducted under water rights that, historically, have not been subject to curtailment. The State of Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) holds the largest water right near the Stapleton Brothers Ditch through a minimum instream flow decree (14.0 cfs) on Maroon Creek. Nonetheless, winter streamflows on Maroon Creek have proven sufficient for Buttermilk’s snowmaking needs (and the CWCB-designated instream flow) and have not prompted the reduction (i.e., ―call‖ on the stream from senior, downstream water users) of either diversion during this critical time of year.

Resource Engineering, Inc. conducted streamflow simulation modeling for Maroon Creek and determined that ASC has sufficient legal and physical water supplies to ―fully support the planned snowmaking improvements‖ at Buttermilk.37

Wetlands and Drainages

Fieldwork to identify Waters of the United States (WOUS), including wetlands, occurred in 2007. The presence/absence of WOUS, including wetlands were delineated using protocols outlined in the ―Routine Method for Delineation‖ section of the 1987 Manual and the Interim Regional Supplement and classified based on the Cowardin classification system which is primarily organized by dominant plant community.38

Wetlands

Three wetlands totaling approximately 0.86 acre were delineated within the boundaries of the study area. As defined in Chapter 1, the study area includes the extent of lands with potential to be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected by the Proposed Action. Seeps, springs, ephemeral/intermittent streams and groundwater recharge from snowmelt primarily feed these wetlands within the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage.

Wetlands identified within the study area include: one palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland and two open water (OW) wetlands. The wetland type and acreage are presented in Table 3A-10. Based on site observation, the PEM wetland delineated on Lover’s Lane may have been partially impacted historically by grading, installation of a utility line and soil compaction. Hydrology for this PEM wetland is provided seasonally by an abutting drainage (discussed below) on the east side of Lover’s Lane. This wetland complex is outside of the project area.

36 USFWS, 2001 37 Resource Engineering, 2008a 38 Environmental Laboratory, 1987; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008; Cowardin et al., 1979

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-26 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

One of the OW wetland complexes occurs as a kettle pond in the tree island between Ridge Trail and Uncle Chuck’s Glade.39 Hydrology for this OW wetland is provided by through overland flow during runoff and a high water table at this location. This wetland complex is outside of the project area and does not possess a surface water connection to other WOUS. In addition, a perceptible groundwater connection to other WOUS is not anticipated.

The second OW wetland is located at the proposed upper snowmaking reservoir site (refer to Figure 3, located in Chapter 2). This depression collects water during the wet season (during spring runoff) and remains inundated during a portion of the growing season. Wetland hydrology is provided by a seasonal drainage (discussion below). A narrow band of shrub/herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation surrounds the pond creating a wetland complex of approximately 0.11 acre. This OW wetland, which includes a shrub/herbaceous fringe, would be considered ―isolated‖ by the USACE’s jurisdictional definition because it lacks a surface water connection and perceptible groundwater flow to jurisdictional WOUS. Forest Service direction does not distinguish between ―isolated‖ and ―connected‖; therefore, this complex is considered as a wetland in this analysis.40 The second (lower) snowmaking reservoir site was not identified as a WOUS.

Table 3A-9: Study Area Wetland Acreages Area Wetland Type (acres) Palustrine Emergent 0.35 Palustrine Shrub/Scrub - Palustrine Forested - Fen - Open Water 0.51 Total Wetland Acreage 0.86

Drainages

The study area includes three drainages that convey water for different durations throughout the year. Review of aerial photography of the area revealed no surface water connection to downstream tributaries. Ultimately, by the Forest Service definition in the WCPH, 7,458 linear of intermittent stream channels and 1,414 linear feet of ephemeral stream channels were identified in the Tiehack and Main Buttermilk sub-drainages. It is probable that none of the identified wetlands or streams would qualify as jurisdictional

39 A kettle pond is a shallow, 1- to 2-foot deep freshwater glacial remnant pond, typically formed when blocks of glacial ice became embedded or covered by outwash materials, leaving depressions that fill with fresh water when ground water rises to intersect them. Freshwater kettle ponds fill in through natural processes and provide different habitats, and are often underlain by a layer of fine-grained clay, which can help maintain the water level within them. 40 The USACE has not provided a Jurisdictional Determination on the study area.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-27 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources waters of the United States (WOUS). Refer to Table 3A-10 for stream channel type, acreage and linear feet. Based on the lack of physical and biological connectivity to downstream waters, the intermittent and ephemeral channels at Buttermilk are not considered WOUS in this analysis.

Table 3A-10: Stream Channel Acreage/Linear Feet by Type Areaa Stream Type Linear Feet (acres) Ephemeral Stream Channel 0.16 1,414 Intermittent Stream Channel 0.85 7,458 Total Stream Channel 1.01 8,872 a Area of stream channel calculated using a 5-foot channel width.

The drainage on Main Buttermilk that flows in the OW wetland (proposed snowmaking reservoir) is formed primarily from surface water runoff, receiving the majority of its hydrologic inputs from ski trail and road drainage (waterbars/road side ditching). Therefore, the duration of surface flow for the majority of the drainage is approximately three to four months during snowmelt. One section of the drainage, proximate to the PEM wetland on Lover’s Lane, relies on groundwater input as its supporting hydrology. Per USACE definitions, this portion could classify as an intermittent channel, with the remainder of the channel being classified as an ephemeral drainage. Note that Table 3A-11 above classifies this drainage as intermittent, which meets the Forest Service’s definition. Overall, this drainage lacks a surface water and perceptible groundwater connection to other WOUS, including wetlands and, as a result, is not considered a WOUS in this analysis.41

Two other drainages were delineated within the study area, but are outside of the areas of direct and indirect impacts. They are previously discussed in this Water Resources section.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1—the No Action Alternative—reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Buttermilk without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS and/or adjacent private lands (other than those previously approved, yet to be implemented mountain improvements). Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been considered in prior documents. The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts or benefits to watershed resources or wetlands as addressed in this document. Alternative 1 would not be expected to alter watershed drainage health. Existing issues and concerns related to concentrated flows, rilling, and head- cuts, particularly within the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage, would be expected to persist. The reader is

41 The USACE has not provided a Jurisdictional Determination on the study area.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-28 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources referred to the Affected Environment section for a description of the current watershed impacts that would continue into the future.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Snowmaking Water Use

The Proposed Action would increase snowmaking terrain by a total of 82.9 acres. Proposed snowmaking terrain and water diversions are outlined by sub-drainage in the following table:

Table 3A-11: Proposed Action Snowmaking and Snowmaking Water Use Total Proposed Total Snowmaking Snowmaking Snowmaking Sub-Drainage Diversions (acres) (acres) (AF) Tiehack 28.8 45.8 50.4 Main Buttermilk 26.3 95.5 144.3 West Buttermilk 27.8 27.8 30.5 Total 82.9 169.1 225.3 Note: These totals include NFS and private lands and acreages differ slightly from Chapter 2 text due to mathematical rounding.

The proposed snowmaking acreage is approximately evenly distributed throughout all three Buttermilk sub-drainages. Within the Tiehack sub-drainage, the entire length of Racer’s Edge and Tiehack Parkway would receive snowmaking. Teaser and Westward Ho comprise the majority of snowmaking in the West Buttermilk sub-drainage, while Ridge Trail, Savio, Teaser, and Jacob’s Ladder account for the greatest portion of the Main Buttermilk snowmaking. The ―Total Snowmaking Diversions‖ include a reduced snowmaking water volume application for select trails within identified areas of geotechnical concern, as specified in Chapter 2 and 3B. The environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed snowmaking are analyzed below in ―Water Yield.‖

Snowmaking Water Storage

The Proposed Action includes development of one on-mountain reservoir on NFS lands for increased snowmaking capacity.42 The ponds would utilize existing natural depressions, excavated and re-contoured to maximize storage, and would hold 17.3 acre feet (AF) of water. These impoundments would be

42 As stated in Chapter 2, a second reservoir is proposed on private lands, which is not subject to Forest Service approval. With an approval of the Proposed Action, ASC would maintain the option to construct either or both reservoirs. For the remainder of this analysis, both reservoirs are addressed.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-29 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources constructed on an isolated, intermittent drainage swale, and would not impact jurisdictional WOUS, or negatively impact any aquatic habitat.43

The upper reservoir (located entirely on public land) would require the construction of an earthen dam using fill material generated by excavation of the lower reservoir. The dam would be approximately 20 feet high and roughly 120 feet wide (the top of the dam would be on contour with the adjacent ski trail) to fill the notch within the existing terrain, and would conform with USFS and State of Colorado Division of Water Resources design criteria and dam safety regulations.44 ASC will be required to submit detailed design plans for the impoundments to the WRNF for review and approval prior to construction. The design plans will include specifications for outlet works that will enable a portion of the water stored in the reservoir to be drained into the water lines of the snowmaking system. Design plans will also include an evaluation of culvert sizing and channel capacity for the channel downslope of the reservoirs, to ensure that it is capable of withstanding anticipated flows from the impoundment outlet works both during the course of normal operations and/or the potential need to drain the impoundments in the event of an emergency. Construction of the impoundments on this intermittent drainage would not be expected to have any watershed-related impacts.

Water Yield

The following table outlines the distribution of proposed tree removal and snowmaking by drainage and sub-drainage.

Table 3A-12: Proposed Action Trail Construction and Snowmaking Snowmaking Proposed Tree Proposed New Total Water use within Removal Snowmaking Snowmaking Sub-drainage Sub-Drainage (acres) (acres) (acreage) (AF) Tiehack 1.0 28.8 45.8 50.4 Main Buttermilk 2.1 26.3 95.5 144.3 West Buttermilk 0.8 27.8 27.8 30.5 Total 3.9 82.9 169.1 225.3

The proposed activities would affect the watershed hydrology in the study area. The application of snowmaking alters the volume and timing of snowmelt runoff, while trail clearing affects the water balance by decreasing the amount of water removed via evapotranspiration, thus increasing the quantity of water available for runoff. Interception and evaporation losses from the forest canopy would be reduced. Vegetation removal would affect the infiltration characteristics of the watershed, generally

43 The USACE has not yet issued a Jurisdictional Determination on these waters. 44 CTL Thompson, 2008; Resource Engineering, 2008b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-30 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources resulting in quicker runoff generation. Changes in vegetative cover also can affect the solar energy balance of the watershed, permitting increased solar radiation and therefore earlier and faster snowmelt. Together these changes would cause water yield increases and changes in hydrograph timing.

The water balance simulation model was used to provide estimates of expected changes in the volume and distribution of water due to the Proposed Action. The runoff derived from the water balance methodology was distributed over time utilizing the WRENSS nomographs. Summaries of the anticipated hydrologic changes for the average water year are outlined in the following tables:

Table 3A-13: Proposed Action Flow and Yield Characteristics Existing Proposed Action Sub-drainage Peak Flow Yield Peak Flow Yield (cfs) (AF) (cfs) (AF) Tiehack 4.1 384 4.3 410 Main Buttermilk 4.6 495 4.9 521 West Buttermilk 3.0 318 3.2 344

The following table reflects the changes in flow characteristics when compared to baseline conditions for the relevant watersheds:

Table 3A-14: Changes in Yield and Peak Flow Proposed Action vs. Baseline Yield Increase vs. Baseline Peak Flow Increase vs. Baseline Sub-drainage (AF) (%) (cfs) (%) Tiehack 119.4 41 0.9 27 Main Buttermilk 172.3 49 1.5 44 West Buttermilk 68.7 25 0.6 22

Within the Main Buttermilk drainage, yield increases would bring the yield to over 49 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions. This represents a 7 percent change when compared to current conditions where yield is 42 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions. Meanwhile adding snowmaking to Racer’s Edge and other areas on Tiehack would result in yield conditions reaching 41 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions. This represents an 11 percent change when compared to current conditions where yield is 32 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions. On the West Buttermilk sub-drainage, snowmaking on Teaser and Westward Ho would bring yield to levels that are 27 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions, in comparison to existing conditions, where yield is 19 percent above baseline conditions. This represents an 8 percent change when compared to current conditions.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-31 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Surface Drainage Conditions

Pursuant to Forest Plan requirements, snowmaking activities must be conducted in such a manner as to maintain adequate ground cover and avoid gullying and/or slope failure. Due to the importance of vegetative cover in areas of proposed snowmaking, the area of snowmaking that is proposed to occur on areas of existing gullies and rills can provide a useful metric to compare the potential effects of the action alternatives.

Table 3A-15: Alternative 2 Snowmaking on Areas with Existing Gullying and/or Rilling Proposed Snowmaking on Existing Areas of Sub-drainage Trail Gullying/Rilling (acres) Jacob’s Ladder 0.2 Ridge Trail 1.0 Main Buttermilk Savio 0.3 Lower Savio 0.8 Ridge Trail 0.1 Tiehack Tiehack Parkway 0.7 Ridge Trail 0.5 West Buttermilk Teaser 0.1 Total 3.7

There is a high risk that additional snowmaking water inputs proposed on these areas where vegetation is sparse, in particular on Ridge Trail and Savio, would result in further gullying, erosion, increased concentration of runoff flows, higher rates of sedimentation, and an inability to maintain drainage health.

In order to maintain compliance with the Forest Plan with respect to snowmaking activities, vegetation cover and drainage conditions must be addressed on Ridge Trail, Savio, Teaser, other areas of existing gullying where snowmaking is proposed, and areas of head-cut erosion within the drainage channel located above the proposed snowmaking ponds on Main Buttermilk. Areas of Ridge, Savio, and Teaser must attain sufficient vegetation cover using a combination of structural and/or operational best management practices (BMP), as outlined below, prior to implementation of new snowmaking in order to withstand additional water inputs without risking additional flow concentration and gully development. This process may include some of the following components and would be implemented at the discretion of the Forest Hydrologist and the Forest Permit Administrator for the Buttermilk SUP:

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-32 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Successful re-establishment of adequate vegetation cover density on areas of Savio and Ridge Trail where bare soils predominate and no O-horizon is present. These areas are highlighted visually in Figure 6–Drainage Conditions. Due to the historic grading and soils compaction, this may need to include some combination of:

o Where some soils are present, scarification of the soil surface layer in order to re-mix and increase tilth. o Re-contouring in areas to smooth the ground surface and fill in existing gullies. o Import topsoil to re-establish O-horizon capable of supporting plant growth. o Hydromulching and/or straw mulching to enhance seed establishment. o Placement of jute-netting or geo-textile meshes to stabilize and hold topsoil onsite. o Placement of geo-grids or geo-textile mesh to hold topsoil onsite. o Routing and/or re-routing of water via water bars as appropriate based on site topography. Collection, detention and/or other structural mechanisms to re-route surface flows away from the length of degraded drainage channel upstream of the proposed snowmaking ponds on Main Buttermilk.

Note that the above provisions would require field review, followed by detailed design and potentially engineering plans prior to implementation, and it is anticipated that they would be adjusted and/or added to as needed based upon onsite field conditions. It is not anticipated that the above prescriptions would be required across the entire areas of proposed snowmaking.

Pre-snowmaking monitoring of ground cover and drainage conditions. ASC would be required to implement drainage and erosion control measures prior to or concurrently with the installation of snowmaking. ASC and the Forest Service will design ground restoration activities (which could include any measures described above and/or in a drainage and erosion management plan that will be submitted to the Forest Service) as part of the sequencing of snowmaking infrastructure installation and operation. The Forest Service and ASC will collaborate to proactively improve surface drainage conditions.

Post-snowmaking implementation monitoring of ground cover and drainage conditions. After implementation of snowmaking, areas of new snowmaking should be monitored each season during runoff conditions to check for development of or potential exacerbation of drainage problems. Should snowmaking negatively affect vegetative cover or result in either new or re- established rills on these trails, then responsive measures must be taken in order to address further drainage concerns in these critical areas. If post-implementation adaptive measures are unsuccessful in addressing development of identified drainage concerns, then operational practices would be adjusted so as to address problems in these areas of concern.

The measures outlined above would be paired with ongoing maintenance and improvement activities in order to maintain or improve ground cover and surface drainage conditions. These prescriptions are

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-33 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources conceptual by nature and do not exhaustively list all of the drainage management improvements that could be performed to improve drainage conditions at Buttermilk. They are intended to hone in on critical areas of immediate need given existing conditions and areas of proposed project activities. Many of the conceptual recommendations outlined would require specific technical and/or engineering design prior to implementation. ASC would be required to submit these designs to WRNF specialists for review and authorization prior to implementation.

Adequate vegetation cover must be achieved in areas proposed for new snowmaking in order to satisfy the requirements of the Forest Plan, thereby avoiding the development of gullies or rills causing detrimental erosion or loss of ground cover. If the above strategies are successful in attaining this objective, then the Proposed Action would satisfy the requirements of the WCPH to maintain or improve drainage health conditions.

Water Quality

Assuming completion of the aforementioned measures included in the Proposed Action and adherence to all PDC (Table 2-3, Chapter 2), implementation of the Proposed Action would meet the requirements of the WCPH to maintain or improve watershed health, and would not negatively affect state or federal water quality standards within the Roaring Fork River.

Instream Flows

Maroon Creek

Under the Proposed Action, ASC would not increase the maximum allowable snowmaking diversion rate from the current 2,500 gpm. Operationally, the required to support the approximately 83 acres of additional snowmaking is possible by utilizing the storage capacity of the proposed snowmaking reservoirs. Snowmaking typically commences as soon as temperatures become consistently cold enough. Buttermilk’s diversion rate of 5.56 cfs limits the quantity of snowmaking production during favorable, cold-temperature conditions. This results in a limited throughput for snowmaking. Increased storage capacity would enable Buttermilk to increase snowmaking productivity during periods of favorable weather conditions when, under current operations, it cannot do so.

Because the instantaneous demand upon Maroon Creek would not change associated with this proposal, minimum instream flow conditions would not change from existing conditions. Development of the water storage ponds would facilitate increased snowmaking production without any effect on instantaneous streamflows, thereby eliminating any chance for increased demand upon the stream system especially during low flow time periods (whether diurnally or seasonally). It should be noted that even with the proposed storage facility, while the maximum rate of snowmaking diversions would not change, doubling the amount of snowmaking terrain would increase the overall water quantity required. This would result in an increased duration during which water diversion activities affect the overall streamflow volume, while still maintaining existing streamflow rates.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-34 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

As previously stated, Resource Engineering, Inc. conducted streamflow simulation modeling for Maroon Creek and determined that ASC has sufficient legal and physical water supplies to ―fully support the planned snowmaking improvements‖ at Buttermilk as part of this proposed action.45

Wetlands

Two on-mountain water impoundments are proposed under Alternative 2 and 3 to provide approximately 5.6 million gallons (17.3 AF) of combined storage. Both locations (the upper and lower reservoirs) would utilize existing natural depressions and would be enlarged by excavating material to deepen the depressions. Once excavation is complete, each reservoir would be line to prevent groundwater infiltration (i.e., water loss). These actions (excavation and lining) constitute an impact to wetland function and value. Construction of the upper snowmaking reservoir would result in permanent impacts to 0.11 acre of OW wetlands. The upper reservoir would also require construction of an earthen dam (20’ by 120’) using fill material generated by excavation of the lower depression. Excavation and lining the OW wetland complex would result in a loss of many wetland functions such as groundwater recharge and discharge, flood control, water purification and nutrient cycling. However, post construction the pond would resume its value as a watering hole for wildlife. Impacts to wetlands and stream channels for each alternative are presented in Table 3A-16.

Table 3A-16: Waters and Wetlands Impacts Wetland Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Palustrine Emergent (PEM) - - - Palustrine Shrub/Scrub (PSS) - - - Palustrine Forested (PFO) - - - Fen - - - Open Water (OW) - 0.11 acre 0.11acre Perennial Stream Channel - - - Total Wetland Acreage 0.0 acre 0.11 acre .011 acre

Source: SE GROUP, 2008

Delineated wetlands proximate to proposed snowmaking lines in the Main Buttermilk and Tiehack drainages will be re-delineated and flagged to avoid and minimize impacts prior to ground disturbance. Refer to Table 2-3 Project Design Criteria for best management practices that would be implemented to protect wetlands within the Project Area.

The Affected Environment portion of this analysis indicates that the OW wetland proposed for impact may not be jurisdictional due to its potential lack of surface or perceptible groundwater connection to a jurisdictional WOUS. Should the wetland be determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE, the impacts

45 Resource Engineering, 2008a

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-35 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources could be permissible under USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit 42–Recreational Facilities. Furthermore, the impacts would comply with which the uses of the permit are intended for, and the quantity of impacts (0.11 acre) are below the 0.5 acre threshold established for the permit.

Drainages

The drainage that carries seasonal runoff to the proposed upper snowmaking pond would be protected from bank erosion, head-cutting, and down-cutting by the design and construction of structures that would route excess water away from erosion features and armor certain areas determined appropriate by the Forest Hydrologist. This would stabilize the channel and prevent further bank destabilization and subsequent sediment loading. In addition, diversion and/or armoring structures may be installed to protect a section of intermittent stream channel beginning at the proposed snowmaking reservoir and continuing upstream approximately 800 feet to a point immediately adjacent to Homestead Road. Best management practices and PDCs identified in Table 2-3 would minimize temporary impacts to the stream channel during post-runoff (summer/fall) construction. Overall, stream health benefits to the Main Buttermilk sub- drainage resulting from this project component are anticipated to exceed the short-term effects (i.e., temporary increase in fine sediments). Implementation of measures addressing the 800 foot-long section of ongoing erosion in this channel is would be required before of any additional snowmaking would occur that would add additional water to this section.

Similar to the permitting requirements for the OW wetland addressed above, armoring 800 linear feet of may require a USACE Section 404 permit. The armoring of the stream channel is considered a channel restoration project as it would improve stream function. This action may be permitted under the same Nationwide Permit 42 as the wetland impact.

Avoidance and Minimization

As required by Executive Order 11990 and the CWA, avoidance and minimization measures must be considered through the planning process. The OW wetland was considered to be avoided through the development of an alternative pond site (refer to Alternatives and Design Components Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis), but the proximity to a higher quality kettle pond was taken into consideration in the planning stages. Furthermore, it was determined that required excavation for the alternative reservoir site could dramatically alter the water table; thereby impacting the existing wetland. No other potential reservoir sites were identified as being appropriate for use by Buttermilk or when considering overall resource impacts that would be necessary to construct an alternative site.

Mitigation

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and the USACE provided guidance for reviewing and implementing compensatory mitigation for projects involving impacts to WOUS, including

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-36 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources wetlands. Furthermore, the MOA discusses compensatory mitigation as a requirement for unavoidable impacts once all steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts are followed.46 Wetland impacts associated with the construction of the upper reservoir site would be mitigated in-kind through the creation of wetlands on-site at the southern end of the upper reservoir which is an ideal location due to its minimal slope and proximate hydrology source from the drainage. With in-kind mitigation pursuant to USACE permitting requirements under Section 404 of the CWA, Alternative 2 would satisfy WCPH Management Measure 6: ―The Corps of Engineers protects wetlands under Section 404 regulations, which may permit wetland impacts if mitigation measures are applied to replace wetland values in-kind.‖47 The existing wetland that would be impacted is primarily an OW wetland (minimal vegetation due to the duration of inundation) with a fringe shrub wetland layer (willows). The wetland mitigation site would be an herbaceous/shrub wetland totaling approximately 0.15 acre. Wetland hydrology would be provided by the bisecting drainage that would provide a hydrologic input during a portion of the growing season, as well as the proposed snowmaking reservoir that will be designed to partially inundate the proposed wetland creation site. The wetland mitigation site would be created concurrent with the snowmaking reservoirs. Wetland mitigation would replace and improve the wetland function and value that would be lost through the impact. Through mitigation, the wetland area within the SUP would increase by 0.04 acre.

Alternative 3

The 5.9-acre reduction in total snowmaking within the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage (as compared to Alternative 2) is in direct response to anticipated surface drainage impacts within the upper Main Buttermilk sub-drainage.

Alternative 3 reduces snowmaking by approximately 5.9 acres (primarily on Savio) in response to these concerns. A 7.1-acre increase in snowmaking on Lower Javelin (Tiehack sub-drainage) responds to recreation needs associated with the Nordic jump venue and accounts for the net change to snowmaking acreage for Alternative 3. Only those categories whose Alternative 3 analysis differs from the Proposed Action are discussed below.

Snowmaking Water Use

Alternative 3 would increase snowmaking terrain by a total of 84 acres. Proposed snowmaking terrain and water use is outlined by watershed in the following table:

46 EPA and USACE, 1990 47 The USACE may not require mitigation should they determine there is a lack of ―connection‖ to other WOUS. The Forest Service would still require mitigation for any wetland impacts.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-37 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Table 3A-17: Alternative 3 Snowmaking and Snowmaking Water Use Total Proposed Total Snowmaking Snowmaking Snowmaking Sub-Drainage Diversions (acres) (acres) (AF) Tiehack 35.8 52.8 58.1 Main Buttermilk 20.4 89.6 142.1 West Buttermilk 27.8 27.8 30.5 Total 84.0 170.1 230.7 Note: These totals include NFS and private lands and acreages differ slightly from Chapter 2 text due to mathematical rounding

Alternative 3 snowmaking would be similar to Alternative 2. Although the area of coverage for Savio would be less than the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 would require slightly more water than Alternative 2 (mainly due to the addition of Lower Javelin, area 7.1 acres, in the Tiehack sub-drainage).

Water Yield

The following table outlines the distribution of proposed tree removal and snowmaking by drainage and sub-drainage under Alternative 3.

Table 3A-18: Alternative 3 Trail Construction and Snowmaking Snowmaking Proposed Tree Proposed New Total Water use within Removal Snowmaking Snowmaking Sub-drainage Sub-Drainage (acres) (acres) (acreage) (AF) Tiehack 1.0 35.8 52.8 58.1 Main Buttermilk 2.1 20.4 89.6 142.1 West Buttermilk 0.8 27.8 27.8 30.5 Total 3.9 84.0 170.1 230.7

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-38 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Summaries of the anticipated hydrologic changes for the average water year are outlined in the following tables:

Table 3A-19: Alternative 3 Flow and Yield Characteristics Existing Alternative 3 Sub-drainage Peak Flow Yield Peak Flow Yield (cfs) (AF) (cfs) (AF) Tiehack 4.1 384 4.3 417 Main Buttermilk 4.6 495 4.8 519 West Buttermilk 3.0 318 3.2 344

The following table reflects the changes in flow characteristics when compared to baseline conditions for the relevant watersheds:

Table 3A-20: Changes in Yield and Peak Flow Alternative 3 vs. Baseline

Yield Increase vs. Baseline Peak Flow Increase vs. Baseline Sub-drainage (AF) (%) (cfs) (%) Tiehack 125.7 43 0.9 27 Main Buttermilk 170.5 49 1.5 43 West Buttermilk 68.7 25 0.6 22

Within the Main Buttermilk drainage, yield increases would bring the yield to over 49 percent above baseline, un-developed conditions. This is approximately the same as the Proposed Action. Meanwhile adding snowmaking to Racer’s Edge and Javelin on Tiehack would result in yield conditions reaching 43 percent above baseline conditions, in comparison to 41 percent under the Proposed Action. The increase is due to the addition of snowmaking on lower Javelin on Tiehack under Alternative 3 that is not included in the Proposed Action. On the West Buttermilk sub-drainage, the planned snowmaking coverage would bring yield to levels that are 25 percent above baseline conditions, the same as the Proposed Action.

Drainage Health

Alternative 3 was designed specifically to reduce impacts to the surface drainage system. Through the combination of reduced snowmaking, Alternative 3 would reduce snowmaking on areas of dissected Mancos shale to help maintain compliance with WCPH requirements in the Main Buttermilk drainage. The reductions in snowmaking outlined under Alternative 3 are targeted at reducing the drainage impacts upon two areas of skiing terrain, Ridge Trail and Savio, where drainage conditions are extremely poor in their present state. Avoiding further impacts to these areas would be protective of watershed health, and

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-39 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources would represent a higher level of sensitivity to the watershed concerns identified by the ID Team than Alternative 2.

Table 3A-21: Alternative 3 Snowmaking on Areas with Existing Gullying and/or Rilling Proposed Snowmaking Sub-drainage Trail on Areas of Gullying/Rilling (acres) Jacob’s Ladder 0.2 Main Buttermilk Ridge Trail 1.0 Tiehack Tiehack Parkway 0.7 Ridge Trail 0.5 West Buttermilk Teaser 0.1 Total 1.5

As shown in Table 3A-24, Alternative 3 includes only 1.5 acres of proposed snowmaking on areas where existing gullies or rilling exists, in comparison to 3.7 acres under the Proposed Action. These areas would be required to undergo the same ground cover re-development prescriptions as outlined above under the Proposed Action. Similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 would maintain compliance with Forest Service management objectives for surface drainage health, however it would attain this objective with less reliance on mitigation and project design requirements.

Water Quality

Assuming completion of the aforementioned measures included in Alternative 3 and adherence to all PDC (Table 2-3, Chapter 2) implementation of the Alternative 3 would not negatively affect state or federal water quality standards within the Roaring Fork River.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Spatial Extent of Analysis

The spatial and temporal extent over which cumulative water resources effects will be examined is defined following. The stream health effects of increased peak flows are most evident in the directly affected on-mountain drainages. These watersheds all drain (ultimately) to the Roaring Fork River, where the effects of changes in flow are comparatively small relative to the hydrology of this larger watershed. Thus, from a stream health perspective, the Roaring Fork mainstem as it flows near the base of Buttermilk defines the downstream spatial boundary for analysis of stream health cumulative effects. Within the context of minimum instream flow compliance, the spatial extent of analysis includes the Maroon Creek watershed, from the point of diversion at the Stapleton Brothers Ditch to the confluence with the Roaring Fork River.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-40 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Temporal Extent of Analysis

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

Analysis of Cumulative Effects

Watershed Health

Watersheds subjected to activities associated with management, including trail construction and snowmaking, tend to exhibit cumulative changes to channel conditions, with differing corresponding dynamic equilibria, as compared to watersheds in undeveloped conditions. These changes are caused by increases in peak snowmelt magnitude and duration due to the effects of trail clearing, trail grading, and snowmaking. Affected channel reaches typically exhibit long term, continuing adjustments to their dynamic equilibria due to accelerated water inputs caused by both snowmaking and trail construction. The cumulative effects of the development of Buttermilk are reflected in the prevalence of gully erosion and headcuts throughout the SUP (a direct result of increased water yield and disturbed soils).

Subsequent to implementation of the DMP, and contingent upon continued maintenance of all BMPs throughout the Proposed Action would maintain watershed health and avoid additional cumulative impacts upon the impaired Main Buttermilk sub-drainage within Buttermilk’s SUP. Provided the same conditions are met (DMP and BMP maintenance), Alternative 3 would likely represent a net cumulative improvement to the Main Buttermilk sub-drainage at Buttermilk.

Past Actions

Past activities that have affected watershed resources on WRNF and private lands within the Upper Roaring Fork and Maroon Creek watersheds include: timber harvest; heavy metals mining and associated tailings and waste rock; highway and road construction and development for State Highway 82; developments; dispersed outdoor recreation; and private residential development. On-going human influence within the Roaring Fork River watershed has substantially altered land cover, resulting in changes to riparian ecosystems and hydrologic function via a variety of impact mechanisms:

Increasing peak flows due to stormwater runoff from developed areas.

Increases in stream temperature due to loss of shading from removal of riparian vegetation.

Increased erosion and sediment transport within the watershed due to residential, mining, and transportation development.

Sediment impacts within the Roaring Fork watershed associated with traction sanding on State Highway 82.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-41 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Municipal water diversions for the municipalities of Aspen, Snowmass, and Basalt.

Wastewater loads from municipal treatment facilities.

Snowmaking diversions from Aspen Ski Company (Aspen Mountain, Highlands, Buttermilk, and Snowmass).

Impacts to fisheries habitat caused by timber harvest, mining, development, grazing and transportation.

Impacts to water quality caused by heavy metals loading from mining waste rock and tailings.

Cumulatively, these changes have resulted in an altered watershed ecosystem, with the associated impacts resulting in degraded watershed conditions within all of Buttermilk’s three drainage areas.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

In the near future, Buttermilk is expected to construct the Tiehack Express lift and install water, sewer, and electric lines within an existing utility corridor, as approved in the 2001 Buttermilk DN/FONSI and reaffirmed by the 2008 SIR (the reader is referred to Chapter 1 for a description of previously-approved projects). On-going dispersed recreation would continue at Buttermilk. Summer activities include hiking, biking, and horseback riding; while winter use would include activities such as back-country skiing, cross-country and Nordic skiing, and snowshoeing. These low-intensity activities would be consistent with the management allocation for the area and generally would have little impact on stream health. Trail/stream crossing areas would continue to act as areas of localized sediment delivery to the stream system.

Proposed Action Project Effects

Implementation of the Proposed Action is anticipated to maintain stream health within the project area by ensuring that proposed snowmaking is disconnected from ephemeral drainages and does not result in associated increase in peak flows or mobilization of fine sediment. By maintaining the health of surface drainage, the proposed action would not exhibit any negative influence upon watershed conditions in a cumulative context.

Cumulative Effects Summary

In summary, considering the project effects in addition to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the Proposed Action (including all mitigation, project design criteria, and DMPs) would cumulatively meet USFS management objectives for projects on NFS lands to maintain or improve watershed health, per the requirements of the WCPH.

Wetlands

Historically, the development of Buttermilk, as well as associated development of private lands located within the Maroon Creek and Roaring Fork watersheds, has resulted in the loss of historic wetlands. The

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-42 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources total quantity of loss is unknown, because the area of wetlands existing prior to human development within these watersheds is unknown.

Based on field surveys, wetlands and drainages within the ski area may have been impacted prior to the implementation of CWA through the construction of trails and ski area infrastructure. Per Section 404 of the CWA, authorization of WOUS, including wetland impacts require compensation, which may include WOUS restoration or creation. Therefore, wetlands impacted in a cumulative sense should be mitigated. Should the USACE determine the wetlands and drainages proposed for impact within the Buttermilk SUP are jurisdictional, mitigation would be required to offset the anticipated effects.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of watershed resources associated with any of the alternatives have been identified.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-43 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

This page intentionally left blank.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-44 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

FIGURE 5: WATER RESOURCES

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-45 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-46 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

FIGURE 6: EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-47 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences A. Water Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-48 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

B. SOILS, GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The scope of the analysis focuses on geologic and soil resources within the Maroon Creek and Roaring Fork watersheds on WRNF and adjacent lands at Buttermilk Mountain. The proposed project area is defined by areas directly disturbed by, and slopes adjacent to, proposed grading, snowmaking, and construction of the Nordic jump venue.

This geological summary is based on the site specific analysis and 2009 GEO-HAZ Consulting entitled: Geology and Geologic Hazards of 2009 Proposed Improvements at Buttermilk, available in the project record.48 The 2009 technical report also references a 2008 technical report GEO-HAZ prepared for the project.49 In support of its analysis, GEO-HAZ conducted a review of published and unpublished literature available for the Buttermilk project area, completed an examination of stereo aerial photographs and existing field mapping, and conducted a site visit specifically on the Tiehack side of Buttermilk.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Geology

This section provides a general description of geologic formations, slope stability, and a description of surficial geologic characteristics across the SUP area. A detailed discussion of existing geologic characteristics within and adjacent to Buttermilk’s SUP boundary can be found in the project file.50

Buttermilk lies on a resistant Dakota sandstone layer mantled by the softer Mancos Formation. The lower slopes and upper two thirds of Buttermilk are shale and silt-shale with some sandstone and siltstone beds. Limestone forms small resistant ridges at the middle elevations of Buttermilk (refer to the Geology and Geologic Hazards report in the project file). The shale members of the Mancos Formation are known for widespread slope instability in Colorado, particularly in areas such as Buttermilk that have relatively high precipitation. The impermeable shale surface on some slopes cuts rills and gullies that can affect slope stability. In other areas, unconsolidated glacial deposits soak up precipitation, and hold it against the shale keeping it wet throughout the year causing landslides. The lower portion of the mountain has five large landslide complexes originating in the Mancos formation. Two of the proposed projects, snowmaking and the Nordic jump venue have potential to interact with mapped landslides.

Slope Stability

The style and rate of past landslide movement at Tiehack indicates very slow to extremely slow movement (3–5 in/yr to 3–7 in/mo), rather than catastrophic, rapid landslide movement. This style of slow movement is common in shale landslides, and has been described elsewhere in Colorado for

48 GEO-HAZ, 2009 49 GEO-HAZ, 2008 50 GEO-HAZ, 2009

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-49 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis landslides in Mancos Shale (e.g., GEO-HAZ, 2008). The fact that average rates of movement on historic and prehistoric landslides are similar, suggests that slow movement in the range 3–5 in/yr, averaged over decade time scales, is the dominant mechanism of slope movement at Tiehack. A secondary failure mechanism is that of rapid debris slide-debris flow, such as occurred just prior to 1952. Such failures originate as debris slides of saturated unconsolidated material (colluvium or till) on steep slopes, and once the mass begins sliding, it liquefies and transforms into a mobile debris flow.

Landslide deposits throughout the study area vary in debris and period of activity (based on sharpness of the slide topography). The five complexes are located in various major drainage basins (refer to Figure 7, located at the end of the geotechnical section). Much of the existing snowmaking is on or drains into a large, intermediate age, slump-earthflow complex located beneath the lower one-third of the Summit Express lift which has a low-moderate chance for reactivation. An earthflow located north of the West Buttermilk bottom terminal has subdued topography suggesting it is an older slide and has not been active since the 1960. Two slump and earthflows located between the Tiehack and the Summit Express, and west of the Summit Express are also older slides and expected to be fairly stable.

Only the slide complex beneath the Upper Tiehack bottom terminal has been reviewed for recent movement during field work conducted for this project. From 1979 to 1981 movement of the old slide at the Upper Tiehack bottom terminal and towers 1 through 8 was recorded, resulting in some tower displacement that required adjustments to the lift design. Average downslope movement was 3 to 5 inches per month. Creep occurred in a portion of the slide (never defined) from 1973 to 1984. In 1991 gravel interceptor trenches and pipes were installed to dewater the slide and several of the lift towers were replaced with towers that had adjustable bases. These bases have not required readjustment suggesting landslide drainage successfully slowed down or stopped the landslide movement. However approximately 1 meter (m) of separation has occurred in the drain. The lower portion of the slide under Lower Tiehack, remained stable during this same period, 1973 to 1981.51 Although inclinometers were installed to monitor Tiehack landslide movement, their movement has been ambiguous. An area of till perpendicular to the Upper Tiehack slide appears to have moved in a thin debris flow sometime before 1951. Future thin debris flows may initiate in this area a flow northeast which is directly downhill.

Soils

Information on soils specific to the project area was obtained from the WRNF’s Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) GIS database.52 Soils having very similar profiles make up a soil family. Except for differences in texture of the surface or underlying layers, all the soils of a family have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. The following soil families are present in the study area Wetoba, Doughspon, Etchemoor, Callings, Skylick, Leadville, Callings, and Seitz.

51 Ibid. 52 USDA Forest Service, 2002d

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-50 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

The TEUI was used to develop the following discussion of the soil resources in the project area. Where necessary, information was supplemented by Soil Series Descriptions published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Existing information was considered sufficient to address all identified soil-related issues; therefore, no site specific soil surveys were conducted as part of this project.

A total of eight individual mapped soil units exist within the SUP area and adjacent NFS lands. These eight soil units include five management units based on the similarity of site characteristics (i.e., soil type, slope angle, vegetation, etc.). General characteristics of the mapped management units within the study area are presented in Table 3B-1.

Table 3B-1: General Characteristics of Mapped Soil Units Within Project Area Available Water Effective Rooting Map Unit/Name Drainage Class Runoffb Capacitya Depth 338B Wetopa Well High Moderate >60” Doughspon Moderately Well High Moderate >60” Echemoor Well High Moderate >60” 347B Callings Well Moderate Moderate >40” Skylick Well Moderate Moderate >40” 360C Leadville Well Moderate Moderate >20” 376C Callings Well Moderate Rapid >20” 380B Seitz Well High Moderate >40” a Available Water Capacity refers to the volume of water that should be available to plants if the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, were at field capacity. b Runoff refers to the degree to/rate at which precipitation, once interfaced with the soil, flows as a result of gravitational forces. Greater rates of Runoff are generally consistent with greater erosion risk. Source: USDA Forest Service, 1995a

The Wetopa-Doughspon-Echemoor families consist of deep, moderate to well-drained soils from residuum and colluvium. These soils have 5 to 40 percent slopes and exhibit moderate runoff and slow to moderately slow permeability. Typical native vegetation includes aspen, lingusticum, mountain snowberry and Fendler meadow-rue. Within the project area, this series is found mainly along the bottom of the Tiehack side of Buttermilk in the proposed Nordic jump venue project area.

The Callings-Skylick families consist of deep, well drained soils derived from residuum and slope wash. These soils have 5 to 40 percent slopes and exhibit moderate runoff and permeability. Typical native vegetation includes aspen, mountain snowberry, Saskatoon serviceberry and chokecherry. Within the project area, this complex is common from the middle elevations to the base of Buttermilk.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-51 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

The Leadville family consists of deep, well drained soils derived from residuum and colluviums. These soils have 40 to 65 percent slopes and exhibit moderate runoff and permeability. Typical native vegetation consists of subalpine fire, Engelmann spruce, Rocky Mountain whortleberry, and grouse whortleberry. Within the project area, this complex is found in the area of the proposed Nordic jump venue.

The Callings family is a deep, well drained soil formed from residuum and colluviums. This soil has 40 to 60 percent slopes, exhibits rapid runoff and moderate permeability. Typical vegetation includes aspen, mountain snowberry, Saskatoon serviceberry and chokecherry. Teaser trail (below Homestead Road) is located on this soil type.

The Seitz family is a deep, well drained soil derived from residuum and slope wash. This soil has 5 to 40 percent slopes, exhibits moderate runoff and slow permeability. Typical vegetation consists of subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, Rocky Mountain whortleberry, heartleaf arnica and elk sedge. Within the project area this soil is mainly found along the summit and on surrounding the West Buttermilk Express chairlift.

The primary management considerations for the potentially affected soils units are outlined below:

Table 3B-2: Management Limitations of Mapped Soil Units Within Project Area Cut/Fill Slope Improved Mass Movement Map Unit/Name Revegetation Stability Unsurfaced Roads Potential 338B Wetopa Moderate Moderate Low Slight Doughspon Moderate Moderate Low Slight Echemoor Moderate Moderate Low Slight 347B Callings Moderate Moderate Low Slight Skylick Moderate Moderate Low Slight 360C Leadville Moderate Severe (slope) Low Moderate 376C Severe Severe Callings (slope and fine (slope and low load Moderate Moderate grained material) bearing strength) 380B Seitz Moderate Moderate Low Slight

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-52 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, no new ground disturbance would occur on NFS (or adjacent) lands within the project area as a result of the 2009 Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan. Landslides on Buttermilk are currently dormant, but could reactivate independent of any development within the SUP or on adjacent private lands. Slope instability in areas of identified landslides in the form of slope creep and erosion in the highly erodible Mancos formation would persist under the No Action Alternative. Landslide re-activation would be a potential risk even under the No Action Alternative. The potential consequences of landslide re-activation could include further movement of lift towers that would require adjustments to lift alignments, as well as potential damage to other existing ski area structures and infrastructure, such as bending or rupturing of buried utilities like snowmaking pipelines.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

The proposed Nordic jump venue and snowmaking were identified by the geotechnical specialist as projects with the potential to affect or be affected by geological resources. These project elements are discussed in detail in the geology section below. All of the proposed projects could affect soil resources; impacts from each of the project elements are discussed in the soils section below.

Geology

Nordic Jump Venue The jump venue is located on the eastern portion of a large area of potentially unstable slopes. The only portion of these slopes that has reactivated since they were mapped in 1972 is the Upper Tiehack slide, active from 1973 to 1981. The 15 m jump structure is located on part of the reactivated slide, however, the slope does not appear to have moved since drains were installed in 1991, and construction and utilization of the jump is not anticipated to impact movement of this landslide.

The 65 m jump straddles the historic till channel which was active just prior to 1951. Future shallow gravel flows may initiate in the amphitheater and travel downslope, where they would fan out along the toe of the historic mapped slide zone as portrayed in Figure 7. Therefore the middle of the 65 m jump would be designed to permit flows to pass beneath the jump structure. To prevent future debris flows from potentially impacting the jump runouts, the lower northeast corner of the amphitheater would be raised to guide the debris flow north, away from the jump runout. Cut and fill associated with the 65 m jump would primarily be located outside the Tiehack slide in previously stable till. The bottom fill area would lie on the Tiehack slide, however because the earth would be placed near the toe of the reactivated slide, the fill load is expected to have a slight stabilizing effect. Construction and utilization of the 65 m jump is not expected to affect movement of the till. The 35 m jump would be located on a stable moraine ridge and is not expected to be affected by, or affect, the adjacent landslide complex. Prior to jump venue

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-53 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis development a detailed site plan including design criteria to protect slope stability would be submitted for Forest Service approval. Within this site plan the surface lift would either be built to accommodate potential eastward movement of the slide or the bottom terminal could be moved uphill a distance of approximately 50 feet where it would be outside of the Tiehack slide.

The Nordic jump access road crosses the toe of the portion of the landslide that experienced some creep from 1973 to 1984. To avoid destabilizing the slide, no materials would be removed from the toe of the slope. To improve use of the existing access road a drainage plan would be required prior to any developments on Tiehack to convey runoff to a suitable location.

Snowmaking Proposed snowmaking would occur either on mapped landslides or generate additional runoff that would flow onto mapped landslides. Because geotechnical data or groundwater measurements for the Buttermilk landslides is not available, a hydrologic comparison was developed to compare the effect of proposed snowmaking compared with high precipitation periods such as 1982 through 1986 and 1993 through 1999.

There does not appear to be a strong positive correlation between periods of above-average precipitation and slope movement. The slope movements that occurred from 1973–1979 that resulted in the need to relocate towers 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the Upper Tiehack lift occurred during a period of slightly above-average precipitation (approximately 3 inches per year higher than the long-term average). However, 1993–1999 was a very wet period during which average precipitation was 5 inches per year higher than the long-term average. The wettest year on record, 1995, recorded a 12-inch departure from the long-term average precipitation. Apparently the Upper Tiehack slide did not move during this period since the towers of concern did not require any relocation. As noted in the geotechnical report however, one of the drain pipes that was installed to de-water the zone of slope movement separated sometime during this time frame, pointing to the possibility of slope movement. The lag time and comparatively slow response of groundwater in response to precipitation patterns adds to the uncertainty of the hydrologic comparison. Typical snowmaking practice would result in the addition of approximately 1.1 feet of water equivalent every year on affected terrain. Proposed snowmaking within the Slide A micro-drainage (refer to Figure 7 in Chapter 3B for “Landslide Micro-drainage Zones”) would receive 0.825 acre feet per acre of water (a 25 percent reduction) to cover trails with artificial snow. Proposed snowmaking within the Slide C micro- drainage (refer to Figure 7 in Chapter 3B for “Landslide Micro-drainage Zones”) would receive 0.825 acre feet per acre of water (a 25 percent reduction) to cover general trails and 1.275 acre feet per acre of water (a 25 percent reduction) to cover terrain park trails with artificial snow.

Much of the proposed snowmaking will generate additional infiltration and runoff that will flow down onto mapped landslides, such as the Slide A and C complexes. Given the history of landslide movement at Buttermilk, a reactivation of landslide movement due to this additional snowmaking would likely result

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-54 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis in slow movement of lift towers that would have to be mitigated, as was the movement of the Upper Tiehack lift from 1973–81. GEO-HAZ Consulting proposed that snowmaking not increase the water yield to the Slide A or C sub-watersheds more than 5 percent above existing conditions.

GEO-HAZ proposed that snowmaking actions should not increase water yield more than +5 percent to a sub-watershed containing a mapped landslide. The reason for such a criterion was that there is little on- mountain data on landslide Factors of Safety, so the incremental and cumulative effects of more snowmaking cannot be predicted quantitatively at this time. Therefore, GEO-HAZ proposed a limit to water yield increases that was smaller than the magnitude of year-to-year fluctuations in snowpack (this amounts to about ±30 percent in the Aspen area, historically).53 It was felt that, as long as the increase in water yield (approximately 5 percent) was small in relation to natural fluctuations, it would not likely become the “straw that broke the camel’s back” as far as landslide reactivation.

Snow is currently made on 86 acres at Buttermilk. Alternative 2 proposes an additional 84 acres of snowmaking across the mountain. The area proposed for new snowmaking generally lies west of the Summit Express lift. Almost all of the snowmaking is underlain by Mancos Shale, however the lowest part of the area lies on the head of the Slide C complex that descends to the Buttermilk base area (refer to Figure 7, located at the end of the geotechnical section). Additionally, one small slump on Savio would receive snowmaking, and has a low to moderate chance for reactivation if snowmelt runoff is concentrated on it from upslope. Movement of the Slide C complex has not been observed in the roughly 24 years since snowmaking commenced at Buttermilk in 1984. Nor has any movement been large enough to be problematic with respect to ski slope topography or any potentially affected towers of the Summit Express lift, which has remained stable since installation in 1993.

Alternative 2 proposes to add 26.3 acres of new snowmaking in the Slide C micro-drainage on Main Buttermilk. The Proposed Action project design criteria (PDC) includes a reduction of typical snowmaking water application by 25 percent. Therefore, the Proposed Action with the PDC would bring water yield to 5.2 percent above existing conditions. This represents an increase of 24 AF of water per year over existing conditions. By including the aforementioned PDC, proposed snowmaking in the Slide C micro-drainage would be within the 5 percent threshold and would be consistent with Forest Plan direction.54 Further, GEO-HAZ 2008 indicates the typical movement being very slow to extremely slow

53 GEO-HAZ, 2008 54 Calculations have assumed that all water lost to evapotranspiration is not part of the effective water yield for slope stability. This is admittedly a simplification, because in order for water to be transpired by trees on the mountain, it must have already infiltrated the surface. Much of this water may have infiltrated only a small depth into the vadose zone (the unsaturated zone from the earth’s surface to the water table) before becoming transpired (soil moisture), so would not affect groundwater levels or slope stability. However, some of the water later transpired may have infiltrated below the vadose zone, temporarily becoming part of a shallow or perched water table, and eventually rising close enough to the ground surface later to be transpired by tree roots (e.g., in the bottom of a gully or drainage). Such water would have had a temporary effect on slope stability, but is ignored in our calculations of effective water yield; this makes the values of water yield cited herein minimum estimates.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-55 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis movement (creep) in Mancos Formations and would not result in a catastrophic landslide. By reducing water inputs, it is anticipated the risk of creep is low.

Alternative 2 proposes to add 16.9 acres of new snowmaking in the Slide A micro-drainage on Tiehack. The Proposed Action’s PDC for Slide A includes a reduction of typical snowmaking water application by 25 percent. Therefore, the Proposed Action with the PDC would bring water yield to 5.7 percent above existing conditions (this is within the conservative estimate as described in previous footnote). This represents an increase of 8.5 AF of water per year over existing conditions. By including the aforementioned PDC, proposed snowmaking in the Slide A micro-drainage would be within the 5 percent threshold and would be consistent with Forest Plan direction.

An additional PDC is included for Slide A. Man-made snow equivalent to the amount applied should be removed at the conclusion of the ski season (and prior to peak runoff) from the micro-watershed of the bowl-shaped source area of historic debris flows in Racer’s Edge. The area that snow would be removed from by snowcat is approximately 1.7 acres in size. The snow would be pushed downslope to a location outside of the Slide A micro-drainage. Drainage measures will be implemented to ensure runoff is appropriately controlled.

The proposed snowmaking reservoirs would be constructed west of Slide C (refer to Figures 3 and 7). To impound the upper reservoir, a dam will be constructed roughly 20 feet high and 120 feet long across the narrow drainage. The west abutment would be on older slump-type landslide deposits. The east abutment would be on a younger landslide. The upper reservoir would be located at the toe of the landslide, resulting in a slight stabilizing effect. However, the lower reservoir would be located on the headscarp of Slide C and the additional weight may be a stability-negative influence on the landslide. If the earthflow were to re-activate due to the addition of snowmaking water, then the dam (which straddles the boundary between the earthflow and more stable terrain to the west) could be sheared enough to cause failure of the reservoir.

The following features are recommended for the design of the snowmaking ponds. The reservoir liner should be designed to resist tearing if earth movement should occur, and the dam should be built to withstand some earth movement. Monitoring wells would be installed to detect changes in ground water level. ASC will be required to implement design requirements that allow the dam structure to be sufficiently ductile such that it bends under strain rather than fractures. This could be achieved by building a central core of high-plasticity clay within the dam. The core must be thicker than the amount of anticipated displacement, so the core will not be breached. In addition, geotextile layers (fabrics or grids) can be inserted perpendicular to the inferred displacement, to prevent fractures from crossing the entire dam width and causing a piping failure of the dam structure. Further, depending on the timing of a failure event, it is likely that ASC would be able to mitigate the consequences of a potential failure by partially or completely draining the impoundments if failure is deemed imminent. Engineering designs for the dam

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-56 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis structures would be subject to Forest Service and State of Colorado review and approval prior to implementation.

Soils

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in approximately 41 acres of soil disturbance primarily associated with the following project components (refer to Figure 3, in Chapter 2):

Installation of snowmaking infrastructure Excavating and damming the snowmaking ponds Construction of the lift maintenance facility Construction of the Nordic jump venue

The effects of soil disturbance can include soil mixing, loss of organic matter, changes in soil chemistry, bare soil exposure, and increased erosion, as well as altered soil infiltration and surface flow regimes. Grading and re-contouring using heavy machinery causes soils compaction and loss of soil tilth. Compacted soils exhibit reduced infiltration capacity and recovery may take decades. Loss of top soil and a decrease in soil organic matter associated with disturbances to the rooting zone can reduce soil productivity and negatively impact vegetative growth capability. Adherence to PDC, as outlined herein and in Chapter 2, would reduce detrimental effects to soil resources within the project area.

An activity of primary concern with respect to soils disturbance, is the addition of 80 acres of snowmaking coverage on NFS lands. Installation of snowmaking utilities in utility trenches would disturb approximately 35.4 acres of soil during construction. Only approximately 1.9 acres of snowmaking would occur on soil management unit 376C which has low stability due to steep slopes and fine grains. Increased soil erosion as a result of additional runoff is of concern due the proposed snowmaking. Implementation of the drainage plan outlined in the Water Resources section would reduce the loss of soil and vegetative cover.

Construction of the lift maintenance facility and Nordic jump venue would result in loss of organic matter, increase bare soil and soil compaction at Buttermilk which could increase soil erosion. All construction activities will require proper design, installation, and maintenance of PDCs. PDCs include but are not limited to: utilization of sediment fencing and installation of cross slope drainage (i.e., water bars); and revegetation immediately following construction activities. Implementation of PDCs to protect highly erodible soils, 376C, and prevent sedimentation in receiving waters would be conducted in accordance with FSH 2509.25 guidelines.

Prior to project implementation, a construction erosion control and drainage management plan would be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval. In addition, a post-construction stabilization and re-vegetation plan, including provisions for assessing the effectiveness of site stabilization measures, would be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-57 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

Alternative 3

Geology

Alternative 3 omits a portion (6 acres) of snowmaking on Savio, when compared to the Proposed Action, and results in an increase to the water yield by 5.1 percent above existing conditions within the Slide C micro-drainage. This represents an increase of 24 AF of water per year over existing conditions. For reference, the Proposed Action with the PDC would bring water yield to 5.2 percent above existing conditions. Compared to the Proposed Action, Alternative 3 would result in 0.2 AF less water yield. Therefore, the effects to slope stability would be similar to the Proposed Action, and would have a low risk of reactivation. Further, should the slope reactivate, slope creep would be anticipated as opposed to a catastrophic slope failure.

Under Alternative 3, the Nordic jump venue surface lift would terminate uphill of the top terminal proposed in Alternative 2 requiring a second access road. The road would use an abandoned maintenance road that crosses some historic landslide complexes. To minimize impacts to these slides, the existing road bench would be used in its current condition where possible and a drainage plan addressing slope stability issues. Runoff from the road surface would be routed away from the Slide A complex.

The addition of snowmaking on Javelin would occur downslope of the headscarp for Slide A and would not influence the source micro-drainage for the Slide A complex.

Alternative 3 proposes to add 24 acres of new snowmaking in the Slide A micro-drainage on Tiehack. This is approximately 7 acres greater than the Proposed Action due to snowmaking coverage on Javelin. Alternative 3 PDCs include a reduction of typical snowmaking water application by 40 percent. Therefore, Alternative 3 with the PDC would bring water yield to approximately 5 percent above existing conditions. This represents an increase of 7 AF of water per year over existing conditions. By including the aforementioned 40 percent reduction PDC, proposed snowmaking in the Slide A micro-drainage would be within the 5 percent threshold and would be consistent with Forest Plan direction.

The additional PDC of mechanically removing the equivalent amount of snow to the amount of artificial snow applied is identical to the Proposed Action.

Soils

Impacts to soils and slope stability would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2 with the exception that snowmaking would be installed on lower Javelin, and removed from Savio. Snowmaking would be installed on 72 acres of terrain under Alternative 3. Ground disturbance associated with the installation of snowmaking infrastructure would result in increased potential for soil erosion over the No Action alternative.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-58 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Spatial and Temporal Bounds of Analysis

The temporal extent of the analysis commences with conditions that formed Buttermilk Mountain, extends through the development of ski area as well as includes the lifespan of current proposed projects and current reasonably foreseeable future actions, in general ten to twenty years into the future from the date of this document. The spatial bound for this cumulative effects analysis extends outward from the Buttermilk SUP to adjacent private lands, to the Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Historically, the Buttermilk area experienced heavy glaciation and as a result is primarily composed of unconsolidated glacial till and Mancos shale. Five historic landslides occurred on the lower half of the mountain prior to Buttermilk ski area development in the late 1960s and 1970s. Evidence of some continued movement is present in the Tiehack area; future landslide movement is primarily independent of ski area developments and operations.

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

The 2001 DN/FONSI approved installation of the previously approved the Tiehack Express lift and a new utility line, both were reapproved in a 2008 SIR. The Tiehack Express would run through the Tiehack landslide complex movement of which damaged lift infrastructure during the 1973 through 1981 reactivation. Since that time the slide complex was drained and Upper Tiehack bottom terminal and towers 1-8 appear to have stopped moving. Design and tower placement of the Tiehack Express considers the historic Tiehack landslide complex and further damage to lift infrastructure may be avoided. The previously approved utility line would run up the middle of the Summit Express slide complex. Grading, excavation and installation of this utility line would result in decreased vegetative cover and increased soil compaction.

When considered cumulatively from a geotechnical context, re-activation of the landslide zones of concern is a possibility under any of the alternatives, including the No Action alternative. However, even with implementation of all required PDCs and drainage management measures, implementation of either

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-59 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis of the action alternatives would result in a cumulative increase in water introduced into known landslide zones that have had observed movement take place within the operational history of Buttermilk, and would increase the risk that these slide zones could re-activate. As stated in the Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences section, GEO-HAZ 2008 indicates the typical movement being very slow to extremely slow movement (creep) in Mancos Formations and would not result in a catastrophic landslide. By reducing water inputs as required by PDCs, it is anticipated the risk of creep is low.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources in relation to soils and geology has been identified in association with either of the alternatives analyzed in this document.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-60 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

FIGURE 7: GEOLOGY

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-61 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences B. Soils, Geology and Geotechnical Analysis

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-62 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation

C. VEGETATION

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The following is a summary of more detailed plant analyses for the proposed Buttermilk Improvement Plan. Project file documents include the biological assessment (BA) and biological evaluation (BE), which this vegetation and plant analysis is derived from. Forest Service Manual 2670 provides direction on the review, actions, and programs authorized, funded or implemented by the Forest Service relative to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under ESA, the Forest Service is required to undergo Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for such a federal action when it may affect listed species. Section 7 consultation for plant species is not required for this action.

On December 10, 2007 the USFWS provided the WRNF verbal concurrence on a list of species to address under Section 7 of the ESA. Species analyzed in the BA were identified as listed proposed, threatened, or endangered or having the potential to occur on Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, or that may possibly be affected by activities on the District. No portion of the analysis area has been designated as critical habitat by the Secretary of the Interior.55

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Vegetation Types

Buttermilk is a year-round, highly developed recreational facility. The ski area is located primarily on north and east-facing slopes, where ample snow conditions provide for skiing/riding opportunities through mid-April each year. The landscape is characterized by a mixture of spruce-fir, mixed conifer, aspen, and lodgepole pine forest, in addition to ski trails dominated by grasslands and shrublands.

Large expanses of oak brush are located throughout the northeastern and north central portion of the permit area. Other than open ski runs, the remainder of the permit area is forested.

Four distinct forest cover types are found within the permit area; nearly pure stands of aspen and lodgepole pine, mixed conifer stands composed predominantly of Douglas fir, and mixed conifer stands composed of subalpine fir, Englemann spruce, Douglas fir and lodgepole pine.

Aspen

Aspen stands in the form of large expanses and small narrow stringers separating open runs are found throughout the entire permit area. Most are even-aged with uniform stocking, and all size classes from 4– 14 inches in diameter are well represented. Many have a significant lodgepole pine component. Widely scattered clumps and individual pine are present throughout many of these sites. Spruce and fir seedlings

55 PL-93-205, Section 4, 1978

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-63 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation and saplings are unevenly distributed throughout the understory in many of these stands. Forest floor vegetation includes ribes, meadow rue, lupine, elk sedge, vetch and elderberry.

Lodgepole Pine

Large expanses of lodgepole pine are located within the southwestern portion of the permit area. Stocking is flawlessly uniform and all size classes from 4 to 12 inches in diameter are well represented. Mountain pine beetle attacks have resulted in a significant mortality in these stands and are expected to accelerate in the coming years. Subalpine fir seedlings are unevenly distributed throughout the understory, and aspen sprouts are numerous at various places along the outside edges of these stands. Forest floor vegetation includes common juniper, lousewort, arnica, Scouler willow, and grouse whortleberry.

Mixed Conifer

An uneven-aged mixed conifer stand is present in the southwestern-most portion of the SUP. Stand structure is multistoried with large diameter spruce, fir (Douglas and subalpine), and pine towering over an abundant understory of seedlings, saplings and small sawtimber. Small isolated clumps of aspen are found widely scattered throughout the site. Spruce and fir seedlings and saplings are abundant and evenly distributed throughout the understory. Predominant forbs on the forest floor include lousewort, arnica and grouse whortleberry.

Douglas fir is a significant component within the mixed conifer stands located throughout the eastern portion of the SUP. Stand structure is uneven-aged. Douglas fir and subalpine fir seedlings and saplings are numerous, but unevenly distributed throughout the understory. Forest floor vegetation includes arnica, elk sedge, snowberry, mountain maple, Oregon grape, and fleabane.

Non-Forest Vegetation

Non-forested areas within the Buttermilk SUP include native subalpine grasslands and oak woodlands in addition to constructed ski slopes. The variety and abundance of surface vegetation provides components of habitat for many wildlife species.

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

Federally listed plant species that were initially considered in the BA include those identified by the USFWS as potentially occurring on the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District or potentially affected by management activities on the District. No Threatened, Endangered or Proposed (TEP) plant species are present within the study area; therefore, no further detailed analysis of TEP species is included in this analysis.

Region Two Sensitive Plant Species

There are 20 species of sensitive plants known or expected to occur on the WRNF (Table 3C-1). Most of these species are typically found in habitats that do not occur in the project area and therefore will be

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-64 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation excluded from further consideration. In each case, the reason for the exclusion is provided in Table 3C-1. Detailed analysis for sensitive plant species is therefore limited to Colorado tansy aster (Machaeranthera coloradoensis [a. Gray] osterhout).

Table 3C-1: USDA-FS Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring on the White River National Forest Species Habitat Association Reason For Exclusion Sea Pink Wet sandy soils, south-facing No habitat, project area well below (Armeria maritima ssp. slopes, 11,900 to 13,000’ elevation elevation of known range. sibirica) Sedge-grass meadows, swales and Park milkvetch Not documented west of Summit hummocks, aspen, also present (Astragalus leptaleus) County among streamside willows Eroding shale bluffs-associated with Wetherill milkvetch No habitat, project area well above sagebrush and juniper, to 7,400’ (Astragalus wetherillii) elevation of documented range. elevation No habitat, project area well below Found above 12,000’ on sparsely elevation of known range. Known to Smooth rockcress vegetated gravelly slopes of occur 12 miles from the project area (Braya glabella) Leadville Limestone near Taylor Pass. No slopes on Leadville limestone in SUP. Outside of geographic range. Lesser panicled sedge Wet, un-shaded subalpine willow Documented only from Garfield and Rio (Carex diandra) stands, swamps, or wet meadows. Blanco Counties Occurs on barren gray shale slopes Rocky Mountain thistle and adobe hills above intermittent No habitat, project area well above (Cirsium perplexans) stream beds at elevations from elevation of documented range. 4,500’ to 7,000’ Clawless draba Alpine fell fields, 12,500–14,000’ No habitat, project area well below (Draba exunguiculata) elevation elevation of documented range. Gray’s peak whitlow-grass Gravelly alpine slopes and fellfields, No habitat, project area well below (Draba grayana) 11,500–14,000’ elevation elevation of documented range. Always associated with saturated soils. Restricted to fens, marshes, Altai cotton-grass and bogs at high elevations. Level (Eriophorum altaicum var. No suitable habitat in project area. ground up to 20% slope (concave), neogaeum) mostly open environs. Soils with high organic matter. Russet cotton-grass (Eriophorum chamissonis [E. Same as Altai cottongrass No suitable habitat in project area. russeolum]) Sedge meadows and floating bogs in Slender cotton-grass No habitat, project area well above saturated soil to shallow standing (Eriophorum gracile) elevation of known range. water at 6,900–8,000’ elevation. Hoosier Pass Ipomopsis Gravelly calcareous soils in alpine No suitable habitat in project area (Ipomopsis globularis) areas

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-65 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation

Table 3C-1: USDA-FS Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring on the White River National Forest Species Habitat Association Reason For Exclusion Gravelly areas in mountain parks, rock outcrops up to dry tundra; substrates: limestone, shale, other Colorado tansy-aster calcareous; volcanic, granitic. (Machaeranthera Plains/park grassland, with Potentially suitable habitat present. coloradoensis) ponderosa, bristlecone pine, PJ, to alpine fellfields. Bluffs, ridges, flats, roadsides. Open exposure. Flat to 35% slopes, all aspects. Outside of geographic range. Suitable elevation present only on the upper Subalpine and alpine wet meadows, Kotzebue grass-of-Parnassus reaches of the proposed summer trail steamlets and moss mats, edges of (Parnassia kotzebuei) system. Summer trails would avoid water, 10,000–12,000’ elevation. wetland areas that provide suitable habitat above 10,000’. Harrington penstemon Open sagebrush; less commonly in No sagebrush habitat on the project area. (Penstemon harringtonii) P-J. Adobe substrates of the Shire and Debeque Phacelia Atwell members of the Wasatch No habitat, well above elevational range (Phacelia scopulina var. Formation on Colorado’s Western of species and outside geographic range. submutica) Slope, near the town of DeBeque. Outside documented geographic range Short-to medium-height willow and below elevational range for the spp. Porter’s feather grass carrs, 9,200–12,000’ elevation, Suitable elevation present only on the (Ptilagrostis porteri [P. where Deschampsia caespitosa is upper reaches of the proposed summer mongholica ssp. Porteri]) codominant. Peat hummocks in trail system. Summer trails would avoid calcareous fens in South Park. wetland areas that provide suitable habitat. 12,000–14,100’ ridge tops, and Ice Cold Buttercup peaks, in rock and scree in assoc. No habitat, project area well below (Ranunculus karelinii [R. with snow banks. Igneous parent elevation of documented range. gelidus spp. grayi, R. grayi]) material or calcareous sedimentary rocks. Sphagnum moss Fens No suitable habitat. (Sphagnum angustifolium) Endemic to the Green River Formation in the arid basins and Sun-loving meadowrue No habitat, well above elevational range mesas of western CO. Found on (Thalictrum heliophilum) of species and outside geographic range. steep talus slopes on open, sunny sites 6,300–8,800’ elevation.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-66 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation

Machaeranthera coloradoensis is endemic to central and south central Colorado and southern Wyoming. This plant is known from the high San Juan Mountains (central and eastern) and adjacent parks off the northeastern end of the San Juans, the high Elk Mountains, the Mosquito Range and adjacent South Park, and flats and low elevation parks in south central Wyoming.56

On the WRNF, there are two or three known populations of M. coloradoensis within a mile of each other, in the alpine zone south and west of Taylor Pass near the divide with Gunnison County and the Gunnison National Forest, at 12,200 to 12,600 feet elevation.

In Colorado, populations of M. coloradoensis are often associated with limestone, dolomite, shale, or other calcareous substrates.57 At the WRNF sites, M. coloradoensis occurs in the alpine zone on Pennsylvanian limestones, dolomites, or shales, mostly associated with calcareous rocks, at elevations of 12,200–12,600 feet, towards the upper end of its known elevational range.58

The most direct threat to M. coloradoensis is damage by winter snowmobile use, as the habitat of this plant is on exposed ridge tops where there may be little or no snow cover during winter. There are no identified indirect impacts. Surveys conducted in potentially suitable habitat for this species during the growing season of 2008 failed to detect its presence within the SUP.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A BA and BE were prepared for this project and are part of the project file and incorporated herein by reference.59 Determination of risks to populations of sensitive plants considers the size, density, vigor, habitat requirements, locations of the population, and consequence of adverse effects on the species as a whole within its range and within the WRNF.

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative is a true no action alternative and reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Buttermilk without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS land (other than those previously approved, yet to be implemented mountain improvements). Effects of previously-approved mountain improvements have been considered in prior documents and are considered herein as part of the environmental baseline. The current status of plant species and communities and how they have been affected by conditions under this alternative are described above in the Affected Environment section.

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect impacts on any federally listed or R2 sensitive plant species.

56 Colfer, 2008b 57 Spackman et al., 1997 58 Tweto, 1979, cited in USDA Forest Service 2002b 59 Colfer, 2008a,b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-67 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation

Alternatives 2 and 3

Vegetation communities that would be impacted by the proposal are described above in Affected Environment. The acreage of impacts to these communities is detailed in Table 3C-2 below.

Table 3C-2: 2008 Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Project Vegetation Impacts

Description Vegetation Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Ownership Total

Lift Maintenance Facility Mixed Conifer Proposed Proposed Public 0.759 Lift Maintenance Facility Grass/Forb Proposed Proposed Public 0.406 Nordic Jump Venue Aspen/Doug Fir Proposed Public 0.396 Nordic Jump Venue Grass/Forb Proposed Public 0.138 Nordic Jump Venue Aspen/Doug Fir Proposed Public 0.417 Nordic Jump Venue Grass/Forb Proposed Public 0.138 Snowmaking Reservoirs Aspen/Conifer Proposed Proposed Public 1.073 Snowmaking Reservoirs Aspen/Conifer Proposed Proposed Private 0.936 Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Public 37.6 Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Public 39.3 Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Private 1.6 Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Private 1.7

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

No threatened or endangered plant species were detected in the Buttermilk study area.60 Therefore, alternatives 2 and 3 would have no direct or indirect effect.

Region Two Sensitive Plant Species

There is no habitat present within the project area for Sea Pink, Park milkvetch, Wetherill milkvetch, Smooth rockcress, Lesser panicled sedge, Rocky Mountain thistle, Clawless draba, Gray’s peak whitlow- grass, Altai cotton-grass, Russet cotton-grass, Slender cotton-grass, Kotzebue grass-of-Parnassus, Porter’s feather grass, Harrington penstemon, Debeque Phacelia, Hoosier Pass Ipomopsis, sphagnum moss, Ice Cold Buttercup, or Sun-loving meadowrue.61 Therefore, there would be no impact to these species as a result of the proposed project under alternatives 2 or 3.

Field surveys conducted for plants on the WRNF Sensitive Species List did not detect the presence of Colorado tansy aster. Therefore, there would be no impact to this species as a result of implementation of any alternative.

60 Colfer, 2008a 61 Colfer, 2008b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-68 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences C. Vegetation

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No direct or indirect impacts to threatened, endangered or R2 sensitive plant species are expected to occur as a result of the proposed projects. Therefore, all alternatives should have no cumulative impacts on any federally listed or R2 sensitive plant species.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Tree removal related to the proposed projects would represent an irretrievable effect to vegetation resources within the SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because vegetation is a renewable resource.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-69 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

D. WILDLIFE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

This analysis of animal resources is tiered to the WRNF Forest Plan FEIS, and incorporates by reference the 2002 Forest Plan, as amended, as well as the 2008 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment.62 Species analyzed in this wildlife resources report were identified as listed proposed, threatened, endangered, sensitive or management indicator species (MIS). The project file includes the biological assessment (BA), biological evaluation (BE), and MIS report for the current Proposed Action. The following is a summary of more detailed wildlife analyses for the proposed Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan.63

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

Listed and proposed wildlife species that were initially considered for this project included those identified by the USFWS and Forest Service as potentially present on the WRNF in the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District or potentially affected by management decisions associated with the Proposed Action. This list included the following listed species: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema), humpback chub (G. cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). The Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly and Mexican spotted owl were dropped from further detailed consideration because their range distributions do not include the project area or habitats necessary for their life requirements are not found within the project area. The remaining species warranting additional discussion, Canada lynx. humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are addressed below.

Candidate species were considered as R2 sensitive species. A BA was prepared for this project and is part of the project file and incorporated herein by reference. Furthermore, for detailed information on threatened and endangered animal species habitat types and background, refer to the BA in the project file.

Canada Lynx Environmental Baseline

The reader is referred to the introduction in the Affected Environment portion of the Vegetation section (Section 3C) for an overview of the project setting and habitats present.

The Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) Record of Decision was implemented October 28, 2008, affecting lynx habitat management on all forests in the Rocky Mountain Region (R2).64 Specific to the WRNF, it supplants all of the objectives, standards, and guidelines for lynx from the 2002 Revision to

62 USDA Forest Service, 2002a and 2008a 63 Colfer, 2008a 64 USDA Forest Service, 2008a

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-70 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife the WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan with those identified in the SRLA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) for the SRLA EIS on August 20, 2008.65 It identifies that implementing the SRLA would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of lynx and sets forth reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, and conservation recommendations that are to be implemented along with the SRLA. All terms and conditions in the BO for the 2002 Forest Plan Revision are dropped from projects that do not have a signed decision as of October 28, 2008.

The Buttermilk SUP area is overlapped by two Lynx Analysis Units (LAU), the Maroon Bells and Snowmass LAUs. Potential lynx winter foraging and denning habitat on the Aspen-Sopris District is found in several large contiguous blocks, linear stands associated with river and stream corridors, and isolated blocks at low or alpine elevations. The large habitat blocks are found in subalpine zones at the headwaters of Thompson Creek, Wolf Creek and Coal Creek in the Four Mile area, in the subalpine elevations of the Elk Mountains within the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area, at the headwaters of Difficult Creek and the Castle Creek drainage, the subalpine zones east and north of Aspen, and the Upper Fryingpan River Drainage and its tributaries. Much of the district below approximately 8,500 feet and above 12,000 feet is comprised of non-habitat or other suitable habitat.

The Forest Service provided statistics for the Maroon Bells LAU (Table 3D-1).66 Lynx habitat composes 32 percent of the Maroon Bells LAU, approximately 100 percent of the LAU’s lynx habitat is currently suitable. Lynx habitat composes 30 percent of the Snowmass LAU, approximately 99.9 percent of the LAU’s lynx habitat is currently suitable. Current denning and unsuitable habitat percentages for the Maroon Bells and Snowmass LAUs are consistent with the management thresholds recommended by the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) and required by the Forest Plan to help preserve lynx habitat viability within the LAU.67 Snow compacting activity areas (e.g., roads, Nordic trails, huts, snowmobile, and snowcat operations) in the Maroon Bells and Snowmass LAUs have been mapped and are part of the project file.

65 Forest Service 2002a and 2008a; USFWS, 2008 66 USDA Forest Service, 2002a (updated 4/22/2007, provided by E. Roberts, USFS, Oct. 16 and 17, 2007) 67 Ruediger et al., 2000 and USDA Forest Service, 2002g

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-71 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-1: Environmental Baseline Status of Lynx Habitat in the Maroon Bells and Snowmass Lynx Analysis Units Habitat in LAU Lynx habitat in LAU Habitat Description (acre) (%)

MAROON BELLS LAU Winter Foraging 5,283 7 Denning 7,929 10 Other 12,618 15 Unsuitable 1 0 Total Lynx Habitat 25,831 32 Non-Habitat 56,005 68 LAU Total Acres 81,836 SNOWMASS LAU Winter Foraging 4,642 8 Denning 7,698 13 Other 5,989 10 Unsuitable 43 0.1 Total Lynx Habitat 18,372 30 Non-Habitat 42,931 70 LAU Total Acres 61,303 a Data are based on Forest Service habitat mapping and classification criteria (Ruediger et al., 2000 and USDA Forest Service, 2002c,g) Source: Colfer, 2008a

The Buttermilk project area is not in a designated, key landscape linkage area and is located 17 miles east of the closest linkage area at McClure Pass. Lynx have been observed in the Independence Pass, Taylor Pass and possibly Scofield Pass suggesting that these areas provide linkages from east and west across the Elk Mountains which make up much of the Maroon Bells and Snowmass LAUs.

Colorado River Endangered Fish

The Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker are not found within the boundaries of the analysis area, but have potential of being affected by activities that deplete or degrade the flow of downstream waters into the Colorado River.68 Proposed snowmaking and snowmaking reservoirs associated with the proposed project would result in additional, but not new, depletions of water from the Upper Colorado River Basin. Depletions related to the currently proposed project were authorized in a Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the USFWS in 2001 for, “snowmaking on National Forest System lands, and to provide domestic water for a restaurant, employee housing and visitor services.” None of the projects that were authorized in 2001 have been implemented.69 The currently

68 USFWS 1990a, 1990b, 1991, and 2002 69 USFWS, 2001

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-72 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife proposed snowmaking expansion was included in Buttermilk’s Master Plan that was the subject of the 2001 BO.

The 2001 BO stated that the 48 AF of proposed depletions do not require a contribution to fund recovery actions, and concluded that the project meets the criteria to rely on the Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) to offset depletion impacts and is therefore not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado River Endangered Fish, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

The existing NFS lands depletion baseline includes the pre-1995 depletions of 5.3 AF, plus 48 AF of depletions authorized in the 2001 Buttermilk Biological Opinion that have yet to be implemented, for a total of 53.3 AF (NFS lands baseline). The private land baseline includes 29.1 AF (Table 3D-2) of existing depletions (per the 2001 Biological Opinion the existing depletions on private lands do not debit against the 48 AF). The maximum depletions for the proposed projects (snowmaking on all proposed trails for Alternatives 2 and 3 on NFS lands) would be 23.4 AF, which is below the 48 AF of depletions previously consulted upon. Therefore, proposed projects would not exceed the NFS lands baseline and would have no effect on the Colorado River Endangered Fish.

Table 3D-2: Existing and Proposed Depletions

No Action Proposed Additional Depletions Owner Depletion (AF) (AF) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 + Alt 3* Private Existing 29.1 NFS Lands Existing 5.3 Private Proposed 0 0.9 1.0 1.0 NFS Lands Proposed 0 21.6 22.8 23.4 * “Alt 2 + Alt 3” is the maximum depletions related to proposed projects that could be approved by the USFS. It is not the sum of Alternatives 2 and 3. Source: Colfer, 2008a

As shown in the above table, the proposed snowmaking coverage and reservoir storage would result in a maximum 23.4 AF of depletions that are within the total depletions authorized by the 2001 Buttermilk Ski Area Biological Opinion. Private land depletions would increase by 1.0 AF, however the total increase would still remain below the 48 AF authorized in 2001 by USFWS.

Therefore, the proposed project meets the criteria to rely on the RIPRAP to offset depletion impacts and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the four Colorado River Endangered fish, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The project would have no effect on Colorado River Endangered Fish. Therefore, this portion of the project has already undergone consultation and does not necessitate additional consultation with USFWS.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-73 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

Region Two (R2) has designated “sensitive species,” representing species declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to federal listing if action is not taken to reverse the trend, and species whose habitat or population is stable but limited.70 The updated R2 Sensitive Species List was refined by the WRNF to produce a subset of sensitive species, including 8 mammals, 18 birds, 2 amphibians, 5 fish and 2 invertebrates that may be present or potentially present on the WRNF after an analysis of all sensitive species on the overall updated R2 list (Table 3D-3).71 Only species that have potential to be affected by all alternatives are considered in this EA. The BE that was prepared for this project (located in the project file) includes a full discussion of every R2 sensitive species known or suspected to occur on the WRNF.72 Species names that are bold in the table have potential to be affected by the project alternatives and are discussed in the text.

Table 3D-3: R2 Sensitive Animal Species that Occur on the WRNF and in the Buttermilk Improvements Project Area Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity)

MAMMALS Pygmy shrew, Microsorex hoyi montanus Potential habitat (Variety of subalpine habitats) No habitat (Forests/woodlands to 7,500’; western portions of the Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes WRNF) No habitat (sagebrush, semidesert scrub or pinyon juniper Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum woodland habitat)

Townsend’s big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii No habitat (caves, mines and tree cavities <9,500’)

American marten, Martes americana Potential habitat (Conifer forests) North American wolverine, Gulo gulo luscus Potential habitat (Boreal forests and tundra) River otter, Lutra canadensis No habitat (Riparian habitats) Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, No habitat (Steep, rugged terrain) Ovis canadensis canadensis BIRDS Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis Potential habitat (Closed montane forests >7,500’) Potential habitat (Grasslands, agricultural lands, marshes, & Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus alpine) Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis No habitat (Plains, grasslands) American peregrine falcon, Potential habitat (Cliffs, open habitats concentrating/exposing Falco peregrinus anatum vulnerable prey) White-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus No habitat (Alpine-tundra, high-elevation willow) Greater sage grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus No habitat (Sagebrush) Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Tympanuchus No habitat (Sagebrush and mountain shrub) phasianellus columbianus

70 USDA Forest Service, 2006b 71 USDA Forest Service, 2006a,b 72 Colfer, 2008b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-74 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-3: R2 Sensitive Animal Species that Occur on the WRNF and in the Buttermilk Improvements Project Area Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) Flammulated owl, Otus flammeolus Potential habitat (Aspen mixed conifer) Boreal owl, Aegolius funereus Potential habitat (Mature spruce-fir & mixed conifer) Black swift, Cypseloides niger No habitat (Waterfalls, cliffs) Lewis’ woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis No habitat (Riparian forests) American three-toed woodpecker, Picoides Potential habitat (Mature-decadent conifer forests) tridactylus Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi Potential habitat (Open, upper elev. conifer forests) Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus No habitat (grassland, shrublands or riparian) Purple martin, Progne subis Potential habitat (Aspen) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) No Habitat (Forest adjacent large rivers or lakes) Brewer’s sparrow, Spizella breweri No habitat (Sagebrush and other structurally similar shrublands) Sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli No habitat (Low elevation big sagebrush and sage/greasewood) AMPHIBIANS Boreal western toad, Bufo boreas boreas Potential habitat (subalpine forest habitats with marshes, wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds and lakes) Northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens Potential habitat (Permanent wetlands) FISH Roundtail chub, Gila robusta No habitat or hydrologic effects (Far downstream in CO River) Mountain sucker, Catostomus platyrhynchus No habitat or hydrologic effects (Far downstream in CO River) Bluehead sucker, Catostomus discobolus No habitat or hydrologic effects (Far downstream in CO River) Flannelmouth sucker, Catostomus latipinnis No habitat or hydrologic effects (Far downstream in CO River) Colorado River cutthroat trout, No Habitat in SUPA, possible habitat in Maroon Creek Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Watershed (Headwater streams and lakes) INVERTEBRATES Great Basin silverspot, Speyeria nokomis nokomis No habitat (Wetlands supporting violet populations) Note: Other R2 species are not listed because they have not been found on the WRNF, they have no affinities to project area habitats, the project area is outside of the species’ range or elevational distribution, and Alternative 2 would have no impact on those species or their habitats. Potential pre-field survey occurrence on the project area, potential for project effects, and habitat affinity is summarized for each species. Wildlife are listed phylogenetically. Source: Weber, 1987; Andrews and Righter, 1992; Fitzgerald et al., 1994; Spackman et al., 1997; Kingery, 1998; Johnston, 2001; USDA Forest Service, 2002b, 2003; Hirsch–Personal correspondence; and unpublished spreadsheet in Forest Service files, WRNF Supervisor’s office, Glenwood Springs, CO, Colfer, 2008b.

Management Indicator Species

MIS are those whose response to management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a larger group of species with similar habitat requirements. In addition, selected MIS should be those whose change in population would be directly attributable to the management action. Strategies and objectives found in Chapter 1 of the 2002 Forest Plan direct the Forest Service to provide ecological conditions that sustain viable populations of MIS and to demonstrate positive trends in habitat availability, quality, or

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-75 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife other factors affecting the species. The 2002 Forest Plan has one objective and one strategy (referred to hereinafter as forest direction, to differentiate it from the specific MIS management objective or question) that is specific to all MIS on the Forest.73

MIS are meant to be a WRNF-wide issue. Project-level activities are evaluated in relation to how they affect WRNF-wide population and habitat trends.

MIS Evaluated for the Proposed Action Seven Management Indicator Species (MIS) were identified as project MIS based on Forest Plan selection criteria and the presence or potential occurrence of these organisms and their habitats on NFS lands within and adjacent the project area. Of the seven MIS species with potential to occur in the project area or be affected by the Buttermilk Improvement Project only American elk have habitat within the project area and are therefore discussed below.74 Other MIS were not selected as project MIS because they do not occur on NFS lands in the project area and they and their associated habitats on NFS lands would not be affected by any proposed activities. MIS not selected as project MIS include cave bats (no caves present in the project area or affected), American pipit (no alpine grassland present in the project area or affected), Brewer’s sparrow (no sagebrush present in the project area or affected), Virginia’s warbler (no mountain shrubland habitat present in the project area or affected), trout (no perennial streams and lakes present in the project area or affected), and macro-invertebrate communities (no perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, or reservoirs affected). Table 3D-4 summarizes the analysis and rationale of the MIS evaluation for the Proposed Action.

73 USDA Forest Service, 2002c, pp. 1-3 and 1-4, 2006a 74 Colfer, 2008c

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-76 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-4: MIS on WRNF and Their Potential to Occur in the Project Area Will Proposed Action affect Habitat Occupied by (direct, indirect, or Will Proposed Action affect Monitoring Question Identified in Species; Are species and Is species addressed in other MIS Species cumulative) the species, its WRNF-wide Population or 2002 Forest Plan Revision habitat present in the project documents? habitat, or its management Habitat Trends? project area? question? Species: No Are caves being managed so that bat Caves, abandoned mines; Habitat: No Yes, fringed myotis, spotted species will continue to use the Population trends: No bat, and Townsend’s big- Cave Bats Species Presence: No Is monitoring question caves, and maintain populations in applicable to project?: No, Habitat trends: No eared bat are discussed in the Habitat Presence: No the areas adjacent to the caves? project will not affect any BE. cave resources. Species: Yes Does forest motorized and non- Wide range of forest and non- Habitat: Yes motorized travel and recreation forest habitats; Is monitoring question Population trends: No Elk No management result in effective use Species Presence: Yes applicable to project?: Yes, Habitat trends: No of habitat by large ungulates? Habitat Presence: Yes project will affect recreation use and habitat. Species: No Is sagebrush habitat being managed Habitat: No adequately to provide the quality and Sagebrush; Brewer’s Population trends: No Yes, species is discussed in quantity of habitat for species Species Presence: No Is monitoring question Sparrow applicable to project? No, the Habitat trends: No the BE. dependent or strongly associated Habitat Presence: No with sagebrush? project will not affect sagebrush habitats. Species: No Is the alpine grassland habitat being Habitat: No managed to provide habitat for those Alpine Grassland; American Population trends: No species dependent or strongly Species Presence: No Is monitoring question No Pipit applicable to project?: No, the Habitat trends: No associated with alpine grassland Habitat Presence: No habitat? project will not affect alpine grassland habitats.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-77 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-4: MIS on WRNF and Their Potential to Occur in the Project Area Will Proposed Action affect Habitat Occupied by (direct, indirect, or Will Proposed Action affect Monitoring Question Identified in Species; Are species and Is species addressed in other MIS Species cumulative) the species, its WRNF-wide Population or 2002 Forest Plan Revision habitat present in the project documents? habitat, or its management Habitat Trends? project area? question? Species: No Does forest management maintain Dense Shrub Habitats; Habitat: No Virginia’s populations of species dependent on Population trends: No Species Presence: unknown Is monitoring question No Warbler dense shrub habitat dispersed applicable to project?: No, the Habitat trends: No Habitat Presence: Yes throughout the shrub cover types? project will not affect shrub habitats. Species: No Habitat: No Colorado River Cutthroat Does forest management maintain or Perennial streams and lakes; Is monitoring question Population trends: No trout are discussed in the BE. All Trout improve the physical habitat quality Species Presence: No applicable to project?: No, the project will have no direct or Habitat trends: No None of the other species are for salmonids in mountain streams? Habitat Presence: No indirect effect on perennial discussed. stream habitat and will not affect lake habitats. Species: No Does forest management maintain or Perennial streams, Habitat: No improve water quality (including Macro- intermittent streams, lakes chemical aspects as well as Is monitoring question Population trends: No invertebrate and reservoirs; applicable to project?: No, the No sediment) such that aquatic faunal Habitat trends: No Communities Species Presence: No communities are similar between project will have no direct or managed and reference sites? Habitat Presence: No indirect effect on water quality.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-78 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Determination of risks to populations of sensitive wildlife (including insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) considers population size and density, occurrence, suitable habitat, location of the population, and consequence of adverse effect on the species as a whole within its range and within the WRNF.75

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative is a true no action alternative and reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Buttermilk without major changes, additions, or upgrades on NFS land (other than those mountain improvements previously approved and yet to be implemented). Effects of previously approved mountain improvements have been considered in prior documents and are considered herein as part of the environmental baseline. The current status of animal species and groups and how they have been affected by conditions under this alternative are described above in the Affected Environment section.

Under the No Action Alternative, mixed conifer stands in the project area will likely persist with little change over the short term. Some mortality will continue in the subalpine fir component from root rot, and in the lodgepole pine component from Mountain Pine Beetle. Barring a major disturbance such as a wildfire, these stands will perpetuate themselves indefinitely. There will be occasional microsite changes as older dominant trees die off. Lodgepole pine will gradually die out completely as succession continues towards a late seral stage of spruce and fir. However, younger trees in close proximity would fill in the disturbed areas and the overall stand structure will remain constant. Existing ski trails would continue to be managed as grass/forb-lands. Ski trails will continue to provide summer habitat for wildlife species adapted to forest openings such as elk. Suitable nest and forage habitat for a variety of wildlife species exists throughout the permit area. The No Action Alternative would have no additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts or benefits to the animals and their habitats addressed in this document.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

The Proposed Action would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail, humpback chub, and razorback sucker. The one remaining species warranting additional discussion, Canada lynx, is addressed below.

75 Colfer, 2008a,b,c

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-79 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Canada Lynx

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Installation of the lift maintenance facility would require clearing and grading of 0.76 acre of lynx winter forage habitat located in a highly dissected and heavily developed portion of the ski area, where numerous ski trails, chairlifts, and a restaurant are collocated. Based on minimum snowshoe hare habitat requirements (one hare per ten acres in suitable habitat) described in Towry (1987), the clearing of 0.76 acres of lynx winter forage habitat would not reduce the theoretical carrying capacity of the ski area for snowshoe hares.

There would be 1.073 acres of lynx other suitable habitat impacted via construction of the upper snowmaking reservoirs on NFS land. Lynx other suitable habitat provides summer foraging opportunities and cover for lynx while they travel between higher quality foraging habitats. The conversion of this habitat to lynx non-habitat would have no detectable impact on lynx.

Proposed horseback trails would wind mostly through lynx non-habitat, with one exception. An aspen/lodgepole pine stand beneath the Tiehack lift is mapped as lynx other suitable habitat. No tree clearing would be necessary within this or any other stand for the purposes of horseback trails. The proposed permitting of trail rides would result in no change beyond the baseline in lynx habitat. While the presence of trail riders may decrease the suitability of this stand for travel, lynx would easily avoid it if necessary. Thus, summer trail rides would have no significant effect on lynx.

Diurnal security habitats will generally be sites that naturally discourage winter human activity because of extensive forest floor structure, or stand conditions that otherwise make human access difficult, and should be protected to the degree necessary. Security habitats are likely to be most effective if they are sufficiently large to provide effective visual and acoustic insulation from winter human activity and to easily allow movement away from infrequent human intrusion. These winter habitats must be distributed such that they are in proximity to foraging habitat. None of the proposed projects would impact any stands that would provide this type of habitat for lynx. The high level of winter activity in proximity to these projects would likely cause lynx to avoid using this area during the day.

None of the project components would be implemented in lynx denning habitat and no key linkage areas were identified or suspected within or directly adjacent to the proposed project area. There would be no additional indirect impacts to lynx winter forage habitat that are not present and described in the environmental baseline. No new night-time activities are proposed.

In conclusion, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-80 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-5: Buttermilk Improvement Project Vegetation and Lynx Habitat Impacts

Description Vegetation ALT 2 ALT 3 Ownership LAU Lynx Habitat Total (acres) Lift Maintenance Mixed Conifer Proposed Proposed Public Snowmass Winter Forage 0.759 Facility Lift Maintenance Grass/Forb Proposed Proposed Public Snowmass Non-Habitat 0.406 Facility Nordic Jump Venue Aspen/Doug Fir Proposed Public Maroon Bells Non-Habitat 0.396 Nordic Jump Venue Grass/Forb Proposed Public Maroon Bells Non-Habitat 0.138 Nordic Jump Venue Aspen/Doug Fir Proposed Public Maroon Bells Non-Habitat 0.417 Nordic Jump Venue Grass/Forb Proposed Public Maroon Bells Non-Habitat 0.138 Snowmaking Aspen/Conifer Proposed Proposed Public Snowmass Other Suitable 1.073 Reservoirs Snowmaking Aspen/Conifer Proposed Proposed Private Private Private 0.936 Reservoirs Snowmass & Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Public Non-Habitat 37.6 MB Snowmass & Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Public Non-Habitat 39.3 MB Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Private Private Private 1.6 Snowmaking Pipe Grass/Forb Proposed Private Private Private 1.7 Total Winter Forage Habitat 0.759 Total Other Suitable Habitat 1.073 Total Non-Habitat 78.395

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

Based on the habitat to be affected and the habitat affinities of the R2 sensitive species (Table 3D-2), direct, indirect, effects of additional reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with the Proposed Action considered herein would have “no impact” on any R2 sensitive species, with the exception of pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, purple martin, boreal toad, and Colorado River cutthroat trout (Table 3D-6).76 These excepted species are addressed below. Evaluated species information and the environmental baseline for the species evaluated are contained above in the Affected Environment and the BE and other documents within the Buttermilk project file that are incorporated herein by reference.77

76 USDA Forest Service, 2006a,b 77 Colfer, 2008b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-81 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Species names that are bold in the table have potential to be affected by the project alternatives and are discussed in the text.

Table 3D-6: Determination summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Animal Species Resulting from Alternatives 2 and 3 Potentially Documented Suitable Habitat Determination of Impact to Species from Project* Species Presence in the Present Within Analysis Area? Analysis Area? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 MAMMALS Spotted bat No No NI NI NI (Euderma maculatum) Wolverine No No NI NI NI (Gulo gulo) River otter No No NI NI NI (Lontra canadensis) Marten Yes Yes NIb NIb NIb (Martes americana) Fringed myotis No No NI NI NI (Myotis thysanodes) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii No No NI NI NI townsendii) MAI: 1.17 acres MAI: 1.17 acres Pygmy shrew tree clearing; tree clearing; Yes No NI (Sorex hoyi) 39.2 acres 41.0 acres temporary dist. temporary dist. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep No No NI NI NI (Ovis canadensis) BIRDS MAIc: 2.95 MAIc: 2.90 acres Northern goshawk acres tree Yes No NI tree clearing (Accipiter gentilis) clearing (aspen, conifer) (aspen, conifer) MAI: 0.76 acre MAI: 0.76 acre Boreal owl Yes No NI tree clearing tree clearing (Aegolius funereus) (mixed conifer) (mixed conifer) Sage sparrow No No NI NI NI (Amphispiza belli) Ferruginous hawk No No NI NI NI (Buteo regalis) Greater sage-grouse No No NI NI NI (Centrocercus urophasianus) Northern harrier No No NI NI NI (Circus cyaneus)

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-82 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-6: Determination summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Animal Species Resulting from Alternatives 2 and 3 Potentially Documented Suitable Habitat Determination of Impact to Species from Project* Species Presence in the Present Within Analysis Area? Analysis Area? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 MAI: 0.76 acre MAI: 0.76 acre Olive-sided flycatcher Yes No NI tree clearing tree clearing (Contopus borealis) (mixed conifer) (mixed conifer) Black swift No No NI NI NI (Cypseloides niger) American peregrine falcon Yes No NI NI NI (Falco peregrinus anatum) White-tailed ptarmigan No No NI NI NI (Lagopus leucurus) Loggerhead shrike No No NI NI NI (Lanius ludovicianus) Lewis’ woodpecker No No NI NI NI (Melanerpes lewis) MAI: 2.0 acres MAI: 2.1 acres Flammulated owl tree clearing tree clearing Yes No NI (Otus flammeolus) (aspen, (aspen, aspen/conifer) aspen/conifer) Three-toed woodpecker Yes No NI NI NI (Picoides tridactylus) MAIc: 1.8 acres MAIc: 1.9 acres Purple martin Yes No NI tree clearing tree clearing (Progne subis) (aspen/conifer) (aspen/conifer Brewer’s sparrow No No NI NI NI (Spizella breweri) Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanachus phasianellus No No NI NI NI columbianus) Bald Eagle No No NI NI NI (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) AMPHIBIANS Boreal toad MAI: 1.0 acres MAI: 1.0 acres Yes No NI (Bufo boreas) tree clearing. tree clearing Northern leopard frog No No NI NI NI (Rana pipiens) FISH Bluehead sucker No No NI NI NI (Catostomus discobolus) Flannelmouth sucker No No NI NI NI (Catostomus latipinnis) Mountain sucker No No NI NI NI (Catostomus platyrhynchus)

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-83 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Table 3D-6: Determination summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Animal Species Resulting from Alternatives 2 and 3 Potentially Documented Suitable Habitat Determination of Impact to Species from Project* Species Presence in the Present Within Analysis Area? Analysis Area? Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Roundtail chub No No NI NI NI (Gila robusta) MAI: Potential MAI: Potential for individuals for individuals to become to become Colorado River cutthroat trout entrapped w/in entrapped w/in (Oncorhynchus clarki No No NI the Stapleton the Stapleton pleuriticus) Brothers ditch Brothers ditch due to incr. due to incr. snowmaking snowmaking INVERTEBRATES Great Basin silverspot No No NI NI NI (Speyeria Nokomis) a NI: No Impact MAI: may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a lack of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. b While martin are documented within the analysis area, because the Action Alternatives would not significantly reduce available marten habitat, (the No Action Alternative would not change the project baseline), all proposed alternatives would have no impact on this species. c MAI Determinations marked with this symbol indicate that the species was not detected during surveys of the area. The reason for the MAI finding for these species was due to the potential for individuals that were not detected during previous surveys to occupy suitable habitat in the year following the survey, and prior to the onset of construction activities. Source: Colfer, 2008b

Pygmy Shrew Construction of the lift maintenance facility, and to a lesser extent the installation of snowmaking infrastructure, would be implemented in suitable shrew habitat. During construction, disturbance associated with clearing, grading, and construction would temporarily displace shrews, and may result in crushing of individuals by machinery. Regarding pygmy shrews, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Northern Goshawk Several of the projects proposed under both Action Alternatives (snowmaking reservoirs, Nordic jump venue, lift maintenance facility) would be located in (or in the case of the snowmaking project, adjacent to) habitat suitable for nesting or foraging goshawks. A limited amount of foraging habitat, 2.947 acres would be altered under these alternatives. The impact would be slightly less under Alternative 2, totaling 2.897 acres of altered habitat, since there would be less clearing required for the shorter surface lift at the jump venue. In the case of the lift maintenance facility and the Nordic jump venue, the alteration would

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-84 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife be permanent. In the case of the snowmaking reservoirs, the final cleared areas would still provide habitat for goshawk prey. While cover for hunting goshawks would be removed in these areas, they would not be expected to avoid the adjacent area while hunting. Such impacts would have no direct effect on goshawk fecundity or survival.

Due to the expected small number of guests (approximately 30), the summer horseback trails component of this plan would not pose a disturbance that inhibits the ability of goshawks to forage in the vicinity of trails, nor would trails intrude on any known nest stands.

Regarding goshawks, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Boreal Owl Under alternatives 2 and 3, potentially suitable nest habitat, forage habitat, and escape habitat would be impacted where the lift maintenance facility would be built. The impact to 0.759 acre of suitable habitat would be small in comparison with the overall acreage of suitable habitat available in the vicinity, and would not adversely impact natality, fecundity, or survival. Potentially suitable nest and escape habitat would remain in adjacent mixed conifer stands present in the permit area and beyond.

Surveys should be conducted during March, April, or May of 2010 in order to confirm the presence or absence of nesting or roosting boreal owls in the project area. The reader is referred to the Project Design Criteria Table 2-3.

Regarding boreal owls, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Olive-sided Flycatcher Under both Action Alternatives, construction of the lift maintenance facility would impact 0.759 acre of suitable habitat for olive-sided flycatcher. Potentially suitable cover habitat would remain in the interior of the adjacent mixed conifer stands and in those present throughout the permit area and outside of the permit area. Since the proposed facility is of such a small footprint, it is unlikely that there would be any impact on natality, fecundity, and/or survival as a result of the proposed projects.

Proposed summer horseback ride trails would increase human presence in flycatcher habitat. However, human recreational activity has not been documented to adversely impact olive-sided flycatchers. Rather, the largest threats to this species include pesticides, deforestation in their tropical winter range, and activities that remove tall perch snags. Therefore, the summer trails would not be expected to adversely impact this species. None of the other proposals would have any impact on flycatchers. Regarding olive-

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-85 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife sided flycatchers, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Flammulated Owl Under Alternative 3, several of the proposed project components (Nordic jump venue and snowmaking ponds) would require clearing of 2.1 acres of aspen and/or aspen/conifer forest that provides potential flammulated owl habitat. The impact would be slightly less, 2.0 acres of disturbance, under Alternative 2 since there would be less clearing required for the shorter surface lift at the jump venue. Surveys should be conducted again for flammulated owls in 2010 prior to initiation of project components that include tree clearing. If no owls are located, the proposed project would not impact the flammulated owl. Regarding flammulated owls, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Purple Martin Under alternatives 2 and 3, several of the project components (Nordic jump venue and snowmaking ponds) would require clearing of aspen or aspen-conifer habitat for these birds. Alternative 3 would clear 1.9 acres of habitat, while Alternative 2 would clear slightly less, 1.8 acres of cleared habitat, since there would be less clearing required for the shorter surface lift at the jump venue. However, no martins were located during surveys. Consequently, the proposed project would not be likely to impact the purple martin. Although surveys failed to detect the presence of purple martins in 2008, such surveys have limitations in time and space. Even when the failure to detect a species indicates a high probability of absence, the dynamic nature of populations suggests that areas of suitable habitat that are currently uninhabited could be occupied in the future.78 “Thus, there may be indirect and cumulative impacts to…[purple martins]…even if surveys did not detect individuals.”79 Surveys should be conducted again for purple martins in 2010 prior to initiation of project components that include tree clearing. If no martins are located, the proposed project would not impact the purple martin.

Regarding martins, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Boreal Toad Although no boreal were observed within the SUP area, there is potentially suitable habitat in wetlands at the location of the proposed upper snowmaking reservoir, as well as in isolated wetlands elsewhere in the SUP area. The characteristics of these wetland areas, along with their relative isolation from connection

78 Zielinski and Kucera, 1995 79 Nyland, 2004b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-86 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife streams or wetlands make it unlikely for toads to utilize the area for breeding. Regardless, it is remotely possible that toads could colonize these sites. It is also a remote possibility that migrating or hibernating boreal toads could be crushed and killed by heavy equipment during the construction phase of the projects. Additionally, individual toads or frogs could become entrapped and killed in the Stapleton Brothers ditch due to increased duration of snowmaking withdrawals from Maroon Creek. Therefore, implementation of either of the Action Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a lack of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout There are no streams within the Buttermilk SUP area that provide habitat for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. Best Management Practices would contain sediment from construction activities. Additionally, there are no populations of these fish downstream of the Buttermilk ski area. However, there are individuals and/or populations present on private land within the Maroon Creek drainage. It may be possible for individual CRCT from Maroon Creek to become entrapped within the Stapleton Brothers ditch due to increased duration of snowmaking withdrawal. Consequently, implementation of either of the Action Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a lack of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.”

Management Indicator Species

Elk All of the proposed projects would be implemented in areas that provide summer forage or cover for elk. Areas converted from forest to grassland, such as portions of the Nordic jump venue, would continue to provide summer forage opportunities for elk. Portions of the Nordic jump venue where structures would be placed, the snowmaking reservoir and the tree island where the lift maintenance facility would be constructed would no longer provide summer range. However, the horizontal extent of this clearing is minimal:

0.76 acre for the lift maintenance facility

0.40 acre (Proposed Action) or 0.42 (Alternative 3) for the Nordic jump venue

1.31 acres for the snowmaking reservoir on NFS land

Regardless of these impacts, summer habitat is not limiting to elk. Rather, winter range and to a certain extent, calving habitat, is considered by Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) to be limiting. At the scale of the Buttermilk SUP area, the Data Analysis Unit (DAU), and the WRNF, the impact to summer habitat is insignificant and limited to areas with currently existing human presence in the summer. The

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-87 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife area of the proposed projects is not considered transition range. Since there would be no impact to winter range, transition range, or calving areas under any alternative, the proposed project will have no direct, or indirect to populations or habitat for elk.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Temporal Bounds

The temporal bounds of the cumulative effects analysis for MIS extend from the initial development of Buttermilk as a winter recreational area through the life of the Forest Plan (the year 2017) and for the foreseeable future during which recreation-related activities may affect species.

Spatial Bounds

The physical extent of this cumulative effects analysis differs by species but comprises the Buttermilk SUP area and adjacent public and private land within the city of Aspen to the extent they would be potentially impacted. For lynx the extent of potential effects is assessed at the level of the Maroon Bells and Snowmass LAUs. Other projects in the area that affect wildlife are also included in the cumulative effects analysis.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The following activities are considered for those species where impact zones overlap areas occupied by resources affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives.

Construction of Teaser Overpass and grading of Uncle Chuck’s Glade (2009)

Development and maintenance of the SUP area as a recreational area for over five decades

Tiehack lift system upgrade to a single high-speed quad and utilities upgrade

Designation of Snowmass-Maroon Bells as Wilderness

Wildfire prevention and control

Private land development

Road construction and reconstruction projects

Miscellaneous/ongoing recreational uses

Threatened and Endangered Species

As defined by the ESA, cumulative effects are those effects of future state or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur. Future federal actions that have been through consultation are included in the

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-88 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife environmental baseline; other future federal actions will be consulted on separately, and therefore need not be considered in cumulative effects analysis. Cumulative effects as defined by NEPA include the incremental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions without regard to land ownership boundaries.

Past and present impacts on Canada lynx in the analysis area were described in the preceding sections. The basis of cumulative effects analysis is that the number, type and juxtaposition of human activities and natural disturbances may have a significant effect in combination, even though each individual action appears to have minimal effects. Assumptions involved in this cumulative effects analysis have been extracted from Ruediger et al (2000) and include:

Lynx can persist in most situations with some level of human activity.

Human activities and alteration of habitat decrease habitat quality and lynx use of habitat, but the thresholds are not known.

Areas without high human activity levels are likely more favorable to lynx.

Habitat connectivity is important to lynx conservation.

Ruediger et al. (2000) provides guidance to consider the combined effects of human activities and projects within an LAU, including:

The proportion of the LAU affected by human alteration of habitat, permanent development, and other disturbances at a given time.

The proportion of adjacent LAUs affected by human alteration of habitat, permanent development, and other disturbances at a given time.

Habitat connectivity within and between LAUs.

Urban expansion and development has fragmented a naturally patchy distribution of lynx habitat in Colorado, including in Pitkin County. Valley floor development continually erodes the amount of non- forest habitats adjacent to lynx forested habitat. 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 lynx habitat may reduce the ability of lynx to move throughout their home range, or interact with other individuals in the larger subpopulation.

Across the Snowmass LAU, and to a lesser extent the Maroon Bells LAU, development will continue to take place outside of the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness. However, a significant portion of the

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-89 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife mapped lynx habitat in this LAU occurs within the designated wilderness boundary, where development will not occur. Regardless, the lower portions of the Elk Range, beyond the limits of either LAU, are located on private land. Development that includes 35 acre ranchettes, residential subdivision, and resort base area complexes will be likely to continue on private lands located directly adjacent to the Snowmass LAU for the foreseeable future. Such development may adversely affect the ability of lynx to move between LAU’s beyond the limits of the Elk Mountains.

Development of the towns of Aspen and Snowmass Village, the Castle and Maroon Creek drainages and the Highway 82 corridor, has been ongoing for 40 years. Most of this development has occurred in aspen and mountain shrub vegetative communities that do not provide high quality lynx habitat in most cases. However, waterways and associated riparian areas through the LAUs may have provided a corridor for lynx to move through otherwise unfavorable habitat. That opportunity has been largely decreased as a result of the development along these waterways.

Pitkin County-approved residential homesites are developed sporadically adjacent to the two LAUs, generally in mountain shrub or aspen communities and do not provide lynx habitat. There are no road and/or bridge projects currently proposed in or adjacent to the two LAUs, other than those associated with the Snowmass Base Village project and nearly constant and ongoing construction projects along Highway 82.

As ski areas are developed, they add to the overall fragmentation of the landscape in the Southern Rocky Mountains. If these developed areas occur jointly with other ski areas or abut the expansion occurring on private land, then there is a higher likelihood that lynx will have a more difficult time moving across these portions of the Southern Rocky Mountain landscape. Although lynx have been documented inhabiting ski areas in Canada, most observations have been within forest cover and away from base area developments and parking facilities.80 As noted by Buskirk et al., lynx and snowshoe hare habitats are more prone to a metapopulation structure in Southern Rocky Mountain forests due to fragmented landscapes and heterogeneous distribution of topographic, climatic and vegetative conditions.81 This condition is further exacerbated by the presumably greater human-caused fragmentation of lynx habitat in the Southern Rockies.82

Highways and their continued expansion into mountain towns and resorts increase the amount of fragmentation occurring in the typically long, linear suitable lynx habitat landscapes. This fragmentation effect further erodes the potential for lynx to effectively cross some of these potential barriers. So far, the lynx translocation effort in Colorado has documented two lynx highway fatalities (I-70 and Highway 24) and numerous successful crossings of lynx across I-70.

80 Roe et al. 1999, cited in Ruediger et al., 2000 81 Buskirk et al., 2000 82 Ibid.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-90 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

The currently proposed projects would occur within the bounds of the existing Buttermilk SUP area, where habitat has been previously fragmented as a result of ski area development and previous fires. As described in the Direct and Indirect Effects section, the project would not add to the cumulative effects of snowshoe hare winter habitat loss that has occurred throughout the two LAUs, Pitkin County, and the mountainous regions of Colorado. The cumulative effects of these 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. Nevertheless, the proposed projects’ impact on lynx foraging is insignificant and discountable.

Region Two Sensitive Animal Species

Urban expansion and development in Colorado has in some cases eliminated, and in other cases fragmented, habitat for a variety of species on the WRNF sensitive species list. 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 pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, and purple martin. The cumulative effect of private land development has reduced and fragmented forest cover types for these species throughout Pitkin County and elsewhere in Colorado.

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, as is the case in Pitkin County, then fragmentation and cover type conversion pose increased cumulative effects. Past development of Buttermilk as a winter recreational area and associated maintenance activities have converted mixed conifer subalpine grassland habitat type within the SUP area.

Similarly, past development and maintenance of the Snowmass Ski Area 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.83

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.84 The goshawk forages in both forested stands and along the edges of openings, therefore the initial development of the ski area and

83 Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 124, June 29, 1998; DeMott and Lindsey, 1975; Pettus and Lechleitner, 1963 84 Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 124, June 29, 1998

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-91 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife 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, 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.

Highways and their continued expansion into mountain towns and resorts increase the amount of habitat fragmentation, conversion, and loss in the Colorado mountains. Residential and commercial development along the major drainages adjacent to the Buttermilk 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 WRNF.

Finally, ongoing recreational activities during the summer and winter throughout NFS lands and within the Buttermilk SUP area may impact sensitive species such as the wolverine and pine marten which are documented to avoid areas of intensive human activities.

The activities proposed under these Action Alternatives would be implemented on currently developed sites in the Buttermilk SUP area. The proposed project would not increase the current development footprint of the ski area. Proposed activities would be implemented within the already heavily fragmented ski area landscape. The project would not further contribute to fragmentation of forest habitat, as it would be implemented in currently fragmented stands. Regardless, the project would add to the cumulative conversion of forested landscape that has taken place throughout Colorado, Pitkin County, and the landscape within the Buttermilk Mountain permit area. These activities add incrementally to the effects of past habitat conversions on pygmy shrew, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, and purple martin.

Although there is no documented occurrence of genetically pure cutthroat trout in the Maroon Creek drainage, there is a remote possibility that individual cutthroat trout could become entrapped in the Stapleton Brothers ditch. Increased duration of withdrawal from Maroon Creek due to increased duration of snowmaking would increase the potential for this occurrence. This effect may add incrementally to other past, present and future actions on Colorado River cutthroat trout.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-92 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

Management Indicator Species

Elk have adapted to the cumulative impacts listed above and generally thrive, as evidenced by their statewide population increase, and site specifically by the DAU E-15 population remaining at CDOW objectives. Human developments tend to be focused on sites that provide high quality winter range, and to a lesser extent on historic calving range. Summer range has been modified through wildfire prevention and control, timber management, livestock grazing, ski area habitat conversion, and human recreational activities.

The 1994 Snowmass EIS Assessment Area is approximately the same size as the Buttermilk SUP and adjacent public and private lands (DAU E-15) and therefore figures from the 1994 EIS provide a broad indication of the cumulative effects to elk within DAU E-15. The EIS estimated that approximately 49 percent of the pre-development elk calving habitat remained effective in the Assessment Area for that project.85 Similarly, the 1994 Snowmass EIS estimated that 39 percent of pre-development summer range and 63 percent of transition range remained effective in the project assessment area. In the 1994 EIS Landscape Assessment Area (roughly equivalent to the boundaries of DAU E-15), it was estimated that 77 percent of the pre-development winter range remained effective. It is of interest to note that the entirety of the Snowmass SUP area was not considered to be effective summer range for the analysis conducted in the 1994 EIS. While elk habitat effectiveness within the Snowmass SUP area, as well as within the Buttermilk SUP area, has indeed decreased as a result of trail clearing and summer recreation activities, it is not accurate to state that these areas no longer provide effective habitat.

While the currently proposed projects at Buttermilk will add, albeit minimally, to the cumulative impact on elk summer range, such habitat is still not considered to be limiting to elk. Rather, it is winter range that is limiting. Residential development in the Roaring Fork Valley has been in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to be in the future, concentrated in mountain shrub habitats that provide winter and severe winter range for elk. Designation of the Snowmass-Maroon Bells Wilderness provided conservation of summer range for elk and has provided refugia for these species.

The diversion point for Buttermilk’s snowmaking water is located on private land well below the forest boundary. Downstream waters are not subject to management by NFS. Therefore, impacts that may occur as a result of increased snowmaking and water diversion for snowmaking ponds are most appropriately addressed under cumulative impacts.

While the maximum rate of snowmaking diversions would not change, doubling the amount of snowmaking terrain, under either action alternative, would increase the duration of the snowmaking season and would result in an increase in the duration during which snowmaking activities reduce the streamflow volume. Whether this increase in duration will add to cumulative impacts on brown trout is unknown.

85 USDA Forest Service, 1994

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-93 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences D. Wildlife

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Tree removal related to the lift maintenance building and Nordic jump venue would represent an irretrievable effect to some habitat for some threatened and endangered, R2 and MIS within the SUP area. However, this is not considered an irreversible commitment because the habitat (vegetation) is a renewable resource.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-94 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

E. RECREATION AND MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The geographic scope of the recreation and mountain operations (as it relates to operational efficiencies) resource analysis for this proposal is defined by Buttermilk’s SUP boundary. For a more detailed discussion of existing recreational opportunities, including lifts, trails, and facilities, refer to the Existing Conditions section of the Buttermilk 2008 MDP (see the project file for this document).86

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Buttermilk has developed a reputation as a premier family ski resort offering a variety of beginner and intermediate terrain. At the same time, Buttermilk is known for its top-to-bottom terrain park features and as host of the ESPN Winter X Games for eight consecutive years.87 As a result, it serves a broad and diverse market in North America as well as attracting international visitors. As with any destination resort, Buttermilk’s success is determined by the experiences it is able to offer its guests. For practical purposes, these experiences are largely influenced by snow consistency, terrain variety and summer recreation opportunities.

Winter Recreational Opportunities

Buttermilk is situated at the edge of the City of Aspen, complemented by the nearby ski areas of Aspen Highlands, Aspen Mountain and Snowmass. Buttermilk is situated on private and public land ranging from 7,870 feet in elevation to 9,900 feet at its summit, providing 44 trails and over 470 acres of skiing. Buttermilk primarily appeals to novice and intermediate skiers and snowboarders, with 75 percent of its trails accommodating those two skill levels, and 25 percent advanced skiers. Buttermilk provides a high quality experience by maintaining low skier densities (approximately eight skiers per acre).88 With a majority of beginner and some intermediate terrain (terrain that generally accommodates 15 and 8 skiers, respectively), Buttermilk operates below what most ski areas consider comfortable carrying capacity. Buttermilk’s mountain capacity is approximately 4,000 skiers per day. Average annual skier visitation over the period from 1996/97 to 2006/07 was 154,123, a relatively small percentage of the 1.3 million annual skier visits in the Aspen Valley.

A variety of winter recreation activities are available at Buttermilk, including alpine skiing, snowboarding, telemark skiing, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, environmental tours, ski school and competitions. Buttermilk is home to the Alpine Training Center and offers special events such as uphill races, on-snow bike races, cross-country ski races, snow sculptures, promotions and picnics.89 Backcountry skiers exit the area’s operational boundary beyond the West Buttermilk Express lift top

86 Aspen/Snowmass, 2008a 87 Buttermilk will host the ESPN Winter X Games through 2010. 88 Aspen/Snowmass, 2008a 89 Ibid.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-95 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations terminal to access the backcountry. Occasionally, backcountry recreationalists use a portion of the West Buttermilk motor room as a warming hut during business hours.90 As previously stated, Buttermilk has a top-to-bottom terrain park for all abilities constructed on Teaser, Uncle Chuck’s Glade, Jacob’s Ladder, Government, Spruce, Midway and Red’s Rover trails. The terrain park is accessed via the Summit Express lift. The ESPN Winter X Games has been holding competitions on the advanced/expert terrain park features at Buttermilk since 2002, and will continue to hold them there until 2012.91 The X Games competition is held primarily on private lands towards the base of Main Buttermilk.

The Government Trail, a Nordic ski trail in the winter and hiking trail in the summer, traverses Buttermilk. A Pitkin County Resolution requires the West Buttermilk portal to remain available to Nordic skiers who use this pod to access Nordic ski opportunities west of the ski area.

There has not been a ski local jumping venue in the Aspen Valley since the Willoughby jump was removed from the base of Aspen Mountain in the mid-1970s. As such, Nordic jumpers must travel out of the Valley to train and compete. Currently, the nearest jumping venue is on Howelson Hill in Steamboat Springs.

Buttermilk adheres to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA) and Title III of the American Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) requiring private businesses that operate public accommodations, such as ski areas, to provide people with disabilities access to public facilities.

Skier Circulation

Snowmaking generally occurs from late November through January on 86 acres across nine trails on the lower half of the mountain: Midway Avenue, Baby Doe, Government, Columbine, Spruce, Homestead Road, Lower Savio, Bear and Lower Tiehack. Some additional snowmaking occurs on terrain park features. Snowmaking infrastructure was installed in 1977 and expanded in 1984 to include most of the bottom half, and northern portion, of the mountain. These projects occurred at a time when the Summit Express was a two-lift system, allowing skier utilization to be concentrated to the bottom half of the mountain. Because of this, in the early or late season and during low snow years, the top half of the mountain could have inadequate snow coverage, but skiers and riders could round-trip on the bottom portion of the mountain. Due to the Summit Express lift upgrade to a high speed quad chair, round- tripping only the bottom of the mountain is no longer possible. Without top-to-bottom snowmaking on several lifts and snowmaking across the mountain, skier circulation is encumbered, creating congestion on critical teaching trails.

The ski area can be broken into three skiing pods based on the group of trails each lift serves. A goal of most ski areas is to distribute users evenly across all pods. The Lower and Upper Tiehack pod consists of

90 The West Buttermilk motor room is discussed in further detail below. 91 Aspen/Snowmass, 2008b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-96 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations advanced and intermediate terrain; the Summit Express pod is primarily intermediate and beginner terrain, and the West Buttermilk Express pod consists primarily of beginner terrain. Critical areas and pods lacking snowmaking include: all of the advanced terrain in the Tiehack pod, the top half of the Summit Express pod, and beginner terrain from the West Buttermilk Express mid-load station to the summit. As stated above, lift pods that do not have adequate snowmaking are underutilized during the early season and during low snow years, and often lack consistent snow surface conditions that are ideal for beginner and intermediate terrain skiers, to appropriately meet guest expectations. The primary area for teaching and beginner/intermediate skiers is the Summit Express pod, and more specifically, Ridge Trail, Lower Ridge Trail, and Lower Savio. Lack of snowmaking on these trails can hamper the skiing experience for guests and limits the operational effectiveness of the ski area during low snow periods.

Mountain Operations

Buttermilk Mountain’s lift maintenance is conducted in the old West Buttermilk lift motor room, located approximately 100 feet south of the West Buttermilk top terminal. With the upgrade of lifts at Buttermilk to detachable technology over the past decade, there is insufficient space to perform the necessary lift maintenance and required grip testing tasks. Express detachable lifts require routine and scheduled annual maintenance including Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) for the grip mechanisms of the detachable lifts. Currently, Buttermilk does not have a dedicated lift maintenance facility strategically located near the summit to facilitate more efficient access between the lifts and the maintenance facility. Without an on- mountain location, Buttermilk’s lift maintenance efficiencies are reduced, requiring increased drive times for mechanics, fuel consumption, and maintenance response delays.

Buttermilk’s existing snowmaking system diverts water directly from Maroon Creek at an existing pump station. Per state and federal regulations, Buttermilk must maintain minimum in-stream water flows consistently throughout its diversion period. Though this is not necessarily an operational concern, it can limit the flexibility of snowmaking production during cold periods due to instantaneous drawdown on Maroon Creek. This results in less than optimal snow coverage. Increased instantaneous flows would enable Buttermilk to produce more snow during ideal climate conditions, thereby utilizing water and power more efficiently by maximizing snowmaking operations, allowing for a shortened snowmaking season. This would also result in enhanced quality of snow production and would improve the quality of the recreation experience by making more terrain available earlier in the season.

Summer Recreational Opportunities

ASC does not offer any lift served summer recreation opportunities on Buttermilk; however, some recreation does occur. Hiking and mountain biking along the Government Trail and summer road is popular with residents and visitors. Horseback riding, running, organized bike races, bungee trampoline, and concerts also take place at Buttermilk. In the summer, approximately 100 to 150 dispersed recreationists use Buttermilk per day.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-97 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

The Cliffhouse Restaurant (located at the summit of the mountain), Bumps Restaurant (located at the Main Buttermilk base area), and the main parking lot are used occasionally in the summer for special events. The Main Buttermilk and Tiehack base areas are used for a variety of programs including: the farmers market, concerts, job fairs, and construction staging for on-mountain projects. Summer activities were approved in the 1994 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Tiehack (Buttermilk) Ski Area Short Term Improvements.

Hiking, biking, and equestrian trails provide guests with access to most of Buttermilk during the non- winter season, typically June 20th through September 30th. A private horseback trail ride operator is currently providing a trial trail riding program on existing roads (Homestead Road and the Sterner Catwalk) and an existing cattle grazing trail connecting Main Buttermilk to Tiehack. This temporary permit may not be renewed prior to the 2010 summer season. Guest use is approximately 30 riders per day.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, no operational or infrastructural changes/additions would occur on NFS lands within the Buttermilk SUP area. Buttermilk’s daily capacity would remain approximately 4,000 skiers per day, maintaining a low-density ski experience. Buttermilk would continue to focus on providing the current variety of winter recreation opportunities. The quality of wintertime or summertime recreation opportunities would largely resemble current conditions.

Winter Recreational Opportunities

ASC would continue to offer race training and the top to bottom terrain park in addition to alpine skier and rider terrain. Through 2012, the X Games competition will continue to draw many sports enthusiasts to the Aspen/Buttermilk area. However, Nordic jump athletes would not have a place to train or compete within the Valley and would continue to travel to Steamboat.

Skier Circulation

The No Action Alternative would not meet the identified need for increased snowmaking coverage on the upper portion of the mountain, particularly on prime lower ability and teaching terrain such as Ridge Trail and Savio. Because the Summit Express was installed as a single lift running from the base area to the summit, early season skiers must negotiate inconsistent snow coverage on the upper portion of the mountain where no snowmaking infrastructure exists to ski the lower portion of the mountain where more consistent snow coverage can be provided. Additionally, skiers would continue to be concentrated on the main part of the mountain, because the Tiehack side of the mountain does not have snowmaking. Skiers may encounter higher density terrain than they expect to find at Buttermilk.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-98 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

Mountain Operations

Lift maintenance would continue to be provided in the motor room near the West Buttermilk Express top terminal. This facility is also used as a warming hut for backcountry skiers and ski school. The motor room does not provide adequate space to perform all maintenance, including maintenance of lifts and NDT of the detachable grips. Therefore, maintenance would be conducted in an inefficient manner as technicians would be required to haul parts to locations within the base area or off-mountain.

Buttermilk lacks a snowmaking reservoir to store water that could aid in meeting snowmaking needs during early season and high volume times. Operationally, Buttermilk typically needs to cover approximately 50 acres of snowmaking terrain by December 1st and cover the remainder of terrain with existing snowmaking infrastructure by January. Under the No Action Alternative, Buttermilk would continue to divert water from Maroon Creek and produce snow during sub-optimal periods. This would continue to lead to inefficiencies in snowmaking time periods and energy use.

Summer Recreational Opportunities

Buttermilk would continue to be a popular outdoor destination with a variety of dispersed private and public summer activities occurring June 20th through September 30th. Trails on Buttermilk are able to accommodate a variety of users, and no user conflicts have been identified between hiking, biking or horseback riders. However, under the No Action Alternative, the permit for use of existing roads and cattle trails for horseback trail rides would likely not be renewed. Generally, horseback rides have enhanced and diversified the summer recreational experience using existing roads on Buttermilk.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

Winter Recreational Opportunities

A 500-foot surface lift would be constructed along the eastern edge of Javelin, from the bottom of the jump run-out to the top of the 35 m jump, 65 m jumpers would hike uphill from the 35 m jump to the top of the 65 m jump (refer to Figure 3).92 During training, round trips to the 65 m jump would be limited by the energy and time required for athletes to hike to the top of the jump. The jump venue would be used by approximately 15 to 20 local athletes for training and competitions throughout the winter season. This user group is expected to grow to as many as 30 athletes as the sport attracts greater attention in the Roaring Fork Valley. Athletes along the western slope would be invited to use the venue. It is anticipated with the construction of this jumping venue and the development of a Nordic jumping program, Nordic jumping will become more popular among young athletes in the area. Furthermore, the jump venue would

92 The majority of ground disturbance (i.e., grading) related to the jump run-out areas would occur on private lands. The 65 m, 35 m, and 15 m jump structures and the top one-half of the surface lift would be located on NFS lands. The proposed ground disturbance and ancillary jump facilities (e.g., coaching platforms and judges building) located on private lands are considered a “connected action” and are therefore analyzed in the direct and indirect environmental consequences.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-99 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations help diversify winter recreation activities in the Valley. The Nordic jumps are not intended to be used for any X Games event; furthermore, ASC anticipates the X Games competition to remain on the Main Buttermilk portion of the mountain.

Jump infrastructure would be located between the alpine ski runs as much as possible so that public use of Racer’s Edge and Javelin could continue. Fencing and signage around the jump structures and landing areas would assist skier flow around the venue. Therefore, no negative downhill skier/rider circulation or experience effects are anticipated to occur on Racer’s Edge or Javelin due to the installation of the Nordic jump venue. The jump venue is not designed or anticipated to increase skier visitation; however, during training and competition, the Tiehack side of Buttermilk may see an increase in skier use. Jump competition spectators would either hike up Eagle Hill to the venue or ride up the Tiehack Express chairlift and ski down. All spectators would stand within the fenced area and would not degrade the surrounding skiing experience. Currently, the Tiehack side of Buttermilk is underutilized (skiers are concentrated in the area serviced by the Summit Express lift) and increased use of the area is not expected to degrade the current low-density skiing experience.

Backcountry skiers and ski school groups that currently use a portion of the West Buttermilk motor room for a warming hut would have an improved experience under the Proposed Action. The proposed lift maintenance facility (analyzed below) would remove the existing maintenance use of the motor room. When this occurs, ASC would refurbish the motor room into a dedicated warming hut for in-bounds and out-of-bounds users. The proposed remodel would occur within the existing developed footprint.

Skier Circulation

The proposed snowmaking and skier flow projects, detailed in Chapter 2, are designed to improve snow coverage and skier circulation. Consistent snow coverage would improve skier circulation, disperse utilization throughout the mountain, and increase early season terrain variety and beginner trail snow coverage. Locations of proposed snowmaking coverage are detailed in Chapter 2. Furthermore, design criteria incorporated into the Proposed Action would decrease application rate of proposed snowmaking coverage on identified segments within the Zone A and C areas (see Figure 7) of terrain by 25 percent. The effects of this design criteria on skier circulation are addressed below by lift pod. Currently, snowmaking infrastructure is located on the bottom half of the mountain which was adequate when Summit Express was a two lift system. To provide snowmaking coverage from the top to the bottom during the early season, over the holidays, and low snow years, snowmaking infrastructure needs to be installed on the top half of the mountain and within each lift pod. The effects to skier circulation due to snowmaking installation are analyzed below by lift pod.

Summit Express Snowmaking on Ridge Trail and Savio would provide low intermediate and intermediate skiers with consistent snow conditions to roundtrip the Summit Express lift. Additionally, as mentioned above, Ridge

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-100 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

Trail and Savio are important teaching trails and providing reliable coverage would improve the skiing experience. Snowmaking on these trails in the “heart” of Main Buttermilk and the Summit Express pod would improve overall skier flow in this popular section of the ski area. Snowmaking coverage is desired on Ridge Trail and Savio, Buttermilk’s prime lower ability level terrain, to allow guests to ski top-to- bottom from the Summit Express lift in the early season and low snow years. Ridge Trail is also currently a popular route for ski school, although throughout the season snow conditions vary and can be difficult for lower ability skiers to negotiate. Snowmaking coverage would improve snow conditions and the overall skier experience on Ridge Trail. The Summit Express lift is Buttermilk’s primary access lift, accommodating approximately 60 percent of skier access to the mountain.

Terrain park features on Jacob’s Ladder, Teaser and Uncle Chuck’s Glade are located uphill of the current snowmaking system making them difficult to build and maintain. Terrain parks have become a major attraction for any major destination resort, and the quality/expanse of an area’s terrain park is a considerable deciding factor for a guest’s winter vacation destination. Providing reliable snow conditions on terrain park features would help maintain Buttermilk’s reputation as a premier terrain park resort.

Homestead Road is a connector trail that allows skiers in the West Buttermilk pod to access either the terrain park or Ridge Trail in the Summit Express pod. Snowmaking on Homestead Road would let beginner level skiers and riders avoid the top portion of the terrain park and enter at Uncle Chuck’s Glade or access trails that lead to the Main Buttermilk base area from the West Buttermilk pod.

Under the Proposed Action, the normal snowmaking application rate (1.1 acre feet of water per acre on general trails and 1.7 acre feet per acre of water on terrain park trails) would be reduced by 25 percent for proposed snowmaking coverage on general trails and on terrain park trails within Zone C (see Figure 7 for the boundary of the Zone C Micro-Drainage Zone). The reduction in water equivalent and corresponding snow depth would not degrade the skiing experience. Due to the low angle of the trails that would include snowmaking coverage, the reduced depth would not be a factor that would preclude the trail from opening. In addition, the trails at Buttermilk are relatively smooth (naturally or due to past grading activities) and can be opened with a lesser snow depth than typical trails.

West Buttermilk Express Snowmaking on Westward Ho would open the West Buttermilk pod to use during early season and low snow conditions by providing access from the West Buttermilk mid-load station to the summit. This is a popular ski route for ski school/teaching beginner skiers. Snow coverage on Tom’s Thumb would be necessary for skiers skiing West Buttermilk to ski back to the Cliffhouse or to the base area in the Summit Express pod, ensuring complete function of the West Buttermilk Express lift. A condition similar to the Tiehack side of the mountain exists in the West Buttermilk Express pod. Currently, the West Buttermilk Express lift pod (all trails that are served by the lift) lacks snowmaking. Therefore, this pod is not utilized until adequate natural snow conditions occur. Snowmaking coverage on Westward Ho would allow lower

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-101 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations ability level guests to ski and ride the mountain between the top of Summit Express lift and the mid-load station of the West Buttermilk Express lift. Additional snowmaking coverage would provide consistent snow conditions and would allow beginner and intermediate guests to lap the West Buttermilk lift using the mid-load station. In addition to ensuring high-quality snow conditions, snowmaking coverage would help to disperse guests across the mountain, and mitigate heavier traffic expected from the upgraded Tiehack Express.

Tiehack Express Racer’s Edge trail is the ski racing venue for the Aspen Valley Ski and Snowboard Club and many other regional and national racing events. Not only is snowmaking desired on Racer’s Edge to improve early season racing conditions, but racing conditions typically benefit from a firmer snow surface which can be provided by snowmaking. Currently a lack of snowmaking on the Tiehack side of the mountain results in inconsistent snow coverage which negatively affects the recreation experience. Since most snowmaking takes place on the Main Buttermilk side of the mountain, skiers concentrate there, resulting in underutilization of the Tiehack side. This imbalance is especially prevalent during low-snow seasons. Many guests accessing Buttermilk via the Tiehack lift system disperse to other areas of the mountain but need to return to Tiehack lift at the end of the day. This creates an unbalanced distribution since most guests ski within the snowmaking areas that are currently limited to Main Buttermilk.

Racer’s Edge and Tiehack Parkway are the main advanced trails at Buttermilk, as well as the main ski/race training trails. Installing snowmaking on Racer’s Edge and Tiehack Parkway would open the pod early in the season and low snow seasons, improving skier distribution across the mountain and better accommodating local racers.

Under the Proposed Action, the normal snowmaking application rate would be reduced by 25 percent for proposed snowmaking coverage on general trails within the Zone A sub-drainage (refer to Figure 7 for a reference figure). There are no terrain park trails within the Zone A sub-drainage. The reduction in water equivalent and corresponding snow depth would not degrade the skiing experience. The trails within the Zone A area are relatively smooth (naturally or due to past grading activities) and can be opened with a lesser snow depth than typical trails.

Due to the increase in snowmaking on an area of geologic concern (refer to Chapter 3B) a secondary project design criteria has been included to remove the amount of man-made snow that was applied to this area after the ski area closes in the spring. The snow would be removed by snowcat and pushed and piled to a location outside of the area of concern. This operation would require approximately one day of additional snowcat operation.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-102 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

Mountain Operations

Developing the new maintenance facility would better support maintenance efforts on new lifts and centralize lift maintenance activities, which would be expected to decrease vehicle traffic on existing trails and roads. The facility would provide efficient access and space to maintain the previously approved Tiehack Express, the Summit Express, and the West Buttermilk Express lifts.

As discussed above, concurrent with building the new maintenance facility, the motor room would be replaced/refurbished with a structure that would accommodate existing use as a warming hut for ski school and backcountry skiers.

Water storage through the construction of the upper snowmaking reservoir under the Proposed Action would allow increased snowmaking production during shorter time frames when temperatures are colder and more conducive to efficient snowmaking.93 The proposed reservoir would also reduce the need for the instantaneous water withdrawal demand on Maroon Creek.

The proposed reservoirs would allow Buttermilk to cover terrain with existing and proposed snowmaking infrastructure during ideal climatic snowmaking periods, improving the overall quality of the man-made snow. The targeted date for snowmaking coverage completion for existing and proposed trails, as well as terrain park features would be early January each season. The snowmaking reservoirs would improve man-made snow coverage through a more efficient (time, cost and energy) snowmaking process.

Summer Recreational Opportunities

Horseback trail rides would continue to be led on Homestead Road, Sterner Catwalk and the cattle trail (lengths of trails are provided in the Description of Alternatives in Chapter 2). Staging occurs at the corrals near the Main Base area on private land. Horseback rides have been popular over the three-year trial period and have added to the variety of summer recreation offered at Buttermilk. It is estimated that approximately 30 riders per day would participate in the trail riding program during the peak of the summer season (July and August). Hikers and bikers using the same trails may notice an increase in use of the area; however, no conflicts or adverse impacts have been identified in the past three years. The existing roads and trails currently used for horseback rides could be changed if adverse impacts to trails or trail users are discovered in the future. The development of a permanent horseback trail ride program at Buttermilk would diversify the summer recreational experience offered to guests visiting the Aspen Valley.

93 The upper reservoir is located entirely on NFS lands. The lower reservoir is located entirely on private lands but could be plumbed to the upper reservoir as both reservoirs could tie into the overall snowmaking system. Both reservoirs are analyzed from an overall effects standpoint. Although, each reservoir could be constructed separately and operate without the other.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-103 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

If approved as an appropriate use, ASC would monitor and maintain the condition of the trails and roads, as needed. Maintenance may include noxious weed management and manure management to ensure this activity does not deter other existing recreation activities (e.g., hiking and biking).

Alternative 3

Components of Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 2 with the following exceptions:

The top terminal of the jump venue surface lift would be moved to a landing uphill of the 65 m jump, lengthening the surface lift

Snowmaking is proposed on Javelin for the length of the surface lift and across the entire width of the trail

The snowmaking application rate on Zone A would be reduced by 40 percent

In response to water resource concerns regarding erosion and sedimentation, snowmaking is not included on portions of Savio (refer to the Water Resources section for a detailed discussion on impacts of snowmaking)

There would be no reduction to the proposed snowmaking application rate on Zone C.

Alternative 3 would include all components of the Nordic jump venue discussed in Alternative 2 with a modified jump venue surface lift. The surface lift would be lengthened to terminate uphill of the 65 m jump, improving service for jumpers from the 65 m jump, while service for the 35 m and 15 m jumps would remain the same as under Alternative 2. The 65 m jumpers could let go of the surface lift platter near the top of the jump structure and ski to the jump, avoiding the hike uphill. Improving access to the 65 m jump would allow for more roundtrip use. Additionally under Alternative 3, snowmaking is proposed on Javelin for the length of the surface lift and across the entire width of Javelin. The proposed longer surface lift and snowmaking would also better accommodate race training on Javelin. Currently, racers have to take the Upper Tiehack lift to the Buttermilk summit and then ski down to the racing venue. This reduces training time and often requires the skiers to change their skis each trip. A surface lift would improve training opportunities by allowing racers to roundtrip Javelin, which includes a dedicated training course. During training, Javelin would remain open to the public and their experience is not expected to change from the current experience.

Snowmaking infrastructure would be installed on 11 trails, totaling 81 acres on NFS lands and 4 acres on private lands (refer to Chapter 2 for a description of snowmaking coverage locations).

Under Alternative 3, the normal snowmaking application rate would be reduced by 40 percent for proposed snowmaking coverage on general trails within the Zone A sub-drainage. There is no terrain park terrain in the Zone A sub-drainage. The reduction in water equivalent and corresponding snow depth

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-104 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations would not reduce or degrade the skiing experience. The trails within the Zone A area are relatively smooth (naturally or due to past grading activities) and can be opened with a lesser snow depth that typical trails. Although, the reduction of 40 percent could increase the likelihood of snow being worn down to the ground surface during early season busy periods and/or low snow years. This circumstance is certainly primarily dependent upon natural snowfall conditions.

Due to the increase in snowmaking on an area of geologic concern (refer to Chapter 3B) a secondary project design criteria (similar to the Proposed Action) has been included to remove the amount of man- made snow that was applied to this area after the ski area closes in the spring. The snow would be removed by snowcat and pushed and piled to a location outside of the area of concern. This operation would require approximately one day of additional snowcat operation.

Alternative 3 does not include snowmaking on portions of Savio (refer to Figure 4). This is a reduction of approximately 6 acres of snowmaking on the Main Buttermilk side of the mountain. The reduction in snowmaking coverage on Savio would result in a narrower skiable trail width (100 feet wide in some locations) that could create “pinch points” on the trail creating congestion during the early season and low snow years. Although Savio would continue to have natural snow coverage approximately January through March, December through April are the busy months for ski areas and inconsistent snow conditions on the main teaching and low-intermediate level trail would not meet guest expectations, and lead to a less desirable experience. This would result in Buttermilk providing less reliable snow conditions for ski school and low intermediate skiers and riders than other ski areas in the Valley, when compared to the Proposed Action. Snowmaking coverage included in Alternative 3 would be an improvement over existing conditions. Although, a lack of full snowmaking coverage on Savio would perpetuate the existing condition where a lack of snowmaking and consistent coverage on these critical trails encumbers the overall guest experience due to skier densities.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Replacing the Upper Tiehack and Lower Tiehack chairlifts with a single high-speed quad was approved in the 2001 Buttermilk DN/FONSI and reaffirmed by the 2008 SIR. The primary purpose for replacing these two lifts is to decrease the time it takes to get to the summit from 15 minutes to 7 minutes; improving the visitor experience on the Tiehack side of the mountain. The long ride time and inconvenience of two lift rides discourage some skiers and results in underutilization of the Tiehack side of the mountain. Additionally, this upgrade would be expected to reduce lift lines at Summit Express and encourage skiers to use the Tiehack side of the mountain, balancing skier use patterns. Although the ride time would be cut in half, the capacity of Tiehack Express would remain 1,200 persons per hour (pph); no increase in visitation to Buttermilk as a whole is anticipated as a result of the lift upgrade, however, current visitors would be better served. In conjunction with the lift upgrade, the top terminal of the Tiehack Express would be lowered by 12 feet to reduce the slope between the lift terminal and facilities and trails at the summit, improving skier circulation.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-105 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences E. Recreation and Mountain Operations

When these impacts to recreation resources are considered cumulatively with Alternatives 2 or 3, skier utilization of the entire mountain would be improved. Snowmaking and the Tiehack Express lift upgrade would improve the skier experience on the Tiehack side of the mountain, thereby improving skier dispersal throughout the resort.

In relation to the Nordic jump venue, the previously-approved Tiehack Express lift would be engineered to “span” the jumping venue. A similar design occurs at the Utah Olympic Park, where a lift (including towers) adequately spans the jumping facility and does not affect the athletes’ experience. With the removal of the Lower Tiehack lift, athletes would be required to hike uphill prior to training and competitions to access the proposed Nordic jump surface lift. This was determined during the Nordic jump planning stages to not be an experience that would detract athletes or spectators.

A terrain park overpass was constructed on Teaser trail in 2009 (via a Decision Memo) to eliminate cross- traffic congestions where Teaser trail intersects Homestead Road. Homestead Road traffic will travel through the tunnel and terrain park traffic would travel over the bridge. The overpass will eliminate the cross-traffic of varying abilities when beginners and low-intermediate skiers on Homestead Road have to cut across Teaser trail and terrain park traffic, thereby alleviating the current bottleneck at this intersection. The overpass will create a more enjoyable experience for guests using this area of the mountain and would reduce the congestion encounters that have occurred in the past.

To further encourage skier circulation and disperse skier traffic, a grading project was performed on Uncle Chuck’s Glade in 2009 under the authorization of the 2009 Decision Memo. Improving characteristics of the terrain should eliminate a recurring problem of inadequate snow coverage due to slope, aspect and skier use, ensuring the popular low-intermediate/terrain park trail can remain open throughout the season. Reliable snow coverage will encourage terrain park users to stay on Uncle Chuck’s Glade rather than mixing with low-intermediate skiers on surrounding trails. Grading this slope improves maneuverability for skiers and riders that avoided this portion of Uncle Chuck’s Glade due to the steep slope.

When these skier circulation projects are considered cumulatively with the impacts of Alternative 2 or 3, the overall skier recreation experience would be improved.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with respect to recreation have been identified in association with any of the alternatives analyzed in this document.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-106 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

F. SCENERY RESOURCES

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The geographic scope of the scenery resources analysis for this proposal is defined by Buttermilk Mountain’s SUP boundary. This analysis also examines the proposed Nordic jump venue and associated infrastructure from identified critical viewpoints, including the base of Tiehack, Highway 82, and Aspen High School.

Analysis of the scenic environment requires an evaluation of the project area and its ability to absorb the effects of both historic and ongoing human modification. Slope, natural vegetation types and patterns, topography, and viewing distance are important factors in this analysis. The development of on- mountain/base area skier facilities and developed trails has occurred for the past five decades over which time the area has been managed as a winter recreation site. The potential scenery impacts within the project area were considered in relation to the overall existing development/recreational theme of the resort.

Three visual simulations were produced in conjunction with this analysis to depict the anticipated changes to the scenery resource (refer to figures 8 through 10, located at the end of the direct and indirect effects narrative). The critical viewpoints are:

Maroon Creek Townhomes

The northwest corner of the high school field on Maroon Creek

Highway 82 northwest of the roundabout at Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road

FOREST SERVICE DIRECTION

The 2002 Forest Plan provides the following desired condition within the 8.25 Management Area for scenery resources:

Protection of scenic values is emphasized through application of basic landscape aesthetics and design principles, integrated with forest management and development objectives. Reasonable efforts are made to limit the visibility of structures, ski lifts, roads, utilities, buildings, signs, and other man-made facilities by locating them behind landform features or by screening them behind existing vegetation. Facilities are architecturally designed to blend and harmonize with the national forest setting as seen from key viewpoints. Facilities that no longer serve a useful purpose are removed.94

94 USDA Forest Service, 2002a p. 3-80

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-107 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Scenery Management System

In addition to providing recreation experiences and natural resources, public landscapes provide beauty, which is a valuable resource to many National Forest users. In brief, the Forest Service uses the Scenery Management System (SMS) as a systematic approach for assessing scenery resources in a project area and using the assessment findings to help make management decisions on the project. The system is founded on an ecological aesthetic, which recognizes that management which preserves the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community preserves the scenery as well. The 2002 Forest Plan for the WRNF establishes acceptable limits of change for Scenic Resources.95 The acceptable limits of change are the documented Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO), which serve as a management goal for scenic resources.

Scenic Integrity Objectives96

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

People experience the scenic environment as an integrated whole, not as a series of separate objects. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be complete, indicating the degree of intactness and wholeness of the landscape character. The SMS uses SIOs, which range from Very High (unaltered) to Very Low (heavily altered). The SIO for the Buttermilk SUP area, which encompasses the upper portion of the proposed Nordic jump venue, the majority of the proposed snowmaking, the maintenance facility, overpass, and all grading was designated in the 2002 Forest Plan as Very Low. This SIO befittingly refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” The frame of reference for measuring achievement of SIOs includes, but is not limited to, the valued attributes of the “existing” landscape character “being viewed.” In an area with a Very Low SIO:

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character and may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. Deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that

95 USDA Forest Service, 2002a 96 The evaluations of deviations in all SIOs, excluding Very High, are based on views from identified viewing boundaries.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-108 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition.97

However, the Forest Plan states that all NFS lands shall be managed to attain the highest possible visual quality commensurate with other appropriate public uses, costs, and benefits.98 In an area with a High SIO:

Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.99

The Forest Plan contains forest-wide standards and guidelines which apply to all areas of the forest. A standard is a course of action which must be followed; adherence is mandatory. A guideline is a preferred course of action designed to achieve a goal, respond to variable site condition, or respond to an overall condition. The following scenery guidelines are applicable to this project:100

Management activities should be designed and implemented to achieve, at minimum, the level of scenic integrity shown on the scenic integrity objective map. (See the scenery section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS for definitions of scenic integrity levels.)

Plan, design, and locate vegetation manipulation on a scale that retains the color and texture of the landscape character, borrowing directional emphasis of form and line from natural features.

Choose facility and structure design, scale, color of materials, location, and orientation to meet the SIO on the Scenic Integrity Objective Map.

Facilities, structures, and towers with exteriors consisting of galvanized metal or other reflective surfaces will be treated or painted dark non-reflective colors that blend with the forest background to meet an average neutral value of 4.5 or less as measured on the Munsell neutral scale.

The Forest Plan further states that it is a regional goal to “provide for scenic quality and a range of recreational opportunities that respond to the needs of forest customers and local communities.”101

97 USDA Forest Service, 1995b 98 USDA Forest Service, 2002a p.AA-17 99 USDA Forest Service, 1995b 100 USDA Forest Service, 2002a p.2-34 101 Ibid. p.1-1

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-109 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

SMS Distance Zones

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

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

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

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

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

The SMS Distance Zones identified for this project are immediate foreground, foreground, and middleground. The majority of the viewing public for this project is reasonably considered to be motorists on Highway 82 northwest of Maroon Creek Road extending approximately 0.5 mile northwest on Highway 82.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to establish recreation setting objectives and to evaluate proposed changes to recreation settings. The 8.25 Management Area ROS, which encompasses all but the northernmost extent of the project area, is rural year-round. Factors used to determine the setting classification include social encounters, access, naturalness, remoteness, facilities and site management, visitor impacts, and visitor management. The Forest Service provides the following definition for a rural ROS classification:

Rural ROS: Area is characterized by a natural environment that has been substantially modified by development of structures, vegetative manipulation or pastoral agriculture development. Resource modification and utilization practices may be used to enhance specific recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-110 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities often are provided for special activities. Moderate user densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available.

Built Environment Image Guidelines (BEIG)

The BEIG is a manual for the “thoughtful design and management” of the built environment contained within the National Forests by province.102 The Forest Service defines the built environment as “the administrative and recreation buildings, landscape structures, site furnishings, structures on roads and trails, and signs installed or operated by the Forest Service, its cooperators, and permitees.103 The BEIG places Buttermilk and adjacent NFS lands within the Rocky Mountain Province. Site development, sustainability, and architectural character should conform to BEIG guidelines described for this Province.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Buttermilk lies within the Elk Mountain Range of western Colorado. The mountains are situated on the western side of the Continental Divide, just west of the Sawatch Range between the towns of Aspen and Crested Butte. High elevation alpine peaks characterize the Elk Mountains including the Maroon Bells, considered by many to be one of the most photographed mountain settings in the nation. North and South Maroon peak reach 14,014 and 14,156 feet in elevation, respectively. Just south of the Maroon Bells stands Pyramid Peak at 14,018 feet. Although not visible from the entirety of Buttermilk, these peaks can be seen from the top of the all three summit lifts (Maroon peaks cannot be seen from Buttermilk). Other major peaks within the Elk Mountain range include Snowmass Mountain (14,092’), Castle Peak (14,265’), Capitol Peak (14,130’) and Mount Daly (13,300’).

Buttermilk is currently in compliance with Forest Plan direction for scenery management; it either achieves or exceeds the SIO of Very Low. The aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes within the project area were considered in relation to the overall existing development/recreational theme of the resort. The SUP area has historically been allocated to winter sports use and as such, Buttermilk has developed into a concentrated winter recreational arena. In addition, Buttermilk continues to provide increased summer and off-season activities in their effort to initiate new opportunities for guests to access and enjoy the mountains. Many of the buildings located on Buttermilk were built prior to implementation of the BEIG and as such would not fit some of the BEIG guidelines. When applicable, future buildings would be designed to conform to the Rocky Mountain Province BEIG to the greatest extent possible and would meet Forest Service direction related to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) on NFS lands that will ensure continued use and enjoyment by the recreating public.

102 USDA Forest Service, 2001a 103 Ibid.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-111 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

The Buttermilk and Tiehack base areas are on private land and have been developed to accompany ski resort development, as well as independent developments including parking lots, private residences and lodging, restaurants, rental and retail shops, horse stables and a golf course. Over 470 acres within the SUP and on adjacent private lands have been developed over the last five decades to include restaurants, patrol and maintenance buildings, nine lifts (five chairlifts, two handle tows and two ski/snowboard school carpets, including those located on private land adjacent to the SUP), 44 cleared trails and other infrastructure necessary to a ski area.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

With the selection of the No Action Alternative, existing operations would persist. Developed trails, lifts and service facilities have altered the visual character of 470 acres within the SUP area and on adjacent private lands; however, design, location and coloration of these developments have minimized visual effects. Implementation of the previously approved Tiehack Express lift would alter the developed character of the landscape beyond its current condition because of the towers and lift terminals required for high speed detachable lift technology. The developed ski area would continue to be in compliance with the SIO of Very Low.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the Nordic jump venue would be constructed between Racer’s Edge and Javelin on the lower portion of the Tiehack side of the mountain, enhancing the competition venues already established on Buttermilk, and provide a venue for local athletes. The jump venue would consist of three jump structures, a 65 m, 35 m and 15 m; three coaching platforms; a 20 by 12-foot two-story judging facility, and a surface lift. Under Alternative 2, access to the facility would use a portion of the existing maintenance road; one road spur would be constructed from the maintenance road to the top of the 35 m jump. Due to the necessary engineering requirements, the Nordic jumps would not meet BEIG architectural guidelines; however, design criteria to minimize impacts to scenery resources such as location and color of structures have been included in their design.104 The requisite Nordic jump buildings, including coaching platforms and judges building, would be designed to meet Rocky Mountain Province BEIG guidelines. This would be accomplished through the use of natural materials and appropriate architectural characteristics.

As proposed, the jumps and support facilities would not be ADA and ABA compliant. Buttermilk provides a variety of skier facilities and terrain throughout the mountain, which accommodates persons with disabilities, integrating them into the main Buttermilk program. Special accommodations are not

104 Photos of jump venues in Vancouver, Canada and St. Paul, Minnesota show jump structures and requisite facilities similar to those proposed under Alternative 2 and 3. These photos are available in the project file or can be viewed online (see the Reference section for the web address).

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-112 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources required for every facility and all terrain under these regulations.105 In the future, should the Forest Service and ASC determine ADA and ABA compliance is desirable (i.e., adaptive equipment design would accommodate the opportunity for persons with disabilities to meet essential eligibility criteria and participate at the Nordic jumping venue) alternative access options to the top of the jumps would be considered.106

Visual simulations of the Nordic jump venue were developed from critical viewpoints to analyze proposed landscape alterations as compared to the existing condition. The simulations represent foreground and middleground views of the jump venue as seen by an observer at that position. The photographs were taken with a 50 mm zoom lens, which is representative of what the human eye observes. Due to the zoom, some landscape context is lost, and the photographs do not capture the broader scope of what an observer would view. Due to limitations in the modeling software, the simulations are not exact representations of the appearance of the jumps and jump facilities, but provide an approximate visual effect. The three viewpoints are: the Maroon Creek Townhomes (foreground), the high school field on Maroon Creek Road (middleground), and the roundabout on Highway 82 at Maroon Creek (middleground). The proposed conditions (alternatives 2 and 3) analyzed from the viewpoints are visually identical, with the exception of the proposed surface lift length. Alternative 3 includes a longer surface lift that extends further upslope on Javelin. It was determined by the Forest Landscape Architect that the visual simulations only need to analyze the greater visual alteration (Alternative 3).

The visual simulation from the Maroon Creek Townhomes (figures 8-A and 8-B, located at the end of the direct and indirect effects narrative) shows Buttermilk and the Nordic jump venue in the foreground, at approximately 1,770 feet. The 65 and 35 m jump structures, several surface lift towers, and the top of the coaching platform are visible. The access road uses an existing topographic bench and is expected to return to a partially vegetated two-track road that would not be visible under Alternative 2. As shown in the visual simulation, the jump structures and coaching towers would be painted to blend into the surrounding landscape and the lift towers would be non-reflective to reduce the contrast with the natural environment. The final color of the jump structures would be approved by the Forest Service Landscape Architect prior to implementation of the jump venue. The top of the 65 m jump structure would be approximately 40 feet tall and would be located in an aspen/lodgepole pine tree island, which would act as a backdrop to blend the structure into the surrounding landscape. The 35 and 15 m jumps could be built almost on grade, 10 feet tall at their highest. As shown in Figure 8-A, the top of the 35 m jump is visible above the tree island but the rest of the jump is screened by the aspen overstory layer. The 15 m jump would be completely screened from this view by an aspen/lodgepole pine tree island. Total ground disturbance for the jump venue would be approximately 2 acres including approximately 1 acre of tree removal, however the grading would not be visible from any of the viewpoints due to prompt revegetation

105 The Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 and The Architectural Barriers Act, 1968 106 Any future changes to the design of the proposed facilities to achieve ADA and ABA compliance would be within the scope of the analysis within this EA and would not alter the effects determinations.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-113 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources as required by the 2002 Forest Plan (refer to Table 2-3). The jump venue and the previously approved Tiehack Express would be prominent in the foreground view because of their unnatural forms and lines. Again, due to limitations in the modeling software, the simulations are not exact representations; proposed and previously approved lifts would look similar to existing lifts on Buttermilk. Although the setting appears heavily influenced by human development, the Tiehack area meets the ski area’s SIO of very low.

From the northwest corner of the high school field on Maroon Creek Road, observers would view the proposed Nordic jump venue in the middleground from approximately 3,200 feet (figures 9-A and 9-B, located at the end of the direct and indirect effects narrative). Although the proposed jump facilities would be colored to match the surrounding landscape, as previously stated, the observer would be able to identify the entire 65 m jump, the top one-half of the 35 m jump, the entire 15 m jump, the judging building, and the entire surface lift (with the exception of the top terminal that would be screened by existing vegetation). As presented in figures 9-A and 9-B, edges of structures and vegetation become less distinguished as the distance from the observed becomes greater. Due to the coloration and the level of design work incorporated into the proposed structures, the ski area would remain compliant with a SIO of very low.

As seen from Highway 82 (figures 10-A and 10-B, located at the end of the direct and indirect effects narrative), the jump venue would represent an increase in on-mountain developed structures visible from outside the ski area. The Tiehack portion of Buttermilk appears altered by cleared ski runs, the 65 m jump and a portion of the 35 m jump, 15 m jump and the surface lift. From this view, components of the action alternatives as well as existing conditions are less distinguishable as the distance from the observer grows greater. Although structures at the jump venue would dominate the natural character in the middleground, design criteria to blend the jump venue structures, as well as ancillary jump facilities, into the natural landscape allow Buttermilk to remain in compliance with the Forest Service SIO designation of very low.

Installing snowmaking infrastructure on Ridge Trail, Westward Ho, Jacob’s Ladder, Racer’s Edge, Tiehack Parkway, Teaser, Uncle Chuck’s Glade, Savio, Tom’s Thumb, and Homestead Road would temporarily degrade scenic integrity of the areas under construction. Impacts to scenery resources would be minimized by prompt revegetation and the long-term scenic integrity would be maintained. Above ground snowmaking infrastructure (snowmaking guns) are not anticipated to incrementally change the existing condition. Concurrent with proposed snowmaking a drainage management plan would be implemented throughout the mountain. Components of the drainage management plan, such as water bars and ditch armoring are not expected to adversely affect scenery resources.

The lift maintenance facility would be located approximately 500 feet west of the Cliffhouse Restaurant well below the ridgeline. The single level, 3,000-square foot facility is located in a lodgepole pine tree island between Tom’s Thumb and Ridge Trail. Utilities from Cliffhouse Restaurant would be buried in

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-114 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources compliance with 2002 Forest Plan standards. The design of this facility includes an adequate vegetative screen on all sides of the structure and shop apron. A facility access road would be constructed and located to minimize visual impacts from the common observer. The color of the facility would blend with the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, prior to ground disturbing activities, ASC would submit a grading and design plan to the Forest Service landscape architect for review and approval. Skiers’ immediate foreground view of the structure is obstructed by vegetative screening, so the SIO of very low would be maintained. If deemed appropriate, upon site review prior to project implementation, the lift maintenance building would comply with the BEIG guidelines and ADA and ABA regulations.

Alternative 3

As stated above, the visual simulations show views of the jump venue under Alternative 3. Impacts to the scenery resource would be similar to Alternative 2 except that the surface lift in the Nordic jump venue would be extended uphill of the 65 m jump, snowmaking would occur on Javelin trail to accommodate the Nordic jump venue and race training, and snowmaking would be decreased on Savio.

The surface lift would be extended to a landing area uphill of the 65 m jump to better accommodate jumpers and racers. Impacts to the immediate foreground would remain the same as for Alternative 2. The upper landing location is slightly more visible in the foreground and middleground. Additionally, the upper access road would be slightly visible in the middleground from the high school football field and Highway 82 viewpoints. The upper access road would utilize an existing, abandoned road bench and would return to a partially vegetated two-track after construction. These developments would not appreciably alter scenery resources on the Tiehack side of the mountain.

Effects to scenery resources from installing snowmaking infrastructure on Javelin would be primarily short-term and would be promptly revegetated. Above ground infrastructure would represent an incremental change from current conditions. Fewer snowmaking structures would be visible in the immediate foreground on Savio, where snowmaking was reduced under Alternative 3. Buttermilk would remain compliant with the SIO of very low.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This cumulative effects assessment focuses on localized impacts associated with Buttermilk’s development projects within its SUP boundary. As discussed above, historic development on NFS and private lands at Buttermilk has involved clearing of trails, grading, and construction of lifts, roads, and buildings. Developed facilities and changes in vegetative patterns are visible from NFS and private lands within, and adjacent to, the permit area.

The 2001 Buttermilk Ski Area DN/FONSI approved a number of projects that, would cumulatively contribute to a more developed landscape at Buttermilk as they are implemented, including: biking and hiking trails, replacement of the Cliffhouse Restaurant, relocate the snowcat garage to mid-way, and up-

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-115 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources grade the existing Tiehack lifts. From a scenery impacts perspective, the upgrade of the existing Tiehack lifts to a single high-speed quad would have the greatest, albeit minor, impact on the scenic quality of the ski area. The reader is referred to visual simulation figures 8-A through 10-B for the scenery effects associated with the previously-approved, yet to be constructed, Tiehack Express lift. The cumulative effect of the 2001 EA and DN/FONSI projects (in particular the Tiehack Express) in addition to the action alternatives would contribute to the “altered” character of the Tiehack side of Buttermilk Mountain. As portrayed in each of the visual simulation figures, the previously-approved Tiehack Express lift upgrade would be visible from each critical viewpoint. Along the lift line corridor, in areas where overstory vegetation removal would occur, vegetated lines would be “feathered” and “scalloped” to minimize straight edges to the greatest extent practicable. Some development may be clearly visible in the immediate foreground, foreground and middleground view. These projects would result in cumulative visual effects on NFS lands in or adjacent to Buttermilk’s SUP area, but those effects would maintain the SIO designation of very low.

A skier overpass at the intersection of Teaser and Homestead Road (approved via a Decision Memo in 2009) was constructed in the summer of 2009 and consists of a skier bridge approximately 30 feet wide, 35 feet long and 16 feet high. The bridge was designed to blend in to the surrounding landscape to the greatest extent possible. The overpass is not visible from outside the ski area. A grading project on Uncle Chuck’s Glade was also implemented in the summer of 2009. This project was approximately 1 acre in size and improved the usability of the trail for skiing and riding guests. These projects have been promptly revegetated and will not detrimentally change the prior condition as it relates to visual resources.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

All of the proposed projects would occur in within the developed boundaries of the SUP; however, tree removal would represent irretrievable effects to scenery resources. This commitment of scenery resources is not considered irreversible because facilities and infrastructure could be removed and, in time, the area could be reclaimed and revegetated, restoring its natural appearance.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-116 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

FIGURE 8-A: VISUAL SIMULATION #1 MAROON CREEK TOWNHOMES

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-117 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-118 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

FIGURE 8-B: VISUAL SIMULATION #1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS–MAROON CREEK TOWNHOMES

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-119 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-120 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

FIGURE 9-A: VISUAL SIMULATION #2 HIGH SCHOOL FIELD

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-121 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-122 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

FIGURE 9-B: VISUAL SIMULATION #2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS–HIGH SCHOOL FIELD

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-123 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-124 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

FIGURE 10-A: VISUAL SIMULATION #3 HIGHWAY 82 ROUNDABOUT

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-125 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-126 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

FIGURE 10-B: VISUAL SIMULATION #3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS–HIGHWAY 82 ROUNDABOUT

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-127 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences F. Scenery Resources

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-128 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Traffic, Parking and Ski Area Access

G. TRAFFIC, PARKING AND SKI AREA ACCESS SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

The scope of this parking and traffic analysis is primarily limited to Tiehack Road between Highway 82 and the Tiehack base area. The Nordic jump venue has potential to drive minimal effects related to parking and traffic; therefore, while the Main Buttermilk and West Buttermilk portals are addressed in general, analysis focuses on the Tiehack portal. These sections describe the access routes to Buttermilk and related traffic and parking issues at the ski area. The traffic analysis describes existing and projected traffic on the premise that the majority of Buttermilk’s guests arrive via automobile. Proposed projects are qualitative in nature and are not anticipated to result in recognizable increases in daily visitation or subsequent traffic volumes.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Ski Area Access

Buttermilk is located 2 miles west of the City of Aspen and 220 miles west of Denver via Interstate 70 (I-70) and Colorado State Highway 82. Highway 82 is the only through-road in the project vicinity; it runs southeast from Glenwood Springs over Independence Pass and east to Highway 24. The portion of Highway 82 that crosses Independence Pass is maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation as a Colorado Scenic and Historic Byway. In the winter, Highway 82 is closed approximately 6 miles east of Aspen over Independence Pass (12,095 feet), creating a seasonally dead-end highway.107

Since 2000, Highway 82 has been widened to four lanes from Glenwood Springs to Buttermilk; completion from Buttermilk to Aspen occurred in 2008.108 Buttermilk is primarily accessed via Owl Creek Road off of Highway 82. A new traffic signal was installed at this intersection to improve traffic flow, and both the Main Buttermilk and West Buttermilk base areas can be accessed from this point. The Tiehack base area is located off Highway 82 on Tiehack Road. Free skier shuttle service from Aspen and Snowmass will remain the preferred options for many locals and guests. Approximately 60 percent of Buttermilk’s visitors are destination guests and frequently use public transportation.

Traffic and Parking

Tiehack Road, Owl Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road are primarily used by residents, high school students, the public during special events, winter ski area visitors and summer recreationists. In the winter public buses run between Buttermilk and Aspen/Snowmass; however, summer use is by private vehicle only. Table 3G-1 provides a summary of parking spaces at each of the Buttermilk portals.

107 CDOT, 2008a 108 CDOT, 2008b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-129 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Traffic, Parking and Ski Area Access

Table 3G-1: Existing Parking Spaces Parking Lot Parking Spaces Main Buttermilk 425 Tiehack 120 West Buttermilk 50 Total 595 Source: 2008 Buttermilk MDP

Parking is offered at each of the three Buttermilk base areas. During the winter weekends, parking lots are primarily used by Buttermilk skiers, but on the weekdays and in the summer the parking lots are used by a variety of groups such as: high school students, special events, vendor parking, other outdoor recreationists, and construction staging. The lot located at the Tiehack base area has 120 spaces, accommodating approximately 300 visitors. Generally, existing parking facilities and public transportation accommodate visitor demand. Occasionally, on peak days during special events, lots reach capacity. ASC works with the County to manage overflow parking on a case-by-case basis.

Focusing on the Tiehack parking lots (120 parking spaces) and Tiehack Road, vehicle trips related to skiers could total 240 per day if the lot is entirely full from ski area related use (as stated above, this is not the typical situation). In addition to the 240 vehicle trips, minimal skier drop off currently occurs at Tiehack and accounts for an additional ten vehicle trips. This maximum total (250 vehicle trips/day) only occurs on peak weekend days; during the average weekend day parking and vehicle trips are approximately one-half of the peak weekend day totals (60 vehicles, 120 vehicle trips/day). Weekdays throughout the ski season (comprising 70 percent of the ski season) are approximately one-half of the average weekend day totals (30 vehicles, 60 vehicle trips/day).109

A majority ski club participants are high school students that park at the Aspen Valley Ski Club or the High School and use the Maroon Creek pedestrian bridge to access Tiehack for practices and competitions.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

No operational or infrastructural changes/additions would occur on NFS lands within the Buttermilk SUP area as a result of the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no direct or indirect environmental impacts to traffic, parking or access.

109 Stark, 2008

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-130 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences G. Traffic, Parking and Ski Area Access

Alternatives 2 and 3 – The Action Alternatives

Proposed projects at Buttermilk are not designed or expected to induce recognizable daily increases in visitation at Buttermilk. Moreover, proposed projects would not increase mountain or chairlift capacities.

It is estimated that 15 to 20 athletes would use the Nordic jump venue for training, primarily on weekdays. Competitions held at the jump venue would generally occur on the weekends in the winter. Parking is expected to remain the same as space would continue to be limited by the 120 spaces in the Tiehack parking lot. Some traffic related to skier drop-off is expected to occur and may generate approximately 20 additional vehicle trips/day to the base of Tiehack. The majority of Nordic jump athletes would be high school students that would park at the Aspen Valley Ski Club or the High School and use the Maroon Creek pedestrian bridge to access the Nordic jump venue for practices and competitions similar to the current condition.

Snowmaking proposed on the upper portion of the mountain would increase early season (before January 1) terrain. The terrain increase, combined with predictable early season snow conditions may result in an increase of early season visitors resulting in potentially greater annual visitation but not an increase in daily visitation.

Short-term construction related traffic would be in compliance with the construction access plan (refer to Table 2-3 for plan requirement). Duration of construction projects will be minimized to the greatest extent possible to reduce vehicle trips on adjacent access roads. Short-term traffic effects are anticipated to include approximately ten vehicle trips per day for each construction project (e.g., construction of the 65 m Nordic jump).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

None of the alternatives are anticipated to induce measureable daily visitation increases at Buttermilk. One reasonably foreseeable project to note is the upgrade of the existing Upper and Lower Tiehack fixed- grip, two lift system to a single high-speed detachable four-person chairlift. This lift was originally approved via the 2001 Buttermilk DN/FONSI and the decision was reaffirmed in November 2008. The capacity of the existing Tiehack lift is 1,200 people per hour (pph), and the anticipated capacity of the approved Tiehack lift is also 1,200 pph. The upgraded lift would provide a quicker ride time for guests, but the chair spacing would be of a distance where the overall capacity (1,200 pph) would not change. The net result of this design is quicker chairlift ride times, but a comfortable, low skier density, on- mountain experience. Therefore, with this chairlift design and the fixed number of parking spaces at the Tiehack portal, parking and vehicle trip totals are not anticipated to increase.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

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

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-131 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Cultural, Archaeological, and Heritage Resources

H. CULTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND HERITAGE RESOURCES SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

This cultural resource assessment is mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (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 National Register of Historic Places (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.

This assessment is based on archaeological sources that indicate the historic and prehistoric utilization of lands, such as hunting, gathering, grazing, timber harvesting, and natural resource transport, within and adjacent to Buttermilk’s SUP boundary (refer to figures 3 and 4), known as the area of potential effect (APE). 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.110 The significance of NRHP eligibility of cultural resources is determined by the Forest Archaeologist in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The files of the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Compass database and the WRNF were consulted prior to the initiation of fieldwork. The Colorado OAHP defines an isolated find as five or fewer surface artifacts with no associated cultural features and minimal potential deposition. The Colorado OAHP defines a site as five or more artifacts within 50 meters of one another, or at least one cultural or structural feature. No previously recorded sites or isolated finds have been identified in the legal sections encompassing the current project area. Four historic sites have been recorded in drainages north and east of the project area; the nearest site is over a half mile east of the project area.111 Previous projects in the legal sections encompassing the current project area include recreation developments associated with skiing, biking, hiking, and horseback riding.

Cultural Resource Sites and Isolated Finds Inventory Methodology

The Class III cultural resource inventory was conducted in October 2006 and August 2008 by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. using zig-zag pedestrian transects spaced no more than 20 meters (65 feet) through proposed ground disturbance areas that included a 100-foot buffer around the edge of the project area. Linear corridors were surveyed using a single zig-zag transect covering a corridor width of 100 feet. Terrain exceeding a 30 percent slope was inspected visually where possible for evidence of past

110 36 CFR Section 60.4 111 Metcalf, 2008

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-132 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Cultural, Archaeological, and Heritage Resources human use (specifically mining). Portions of the horseback trails that were located on crowned and ditch mountain access roads were visually inspected by vehicle. Surface visibility varied from approximately 50 percent on the higher portion of the mountain, to approximately 10 percent on the lower portion due to dense forest cover, thick understory, duff, and revegetated grasses. There were numerous areas affording a view of subsurface deposits via roads, trails, eroded areas and rodent backdirt piles.

Cultural Survey Results

A total of 100 acres were inventoried and field conditions were fair to good for the discovery of cultural resources. Limited Holocene deposition was observed in the project area, but the deposition was unlikely to contain significant intact buried cultural material.112 There were no sites or isolated finds observed within the project area.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

Because no ground disturbance is proposed under the No Action Alternative, there is no potential to affect the historic sites within the APE as a result of the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 and 3 – Action Alternatives

No historic sites or isolated findings are recorded within the project area, therefore neither of the Action Alternatives would have adverse effects to historic properties determined eligible by the Forest Service and SHPO.

As stated in the project design criteria (Table 2-3), if previously-unknown Native American cultural resources, artifacts, or human remains are discovered during implementation of any approved projects, all ground disturbing activities will cease, and government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribes will commence.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No NRHP-eligible cultural resources are identified within the APE related to the Proposed Action; therefore, by definition, no cumulative effects would occur or require further analysis.

Potential impacts to cultural resources may be related to projects occurring outside of the APE. All current and future projects would require the completion of requisite cultural surveys to satisfy state and federal requirements. As stated above, this project has been determined to have no adverse affects, either independently or cumulatively, to historic properties.

112 Holocene is the period of geologic time during which modern human culture developed and spread.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-133 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences H. Cultural, Archaeological, and Heritage Resources

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of cultural resources have been identified in association with either of the alternatives analyzed in this document.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-134 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Environmental Justice

I. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” to ensure such populations are not subject to disproportionately high levels of environmental risk.113 EO 12898 provides that “each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”

The proposed projects would not disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations, however, potential indirect effects of these projects may negligibly increase demand for affordable housing in the County. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have a relatively high cost of living, large number of seasonal employees and limited building area, therefore affordable housing is limited, despite being essential for many people working in the community.114

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Pitkin County is Colorado’s wealthiest county with a median household income in 2004 of $60,662 (approximately $10,000 more than the Colorado median household income) and unemployment below 5 percent (less than half of Colorado’s unemployment rate).115 Racial diversity has remained limited in Pitkin County; almost 90 percent of the County’s population was white in 2006. The largest change has been the growth of the Hispanic community, which increased from 1.28 percent in 1990 to 7.4 percent in 2006. Other groups, each contributing to less than 1 percent of the population in Pitkin County, are: Black, American Indian and Eskimo, Asian, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Other, and people of two or more races.116

Due to comparatively high housing costs (the average home cost is $750,000 in Pitkin County, approximately $600,000 higher than the average Colorado home) a work-force housing board was created by the City of Aspen to represent the Pitkin County work-force in the housing market.117 The City of Aspen provides approximately 2,600 employee housing units within Pitkin County.118 ASC also provides approximately 556 employee beds.119

113 59 Federal Register 7629, 1994; Disproportionately is a generic term used to define the adverse effects of environmental actions that burden minority and/or low income populations at a higher rate than the general public. 114 Aspen City Manager, 2007 115 Rocky Mountain News, 2008; US Census Bureau, 2008 116 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, 2008; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2006 117 US Census Bureau, 2008 118 Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office, 2008 119 Aspen/Snowmass, 2008a, b

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-135 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences I. Environmental Justice

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative 1 – No Action

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

Alternatives 2 and 3 – The Action Alternatives

For this project, it has been demonstrated that the level of environmental risk to humans is too low to measure since no low income or minority populations were identified as potentially being disproportionately affected in terms of Environmental Justice issues. No additional employees are anticipated for the proposed actions; therefore, employee housing would not be affected by the action alternatives. No Environmental Justice issues related to the action alternatives were identified to be analyzed.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Proposed projects at Buttermilk are too small to measure environmental risk to humans directly and indirectly in Pitkin County. Therefore cumulative effects related to this project are not anticipated.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

No irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments of resources related to minority or low-income populations have been identified in association with either action alternative analyzed in this document.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 3-136 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

LIST OF PREPARERS

FOREST SERVICE TEAM

The following people participated in the initial scoping, were members of the Interdisciplinary Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this EA.

Scott Fitzwilliams Forest Supervisor, Deciding Officer

Roger Poirier Winter Sports Program Manager, SO

Skye Sieber West Zone NEPA Coordinator, ID Team Leader, Rifle RD

Jim Stark Winter Sports Administrator, Aspen-Sopris RD

Phil Nyland Wildlife Biologist, Aspen-Sopris RD

Mark Weinhold Hydrologist, SO

Justin Anderson Hydrologist, SO

Donna Graham Landscape Architect, SO

Mark Lacy Fisheries Biologist, Aspen-Sopris RD

Cary Pence Civil Engineer, SO

Travis Bruch Forester, Rifle RD

Andrea Brogan Archaeologist, SO

CONSULTATION TEAM

SE GROUP – Frisco, CO

Kent Sharp Principal

Travis Beck Project Manager

Kelly Owens Assistant Project Manager/Environmental Analyst

Mark Williams Senior Hydrologist

James Testin Visual Simulation Design Lead

Paula Samuelson Production Specialist

Western Bionomics, Inc. – Steamboat, CO

Kelly Colfer Wildlife Biologist

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 4-1 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. – Eagle, CO

Sally Metcalf Archaeologist

GEO-HAZ Consulting, Inc. – Crestone, CO

Dr. James McCalpin Geotechnical Engineer

PROJECT PROPONENT REPRESENTATIVE

Victor Gerdin Mountain Planner – Aspen Skiing Company

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Environmental Protection Agency Larry Svoboda

Sarah Fowler

United States Army Corps of Engineers Mark Gilfillan

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Kurt Broderdorp

State Government

Colorado Division of Wildlife Alex Chappell

Jon Ewert

Mark Konishi

Tom Lines

Kevin Wright

Colorado Governor’s Office Honorable Bill Ritter

Colorado Department of Transportation Robin Geddy

Tribal Government

Ute Indian Tribe Betsy Chapoose

Terry Knight, Sr.

Southern Ute Indian Tribe Clement Frost

Neil B. Cloud

Mountain Ute Indian Tribe Ernest House, Sr.

Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee Curtis Cesspooch

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 4-2 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

Local Media

Aspen Times

OTHER ENTITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Jim Kravitz

Backcountry Snowsports Alliance Brian Holcombe

CO Forestry & ES&R Program Lead Jeff Kitchens

Colorado River Commission George Caan

Colorado Wild Rocky Smith

Ryan “Demmy” Bidwell

Environmental Defense Fund Dan Luecke

Forest Conservation Council

Maroon Creek Master Association Gary Albert

Wilderness Society Fran Hunt

Wilderness Study Group Kristy Withrow

Wilderness Workshop Sloan Shoemaker

OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

Jonathan Lowsky

T.J. Demas

Christina Hakin

Eduard Oliemans

Mike Maple

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 4-3 Chapter 5: References

5. REFERENCES

16 USC 497. 1999. 64 FR 8681-8690. National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 – as adopted in 1999. February 22.

36 CFR 60.4. 2004. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., and E.O. 11593.

36 Stat. 961 The Weeks Act. March 1, 1911.

40 CFR 1500-1508.28. 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended July 1, 1986.

42 USC 7470-7479. Public Health and Welfare.

59 Federal Register 7629. 1994. Environmental Justice.

63 Federal Register. 124. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Species.

The Americans with Disabilities Act. 1990. ADA Accessibility for facilities of state and local government services, public accommodations and transportation.

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. pg 442.

The Architectural Barriers Act. 1968. ABA All facilities built, bought, rented, or leased with federal funds are required to be accessible.

Aspen Daily News. Gardner-Smith, Brent. 2008. ‘First Rural Busway’ in US dedicated today. October 20, 2008. http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/129989

Aspen City Manager. 2007. Memorandum: Materials for Housing Summit. August 31, 2007.

Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office. 2008. The City of Aspen & Pitkin County Housing Office. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Housing-for-Workforce/.

Aspen/Snowmass. 2008a. Buttermilk Mountain Master Development Plan. Aspen Skiing Company. WRNF, Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 2008b. Buttermilk Stats and Facts. http://www.aspensnowmass.com/onmountain/statsfacts//statsfacts.cfm?area=Buttermilk. Accessed November 30, 2009.

Bledsoe, B.P. and C.C. Watson. 2001. Effects of urbanization on channel stability. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 37, no. 2:255-270.

Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, and C.J. Krebs. 2000. Habitat Fragmentation and interspecific competition: implications for lynx conservation. pg 83-100. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado Boulder, Co. pg. 480.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 5-1 Chapter 5: References

Colfer, K. 2008a. Biological Assessment for Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species. Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan. Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, WRNF. Pitkin County, Colorado. February 2009.

———. 2008b. Biological Evaluation for USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species. Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan. Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, WRNF. Pitkin County, Colorado. February 2009.

———. 2008c. Management Indicator Species Evaluation. Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan. Aspen-Sopris Ranger District, WRNF. Pitkin County, Colorado. February 2009.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2006. Colorado Regional Health Profiles: Pitkin County. http://66.179.184.178/stats/regionalProfilesMap/county_final/pitkin.pdf.

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2008a. Independence Pass FAQs. October 29,3008. http://www.dot.state.co.us/sh82/new/IndFaqs.cfm

Colorado Ski County USA and Wright Water Engineers. 1986. A final Report on the Colorado Ski Country USA Water Management Research Project.

Colorado Department of Transportation. 2008b. Historical Timeline Highway 82.October 29, 2008. http://www.dot.state.co.us/SH82/New/historical.cfm

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C.

CTL Thompson. 2008. Geologic Evaluation and Geotechnical Investigation Buttermilk Snowmaking Dam and Ponds, Pitkin County, Colorado. Aspen Skiing Company. February 21, 2008.

DeMott, S.L. and G.P. Lindsey. 1975. Pygmy shrew, Microsorex hoyi, in Gunnison County, Colorado. Southwestern Nat 20:417-418.

Endangered Species Act. 1978. PL-93-205, Section 4, 1978.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y- 87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

EPA and USACE. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Action Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meany, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of National History. Denver, CO. pg 467.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. 1974.

GEO-HAZ Consulting Inc. 2008. Geology and Geologic Hazards of the 2008 Proposed Improvements at Buttermilk Ski Area, Pitkin County, Colorado. December 7, 2008.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 5-2 Chapter 5: References

———. 2009. Geology and Geologic Hazards of the 2008 Proposed Improvements at Buttermilk Ski Area, Pitkin County, Colorado. November 17, 2009.

Hirsch, C.L. 2008. Personal Correspondence with Kelly Colfer. WRNF, Glenwood Springs, CO.

Johnston, B.C. 2001. Field Guide to sedge species of the Rocky Mountain Region: The genus Carex in Colorado, Wyoming, western South Dakota, western Nebraska, and western Kansas. USDA Forest Service Publ. R2-RR-2001-03, Denver, CO.

Kingery. H.E. (ed.). 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Denver, Colorado, pg 636.

LaMarche, J.L. and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2001. Effects of forest roads on flood flows in the Deschutes River, Washington. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

Leaf, C.F., and G.E. Brink. 1973a. Computer Simulation of Snowmelt Within a Colorado Subalpine Watershed. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-99, 22p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

———. 1973b. Hydrologic Simulation Model of Colorado Subalpine Forest. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-107, 23p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Markart, G., B. Kohl, G. Poscher, W. Wanker, and I. Schnetzer. 1998. Assessment of runoff characteristics in a torrent catchment area. Austrian Institute for Avalanche and Torrent Research, FBVA, Innsbruck. http://www.iahr.org/membersonly/grazproceedings99/doc/000/000/190.htm.

Metcalf, S.J. 2008. Aspen Ski Corporation’s Buttermilk Ski Area Improvements, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Pitkin County, CO. September 14, 2008.

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. 1960.

The National Forest Management Act. 1976.

The National Forest Ski Area Permit Act. 1986.

Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. 2008. Pitkin County NWCCOG Summaries from Census 2000. http://www.nwc.cog.co.us/docs/demographics/Pitkin_County_census2000_oldwebsitereport.pdf.

Nyland, P. 2004. Personal Communication with Kelly Colfer. WRNF, Glenwood Springs, CO.

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2008. Letter of Concurrence State Historic Preservation Officer. October 14, 2008.

The Organic Administrative Act. 1897. Management of Forest Reserves in the U.S. June 4, 1897.

Pettus, D and R.R. Lecleitner. 1963. Microsorex in Colorado. J. Mamm. 44:119.

Resource Engineering. 2008a. Dam Hazard Classification Report. Aspen Skiing Company Buttermilk Snowmaking Ponds Water Division 5, Pitkin County, Colorado: pg 3-27.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 5-3 Chapter 5: References

———. 2008b. Dam Hazard Classification Report. Aspen Skiing Company Buttermilk Snowmaking Ponds Water Division 5, Pitkin County, Colorado: pg 3-31.

Roaring Fork Conservancy. 2006. Roaring Fork Watershed Water Quality Report. Basalt, Colorado. http://www.roaringfork.org/images/publications/2006rfwwqreportFINAL.pdf

Rocky Mountain News. 2008. Pitkin County Colorado’s Wealthiest. James Paton, April 24, 2008. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/24/pitkin-county-colorados-wealthiest/

Ruediger, B., et al. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA For. Serv., USDI Fish & Wildl. Serv., USDI Bur. Land. Manage. and USDI Nat’l. Park Serv. FS Publ. #R1-00-53. Missoula, MT. pg. 142.

Shanley, J.B. and B.Wemple. 2002. Water quality and quantity in the mountain environment. Vermont Law Review, vol. 26:717, 717-751.

Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, C. Spurrier, T. Skadelandl. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Fort Collins, CO: Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service by the Colorado National Heritage Program.

Stark, J. 2008. USDA Forest Service Personal Communication. November, 2008.

Tague, C. and L. Band. 2001. Simulating the impact of road construction and forest harvesting on hydrologic response. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26:135-151.

Troendle and Leaf 1980. Hydrology, Chapter III in An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non- Point Silvicultural Sources. EPA-600/8-80-012. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Ga.

Tweto, O. 1979. U.S. Geological Survey Map. 1:500,000 scale, Northeast Quarter.

US Census Bureau. 2008. State and County QuickFacts: Pitkin County, Colorado. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08097.html

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Snowmass Ski Area Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes 1 & 2. WRNF, Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 1995a. Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory. WRNF, Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 1995b. Scenery Management System Handbook. AH 701-f.

———. 2001a. The Built Environment Image Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands. December.

———. 2001b. Environmental Assessment of Proposed Improvements to the Buttermilk Ski Area and DN/FONSI. June 19, 2001, Aspen District, WRNF.

———. 2001c. Supplemental Biological Assessment for Canada Lynx. Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 2002a. Land and resource management plan-2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs. CO.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 5-4 Chapter 5: References

———. 2002b. Final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, for the White River National Forest land and resource management plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.

———. 2002c. Record of decision for the White River National Forest land and resource management plan-2002 revision. Glenwood Springs. CO. 47 pp.

———. 2002g. Lynx habitat parameters. WRNF. Unpublished. Forest Service document, WRNF, Glenwood Springs. CO. 3 pages plus LAU spreadsheet (subject to further updates, last updated E. Roberts October 16, 17 2007).

———. 2005. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25. Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook.

———. 2006a. Final Environmental Assessment – Management Indicator Species Forest Plan Amendment 03/06 to the Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 WRNF. WRNF Supervisor’s Office, Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 2006b. Lynx Habitat – White River National Forest Geographic Information System. WRNF Supervisor’s Office, Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 2008a. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. National Forests in Colorado & southern Wyoming. October 2008.

———. 2008b. Supplemental BA, BE and MIS Evaluation – 2008 Buttermilk SIR. Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. 2008c. FSH 1909.15.10 Environmental Policy and Procedures.

———. 2009. Buttermilk Mountain Ski Area Improvements Terrain Park Overpass and Uncle Chuck’s Glade Trail Grading Categorical Exclusion and Decision Memo. Glenwood Springs, CO.

———. unpublished data. WRNF Supervisor’s office.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. pg 43.

———. 1990b. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. pg 35.

———. 2001. Section 7 Consultations, Aspen Skiing Company. March 23, 2001.

———. 2002. Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. pg 78.

———. 2008. Biological Opinion for the SLRA EIS. August 20, 2008.

Walsh, C. 2004 State Ski Industry a Peak Producer. Rocky Mountain News. April 1.

Wang, L.P., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management, vol. 28, no. 2:255-266.

Weber, W.A. 1987 Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Niwot, Colorado: University Press.

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 5-5 Chapter 5: References

Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection. General Technical Report PSW GTR-157. August 1995

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment 5-6