LOVELAND SKI AREA PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

February 2021

USDA Forest Service Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Rocky Mountain Region In accordance In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (such as Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690- 7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Note: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please contact the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland at (970) 295-6600. Cover photo credits: Loveland Ski Area and Mountain Stats/MtnStats.com This page intentionally left blank. 1. Purpose and Need

1. Purpose and Need

The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests The proposed action has been reviewed for and Pawnee National Grassland (ARP) has consistency with all relevant management prepared this environmental assessment (EA) direction provided by the Forest Plan. in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and The purpose of the proposed parking project other relevant federal and state laws and is to increase the parking capacity of the regulations. The EA contains a summary of Loveland Valley base area to better the environmental impacts of the projects accommodate existing and future guest being pursued as the proposed action. visitation at Loveland. The need for the Technical reports providing detailed proposed parking project is based on the day information on resources analyzed in this EA skier analysis conducted in the 2017 Master can be found in their entirety on the project Development Plan Update (2017 MDP), as webpage. The entire project file can be found well as more current guest visitation and at the Clear Creek Ranger District office of vehicle constraint data. This information the ARP and is available upon request. identifies that the existing parking infrastructure has a current deficit of For general information regarding Loveland approximately 529 parking spaces needed to Ski Area (Loveland) and background properly accommodate the current and information regarding the proposed project, anticipated visitation levels. refer to the notice of proposed action (NOPA) that was published for public review. The purpose of the proposed terrain improvement project is to improve utilization Appendix A of this EA includes the disclosure of existing chairlift-served terrain accessed of a Finding of No Significant Impact. by Chair 3 within this area of the mountain. The need of the proposed trail improvement 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED OF project is to reduce the grade of trails in the THE PROPOSED ACTION Chair 3 terrain pod, which currently includes The 1997 ARP Land and Resource trail segments that are too steep and off fall- Management Plan (Forest Plan) allocates the line for novice ability level skiers. The project Loveland special use permit (SUP) area as is also needed to increase opportunities for Management Area 8.22 Ski-Based Resorts – beginners. These improvements would make (Existing and Potential) within Management the terrain more suitable for lower ability Area Category 8. The Forest Plan states that level skiers, providing additional trail options lands allocated to Management Area 8.22 for skiers and supporting learning/teaching are “areas with ski-based resorts or potential progression. for ski-based resorts” that “are managed to provide for skiing and related recreational 1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND uses” (USDA Forest Service 1997). In IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES accordance with this emphasis on developed External public scoping began in September recreation within ski-based resorts (existing 2020. A NOPA was mailed to 92 community and potential), Loveland proposes to expand residents, interested individuals, public its parking capacity and improve novice agencies, tribal governments, and other ability level terrain with the proposed action. organizations. This notice was specifically

1 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1. Purpose and Need

designed to summarize the proposed action Service considered the information gathered and elicit comments, concerns, and issues through public scoping along with the input pertaining to the proposed action. A legal of the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team notice was published on September 1, 2020 (ID Team) in identifying specific resources in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, the that require in-depth analysis in 3. Affected newspaper of record for the ARP, announcing Environment and Environmental the opportunity to comment on the proposed Consequences of this EA. action and initiating a combined scoping and opportunity to comment period for the Resources and issues that are analyzed in project. The combined scoping and detail in this EA are included in Table 1-1. opportunity to comment period closed on October 1, 2020. In response to the Forest Issues may warrant the generation of an Service’s solicitations for public comments, 5 alternative, can be addressed by project letters were received. design criteria or mitigation, or generally From these letters, six substantive comments require in-depth analysis and disclosure. were extracted and categorized by resource Non-issues are beyond the scope of the area. The Forest Service identified specific project, are already decided by law, areas of concern and classified them as regulation, or policy, or are not relevant either issues or non-issues. Substantive to the decision. comments are addressed in a Response to Comments document located on the project webpage in the project file. The Forest

Table 1-1. Issues Analyzed in Detail

R E SOURCE ISSUE AREA

Ground disturbance associated with the implementation of parking and terrain improvements Wildlife may result in impacts to Canada lynx, boreal toad, and/or ptarmigan and raptors. Implementation of the proposed projects has the potential to increase water yield, peak flows, Watershed and and erosion within the watershed. It also has the potential to affect stream and riparian health, Soils including water quality. Ground disturbance associated with the implementation of parking and terrain improvements Wetlands has the potential to disturb wetlands and fens within or adjacent to the project area from grading, tree cutting, and construction activities. Recreation The proposed action would alter the recreation opportunities available to the public at Loveland. Implementation of the proposed projects could alter the scenic resources within the SUP area Scenery and from adjacent views. Traffic and Implementation of the proposed parking lot is anticipated to impact traffic and parking within Parking and adjacent to the SUP area.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2 1. Purpose and Need

In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 40, Section 41.22, and 36 CFR § 220.7(b)(2)(ii) this EA will not include an analysis of the no action alternative.

Refer to the Issues, Resources, and Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward document included in the project file for further discussion on this decision.

1.3 OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, AND/OR CONSULTATION Decisions by jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal may be aided by the analyses presented in this EA (per 40 CFR § 1502.25[b]). 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:  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Endangered Species Act Informal Section 7 Consultation  State Historic Preservation Office, National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act 404 Permit

3 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2. Proposed Action

2. Proposed Action

Each project component of the proposed anticipated to require approximately 6 acres action meets the purpose and need described of grading and tree clearing. Retaining walls in Section 1.1. up to 20 feet high would be constructed on the uphill and downhill edges of the parking To continue to provide a recreation lot to reduce grading and wetland impacts. experience consistent with guest expectations The retaining walls would be designed and and cater to a wider spectrum of users, constructed using gabions or large Loveland proposes to: segmented blocks made with natural  Construct a parking lot adjacent to materials and colors to blend in with the existing Lots D and E; and surrounding landscape. Overstory and understory clearing would be minimized in  Implement terrain improvements on Zig front of the retaining walls to shield them Zag and Boomerang ski trails, including from adjacent viewsheds. A drainage system construction of two new ski trails would be incorporated into the design of the adjacent to Boomerang. parking lot and retaining walls to minimize All components of the proposed action, impacts of runoff into Clear Creek and including ground disturbance and staging, adjacent wetlands. In addition, Loveland would occur within Loveland’s existing SUP would develop a snow management plan to area, as depicted in Figure 1. The overall identify how and where snow plowed from location of the project components within the parking lot and driveway would be stored Loveland’s existing SUP area is also depicted to prevent wetland disturbance and in Figure 1. A combination of hand crews and disruption to the BLT. heavy equipment would be used to The proposed parking lot and driveway implement all components of the proposed would intersect a portion of the existing BLT. action. Each component of the proposed This portion of trail would be rerouted and action is further detailed in the following incorporated into the design of the proposed discussions. parking lot to prevent user conflicts in the area. The rerouted BLT segment would be 2.1 PARKING LOT paved and would extend along the Included in the proposed action is a new southeastern edge of the proposed parking parking lot on National Forest System (NFS) lot (refer to Figure 1). Several parking spots lands in the base area of Loveland Valley. would be reserved with signage for trail users The project is designed to minimize wetland year-round. The parking area would remain impacts and avoid user conflicts on the open in the summer for users accessing the Bakerville to Loveland Trail (BLT). The BLT. During the winter, the trail would remain proposed parking lot would provide Loveland available for recreation use and would with approximately 500 new parking spaces. continue to be groomed by Clear Creek County. The proposed parking lot would be located northeast of existing Lots D and E (refer to Figure 1). It would be accessed by a short driveway branching off the existing Lot D. In total, construction of the parking lot is

LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4 2. Proposed Action

Figure 1. Proposed Action

5 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2. Proposed Action

2.2 TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS Terrain improvements to Boomerang would include the construction of two trails, one on The proposed action includes terrain either side of the existing trail (refer to Figure improvements on existing ski trails at 1). One trail would begin south of Loveland Valley. The proposed terrain Boomerang, in an area that is currently improvements include trail realignment, forested, and connect to the lower portion of grading and tree clearing on Zig Zag and the existing trail. The second trail would Boomerang ski trails. deviate northward from the upper portion of Boomerang and reconnect to the lower The upper portions of Zig Zag would be portion of the existing trail. Terrain widened via tree clearing and grading along improvements to Boomerang would require a the outer edges of the existing ski trail (refer total of approximately 1 acre of grading, 2 to Figure 1). The trail would be graded to a acres of tree clearing, and approximately 1 maximum of 25 percent slope. The middle acre of terrain requiring both tree clearing portion of the trail would be realigned to and grading. correct the fall-line. Following construction, the existing trail segment would continue to function as a more challenging option for 2.3 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA experienced skiers. The final portion of Zig Project design criteria (PDC) are site- and Zag would require additional tree clearing project-specific design criteria developed and grading on its edges to widen the trail through the analysis of the project. These are and maintain a more appropriate grade for required to avoid or minimize potential novice skiers. Terrain improvements to Zig resource impacts from construction and Zag would require a total of approximately 3 implementation of the proposed action. This acres of grading, approximately 1 acre of list, shown in Table 2-1, supplements the list tree clearing, and approximately 2 acres of of standard best management practices terrain requiring both tree clearing and (BMPs) that Loveland would be required to grading. Existing snowmaking coverage on incorporate into its Construction Zig Zag would likely be expanded where trail Implementation Plan that it must prepare for widening would occur. The amount of snow Forest Service review prior to the start of required to cover these areas would be construction and implementation (see comparable to existing conditions, as the trail General PDC #1). surface would be improved, and less snow would likely be needed to flatten uneven grades. There are no snowmaking PDC are site- and project-specific design infrastructure projects associated with the criteria developed through the analysis of proposed action. the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 2. Proposed Action

Table 2-1. Project-Specific Design Criteria

PROJECT PROJECT- SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA PHASE

1) Prior to starting construction activities on NFS lands, Loveland shall develop a Construction Implementation Plan for Forest Service review and authorization. All proposed construction methodologies and practices would be reviewed for compliance with the decision and resource management direction. This plan shall include the following information: • Construction Management: Project timelines, project contracts, disturbance boundaries, grading and site plans, staging and parking areas, retaining wall details, construction access, and any required survey information. • Timber Management: Defined logging deck areas and skid paths, and protocol for timber removal. • Erosion Control and Drainage Management. Prepare, and regularly update, a drainage management plan (DMP) to identify opportunities to disconnect connected disturbed areas and improve drainage conditions within Loveland Valley. Although not drainage- specific, the DMP should include a section with measures designed to maintain and improve stream health of Sheep Creek and the Unnamed Western Tributary, such as streambank stability improvement projects. • Wetland Mitigation Plan. • Post-Construction Revegetation and Restoration: Methodology, locations, vegetative mixes, and soil amendments. General • Noxious Weed Management: Weed control methodologies including equipment cleaning, pretreatment, and post-construction monitoring and treatment. • BMPs: Resort BMP list to be employed and adhered to during project implementation. 2) Loveland shall adhere to all standards and guidelines for the Forest Plan unless otherwise directed. 3) Loveland shall obtain all required county and state permits prior to the start of construction. 4) BMPs: A ski area BMP list shall be employed and adhered to during project implementation. 5) Loveland shall develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will identify all potential sources of pollution that could impact receiving waters and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs to be implemented to minimize pollutants in snowmelt and stormwater discharges. BMPs for control of erosion, sedimentation, and protection of water quality shall be designed in accordance with good engineering practices and shall be properly installed and periodically maintained. The SWPPP will address sediment and/or magnesium chloride runoff from the proposed parking lot into Clear Creek, wetlands, and the trees below the parking lot. Loveland shall update the SWPPP after one year and periodically thereafter as sites are stabilized, new projects are constructed, or conditions change.

7 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2. Proposed Action

Table 2-1. Project-Specific Design Criteria (cont.)

PROJECT PROJECT- SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA PHASE

1) PDC shall be modified in consultation with Forest Service resource specialists to avoid impacts that could affect the persistence of at-risk (threatened, endangered, or proposed federally listed species, ARP management indicator species [MIS], and Region 2 sensitive) plant and animal species. To minimize impacts to northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher and migratory birds, tree removal activities should be confined to dates outside of the nesting season, May 1 to July 15, as much as possible. When possible, retain trees with cavities for future nesting sites. 2) Surveys should be conducted during the nesting season for northern goshawk and olive-sided flycatcher nests prior to project implementation. If northern goshawk or other migratory birds are discovered nesting during pre-project surveys, a no disturbance buffer and timing restrictions as determined by the Forest Service wildlife biologist or Forest Service responsible official will be set forth in the vicinity of the active nest from April 15 through July 31, unless a shorter distance or lesser time is approved by a Forest Service wildlife biologist. 3) Loveland shall provide an opportunity for a site visit for the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes to verify any sweetgrass resources in the project area. If identified, Loveland would work with the tribes to transplant the sweetgrass. 4) Wetlands must be flagged within 100 feet of proposed disturbance areas. Construction fencing must be installed along perimeter of disturbance area to prevent unintended wetland impacts. Also, install sediment fencing along these wetlands to reduce sedimentation into wetlands. If any vehicles need to travel within the perimeter of a wetland that is to be preserved, they must first get clearance from the ARP to do so, then must use proper ground protection (matting, 18 inches of snow cover, etc.). Pre- Construction 5) Prior to temporary disturbance of any waters of the U.S., including wetlands, Loveland shall coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine if proposed activities require the use of a Pre-Construction Notification. If the Pre-Construction Notification requires the preparation and approval of a mitigation plan, the plan shall be reviewed and approved by the ARP prior to project implementation. 6) Stream channel and wetland impacts associated with Boomerang trail improvements shall be further minimized, if possible, through the preparation of a grading plan. A Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit may be necessary to extend an existing culvert by approximately 40 feet. 7) Loveland shall develop and periodically update a snow removal management plan to identify how and where snow would be stored from plowing the parking lot to prevent wetland disturbance and disruption to the BLT. The snow removal management plan shall include the following measures: • Where practical, minimize (or avoid where possible) use of deicers to melt ice and snow, and sand to provide improved traction on Loveland’s parking lots and access roads. • Do not plow snow directly into streams and wetlands. • Prevent snow storage sites from draining directly into streams or wetlands. Instead, these sites should be located where they can drain to adequately installed and maintained BMPs. • Conduct regular maintenance of the snow storage sites. At a minimum, three times a year: (1) early fall, in preparation for the upcoming winter; (2) during snowmelt season as soon as conditions allow; (3) in the summer once snow has completely melted. Maintenance of snow storage sites should include removal of accumulated sediment and debris and repair/replacement of BMPs.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 8 2. Proposed Action

Table 2-1. Project-Specific Design Criteria (cont.)

PROJECT PROJECT- SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA PHASE

8) A drainage system shall be incorporated into the design of the parking lot to minimize impacts of runoff into Clear Creek and adjacent wetlands. An infiltration gallery, infiltration swale or other measures shall be incorporated into the drainage system to mitigate the potential adverse effects of intercepting the near-surface groundwater table on the downslope wetland fen complex. 9) The DMP shall include measures to minimize impacts to the water influence zones associated with Sheep Creek and the Unnamed Western Tributary, and to maintain or improve stream health along these streams. 10) Stream channel and wetland impacts associated with Boomerang trail Pre- Construction (cont.) improvements shall be further minimized through the preparation of a grading plan at the location where an existing culvert would be extended to achieve the appropriate trail width. A Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit may be necessary for this location to extend the existing culvert by approximately 40 feet. 11) When designing the proposed parking lot, evaluate utilization of permeable pavement for the surface of parking lots, coupled with underdrain systems. Include underground BMPs such as vault separators, if feasible. Prepare and periodically update a Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for the parking lots.

1) Implement vegetative soil stabilization (e.g., soil conditioning, application of seed, planting of seedlings or other vegetation, application of fertilizer) and non-vegetative soil stabilization (e.g., riprap, gabions, geotextiles) within fourteen days of ground disturbance activities. 2) If undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are located during ground disturbing activities or planning activities associated with approved construction activities, a Forest Service archaeologist shall be contacted and all construction in the immediate vicinity shall cease in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.11. 3) Should project activities be located outside of the area previously surveyed for botany. Additional clearance surveys shall be conducted prior to construction. 4) The Forest Service shall be contacted if Forest Service Region 2 sensitive plants are discovered within the project area during project implementation. 5) Clay blocks or a bentonite seal shall be used in cut slopes that could dewater wetlands. 6) Any construction access routes over wetlands shall not include the use of fill. During Construction Instead, environmentally sensitive construction access mats or other materials shall be used. 7) Because of the low water holding capacity of the soils, mulch is recommended to retain soil moisture and protect seedling establishment. The use of surface netting or hydro-mulch with tackifier will reduce the erosion hazard. 8) In areas to be graded, salvage topsoil and subsoil in separate chairlifts, and if stored, segregate topsoil from subsoil in separate stockpiles. In areas to be reclaimed, replace soil in two chairlifts, subsoil followed by topsoil. 9) In grading disturbances that would not be reclaimed following project completion, such as the proposed parking lot and BLT realignment, topsoil shall be salvaged and used elsewhere. 10) Trail and parking lot tree clearing shall minimize straight lines of clearing and shall feather edges where possible to reduce scenery impacts. 11) Loveland shall reconstruct and realign the BLT and the associated right of way (immediate foreground of the trail) to meet the minimal guidelines for scenic integrity in the Forest Plan.

9 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2. Proposed Action

Table 2-1. Project-Specific Design Criteria (cont.)

PROJECT PROJECT- SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA PHASE

12) During construction of the parking lot, particularly in areas adjacent to the BLT, Loveland shall adapt their construction schedule to not impact events that occur on the BLT, including but not limited to the Triple Bypass bike race. 13) Where practical, restore, establish, or enhance riparian plant communities (e.g., planting willows and grasses along the project area streams). Evaluate During Construction (cont.) and, where possible, create a riparian buffer along Clear Creek as it flows adjacent to existing base area roads and parking lots to improve infiltration, slow and filter runoff; and improve views of and from the BLT. Amend soils as necessary to increase root depth and infiltration capacity. Protect the buffer from vehicular traffic.

1) Loveland shall fund post-construction noxious weed treatment for three consecutive years, or until satisfactory condition is present, subsequent to any construction activities within the project area. 2) Loveland shall fund monitoring for revegetation of disturbed soils associated with the proposed action for three consecutive years, or until satisfactory Post Construction condition is present. 3) Periodically inspect all BMPs during the snowmelt season as well as after summer rainstorms to ensure they are performing as intended, and complete any repairs or improvements needed. Update DMP as needed following inspections.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 10 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter is based on the issues identified 3.1.1 Affected Environment in Section 1.2. Based on an understanding of Threatened and Endangered Species the proposal, familiarity of the project area, and analysis of the issues raised in scoping, Canada Lynx the line officer approved the following Canada lynx are listed by the USFWS as a resources to be considered in detail in this threatened species. Habitat for Canada lynx analysis: wildlife, watershed and soils, occurs within the project area and throughout wetlands, recreation, scenery, and traffic and the Loveland SUP area. The Loveland SUP parking. area is located within the Clear Creek Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), which is approximately 3.1 WILDLIFE 94,884 acres in size. The Clear Creek LAU is The following wildlife analysis is a summary located adjacent to the Herman Gulch Lynx of the Biological Assessment and Biological Linkage Area, which is approximately 336 Evaluation (BA/BE) prepared specifically for acres in size and straddles Interstate-70 (I- this project. The BA and BE are contained in 70) for approximately 4 miles between the the project file on the project webpage. The Herman Gulch area and Bakerville on the BA includes detailed information regarding east side of the Continental Divide (USDA federally listed threatened, endangered, and Forest Service 2008). proposed (TEP) terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species that may occur or could In the Loveland SUP area, conifer stands with potentially be affected by the proposed dense horizontal cover at the snow level action. Region 2 sensitive species whose provide winter habitat for snowshoe hares, population viability has been identified as a the primary prey species for Canada lynx. concern by the ARP are analyzed in the BE. Within the forested portions of the ski area, The following analysis summarizes habitat for snowshoe hares exists in most information specific to potentially affected conifer stands, as horizontal cover values are TEP species (Canada lynx and greenback typically greater than 35 percent; however, cutthroat trout) and Region 2 sensitive this habitat is degraded by skier presence species (American marten, Hoary bat, pygmy and activity (Olson et al. 2018; USFWS shrew, boreal owl, northern goshawk, olive- 2013). The Loveland Valley operational sided flycatcher, white-tailed ptarmigan, boundary is less than one quarter mile wide boreal toad, mountain sucker, and western along-slope at its widest point, excluding the bumblebee). Additional species were base area adjacent to I-70. The base area is considered in the BA/BE but are not included currently 0.31 mile in width. While it is not in the following paragraphs as they were likely that lynx forage within the operational determined to not have habitat, exist in the boundary during the day or night, the project area, or have any impacts associated presence of the ski area does not pose an with the proposed action. impediment to lynx night-time movements during the winter. During the summer, Loveland does not sponsor recreational activities; therefore, the ski area would not provide a barrier to lynx movements during the day or night.

11 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Greenback Cutthroat Trout American marten, hoary bat, pygmy shrew, Greenback cutthroat trout are listed by the boreal owl, northern goshawk, olive-sided USFWS as a threatened species. A population flycatcher, white-tailed ptarmigan, boreal of greenback cutthroat exists in Dry Gulch on toad, mountain sucker, and western the opposite side of I-70; the confluence of bumblebee. Dry Gulch and Clear Creek is just under 1 mile downstream of Loveland after Dry Gulch 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences travels beneath I-70. A barrier exists on Dry Threatened and Endangered Species Gulch prior to the confluence. This is a cumulative barrier consisting of a terminal Canada Lynx moraine cascade with a large culvert at the Consequences to lynx habitat from head of the cascade; however, greenback implementation of the proposed action would cutthroat get washed over the barrier and are result from tree clearing for ski trails and the present within Clear Creek. The fish within parking lot (refer to Table 3-1). Clear Creek are considered lost to the Implementation of the proposed action would population and no longer have a impact approximately 11.6 acres of suitable conservation value (USDA Forest Service lynx habitat. Areas of suitable lynx habitat 2020). cleared of 100 percent of trees would be converted to non-habitat. Additional Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species consequences that have potential to affect Region 2 sensitive wildlife species with lynx movements would be associated with potential to occur and potential to be increased traffic volume and increased lynx impacted by the proposed action include: habitat conversion to non-habitat.

Table 3-1. Canada Lynx Habitat Consequences by Project

CANADA LYNX HABITAT IMPACT (ACRES)

SUITABLE TOTAL LYNX PROJECT SUITABLE WINTER FORAGE DENNING NON- HABITAT HABITAT LYNX IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT CONVERTED HABITAT TO NON- IMPACT HABITAT

Parking Lot

Grading and Tree Clearing 4.5 4.5 1.3 4.5

Terrain Improvement

Grading 1.6 0.8 2.4 1.5 2.4

Grading and Tree Clearing 1.1 1.0 2.1 0.9 2.1

Tree Clearing 1.3 1.3 2.6 0.4 2.6

Total 4.0 7.6 11.6 4.1 11.6

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 12 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The proposed action could result in habitat, and tree skiing reduces the negligible increases in annual or average effectiveness of snowshoe hare habitat. The daily visitation at Loveland; however, it is not proposed projects on their own would have anticipated to drive visitation itself. insignificant and/or discountable Furthermore, the proposed parking project is consequences on lynx and would not intended to increase the parking capacity of compromise the ability of the Clear Creek Loveland Valley to better accommodate LAU to support resident or traveling lynx. existing and future guest visitation at the ski Therefore, the proposed action may affect, area. The proposed parking lot would create but is not likely to adversely affect Canada approximately 500 additional parking lynx. spaces, which could potentially result in an additional 500 vehicles on I-70 on certain The 2010 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment days during the operating season (not daily). (SRLA) provides management direction for This increase in traffic would have a Canada lynx on NFS lands in Region 2, negligible consequence on lynx movements including the ARP. The proposed projects at the scale of traffic that currently travels have been reviewed for consistency with all along I-70 on winter weekends relevant SRLA management direction. For an (approximately 75,000 vehicles). analysis of relevant SRLA management direction, refer to the BA contained on the In addition, as previously stated, the project webpage. presence of the ski area does not pose an impediment to lynx night-time movements Greenback Cutthroat Trout during the winter. During the summer, the ski Since any greenback cutthroat trout found in area would not provide a barrier to lynx Clear Creek are considered lost to the movements during the day or night. population due to genetic dilution, the Therefore, the proposed action would not proposed action would have no add any additional significant barrier to lynx consequences on individuals downstream of movements, nor would it have consequences the project area. to any mapped linkage areas. Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species The effectiveness of habitat within the current Potential impacts to Region 2 sensitive Loveland operational boundary has been wildlife species or habitat are discussed in compromised over time as terrain Table 3-2. development has removed and fragmented

13 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-2. Potential Impacts to Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species or Habitat in the Project Area

S PECIES SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Current levels of skiing are likely to have impaired the effectiveness of winter habitat for martens; tree skiing compacts at least some of the subnivean spaces that martens require to hunt during winter. Clearing spruce/fir forest would convert 11.47 acres of potential marten habitat to non-habitat. The remaining stands would still provide habitat American marten for marten, and cleared areas are not of such a width to preclude marten daily, seasonal, or exploratory movements throughout the ski area. Marten home range size is quite variable, usually averaging less than 10 square kilometers (2,471 acres; Slough 1989, Phillips et al. 1998). The clearing would impact less than 0.5 percent of the home range of an individual marten through displacement. Tree clearing and grading would impact 11.47 acres of forest stands that provide potential roost habitat for the hoary bat. It is possible that individuals roosting in trees Hoary bat within suitable habitat could be killed during tree clearing activities. There are not likely any permanent indirect impacts. Bats may temporarily avoid roosting in the vicinity during construction but would return when construction terminates. The proposed action would impact 11.47 acres of habitat that could be occupied by pygmy shrews. It is not likely that shrews inhabit the entirety of that area, but where suitable, moist, boreal environments are present, suitable habitat for shrews is available. Pygmy shrew It is possible that construction equipment and activities could crush or otherwise kill individual shrews. There would not likely be any indirect impacts on shrews as a result of the proposed action. The proposed action would convert 11.47 acres of spruce/fir forest to grass/forb. These sites currently provide potentially suitable habitat for boreal owl. Cleared areas would Boreal owl still provide foraging habitat following implementation. However, potential nest habitat would be eliminated. The proposed action would convert 11.47 acres of spruce/fir forest to grass/forb. These sites currently provide potentially suitable habitat for northern goshawk. Cleared areas would still provide goshawk foraging habitat following implementation; however, Northern goshawk potential nest habitat would be eliminated. PDC included in Table 2-1 require pre- project surveys of all project area for northern goshawks and other nesting raptors would prevent direct and indirect impacts to individuals. The proposed action would convert 11.47 acres of spruce/fir forest to grass/forb. These Olive-sided flycatcher sites currently provide potentially suitable habitat for olive-sided flycatcher. PDC included in Table 2-1 require pre-project surveys of all project area for nesting birds Land would be cleared and graded for the proposed parking lot. Land that would be cleared includes 0.68 acre of upland willows within the 60± acre mapped winter range for white-tailed ptarmigan (1.1 percent of the available mapped habitat). In addition to the direct elimination of ptarmigan winter habitat, the activity, noise, and commotion associated with use of the parking lot would likely encourage ptarmigan to winter farther down-valley rather than directly adjacent to the parking lot. Assuming conservatively that the indirect disturbance would impact another 1 percent of the winter range polygon, the White-tailed ptarmigan parking lot would potentially impact 2 percent of the available winter range along Clear Creek. There appears to be sufficient willow habitat for ptarmigan to utilize up and down-valley of the proposed parking lot. It is unlikely that the elimination of 2 percent of winter habitat with construction of the parking lot would lead to mortality or reduced fecundity or natality in the local ptarmigan population. Therefore, the project would not be expected to contribute to cumulative impacts on white-tailed ptarmigan across the ARP. While the terrain improvements are beyond the dry land migration range of the Herman Gulch toad population, the parking lot would be built within the riparian migration Boreal toad distance of 2.5 miles and within 100 feet of Clear Creek. It is possible that individuals that have migrated to the parking lot location could be crushed and killed by construction equipment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1.3 Cumulative Effects effects of prior ski area development on the local snowshoe hare population, and thus on The temporal bounds of the cumulative lynx foraging energetics. The impacts would effects analysis extend from the initial not be detectable at the scale of the LAU. The development of Loveland as a winter cumulative effects of this and other recreational area through the foreseeable incremental losses in hare habitat have future during which recreation-related undoubtedly had an incremental effect on activities may affect species. The physical lynx energy expenditures while hunting, on a extent of this cumulative effects analysis Statewide basis. With each loss of habitat for differs by species but comprises the Loveland a single hare, there is an immeasurable cost SUP area and adjacent public land to the to the energetics of foraging lynx. extent they would be potentially impacted. Cumulatively, these incremental losses may The proposed action would have minor become measurable, but have not been cumulative impacts to wildlife and their documented. habitat, given the relatively small disturbance area. The proposed projects would occur 3.2 WATERSHED AND SOILS entirely within the existing Loveland SUP The following watershed and soils analysis is area, where habitat has been previously a summary of the Hydrology Report and the fragmented as a result of recreational Soils Specialist Report prepared specifically development and management activities. for this project. The proposed action has Direct disturbance from tree clearing and been reviewed for all relevant management grading would add to the cumulative impact direction related to watershed and soil of suitable habitat loss for several Region 2 resources. Analysis of the project’s sensitive species from forest clearing and consistency with all relevant management mountain pine beetle mortality that has direction can be found in the Hydrology occurred across the ARP. Additional direct Report and the Soils Specialist Report, which disturbance from construction activities are contained in the project file on the project would be temporary and would be due to the webpage. presence of personnel and equipment during project implementation. Indirect effects from 3.2.1 Affected Environment vegetation treatments would alter habitat Watershed conditions. For some species, this could constitute a loss of available suitable habitat, The project area is located within three while for others there may be no impact or relatively small watersheds (the study even benefits (i.e., increase in edge habitat watersheds): two drained by unnamed available for olive-sided flycatcher). In the perennial streams, the third a hillslope long term, increased recreational human watershed. For purposes of this analysis, the presence may decrease habitat quality in the study watersheds are called Sheep Creek, project area for certain Region 2 sensitive unnamed western tributary, and eastern species. hillslope watershed. Sheep Creek and the unnamed western tributary are both Regarding Canada lynx, the proposed action perennial streams, generally flowing in a would occur within the bounds of the existing southeast-to-northwest direction, through Loveland operational boundary, most of wetlands, conifer forests, and developed which has been previously fragmented as a areas including existing ski trails, access result of ski area development. The project roads, parking lots, and a section of U.S. would not add significantly to the cumulative Highway 6 (US 6). The study watersheds drain into Clear Creek.

15 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Ski area projects have been constructed in Water Resources Evaluation of Non-point the study watersheds over the last several Silvicultural Resources (WRENSS) Procedural decades. Construction of these projects Handbook (EPA, 1980), as updated by required tree removal and terrain grading Troendle, Nankervis and Porth (2003) and and resulted in watershed impacts such as supplemented by the Colorado Ski Country changes to watershed condition, water yield, USA Handbook (CSCUSA, 1986). In stream health, and water quality. summary, the WRENSS model generates a water balance using seasonal precipitation Watershed Condition and vegetation type and density (distributed Construction of the existing ski area by watershed aspect) and then computes the infrastructure and US 6 required removal of amount of water potentially available for forest in the study watersheds on runoff. The water balance of the WRENSS approximately 85.5 acres. Table 3-4 in model is coupled with a snowmaking Section 3.2.2 includes a comparison between hydrology computation process developed the acreage of existing and pre-development through the CSCUSA study. Together, these or baseline, forested areas. Baseline calculations produce estimates of water yield conditions in the study watersheds were typical of subalpine mountain watersheds. estimated based upon comparison with For watersheds with a live stream channel, undeveloped watersheds of similar the WRENSS Model distributes the calculated characteristics (e.g., acreage, elevation, annual yield based on data recorded at aspect) in the vicinity. various streamflow gaging stations. The WRENSS model was developed to simulate Within the study watersheds, man-made expected changes in streamflow as the result snow is produced on approximately 27.7 of silvicultural activities, not streamflow itself. acres. Based on the typical snowmaking Additional information about the model can target of 18 inches of coverage, assuming a be found in the Hydrology Report located on 50 percent density of artificial snow in the project webpage. Colorado and a 6 percent water loss during the snowmaking process (via wind, The water yields and 6-day peak flows sublimation, and evaporation), it is assumed calculated using the WRENSS model are that an average of 22.1 acre-feet of water is included in Table 3-5 in Section 3.2.2 for utilized per season for snowmaking both baseline and current conditions, operations in the study watersheds. This assuming average conditions of precipitation results in an average ratio of 0.80 acre-feet and temperature. of water utilized per acre of snowmaking coverage, which is similar to snowmaking Stream Health water ratios calculated from actual records of As defined in the Watershed Conservation snowmaking at several ski areas in Practices Handbook (WCPH), stream health Colorado. is the condition of a stream relative to its natural potential condition attainable for a Water Yield given channel type, climate and geology. Under current conditions, the baseline yield Stream health classes are determined by of the study watersheds has been affected by comparing various metrics surveyed on study tree removal, terrain grading and application and reference reaches. Three classes are of snowmaking water. Yield of the study recognized in the Rocky Mountain Region: watersheds for baseline (pre-development) robust, at-risk, and diminished. These classes and existing conditions was estimated can be used for assessing long-term stream following the methodologies presented in the

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 16 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

health and impacts from management Drainage Conditions activities. Proper drainage of developed areas helps protect the watershed resources, including The Forest Service completed a stream health soils, stream health and water quality. Direct survey for a reach of Sheep Creek, which was connection of disturbed areas to the stream then compared to a reference reach of channel, such as roads via roadside ditches, similar geology and channel type. Sheep results in a net increase in the length of the Creek was classified as robust for percent of existing channel network within the fine sediment on the stream bed and for bank watershed. CDAs capture surface runoff and stability, while the large woody debris (LWD) concentrate flows within the watershed, metric was found to be in the diminished increasing peak rate and volume of class. Despite the robust classification for streamflows, and providing a path for bank stability, sections with unstable bank sediment and/or other pollutants to enter the issues were identified along Sheep Creek, streams. Therefore, CDAs have a direct, such as stream bank sloughing, undercut negative impact in stream health metrics such banks, trees leaning towards the stream as unstable banks and channel channel, all indicators of unstable banks sedimentation. (Ludwig 2020). This was particularly apparent in upper reaches of the survey area, Mountain roads and other graded areas where large sections of unstable bank were within 200 feet of stream channels were identified. flagged as potentially connected areas and subsequent field reviews were completed in A formal stream health survey was not 2019 to verify the spatial extent of connected conducted for the unnamed western graded areas. CDAs in the study watersheds tributary, though scarcely vegetated banks, total approximately 13.2 acres. Most of this connected disturbed areas (CDAs), areas of acreage is associated with the existing bare ground, and fine sediment deposited on graveled-surface parking lots which drain the stream bed were observed during two site directly or indirectly into Clear Creek. visits in 2019. Water Quality Water Influence Zone Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Disturbance of the Water Influence Zone requires that States prepare a list of water (WIZ) has a direct effect on stream health quality limited, or impaired, stream metrics, such as recruitment of large woody segments. A stream segment is determined to debris and percent of fine sediments on the be impaired when it does not meet water streambed. The WCPH states the importance quality standards corresponding to its of the WIZ in the protection of interacting assigned use classification. aquatic, riparian, and upland functions. Construction of ski area infrastructure, The State of Colorado’s most recent including ski trails and mountain roads, has Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and impacted the WIZ of the study watersheds. Assessment Report was issued in March Table 3-6 in Section 3.2.2 includes a 2020. The study watersheds are tributary to comparison between the extent of WIZ Clear Creek. The mainstem of Clear Creek, estimated for baseline conditions and including all tributaries and wetlands, from existing conditions. its source to the I-70 bridge above Silver Plume, except for Kearney Gulch and Grizzly Gulch, were classified under Category 1: “Attaining water quality standards for all

17 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

classified uses” (CDPHE 2020). Classified Soils uses for this 24.2-mile segment of Clear There are five soil map units and one Creek include Aquatic Life; Recreational; miscellaneous map unit within the project Agriculture; and Water Supply. While this area defined in the Soil Survey of the segment of Clear Creek is not listed under Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forest Area Section 303(d), a stream segment starting (USDA Forest Service 2020b). Detailed approximately 8 miles downstream at the descriptions and the acreages of each soil Town of Silver Plume, Colorado, is listed as map unit are available within the Soils impaired for excessive concentrations of total Specialist Report located on the project recoverable iron. webpage. Based on the soil map units present within the project area, soil In addition, as required by the Safe Water interpretations were used to extrapolate the Drinking Act, the Colorado Department of potential effect of disturbances within certain Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) soil types. These interpretations include soil periodically conducts source water erosion hazard, soil erodibility (Kw) factor, assessments to analyze the potential landslide and soil slippage potentials, and susceptibility to contamination of public suitability for cut-and-fill slopes, foot paths drinking water sources throughout the State. and trails, and revegetation. A detailed Loveland’s drinking water supply is located description of these characteristics can be on Clear Creek just downstream of the study found in Section 3.1.3 of the Soils Specialist watersheds. Sheep Creek and the unnamed Report. western tributary watersheds are within the area contributing water to this public water As shown in Table 6 of the Soils Specialist system’s intake. The hillslope study Report, erosion hazard ranges from slight to watershed may also contribute surface water moderate for map units within proposed to the area above the public water system’s disturbance areas. Further, many map units intake via a drainage ditch located upslope have moderate or severe ratings for cut-and- from Lot E. The Source Water Assessment fill slopes, foot paths and trails, and Report for Loveland assessed the total revegetation; however, this does not imply susceptibility of the water source as that the map unit is entirely unsuitable for “Moderately Low.” It was determined that the that use but can usually be overcome with assessed water source is not susceptible to proper design and mitigation measures. contamination from discrete sources. The individual susceptibility of the water source to Thicknesses of organic horizons (o horizons) dispersed (non-point) sources received a and surface horizons (a/e horizons) in “Moderate” rating for the deciduous forest, grading areas, broken out by project evergreen forest, and roads potential component are provided in Table 4 of the contaminant source types. The physical Soils Specialist Report; and estimated setting susceptibility to potential volumes of topsoil at each grading area contamination was rated as “Moderate” where measurements were made are (CDPHE 2004). disclosed in Table 5 of the Soils Specialist Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 18 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences Water Yield Watershed Without mitigation, the proposed tree removal and grading would result in Watershed Condition increases of water yield and peak stream Table 3-3 details the amount of disturbance flows. Hydrologic computations completed that would occur in each of the study with the WRENSS model show that water watersheds under proposed conditions. yields and 6-day average peak flow rates originating from the study watersheds would Table 3-4 compares the acreage of baseline, increase by approximately 0.1 to 6.5 percent existing and proposed forested areas. relative to existing conditions. These Potential impacts to watershed resources that increases would be a direct consequence of would result from implementation of the tree removal. Removal of trees within the proposed action are further detailed and watershed reduces the amount of water analyzed in the following sections. Under intercepted, stored, and transpired by the proposed conditions, between 91 and 99 forest; therefore, an increase in water yield percent of existing forested areas would be may be expected as a result of tree clearing. maintained in the study watersheds. Table 3-5 summarizes the increases in annual water yield and 6-day average peak flow rates modeled for the proposed action under average climatic conditions.

Table 3-3. Summary of Proposed Activities per Watershed

TREE REMOVAL AND TREE REMOVAL ONLY GRADING ONLY WATERSHED GRADING (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES)

Hillslope Watershed 6.2 1.1 0 Sheep Creek 0.6 1.1 1.1 Unnamed Western 2.0 0.8 2.7 Tributary

Table 3-4. Study Watersheds – Comparison of Forest Areas under Baseline, Existing, and Proposed Conditions

FOREST AREAS (ACRES) %CHANGE IN DRAINAGE FOREST AREA WATERSHED AREA RELATIVE TO (ACRES) BASELINE EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING

Hillslope Watershed 94 87 79 72 91%

Sheep Creek 279 64 46 44 96%

Unnamed Western Tributary 1,102 403 344 341 99%

19 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-5. Estimated Changes to Annual Water Yield and Peak Flows

% WATER YIELD 6 - DAY AVERAGE PEAK FLOW % CHANGE (ACRE- FEET) (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND) CHANGE IN IN PEAK WATER WATERSHED FLOWS YIELD RELATIVE RELATIVE BASELINE EXISTING PROPOSED BASELINE EXISTING PROPOSED TO TO EXISTING EXISTING

Hillslope 193 216 23 6.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A Watershed

Sheep Creek 514 539 541 0.3% 4.7 5.1 5.1 0.6%

Unnamed Western 2,240 2,346 2,319 0.1% 25.4 36.6 36.7 0.2% Tributary

Stream Health Construction of the proposed projects would Without proper design, the proposed action require approximately 3.4 acres of tree could result in impacts to the stream health removal within the WIZ of the hillslope of Sheep Creek and the unnamed western watershed, 0.8 acre in the WIZ of the Sheep tributary. Increases in water yield and the Creek watershed, and 0.4 acre in the WIZ of peak flow rates of runoff could negatively the unnamed western tributary. Within each affect stream health metrics such as bank study watershed, these impacts represent stability and fine sediments. Tree removal in between 1 and 15 percent reductions in the the WIZ can also affect the LWD metric. forested WIZ compared to existing conditions (refer to Table 3-6).

Table 3-6. Impacts to WIZ – Baseline, Existing, and Proposed Conditions

CURRENTLY PROPOSED % CHANGE IN BASELINE WIZ UNDISTURBED UNDISTURBED UNDISTURBED WATERSHED (ACRES) WIZ WIZ WIZ RELATIVE (ACRES) (ACRES) TO EXISTING

Hillslope Watershed 27.1 22.8 19.4 85% Sheep Creek 35.9 30.8 30 98% Unnamed Western Tributary 57.9 48.3 47.9 99%

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 20 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In addition, without adequate design, Water Quality proposed projects within or adjacent to the Construction of the proposed parking lot WIZ have the potential to increase the extent would create new areas of exposed and of CDAs and impact stream health in metrics compacted soils and has the potential to such as LWD, unstable banks, and channel increase delivery of sediments and other sedimentation. For example, the construction pollutants (e.g., deicers, fuel, and motor oil) of the proposed parking lot could increase to Clear Creek. Proper selection and design the extent of CDAs tributary to Clear Creek. of the parking lot’s surface and of an Similarly, tree removal and terrain grading in adequate snowmelt and storm water the WIZ of Sheep Creek could create new treatment system would help minimize the CDAs. potential effects to water quality of the receiving waters. To minimize impacts and maintain or improve the long-term stream health of the Soils watersheds, mitigation measures and PDC Direct impacts from the proposed action must be designed to offset impacts to the WIZ would include an increase in erosion and and ensure new disturbed areas are sedimentation, soil compaction, changes to disconnected from the stream network (refer soil physical and chemical characteristics to Table 2-1). In addition to correct design, reducing soil productivity, potential increase installation, and maintenance of BMPs during in slope instability, and permanent loss of construction, a DMP would be developed for soil resources (refer to Table 3-7). the study watersheds. The DMP would identify Disturbance activities from grading would opportunities to improve current conditions not affect any soil having a severe erosion and reduce the acreage of CDAs. hazard but would affect 8.37 acres of soil Implementation and maintenance of DMP having a moderate erosion hazard. Some of projects would also reduce the length of the proposed grading areas on Boomerang drainage connected to the stream network. ski trail improvements are on soils having moderate erosion hazard and are adjacent to perennial streams with wetlands.

Table 3-7. Direct Impacts to Soil Resource from the Proposed Action

DIRECT IMPACT ACRES

Soils disturbed by grading that would have severe erosion hazard 0 Soils disturbed by grading that would have moderate erosion hazard 8.37 Soils disturbed by grading that would have slight erosion hazard 4.26 Totals (all grading and grading and tree clearing) 12.63 Disturbed areas that would later be reclaimed to prevent permanent changes to soil physical 5.95 and chemical characteristics (grading and grading and tree clearing for terrain improvements) Disturbed areas that would remain compacted (grading and grading and grading and tree 6.68 clearing for parking lot and BLT realignment; grading for terrain improvements)

21 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2.3 Cumulative Effects affected or could adversely affect soil resources in and adjacent to the project area. The temporal bounds of the cumulative These actions have and could result in soil effects analysis of watershed and soil loss from erosion, sedimentation to resources extend from the initial waterways and wetlands, soil compaction, development of Loveland as a winter and loss of soil productivity. Impermeable recreational area through the foreseeable surfaces and soil compaction increase runoff, future. The stream health effects of the erosion, and sedimentation; and grading proposed action are most evident in the study disturbances increase erosion and watersheds, which combine for a total area sedimentation and reduce soil productivity. If of 1,475 acres; however, the spatial extent of PDC and BMPs detailed in Table 2-1 are this cumulative effects analysis is defined by properly implemented and maintained, soil the 6th Level Headwaters Clear Creek compaction, reduction in soil productivity, watershed, which measures 19,309 acres onsite erosion, and potential increases in and extends from its headwaters at the sedimentation to waterways would be Continental Divide to the confluence with minimized. South Clear Creek near the Town of Georgetown, Colorado. Indirect impacts of the proposed action could include additional soil loss from erosion and In 2011 the Forest Service completed an sedimentation stemming from snow removal assessment of the Headwaters Clear Creek and traffic on the parking lot and from watershed, which included an assessment of maintenance of new ski trails and new water twelve indicators of watershed condition bars. Snow removal and traffic on the including aquatic physical, aquatic parking lot and runoff from new ski trails biological, terrestrial physical, and terrestrial would most likely be the major contributors biological processes. The Headwaters Clear to any increase in soil erosion. These impacts Creek watershed was determined to be in the would potentially be long term and would “functioning at risk” category. This require implementation of PDC as detailed in classification was given in part due to the Table 2-1 as well as long-term maintenance “poor” ratings of the condition of aquatic of BMPs to minimize erosion and biota, water quality, and density of roads and sedimentation to waterways. trails in the watershed. The reader is referred to Table 13 of the Hydrology Report for the 3.3 WETLANDS rating of watershed indicators for the Headwaters Clear Creek watershed. The following wetlands resource analysis was prepared using the Wetland Specialist Construction of projects under the proposed Report, which is available for review on the action and associated increases in watershed project webpage. yield and peak stream flows would not have a measurable effect at the cumulative effects 3.3.1 Affected Environment scale; however, implementation of the PDC Elements of the proposed action including detailed in Table 2-1 would have a net clearing of vegetation, grading, and ground beneficial effect on the water quality of Clear disturbance hold the potential to alter the Creek by improving upon current drainage hydrology, biotic communities, and soil conditions and reducing the extent of existing characteristics that underpin wetland CDAs. function. For the purposes of this analysis, In addition, past, present, and reasonably the affected environment is defined as the foreseeable future actions have adversely

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

hydrologic, biotic, and soil characteristics Terrain improvements associated with that in tandem constitute a wetland system. widening of the Boomerang ski trail may permanently impact approximately 491 In total, approximately 24.6 acres of square feet of herbaceous wetlands and wetlands and 1.6 acres of open water habitat approximately 43 linear feet of a small occur within the 200-acre analysis area. perennial stream (refer to Wetland Detail Approximately 12,149 feet of stream, Map B1 from the Wetland Specialist Report); including 10,155 feet of perennial stream however, prior to project implementation a length, have been identified within the grading plan would be developed for this analysis area, as well as approximately area and wetlands and stream impacts would 1,578 feet of man-made ditch. Further detail be minimized to the most practicable extent of wetland and water body type and acreage possible. There are no wetland impacts can be found in the Wetland Specialist Report associated with the proposed terrain in the project record. improvements on Zig Zag ski trail.

Wetland fens, characterized by the Prior to implementation of the project, U.S. accumulation of organic soils of at least 16 Army Corps of Engineers would be notified, inches thick (Histosols), were identified in and any necessary permits will be received. three locations, all of which are located Thus, the proposed action, utilizing the below the proposed parking lot and are part required PDC, is anticipated to comply with of the large willow-shrub wetland complex the Clean Water Act and Executive Order along Clear Creek. 11990.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences Indirect impacts to wetlands potentially The proposed parking lot would permanently include the adverse effects of overstory fill approximately 0.067 acre of wetland vegetation removal, wetland dewatering due comprised of six small, forested seep to grading activities, increased noxious weed wetlands ranging in size from approximately invasion, and erosion and sedimentation; 143 to over 1,000 square feet in size. The however, with the implementation of PDC wetlands occur both above and below the and BMPs, these indirect impacts would be existing BLT (refer to Wetland Detail Map A1 insignificant. from the Wetland Specialist Report). The Overstory vegetation removal would parking lot would impact one intermittent indirectly impact approximately 0.082 acre stream approximately 41 linear feet in length of wetlands for improvements associated with and approximately one foot wide. Boomerang ski trail. This includes Approximately 284 linear feet of a narrow approximately 237 square feet of impact to a ephemeral drainage would also be impacted. herbaceous wetland adjacent to a tree This small channel descends from a drainage island, approximately 1,632 square feet of ditch around the existing parking lot and then forested seeps with complete overstory tree disappears before reaching any other waters removal to skier’s right of Boomerang ski of the U.S. Finally, approximately 477 linear trail, and approximately 1,715 square feet of feet of a ditch alongside the existing parking overstory tree removal along two wetlands lot and BLT would be impacted. This ditch adjacent to the small unnamed perennial intercepts water from upslope sleeps and stream to skier’s left of Chair 3 (refer to carries water to the east. A narrow band of Wetland Detail Maps A1, A2, B1, and B2 wetland plants does occur along the ditch, from the Wetland Specialist Report). PDC and but these areas do not meet the criteria of BMPs would be implemented to ensure that wetlands.

23 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

there would be no ground disturbance and therefore there is potential for the associated with tree removal within or parking lot, with its 20-foot-high retaining directly adjacent to wetlands. Such measures walls, to intercept the near-surface may include helicopter logging, tree removal groundwater table and disrupt local and skidding over snow, flush cutting of hydrologic patterns. However, various stumps in lieu of stump removal, and piling measures would be incorporated into the and burning in upland areas. parking lot design to ensure that the cut slope does not drain upslope wetlands and likewise The approximately 0.082 acre of tree does not diminish hydrologic flows to the removal for improvements on Boomerang ski downslope wetland fen complex. Such trail could potentially cause a change in measures could potentially include clay wetland vegetation composition and blocks or bentonite along the upslope structure. This change could affect some retaining wall and an infiltration gallery or functions such as groundwater discharge, swale below the parking lot. The proper which may increase due to reduced design and implementation of such as system evapotranspiration rates from tree removal. would ensure that no measurable indirect Other functions such as velocity reduction, impacts to wetlands occur. erosion protection, and water quality would stay the same, as shade-loving forbs would There is potential for adverse effects due to be replaced by sun-loving sedges, grasses noxious weed invasion following and small shrubs which generally have deep construction. Noxious weeds are relatively binding root masses that slow the velocity of uncommon within the Loveland project area, water, control erosion, and uptake sediments with only a small amount of Canada thistle and nutrients. Wetland habitat functions may and scentless chamomile, both Colorado List also change under the proposed action due B Noxious Weeds, observed in the immediate to overstory vegetation removal. Lastly, any vicinity. Canada thistle has an affinity for increases in groundwater discharge as a mesic habitats and would likely be the result of forest overstory removal could greatest threat to wetlands, while scentless potentially cause an increase in the size and chamomile thrives on disturbed lands. With extent of wetlands within the project area; proper implementation of the BMPs and PDC, however, these increases would likely be such as prompt revegetation, pre-treatment tempered by increased evaporation due to of existing infestations, monitoring for new greater sun exposure. invasive species for at least three years post construction, and cleaning construction Grading associated with the proposed action equipment, the threat of noxious weeds could potentially dewater wetlands in the invading existing wetlands would be project area. Wetlands are sensitive to minimized. changes in their hydrology due to alterations in the pattern of groundwater flow, a Lastly, ground disturbing activities could reduction in the groundwater recharge area result in erosion and sedimentation into for a wetland, or how quickly water flows wetlands in the project area; however, with through a wetland. Changes to a wetland’s the implementation of PDC and BMPs, these hydrology could potentially reduce the size of indirect impacts would be insignificant. Such the wetland, change its species composition, protections generally include not using or lead to conversion to another wetland type wetland and riparian areas for snow storage or to upland habitat. The proposed parking or disposal, installing appropriate sediment lot is located above a wetland fen complex control features prior to ground disturbing and below several forested wetland seeps activities, constructing roads and trails so

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 24 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

that they do not drain directly into wetlands, limited terrain variety in this area is and identifying and flagging wetlands prior prohibitive for skiers in this step of the to construction. learning progression.

3.3.3 Cumulative Effects Bakerville to Loveland Trail When combined with all past, present, and The BLT is a paved trail that parallels I-70 reasonably foreseeable future actions, and and Clear Creek between Bakerville and the considering the existing laws and guidance ski area. The trail is used for cross-country protecting wetlands as well as the PDC and skiing and snowshoeing in the winter and BMPs identified in this proposal, the biking and hiking in the summer. The sound cumulative impacts to wetlands would be of Clear Creek obscures highway noise and negligible. trees in the riparian area block views of traffic. The trail ends at Lot D and travels 3.4 RECREATION through a portion of the proposed parking lot. Trail users park at Lot D to access the 3.4.1 Affected Environment trail. Ski Area Terrain 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences Loveland’s terrain network is accessed via Ski Area Terrain two separate base areas located at Loveland Basin1 and Loveland Valley. Loveland Valley The proposed terrain improvements would has a total of approximately 48 acres of benefit the recreation experience of guests at terrain, including beginner, and intermediate Loveland Valley by addressing limitations in ski trails. All of Loveland’s beginner teaching the design of ski trails served by Chair 3. The terrain is located at Loveland Valley. terrain improvements would re-grade Beginners start out on teaching terrain served Boomerang and Zig Zag to make terrain less by the three carpet conveyors, then progress steep and reroute trail segments that are too to beginner terrain served by Chair 7, and narrow or off fall-line beginner-level skiers. finally beginner and intermediate terrain The project would provide more suitable accessed from Chair 3. terrain for beginner-level skiers; increase the variety of trail and terrain options; and make One issue with the Loveland Valley terrain it easier for guests to transition from network is related to guests progressing from beginner to advanced terrain as their skill Chair 7 to Chair 3. After “graduating” from level increases. These improvements would Chair 7, beginners move onto more also make the transition from Chair 7 to challenging terrain served by Chair 3. From Chair 3 easier for beginner/intermediate- Chair 3, guests have the option of either level skiers. unloading at the mid-unload ramp and taking Boomerang down to the bottom or Bakerville to Loveland Trail riding to the top of the chairlift and taking Construction of the proposed parking lot Zig Zag. Both trails have short sections that would require the demolition and are intimidating to guests who are still realignment of a segment of the existing BLT. learning because they are too steep. The This would disrupt the recreation experience section on Boomerang is off fall-line and the for those using the trail during the section Zig Zag is narrow. Furthermore, the construction period, which would occur

1 For the purposes of this analysis, Loveland Basin is not relevant to the proposed action and is not discussed herein.

25 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

during the late spring and summer. Loveland to recreation in the short term, during would adapt their construction schedule to construction. These impacts are offset by avoid impacting events that occur on the BLT, long-term improvements in water quality, including but not limited to the Triple Bypass recreation access, riparian habitat, and bike race. Outside of events, those using the scenic quality. trail for hiking and biking would be relocated to the remainder of the trail between the ski 3.5 SCENERY area and Bakerville. Users would be required to park at the trailhead in Bakerville rather 3.5.1 Affected Environment than the parking lots at Loveland Valley. Analysis of the visual environment requires an evaluation of the project area and its Following construction, Clear Creek County ability to absorb the effects of historic and would maintain the rerouted trail segment, ongoing modification to the landscape, both which would span the southeast edge of the natural and human caused. Thus, slope, proposed parking lot. Trail users would still natural vegetation types and patterns, be able to park in the parking lots at topography, and viewing distance are Loveland Valley to access the BLT. important factors in this analysis. The aesthetic impacts of the proposed changes 3.4.3 Cumulative Effects within the project area are considered in Loveland was conceived as a recreation relation to the overall existing development, destination, and past projects have primarily and recreational theme of Loveland. The bolstered winter recreation opportunities scenic environment on NFS lands is directed available within the SUP area. The 2017 MDP by the Forest Plan, the Scenery Management includes numerous projects that are not System (SMS), and the Built Environment included in the proposed action. As these Image Guide. projects were identified by Loveland and accepted by the Forest Service, they are Scenic Characteristics of Loveland’s SUP considered here as reasonably foreseeable Area future projects. These projects include As directed by the SMS, the Forest Plan chairlift installations, upgrades, and establishes acceptable limits of change for replacements, terrain improvements, scenic resources. These limits are described snowmaking installations, parking as established Scenic Integrity Objective improvements, and guest service facility (SIO), which establishes how much visible improvements. These projects have the disruption of landscape character can be potential to further benefit recreation within absorbed by a given landscape. the Loveland SUP area. The Forest Plan’s SIO map identifies the In combination with previously accepted Loveland SUP area with an SIO of Low, where projects that are reasonably foreseeable, and the valued landscape character “appears past projects that have already been moderately altered.” Deviations from a implemented at Loveland, the proposed natural view scape may strongly dominate projects would supplement existing winter the landscape character and might not mimic recreation opportunities by: increasing valued scenic attributes typical of the natural terrain opportunities for beginners; providing landscape. within or outside the landscape additional trail options for guests; and being viewed. However, deviations must be supporting the progression from beginner to shaped and blended with the natural terrain intermediate ability levels. Construction (landforms) so that deviations from the activities would create unavoidable impacts

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 26 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

natural landscape do not dominate the centered around the bottom terminal of composition. Loveland’s existing facilities Chair 3. and infrastructure are consistent with the Forest Plan SIO designation of Low for the The project area is primarily viewed from SUP area. Loveland’s traditional, below tree- foreground viewpoints (up to a half-mile line trails are the major contributing factor to from the viewer) within the base area, along the Low SIO classifications for the developed the BLT and along US 6 and I-70. The scenic portions of the SUP area. character of the project area in the larger SUP and the reroute of the BLT and the scenic The width of the trail corridor is not defined resource in the foreground of the trail is specifically in the management plan; consistent with the SIO of Low and with scenic typically, these buffers are 0.25 miles on direction for MA 8.22 as defined by the either side of the trail. The immediate scenic Forest Plan. foreground of any landscape feature is defined as up to 0.5 miles from the trail 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences (USDA Forest Service 1995). Tree clearing and grading associated with the proposed terrain improvements would be The Forest Plan dictates an SIO of Low for the visible from the Loveland Valley base area, project area. The guidance for Management the BLT and along US 6 and I-70; however, Area 8.22 dictates that vegetation should be because of the already developed nature of managed to “improve … composition and the Chair 3 terrain, scenic impacts would be structure to provide a pleasing appearance negligible. Implementation of PDC would [and] maintain scenic views from the site.” minimize the sharp line contrasts between cut The scenic character should be “one of trails and adjacent forest, visually blending forested areas interspersed with openings of them into the landscape. varying widths and shapes. (USDA Forest Service 2019, 384)” Loveland’s existing The proposed parking lot, including facilities and infrastructure are consistent approximately 20-foot retaining walls on its with Forest-wide scenery management uphill and downhill edges, would also be guidelines for a SIO of Low in the SUP area visible from the Loveland Valley base area, as well as the standards, guidelines, and the BLT, and along US 6 and I-70. The desired conditions for scenery in proposed parking lot would be developed Management Area 8.22. adjacent to existing lots within the Loveland Project Area Valley base area and at the end of the BLT and would result in an incremental addition The project area is located directly adjacent to the already-developed nature of the area. to the Loveland Valley base area, which is To the casual observer from the base area, next to US 6 and I-70 and contains a guest the completed parking lot would be service facility, a restaurant, the bottom indistinguishable from the existing lots. It is terminals of Chair 3 and Chair 7, three reasonable to assume that anyone viewing carpet conveyors, and three parking lots. The the project area from within the SUP area proposed parking lot is located in a forested would expect to see parking infrastructure, area directly adjacent to Lots D and E and since they would have likely parked there to includes a segment of the BLT. The proposed access the ski area. Viewers from the BLT terrain improvements are located on terrain would have a similar experience compared to served by Chair 3. The terrain contains four existing conditions, since the BLT currently developed ski trails interspersed with tree terminates at existing Lot D. The proposed islands. The Loveland Valley base area is parking lot would be visible from US 6 and I-

27 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70; however, Loveland would retain existing disturbance would occur in previously trees along its northern edge to the greatest undisturbed areas, it is unlikely that the extent possible to screen it from viewpoints proposed projects would drive the project along the highways. Additionally, the scenic area below a SIO of Low, as viewed from the resource as viewed from the BLT and the foreground distance zone. roadways would be improved by protecting wetlands vegetation; and moving the trail 3.5.3 Cumulative Effects alignment east of the parking lot into a Past projects that have shaped the scenic managed wooded area. Retaining walls for character in and adjacent to the Loveland the parking lot and re-aligned trail should be SUP area include chairlift and trail network, constructed using gabions or large ski terrain, guest service facilities, parking segmented blocks made with natural lots, and infrastructure on NFS lands materials and colors to blend in with the occurring over the past eight decades. surrounding landscape (refer to Figure 2). Changes made to create and manage a Retaining wall details are to be included in developed recreation site have required tree the Construction Implementation Plan, as clearing in densely forested areas and the stated in Table 2-1. development of recreation infrastructure. However, the most measurable change to the The proposed action would not introduce a scenic environment over time was the new form of development to the Loveland construction of I-70 through this portion of SUP area and instead would constitute National Forest. incremental additions to the already- developed nature of the landscape. The Future projects will likely continue to shape projects would not substantially increase the scenery resources in and adjacent to the scenic contrasts between the Loveland SUP Loveland SUP area. The 2017 MDP includes area and surrounding NFS lands. numerous projects that are not included in Construction activities would create the proposed action. These projects were unavoidable scenic impacts in the short term, identified by Loveland and accepted by the during construction. These impacts are offset Forest Service and are considered here as by long-term improvements in water quality, reasonably foreseeable future projects. recreation access, riparian habitat, and scenic quality. Though most of the project

Figure 2. Example Retaining Wall Materials for the Proposed Parking Lot

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 28 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In combination with previously accepted Eagle, Pitkin, and Routt counties. The projects that are reasonably foreseeable, and additional skiing traffic compounds the past projects that have already been existing traffic from freight, local residents, implemented at Loveland, it is anticipated and interstate commerce. that the proposed action would represent an incremental and inconsequential change to Similarly, ski travelers on US 6 (to Loveland, the scenic character of the Loveland SUP. Keystone, and Arapahoe Basin) lead to heavy When combined with past projects, it is roadway traffic on winter weekends and anticipated that the proposed action would holidays. The ski area traffic compounds the have a minor cumulative impact on scenery, existing use of the roadway from freight, allowing the scenic resource in the Loveland neighborhood and business access, and SUP to still achieve the SIO of Low. other uses. Slow turning movements into resort roadways and parking lots contribute 3.6 TRAFFIC AND PARKING to the back up. The day skier analysis conducted in the 2017 3.6.1 Affected Environment MDP identifies that the existing parking Traffic infrastructure at Loveland has a capacity of Loveland is located along the Continental approximately 1,998 parking spaces. Under Divide on I-70 and US 6, just east of the the assumption that most of Loveland’s Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel, and visitation is attributable to Front Range day at the base of Loveland Pass. I-70 provides visitors traveling westbound on I-70, it can access to Loveland from the Denver be assumed that on peak visitation days, Metropolitan Area (approximately 55 miles when Loveland’s parking lots are full, the ski or 70 minutes away). US 6 is the access route area contributes approximately 1,998 to the ski area from both the east and west. vehicles to the traffic on I-70. From the east, visitors use I-70 and then take Parking Exit 216 onto US 6 to access the ski area. From the west, visitors either use I-70 and Parking at Loveland is available across then take Exit 216 onto US 6 or take US 6 multiple lots located in the Loveland Basin over Loveland Pass to access the ski area. US and Loveland Valley base areas. Loveland 6 also provides access to Arapahoe Basin Ski Basin contains Lot A, which provides Area and Keystone Resort, located approximately 875 parking spaces, and approximately 8 and 13 miles west of Loveland Valley contains Lots B, C, D, and E, Loveland, respectively. All the Loveland which combine for approximately 900 parking lots are accessed from US 6. parking spaces. Visitors of the ski area can park at Loveland Valley and then take a free Existing traffic congestion along I-70 is shuttle to Loveland Basin or ski in the negatively affecting the accessibility of Loveland Valley area. mountain recreation (CDOT 2011). On weekends and holidays, the traffic leading up As previously stated, the day skier analysis to and through the Eisenhower-Johnson conducted in the 2017 MDP identifies that the Memorial Tunnel is particularly heavy. Winter existing parking infrastructure at Loveland weekends, including Friday, Saturday, and has a capacity of approximately 1,998 Sunday, can see 75,000 vehicles pass parking spaces. This includes turnover through the tunnel heading west (CDOT spaces that become available after some 2017). Skiing travelers are primarily headed parking spaces are vacated in the afternoon. to ski areas of Summit County and those in The analysis identifies a required parking

29 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

capacity of approximately 2,519 parking 8:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.–4:00 spaces. Based on these values, an additional p.m.) on winter weekends and holidays. approximately 529 parking spaces is needed These changes would be negligible at the to properly accommodate the current and scale of traffic that travels through I-70. anticipated visitation levels of the ski area. The parking deficit is further evidenced on Parking peak days, when Loveland’s parking lots are The proposed parking lot would extend on- full and visitors park informally in the site parking to the east of existing Lots D and triangle-shaped parking lot located at the E at Loveland Valley. The proposed parking intersection of I-70 westbound offramp and lot would create approximately 500 US 6. additional parking spaces, reducing the ski area’s existing parking deficit to 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences approximately 29 spaces. These parking Traffic spaces would provide additional parking access to the beginner and intermediate The proposed action could result in terrain located off chairlifts 3 and 7 as well negligible increases in visitation at Loveland; as for the overall mountain to address however, it is not anticipated to drive current and future visitation. Furthermore, visitation itself. As described in the purpose the added parking spaces would help and need, the proposed terrain alleviate the informal parking that occurs at improvements are intended improve the intersection of I-70 westbound offramp utilization of existing chairlift-served terrain and US 6 on peak days. Collectively, the accessed by Chair 3. As these improvements proposed parking lot is anticipated to benefit would make better use of existing chairlift- parking resources at Loveland. served terrain rather than create a new network of terrain or another type of 3.6.3 Cumulative Effects attraction, they are not anticipated to increase visitation. Furthermore, the Implementation of proposed action is proposed parking project is intended to anticipated to result in a negligible increase increase the parking capacity of Loveland in traffic related to visitation. The proposed Valley to better accommodate existing and parking lot would be accessed using US 6 future guest visitation at the ski area. This which would result in negligible increases in would alleviate an existing deficit of parking traffic at the scale of traffic that travels spaces and improve the balance of ski area through I-70. The proposed parking project facilities. The proposed parking lot would would add approximately 500 new parking create approximately 500 additional parking spaces to the ski area. spaces, which could potentially result in an Past, present, and future projects at Loveland additional 500 vehicles on I-70 on high have affected, and will likely continue to visitation days (not daily). This increase affect, traffic and parking at the ski area. The would be negligible at the scale of traffic that 2017 MDP includes several projects (i.e., currently travels along I-70 on winter chairlift installations, upgrades, and weekends (approximately 75,000 vehicles). replacements, terrain improvements, The proposed parking lot would be accessed snowmaking installations, and guest service using US 6, which could increase traffic facility improvements) that may generate immediately outside the ski area; however, increases in visitation and result in increases the increase would be minimal and would to traffic and parking demand. The 2017 only occur during peak hours (e.g., between MDP also includes the addition of parking

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 30 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

spaces adjacent to the Basin Lodge and northwest of the water treatment plant. Implementation of these parking projects could potentially add approximately 275 parking spaces to the ski area.

Furthermore, past, present, and future projects at ski areas along the I-70 corridor have affected and will likely continue to affect traffic and parking in the analysis area. The development of these ski areas may be designed to increase visitation, resulting in an increasing number of vehicles on I-70. Prior to the implementation of such projects on NFS lands, a traffic and parking analysis would be conducted, as necessary, for each project to determine its impacts to traffic and parking conditions.

31 LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4. Consultation and Coordination

4. Consultation and Coordination

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 list those individuals who participated in initial scoping, were members of the ID Team, Consultant Team, and/or provided direction and assistance during the preparation of this EA.

Table 4-1. Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team

TEAM MEMBER PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY

Monte Williams Forest Supervisor, Deciding Officer Scott Haas District Ranger Noel Ludwig Project Lead Bryan West MRT Environmental Coordinator Kathryn Heard NEPA Specialist Aurelia DeNasha Wildlife Biologist Thomas Matthews Hydrologist Daniel Snyder Archaeologist Timothy Croissant Wildlife Biologist Valerie Thompson Fisheries Biologist Isaac Sims Landscape Architect Michael Hill Landscape Architect

Table 4-2. Consultant Team

TEAM MEMBER ORGANIZATION PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY

Travis Beck SE Group Project Manager Eric Neumeyer SE Group Assistant Project Manager, Environmental Analyst Tyler Ford SE Group Environmental Analyst Beau Doucette, ASLA, PLA SE Group Landscape Architect Anne McKibbin Metcalf Archaeological Archaeologist Consultants Kelly Colfer Western Bionomics Wildlife Biologist Rea Orthner, PWS Peak Ecological Botanist, Wetland Scientist Dave Buscher Peak Ecological Soils Scientist Raul Passerini, P.E. LRE Water Hydrologist Angela Schenk LRE Water Hydrologist

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 32 4. Consultation and Coordination

The following agencies and governments were contacted during the scoping process:

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Northern Arapaho Tribe  Ute Indian Tribe  Southern Ute Indian Tribe  Ute Mountain Ute Tribe  Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma  Northern Cheyenne Tribe  Colorado Parks and Wildlife  State Historic Preservation Office  Georgetown Municipality  Town of Silver Plume  Clear Creek County  Town of Silverthorne The following agencies and organizations commented during the scoping process:

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

33 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5. References

5. References

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. 442 p.

Bartlet, P. 2000. A biophysical analysis of habitat selection in western toads (Bufo boreas) in southeastern Idaho. Unpubl Ph.D. Diss., Idaho State Univ., Pocatello.

Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf .

Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. 2006. Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf .

Colorado Department of Transportation. 2011. I-70 Mountain Corridor Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Colorado Department of Transportation. 2017. Eisenhower Tunnel Traffic Counts.

CDPHE. 2004. State of Colorado, Department of Public Health and Environment. Source Water Assessment Report. Surface Water Sources and Ground Water Sources Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water. Loveland Valley Ski Area. Public Water System ID: CO0210016. Georgetown, CO. Clear Creek County. November 8.

CDPHE. 2020. State of Colorado, Department of Public Health and Environment. 2020 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. March.

Colorado Ski Country USA. 1986. A Final Report on the Colorado Ski Country USA Water Management Research Project. Prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Charles F. Leaf. Denver, CO: Colorado Ski Country USA. February.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS- 79/31, Washington, D.C., 103 p.

US EPA. 1980. Environmental Protection Agency. WRENSS: An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (A Procedural Handbook). EPA-600/8-80- 012. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Hayward, G.D. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: boreal owls. In (G.D. Hayward and J. Verner, eds) Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. General Technical Report RM-253. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 213 p.

LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 34 5. References

Hoffman, R.W. 2006. White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/whitetailedptarmigan.pdf .

Keinath, D.A. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/borealtoad.pdf

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf [accessed May 15, 2014].

Kotliar, N.B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf .

Loveland Ski Area. 2017. Loveland Ski Area 2017 Master Development Plan Update.

Ludwig, N. 2020. Personal communication with Mountain Resort Team Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office. November.

McKibben, A. 2020. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for Proposed Ski Run Clearing Near Chair 3 and Expanded Parking at Loveland Valley for Loveland Ski Area, Clear Creek County, Colorado. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

Olson, L.E., J.R. Squires, E.K. Roberts, J.S. Ivan, and M. Hebblewhite. 2018. Sharing the same slope: Behavioral responses of a threatened mesocarnivore to motorized and nonmotorized winter recreation. Ecology and Evolution 8(16): 8555–8572.

Phillips, D. M., D.J. Harrison, and D.C. Payer. 1998. Seasonal changes in home-range area and fidelity of martens. Journal of Mammalogy 79:180–190.

Slough, B.G. 1989. Movements and habitat use by transplanted marten in the Yukon Territory. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 991-997

Snider, E.A. 2011. Region 2 sensitive species evaluation form: Hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5350842

Torretta, R. 2013. Species evaluation and references therein presented for consideration for Region 2 sensitive species status. February 2013 and April 2015.

Troendle et al. 2003. Troendle, C.A., J.M. Nankervis, and L.S. Porth. 2003. The impact of Forest Service Activities on the stream flow regime in the Platte River. Final report submitted to the U. S. Forest Service by MATCOM Corporation. Fort Collins, CO. 50 p. plus Appendices.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. Rocky Mountain Region.

35 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5. References

USDA Forest Service. 2005. USDA Forest Service. FSH 2509.25 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Region 2, Lakewood, CO. Draft Final. September 29.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. Record of Decision. Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, CO. 78pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2020. Personal Communication with Valerie Thompson, Forest Service Fisheries Biologist. November 18.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Modified Biological Opinion for Breckenridge Ski Resort’s (BSR) proposed Peak 6 Improvement project. USFWS Grand Jct. CO. ES/CO: FS/WRNF/DillonRD, TAILS 06E24100-2012-F-0132, 65413-2009-B-0008, ES/GJ -6-C0- 12-F -003. Apr. 19 Ltr. from, P. Gelatt, USFWS to S. Fitzwilliams, USFS. 19pp.

LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 36 5. References

This page intentionally left blank.

37 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Appendix A. Finding of No Significant Impact

Appendix A. Finding of No Significant Impact

Analysis presented in the environmental The proposed action would provide assessment (EA) indicates that the proposed recreational benefits to users of the ARP and action would not, individually, or would improve recreation opportunities on cumulatively, significantly affect the quality NFS lands. Any adverse impacts to wildlife, of the human environment; thus, an watershed and soils, wetlands, recreation, environmental impact statement will not be scenery, and traffic and parking resources required. The provisions of 40 CFR § are thoroughly documented in 3. Affected 1508.27 indicate that project significance Environment and Environmental must be judged in terms of both context and Consequences of the EA and are determined intensity, defined as follows: to be avoidable and/or non-significant. Other issues and resources were not included Context in detailed analysis in the EA due to a lack of The direct and indirect effects analysis anticipated impacts. The finding of no contained in the EA focuses on the areas significant environmental effects is not within and adjacent to the Loveland Valley biased by beneficial effects of the action. base area and the ski terrain served by Chair 2) Consideration of the effects on public 3, and extends further for cumulative effects health and safety. analysis, depending on the resource. Although there are inherent risks associated Local issues were identified through the with chairlift-served alpine skiing, the scoping process and considered during proposed action does not significantly affect project development and analysis. The public health or safety. project area is limited in scale, and the site- 3) Consideration of the unique specific activities are confined. Both spatial characteristics of the geographic area. and temporal effects are limited and not There are no unique characteristics of the likely to meaningfully affect natural resources geographic area affected by the proposed or the human environment. action. Intensity 4) Consideration of the degree to which The finding of no significant impact is based the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be considered on the intensity of effects using the ten factors controversial. identified in 40 CFR § 1508.27(b). An initial screen was conducted to ensure that the No scientific dispute exists regarding the proposed action is consistent with the Forest proposed action or the analysis contained in Plan. The ID Team considered the effects of the EA. Based on the fact that the Forest this project appropriately and thoroughly Service has analyzed and approved with an analysis that is responsive to numerous projects of this type, the effects of concerns and issues raised by the public. this project are not considered to be controversial, nor is there scientific dispute 1) Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. about these effects. Both the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the proposed action are presented in the EA and the decision notice.

LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A-1 Appendix A. Finding of No Significant Impact

5) Consideration of the degree to which 8) Consideration of the degree to which the possible effects on the human the action may affect listed or eligible environment are highly uncertain or historic places. involve unique or unknown risks. Online and pedestrian Class III surveys have This project is common at ski areas that been completed within areas proposed for operate on NFS lands. The analysis shows the disturbance and did not identify eligible effects are not uncertain, and do not involve resources. Therefore, the proposed action unique or unknown risks. Therefore, based would have no impact to eligible resources. on the Forest Service’s experience with implementing these types of activities, as well 9) Consideration of the degree to which the action may adversely affect an as the requirement to implement design endangered or threatened species or its criteria to minimize effects, I have critical habitat. determined that there would not be The proposed action is consistent with significant effects on the human Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act. environment. Implementation of the proposed action would 6) Consideration of the degree to which reduce the amount of suitable Canada lynx this action may establish a precedent for habitat at Loveland. Increased lynx habitat future actions with significant effects or conversion to non-habitat and increased that it represents a decision in principle about future considerations. traffic volume associated with the proposed action have potential to affect lynx The decision does not establish precedence movements. However, because lynx are for future actions with significant risks to the known to remain on the periphery of the environment. The proposed action is operational boundary of ski areas during the consistent with Forest-wide, and winter and do not utilize habitat within Management Area 8.22 direction, as well as Colorado ski area operational boundaries the Loveland SUP. Furthermore, the and because tree skiing reduces the proposed projects and activities are common effectiveness of snowshoe hare habitat, the at a developed resort such as Loveland. effectiveness of habitat within the current 7) Consideration of the action in relation to Loveland operational boundary has been other actions with individually compromised. The proposed projects would insignificant but cumulatively significant have mostly insignificant and/or impacts. discountable consequences on lynx and The cumulative effects analyses presented for would not compromise the ability of the Clear each resource throughout 3. Affected Creek LAU to support resident or traveling Environment and Environmental lynx. Therefore, the proposed action may Consequences in the EA discloses past, affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Canada lynx. actions with potential to lead to effects which are cumulative in nature. Due to avoidance, Furthermore, a population of greenback PDC, and the implementation of BMPs, this cutthroat trout exists in Dry Gulch; the analysis does not identify any cumulatively confluence of Dry Gulch and Clear Creek is significant impacts that are anticipated to just under 1 mile downstream of Loveland. A result from implementation of the proposed waterfall barrier exists on Dry Gulch prior to action. the confluence; thus, any greenback cutthroat trout found in Clear Creek are considered lost to the population due to genetic dilution. Therefore, the proposed

A-2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix A. Finding of No Significant Impact

action would have no consequences on individuals downstream of the project area.

10) Consideration of whether the action violated federal, state, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Based on information disclosed in the EA, the Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, Wetland Specialist Report, Soil Specialist Report, Hydrology Report, and other documents located in the project file, no federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or requirements for protection of the environment would be violated with implementation of the proposed action, including: United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s Endangered Species Act Informal Section 7 Consultation; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Clean Water Act 404 Permit; State of Colorado’s Stormwater Management Plan; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; and Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.

11) Consideration of whether the action violated federal, state, or local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Based on information disclosed in the EA and the materials contained in the project file, no federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or requirements for protection of the environment would be violated with implementation of either action alternative, including:  USFWS’s Endangered Species Act Informal Section 7 Consultation;  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Clean Water Act 404 Permit;  State of Colorado’s Burn Permit;  Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; and  Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.

LOVELAND SKI AREA | PARKING AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A-3