Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan Phase I

Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan Phase I

Prepared by: US Department of Agriculture – Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

With the assistance of: Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC Logan, UT

August 2018

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotapes, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250 or call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.

LEE CANYON SKI AREA MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: William A. Dunkelberger, Forest Supervisor Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 1200 Franklin Way Sparks, Nevada 89431 Information Contact: Jonathan Stein, Interdisciplinary Team Manager Spring Mountains National Recreation Area 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 (702) 872-5486

Abstract: The Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF), proposes to authorize Lee Canyon ski area, which operates under Forest Service special use permit, to implement Phase 1 of the ski area’s accepted master development plan. Elements of the Phase 1 project are intended to update and renovate ski area infrastructure, improve capacity balance on several levels, and provide year-round recreational opportunities. Three alternatives including the required no-action alternative, the proposed action, and the Bristlecone Trail alternative, were developed and analyzed to provide a range of options for development at the ski area. The preferred alternative is the Bristlecone Trail alternative. Under this alternative, proposed infrastructure would be shifted away from a popular multi-purpose trail, the Bristlecone Trail, in order to minimize impacts on trail users. This alternative would still meet the purposes and needs addressed by the proposed action. Public Notice and Comment: The HTNF is providing those interested in or affected by the proposed action that is analyzed and documented in this Draft EIS an opportunity to make their concerns known. This project is subject to the Forest Service’s project-level pre-decision administrative review process pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. Only those individuals or organizations who submitted timely specific written comments during a public comment period are eligible to file an objection. How to Comment and Timeframe: Comments should be in writing and should be specific to the proposed action, describing as clearly and completely as possible any issues or concerns the commenter has with the proposal. Comments will be accepted for 45 days following the date of publication of Notice of Availability (NOA) of this Draft EIS in the Federal Register. Electronic comments are encouraged. Comments can be submitted through the Forest website at: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public //CommentInput?Project=50649. Send email comments to [email protected]. Mail written comments to Donn Christiansen, Area Manager, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this EIS and will be available for public inspection. Information about this EIS will be posted on the internet at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50649

This page intentionally left blank.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION On December 6, 2016, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF) received a proposal from Lee Canyon ski area, requesting authorization to implement Phase 1 of improvements included in their master development plan (MDP). Lee Canyon operates entirely on National Forest System (NFS) land, so all the proposed infrastructural improvements require Forest Service approval prior to implementation. As this project (hereafter referred to as the proposed action) would have the potential to impact the human environment, it is subject to review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This environmental impact statement (EIS) documents that review. Based on this EIS and associated documentation, the Responsible Official will determine whether, and under what conditions, the Forest Service will authorize this project or any of its elements. Lee Canyon is located in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA), 30 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, in Clark County, T19S, R56E, Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22. The Land and Resource Management Plan, Toiyabe National Forest, as amended (including the General Management Plan [GMP] for the SMNRA, hereafter referred to collectively as the Forest Plan), provides primary guidance for management of HTNF resources, including those within the ski area.

PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action includes the following elements: Lifts and Ski Runs:  Lift 4: A new carpet lift along the skier’s left edge of the Rabbit Peak run.  Chair 5 pod: A new fixed-grip quad chairlift on the slope east of the existing beginner area, with three new novice-level ski runs and a conveyor lift (Lift 6) from the bottom of Chair 3 to the bottom of Chair 5.  Chair 8 pod: A new fixed-grip quad chairlift accessing several new higher-elevation novice-to- intermediate ski runs southwest of Chair 2.  Glading (i.e., selective tree removal to open dense forest patches) between Chairs 1 and 5, above the snow-making pond, and between Chairs 2 and 8. Snowmaking Coverage:  Additional snowmaking lines and a pump house. Summer Activities:  Mountain coaster.  Hiking trail.  Mountain bike trail system.  Zip line. Facilities:  Equipment rental/food & beverage building at the mid-mountain site.  First aid/ski patrol building near the bottom of the new Lift 4.  Vault toilet facility at the lower parking lot.  Parking lot below the beginner area.  Gate house on the access road.

S-1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

 Culinary water tank near the snowmaking reservoir.

Project-specific Forest Plan Amendment:  Forest Plan amendment exempting the project from standards 0.31 and 11.57.

PURPOSE AND NEED Two factors underlie the purpose and need for action at Lee Canyon: the length of time since the ski area’s facilities have been upgraded and emerging trends in ski-area recreation. Lee Canyon has been operating under Forest Service permit since 1964. The permitted area comprises 785 acres. Incremental improvements have been made over time, but over the past two decades the ski area has fallen behind in developing and maintaining the infrastructure required in today’s recreation market. The goals of Lee Canyon’s MDP are to modernize the ski area and develop underutilized portions of the permit area. Regarding emerging recreation trends, extensive customer surveys conducted by Lee Canyon and other ski areas indicate that visitors are increasingly seeking a more diverse range of recreational activities, particularly for families, that includes year-round opportunities and more adventurous options. Reflecting these two factors, the purpose and need for the proposed action are to:  Update and renovate ski area infrastructure, particularly run-down base facilities, to meet current standards and the expectations of today’s recreation market.  Improve balance on several levels: between lift and run capacity, between on-mountain and base- area capacity, and between overall ski area capacity and growing recreational demand from Las Vegas and the surrounding area.  Develop year-round recreational opportunities to meet increasing demand by recreationists of various types and skill levels. Review of the Forest Plan indicated the need to amend two standards, on a project-specific basis, to bring the proposed action and alternatives other than the no-action alternative into compliance. The proposed action could not be revised, or an alternative developed, in a way that complied with these standards and still met the stated purpose and need for action.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE In consideration of the stated purpose and need and the analysis of environmental effects documented in this EIS, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action and alternatives in order to make the following decisions:  Whether to authorize the proposed action or an alternative, including the required no-action alternative, all or in part;  What design criteria and mitigation measures to require as a condition of the authorization;

 What evaluation methods and documentation to require for monitoring project implementation and mitigation effectiveness; and

 Whether to authorize a project-specific Forest Plan amendment exempting the project from standards 0.31 and 11.57.

S-2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOREST PLAN The Forest Plan provides primary guidance for management of HTNF resources, including those within the ski area permit boundary. The Forest Plan indicates that the ski area lies within management area (MA), MA 11 – Developed Canyons, which is subject to MA-specific standards and guidelines as well as SMNRA-wide direction and some Forest-wide and standards and guidelines. The Forest Plan directs how recreation factors into SMNRA management activities, recognizing that recreation use of the Forest and the SMNRA is extremely high. The Forest Plan includes this Forest-wide goal: “The Toiyabe will increase the quality and quantity of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities with particular emphasis in the Sierra Nevada and the Spring Mountains of southern Nevada” (p. IV-1). When the Forest Plan was written, the SMNRA accounted for nearly 22 percent of recreation visitor-days on the Forest. A decade later, the GMP recognized the SMNRA’s unique resources as the management priority, listing the following SMNRA-wide goals. The proposed action serves, in part, to implement these goals and associated objectives:  Conserve the health, diversity, integrity, and beauty of the ecosystem.  Protect American Indian cultural uses and heritage resources.  Avoid disruptions to current uses and users of the Spring Mountains.  Where consistent with the above, provide additional opportunities for recreation.

Supporting these SMNRA-wide goals, objective 0.43 is to “Manage lands within the SMNRA to provide a range of developed recreation opportunities, with an emphasis on opportunities not available on private lands.” This direction carries over to MA 11 with this objective: “(11.7) Manage the area for a variety of high quality, public recreational activities for both summer and winter, with an emphasis on those that are not available on private lands” and this desired future condition (p. 30) “The ski area is providing additional winter recreation opportunities.”

SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES The scoping period began on March 23, 2017, when a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (NOI) was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 82, No. 55, p. 14865). The scoping period closed 45 days later on May 8, 2017. Comment letters were received from five agencies, six organizations, and 89 individuals (including multiple letters from single individuals). The issues identified for in-depth analysis are indicated below in Table S-1.

ALTERNATIVES NEPA mandates that an EIS address a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. An EIS must address the alternative of no action to provide a benchmark for comparison of the magnitude of environmental effects of the proposed action and action alternatives. Action alternatives should achieve the same purpose and need, and they should include alternatives that address issues raised and avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed action.

No-Action Alternative In this case, the no-action alternative is defined as maintaining the status quo in terms of infrastructural development at Lee Canyon. Under this alternative, no further development would occur.

S-3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Bristlecone Trail Alternative The popular Bristlecone Trail (BCT), a multi-use Forest Service trail, passes through the ski area. Reflecting concern over impacts on the recreation experience of BCT users, this alternative (the BCT alternative) moves several elements of the proposed action away from the trail. Specifically this alternative makes adjustments to four elements of the proposed action:  Chair 8 pod.  Mountain coaster.  Snowmaking system.  Zip line. All other elements of the proposed action not listed above, including the project-specific Forest Plan amendment, are included in this alternative unchanged from the proposed action.

COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Table S-1 summarizes and compares the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

S-4

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1. Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources: Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff: No change from current The proposed action would initially result in a Under all modeled scenarios, peak runoff How would the proposed conditions would occur under small increase in peak runoff for the 25- and 100- under the BCT alternative would be 1–5 infrastructure affect the this alternative. Intense summer year storms and a substantial reduction in peak percent lower than the proposed action. timing, intensity, and quantity storms would continue to cause runoff for the most common 2-year storm. Once Therefore, the potential for downslope of stormwater runoff? downslope flooding. disturbed areas were fully rehabilitated, peak flooding would be further reduced runoff would be reduced below no-action relative to the proposed action. alternative levels for all modeled storms. Under most modeled scenarios, and all long-term modeled scenarios, potential for downslope flooding would be reduced relative to the no- action alternative. Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and No change from current Due to the highly erosive nature of the soils in the Relative to the proposed action, this Stability: How would the conditions would occur under area, the proposed 129.8 acres of disturbance alternative would cause 8.6 acres less proposed infrastructural this alternative. Intense summer would cause erosion potential to increase in the surface disturbance. Because of this development affect the extent storms would continue to cause short-term relative to the no-action alternative. Ski reduction in total surface disturbance, the and severity of soil erosion? erosion. runs in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods would retain a short-term increase in erosion potential moderate erosion potential rating until and the acreage rated as moderate before revegetation occurred, when their rating would fall revegetation would be reduced. to low. Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation No tree cutting would occur Relative to the no-action alternative, the clearing Relative to the proposed action, this and Snowmelt: How would under this alternative, and there or glading of 92.7 acres of trees would represent alternative would reduce the area tree removal affect the would be no change with regard an approximately 9 percent reduction in forest subjected to clearing and increase the area timing, rate, and quantity of to snowmelt. cover for the ski area subwatershed. The small subjected to glading for a total of 107 snowmelt? magnitude of this change would make effects on acres of clearing and glading. Overall, the snowmelt patterns undetectable in the context of impacts at the watershed level would be watershed behavior. similar to the proposed action. Vegetation: Issue 1 – Special-status Since there would be no ground- The proposed action would have no impact on Relative to the proposed action the Species: How would the disturbing or habitat-altering rough angelica, Charleston pussytoes, Spring amount of impacted habitat for all species proposed infrastructure affect elements under this alternative, Mountains rockcress, upswept moonwort, dainty would be reduced but the determinations special-status plant species? there would be no impact on moonwort, slender moonwort, moosewort, would remain the same for all species Forest Sensitive species, Wasatch draba, Jaeger’s draba, Charleston other than Clokey’s eggvetch.

S-5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1 (cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative management indicator species Mountain draba, Nevada willowherb, Clokey’s Impacts on Clokey’s eggvetch would be (MIS), Conservation Agreement greasebush, Jaeger’s ivesia, Jaeger’s beardtongue, substantially reduced relative to the for the Spring Mountains Charleston tansy, Charleston Mountain kittentails, proposed action, and the determination National Recreation Area – Charleston violet, or Lemmon’s rubberweed, for this species would be: may impact Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada because no occupied habitat for these species individuals but it not likely to cause a (CA) species of concern, or would be disturbed directly or indirectly. trend toward federal listing or loss of Clark County Multiple Species The proposed action may impact individuals but is viability. Habitat Conservation Plan not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or (MSHCP) covered species. loss of viability of King’s rosy sandwort, Charleston Mountain goldenbush, Hitchcock’s bladderpod, Charleston beardtongue, Charleston ground-daisy, Clokey’s paintbrush, quaking aspen, Clokey’s thistle, Clokey’s mountain sage, inch high fleabane, and Charleston pinewood lousewort because occupied habitat is present for these species in the proposed action disturbance area. The proposed action may impact individuals and may cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s eggvetch. The observed numerical and spatial variation in the population make the magnitude of potential impact difficult to accurately assess. Issue 2: Invasive Species: No change from current Occurrences of three invasive plant species Relative to the proposed action, the How would the proposed conditions would occur under (prostrate knotweed, African mustard, and acreage of disturbance within prostrate infrastructural development this alternative. The ski area common mullein) overlap the disturbance area for knotweed populations would grow, due affect the introduction and would treat existing weed the proposed action. Risk assessment for elements primarily to relocation of the mountain spread of noxious and non- infestations with the objective of of the proposed action identified several elements coaster. The mountain coaster risk rating native invasive species? either controlling or eradicating as having moderate risk for spread of undesirable would increase from none to low, so the known occurrences, consistent plant species. Implementation of BMPs and mountain coaster project could still with the terms of their special monitoring, with control treatments initiated on proceed as planned, with control use permit. any undesirable plant populations that establish in treatments initiated on any undesirable the area, would be required for these elements. plant populations that establish in the These measures should effectively control invasive area. species.

S-6

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1 (cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Wildlife: Issue – Special-status Since there would be no ground- The proposed action may affect and is likely to Relative to the proposed action the Species: How would the disturbing or habitat-altering adversely affect the Mount Charleston blue amount of impacted habitat for all species proposed infrastructural elements of this alternative, there butterfly (MCBB) because habitat is present in the would be reduced under this alternative development affect special- would be no impact on Forest disturbance area and short-term effects are likely but the determinations would remain the status wildlife species? Service sensitive species, MIS, to be detrimental. Beneficial habitat effects are same for all species. CA species of concern, or anticipated as natural forb communities are re- MSHCP covered species. established in previously forested areas. The proposed action would have no impact on spotted bats because no roosting habitat would be impacted, and the value of the area as foraging habitat would not be changed. The proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the following species: Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly, Morand’s checkerspot, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, Spring Mountains comma skipper, Charleston ant, Nevada admiral, Carole’s silverspot, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, long- legged myotis, fringed myotis, and silver-haired bat because habitat is present for these species in the proposed action disturbance area but impacts are not substantial relative to available habitat in the area. The proposed action would not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations of Palmer’s chipmunk or brown-headed cowbird on the Forest because habitat for Palmer’s chipmunks is ubiquitous and brown-headed cowbirds are rare in the project area, a positive indicator.

S-7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1 (cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Cultural Resources: Issue 1 – Historic Properties: The identified prehistoric site is No direct impact on the prehistoric site would Same as proposed action. How would proposed not in an area impacted by occur because no proposed project elements are in construction disturbance current ski area operations or the area. Additional dispersed use of upper Lee affect cultural sites in the activities but is being impacted Canyon spurred by new summer activities at the area? by dispersed recreation use in ski area could potentially result in indirect effects, upper Lee Canyon. but recommended mitigation is anticipated to avoid any adverse effect on the site. Issue 2 – Historic Integrity of No historic properties from the Same as no-action alternative. Same as proposed action. the Ski Area: How would the ski area’s early years exist, so its proposed infrastructure affect historic integrity has been lost. the historic integrity of the ski area? Issue 3 – Cultural Concerns: No cultural concerns, Native Under the proposed action, development would Same as proposed action. How would the proposed American sacred sites, or TCPs occur at the ski area but design criteria in place construction and increased have been identified at the ski would prevent any impacts on unknown cultural human activity affect Tribal area. No development would resources. cultural concerns for the area occur at the ski area under this as a whole or for specific alternative, so there would be no traditional cultural places impacts on any unknown (TCP)? cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs. Scenery Resources: Issue – Scenic Integrity: How No development would occur at Bringing the BEIG into effect would improve This alternative would reduce the visual would the proposed the ski area under this integration of the built and natural environments impact of the zip line, mountain coaster, infrastructure alter the alternative. However, Built under the proposed action, but not to a large and Chair 8 pod on BCT users, but these landscape and affect the Environment Image Guide degree. changes would not alter the conclusions area’s scenic integrity? (BEIG) criteria would not be The lower and mid-mountain base areas would regarding VQO or ROS relative to the met, retaining the built continue to be consistent with the VQO of proposed action. environment’s departure from Modification, but a positive trend would be All other impacts would be the same as the natural landscape. established due to implementation of the BEIG. the proposed action. The mid-mountain and lower The proposed on-mountain infrastructure would, in base areas would remain general, be more of the same type of development

S-8

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1 (cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative consistent with the VQO of currently evident at the ski area. The greater extent Modification that best matches would be offset in part by the design criteria current baseline conditions, and identified to reduce contrast with the natural the rest of the ski area would setting. These additions would result in an meet the VQO of Partial acceptable degree of change from the natural Retention. landscape, consistent with the VQO of Partial

The base areas would also Retention. continue to reflect the Rural Regarding ROS classifications, the base areas ROS criteria, as current would continue to reflect the Rural classification. conditions do, and the remainder The slopes above would remain consistent with the of the permit would retain Roaded Natural classification. Roaded Natural characteristics. Recreation: Issue 1 – Impacts on BCT No change from current In terms of impacts on the trail’s viewscape, the Under this alternative, most summer Users: How would the conditions would occur under main impacts would be associated with proposed infrastructure would be moved away from proposed infrastructure affect this alternative, except that summer recreation infrastructure. This the BCT where it would be less visible the recreational experience population growth may increase infrastructure would be in use during the same and disruptive to BCT users. The Chair 8 provided by the BCT? trail use over time. season that BCT use peaks, adding to its impact. pod would be shortened, moving ski runs Sounds from the mountain coaster would reach and lifts away from the BCT. noticeable levels on large segments of the BCT. Relative to the proposed action, noise Use of the BCT is projected to increase by levels from the mountain coaster would approximately 40 to 58 percent, respectively, on be substantially reduced and likely not weekdays and weekends due to the increased noticeable on the majority of the trail. number of people visiting the ski area during the Increased use of the BCT in summer summer. under this alternative would be similar to During winter, the introduction of snowcats and the proposed action. downhill skiers on the trail section shared by the The winter trail user interaction level Chair 8 access road/skiway might not be strictly would be reduced back to no-action incompatible given the trail’s multi-use alternative levels under this alternative designation, but it would certainly alter the due to shifting the Chair 8 pod egress experience of winter trail users. upslope.

S-9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1 (cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Issue 2 - Climate Change and No development would occur Expanded snowmaking capability and new Same as proposed action. Ski Area Viability: How under this alternative, and the ski summer activities under the proposed action would would climate change affect area would remain vulnerable to help the ski area adapt to future climate change. the future viability of this the impacts of climate change. area as a winter recreation site? Safety: Issue 1 – Collision Hazard: No change from current The proposed action would create mountain bike Under this alternative, summer trail How would the proposed conditions would occur under trails crossing the BCT in summer and downhill collision risk would be the same as the infrastructure affect collision this alternative, except that skier traffic on the lower BCT in the winter. Both proposed action. hazards for trail and ski run population growth may increase could result in collisions with BCT users. In the winter, relocation of the Chair 8 users? trail use and associated conflicts Implementation of mitigation measures for trail pod egress further upslope, collision risk over time. intersections would reduce the risk potential in would be similar to the levels under the summer, to levels similar to the no-action no-action alternative. alternative. However, the potential for winter collisions would increase due to a portion of the BCT being used as the egress route for the Chair 8 pod. Issue 2 – Emergency No change from current Under the proposed action, the new ski patrol/first Same as proposed action. Services: How would conditions would occur under aid building and associated staff would provide visitation associated with the this alternative, except that substantially improved facilities, including a proposed infrastructure affect population growth may increase dedicated ambulance-loading area. Ambulance provision of emergency demand for emergency services. service, provided by Mount Charleston Fire services? District (MCFD) or a contract service, would still be needed to transport more serious cases to valley medical facilities. A projected increase of 87 MCFD responses per year once buildout of all proposed infrastructure was complete and peak visitation was reached (~10 years), would likely tax the existing resources of the MCFD. An ambulance may need to be stationed at the ski area more frequently to provide timely transportation to Las Vegas medical facilities. Nevada Department of Transportation

S-10

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table S-1 (cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative efforts to improve traffic flow on SMNRA highways under their management could also alleviate this issue. Traffic: Issue – Traffic Congestion: No change from current Under the proposed action, visitors to the ski area Same as proposed action. How would winter visitation conditions would occur under would remain an important source of traffic on SR associated with the proposed this alternative, except that 156 but less important than regional population infrastructure contribute to population growth may increase growth. The additional parking in the upper traffic congestion on SR 156? traffic on SR 156 over time. canyon may reduce parking-related congestion to some degree, and the proposed improvements may draw an increasing proportion of canyon visitors to the ski area. Land Use: Issue – Adjacent Land Uses: No change from current With mitigation measures such as signage and Same as proposed action. How would year-round conditions. Any existing fencing in place, the proposed action would not visitation associated with the problems related to property result in a substantial increase in the incidence of proposed infrastructure affect damage or disruption would property damage or disruption at Camp Lee adjacent land uses? remain. Canyon or McWilliams Campground.

S-11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

This page is intentionally left blank.

S-12

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... S-1 Introduction ...... S-1 Proposed Action ...... S-1 Purpose and Need ...... S-2 Decisions to Be Made ...... S-2 Relationship to the Forest Plan ...... S-3 Scoping and Identification of Issues ...... S-3 Alternatives ...... S-3 No-Action Alternative ...... S-3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... S-4 Comparison of Environmental Effects ...... S-4

Table of Contents ...... i List of Figures ...... v List of Tables ...... vi List of Appendices ...... vii List of Acronyms ...... vii

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Organization of Document ...... 3 1.3 Proposed Action ...... 3 1.4 Purpose and Need ...... 4 1.5 Decisions to be Made ...... 5 1.6 Relationship to the Forest Plan ...... 5 1.7 Scoping and Identification of Issues ...... 7 1.7.1 Issues Carried into In-depth Analysis ...... 7 1.7.1.1 Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources ...... 7 1.7.1.2 Vegetation ...... 8 1.7.1.3 Wildlife ...... 8 1.7.1.4 Cultural Resources ...... 9 1.7.1.5 Scenery Resources ...... 9 1.7.1.6 Recreation ...... 9 1.7.1.7 Safety ...... 10 1.7.1.8 Traffic ...... 10 1.7.1.9 Land Use ...... 10 1.7.2 Concerns Identified but not Analyzed In Depth ...... 10 1.7.2.1 Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources ...... 10 1.7.2.2 Vegetation ...... 11 1.7.2.3 Wildlife ...... 11 1.7.2.4 Recreation ...... 11 1.7.2.5 Socioeconomics ...... 12 1.7.2.6 Litter ...... 12 1.7.2.7 Wilderness ...... 12 1.7.2.8 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 12 1.8 Project Record ...... 13 1.9 Other Permits and Authorizations ...... 13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 15

2.1 Introduction ...... 15 2.2 Proposed Action ...... 15 2.2.1 Lifts and Ski Runs ...... 15 2.2.1.1 Lift 4...... 15 2.2.1.2 Chair 5 Pod ...... 15 2.2.1.3 Chair 8 Pod ...... 16 2.2.1.4 Tree and Glade Skiing...... 20 2.2.2 Snowmaking Coverage ...... 20 2.2.3 Summer Activities ...... 20 2.2.3.1 Mountain Coaster ...... 20 2.2.3.2 Mountain Bike Trails ...... 21 2.2.3.3 Hiking Trail ...... 22 2.2.3.4 Zip Line ...... 22 2.2.4 Facilities ...... 22 2.2.4.1 Equipment Rental/Food & Beverage Building ...... 22 2.2.4.2 First Aid/Ski Patrol Building ...... 22 2.2.4.3 Vault Toilet Facility at Overflow Parking Lot ...... 23 2.2.4.4 New Parking Lot ...... 23 2.2.4.5 Gate House ...... 23 2.2.4.6 Water Tank ...... 23 2.2.5 Project-specific Forest Plan Amendment ...... 23 2.2.6 Timing ...... 24 2.3 Alternative Formulation ...... 24 2.4 Alternatives Analyzed in Depth ...... 25 2.4.1 No-Action Alternative ...... 25 2.4.2 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 25 2.4.2.1 Chair 8 Pod ...... 25 2.4.2.2 Mountain Coaster ...... 25 2.4.2.3 Snowmaking System ...... 27 2.4.2.4 Zip Line ...... 27 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Depth ...... 27 2.5.1 No Development Outside Previously Developed Areas ...... 27 2.5.2 Conservation Alternative ...... 27 2.5.3 Parking Garage ...... 27 2.5.4 Narrower Ski Runs ...... 27 2.6 Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures ...... 28 2.7 Summary and Comparison of Environmental Effects ...... 30 2.8 Agency’s Preferred Alternative ...... 38

Chapter 3: Effected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 39

3.1 Introduction ...... 39 3.2 Disturbance Types and Areas ...... 39 3.3 Cumulative Actions ...... 42 3.4 Soil, Water, and Watershed ...... 43 3.4.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 43 3.4.1.1 Background and Methods ...... 44 3.4.2 Affected Environment ...... 46 3.4.2.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff ...... 46 3.4.2.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability ...... 50

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.4.2.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt ...... 52 3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 53 3.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 53 3.4.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 54 3.4.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 64 3.4.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 68 3.4.4.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff ...... 68 3.4.4.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability ...... 71 3.4.4.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt ...... 71 3.4.5 Mitigation ...... 72 3.5 Vegetation ...... 74 3.5.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 74 3.5.2 Affected Environment ...... 74 3.5.2.1 Special-Status Species...... 75 3.5.2.2 Invasive Species ...... 86 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 90 3.5.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 90 3.5.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 90 3.5.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 96 3.5.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 99 3.5.4.1 Special-Status Species...... 99 3.5.4.2 Invasive Species ...... 101 3.5.5 Mitigation ...... 101 3.5.6 Forest Plan Compliance ...... 101 3.6 Wildlife ...... 102 3.6.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 102 3.6.2 Affected Environment ...... 102 3.6.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ...... 105 3.6.2.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 108 3.6.2.3 Management Indicator Species ...... 110 3.6.2.4 Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern ...... 111 3.6.2.5 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species ...... 113 3.6.2.6 Migratory Birds ...... 113 3.6.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 114 3.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 114 3.6.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 114 3.6.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 122 3.6.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 127 3.6.4.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species ...... 127 3.6.4.2 Forest Sensitive, CA, and MSHCP Covered Wildlife Species ...... 128 3.6.4.3 Wildlife Management Indicator Species ...... 128 3.6.5 Mitigation ...... 128 3.6.6 Forest Plan Compliance ...... 129 3.7 Cultural Resources ...... 130 3.7.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 130 3.7.2 Affected Environment ...... 130 3.7.2.1 Historic Properties ...... 130 3.7.2.2 Historic Integrity of the Ski Area ...... 135 3.7.2.3 Cultural Concerns ...... 136 3.7.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 137 3.7.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 137 3.7.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 137

iii

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.7.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 138 3.7.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 138 3.7.5 Mitigation ...... 138 3.8 Scenery Resources ...... 138 3.8.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 138 3.8.1.1 Background and Methods ...... 138 3.8.2 Affected Environment ...... 140 3.8.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 143 3.8.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 143 3.8.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 143 3.8.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 145 3.8.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 145 3.8.5 Mitigation ...... 145 3.9 Recreation ...... 153 3.9.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 153 3.9.1.1 Background and Methods ...... 153 3.9.2 Affected Environment ...... 154 3.9.2.1 Impacts on BCT Users ...... 154 3.9.2.2 Climate Change and Ski Area Viability ...... 156 3.9.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 156 3.9.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 156 3.9.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 157 3.9.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 159 3.9.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 159 3.9.5 Mitigation ...... 160 3.10 Safety ...... 160 3.10.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 160 3.10.2 Affected Environment ...... 160 3.10.2.1 Collision Hazard ...... 160 3.10.2.2 Emergency Services ...... 161 3.10.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 161 3.10.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 161 3.10.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 162 3.10.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 163 3.10.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 163 3.10.5 Mitigation ...... 164 3.11 Traffic ...... 164 3.11.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 164 3.11.2 Affected Environment ...... 164 3.11.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 165 3.11.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 165 3.11.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 166 3.11.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 166 3.11.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 166 3.11.5 Mitigation ...... 167 3.12 Land Use ...... 167 3.12.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 167 3.12.2 Affected Environment ...... 167 3.12.3 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 168 3.12.3.1 No-Action Alternative...... 168 3.12.3.2 Proposed Action ...... 168 3.12.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative ...... 168

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.12.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 168 3.12.5 Mitigation ...... 169 3.13 Other Disclosures ...... 169 3.13.1 Healthy Forest Restoration Act ...... 169 3.13.2 Forest Plan Amendment ...... 169 3.13.3 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ...... 169 3.13.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 170 3.13.4.1 Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources ...... 170 3.13.4.2 Vegetation ...... 170 3.13.4.3 Wildlife ...... 171 3.13.3.4 Cultural Resources ...... 171 3.13.4.5 Scenery Resources ...... 171 3.13.4.6 Recreation ...... 171 3.13.4.7 Safety ...... 172 3.13.4.8 Traffic ...... 172 3.13.4.9 Land Use ...... 173 3.13.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 173 3.13.6 Incomplete and Unavailable Information ...... 173 3.13.7 Energy Requirements and Conservation ...... 173 3.13.8 Pollinators ...... 174 3.14 Consistence with Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Procedures ...... 174 3.14.1 Endangered Species Act ...... 174 3.14.2 Clean Water Act ...... 174 3.14.3 Americans with Disabilities Act ...... 175 3.14.4 Executive Order 11644 - Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands ...... 175 3.14.5 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 - Protection of Floodplains and Wetlands ...... 175 3.14.6 Executive Order 13186 - Protection of Migratory Birds ...... 175 3.14.7 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice ...... 176 3.14.8 USDA Civil Rights Policy ...... 176 3.14.9 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land ...... 176

Chapter 4: List of Preparers ...... 177

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination ...... 178

5.1 Public Scoping ...... 178 5.2 Notice and Comment on the Draft EIS ...... 179 5.3 Other Consultation ...... 179 5.3.1 Endangered Species Act Section 7 ...... 179 5.3.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 ...... 179 5.3.3 Tribal Consultation ...... 180

Chapter 6: References ...... 181

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Vicinity map...... 2 Figure 2-1. Proposed action – lifts, ski runs, and snowmaking...... 17 Figure 2-2. Proposed action – summer activities...... 18 Figure 2-3. Proposed action – facilities...... 19 Figure 2-4. BCT alternative – changes from the proposed action...... 26

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-1. Daily maximum rainfall recorded at Lee Canyon Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) site...... 47 Figure 3-2. Soil and watershed resources in the permit area...... 49 Figure 3-3. Three viewpoints...... 142 Figure 3-4. Viewpoint 1, no-action alternative...... 146 Figure 3-5. Viewpoint 2, no-action alternative...... 147 Figure 3-6. Viewpoint 3, no-action alternative...... 148 Figure 3-7. Viewpoint 2, proposed action...... 149 Figure 3-8. Viewpoint 3, proposed action...... 150 Figure 3-9. Viewpoint 2, Bristlecone Trail alternative...... 151 Figure 3-10. Viewpoint 3, Bristlecone Trail alternative...... 152

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Permits and approvals that may be required for implementation of the proposed action or an action alternative...... 13 Table 2-1. Summary and comparison of environmental effects...... 31 Table 3-1. Typical disturbance dimensions by project type...... 40 Table 3-2. Disturbance types and acres disturbed under the Proposed Action...... 40 Table 3-3. Disturbance types and acres disturbed under the BCT alternative...... 41 Table 3-4. Cumulative actions considered in this analysis...... 42 Table 3-5. Soil properties in the permit area...... 51 Table 3-6. Peak runoff estimates under current conditions from the East, Center, and Bristlecone drainages (Figure 3-2)...... 53 Table 3-7. Landcover in the permit area under existing conditions...... 54 Table 3-8. Peak runoff estimates (cfs) under the proposed action in response to a 24-hour design storm. 55 Table 3-9. Landcover in the permit area under existing conditions and the proposed action...... 56 Table 3-10. Proposed Action CDA table...... 59 Table 3-11. Peak runoff estimates (cfs) under the proposed action and BCT alternative in response to a 24-hour design storm...... 65 Table 3-12. Landcover in the permit area under existing conditions, proposed action, and the BCT alternative...... 66 Table 3-13. BCT alternative CDA table (only elements that would change from the proposed action). ... 69 Table 3-14. Special-status plant species1 occurring or suspected to occur on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and their level of analysis for this project...... 76 Table 3-15. Land type association communities in the disturbance area and their associated management indicator species...... 84 Table 3-16. Noxious and non-native invasive plant species occurring on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and their level of analysis for this project...... 87 Table 3-17. Noxious and non-native invasive species risk assessment ratings...... 89 Table 3-18. Noxious and non-native invasive species risk assessment determinations...... 89 Table 3-19. Acres of occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the proposed action...... 91 Table 3-20. Noxious and non-native weed species risk assessment results for the proposed action...... 96 Table 3-21. Acres of occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the BCT alternative...... 96 Table 3-22. Special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area...... 103 Table 3-23. Land type association communities in the disturbance area and their associated management indicator species...... 110

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Forest Service standards and guidelines. Appendix B: Mitigation Measures

LIST OF ACRONYMS ABAAS Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard ACDP Air Contaminant Discharge Permit ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 BA Biological Assessment BCR33 Sonoran and Mojave Deserts Bird Conservation Region BCT Bristlecone Trail BE Biological Evaluation BEIG Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Built Environment Image Guide BMP best management practice BO biological opinion BP before present CA 1998 Conservation Agreement for the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area – Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada CDA connected disturbed area COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EIS environmental impact statement EMT emergency medical technicians EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FSM Forest Service Manual FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HTNF Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest ID Team Interdisciplinary Team IRA inventoried roadless areas LOS level of service LTA land type association LVSSR Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort LV&T Las Vegas & Tonopah Railroad MA management area MCBB Mount Charleston blue butterfly MCFD Mount Charleston Fire District MDP master development plan MIS management indicator species MSHCP Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan NDEP Nevada Department of Environmental Protection NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOA Notice of Availability NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

vii

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

NRHP National Register of Historic Places permit area ski area’s special use permit area PFA post fledging-family area PHTF Pollinator Heath Task Force pph person-per-hour RN Roaded Natural ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMNRA Spring Mountains National Recreation Area SNOTEL snowpack telemetry SOPA schedule of proposed actions SPCC spill prevention, control and countermeasure SPLA&SL San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad SPNM Semi-primitive Non-motorized SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TCP traditional cultural places TEC threatened, endangered, or candidate UFAS Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards VMS Visual Management System VQO visual quality objective WUI wildland urban interface

viii

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION On December 6, 2016, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF) received a proposal from Lee Canyon ski area, requesting authorization to implement Phase 1 of improvements included in their master development plan (MDP). The MDP documents analysis of current conditions at the resort and, based on that analysis, outlines anticipated development and management of the resort over the next 10 years. The elements of Phase 1 are intended to enhance the year-round recreational opportunities available at the resort and on the HTNF. They are the result of a collaborative, multi-year process involving input from Lee Canyon, the Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS; see Chapter 5). Lee Canyon is located in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA), 30 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1-1), in Clark County, T19S, R56E, Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22. The ski resort operates under a special use permit (permit) issued by the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) and administered by the HTNF. The Land and Resource Management Plan, Toiyabe National Forest, as amended (including the General Management Plan for the SMNRA, hereafter referred to collectively as the Forest Plan; Forest Service 1986a), provides primary guidance for management of HTNF resources, including those within the ski area. This environmental impact statement (EIS) is tiered to the Forest Plan, and the associated NEPA analysis is incorporated by reference. Under the terms of the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, development and operation of ski areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands is guided by MDPs, which describe existing conditions, identify physical, environmental, and socio-economic opportunities and constraints, establish the permittee’s conceptual vision for the ski area, and outline near-to-long-term plans for achieving that vision. As a condition of permit issuance, the Forest Service must review and accept, modify, or deny a ski area’s MDP. MDPs are intended to be dynamic documents, amended or revised periodically to reflect changes in operational opportunities and constraints, recreation-market demands, or agency management requirements. One component of an MDP is planned development of the ski area’s physical infrastructure, some or all of which may lie on NFS land and thus require agency approval. When development plans move from the conceptual to the concrete realm, the permittee submits a proposal to the Forest Service describing specific elements that are proposed for implementation, and the agency makes a determination whether to accept the proposal and initiate our decision-making process. If the proposal has the potential to significantly impact the human environment, the agency must analyze and disclose those environmental impacts, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As Lee Canyon operates entirely on NFS land, all the proposed infrastructural improvements require Forest Service approval prior to implementation. As this project (hereafter referred to as the proposed action) have the potential to impact the human environment, they are reviewed in this EIS. Based on this EIS and associated documentation, the Responsible Official will determine whether, and under what conditions, the Forest Service will authorize this project or any of its elements.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 1-1. Vicinity map.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT The HTNF has prepared this EIS in accordance with NEPA and Forest Service regulations regarding its implementation (36 CFR Part 220). The document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need. This chapter introduces the proposed action and the EIS process. Specifically, it:

 Summarizes the proposed action.  Outlines the purpose of and need for action.  Identifies the decisions to be made on the basis of this EIS.  Discusses the relationship of the proposed action to the Forest Plan.  Describes the scoping process and the environmental issues addressed in this EIS.  Discusses the project record.  Lists other permits and authorizations that may be required.

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives. This chapter describes the proposed action, including associated design criteria and mitigation measures, then outlines the alternative formulation process, lists alternatives considered but not analyzed in depth, describes the alternatives considered in depth, then summarizes and compares the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter documents the environmental impact analysis. It is organized by resource area, and each resource section begins with the issues addressed, as identified through public scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review. The affected environment is described next to provide context for the discussion of environmental consequences that follows. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the no-action alternative, proposed action, and the action alternative are outlined in that order. The section concludes with discussion of other required disclosures. Chapter 4 – List of Preparers. This chapter identifies the HTNF and contractor personnel involved in preparation of this EIS. Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination. This chapter identifies the agencies and other entities consulted during the development of this EIS. Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information supporting the analyses presented in this EIS. Additional documentation is available in the project record available at the SMNRA Office in Las Vegas, NV. (See section 1.8 below.) 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION Lee Canyon’s current MDP, Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort Master Development Plan 2011 (Ecosign 2011), was accepted by the HTNF in June 2011. The infrastructural improvements included in the MDP have the potential to impact NFS resources, and HTNF authorization is required for their implementation. These improvements, described in detail in section 2.2, comprise the proposed action addressed in this EIS. They can be summarized as follows: Lifts and Ski Runs:  Lift 4: A new carpet lift along the skier’s left edge of the Rabbit Peak run. This would be a portable installation involving no excavation or permanent structure.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

 Chair 5 pod: A new fixed-grip quad chairlift on the slope east of the existing beginner area, with three new novice-level ski runs and a conveyor lift (Lift 6) from the bottom of Chair 3 to the bottom of Chair 5.  Chair 8 pod: A new fixed-grip quad chairlift accessing several new higher-elevation novice-to- intermediate ski runs southwest of Chair 2.  Glading (i.e., selective tree removal to open dense forest patches) between Chairs 1 and 5, above the snow-making pond, and between Chairs 2 and 8 to create off-piste (i.e., off cleared and groomed ski run) skiing opportunities. Snowmaking Coverage:  Additional snowmaking lines and a pump house to provide flexibility in snowmaking coverage. Summer Activities:  Mountain coaster.  Hiking trail.  Mountain bike trail system.  Zip line. Facilities:  Equipment rental/food & beverage building at the mid-mountain site.  First aid/ski patrol building near the bottom of the new Lift 4.  Vault toilet facility at the lower parking lot.  Parking lot below the beginner area.  Gate house on the access road.  Culinary water tank near the snowmaking reservoir. Project-specific Forest Plan Amendment:  Forest Plan amendment exempting the project from standards 0.31 and 11.57.

All the proposed infrastructural improvements would be within Lee Canyon’s current permit boundary. No expansion beyond that boundary is proposed. 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED Two factors underlie the purpose and need for action at Lee Canyon: the length of time since the ski area’s facilities have been upgraded and emerging trends in ski-area recreation. In 1964, the Forest Service issued the first special use permit for Lee Canyon ski area to the Clark County Board of Commissioners, with two rope tows, a cable ski sled, and a warming hut operated by the Las Vegas Ski Club. Over the next 20 years, ownership changed and the existing Chair 1 (Sherwood) lift and lifts in the approximate locations of Chairs 2 and 3 (Bluebird and Rabbit Peak) were constructed. The existing base-area structures were also built and expanded during this time period. Powdr Corp. acquired an ownership interest in Lee Canyon in 2004. Since that time Chairs 2 and 3 were replaced and the snowmaking reservoir was built, but the overall character of the ski area remains dated. In May 2011, Lee Canyon submitted an MDP to the Forest Service addressing the goals of modernizing the ski area and developing underutilized portions of the permit area. The Forest Service accepted the MDP in June of 2011.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Regarding emerging recreation trends, extensive customer surveys conducted by Lee Canyon and other ski areas indicate that visitors are increasingly seeking a more diverse range of recreational activities, particularly for families, that includes year-round opportunities and more adventurous options. The Forest Service response to this trend includes our 2012 introduction of the Framework for Sustainable Recreation, which sets goals for providing a diverse array of recreational opportunities aimed at connecting people with the outdoors and promoting healthy lifestyles, in partnership with other public and private recreation providers. Also, passage of the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 provides direction on the types of summer activities the Forest Service should consider authorizing to round out the range of opportunities provided to the public at permitted mountain resorts. Reflecting these factors, the purpose and need for the proposed action are to:  Update and renovate ski area infrastructure, particularly run-down base facilities, to meet current standards and the expectations of today’s recreation market.  Improve balance on several levels: between lift and run capacity, between on-mountain and base- area capacity, and between overall ski area capacity and growing recreational demand from Las Vegas and the surrounding area.  Develop year-round recreational opportunities to meet increasing demand by recreationists of various types and skill levels. Review of the Forest Plan indicated the need to amend two standards, on a project-specific basis, to bring the proposed action and alternatives other than the no-action alternative into compliance. The proposed action could not be revised, or an alternative developed, in a way that complied with these standards and still met the stated purpose and need for action. The amendments are discussed in detail below in section 1.6 – Relationship to the Forest Plan. 1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE In consideration of the stated purpose and need and the analysis of environmental effects documented in this EIS, the Responsible Official will review the proposed action and alternatives in order to make the following decisions:  Whether to authorize the proposed action or an alternative, including the required no-action alternative, all or in part;  What design criteria and mitigation measures to require as a condition of the authorization; and  What evaluation methods and documentation to require for monitoring project implementation and mitigation effectiveness.  Whether to authorize a project-specific Forest Plan amendment exempting the proposed action or action alternative from standards 0.31 and 11.57. The Responsible Official will document his decision and rationale in a Record of Decision (ROD). The Responsible Official is William Dunkelberger, the HTNF Forest Supervisor. 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOREST PLAN As noted above (section 1.1), the Forest Plan, provides primary guidance for management of HTNF resources, including those within the ski area permit boundary. The Forest Plan indicates that the ski area lies within management area (MA), MA 11 – Developed Canyons, which is subject to MA-specific standards and guidelines as well as SMNRA-wide direction and some Forest-wide and standards and guidelines. The GMP replaces previous direction for MA 11.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The Forest Plan and GMP direct how recreation factors into SMNRA management activities, recognizing that recreation use of the Forest and the SMNRA is extremely high. The Forest Plan includes this Forest- wide goal: “The Toiyabe will increase the quality and quantity of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities with particular emphasis in the Sierra Nevada and the Spring Mountains of southern Nevada” (p. IV-1). When the Forest Plan was written, the SMNRA accounted for nearly 22 percent of recreation visitor-days on the Forest. A decade later, the GMP recognized the SMNRA’s unique resources as the management priority, listing the following SMNRA-wide goals. The proposed action serves, in part, to implement these goals (p. 7) and associated objectives:  Conserve the health, diversity, integrity, and beauty of the ecosystem.  Protect American Indian cultural uses and heritage resources.  Avoid disruptions to current uses and users of the Spring Mountains.  Where consistent with the above, provide additional opportunities for recreation. Supporting these SMNRA-wide goals, objective 0.43 is to “Manage lands within the SMNRA to provide a range of developed recreation opportunities, with an emphasis on opportunities not available on private lands.” This direction carries over to MA 11 with this objective: “(11.7) Manage the area for a variety of high quality, public recreational activities for both summer and winter, with an emphasis on those that are not available on private lands” and this desired future condition (p. 30) “The ski area is providing additional winter recreation opportunities.” As noted above in section 1.4 – Purpose and Need, a Forest Plan amendment would be needed to bring the proposed action and alternatives other than the no-action alternative into compliance. The amendment would be project-specific, not affecting any future management action. It would exempt the proposed action and alternatives other than the no-action alternative from the following Forest Plan standards: SMNRA-wide Standards and Guidelines: (0.31) New roads, administrative facilities, and developed recreation sites other than low-impact facilities (trails, trailhead parking, signs, restrooms, etc.) will be outside a 100-yard buffer zone around known Clokey’s eggvetch and rough angelica populations or potential habitat, and outside biodiversity hotspots (defined as areas of particular diversity or sensitivity). Management Area 11: (11.57) Allow limited expansion of ski area in Lee Canyon and enhancement of skiing opportunities and facilities within the scope of an approved master development plan and under the following constraints: 1. Expansion occurs within the existing sub-basin. 2. Does not impact any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or species of concern or its habitat. 3. Expansion is commensurate with development of additional parking in the lower Lee Canyon area and shuttle services. 4. Expansion incorporates defensible space design and fire safe facilities. 5. Where consistent with other standards and guidelines. In regard to standard 0.31, the entire ski area permit boundary falls within a biodiversity hotspot identified in the GNP, and under both the proposed action and the action alternative new service roads and ski area facilities would be developed within a 100-yard buffer around potential habitat for Clokey’s eggvetch. As to standard 11.57, the proposed action and action alternative do not comply with constraints 2 and 3. Regarding constraint 2, the project area supports numerous special-status plant and wildlife species,

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I including the Mount Charleston blue butterfly (MCBB) which was federally listed as endangered in 2015. As discussed in detail below in section 2.2 – Proposed Action, enhancement of habitat for MCBB, and accordingly of its host and nectar plants and other plants and animals sharing its habitat, was an important factor in development of the proposed action. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 thoroughly analyze and disclose numerous impacts, both positive and negative, on these and other special-status species. Regarding constraint 3, the proposed action and alternatives other than the no-action alternative include a new 500-vehicle parking lot at the ski area (section 2.2.4.4), precluding any need for down canyon parking with shuttle service. In short, the infrastructural development necessary to meet the stated purpose and need for action could not occur in compliance with these standards, and the proposed amendment is necessary in order for any development to occur at the ski area. Pertinent Forest Plan direction and compliance issues are further discussed in resource-specific sections of Chapter 3. A full review of the relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines is found in Appendix A. The ROD will address Forest Plan consistency and make the definitive determination. 1.7 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES On March 23, 2017, the HTNF issued a public scoping notice summarizing the proposed action and inviting comments regarding the scope of the associated NEPA review. Information regarding the scoping period, available materials for review, and a public meeting was sent to the agencies, organizations, and individuals on the HTNF mailing list. The scoping notice was posted on the HTNF website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50649 and made available on CD or in hard-copy form to anyone requesting it. The scoping period began on March 23, 2017, when a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (NOI) was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 82, No. 55, p. 14865). The scoping period closed 45 days later on May 8, 2017. Comment letters were received from five agencies, six organizations, and 89 individuals (including multiple letters from single individuals). The scoping notice, NOI, and comment letters are included in the project record. A scoping report was prepared that assessed all comments received to determine which affected the scope of the analysis documented in this EIS. A copy of the report is included in the project record (Forest Service 2017). The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) assembled to complete this EIS reviewed and discussed the proposed action to determine the scope of the analysis. Collectively, public and government-to-government scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following issues to be addressed in this EIS. They begin with the physical environment, move to the biological environment, and conclude with the human environment. The issues may be addressed by analysis and disclosure of effects, development of project design criteria or mitigation measures, or alternative development. The potential effects of proposed developments in the vicinity of the Bristlecone Trail (BCT) were identified as an alternative-driving issue (section 2.4.2).

1.7.1 ISSUES CARRIED INTO IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS These issue statements introduce each resource-specific section in Chapter 3, where they are followed by the indicators used to identify the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

1.7.1.1 Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff: The permit area is subject to localized, high-intensity summer thunderstorms. Coupled with steep, rugged terrain, this results in periodic, sudden runoff events, and gullying. Development of the proposed infrastructure would alter ground cover and soil permeability and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I could influence the timing, intensity, and quantity of stormwater runoff. Downgradient wells could be damaged if wellheads were flooded or groundwater was contaminated. Indicator: A model-based analysis of runoff from high-intensity thunderstorms under pre- and post- project scenarios, with and without mitigation. Model results and other factors are considered in assessing potential effects on downgradient wells. Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability: The permit area is characterized by steep slopes, erosive soils, and sparse ground cover. Construction of the proposed ski area infrastructure would involve substantial clearing, grading, and excavation. On trails, soil surfaces would be kept bare by subsequent maintenance and use. These actions may affect the extent and severity of soil erosion. Indicator: An erosion and sedimentation risk rating for each element based on soil type, disturbance area, intensity of disturbance, slope, presence of a runoff pathway, distance to a water body, and efficacy of proposed mitigation, and a qualitative assessment of how any increase in runoff and sedimentation would affect wells lower in the watershed. Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt: The permit area supports extensive forest vegetation. Clearing and glading of currently forested areas to develop ski runs would entail tree removal. This in turn would increase exposure of the snowpack to sunlight and wind. As a result, tree removal may affect the timing, rate, and quantity of snowmelt. Indicator: A mostly qualitative discussion of the anticipated change in timing, rate, and quantity of snowmelt runoff based on the acreages involved and best available science regarding clearing effects.

1.7.1.2 Vegetation Issue 1 – Special-status Species: The SMNRA is a unique ecosystem, and the permit area includes habitat for a number of special-status species, including Forest Service sensitive species, Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement species of concern (CA species), and species covered in the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). There are no federally listed plant species in the project area, nor is there any habitat for federally listed plant species. Development and subsequent use of the proposed infrastructure would result in temporary habitat disruption during construction, permanent habitat conversion, and increased levels of human activity year round. These changes may affect special- status plant species or their habitats. Indicators: Species-specific determinations of potential individual- and population-level impacts, based primarily on surveys, published information on the species’ distribution and population status, and the efficacy of design criteria and proposed mitigation. These determinations are based on the laws, regulations, and policies regarding management of each category of species. Issue 2 – Invasive Species: Noxious and non-native invasive species pose an ongoing threat to the permit- area’s ecosystem. Construction-related soil disturbance would create habitat conditions favorable to many such species, and construction equipment could introduce their seeds. Use of hiking and biking trails could also introduce seeds and spread established infestations. As a result, these activities may affect the introduction and spread of these undesirable plant species. Indicators: Assessment of the current invasive species scenario in the permit area and analysis of the efficacy of design criteria in place and proposed mitigation. Compliance with applicable County regulations will provide an assessment criterion.

1.7.1.3 Wildlife Issue – Special-status Species: The SMNRA is a unique ecosystem, and the permit area includes habitat for a number of special-status species, including federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, CA species, species covered in the MSHCP, and migratory birds. Development and subsequent use of the proposed infrastructure would result in temporary habitat disruption during construction, permanent

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I habitat conversion, and increased levels of human activity year round. These changes may affect special- status wildlife species or their habitats. Indicators: Species-specific determinations of the potential individual- and population-level impacts, based primarily on surveys, published information on the species’ habitat distribution and population status, and the efficacy of design criteria and proposed mitigation. The determinations are based on the laws, regulations, and policies regarding management of each category of species.

1.7.1.4 Cultural Resources Issue 1 – Historic Properties: The Spring Mountains have a rich pre-history and history, including Native American use dating back to the Paleolithic era. Construction of the proposed infrastructure would entail grading and excavation which could inadvertently damage cultural sites. Indicator: Assessment of the potential for project-related disturbance to affect historic properties through identification of properties and determination of proximity to ground-disturbing project elements. Issue 2 – Historic Integrity of the Ski Area: Lee Canyon ski area dates back to 1964. While most of the facilities were developed more recently, some may date back to over 50 years ago. How would construction and use of the proposed infrastructure affect historic properties in the permit area that relate to the historic integrity of the ski area? Indicators: Assessment of the potential for any project-associated activity to affect the historic integrity of the ski area through identification of any structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and determination of effects of project disturbance. Issue 3 – Cultural Concerns: The Spring Mountains remain an important feature in the culture of local and regional Tribal groups. Charleston Peak itself is sacred to some and considered to be the birthplace of their people. Construction-related disturbance, the resulting permanent, physical changes, and the increased level of year-round human activity may affect Tribal cultural concerns for the area as a whole or for specific traditional cultural places (TCPs). Indicators: Government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribes of concern regarding this proposed action and providing Tribal entities with the results of the NHPA Section 106 compliance process. Assessment of how the proposed development could affect any cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs.

1.7.1.5 Scenery Resources Issue – Scenic Integrity: The permit area landscape has been affected by more than 50 years of ski-area development but generally retains its natural character. The proposed addition of more infrastructure at the base area and on the mountain may alter the landscape and may adversely affect the area’s scenic integrity. Indicators: Analysis of effects using the methods prescribed in the Forest Service Visual Management System (VMS), in accordance with the TNF Forest Plan and GMP. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications are used as a reference.

1.7.1.6 Recreation Issue 1 – Impacts on BCT Users: The upper BCT passes through the permit area, and the upper trailhead is within the permit area. This trail is one of the most heavily used in the SMNRA, and use occurs year round. The proposed Chair 8 and associated ski runs, mountain coaster, zip line, and mountain bike trails would all intersect the BCT, altering the viewscape, generating noise, bringing more people to the area, and overall shifting to a less natural setting. This may affect the recreational experience provided by the BCT.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Indicators: A qualitative assessment of current recreational use of the BCT and how visual character, noise, and use levels would change. ROS classifications are used as a reference. Issue 2 – Climate Change and Ski Area Viability: Reductions in snowpack due to climate change are a major concern for the ski industry. Lee Canyon could be particularly vulnerable given its southern location. Climate change could affect the future viability of this area as a winter recreation site. Indicators: A review of recent research on regional climate change and its effects on resources and resource uses, specifically snowpack depth and duration and developed winter sports sites, to assess likely effects on Lee Canyon.

1.7.1.7 Safety Issue 1 – Collision Hazard: The proposed action includes mountain bike trails and a dual-use, hiking and biking trail. Some of the mountain bike trails cross the BCT, as do some of the proposed ski runs. This mix of trail types and uses may result in collision hazards for trail and ski run users. Indicators: An assessment of collision risk on multiple-use trails based on use levels and the efficacy of design criteria and proposed mitigation. Issue 2 – Emergency Services: Most medical and fire services in the SMNRA are based in Kyle Canyon, and the distance to Lee Canyon, coupled with traffic congestion, can result in slow response times. As a result, additional, year-round visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may affect provision of emergency services. Indicators: A quantitative assessment of the estimated increase in demand for emergency services and an evaluation of the ability of new and existing infrastructure to accommodate any increase.

1.7.1.8 Traffic Issue – Traffic Congestion: The road network serving the SMNRA provides adequate service with one exception. On winter weekends and holidays, people flock to the SMNRA for the novel snow-play opportunity. The Lee Meadows area is especially popular, and County-provided parking is insufficient. As a result, traffic flow is often impaired by vehicles parked on the roadway, drivers slowing to find parking places, and overall congestion. As a result, additional winter visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may contribute to traffic congestion. Indicators: An assessment of existing and expected traffic volumes and patterns, and how these patterns would affect the level of service on Lee Canyon road (SR 156), based on existing information.

1.7.1.9 Land Use Issue – Adjacent Land Uses: The ski area adjoins or is in close proximity to other permitted facilities (i.e., Camp Lee Canyon and McWilliams Campground). Additional year-round visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may result in property damage, disruption, or other adverse effects on these adjacent land uses. Indicators: A qualitative assessment of the potential for property damage or disruption of permitted uses and the effectiveness of design criteria and proposed mitigation.

1.7.2 CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DEPTH

1.7.2.1 Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources Issue 1: Effects of increased water use for snowmaking. Rationale: The proposed action does not include increased water use for snowmaking. The ski area employs snowmaking to supplement natural snow and maintain coverage for a safe and enjoyable skiing experience, not to extend the ski season. The snowmaking system draws from the existing reservoir,

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I which is filled with water from the Three Springs complex above the reservoir within the ski area boundary. Three wells are also pumped as needed to fill the snowmaking reservoir. Water use is determined primarily by climatic conditions – i.e., the adequacy of natural snow coverage and whether temperatures allow snowmaking when additional coverage is needed. The proposed snowmaking system expansion is intended to provide the ski area the flexibility to use available water to make snow where it is most needed at any given time. The water rights associated with the ski area are held by the Forest Service, and those rights are for significantly more water than the ski area has ever used. Phase 2 of the MDP includes a second snowmaking reservoir that would bring more water rights into active use. However, the second reservoir has not been proposed. The ski area has been actively investigating alternative sources for snowmaking water, beyond Three Springs and the three existing wells, but none have been identified. As a result, no additional water sources have been proposed, and increased water use is outside the scope of this analysis. Issue 2: Effects on wetlands and riparian areas. Rationale: Water resources in the permit area are limited. While there are wetland and riparian areas within the permit area, none occur in areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed infrastructure. This issue is outside the scope of this analysis.

1.7.2.2 Vegetation Issue: Effect of tree removal on the ecology of Lee Canyon. Rationale: This EIS addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. Aside from effects in those categories, the ecology of Lee Canyon is outside the scope of this analysis.

1.7.2.3 Wildlife Issue: Effect on wild horses and burros. Rationale: Wild horses and burros are managed within the SMNRA in accordance with other regulations, laws, and higher-level decisions beyond the scope of this analysis.

1.7.2.4 Recreation Issue 1: Benefits of proposed infrastructure to winter recreation. Rationale 1: These benefits are the basis of the purpose and need for the proposed action and are summarized in Chapter 1 under that heading. It would not be useful to address them again in the analysis of recreation effects. Issue 2: Whether the zip line and mountain coaster at the ski area would be appropriate uses of NFS land. Rationale: The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011 directs the Forest Service to authorize summer activities that:  “Encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature;  to the extent practicable – o harmonize with the natural environment of the NFS land on which the activity or facility is located; and o be located within the developed portions of the ski area;  be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and  be authorized in accordance with – o the applicable land and resource management plan; and o applicable laws (including regulations).”

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Zip lines are cited as an example of activities that may meet these criteria, and a number of mountain coasters have been permitted under this law. The proposed zip line and mountain coaster would provide an interpretive forest experience, complementing and taking advantage of ski area infrastructure. In processing the MDP amendment that includes these facilities, we reviewed and accepted them as consistent with the Forest Plan and applicable laws and regulations. This issue is outside the scope of this analysis. Issue 3: Whether charging for parking in ski area lots would reduce public access to NFS land. Rationale: The parking fees charged by the ski area in the winter are intended to cover the cost of snow removal. Without that snow removal, the parking lots would be unusable much of the winter. No fees for summer parking are proposed. The proposed action would not affect this issue, and it is addressed by other regulations, laws, or higher-level decisions

1.7.2.5 Socioeconomics Issue: Socioeconomic effects. Rationale: The substantive socioeconomic issues identified through scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review are addressed under more specific headings in this EIS. For example, effects on emergency services are addressed under Safety. Effects on adjacent permitted activities are addressed under Land Use, and effects on users of the BCT are addressed under Recreation. Other socioeconomic issues raised during scoping were determined to not affect the scope of the analysis for reasons detailed in the scoping report or were considered but not carried into in-depth analysis for reasons outlined above.

1.7.2.6 Litter Issue: Effect of increased visitation on litter. Rationale: Littering is a serious issue along roadways and in high-use areas of Lee Canyon. The ski areas efforts to provide signage, receptacles, and semi-annual staff and volunteer clean-up days reduce the problem somewhat within the permit boundary. Based on these considerations, the issue of litter in the canyon is beyond the scope of this decision.

1.7.2.7 Wilderness Issue: Effects on Wilderness. Rationale: The upper end of Lee Canyon, including the ski area, is adjoined on three sides by the 56,819- acre Mt. Charleston Wilderness. However, the rugged intervening terrain blocks both views and sounds of the ski area from most vantage points within the Wilderness. The proposed development would be visible from some points on the North Loop Trail where it traverses the ridgeline Wilderness boundary south of the ski area. Beyond that, it could not be seen from Wilderness trails. Similarly, this analysis (section 3.9) indicates that noise from the proposed mountain coaster would not be discernible from background sound levels at distances beyond 2 miles. In short, the proposed development would only affect the wilderness experience of hikers traversing the boundary adjoining the ski area itself, an area already subject to the sights and sounds of developed recreation.

1.7.2.8 Inventoried Roadless Areas Issue: Effect on inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). Rationale: The nearest IRA, Charleston-Carpenter, is about 2 miles west of the ski area on the opposite side of the range. It would not be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed development.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

1.8 PROJECT RECORD The project record contains the technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EIS. The project record is available for review at the SMNRA Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89130. 1.9 OTHER PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS Table 1-1 lists the permits and authorizations, beyond HTNF authorization, that may be required in order for Lee Canyon to implement the proposed action or an action alternative.

Table 1-1. Permits and approvals that may be required for implementation of the proposed action or an action alternative.

Agency Type of Action Description of Permit or Action Federal Forest Service Approval of Construction Plans. Prior to any construction on NFS lands, Endangered Species Act (ESA) construction plans must be submitted to and Section 7 consultation. approved by the HTNF. National Historic Preservation If NEPA review identifies impacts on species listed Act (NHPA) Section 106 under the ESA, the Forest Service must complete consultation. the appropriate consultation process with the FWS. If impacts on resources eligible for listing under the

NHPA, or eligible resources on Tribal land, or resources with Tribal cultural significance are identified, the Forest Service must complete the appropriate consultation process with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or Tribal group. U.S. Army Corps of Clean Water Act, Section 404 The COE issues permits required for the discharge Engineers (COE) Permit. of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Nationwide or individual permits may be involved if any such discharge is identified. Environmental Review and comment regarding: Under NEPA, the EPA is required to review and Protection Agency - Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 comment on “major federal actions that have a (EPA) U.S.C.A. Section 7410-762 (PL substantial impact on the human environment.” 95-604, PL 95-95). The EPA's responsibility and role is to provide scoping comments, review EISs, and provide - Federal Water Pollution information and appropriate technical assistance Control Act, as amended by the during and following the environmental analysis Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.A. process. Section 1251-1376 (PL 92-500, PL 95-217). Specific environmental legislation for which the EPA is responsible and which may be applicable to - Safe Drinking Water Act, 452 this proposed action is shown to the left. U.S.C.A. Section 300F-300J-10 Administrative and enforcement responsibilities (PL 93-523). have been delegated to the State of Nevada for all - Clean Water Act, Section 404 four acts. The EPA may be involved in 404 Permit. permitting in association with the COE.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 1-1(cont’d). Permits and approvals that may be required for implementation of the proposed action or an action alternative.

Agency Type of Action Description of Permit or Action

Fish and Wildlife ESA Section 7 Consultation. If impacts on federally listed species are identified, Service (FWS) Fish and Wildlife Coordination the FWS will consult with the Forest Service and Act consultation. issue a letter of concurrence or Biological Opinion. Section 404 Permit consultation. State of Nevada Department of Review and comment regarding: The Division of Environmental Protection’s review Conservation and - Air Contaminant Discharge ensures that state and federal air and water quality Natural Resources: Permit (ACDP). standards are not exceeded through issuance of various permits. Division of - National Pollutant Discharge Environmental Elimination System (NPDES) Protection permit. - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Department of Review and comment. The Department of Wildlife is responsible for Wildlife management and protection of state fish and wildlife resources and may comment accordingly. Division of Water Review and comment. The Division of Water Resources is responsible for Resources determining adequacy of water supply and cumulative impacts on water supply and may comment accordingly. Department of State highway projects. The Department must review and approve any state Transportation highway redesign or access improvement. Nevada State Parks, NHPA, Section 106 compliance The SHPO encourages the preservation, Natural Heritage process. documentation, and use of cultural resources. They Program, State are a partner in assisting federal, state and local Historic Preservation governments meet their historic preservation Office obligations. Southern Nevada Septic system permitting. The Southern Nevada Health District must review Health District and approve any new septic systems. Clark County Department of Building permits. The Department of Building provides construction Building plan review, consultation, permitting to ensure compliance with state and federal building codes.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter details the proposed action, including associated design criteria, then outlines the alternative formulation process, lists alternatives considered but not analyzed in depth, describes the alternatives considered in depth, then summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION The elements of the proposed action are described in detail below. Figure 2-1 illustrates proposed lifts, ski runs, and snowmaking. Figure 2-2 displays summer activities, and Figure 2-3 shows facilities. If authorized, the elements described below are slated for construction within 5 years following approval, but full implementation could take longer (see section 2.2.6, Timing, below). Section 3.2 provides additional detail on the projected disturbance associated with each element of the proposed action. Table 3-1 in section 3.2 shows the basic dimensions of disturbance associated with various types of elements. These dimensions were used in calculating element-specific disturbance areas in Table 3-2. In the descriptions below the terms “run” or “ski run” refer to wider ski routes where the skier is moving primarily down the fall line. The term “traverse” refers to a narrower ski route where the skier is moving primarily across the fall line. The purpose of ski runs is recreation whereas the purpose of a traverse is access from one place to another. The term “trail” refers to a very narrow route that is used for hiking or biking, or both. As the term is used below, recreational use of trails occurs primarily in the summer.

2.2.1 LIFTS AND SKI RUNS

2.2.1.1 Lift 4 Lift 4 would be designed for first-time skiers, providing them the opportunity to get a feel for being on skis or boards, riding a lift, and sliding on a very mild grade – a “bunny hill.” It would be a moving carpet lift about 450 feet long, with a vertical rise of 80 feet, running along the length of the beginner slope, along the skier’s left edge. It would be installed on a raised berm on ties or concrete blocks. No additional clearing or grading would be needed, as the alignment lies on the edge of the existing beginner run. It would be electrically powered, drawing from an existing transformer in the mid-mountain area. In addition to use by beginner skiers, the lift would also serve a staging function (i.e., transporting guests from the lower parking lot to the mid-mountain base area) and may be used for tubing, replacing the current cable lift.

2.2.1.2 Chair 5 Pod The Chair 5 pod (i.e., a ski lift and the runs it serves) would be the next step up from the bunny hill, providing beginners and low intermediate skiers the opportunity to transition to a chairlift and ski a variety of longer “green” (i.e., easier or beginner) runs. Chair 5 would be an 1,800 person-per-hour (pph) fixed-grip quad chairlift with a loading conveyor. The lift would be 1,400 feet long, with a vertical rise of 310 feet. It would be a top-drive lift with approximately 7 towers. The lift would be powered from a transformer at the maintenance shop. The power line would be trenched into the Chair 5 top terminal access road, running up the skier’s right side of the pod, from the shop to the upper terminal. In order to access the Chair 5 bottom terminal, a new 500-foot conveyor, Lift 6, would be installed from near the bottom terminal of Chair 3 to near the bottom terminal of Chair 5. Utility lines for the conveyor

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I would be trenched from the maintenance building into the pod 5 egress skiway to the bottom of the conveyor. As shown in Figure 2-1, there would be three runs in this pod. These runs were laid out to maximize potential benefits to MCBB habitat extent, quality, and connectivity. While the proposed runs were designed to work with existing topography as much as possible, grading of portions would be necessary to create a suitable surface and fall-lines for skier safety and flow (see section 3.2). Since the actual extent of grading will not be known until final engineering, the 14.4 acres of grading found in Table 3-2 reflects the conservative assumption that each entire run would be graded. New ski runs would incorporate design features to make them less visually striking, including feathered edges, tree islands, and strategic placement to make them less visible from sensitive viewpoints. Final engineering could result in alteration of the proposed run alignments. In that case, the same adjustments to benefit MCBB habitat, work with existing topography, and reduce visual impact would be required. The primary construction access for the lift and runs would be up the Chair 5 top terminal access road. Trees would be cut using mechanized equipment and hauled out on the access road by truck. Footings for the terminals and towers would be dug using an excavator with concrete transported by truck, excavator, or helicopter, depending on accessibility. Towers would be installed on the footings by helicopter. Maintenance of the Chair 5 pod and other lift pods would involve periodic grading and repair of access roads to repair erosion damage, repair of erosion control features on ski runs and access roads, repair of erosion damage to ski runs, and cutting of encroaching forest vegetation taller than 4 inches on ski runs and access roads. This work would take place, as needed, within the original disturbance area. The alignment of this pod differs from the one in the scoping notice issued on March 23, 2017. The changes were necessitated when review of the proposed action identified engineering problems that made the originally proposed alignment infeasible.

2.2.1.3 Chair 8 Pod Similar to existing Chair 2, Chair 8 would be a step up in difficulty from Chair 5, accessing mostly intermediate runs with some easier and some more difficult terrain within that category. It would be a fixed-grip quad chairlift with a capacity of 1,800 pph, 2,200 feet long, with a vertical rise of 650 feet. It would be a bottom drive lift with approximately 16 towers. A power line would be trenched into a new access road from the mid-mountain area to the lower terminal of Chair 8. Skiers would use Chair 2 to access the Chair 8 pod. As shown in Figure 2-1, there would be seven runs in this pod, including the Snake run which is technically in the Chair 2 pod. These runs were designed based on the same considerations for MCBB habitat, conformity with existing topography, and visual impact reduction outlined for the Chair 5 pod, and any realignment resulting from final engineering would be subject to the same considerations. The primary construction access for the lift and runs would be up the Chair 8 bottom and top terminal access roads. Trees would be cut using mechanized equipment and hauled out on the bottom terminal access road by truck. Footings for the terminals and towers would be dug using an excavator with concrete transported by truck, excavator, or helicopter, depending on accessibility. Towers would be installed on the footings by helicopter. Maintenance requirements would be similar to those outlined above for the Chair 5 pod.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 2-1. Proposed action – lifts, ski runs, and snowmaking.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 2-2. Proposed action – summer activities.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 2-3. Proposed action – facilities.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

2.2.1.4 Tree and Glade Skiing Tree and glade skiing (i.e., skiing off of cleared runs in areas where trees are spaced widely enough to allow skiing among them) are increasingly popular. Glading is the process of removing trees to open up areas that are currently too densely forested for most skiers to navigate comfortably. At Lee Canyon, increasing tree canopy cover also limits understory growth, posing a constraint to MCBB habitat. By opening canopy cover, glading also encourages understory growth. Three areas with the potential for both tree skiing and MCBB habitat improvement as a result of glading have been identified (Figure 2-1). One, a parcel of about 5.5 acres, is a tree island between Keno and Blackjack runs, in the Chair 1 pod. The second, about 16 acres, lies above the snowmaking reservoir, accessed from Chairs 1 and 2. The third, about 12 acres, is in the lower portion of the wooded area between the Chair 2 pod and the Chair 8 pod, with access from Chair 8. These three areas were prioritized because, in addition to their skiing prospects, they comprise potential or historic MCBB habitat, or could provide connectivity between habitat areas if tree cover were reduced. Smaller trees, diseased or damaged trees, and white fir trees would be the priorities for removal. Design criteria 11 requires consultation with the Forest Service as to which trees would be removed for glading projects in order to address forest health issues such as disease or insect infestation. Work would be done by hand or, in some areas, using equipment such as feller-bunchers. Trees cut in the tree island between Keno and Blackjack and in the parcel above the snowmaking pond would be dropped in place and laid across the fall line to serve as water bars to reduce erosion. Trees cut in the area between pods 2 and 8 would be hauled out on the Chair 8 bottom terminal access road by truck.

2.2.2 SNOWMAKING COVERAGE Snowmaking is currently limited to primary runs in each pod – Keno off of Chair 1, The Strip off of Chair 2, The Line off of Chair 2, and Rabbit Peak off of Chair 3. Expanding the snowmaking system would create the option to use available water to make snow wherever it was needed most. It would not require more water; it would just provide more flexibility in water use. This proposal entails expanding system coverage to the other existing, cleared runs in the Chair 1 and Chair 2 pods initially (except Slot Alley, Grandma’s, Grandpa’s, Blackjack, and Bimbo), then to all cleared runs in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods when those pods are developed (Figure 2-2). The amount of water available is a factor determining the pace of snowmaking expansion, and the 2010 expansion of the snowmaking pond created new options. The infrastructure necessary to complete this system expansion includes buried water and electric lines, surface hydrants to connect snowmaking guns, and an additional pump house (roughly 600 square feet) when snowmaking in the Chair 8 pod is developed. Approximately 3.5 miles of trench would be required for the collocated water and electric lines. The alignments of snowmaking lines have been adjusted to avoid MCBB habitat wherever possible. Maintenance of the snowmaking system would involve excavating and repairing broken lines and hydrants as necessary. This work would take place within the original disturbance area.

2.2.3 SUMMER ACTIVITIES

2.2.3.1 Mountain Coaster Mountain coasters are a relatively new type of recreation at mountain resorts, used primarily during the summer but popular during winter as well when conditions allow. Gravity-powered cars holding individual riders or pairs travel on a dual-rail metal track. They start at a loading/unloading terminal at the bottom, are pulled up to the top of the circuit on a straight uphill segment, and then are released onto a downhill segment with turns, climbs, and dips. The track averages 4 to 6 feet above ground level, but peaks can be up to 20 feet high. The coasters are quiet. They are not an amusement park-style

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I development but a recreational amenity developed specifically to provide an exhilarating experience in the mountain environment, and that environment is central to their concept and popularity. This mountain coaster would be installed west of the base area (Figure 2-2). The top of the circuit would be near the summit of the 9,270-foot peak above the BCT, and the downhill track would run down the slope to the southeast. The loading/unloading terminal would be in the mid-mountain area. Overall the track would be approximately 1.2 miles long. The mountain coaster would pass over the top of trails and butterfly habitat with bridge spans to minimize collisions of trail users with supports, or habitat impacts on the ground. Construction of the mountain coaster would be done primarily by hand, with materials transported to the site by light equipment (e.g., mini excavator, ATV, or truck) via existing and proposed access roads and along the mountain coaster corridor. No new roads would be constructed specifically for this element. In areas where concrete footings were required (i.e., loops and sharp corners), the footings would be poured in place at accessible sites or prefabricated in another location and hauled into place with a mini excavator. Maintenance of the coaster would include clearing of encroaching forest vegetation and repair or adjustment of footings damaged by erosion or settling.

2.2.3.2 Mountain Bike Trails Mountain biking has increased steadily in popularity for a number of years, and it was one of the first summer activities authorized at ski areas on NFS land. While mountain biking is allowed on the SMNRA’s BCT, including the portion passing through the ski area, Lee Canyon has offered no dedicated mountain bike facilities to date. This proposal includes construction of a 13-mile system including technical and flow trails of various difficulties (Figure 2-2). In terms of construction, flow trails would be wider and would include features (e.g., jumps, bridges, seesaws) built of earth or rock sourced from project elements requiring excavation, or wood sourced partially from elements requiring tree removal. Technical trails would be narrower, with more turns around natural features like roots and rocks. The average width of flow trails would be 4 feet, while the technical trails would average 2 feet. There would likely be a 3:2 ratio of flow trails to technical trails, respectively. For purposes of this analysis, we assume all trails would be the wider flow trails in order to estimate impacts conservatively. The ratio of flow trails to technical trails has changed since the March 23 2017, scoping notice due to input from the local mountain biking community. All trails, with the exception of the dual-use trail described in the next section, would be restricted to downhill bicycle traffic. Uphill access for lift served mountain biking would be via Chair 2. The mountain bike trail system was designed to avoid areas of currently suitable MCBB habitat, but the proposed alignments do traverse areas of lower host/nectar-plant density or historically occupied habitat. Designated resting or waiting areas would be incorporated into the trail system in areas away from suitable MCBB habitat. Mountain biking trails would be designed to be in the forested portions of the permit area, wherever possible. See the design criteria section for more information on the design of the final trail layout. Construction of bike trails would be done with a combination of hand tools and mini excavators. Access routes would be along existing or proposed access roads and along trail corridors. No new roads would be constructed specifically for this element. Maintenance would involve grading and repair of the trail surface to repair damage from erosion and use, repair of erosion control features, cutting of encroaching vegetation, and watering flow trails to reduce dust. This work would take place, as needed, within the original disturbance area.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

2.2.3.3 Hiking Trail Hiking would be allowed on one of the mountain bike trails descending from the upper terminal of Chair 2 to the mid-mountain base area (Figure 2-2). Lift rides have been popular with summer visitors, who subsequently make their own way down the mountain. The designated trail would be easier for visitors to use and would reduce the resource impacts of dispersed hiking. The dual-use hiking/biking trail would be 1 mile long, one of the easier-rated technical trails for bicycles. It would be constructed with three times the width (6 feet wide) of other technical trails with designated sides for hikers and bikers, reducing collision hazard. Construction of the dual-use hiking/biking trail would be done with a combination of hand tools and mini excavators. Access routes would be along existing or proposed access roads and along the trail corridor. No new roads would be constructed specifically for this element. Maintenance would involve grading and repair of the trail surface to repair damage from erosion and use, repair of erosion control features, and cutting of encroaching vegetation. This work would take place, as needed, within the original disturbance area.

2.2.3.4 Zip Line A zip line is, simply put, a pulley and brake system on an inclined cable which allows the rider, suspended from the pulley in a harness, to traverse the length of the cable at a controllable speed. Zip lines provide an opportunity to experience the forest canopy while having an exciting ride at the same time. The proposed zip line would descend from a launch station in the upper portion of Chair 2 pod to a final landing station toward the bottom of the new Chair 5 pod. The entire experience would involve two segments of zip line with an interpretive trail between segments. This trail would be 200 to 300 feet long and would include signage featuring native flora and fauna. A similar interpretive trail would be constructed to bring riders from the landing near the bottom of the Chair 5 pod back to the base area. Installation would require a 30-foot cleared corridor, but much of the alignment would lie above treetop height, in natural openings, or along cleared ski trails. In areas where the zip line corridor was greater than 15 feet above the treetops, no trees would need to be removed. Construction of the terminals would require access by light equipment (e.g., mini excavator, ATV, or truck). Access routes would be along existing or proposed access roads and along bike trail corridors. No new roads would be constructed specifically for this element. Only launch and landing towers would be required, as the cable between them would be a free, unsupported span. The four steel launch and landing towers would be up to 25 feet high, and the cable height would range up to 150 feet above the ground, depending on the ground contour. Required maintenance would include clearing trees encroaching on the zip line corridor, as needed.

2.2.4 FACILITIES

2.2.4.1 Equipment Rental/Food & Beverage Building This building would replace the existing equipment rental/administration building at the upper base area. It would provide approximately 20,000 square-feet of floor space, split between two or possibly three levels (Figure 2-3). Specific functions would include ski and snowboard rental, food and beverage service, group/banquet space, restrooms, and storage. It would be designed and constructed to reflect a consistent architectural theme for the resort.

2.2.4.2 First Aid/Ski Patrol Building This structure would house key public safety and administrative functions at the lower base area (Figure 2-3). These would include ski patrol headquarters, first aid services, employee offices, and meeting space. It would comprise about 10,000 square feet on two levels. Power and water would be brought in from the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I existing maintenance building, and a septic system would be installed in an island in the new parking lot to the northeast.

2.2.4.3 Vault Toilet Facility at Overflow Parking Lot The overflow lot is used by the general public as well as ski area visitors. It is roughly a 15-minute walk from the nearest restroom facilities, which are at the mid-mountain base area. The addition of toilet facilities at the overflow parking lot is necessary to improve the experience of year-round visitors. The facility has been sited to avoid impacts on MCBB habitat adjacent to the parking area (Figure 2-3). This facility would be a simple, pre-cast structure, with men’s and women’s sides. It would be installed on a 12-foot-by-20-foot pad adjacent to the parking area.

2.2.4.4 New Parking Lot Parking capacity at Lee Canyon is not sufficient for projected peak-day conditions. This proposal addresses the shortfall primarily through development of a new parking lot at the lower base area (Figure 2-3). The 3.6-acre paved lot would accommodate about 500 cars, or 1,250 visitors at the industry standard of 2.5 per car. In combination with existing lots, this would accommodate the 2,800-person comfortable carrying capacity of the resort following this expansion. The new parking lot would also be designed to serve as a stormwater runoff detention basin. The impacts of this design are described in section 3.4. Essentially, the detention basin would serve to reduce peak flows from stormwater runoff below the ski area. A new, two-way access road, about 1,500 feet long with a 20-foot-wide, paved surface, would be developed from the existing overflow lot. It would run along the western edge of the parking lot, with entries to the lot near the northwest corner and the southwest corner. Maintenance would involve the repair and resurfacing of the parking lot. This work would take place, as needed, within the original disturbance area.

2.2.4.5 Gate House A small (roughly 6 feet by 10 feet) gate house would be constructed between the inbound and outbound lanes of the Lee Canyon access road, at the site of the existing gate, below the entrance to the overflow parking lot (Figure 2-3). The purpose of this structure would be to control parking access and collect parking fees during the winter. The Forest Service authorizes Lee Canyon to charge for winter parking to offset the cost of snow removal work done by the ski area.

2.2.4.6 Water Tank The ski area’s current culinary water storage tank is insufficient in capacity and in need of replacement. A new 120,000-gallon steel, above-ground tank would be installed west of the snowmaking reservoir, in a grove of trees on the skier’s left side of Snake ski run (Figure 2-3). This site is accessible, adjacent to in- place piping, and partially screened by vegetation. The existing concrete tank would be filled with sand and abandoned in place, as it is buried beneath occupied MCBB habitat on the Bimbo run.

2.2.5 PROJECT-SPECIFIC FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT As discussed in section 1.6 – Relationship to the Forest Plan, a project-specific Forest Plan amendment would be needed to exempt the proposed action, as well as any alternatives other than the no-action alternative, from standards 0.31 and 11.57 in the GMP. Specifically:  SMNRA-wide Standard 0.31 in the GMP would be amended by the addition of the following: New service roads and developed recreation sites authorized in the Lee Canyon ski area MDP Phase I ROD may be placed within the 100-yard buffer zone around known Clokey’s eggvetch

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

and rough angelica populations or potential habitat, and within biodiversity hotspots in the Lee Canyon Special Use Permit Boundary.  Management Area 11 Standard 11.57 in the GMP would be amended by the addition of the following: Projects authorized in the Lee Canyon ski area MDP Phase I ROD are exempt from the requirements under constraints 2 and 3.

2.2.6 TIMING Implementation of these project elements is anticipated to begin within 5 years following authorization, but full implementation may take longer. The following implementation stages reflect the ski area’s priorities:  Stage 1. Mountain bike and hiking trails; new parking lot, including vault toilet and gate house; equipment rental/food & beverage building; and first aid/ski patrol building.  Stage 2. Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, including lifts, ski runs, and snowmaking; water tank; and zip line.  Stage 3. Mountain coaster and glading. 2.3 ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION NEPA mandates that an EIS address a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action. These alternatives should achieve the same purpose and need, and they should include alternatives that address issues raised and avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed action. Alternatives that would not be reasonable, either because they would not be consistent with purpose and need or because of other considerations, need not be analyzed in depth, but the rationale for not analyzing them should be explained. An EIS must also address the no-action alternative, disclosing the outcome of not undertaking the federal action comprised by the proposed action and action alternatives. The following sections discuss alternatives considered but not analyzed in depth – the required no–action alternative and the action alternative. An EIS must address the alternative of no action (40 CFR 1502.14 [d]) to provide a benchmark for comparison of the magnitude of environmental effects of the proposed action and action alternatives. The no-action alternative does not meet the purpose and need for action. In this case, the no-action alternative is defined as maintaining the status quo in terms of infrastructural development at Lee Canyon. Under this alternative, no further development would occur, with the minor exceptions described in section 2.4.1. The process of formulating action alternatives began with the scoping exercise described in Chapter 1. Scoping commenters suggested five alternatives stemming from concerns regarding development of undeveloped areas, impacts on the environment, and recreational conflicts. As the next step in alternative formulation, the Forest Service ID team evaluated these issues in conjunction with the full range of potential resource impacts associated with the proposed action in order to determine which could be mitigated and which, if any, were more effectively addressed with an alternative. Based on the ID team’s recommendations, the Responsible Official decided to carry one action alternative into detailed analysis. That alternative is comprised of elements of several of the alternatives suggested in scoping comments (see section 2.4.2). The other suggested alternatives were not carried into in-depth analysis for the reasons discussed in section 2.5.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DEPTH

2.4.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, no further infrastructural development would take place at Lee Canyon. Year-round recreational facilities and opportunities would remain as they are today. An exception would be the construction of the previously approved skier services building at the mid-mountain base area, as authorized in a Decision Memo dated June 6, 2018 (Forest Service 2018a).

2.4.2 BRISTLECONE TRAIL ALTERNATIVE Reflecting concern over impacts on the recreation experience of users on the BCT, this alternative (the BCT alternative) moves several elements of the proposed action away from the trail. Specifically this alternative makes adjustments to four elements of the proposed action (see Figure 2-4) while still meeting the purpose and need for action:  Chair 8 pod.  Mountain coaster.  Snowmaking system.  Zip line. All other elements of the proposed action not listed above, including the project-specific Forest Plan amendment, are included in this alternative unchanged from their descriptions in the proposed action. Section 3.2 provides additional detail on the projected disturbance associated with each element of this alternative. Table 3-1 in section 3.2 provides basic dimensions of disturbance associated with various types of elements. These dimensions were used in calculating element-specific disturbance areas in Table 3-3.

2.4.2.1 Chair 8 Pod Based on scoping comments and internal interdisciplinary review, there are several changes to the Chair 8 pod under this alternative. The bottom terminal would be shifted approximately 250 feet upslope to the southeast relative to the alignment described under the proposed action. Ski runs in the pod would be shortened by up to 200 feet to keep them from intersecting the BCT and realigned in order to accommodate the shorter length and new bottom terminal location. A new skiway/summer road would be constructed from mid-mountain base area to the bottom terminal to provide skier egress, summer maintenance access, and a utility corridor. The summer access road to the top terminal would be moved downslope and shortened by approximately 400 feet relative to the proposed action. All other details and methods of construction and maintenance would be similar to those described for the proposed action.

2.4.2.2 Mountain Coaster The alignment of the mountain coaster was one of the most frequently addressed elements in scoping comments and internal interdisciplinary review. Under this alternative, the mountain coaster would be situated in the Chair 5 pod area. The top of the circuit would be near the top terminal of Chair 5, and the downhill track would run down the slope to the west, below the pod 5 ski runs. The loading/unloading terminal would be in the mid-mountain area, to the east of the Chair 3 top terminal, and a 100-foot elevated walkway would be used to access the this area. Under this alternative, the track would be approximately 0.8 miles long. All other details and methods of construction and maintenance would be similar to those described for the proposed action.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 2-4. BCT alternative – changes from the proposed action.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

2.4.2.3 Snowmaking System Under this alternative, snowmaking lines and the pump house would be moved to accommodate the changes in pod 8 ski runs. Additional lines would be added so that all runs in pod 8 would have snowmaking system coverage. All other details and methods of construction and maintenance would be similar to those described for the proposed action.

2.4.2.4 Zip Line Under this alternative, the zip line would descend from a launch station in the upper portion of Chair 1 pod to a final landing station east of the mid-mountain base area. In this alignment, no connecting trails would be necessary. All other details and methods of construction and maintenance would be similar to those described for the proposed action. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DEPTH Public scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review identified the following alternatives, which were not carried into in-depth analysis for the reasons noted.

2.5.1 NO DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREAS Commenters suggested an alternative limiting new activities and infrastructure to previously developed locations at the ski area. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for this proposed action because the infrastructure necessary to meet the stated purpose and need could not be accommodated within the existing development footprint. All developed areas are in use currently.

2.5.2 CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVE Commenters suggested the analysis of a conservation-focused alternative. The proposed action was developed with conservation, including the habitat requirements of the MCBB, in mind. A thorough survey of existing habitat conditions for special-status plants and wildlife was completed. Proposed infrastructure was sited to avoid high quality habitat, and clearing and glading were proposed in locations where overstory removal and/or soil surface disturbance might improve conditions for host and nectar plants required by the MCBB and/or provide linkages between higher quality habitat patches. Throughout the process of developing the proposed action, biologists with the Forest Service and FWS provided input on how and where the developments might provide the most conservation value. In sum, the proposed action was developed with conservation priorities on the SMNRA in mind and represents the best conservation-minded alternative that would meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.

2.5.3 PARKING GARAGE Commenters suggested that the new parking lot described in section 2.2.4.5 be replaced with a parking garage in order to accommodate more cars in a smaller space. While a parking garage might provide some advantages, financial considerations make it infeasible at this time. In the future, the space where the new parking lot would be constructed could be developed as a parking garage if the financial situation changed to make it practical.

2.5.4 NARROWER SKI RUNS Commenters suggested making narrower ski runs in the Chair 5 and 8 pods in order to cut fewer trees. The suggested width of 10 to 20 feet is not viable for a host of safety and operational reasons. The ski

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I runs proposed are mostly narrower than the industry standard of approximately 150 feet in an attempt to minimize the visual impacts of the new ski runs. 2.6 DESIGN CRITERIA AND MITIGATION MEASURES Design criteria are measures to avoid or reduce adverse environmental effects that are identified prior to NEPA review. This analysis incorporates a number of design criteria developed on the basis of experience at Lee Canyon and other ski areas. Reducing soil erosion and adverse effects on water quality, protecting wildlife habitat and other native vegetation, maintaining visual quality, ensuring appropriate access to facilities, and protecting buried heritage resources are the concerns addressed by the following design criteria. They are considered to be in place in the analysis of environmental consequences discussed in Chapter 3. Erosion Control 1. Lee Canyon ski area will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will apply to all authorized elements. The SWPPP is a condition of Nevada’s Construction Stormwater General Permit and will include appropriate BMPs for erosion control, sediment control, site stabilization, operational controls, and provisions for maintenance and inspection. 2. The SWPPP will include appropriate BMPs from National Best Management Practices for Water-Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide (Forest Service 2012a), Ski Area BMPs (Best Management Practices) Guidelines for Planning, Erosion Control, and Reclamation (Forest Service 2001), Lee Canyon’s Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort Master Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Stantec 2008), Nevada BMP handbooks and field guides including Nevada Contractors Field Guide for Construction Site Best Management Practices (Nevada DEP 2008) and Best Management Practices Handbook (Nevada Conservation Commission 1994) Pertinent watershed BMPs are listed in section 3.4.5 and Appendix B. Vegetation Management 3. Soil disturbance will be minimized, and existing topsoil will be conserved for replacement. 4. Where possible, native vegetation will be retained. 5. In cleared and graded areas, mechanized equipment may be used to fell and remove trees. Disposal will be in accordance with applicable Forest Service permit requirements. 6. Slash created by tree removal will be disposed of either through utilization, burning, chipping, mastication, lopping and scattering, or removal from the site within a specified timeframe. Disposal will be in accordance with applicable Forest Service and state permit requirements. 7. Lee Canyon will follow Forest Service policy (FSM 2070) and use genetically appropriate native materials for any rehabilitation and restoration. A qualified Forest Service botanist will be involved in development, review, and/or approval of plant materials selected for use in site rehabilitation and restoration. 8. All construction equipment and vehicles used will be cleaned and certified free of noxious weeds and their seeds prior to entrance onto the HTNF. This restriction will include equipment and vehicles intended for both on- and off-road use, whether they are owned, leased, or borrowed by either contractors or subcontractors. 9. Any fill material proposed for the project, including any imported topsoil, will come from an on- site or in-canyon location. 10. Any straw bales, chips, or other imported mulch used in conjunction with construction or rehabilitation activities will come from a certified weed-free source.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

11. Prior to conducting glading operations, consult with the Forest Service to obtain a glading prescription in order to address forest health issues such as disease or insect infestation. Wildlife Protection 12. Do not clear, cut, burn, drive on, or park equipment on vegetation that may harbor nesting birds during the breeding season (May 15–July 15). If this is not possible, survey for nesting birds no more than 10 days prior to commencing work. If no nests are found, project activities may proceed. If nests are found, contact the Forest Service permit administrator. 13. Avoid suitable MCBB habitat in the design phase wherever possible. Scenic Integrity 14. Permanent structures will be designed and built in compliance with the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Built Environment Image Guide (Forest Service 2007). Ensuring that architectural style, building materials, size, and color are consistent and meet the adopted scenery objectives. Compliance will be confirmed through Forest Service engineering review prior to construction. 15. The edges of cleared ski runs will be feathered to appear more like natural openings in forest cover, flowing with the topography and blending with the natural vegetation. Accessibility 16. All buildings will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Accessibility Guidebook for Ski Areas Operating on Public Lands – 2012 Update (Forest Service 2012b). Compliance will be confirmed through Forest Service engineering review prior to construction. Undiscovered Heritage Resources 17. If any previously unidentified prehistoric or historic cultural resources are identified or encountered at any time during construction, efforts shall be made to protect the resource(s) until the Forest Service permit administrator is notified and the Forest Service fulfills its consultation requirements, including consultation with the appropriate Tribal representatives. 18. If unmarked human remains are encountered at any time during construction, all work in the vicinity of the find shall cease, the County Sheriff shall be notified, the remains shall be protected in place, and the Forest Service permit administrator shall be notified immediately to begin proper notification and consultation procedures with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, Native American Tribes, and other local officials as needed (e.g., County Coroner) to determine to what time period and ethnic group the skeletal material may be ascribed and the appropriate treatment. 19. If any previously unidentified Traditional Cultural Places or sacred sites are identified or encountered at any time during construction, efforts shall be made to protect the resource until the Forest Service permit administrator is notified and the Forest Service fulfills its consultation requirements, including consultation with the appropriate Tribal representatives. Chapter 3 also identifies any additional project-specific mitigation measures beyond these design criteria. Mitigation measures are compiled in Appendix B. The Responsible Official’s decision to authorize the proposed action or an alternative, all or in part, will identify specific design criteria and mitigation measures required as a condition of approval.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

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

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1. Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources: Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff: No change from current The proposed action would initially result in a Under all modeled scenarios, peak runoff How would the proposed conditions would occur under small increase in peak runoff for the 25- and 100- under the BCT alternative would be 1–5 infrastructure affect the this alternative. Intense summer year storms and a substantial reduction in peak percent lower than the proposed action. timing, intensity, and quantity storms would continue to cause runoff for the most common 2-year storm. Once Therefore, the potential for downslope of stormwater runoff? downslope flooding. disturbed areas were fully rehabilitated, peak flooding would be further reduced runoff would be reduced below no-action relative to the proposed action. alternative levels for all modeled storms. Under most modeled scenarios, and all long-term modeled scenarios, potential for downslope flooding would be reduced relative to the no- action alternative. Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and No change from current Due to the highly erosive nature of the soils in the Relative to the proposed action, this Stability: How would the conditions would occur under area, the proposed 129.8 acres of disturbance alternative would cause 8.6 acres less proposed infrastructural this alternative. Intense summer would cause erosion potential to increase in the surface disturbance. Because of this development affect the extent storms would continue to cause short-term relative to the no-action alternative. Ski reduction in total surface disturbance, the and severity of soil erosion? erosion. runs in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods would retain a short-term increase in erosion potential moderate erosion potential rating until and the acreage rated as moderate before revegetation occurred, when their rating would fall revegetation would be reduced. to low. Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation No tree cutting would occur Relative to the no-action alternative, the clearing Relative to the proposed action, this and Snowmelt: How would under this alternative, and there or glading of 92.7 acres of trees would represent alternative would reduce the area tree removal affect the would be no change with regard an approximately 9 percent reduction in forest subjected to clearing and increase the area timing, rate, and quantity of to snowmelt. cover for the ski area subwatershed. The small subjected to glading for a total of 107 snowmelt? magnitude of this change would make effects on acres of clearing and glading. Overall, the snowmelt patterns undetectable in the context of impacts at the watershed level would be watershed behavior. similar to the proposed action. Vegetation: Issue 1 – Special-status Since there would be no ground- The proposed action would have no impact on Relative to the proposed action the Species: How would the disturbing or habitat-altering rough angelica, Charleston pussytoes, Spring amount of impacted habitat for all species proposed infrastructure affect elements under this alternative, Mountains rockcress, upswept moonwort, dainty would be reduced but the determinations special-status plant species? there would be no impact on moonwort, slender moonwort, moosewort, would remain the same for all species Forest Sensitive species, Wasatch draba, Jaeger’s draba, Charleston other than Clokey’s eggvetch.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1(cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative management indicator species Mountain draba, Nevada willowherb, Clokey’s Impacts on Clokey’s eggvetch would be (MIS), Conservation Agreement greasebush, Jaeger’s ivesia, Jaeger’s beardtongue, substantially reduced relative to the for the Spring Mountains Charleston tansy, Charleston Mountain kittentails, proposed action, and the determination National Recreation Area – Charleston violet, or Lemmon’s rubberweed, for this species would be: may impact Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada because no occupied habitat for these species individuals but it not likely to cause a (CA) species of concern, or would be disturbed directly or indirectly. trend toward federal listing or loss of Clark County Multiple Species The proposed action may impact individuals but is viability. Habitat Conservation Plan not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or (MSHCP) covered species. loss of viability of King’s rosy sandwort, Charleston Mountain goldenbush, Hitchcock’s bladderpod, Charleston beardtongue, Charleston ground-daisy, Clokey’s paintbrush, quaking aspen, Clokey’s thistle, Clokey’s mountain sage, inch high fleabane, and Charleston pinewood lousewort because occupied habitat is present for these species in the proposed action disturbance area. The proposed action may impact individuals and may cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s eggvetch. The observed numerical and spatial variation in the population make the magnitude of potential impact difficult to accurately assess. Issue 2: Invasive Species: No change from current Occurrences of three invasive plant species Relative to the proposed action, the How would the proposed conditions would occur under (prostrate knotweed, African mustard, and acreage of disturbance within prostrate infrastructural development this alternative. The ski area common mullein) overlap the disturbance area for knotweed populations would grow, due affect the introduction and would treat existing weed the proposed action. Risk assessment for elements primarily to relocation of the mountain spread of noxious and non- infestations with the objective of of the proposed action identified several elements coaster. The mountain coaster risk rating native invasive species? either controlling or eradicating as having moderate risk for spread of undesirable would increase from none to low, so the known occurrences, consistent plant species. Implementation of BMPs and mountain coaster project could still with the terms of their special monitoring, with control treatments initiated on proceed as planned, with control use permit. any undesirable plant populations that establish in treatments initiated on any undesirable the area, would be required for these elements. plant populations that establish in the These measures should effectively control invasive area. species.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1(cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Wildlife: Issue – Special-status Since there would be no ground- The proposed action may affect and is likely to Relative to the proposed action the Species: How would the disturbing or habitat-altering adversely affect the MCBB because habitat is amount of impacted habitat for all species proposed infrastructural elements of this alternative, there present in the disturbance area and short-term would be reduced under this alternative development affect special- would be no impact on Forest effects are likely to be detrimental. Beneficial but the determinations would remain the status wildlife species? Service sensitive species, MIS, habitat effects are anticipated as natural forb same for all species. CA species of concern, or communities are re-established in previously MSHCP covered species. forested areas. The proposed action would have no impact on spotted bats because no roosting habitat would be impacted and the value of the area as foraging habitat would not be changed. The proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the following species: Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly, Morand’s checkerspot, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, Spring Mountains comma skipper, Charleston ant, Nevada admiral, Carole’s silverspot, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, long- legged myotis, fringed myotis, and silver-haired bat because habitat is present for these species in the proposed action disturbance area but impacts are not substantial relative to available habitat in the area. The proposed action would not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations of Palmer’s chipmunk or brown-headed cowbird on the Forest because habitat for Palmer’s chipmunks is ubiquitous and brown-headed cowbirds are rare in the project area, a positive indicator.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1(cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Cultural Resources: Issue 1 – Historic Properties: The identified prehistoric site is No direct impact on the prehistoric site would Same as proposed action. How would proposed not in an area impacted by occur because no proposed project elements are in construction disturbance current ski area operations or the area. Additional dispersed use of upper Lee affect cultural sites in the activities but is being impacted Canyon spurred by new summer activities at the area? by dispersed recreation use in ski area could potentially result in indirect effects, upper Lee Canyon. but recommended mitigation is anticipated to avoid any adverse effect on the site. Issue 2 – Historic Integrity of No historic properties from the Same as no-action alternative. Same as proposed action. the Ski Area: How would the ski area’s early years exist, so its proposed infrastructure affect historic integrity has been lost. the historic integrity of the ski area? Issue 3 – Cultural Concerns: No cultural concerns, Native Under the proposed action, development would Same as proposed action. How would the proposed American sacred sites, or TCPs occur at the ski area but design criteria in place construction and increased have been identified at the ski would prevent any impacts on unknown cultural human activity affect Tribal area. No development would resources. cultural concerns for the area occur at the ski area under this as a whole or for specific alternative, so there would be no traditional cultural places impacts on any unknown (TCP)? cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs. Scenery Resources: Issue – Scenic Integrity: How No development would occur at Bringing the BEIG into effect would improve This alternative would reduce the visual would the proposed the ski area under this integration of the built and natural environments impact of the zip line, mountain coaster, infrastructure alter the alternative. However, Built under the proposed action, but not to a large and Chair 8 pod on BCT users, but these landscape and affect the Environment Image Guide degree. changes would not alter the conclusions area’s scenic integrity? (BEIG) criteria would not be The lower and mid-mountain base areas would regarding VQO or ROS relative to the met, retaining the built continue to be consistent with the VQO of proposed action. environment’s departure from Modification, but a positive trend would be All other impacts would be the same as the natural landscape. established due to implementation of the BEIG. the proposed action. The mid-mountain and lower The proposed on-mountain infrastructure would, in base areas would remain general, be more of the same type of development

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1(cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative consistent with the VQO of currently evident at the ski area. The greater extent Modification that best matches would be offset in part by the design criteria current baseline conditions, and identified to reduce contrast with the natural the rest of the ski area would setting. These additions would result in an meet the VQO of Partial acceptable degree of change from the natural Retention. landscape, consistent with the VQO of Partial

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1(cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative Issue 2 - Climate Change and No development would occur Expanded snowmaking capability and new Same as proposed action. Ski Area Viability: How under this alternative, and the ski summer activities under the proposed action would would climate change affect area would remain vulnerable to help the ski area adapt to future climate change. the future viability of this the impacts of climate change. area as a winter recreation site? Safety: Issue 1 – Collision Hazard: No change from current The proposed action would create mountain bike Under this alternative, summer trail How would the proposed conditions would occur under trails crossing the BCT in summer and downhill collision risk would be the same as the infrastructure affect collision this alternative, except that skier traffic on the lower BCT in the winter. Both proposed action. hazards for trail and ski run population growth may increase could result in collisions with BCT users. In the winter, relocation of the Chair 8 users? trail use and associated conflicts Implementation of mitigation measures for trail pod egress further upslope, collision risk over time. intersections would reduce the risk potential in would be similar to the levels under the summer, to levels similar to the no-action no-action alternative. alternative. However, the potential for winter collisions would increase due to a portion of the BCT being used as the egress route for the Chair 8 pod. Issue 2 – Emergency No change from current Under the proposed action, the new ski patrol/first Same as proposed action. Services: How would conditions would occur under aid building and associated staff would provide visitation associated with the this alternative, except that substantially improved facilities, including a proposed infrastructure affect population growth may increase dedicated ambulance-loading area. Ambulance provision of emergency demand for emergency services. service, provided by Mount Charleston Fire services? District (MCFD) or a contract service, would still be needed to transport more serious cases to valley medical facilities. A projected increase of 87 MCFD responses per year once buildout of all proposed infrastructure was complete and peak visitation was reached (~10 years), would likely tax the existing resources of the MCFD. An ambulance may need to be stationed at the ski area more frequently to provide timely transportation to Las Vegas medical facilities. Nevada Department of Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 2-1(cont’d). Summary and comparison of environmental effects. Issue No-Action Alternative Proposed Action BCT Alternative efforts to improve traffic flow on SMNRA highways under their management could also alleviate this issue. Traffic: Issue – Traffic Congestion: No change from current Under the proposed action, visitors to the ski area Same as proposed action. How would winter visitation conditions would occur under would remain an important source of traffic on SR associated with the proposed this alternative, except that 156 but less important than regional population infrastructure contribute to population growth may increase growth. The additional parking in the upper traffic congestion on SR 156? traffic on SR 156 over time. canyon may reduce parking-related congestion to some degree, and the proposed improvements may draw an increasing proportion of canyon visitors to the ski area. Land Use: Issue – Adjacent Land Uses: No change from current With mitigation measures such as signage and Same as proposed action. How would year-round conditions. Any existing fencing in place, the proposed action would not visitation associated with the problems related to property result in a substantial increase in the incidence of proposed infrastructure affect damage or disruption would property damage or disruption at Camp Lee adjacent land uses? remain. Canyon or McWilliams Campground.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

2.8 AGENCY’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The agency’s preferred alternative is the BCT alternative. The BCT alternative would fulfill the HTNF statutory mission and responsibilities, and is consistent with economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. The BCT alternative also meets the purposes and needs identified above. This alternative would include the same project-specific Forest Plan amendment described in section 2.2.5.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

CHAPTER 3: EFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discloses the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. It is organized by resource area, beginning with the physical and biological environment, shifting to the human environment, and then to other required disclosures. The information under each resource-specific heading begins with a summary of the scope of the analysis (i.e., the environmental issues addressed, indicators employed, and analysis area). The affected environment for each issue is then described to provide context for the environmental consequences discussion that follows. That discussion focuses first on direct and indirect effects of the no-action alternative to establish a baseline, then addresses the proposed action and the BCT alternative. The effects analysis includes application of the design criteria and mitigation measures introduced in section 2.6. Each resource-specific section ends with a discussion of cumulative effects. Information on two topics is relevant to some or all of the resource-specific analyses in this chapter. It is presented here to avoid duplication in those sections, and it includes the following:  Disturbance Types and Areas  Cumulative Actions 3.2 DISTURBANCE TYPES AND AREAS Table 3-1 provides basic dimensions of disturbance associated with various types of project elements. These dimensions were used in calculating disturbance areas for each project element. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 show the amount of disturbance for the proposed action and BCT alternative. Disturbance types, from least intensive to most intensive, are as follows:  Glading – removal of trees, according to Forest Service prescription per design criteria 11, to achieve a target spacing of 15 – 25 feet. May involve hand tools or equipment such as feller- bunchers. Trees chipped or stacked and burned on site or collected and removed to an off-site location.  Clearing – removal of all trees and tall shrubs using tracked or wheeled equipment. Trees and slash chipped or burned on site or collected and removed to an off-site location.  Grading – recontouring and smoothing the soil surface using caterpillars or other heavy equipment.  Excavation – subsurface soil work using excavators or other heavy equipment, generally to construct building or tower foundations. Note that the disturbance amounts presented in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 indicate only the highest intensity of disturbance occurring at any given location. For example, a site would be cleared before being excavated, but reporting it as being both cleared and excavated would over-represent the extent of disturbance.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-1. Typical disturbance dimensions1 by project element type. Project Element Type Disturbance Dimensions Disturbance Type2 Buildings Footprint plus 50-foot construction buffer Excavation Conveyor Lifts 25 foot width Grading Chairlifts Alignment Clearing 60-foot-width Clearing Terminals 0.5 acre disturbance area Excavation Towers 20-foot-diameter circle Excavation Ski Run Actual with plus 10 foot grading buffer Grading Utility Lines (snowmaking, power, sewer, 15-foot-width Excavation and utility) Mountain Bike Trails 6-foot-width Grading Hiking Trail 12-foot-width Grading Mountain Coaster 20-foot-width Excavation Parking Lot 10-foot construction buffer Grading Water Tank Footprint plus 50-foot construction buffer Excavation Zip-line Alignment Clearing 30-foot-width Clearing Towers 20-foot-diameter circle Excavation

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

Table 3-2. Disturbance types and acres disturbed under the proposed action. Disturbance Category and Acres Disturbed1 Project Element Glading Clearing Grading Excavation Project Element Total Lift 4 -- -- 0.2 0.1 0.3 Chair 5 Pod -- 0.1 14.4 1.8 16.3 Chair 8 Pod -- 0.9 59.6 1.9 62.4 Tree and Glade 23.4 ------23.4 Skiing Snowmaking ------6 6 Mountain Coaster ------2.8 2.8 Mountain Bike -- -- 7.9 -- 7.9 Trails Hiking Trails -- -- 1.8 -- 1.8

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-2(cont’d). Disturbance types and acres disturbed under the proposed action. Disturbance Category and Acres Disturbed1 Project Element Glading Clearing Grading Excavation Project Element Total Zip Line -- 2.1 -- > 0.1 2.1 Equipment ------0.7 0.7 Rental/Food & Beverage Building First Aid/Ski patrol ------0.8 0.8 Building Vault Toilet Facility ------0.3 0.3 at Overflow Parking Lot New Parking Lot -- -- 4.6 -- 4.6 Gate House ------0.2 0.2 Water Tank ------0.3 0.3 Total Disturbance 129.9 1Acreages include a disturbance buffer; the amount of actual ground disturbance may be less than the buffered distance. Areas of overlap, such as where the disturbance buffers for two different elements coincide, have only been counted one time. Disturbance acres have been rounded to the nearest tenth acre.

Table 3-3. Disturbance types and acres disturbed under the BCT alternative. Disturbance Category and Acres Disturbed1 Project Element Name Glading Clearing Grading Excavation Project Element Total Lift 4 -- -- 0.2 0.1 0.3 Chair 5 Pod -- 0.1 14.2 1.8 16.1 Chair 8 Pod -- 0.1 45.7 2.0 47.8 Tree and Glade Skiing 28.9 ------28.9 Snowmaking ------7.0 7.0 Mountain Coaster ------2.0 2.0 Mountain Bike Trails -- -- 7.7 -- 7.7 Hiking Trails -- -- 1.8 -- 1.8 Zip Line -- 2.5 -- > 0.1 2.5 Equipment Rental/Food ------0.8 0.8 & Beverage Building First Aid/Ski patrol ------0.8 0.8 Building Vault Toilet Facility at ------0.3 0.3 Overflow Parking Lot

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-3(cont’d). Disturbance types and acres disturbed under the BCT alternative. Disturbance Category and Acres Disturbed1 Project Element Name Glading Clearing Grading Excavation Project Element Total New Parking Lot -- -- 4.6 -- 4.6 Gate House ------0.2 0.2 Water Tank ------0.3 0.3 Total Disturbance 121.1 1Acreages include a disturbance buffer; the amount of actual ground disturbance may be less than the buffered distance. Areas of overlap, such as where the disturbance buffers for two different elements coincide, have only been counted one time. Disturbance acres have been rounded to the nearest tenth acre.

The total disturbance of 129.9 acres under the proposed action represents 16.5 percent of the total permit area of 785 acres. The total disturbance of 121.1 acres under the BCT alternative represents 15.4 percent of the total permit area. 3.3 CUMULATIVE ACTIONS The cumulative actions considered in this analysis are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects included on the HTNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) that could have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the actions analyzed in this EIS. Table 3-4 describes the cumulative actions considered in this analysis. There are two past projects, one current project, and one reasonably foreseeable project that meet these criteria.

Table 3-4. Cumulative actions considered in this analysis. Project Name Project Description Past Projects Dolomite- Location: Lee Canyon, along SR 156, with McWilliams Campground adjoining the ski McWilliams-Old Mill area boundary. Campgrounds Description: This project involved modifications and maintenance of three campgrounds Reconstruction in Lee Canyon. Modifications included new roads and trails, restrooms, and campsites. Project Maintenance items included replacement of fire rings, picnic tables, grills, repaving roads, and vegetation management. This project was authorized in January of 2013 and implemented in 2013 and 2014. Implementation Date: 2013–2014 Foxtail Group Picnic Location: Lee Canyon, Along SR 156 approximately 16 miles west of intersection SR Area Reconstruction 156 with I-95. Project Description: Recreation facilities were expanded to accommodate various group sizes. These modifications included: replacing all roads and parking areas, addition of an entrance station, implementation of a vegetation management plan, tree removal as needed, construction of a large picnic shelter and additional restrooms. In addition to these recreational improvements, these facilities are maintained throughout the summer and parking lots are plowed during winter. Implementation Date: 2012–2014

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-4(cont’d). Cumulative actions considered in this analysis. Project Name Project Description Current Projects Old Mill Wildland Location: Kyle and Lee canyons and along Deer Creek Highway. Urban Interface Description: This was a fuel reduction project to treat approximately 1,514 acres of NFS (WUI) Hazardous lands adjacent to sensitive areas. Treatments included: mastication, hand thinning, and Fuels Treatment burning. The purpose of this project was to reduce the hazard of a severe wildfire by reducing the forest fuel loads. Since it was initially authorized, the acreage proposed for treatment has been reduced due to constraints related to equipment access to much of the originally proposed area. The work to be completed in Lee Canyon has been reduced to 10 acres of hand thinning and piling and 52 acres of lop and scatter. Each of these treatments will be followed by burning of cut material. Implementation Date: Ongoing Future Projects Lee Canyon Fuels Location: Upper Lee Canyon, including lands within and adjacent to the ski area permit Reduction Project1 boundary. Description: The project area comprises 600 acres. The goals of this project are to improve firefighter and public safety, protect private property, and improve forest health by preventing beetle-related tree mortality. Proposed actions include removal of smaller trees to reduce fuel loading, hand piling of slash for pile burning, lop and scatter of slash, and broadcast burning for initial removal of vegetation and cost-effective maintenance. Implementation Date: Summer 2019 1 This project is not listed on the HTNF SOPA at this time but is expected to be posted to the SOPA by the time a final EIS is published. As a result, it is included in this analysis.

3.4 SOIL, WATER, AND WATERSHED

3.4.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff: The permit area is subject to localized, high-intensity summer thunderstorms. Coupled with steep, rugged terrain, this results in periodic, sudden runoff events, and gullying. Development of the proposed infrastructure would alter ground cover and soil permeability and could influence the timing, intensity, and quantity of stormwater runoff. Downgradient wells could be damaged if wellheads were flooded or groundwater was contaminated. Indicator: A model-based analysis of runoff from high-intensity thunderstorms under pre- and post- project scenarios, with and without mitigation. Model results and other factors are considered in assessing potential effects on downgradient wells. Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability: The permit area is characterized by steep slopes, erosive soils, and sparse ground cover. Construction of the proposed ski area infrastructure would involve substantial clearing, grading, and excavation. On trails, soil surfaces would be kept bare by subsequent maintenance and use. These actions may affect the extent and severity of soil erosion. Indicator: An erosion and sedimentation risk rating for each element based on soil type, disturbance area, intensity of disturbance, slope, presence of a runoff pathway, distance to a water body, and efficacy of

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I proposed mitigation, and a qualitative assessment of how any increase in runoff and sedimentation would affect wells lower in the watershed. Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt: The permit area supports extensive forest vegetation. Clearing and glading of currently forested areas to develop ski runs would entail tree removal. This in turn would increase exposure of the snowpack to sunlight and wind. As a result, tree removal may affect the timing, rate, and quantity of snowmelt. Indicator: A mostly qualitative discussion of the anticipated change in timing, rate, and quantity of snowmelt runoff based on the acreages involved and best available science regarding clearing effects.

3.4.1.1 Background and Methods 3.4.1.1.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff In general, surface runoff from rainfall events can be estimated using precipitation and watershed characteristics, specifically topography, soil type, and landcover. Changes in runoff resulting from management alternatives can also be modeled by adjusting factors that would change (e.g. landcover) from existing conditions under each scenario. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed a widely accepted method to estimate the amount of direct surface runoff from storm events (i.e., peak flood events) in a particular area (NRCS 2004). Model input data includes landcover and other surface characteristics that influence runoff. Precipitation from a design storm (i.e., known precipitation depth, duration, and probability of occurrence) is also used in the model. The model output is a runoff estimate that accounts for local factors, expressed in terms of surface runoff and any shallow subsurface flow that enters the targeted stream channel in response to a storm event. The model does not account for baseflow contributions from deep groundwater. Stream channels in the permit area do not support base flow, but they do transport runoff following intense storm events and some minor intermittent flows during spring snowmelt. As a result, this method is an appropriate and efficient way to estimate impacts on runoff from land-use changes in the permit area. Watershed models include assumptions to account for variability and interactions that occur on different spatial and temporal scales. Assumptions provide a practical way to account for variability in situations where actual measurements are unavailable or difficult to collect. Conservative assumptions allow characterization of worst-case conditions and capturing of potential maximum impacts. A reasonable level of conservative assumptions was used to model runoff in the permit area in order to estimate the potential magnitude of peak runoff. In this case, our assumptions incorporated a large amount of variability in the study area (e.g., small-scale variations in soil properties and the distribution of precipitation) in order to create scenarios suitable for modeling. In most situations, the best application of model results is to examine relative differences between modelled scenarios (e.g., existing conditions versus proposed changes), rather than the absolute value and accuracy of a single scenario. This approach is particularly true when examining infrequent, short- duration events and processes. Although model results based on conservative assumptions may overestimate actual runoff somewhat, the difference between model scenarios is an accurate and defendable method to identify the impact of action alternatives relative to existing conditions. If proposed projects are approved, additional modeling is recommended using site-specific data to identify environmental impacts at greater spatial and temporal resolution which would also minimize conservative assumptions and construction costs. The computer model used to estimate peak runoff from the permit area (InfoSWMM) is a modified version of EPA’s Stormwater Management Model (EPA 2015) that can estimate peak runoff from design storms. InfoSWMM can be applied in both urban and rural settings and uses precipitation combined with GIS data to account for spatial variability in soils, topography and surface cover. A total of seven cover types were identified in the permit area.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

For modeling purposes, runoff from the permit area is captured in five drainages. Four of these drainages discharge to Camp Lee Canyon, where property damage from stormwater runoff has been a concern. One of these contributes negligible flow, and runoff from the fifth drainage bypasses the Camp to the west. As a result, runoff modeling was completed for the three drainages that would be expected to have a measurable runoff into the area of the camp. These drainages are unnamed, but for purposes of the analysis they are called the East, Center, and Bristlecone drainages (Figure 3-2). The total area in these three drainages is about 918 acres, including 717 acres in the permit area itself. Peak runoff was estimated with InfoSWMM under existing conditions as well as the proposed action and BCT alternative (JUB 2017). Runoff estimates were determined for design-storm events, including storms with a 2-year (2.6 inches in 24 hours), 25-year (5.6 inches), and 100-year (7.3 inches) probability of occurrence (Bonnin et al. 2011). These recurrence intervals indicate the statistical probability of a storm of that magnitude occurring once in any given year. For example, there is a 1 in 100 chance of a 7.3-inch storm occurring in any given year in the permit area. This statistic is based on the long-term average time between storm events (Holmes and Dinicola 2010). However, intense storm events happen on an irregular basis and could occasionally happen more frequently than the recurrence interval, and even occur multiple times in the same year. Peak runoff under the proposed action and the BCT alternative was estimated for the three drainages that flow to Camp Lee Canyon. Several different scenarios were modeled to determine the effect of 1) disturbance only (i.e., no BMPs), 2) physical BMPs only (including water bars and flow diversion structures), and 3) full recovery including physical BMPs and full vegetation regrowth on disturbed areas. The need for additional mitigation of flow increases was recognized early in the analysis, and the influence of a detention basin was also estimated for each scenario. This detention basin utilizes the proposed parking lot to capture a peak volume of 19.5 acre-feet of runoff. This is the estimated peak runoff amount (based on conservative assumptions) from a 100-year precipitation only event (i.e., not a rain-on-snow scenario). Actual runoff from this type of storm could potentially yield less runoff and additional project-specific modeling after projects are approved could be done to improve accuracy of estimates and possibly require less expensive mitigation, such as a smaller detention basin. Potential effects on infrastructure and water quality were assessed based on model output regarding volume and intensity of stormwater runoff coupled with information on location of wells and other infrastructure, type and location of fuels and other potential contaminants at the ski area, and relationships between surface and groundwater. Climate change information from recent Forest Service assessments for the West (Halofsky et al 2018) and the HTNF (Tausch 2011) was considered projecting potential effects. 3.4.1.1.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability Erosion and transport of sediment are focal points in the analysis for Issue 2. Natural erosion processes are part of soil development. However, prior to stabilization, erosion from areas disturbed by construction can occur at an accelerated rate. The method used here to assess erosion and sedimentation hazard resulting from proposed development is the connected disturbed area (CDA) approach (Furness et al. 2000; Forest Service 2006). It involves the following steps for each proposed project element: 1. Determining the pre-mitigation erosion potential based on the erosion hazard of the affected soil types, the size of disturbance, the intensity of disturbance (i.e., clearing through excavation), the slope of the disturbed area, and the distance to the closest drainage channel or other runoff pathway (road or trail). 2. Identifying appropriate BMPs to mitigate erosion and sedimentation hazard. 3. Assessing the post-mitigation erosion risk based on the efficacy of the identified BMPs. Based on the factors listed in point 1, project elements are assigned a pre-mitigation risk rating of high, medium, or low for erosion and sedimentation. Generally, elements are assigned a high risk rating if they have two or more of the following attributes: large disturbance area (greater than 1 acre), steep slopes

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

(greater than 50 percent), and proximity to a runoff pathway. Elements are assigned a moderate risk rating if they have one of these attributes and a low risk rating if they have none. The other two factors, soil erosion hazard and intensity of disturbance, are considered to resolve border-line risk ratings. The CDA approach prescribes “disconnecting” disturbed areas. If sediment sources are disconnected from the “easy pathways” down the mountain, the total sediment yield to runoff pathways can be greatly reduced (Furniss et al. 2000). Specific BMPs to reduce erosion, disconnect disturbed areas from erosion pathways, and minimize the watershed and water quality impacts of each element are identified in the CDA analysis for the proposed action. These measures are described in more detail in section 3.4.5, following the discussion of direct and indirect effects, and in section 2.6. Most of these BMPs are core measures recommended by state and federal agencies. A more detailed discussion of these measures is available in Appendix B as well as the references cited with these measures. 3.4.1.1.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt A literature review was conducted to identify recent, pertinent research regarding differential snow accumulation and snowmelt behavior between forested and non-forested areas. Climatological data from 2008 to 2017 was obtained from the Lee Canyon and BCT SNOTEL sites to assess local weather patterns. A qualitative assessment of the potential effects of tree clearing under the proposed action on snow accumulation and melt was developed based on parameters discussed in the literature. Acreage that could be affected by the proposed action or the BCT alternative was obtained from GIS.

3.4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The area of analysis for soil, water, and watershed resources is defined as the ski area’s special use permit area (permit area). It consists of 785 acres in the Spring Mountains northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. At 11,289 feet, Lee Peak is the major topographic feature in the area. The permit area is located at the upper end of the Lee Canyon subwatershed and is part of the greater Las Vegas Wash Sub-basin. Three unnamed drainage channels convey most runoff from the permit area and converge near Camp Lee Canyon. Most facilities at Camp Lee Canyon are located in the bottom of a narrow valley or swale that receives flow from these three upslope drainages.

3.4.2.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff Climate in the Spring Mountains is influenced primarily by geographic setting, topographic relief, and atmospheric circulation patterns (Moreo et. al. 2014). These mountains are in the rain shadow of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the west. Although winter storms moving east over the Sierra Nevada are generally low-pressure and low-intensity, they account for the majority of annual precipitation. Based on area-weighted averages (1981–2010), mean annual temperature and precipitation depth for the permit area is 40.3 ºF and 21.6 inches, respectively (PRISM 2017). Depending on the time of year, precipitation in the permit area can occur as either rain or snow. Local precipitation records are available from two locations, the Lee Canyon and BCT Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites (NRCS 2017a, NRCS 2017b). Mean annual precipitation depths at these sites are 23.4 and 21.9 inches, respectively, based on the 2009–2016 data record. More details on snow accumulation, snowmelt patterns, and timing of snowmelt are provided below under Issue 3, but the focus of analysis under this issue is intense summer rain storms. Extensive analysis completed by the Forest Service addressing the HTNF (Tausch 2011) and the western U.S. (Halofsky et al 2018) provides the best projections currently available on climate change and its effects on precipitation and runoff. While these broad studies do not provide detailed data to support in- depth site-specific analysis and conclusions, they do provide meaningful insight into this issue. The studies indicate that projected temperature changes are considerably more consistent than precipitation changes, particularly in mountainous areas. As a result, the studies conclude that warmer winters will

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I result in less snow and more rain, with more intense winter storms, but they make few predictions about summer precipitation – the concern in this analysis. The Halofsky et al (2018) study does suggest that spring and early summer precipitation may be reduced somewhat over time in the Southwest (p. 129). In short, based on these studies, climate change is not anticipated to affect the magnitude or frequency of high-intensity summer storms at Lee Canyon and is not discussed further here. Figure 3-1 reflects the daily maximum depth from rain events only during 2008–2017. Most of these events occur from July–November of each year. Summer precipitation events in the Spring Mountains are influenced by monsoonal air flow from the south that creates localized, high-intensity and short-duration storms (Moreo et. al. 2014). It is not uncommon to have summer storms (and resulting surface runoff) affect one drainage in the permit area while adjacent drainages remain dry (Hooper 2017).

Lee Canyon SNOTEL site Daily Maximum Rainfall (2008 ‐ 2017) 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2

Precipitation (in.) 1.5 1 0.5 0 Jul Jul Jan Jan Jun Jun Oct Oct Oct Apr Apr Apr Feb Feb Sep Dec Dec Aug Aug Nov Nov Mar Mar May May

Precipitation (in.)

Figure 3-1. Daily maximum rainfall recorded at Lee Canyon Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) site. Values shown are based on days where average temperature was greater than 32º F.

Intense summer storms occurred in 2008 and 2017, generating runoff that damaged buildings, roads, and other infrastructure in the base area and at Camp Lee Canyon. During the two 2017 storms the Lee Canyon SNOTEL site recorded 2.2 inches of precipitation on July 24, and 4.6 inches on August 4. These storms lasted 12 hours and 3 hours, respectively, and produced significant runoff in the base area and Camp Lee Canyon (Hooper 2017, Bernhardt 2017). Soil surfaces with minimal or no vegetation or other surface cover were particularly susceptible to erosion. The 2.2-inch storm and the 4.6-inch storm generated approximately the same precipitation amounts as the 2-year and the 25-year design storms used in our modeling, respectively. Lee Meadows is located downstream from the permit area and Camp Lee Canyon, adjacent to the main stream channel in Lee Canyon. This meadow was inundated during the intense storms in 2017 across the entire width of the Canyon. The area functioned as a floodplain to buffer peak stream velocities and remove sediment loads that would normally settle in downstream channel segments.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Effects of these storms dissipated quickly below Lee Meadows and were generally highly localized and short-lived overall. This was due to physical factors (e.g., geology, soils, and topography) and biological conditions (e.g., vegetation and other ground cover) that drive hydrologic functioning in the Spring Mountains. Ephemeral channels are present in the upper watershed areas and contain flow during intense storm events, but most water in these channels is quickly lost to groundwater recharge through the underlying alluvium. Measured water levels from wells in Lee Canyon indicate that alluvial material near the surface is rarely saturated. It is not uncommon to have years where no flow is present in stream channels in the Spring Mountains (Moreo et. al. 2014, Hooper 2017). No flow records are available for channels in the permit area. While many of the larger storm events shown in Figure 3-1 likely generated some surface runoff, flow quickly infiltrated rather than contributing to downstream flows. One USGS stream gage (9419610 – Lee Canyon near Charleston Park, Nevada) is located in upper Lee Canyon, approximately 3 miles downstream of the permit area. The gage has been inactive since 1994. The drainage area contributing flow to the channel at this location is 9.2 square miles. The stream gage record includes 11,323 days (1963–1994), during which measurable flow occurred on only 49 days. Maximum instantaneous peak flow during this period was 880 cfs, with a mean daily streamflow of 0.018 cfs (USGS 2017). This data record provides historic evidence of the extremely limited amount of surface flow in the permit area and the subwatershed. Runoff from the permit area is generated from land inside the permit area boundary and areas upslope of the boundary. These drainages total approximately 1,080 acres, including all 785 acres of the permit area. Landcover in these drainages is primarily forested (95 percent). The remaining 5 percent is covered by a combination of avalanche chutes, cliffs and scree, ski runs, buildings, roads, and trails. Manmade features (e.g., roads, trails, and water bars) and natural stream channels can act as runoff pathways by concentrating surface runoff. Concentrated flow has a higher velocity and greater ability to generate gully erosion compared to dispersed surface runoff. However, BMPs used in parts of the permit area are designed to disperse surface runoff from ski runs, roads, and trails into forested areas where flow energy is dissipated and water can infiltrate into the soil. Both surface vegetation and soil characteristics influence surface runoff. Any properties that increase the bulk density of soil including roots and other organic material, gravel, rock fragments, etc., also promote infiltration, which in turn reduces runoff. In general, these physical factors are relatively constant within a given year. Wildland fire can change the composition of surface vegetation and structure of near surface soil layers. However, the timing, extent, and intensity of wildland fire impacts in and around the ski area cannot be defined in detail, given the periodic nature of these events. The low density of forest and understory cover in and around the permit area would generally support low- to moderate-intensity fires with less impact occurring on ski runs where overstory vegetation is absent.

In terms of potential effects on downgradient wells, three groundwater wells are located in the permit area, and one additional well is located downslope at Camp Lee Canyon (Figure 3-2; Bernhardt 2017, Hooper 2017). These wells are used for culinary purposes and for snowmaking at the ski area. Two permit-area wells are located on slopes that drain away from the wellhead. The third permit-area well is located on flat ground protected by a berm that diverts upslope runoff away from the wellhead. The siting of these three wells protects them from potential damage due to surface stormwater flows, but the well at Camp Lee Canyon is more exposed. A primary source of culinary water for the camp, it is located in a swale that receives surface runoff from upslope drainages in the permit area. The wellhead is protected by low soil berms located on the south and west sides of a fenced enclosure. This arrangement has successfully diverted flow from past runoff events, but it requires routine maintenance and upkeep (Bernhardt 2017).

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-2. Soil and watershed resources in the permit area.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Surface runoff from intense storm events could possibly contaminate this well if runoff and transported debris covered the wellhead, damaged the structure, and flowed into the well casing itself. The borehole casing for this well is grouted to prevent surface flow from moving down the outside of the casing into the aquifer. However, the top of the wellhead is set below the ground surface inside a manhole large enough for camp personnel to enter and complete routine maintenance and water sampling. This enclosure could potentially fill with surface runoff and submerge the wellhead if runoff were to flow over the protective soil berms. Beyond that, there is some potential for groundwater contamination that could affect this and other area wells. As discussed above, runoff does not travel far before percolating into the soil profile, potentially to groundwater. It could carry with it any surface contaminants present. Snowmelt runoff rather than stormwater is likely a greater concern, since it provides approximately 90 percent of the total annual recharge volume (Winograd et al. 1998). Parking areas are a source of some contaminants (e.g., oil, antifreeze, and highway ice melting products) which can be mobilized by runoff and potentially affect groundwater, and parking lots are used primarily in winter. In addition, hazardous fluids are stored and used in the permit area. Potential contamination is managed according to the ski area’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC plan complies with existing state and federal regulations pertaining to pollution prevention of receiving water bodies, and it addresses all relevant measures applicable to the permit area. Hazardous fluids stored and used in the permit area include fuel, oil, lubricants, solvents, paint, etc., that are necessary for normal ski area operations. With the exception of fuel, these fluids are kept in containers up to 55 gallons, stored in compliance with applicable regulations. Three large fuel storage tanks (two underground and one above ground) are located near the maintenance facility. All underground tanks are equipped with continuous monitoring systems, and above-ground tanks are located inside secondary containment structures. There have been no spill events in the permit area under current management and since the SPCC was implemented. In the event that contaminants are released at the surface, the soil matrix acts as a filter to remove suspended sediment and adsorb dissolved chemicals. In general, depth to groundwater is 400 feet or more near the mouth of Lee Canyon and about 130–300 feet in the upper watershed (Plume 1989). Based on the limited amount of contaminants likely to be released and the depth to groundwater, there is very limited potential for surface runoff to produce impacts on groundwater quality through the process of groundwater recharge. Groundwater wells in Nevada used for culinary purposes are protected by federal regulations that require monthly monitoring and public notification if contamination by coliform, hydrocarbons, or other pollutants occurs (EPA 2009, EPA 2010a, EPA 2010b). A sample from a permit-area well measured positive for E. coli in 2016. Following monitoring protocol, an additional sample was collected the following day and the results were negative (Hooper 2017). No other possible contamination has been identified by past monitoring of the culinary well at Camp Lee Canyon (Bernhardt 2017).

3.4.2.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability Soil information on the permit area was obtained from the national Soil Survey Geographic Database (NRCS 2017c) and a soil survey of Clark County, Nevada (NRCS 2006). There are three soil types in the permit area (Figure 3-2 and Table 3-5), and the proposed developments under the proposed action and the BCT alternative are located on two of these soil types. Soil types in the permit area vary based on slope, geology, landform, and micro-climate. As shown in Table 3-5, erosion potential for these soil types ranges from none (on rock outcrop) to severe. The erosion-potential rating classes reflect slope and soil physical factors that contribute to erodibility. Over 80 percent of the permit area is Ladyofsnow-Robbersfire-Maryjane association soils. These soils are found at moderate to high elevations and characterized by a well-drained profile and a depth to bedrock between 39 and 60+ inches (NRCS 2017c). The Mountmummy-Thesisters-Maryjane association makes

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I up about 15 percent of the permit area and is located along the southern and northwest borders. Soils in this association are extremely gravelly silt loams that are well-drained and have a depth to bedrock between 4 and 60+ inches (NRCS 2017c). The remaining codominant soil type is Maryjane extremely gravelly loam, covering 2 percent of the permit area. Other minor inclusions are found within the three soil associations discussed here, but their influence on soil properties is unimportant in the permit area. Erosion occurs when the surface layer of topsoil is worn away by water, wind, or other forces, and in severe cases the lower layers are also removed. Water erosion is the primary soil loss factor in the permit area, and the degree or severity of this type of erosion is influenced by soil type and slope. As indicated in Table 3-5, erosion potential for these soil types ranges from none (on rock) to severe. Slopes in the permit area range from approximately 3 to 150 percent, and surface erosion is worse on steeper slopes, particularly from midway down to the toe of the slope. As noted under Issue 1, surface runoff in the permit area is generally localized and short-lived. Erosion and sediment transport are generally the same, with most sediments deposited where slopes flatten at the base area. Little deposition occurs below the permit boundary.

Table 3-5. Soil properties in the permit area (NRCS 2017c). Surface Permit Organic Depth to Name (map unit Erosion Area Parent Material Matter restrictive Slopes symbol) Potential (% (ac/% of Content layer1 of map unit) total) Colluvium derived Severe 775: Ladyofsnow- Surface from limestone and (75%), Robbersfire- horizon: 29-65 15 - 75 662 dolomite, alluvium > 60 inches Moderate Maryjane %, Subsurface percent (84%) derived from (23%), Rock association horizon: 3 - 7 % limestone. outcrop (2%) Colluvium and/or Severe residuum weathered Surface 905: Mountmummy- (77%), from limestone and horizon: 4 - 65 15 - 75 110 Thesisters-Maryjane < 39 inches Moderate dolomite, alluvium %, Subsurface percent (14%) association (20%), Rock derived from horizon: 0 - 7 % outcrop (3%) limestone. Severe (7%), 916: Maryjane Surface Moderate extremely gravelly Alluvium derived horizon: 65 %, 8 - 30 > 60 inches (90%), Slight 13 (2%) loam, 8 to 30 from limestone. Subsurface percent (1%), Rock percent slopes horizon: 7 % outcrop (2%) 1 Depth to restrictive layer represents at least 50 percent of map unit.

In the permit area, erosion has historically occurred as rill and gully erosion in response to intense summer storm events. Small rills can become deep gullies during a single storm or from a series of storms if left unmanaged. Erosion from snowmelt runoff has not been a concern in the permit area. As discussed above under Issue 1, climate change is not anticipated to have a discernible effect on the intensity or frequency of summer storms according to recent Forest Service research (Halofsky et al 2018). In 2006 the Forest Service suspended revegetation efforts, which had been successful at reducing erosion in the past, with the objective of developing a revegetation seed mix that included more native plants. In order to address the ongoing erosion problem, an erosion and sediment control plan was created in 2008 (Stantec 2008). This plan emphasizes physical BMPs to prevent erosion, including the creation of diversion ditches and water bars to move water away from sensitive areas. In addition to preventative measures, the plan also outlines actions to be taken in emergency circumstances, such as filling rills and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I gullies, and localized re-grading. This plan was an important source of BMPs developed specifically for the ski area, and pertinent BMPs were incorporated into this analysis (section 3.4.5). Vegetative ground cover plays a key role in erosion prevention because it can stabilize the topsoil during high intensity storm events. Sparse ground cover leaves the soil susceptible to erosion. Any area that lacks consistent root structure, including disturbed areas that have been revegetated and undisturbed forest areas, can be vulnerable to erosion. See section 3.5 for a detailed description of vegetation in the permit area. Previously, heavily disturbed areas have either been reseeded or permitted to regrow naturally.

3.4.2.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt The analysis area is characterized by forested areas intermixed with non-forested areas corresponding to avalanche chutes, cleared ski trails, parking lots, and related infrastructure. Approximately 95 percent of the analysis area is forested. Within the analysis area, there are 37.2 acres of existing ski trails, and approximately 14 acres that have been gladed. Surfaces adjacent to the base area buildings and lower lift terminals are relatively flat, but slopes increase rapidly above this area. The dominant drainages are oriented north-south, resulting in a general northerly aspect in the analysis area. However, the pronounced ridges between the drainages produce secondary east or west exposures for much of the ski area. Based on data from the Lee Canyon and BCT SNOTEL sites, consistent snowfall accumulation typically begins in early November (ranges from November 3 to December 14 with a median date of November 22), is limited in November, then increases during December and lasts through early March. Snowmelt typically begins in March, and accumulated snow is typically gone by early May (ranges from March 25 to May 10, with a median date of April 18). Temperature patterns, based on data from the Lee Canyon SNOTEL sites for the same 2008–2017 period, were also analyzed. The average daily temperature was calculated for this 9-year period. During the December–February period, the average daily temperature was 31.2° F. Inter-annual differences would result in some years being cooler or warmer than other years. How snowfall accumulates, how long it remains, and how quickly it melts are influenced by a number of variables including the timing of snowfall, snowfall intensity, snowfall amount, temperature, time of year, wind behavior, exposure to radiation, and forest canopy characteristics. Characteristics of winter storm events and when they occur are generally not influenced by physical conditions in the permit area. However, vegetation cover can influence some of the factors influencing how snow accumulates and melts, including radiation, sublimation, wind, and density or water content. The interactions are complex. In terms of radiation, snow surfaces are exposed to shortwave radiation (light energy) and longwave radiation (heat energy). In forested areas, trees intercept snow, emit longwave radiation, and shelter snow from wind and solar radiation (Lundquist et al. 2013). In some cases, sheltering snow from radiation results in longer persistence of snow, while in other instances, longwave radiation emitted from the trees increases snowmelt relative to snow in an open area. Sublimation, the phase-change process of ice to water vapor, also influences snow persistence. Snow intercepted in the tree canopy is typically sublimated at higher rates than snow on the ground underneath the tree canopy. Sublimation is also typically higher in open areas relative to under the tree canopy (Svoma 2017). Sublimation rates in open areas are 3 to 10 times higher than those occurring in forested locations (Lundquist et al. 2013). Where wind deposition and redistribution play a large role in snow accumulation, or where surface energy exchange is a primary contributor to snowmelt, snow was found to melt more slowly under a forest canopy than in a clearing (Lundquist et al. 2013). Vegetation beneath the forest canopy is more sheltered and typically experiences lower wind velocities and is exposed to less shortwave radiation, as well as having higher humidity (Svoma 2017). The amount of water in snow also affects retention and snowmelt. Snow density and snow-water- equivalent content between forest and non-forested sites is affected by annual variability in snow totals.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Based on plots in healthy forest, beetle-killed forest, and clear cuts, in average to low snowfall years, snow depth and snow-water-equivalent increased as percent canopy cover and stand density decreased, while in high snowfall years, differences were reduced due to the ability of heavy snowfall to exceed interception capacity of the canopy. (Boon 2012) With all of these often-conflicting factors, it is not surprising that studies looking at whether snowmelt occurs more quickly under forests or in clearings have reached conflicting conclusions. According to a study analyzing the results of all observational studies of snowmelt patterns, in regions where the average December–February temperature was greater than 30° F, forest cover reduced snow duration by 1–2 weeks compared to adjacent open areas. This occurred because the dominant effect of forest cover shifted from shading the snow and blocking the wind to accelerating snowmelt from increasing longwave radiation from the trees. On the other hand, in areas with warmer air temperatures where snowmelt occurred earlier in the spring, snow tended to last longer under trees than in the open. Early in the year, low sun angles prevail, and longwave radiation from trees exceeds shortwave radiation from the sun. (Lundquist et al. 2013) Thus whether snow lasts longer in an opening or in a clearing depends on if longwave (i.e., heat energy) or shortwave (i.e., light energy) radiation is the dominant factor, as dictated by time of year (e.g., changes in shortwave energy due to sun angle) and by climatological temperatures (e.g., changes in longwave energy due to air temperature).

3.4.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action 3.4.3.1.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff Peak runoff estimates derived from the InfoSWMM model for the permit area are shown in Table 3-6. As discussed above in section 3.4.1.1, these estimates account for existing conditions that influence runoff including topography, soil, and landcover, and they were determined for design-storm events with 2-year (2.6 inches in 24 hours), 25-year (5.6 inches), and 100-year (7.3 inches) recurrence intervals. These estimates represent the aggregated peak runoff that would occur from the East, Center, and Bristlecone drainages that contribute runoff to main channels that drain to Camp Lee Canyon (Figure 3-2). These drainages include land that is inside the permit area as well as upslope of the permit boundary. Runoff from the Center and Bristlecone drainages converge just beyond the north permit boundary, immediately above Camp Lee Canyon. Runoff from the East drainage empties into a channel that flows along the east side of the Camp.

Table 3-6. Peak runoff estimates under current conditions from the East, Center, and Bristlecone drainages (Figure 3-2).1 Storm Return Interval (depth in inches) Aggregate Peak Runoff (cfs) 100-year storm (7.3 in.) 1,736 25-year storm (5.6 in.) 1,030 2-year storm (2.6 in.) 106 1See JUB 2017 for additional detail.

Under the no-action alternative, intense summer storm events would continue to generate maximum surface runoff, and the timing, extent, and amount of runoff would be similar to existing conditions described in section 3.4.2. Runoff would flow from mountain slopes to the base area and beyond the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I lower permit boundary, losing volume rapidly to infiltration as it moved downslope. Runoff events would remain intense, localized, and short term. Small decreases in runoff would occur over time in areas where low-growing vegetation (e.g., grasses, forbs, shrubs) on ski runs became more established. Existing landcover by cover type is shown in Table 3-7. Any changes in landcover that increased the density of low-growing vegetation would serve to detain and disperse runoff and provide additional opportunities for runoff to infiltrate into the soil. The potential for runoff flooding the wellhead at Camp Lee Canyon would not change – it would remain a possibility during higher intensity storms. Groundwater contamination would remain unlikely due to minimal surface contaminants and great depth to groundwater.

Table 3-7. Landcover in the permit area under existing conditions. Landcover Type Existing Landcover (ac) Brush 24.2 Building 0.3 Unpaved Road/Trail 4.9 Forested 702.0 Gladed 10.4 Paved 4.7 Ski Run 37.1 Water 1.3 Total (ac) 784.9

3.4.3.1.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability No development would occur under the no-action alternative, and existing levels of soil erosion and stability would generally remain as described in section 3.4.2. Erosion would continue to occur at roughly existing rates, particularly in areas where soil surfaces were exposed to raindrop impact or concentrated flow. Vegetation cover on existing ski runs would continue to develop in some areas where immature and relatively new growth exists. Large erosion features (e.g., headcuts and gullies) would continue to be repaired as needed in the permit area once project-specific authorization was provided. 3.4.3.1.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt Under the no-action alternative, no new clearing or glading would occur. Landcover would remain as shown in Table 3-7. No notable change in the existing pattern of snow accumulation and snowmelt, as described in section 3.4.2.3, is anticipated. Daily and seasonal differences in weather patterns would be the dominant variable affecting snow accumulation and melt patterns in both clearings and under forest canopy.

3.4.3.2 Proposed Action 3.4.3.2.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff To facilitate comparison, peak runoff estimates associated with existing conditions and the proposed action are shown in Table 3-8. Aggregate peak runoff estimates are shown for the three primary permit- area drainages that drain to Camp Lee Canyon (i.e., East, Center, and Bristlecone drainages; Figure 3-2) under current conditions and the proposed action. Estimates are provided with and without physical BMPs, with full rehabilitation, and with and without a detention basin.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

These estimates assume that all disturbances would occur simultaneously under the proposed action, the “worst-case scenario.” In reality, these disturbances would occur sequentially, allowing time for installation of physical BMPs and some regrowth of vegetation before the next project element was started. The “No BMP” scenarios are included to show the effectiveness of the required BMPs and do not represent situations that would actually occur. The difference between the “With BMP” scenarios and the “Fully Rehabilitated” scenarios is regrowth of vegetation in disturbed areas, either by seeding (with a Forest Service-approved seed mix) or by natural regrowth.

Table 3-8. Peak runoff estimates (cfs) under the proposed action in response to a 24-hour design storm. 1 Current Proposed Action Conditions (cfs) No Detention Basin (cfs)/ % Change Detention Basin Installed (cfs)/ % Change Storm Return With Fully Fully Interval No BMPs No BMPs No BMPs With BMPs BMPs Rehabilitated Rehabilitated (depth in inches)

100-year 1,913/ 1,854/ 1,903/ Storm 1,736 1,758/1.3% 1,839/5.9% 1,726/-0.6% (7.3 in.) 10.2% 6.8% 9.6%

25-year 1,162/ 1,126/ 1,150/ Storm 1,030 1,054/2.3% 1,111/7.8% 1,026/-0.4% (5.6 in.) 12.8% 9.2% 11.7%

2-year 142/ 137/ 94/ Storm 106 117/10.6% 46/-56.7% 37/-64.6% (2.6 in.) 34.0% 29.5% -11.3%

1See JUB (2017) for additional detail.

Increases in modeled runoff prior to mitigation are due to changes in landcover and the characteristics in each landcover type that influence runoff. For most project elements, landcover would change within the disturbance area for that element (see Table 3-9). One important change would be an increase of 4.5 acres of impervious surface from buildings and pavement, and 6.2 acres of hardened surfaces from service roads and biking and hiking trails. These landcover changes would dramatically increase runoff per acre, but the acreage involved would be small. (Note these increases are based on each element’s finished footprint and not on total disturbance presented in Table 3-10. The remaining disturbed area would be subject to changes in vegetation cover type rather than conversion to impermeable or hardened surfaces.) The larger landcover changes, such as conversion of forest to ski runs or glades, would affect pre- mitigation runoff less dramatically but would still increase it. Relative to the no-action alternative, the proposed action would increase cleared areas (primarily ski runs) by 90.6 acres and gladed areas by 23.0 acres in the permit area. Changes in soil condition that reduce infiltration and increase runoff would also occur in the disturbance areas associated with the proposed action. Soil bulk density and surface roughness could be adversely affected by: removing vegetation, litter and roots; operating heavy equipment traffic; grading; and excavation. Such effects would generally be smaller and more localized than the major landcover changes.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-9. Landcover in the permit area under existing conditions and the proposed action. Landcover Type Existing Landcover (ac) Proposed Action (ac)/% Change Brush 24.2 9.6/-60% Building 0.3 0.7/133% Unpaved Road/Trail 4.9 11.1/126% Forested 702.0 592.3/16% Gladed 10.4 33.4/321% Paved 4.7 8.8/87% Ski Run 37.1 127.7/244% Water 1.3 1.3/- Total (ac) 784.9 784.9

The impact of changed landcover and soil conditions on runoff and infiltration would be minimized in the short term with physical BMPs and other practices that disperse runoff and provide opportunities for infiltration to occur. Additional reductions would be achieved as ski runs and other disturbed areas were revegetated. Past experience has shown that vegetation cover successfully controls soil and gravel movement in the permit area (Stantec 2008). Soil bulk density also decreases as root structures penetrate disturbed soils, resulting in increased infiltration during runoff. The suggested runoff detention pond would create the greatest reduction in peak runoff from the ski area for any given scenario (Table 3-8). Under the proposed action, a new parking lot would be constructed below the lower base area. This structure would be designed to intercept and detain the majority of runoff from upslope areas to Camp Lee Canyon. Vehicle use of the new parking lot would not occur during the summer season and would not interfere with this purpose. The proposed parking lot would include 3.6 acres of pavement. It would be designed as a tiered structure defined by vertical retaining walls to temporarily store a total of 19.5 acre-feet of water. The downslope retention wall of each tier would include one or more discharge points at designed locations to regulate flow out of the detention basin. Runoff discharging from the lot would be treated with French drains, catchment basins and other industry standard structures to remove oil, grease, sediment, and other pollutants. Treated stormwater runoff from the parking lot would then be discharged below the lot. Notable results of modeled peak runoff estimates under the proposed action include: 1. Unmitigated peak runoff (i.e., without BMPs) would increase above existing conditions for all storm events by 10–34 percent. The 100-year storm would increase peak runoff by about 10 percent, and this proportion would increase for 25-year and 2-year storms. This pattern of greater differences in runoff between existing conditions and the proposed action for smaller storm events holds for all scenarios. Although the difference between existing and modeled peak runoff is less for storms with large return intervals compared to smaller storms (e.g., a 100-year storm vs. a 2-year storm, respectively), the volume of increased runoff produced by large storms is substantially greater. As a result, the changes associated with large storms have greater potential for resource impacts. The large decrease exhibited by mitigated runoff from small storms is due primarily to the effect of the detention basin. 2. Use of BMPs would reduce peak runoff by 3–5 percent below estimates without BMPs for a net increase of 7–30 percent over existing conditions.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3. The BMPs considered in the modeling are physical and would include reinforced water bars and water diversion ditches on existing and proposed ski runs, rolling dips on road surfaces and trails, and correctly installed silt fences and straw wattles. Additional BMPs are identified in section 3.4.5 below. 4. Under the proposed action, fully rehabilitated conditions would result in only a 1–2 percent increase above existing peak runoff for the 100-year and 25-year storm events, respectively and an 11 percent increase for the 2-year storm event. 5. Under the proposed action, peak runoff estimates for fully rehabilitated conditions with a detention basin scenario range from less than 1 percent to 65 percent less than existing conditions. 6. This modeling of peak runoff was based on conservative assumptions (section 3.4.1.1 above), including: a. Design-storm scenarios assume consistent precipitation over the entire permit area. In reality, intense thunderstorms and runoff events are typically isolated to only a portion of the permit area (Hooper 2017). b. Runoff estimates for disturbed conditions assume all disturbances would occur simultaneously. In reality, construction of proposed elements would be staggered and include BMP installation and time for some vegetation to establish on disturbed surfaces. c. Use of the 100-year design storm to identify peak runoff and potential impacts is very conservative. As noted above, the 100-year storm has a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in any given year compared to the 2-year design storm which has a 1 in 2 chance of occurrence. In summary, differences in peak runoff estimates between the proposed action and existing conditions can be reduced to an increase of about 1 percent for the 100-year storm using physical BMPs and full restoration of disturbed surfaces. A detention basin is needed in addition to BMPs and full restoration to reduce peak runoff under the proposed action to less than existing conditions for all design-storm scenarios. The potential for stormwater runoff to cover the wellhead at Camp Lee Canyon would be less than under existing conditions. This is due primarily to implementing the detention basin and full restoration of disturbed surfaces. Peak runoff from relatively small storm events (i.e. 2-year storm) would be substantially less under the proposed action than under existing peak runoff estimates. The effectiveness of proposed physical BMPs and revegetation would result from increased infiltration of runoff. However, groundwater contamination would remain unlikely due to minimal surface contaminants and the great depth to groundwater. As indicated above in section 3.4.1.1, peak runoff estimates are based on conservative assumptions and predict a maximum level of runoff from design storms. Actual runoff from design storms could potentially yield less runoff. Additional modeling is recommended using site-specific data if proposed project elements are approved. Results from this effort would minimize the need for conservative assumptions and identify environmental impacts at greater spatial and temporal resolution which would also minimize conservative assumptions and construction costs. 3.4.3.2.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability The results of the CDA analysis under the proposed action are presented in Table 3-10. Most elements would be located on the Ladyofsnow-Robbersfire-Maryjane soil family association. This soil type covers more than 80 percent of the permit area, and approximately 75 percent of this soil association has a severe erosion-potential rating. The remaining 25 percent of this association has a moderate erosion potential mixed with rock outcrop. Soil erosion potential is lowered where rock outcrops and rock fragments are present at the soil surface.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Disturbance from individual project elements would range from less than 0.1 acre (zip line terminals, power line trenches for mountain coaster and Lift 6) to 57.4 acres (ski run clearing for Chair 8 pod). As shown in Table 3-10, the proposed action would affect a total of 129.8 acres including 3.1 acres of clearing (ski lifts and zip line) and 23.4 acres of glading which would have minor erosion potential as surface disturbance would be limited to stump removal and skidding of trees. Grading would affect 88.5 acres, primarily during construction of ski runs for the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods (70.7 acres) as well as hiking and biking trails, parking lots, and conveyor lifts (Lift 4 and Lift 6). Many elements of the proposed action include excavation for structure foundations (first aid building, gate house, mountain coaster, rental shop, vault toilet, lift towers, zip line terminals), utility trenches for water and power, and installation of septic tanks and drain fields. A total of 14.8 acres would be disturbed through excavation. Project elements that involve moderately steep areas (i.e., maximum slopes within disturbance area greater than 50 percent) for even short distances would include bike trails, the first aid building, the gate house, glading, the hiking trail, the parking lot, snowmaking utility trenches, zip line corridor clearing, the mountain coaster building and track, and Chair 8 ski runs. For all elements of the proposed action, maximum slopes range from 0 to 84 percent. (Note that some ratings are conservative, reflecting steep slopes within the arbitrary disturbance buffer which in reality would be avoided during construction.) All drainage channel crossings (including permanent and temporary crossings) and their approximate distance from each element are noted in Table 3-10. As described in section 3.4.2, flow in permit-area drainage channels occurs only occasionally, in response to storm events and, to a much more limited extent, following snowmelt. Drainage channels are topographic low points where surface runoff collects and continues downslope in the channel. Disturbance from some elements would overlap drainage channels. However, all structures other than the parking lot would be located outside of channels to ensure structural stability and long-term maintenance. Glading and clearing activities both involve channel crossings. No structures are involved with glading, and no lift terminals or towers would be installed in channels or floodplains where corridors were cleared. Ski runs associated with the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods involve drainage channels, and these areas could be graded during construction. Channels would remain in their existing locations. Temporary channel crossings by heavy equipment would occur, as needed, during construction activities. Elements that involve permanent channel crossings include hiking and biking trails, as well as access roads to Chair 5 and Chair 8. These crossings would be armored and designed to maintain stability and prevent erosion. Other permanent channel crossings would occur below the surface when trenches were excavated for utility or snowmaking lines. Trenches would be backfilled immediately following excavation, and channel crossing locations would be restored to their original dimensions. The proposed parking lot would intercept two of the three drainage channels that pass through the permit area. As discussed above, to mitigate increases in peak-runoff flows, the parking lot would be designed to function as a detention basin for stormwater runoff, reducing peak flows and removing sediment. Flow from this structure would be returned to the original drainage channels below the parking lot. The CDA approach was used to incorporate the variables of soil type, area and intensity of disturbance, slope, and proximity of channels in an objective assessment of the effects of each proposed element. As indicated in Table 3-10, each element of the proposed action is assigned a high, medium, or low risk rating prior to mitigation. This rating indicates the potential for individual elements to contribute erosion and sediment, during or following construction, to downslope locations. Runoff pathways are a primary concern. Elements with a high risk rating usually intersect a runoff pathway (i.e., road or channel) and have large disturbance areas with steep slopes. Elements such as hiking and biking trails have relatively large total disturbance area but confined dimension (i.e., less than 3 feet wide) at each permanent crossing. Other elements such as ski runs involve a large total area and incorporate long channel segments with temporary crossings.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-10. Proposed action CDA table. Soil unit1 / Element Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation Max Proximity to Project Element Erosion Disturbance Intensity2 Sedimentation BMPs3 Sedimentation Slope Runoff Pathway Hazard Area (acres) Risk Risk Multiple channel Bike Trails 775 / Severe 7.9 Grading High 13, 15, 26 Low 73 and road crossings. First Aid Crosses channel, 3, 6, 9, 12, Building 775 / Severe 0.5 Excavation High Low 60 road crossing. 27 Crosses channel, Septic System 775 / Severe 0.2 Excavation Moderate 5, 11 Low 23 road crossing. Utilities < 50 ft. to channel, 775 / Severe 0.1 Excavation Moderate 10, 18, 24 Low (Power/Water) 0 crosses road. Subtotal (ac) 0.8 905 / 916 / < 400 ft. to channel, Gate House Severe / 0.2 Excavation High 3, 6, 9 Low crosses road. Moderate 51 Crosses channel, < Glading 775 / Severe 23.4 Glading High 8, 11, 13 Low 70 50 ft. to road. Multiple channel Hiking Trail 775 / Severe 1.8 Grading High 13, 15 Low 65 and road crossings. Lift 4 Crosses channel, Power Line 775 / Severe 0.1 Excavation Moderate 10, 18 Low 0 road crossing. Grading for Crosses channel, 775 / Severe 0.2 Grading High 6, 10, 21 Low conveyor 32 road crossing. Subtotal (ac) 0.3 3, 9, 10, 12, Crosses channel, Parking 775 / Severe 4.6 Grading High 19, 20, 22, Low road crossing. 66 27, 28, 29

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-10 (cont’d). Proposed action CDA table. Soil unit1 / Element Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation Max Proximity to Project Element Erosion Disturbance Intensity2 Sedimentation BMPs3 Sedimentation Slope Runoff Pathway Hazard Area (acres) Risk Risk Crosses channel, Rental Building 775 / Severe 0.7 Excavation 34 Moderate 3, 6, 20 Low road crossing. Snowmaking Crosses channel, Pumphouse 775 / Severe 0.3 Excavation 39 greater than1,000 ft. Moderate 6, 9, 20 Low to road. Crosses channel, < Trench 775 / Severe 5.7 Excavation 57 High 10, 18 Low 50 ft. to road. Subtotal (ac) 6.0 916 / <400 ft. to channel, Vault Toilet 0.3 Excavation 10 Low 3, 5 Low Moderate <100 ft. to road. <50 ft. to channel, Water Tank 775 / Severe 0.3 Excavation 26 Low 6, 19, 24 Low adjacent to road. Zip Line Crosses channel, 3, 11, 12, Corridor Clearing 775 / Severe 2.1 Clearing 61 High Low road crossing. 13 775 / 905 / <300 ft. to channel, Terminals <0.1 Excavation 59 Moderate 6, 9, 12, 16 Low Severe <100 ft. to road. Subtotal (ac) 2.1 Mountain Coaster 775 / 905 / Crosses channel, Power Line <0.1 Excavation 29 Moderate 18 Low Severe road crossing. <50 ft. to channel, 3, 6, 9, 16, Terminal and Track 905 / Severe 2.7 Excavation 72 High Low road crossing. 27 Subtotal (ac) 2.8

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-10 (cont’d). Proposed action CDA table. Soil unit1 / Element Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation Max Proximity to Project Element Erosion Disturbance Intensity2 Sedimentation BMPs3 Sedimentation Slope Runoff Pathway Hazard Area (acres) Risk Risk Chair 5 Pod Lift Corridor Crosses channel, 3, 11, 12, 775 / Severe 0.1 Clearing 19 Moderate Low Clearing <700 ft. to road. 13 Adjacent to channel Power Line 775 / Severe 0.8 Excavation 45 Moderate 18 Low and road. Crosses channel, 3, 11, 12, Roads 775 / Severe 0.9 Grading 46 Moderate Low road crossing. 13, 15 3, 9, 10, 13, Crosses channel, Ski Run 775 / Severe 13.3 Grading 48 High 14, 17, 21, Moderate4 adjacent to road. 23, 25, 27 Crosses channel 9, 10, 12, Terminals 775 / Severe 1.0 Excavation 31 (lower terminal), High Low 16 >1,000 ft. to road. Adjacent to channel, Towers 775 / Severe 0.1 Excavation 27 Moderate 6, 8, 11, 12 Low <1,000 ft. to road. Lift 6 Grading for Adjacent to channel 775 / Severe 0.2 Grading 46 Moderate 10, 11 Low conveyor and road. Crosses channel, Lift 6 Power Line 775 / Severe <0.1 Excavation 11 Low 18 Low road crossing. Subtotal (ac) 16.45 Chair 8 Pod Lift Corridor <400 ft. to channel, 3, 11, 12, 775 / Severe 0.9 Clearing 53 Moderate Low Clearing >1,000 ft. to road. 13 Crosses channel, Power Line 775 / Severe 0.8 Excavation 48 Moderate 18 Low road crossing. Crosses channel, 3, 11, 12, Roads 775 / Severe 2.1 Grading 57 High Low <200 ft. to road. 13, 15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-10 (cont’d). Proposed action CDA table. Soil unit1 / Element Pre-Mitigation Post-Mitigation Max Proximity to Project Element Erosion Disturbance Intensity2 Sedimentation BMPs3 Sedimentation Slope Runoff Pathway Hazard Area (acres) Risk Risk Varies - channel and 3, 9, 10, 13, road crossing to > Ski Run 775 / Severe 57.4 Grading 84 High 14, 17, 21, Moderate4 1,000 ft. to channel 23, 25, 27 and roads. Crosses channel 9, 10, 12, Terminals 775 / Severe 1.0 Excavation 56 (lower terminal), High Low 16 >1,000 ft. to road. Varies – Adjacent to channel to >1,000 ft. Towers 775 / Severe 0.1 Excavation 47 Moderate 6, 8, 11, 12 Low to channel, >1,000 ft. to road. Subtotal (ac) 62.35 Total (ac) 129.85 1 Dominant soil type for an element; other types are present. More than one soil type is listed when both soil types contributed equal coverage to an element. 2 Intensity of disturbance is conservative; entire disturbance area for an element may not be subject to same intensity of disturbance (e.g., grading for ski runs would only take place as needed to obtain consistent surface slope). 3See Appendix B for definitions of these BMPs. 4 This is a pre-revegetation rating. Successful revegetation would result in a rating of low. 5 Value differs from value in Table 3-2 due to differences in category breakdown causing differences in rounding.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Elements with moderate risk ratings may include permanent, surface or subsurface crossings but have small disturbances (less than 1 acre) on slopes less than 50 percent (e.g., access road, utility lines and corridor clearing for the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods). As previously described, road crossings would be armored to prevent erosion. Utility lines would involve permanent subsurface crossings and all channels would be restored to original dimensions. Trees would be felled and skidded from lift corridors and all would be removed in lift corridor clearings. Any holes created by stump removal would be filled to prepare the area for installing lift towers and winter grooming. Elements with low risk ratings do not cross runoff pathways created by roads or channels. They typically have small disturbances and low–moderate slopes. Table 3-10 includes BMPs that address permanent channel crossings. These BMPs are designed to minimize the potential risk of erosion, ensure stability in channel crossings, and maintain proper function in channel segments above and below each crossing. In most cases, they would effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation risk ratings to low. Ski runs, with their large disturbance area and long channel intersections are the exception. Table 3-10 also identifies BMPs that would minimize or eliminate the potential for erosion and sediment for construction aspects other than stream crossings. Many of these are physical BMPs that manage runoff without the use of vegetation. Any revegetation that does occur under the proposed action would use an Forest Service approved seed mix. Some of the more important physical BMPs used include water bars, infiltration ditches, armoring points of water discharge, diverting upslope runoff away from ski runs, and proper installation and long-term maintenance of runoff control structures (including repair of new erosion damage). All construction activities must comply with federal, state and local codes related to construction disturbance and runoff from construction sites. With these mitigation measures in place, the erosion and sedimentation risk ratings for all elements of the proposed action would fall to low, with the exception of the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pod ski runs. The moderate ratings for these ski runs are based primarily on the current absence of an approved seed mix for revegetation. Once these runs were revegetated, they would pose a low sedimentation risk, but natural revegetation could take several years. The other elements of the proposed action would generate no substantial risk of erosion and sedimentation in, or downslope of, the project area. This conclusion is supported by past experience with implementing similar BMPs in the project area and at other locations on the SMNRA (Stantec 2008, Hooper 2017). 3.4.3.2.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt The proposed action would reduce the amount of forest landcover in the analysis area by approximately 109.7 acres or 15.6 percent (Table 3-9), primarily through the creation of additional ski runs in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods. The width of the Chair 5 pod runs would be approximately 100 feet, widening to up to 450 feet where they merge at the bottom. Width in the Chair 8 pod would be approximately 150 feet, widening to up to 500 feet where they merge. The predominant exposure of the areas that would be cleared for the ski runs would be northwest to northeast. In addition, approximately 23.4 acres would be gladed. The exposure in the glade areas would be predominantly northwest. Forest clearing under the proposed action would affect snow dynamics in varying, sometimes offsetting ways. Cleared areas would experience less snow loss through canopy interception and sublimation relative to their previous forested condition. However, snow in clearings could melt more quickly relative to snow under a forest canopy due to more exposure to incoming solar radiation, and could sublimate more quickly due to greater exposure to solar radiation, wind, and lower humidity. Snow accumulation would likely be greater in cleared areas. In high-snowfall years, differences in snow accumulation between open and cleared areas are expected to be less (Boon 2012). Areas near remaining tree stands would be exposed to increased longwave radiation from adjacent trees as well as increased shortwave radiation from the sky, particularly in areas with a southerly exposure.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

This effect would decrease as distance from trees increased. Increased longwave radiation would increase snowmelt along the edges of clearings. Glading would reduce snowfall interception by the canopy and increase the amount of snow reaching ground. Gladed areas might also be more susceptible to increased snowmelt due to increased longwave radiation from the trees, depending on site-specific conditions. On the other hand, as discussed above under Affected Environment, snowmelt on sites with warmer winter conditions (average daily temperature for the December–February period greater than 30° F) experience snowmelt more quickly under forest canopy because of the importance of longwave radiation from the trees in the energy budget. The temperature analysis for Lee Canyon based on data from the Lee Canyon SNOTEL site indicated that the average temperature for the December–February period is slightly above this threshold. This would suggest that snow would remain longer in cleared areas than under forest canopy. The difference in the snowmelt period would likely be limited to 1–2 weeks. Because of the mix of warmer and colder days, snowmelt behavior may shift from favoring forested areas to favoring open areas based on temperature and cloud patterns within a given year. The pattern could also shift from year to year, corresponding to warmer or cooler conditions and lower or higher snowfall amounts. In the big picture, the removal or glading of 92.7 acres of trees would represent an approximately 9 percent change in the forest cover for the ski area subwatershed. The small magnitude of this change would make effects on snowmelt patterns undetectable in the context of watershed behavior.

3.4.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative 3.4.3.3.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff This discussion focuses on impacts that are different from those of the proposed action. Peak runoff estimates associated with the BCT alternative are included in Table 3-11. Scenarios for the 2-year, 25- year, and 100-year storm events are listed in the first column. Peak runoff estimates for existing conditions, the proposed action and BCT alternative are shown to facilitate comparison.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-11. Peak runoff estimates (cfs) under the proposed action and BCT alternative in response to a 24-hour design storm. 1 Proposed Action BCT Alternative Current Conditions No Detention Basin (cfs)/ % Detention Basin Installed (cfs)/ No Detention Basin (cfs)/ % Detention Basin Installed (cfs)/ Change Relative to Existing % Change Relative to Existing Change Relative to Existing % Change Relative to Existing (cfs) Return interval No With Fully No With Fully No With Fully No With Fully No BMPs (depth BMPs BMPs Rehabilitated BMPs BMPs Rehabilitated BMPs BMPs rehabilitated BMPs BMPs Rehabilitated inches)

100-year 1,913/ 1,854/ 1,758/ 1,903/ 1,839/ 1,726/ 1,889/ 1,831/ 1,758/ 1,849/ 1,800/ 1,721/ storm 1,736 (7.3 in.) 10.2% 6.8% 1.3% 9.6% 5.9% -0.6% 8.8% 5.5% 1.3% 6.5% 3.7% -0.9%

25-year 1,162/ 1,126/ 1,054/ 1,150/ 1,111/ 1,026/ 1,145/ 1,108/ 1,048/ 1,113/ 1,093/ 1,023/ storm 1,030 (5.6 in.) 12.8% 9.2% 2.3% 11.7% 7.8% -0.4% 11.2% 7.6% 1.7% 8.1% 6.1% -0.7%

2-year 142/ 137/ 117/ 94/ 46/ 37/ 137/ 132/ 115/ 46/ 45/ 37/ storm 106 (2.6 in.) 34.0% 29.5% 10.6% -11.3% -56.7% -64.6% 29.2% 24.5% 8.5% 56.6% -57.5% -65.1%

1See JUB 2017 for additional detail.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The overall changes in landcover in the permit area would be less under the BCT alternative compared to the proposed action, reflecting primarily the reduction in the acreage of Chair 8 pod ski runs. This would equate to an across-the-board reduction in the net impact on runoff. Specifically, the BCT alternative would result in roughly the same increase in impervious surface from buildings and pavement (8.7 acres) and in hardened surfaces from roads and trails (6.5 acres). It would entail 75.9 acres of clearing forest and shrub landcover types for ski runs (14.7 fewer acres than the proposed action) and 28.5 acres of glading (5.5 more acres than the proposed action, Table 3-12).

Table 3-12. Landcover in the permit area under existing conditions, proposed action, and the BCT alternative. Landcover Type Existing Landcover (ac) Proposed Action (ac) BCT Alternative (ac) Brush 24.2 9.6 10.2 Building 0.3 0.7 0.6 Dirt Roads/Unpaved 4.9 11.1 11.4 Forested 702.0 592.3 600.9 Gladed 10.4 33.4 38.9 Paved 4.7 8.8 8.4 Ski Run 37.1 127.7 113.0 Water 1.3 1.3 1.3 Total (ac) 784.9 784.9 784.9

Notable results in modeled peak runoff estimates under the BCT alternative include: 1. Peak runoff estimates under the BCT alternative are generally 1–5 percent lower than the proposed action for any design storm (i.e. 100-year, 25-year, and 2-year storms) or modeled scenario (i.e., without BMPs, including BMPs, and fully rehabilitated). 2. Similar to the proposed action, greater differences in peak runoff occur between existing conditions and the BCT alternative for larger storm events. 3. Peak runoff from unmitigated conditions (i.e., without BMPs) would decrease for all storm events by 1–5 percent compared to the same scenario under the proposed action. These values are 9–29 percent above existing conditions. 4. Similar to the proposed action, use of physical BMPs would reduce peak runoff estimates under the BCT alternative by 3–5 percent relative to the unmitigated scenario. Peak runoff under the BCT alternative would be slightly less than the proposed action for this scenario (i.e., without BMPs) and 6–25 percent greater than existing conditions. 5. The same physical BMPs and mitigation measures would be applied to disturbed areas under the BCT alternative and the proposed action. 6. Under the BCT alternative, peak runoff from areas that are fully rehabilitated and drain to a detention basin would be marginally less (less than 1 percent) than estimates under the proposed action. In summary, the BCT alternative would not differ substantially from the proposed action in terms of stormwater runoff. Peak runoff would be 1–5 percent lower than the proposed action for any design storm

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I or modeled runoff scenario. The potential for stormwater runoff to cover the wellhead at Camp Lee Canyon would be slightly less. 3.4.3.3.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability This discussion of impacts on soil erosion and stability under the BCT alternative focuses on effects that are different from the proposed action. General conclusions regarding impacts on soil erosion and stability under the proposed action would apply under the BCT alternative, but the magnitude of such impacts would change somewhat. Total disturbance under the BCT alternative is 121.2 acres, 8.6 acres less than under the proposed action. Some elements are the same size under the BCT alternative and the proposed action but are located in different places on the mountain. Several elements are identical in regard to size and location under the BCT alternative and the proposed action but would have slightly different disturbance areas (i.e., bike trails, rental building, and Chair 5 ski runs). These minimal differences are the result of removing overlapping disturbance from different combinations of adjacent elements and do not represent actual differences in disturbance for each element. As described in section 2.4.2, elements that are different between the BCT alternative and the proposed action include glading, snowmaking, the zip line, the mountain coaster, and the Chair 8 pod. Disturbance totals for these elements are shown in Table 3-13. Soil types and disturbance intensity for each of these elements would be the same under the BCT alternative as the proposed action, with the exception of the mountain coaster building and track. Soil resources impacted by this element would change from the Mountmummy-Thesisters-Maryjane association to the Ladyofsnow-Robbersfire-Maryjane association. Both of these soil types have a severe erosion hazard. Under the BCT alternative, gladed areas would increase by about 5 acres in comparison to the proposed action. Clearing activities would increase by 0.4 acres for the zip line corridor and decrease 0.8 acres for the Chair 8 lift corridor, for a total increase of 1.2 acres. Similar to the proposed action, glading and clearing activities would result in minimal impacts on erosion as surface disturbance would be limited to stump removal and skidding of trees. Grading impacts include an increase of 0.1 acres for access roads and a decrease of 13.9 acres for ski runs, both for the Chair 8 pod, for a net reduction of 13.8 acres. Excavation increases under the BCT alternative include snowmaking trenches (1.0 acre), mountain coaster (less than 0.1 acre), and Chair 8 power line trench (0.2 acre) and access roads (0.1 acres). These excavation increases would be offset by decreases including mountain coaster building and track (0.8 acre) and chair 8 lift corridor clearing (0.8 acre) for a net decrease 0.3 acre. Overall, the BCT alternative would result in 9.5 fewer acres of disturbance. Maximum slope would remain the same or decrease for most elements of the BCT alternative, resulting in the same or decreased erosion risk. Three elements would have minimum slope increase (i.e., 10 percent or less) compared to the proposed action, including snowmaking trenches, zip line corridor clearing, and Chair 8 access roads. Two elements, including the snowmaking pump house and power lines to the Chair 8 pod, would have increased slopes of 16 and 14 percent, respectively. The BMPs described below would minimize or eliminate the increased risk for these elements. Some elements of the BCT alternative entail a road or stream crossing that would not occur under the proposed action. These include permanent crossings for the snowmaking trenches, Chair 8 access roads, and the mountain coaster building and track. Impacts of these developments would be identical to the proposed action in regard to design and risk of erosion. Other elements of the BCT alternative would no longer include a road or stream crossing due to a change in location or a smaller disturbance size. These include glading and the Chair 8 power line trench. Changes in the number and location of channel or road crossings between the proposed action and the BCT alternative would result in minor changes in the overall impacts on soil erosion and stability. The same BMPs noted under the proposed action would be applied to minimize the potential risk of erosion, ensure stability in channel crossings, and maintain proper function in channel segments above and below each crossing.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Under the BCT alternative, the pre-mitigation risk rating for the Chair 8 power line would increase from moderate to high due to increased slope and a slightly larger disturbance area. The pre-mitigation rating for two other elements of the BCT alternative would decrease from moderate to low, including zip line terminals and Chair 8 corridor clearing due to a decreased slope, compared to the proposed action. The same BMPs applied under the proposed action would minimize or eliminate the potential for erosion and sediment for construction aspects other than stream crossings. Similar to the proposed action BMPs under the BCT alternative would primarily include physical BMPs. Some of the more important physical BMPs used would include water bars, infiltration ditches, armoring points of water discharge, diverting upslope runoff away from ski runs, and proper installation and long-term maintenance of runoff control structures (including repair of new erosion damage). All construction activities must comply with federal, state and local codes related to construction disturbance and runoff from construction sites. Appendix B includes a full list of BMPs. With these mitigation measures in place, the erosion and sedimentation risk ratings for all elements of the BCT alternative would fall to low, as under the proposed action. In particular, the decreased disturbance for developing the Chair 8 pod ski runs would produce less erosion risk under the BCT alternative. Overall, the BCT alternative would generate no substantial erosion or sedimentation impacts in, or downstream of, the project area. This conclusion is supported by past experience with implementing similar BMPs in the project area and at other locations on the SMNRA (Stantec 2008, Hooper 2017). 3.4.3.3.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt Under the BCT alternative, clearing for new ski trails would be reduced to 78.1 acres, while glading would be increased to 28.9 acres. The effects on snow dynamics of the BCT alternative would be similar to the proposed action, though fewer trees would be removed. Overall, the small magnitude of this change would make effects on snowmelt patterns undetectable in the context of watershed behavior.

3.4.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. The Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction, Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction, Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Treatment, and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects meet the spatial and temporal overlap requirements. A brief summary of these projects is provided above in section 3.3.

3.4.4.1 Issue 1 – Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff generated from the cumulative actions listed in section 3.3 has the potential to interact cumulatively with stormwater runoff from the proposed action or the BCT alternative. Improvements to the Foxtail, Dolomite, McWilliams, and Old Mill recreation sites included installation and upgrades to existing hardened surfaces (i.e., roads, parking lots, trails, etc.). The Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects did not and will not create additional hardened surfaces and use BMPs to maintain water infiltration and existing runoff patterns. Although any increase in hardened surfaces will subsequently decrease infiltration and increase stormwater runoff, BMPs that disperse water can be used in developed areas to reduce overall stormwater volume and peak runoff. Some of the BMPs used to mitigate runoff impacts included low-water crossings, rolling dips, and lack of curbs and speed bumps that concentrate runoff from paved surfaces.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-13. BCT alternative CDA table (only elements that would change from the proposed action). Post- Element Pre-Mitigation Soil unit1 / Max Proximity to Mitigation Name and Element Disturbance Intensity2 Sedimentation BMPs3 Erosion Hazard Slope Runoff Pathway Sedimentation Area (acres) Risk Risk <50 ft. to channel Glading 775 / Severe 28.9 Glading 70 High 8, 11, 13 Low and road. Snowmaking <100 ft. to Pumphouse 775 / Severe 0.3 Excavation 55 channel, >1,000 Moderate 6, 9, 20 Low ft. to road. Crosses channel, Trench 775 / Severe 6.7 Excavation 67 High 10, 18 Low road crossing. Subtotal (ac) 7.0 Zip Line Crosses channel, 3, 11, 12, Corridor Clearing 775 / Severe 2.5 Clearing 62 High Low road crossing. 13 <100 ft. to 6, 9, 12, Terminals 775 / 905 / Severe <0.1 Excavation 30 channel, <50 ft. Low Low 16 to road. Subtotal (ac) 2.5 Mountain Coaster Crosses channel, Power Line 775 / Severe 0.1 Excavation 13 Moderate 18 Low < 50 ft. to road. Crosses channel, 3, 6, 9, Terminal and Track 775 / Severe 1.9 Excavation 45 High Low <200 ft. to road. 16, 27

Subtotal (ac) 2.0

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-13(cont’d). BCT alternative CDA table (only elements that would change from the proposed action). Pre- Post- Element Soil unit1 / Max Proximity to Mitigation Mitigation Name and Element Disturbance Intensity2 BMPs3 Erosion Hazard Slope Runoff Pathway Sedimentati Sedimentation Area (acres) on Risk Risk Chair 8 Pod <300 ft. to channel, 3, 11, 12, Lift Corridor Clearing 775 / Severe 0.1 Clearing 33 Low Low >1,000 ft. to road. 13 Adjacent to channel, Power Line 775 / Severe 1.0 Excavation 62 High 18 Low road crossing. Crosses channel, 3, 11, 12, Roads 775 / Severe 2.2 Grading 65 High Low road crossing. 13, 15 Varies - channel and 3, 9, 10, road crossing to > 13, 14, Ski Run 775 / Severe 43.5 Grading 84 High Moderate4 1,000 ft. to channel 17, 21, and roads. 23, 25, 27 <150 ft. to channel, 9, 10, 12, Terminals 775 / Severe 1.0 Excavation 52 High Low >1,000 ft. to road. 16 Varies - < 300 ft. to 6, 8, 11, Towers 775 / Severe 0.1 Excavation 43 >1,000 ft. to channel, Moderate Low 12 >1,000 ft. to road. Subtotal (ac) 47.8 Total (ac) 121.25 1 Dominant soil type for an element; other types are present. More than one soil type is listed when both soil types contributed equal coverage to an element. 2 Intensity of disturbance is conservative and some areas of many elements would not be disturbed (e.g. grading for ski runs would take place as needed to obtain consistent surface slope). 3See Appendix B for definitions of these BMPs. 4This is a pre-revegetation rating. Successful revegetation would result in a rating of low. 5 Value differs from value in Table 3-2 due to differences in category breakdown causing differences in rounding.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Although the cumulative actions in section 3.3 created a small, local increase in total paved area, the BMPs used created an overall reduction in peak runoff in Lee Canyon. This reduction would be cumulative with the peak runoff levels described above for the proposed action and BCT alternatives, resulting in slightly lower peak flows below the recreation sites than would have been expected had the cumulative action projects not been completed.

3.4.4.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion and Stability In regard to soil erosion and stability, the cumulative actions in section 3.3 created increased erosion potential and scour of surface fines during demolition or construction phases at recreations sites. This potential lasted for approximately 1–3 years from the start of disturbance and steadily decreased during that time due to leaf litter fall and vegetation re-growth. To the extent that culvert crossings were replaced with wide, low-water crossings, the potential for channel erosion and sediment loading also decreased. Runoff and sediment transport from treatment areas in the Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects were and will be affected locally. Some increased surface runoff and erosion may occur where mineral soils were exposed following fire and mastication treatments. These impacts are short-term as needles dropped from overlaying conifer stands were spread on the ground and reduced the chance of surface runoff. The proposed action and the BCT alternative will also create potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, and a loss of stability. The risk of erosion potential under each alternative would be minimized through the use of appropriate BMPs that reduce erosion, disconnect disturbed areas from erosion pathways, and minimize impacts for each project element. The risk of soil erosion is greatest when surfaces are recently disturbed and unprotected from raindrop impact and other erosive forces that can detach and transport fine soil particles. This is a short-term risk, and the cumulative effect is dependent on the timing of construction. The cumulative actions in section 3.3 have been implemented, so the short-term risk is primarily absent and would not be cumulative with the short-term risk of soil erosion under the proposed action and BCT alternative. Long-term risks of soil erosion could be cumulative, depending on the success of BMPs. At this time, the use of BMPs has been successful for each action in section 3.3 and would not combine in a cumulative way with the proposed action or BCT alternative to adversely affect soil erosion and stability.

3.4.4.3 Issue 3 – Snow Accumulation and Snowmelt The cumulative actions in section 3.3 associated with recreation sites have limited potential for influencing snow accumulation and snowmelt. Vegetation patterns were adjusted slightly to accommodate the design of campsites and upgrade existing sites. The influence of these slight changes on snow accumulation and snowmelt would be minimal. The Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects treated, or will treat, vegetation with prescribed burning, hand thinning, and mastication. These activities reduce the number of trees/acre and created a mosaic of vegetation, which could lead to some increase in snow accumulation. Some of these areas are found at lower elevations than the permit area and receive less precipitation in the form of snow. Some treatment areas are located in a different watershed and do not flow into Lee Canyon. The proposed action and BCT alternative would remove or glade about 93 acres of the permit area where proposed ski runs are located and other smaller areas where ski lifts, buildings, trails, etc. are proposed. Similar to vegetation treatment, cleared areas would likely see an increase in snow accumulation but snowmelt in clearings could occur more rapidly compared to areas with full cover, due to increased exposure to incoming solar radiation. The proposed action and BCT alternative would contribute in a cumulative way to the effect of the Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Treatment project on snow accumulation and snowmelt. However, the impact

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I of these activities on a watershed level would be minimal due to the level of natural variation that occurs on a watershed level.

3.4.5 MITIGATION These mitigation measures include practices from Lee Canyons Master Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Stantec 2008), Nevada BMP handbooks and field guides (Nevada Conservation Commission 1994, Nevada DEP 2008), Ski Area BMPs (Forest Service 2001) and Forest Service National Core BMPs (Forest Service 2012a). Some practices are not specifically referenced in Tables 3-10 and 3-13 and generally apply to most of the proposed elements. Pre-Construction 1. Conduct appropriate soil and water studies, including modeling, to support design of runoff and erosion control structures. Provide documentation to justify the design life. 2. Develop engineering drawings for each runoff and erosion control structure described in a project plan. Include plan and profile views of structures as appropriate. 3. Comply with all federal, state and local codes related to construction disturbance and runoff from construction sites. As required, develop and implement an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed areas, including borrow, stockpile, skid trails, roads, or any areas disturbed by development activities. 4. Design and locate parking, staging, and stockpiling areas of appropriate size and configuration to accommodate expected vehicles and avoid or minimize adverse effects to adjacent soil, water quality, and riparian resources. 5. Coordinate all phases of sanitation system management (planning, design, field surveys and testing, installation, inspection, operation, and maintenance) with appropriate agencies to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 6. Locate ski area facilities (including buildings, runs, and lifts) on stable geology and soils to minimize risk of slope failures. 7. Develop an erosion structure maintenance schedule showing structures needing annual maintenance and those where non-recurring maintenance is expected. Display hand-crew or machine maintenance if appropriate. 8. Plan projects to minimize re-entry after the site is stabilized. Construction 9. Limit the amount of exposed or disturbed soil at any one time to the minimum necessary. Define outer boundaries of disturbance with markers. Install sediment and stormwater controls prior to disturbance where practicable. 10. When topsoil is present or can be salvaged, remove and stockpile with appropriate cover and erosion control methods. Consult Forest Service soil scientist for determination of presence of viable top soil. Revegetation specifications and seed mixes must be approved by the Forest Service. 11. Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments. 12. Confine all light vehicle traffic, parking, staging, and stockpiling materials to designated areas to minimize ground disturbance. Heavy equipment (e.g. feller buncher, dozer, etc.) will be used but also rely on helicopters to deliver lift towers and place equipment.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

13. Consider over the snow removal of large trees when conditions allow. Small trees, branches and other small residue created during clearing or glading activity will be chipped, mulched, burned, or moved off site. Avoid damage to remaining trees and root systems adjacent to cut slopes and cleared areas. 14. Prevent water from running down ski run prism particularly on steep grades (20 to 40 percent) and from accumulating on gentle slopes (0 to 30 percent). Water bar spacing will account for slope as follows:

Slope (%) Spacing (feet) 2% 250 5% 150 10–30% 100 >30% 75

15. Prevent water from running down roads and trails using water bars and rolling dips with a cross- slope of 2 to 5 percent. Minimize cross slopes in areas where infiltration is a possible method to reduce runoff. Water bars, rolling dips and culverts will be inspected and repaired on a weekly basis during construction. Ruts will be repaired immediately. 16. Infiltration trenches shall be installed to intercept runoff from loading and unloading areas for ski lifts, zip lines, mountain coasters and any outdoor locations where people will gather. Where soil conditions permit (i.e. areas where soils are not cobbly or rocky) use erosion control mat to protect any cut and fill areas associated with these locations. 17. Construct modified water bars across existing ski slopes to prevent the concentration of water flow, act as micro-infiltration ditches and divert runoff to undisturbed terrain. Where feasible, use a horseshoe design concept for waterbars and ditches with the tailing off ends of the structures at a 5 to 7 percent slope into the naturally vegetated areas. 18. Whenever possible, place excavated material on the uphill side of trenches and water bars. Manage material placement to avoid trapping or concentrating water flow during construction. Fill trenches with a 2 inch surcharge / berm to allow for settlement. Construct water bars over trenched areas as in ski runs. 19. Use correctly installed silt fence or straw wattle to prevent sediment from entering existing drainage channels, for projects within 50 feet of existing channels. 20. Use a lined ditch to transport water away from structures or areas where standard mitigation strategies are not possible due to slope. 21. Use diversions ditches as needed to divert water away from ski run segments where both sides of the run slope inward and prevent discharge from modified water bars. A mid-slope diversion ditch may also be necessary to move runoff away from the ski run. 22. Protect any point of water discharge (e.g. trenches, ditches, water bars) with rip-rap or other methods to slow water velocity and disperse runoff. Post Construction Restoration/Maintenance 23. Fill material for storm damage repair will be sourced from areas that collect sediment after storms. Essentially, material eroded off slopes will be collected and replaced. 24. Ensure that permit holder-owned and other authorized drinking water systems on NFS lands are operated and maintained according to direction in FSM 7423.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

25. Consider amending soil with mulch (e.g. wood chips), compost, mycorrhizal fungi inoculants and other products to provide added nutrients, promote revegetation success, and to increase infiltration. Utilize irrigation where possible. 26. Use and maintain surfacing materials suitable to the trail site and use to withstand traffic and minimize runoff and erosion. Pay attention to areas where high wheel slip (curves, acceleration, and braking) during motorized use generates loose soil material. 27. Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas and waterways before seasonal shutdown of project operations or when severe or successive storms are expected. 28. Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable. 29. Use and maintain suitable measures to collect and contain oil and grease in larger parking lots with high use and where drainage discharges directly to channels. 3.5 VEGETATION

3.5.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue 1 – Special-Status Species: The SMNRA is a unique ecosystem, and the permit area includes habitat for a number of special-status species, including Forest Service sensitive species and management indicator species (MIS), Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement species of concern (CA species), and species covered in the MSHCP. There are no federally listed plant species at Lee Canyon ski area, nor is there any habitat for federally listed plant species. Development and subsequent use of the proposed infrastructure would result in temporary habitat disruption during construction, permanent habitat conversion, and increased levels of human activity year round. These changes may affect special-status plant species or their habitats. Indicator: Species-specific determinations of potential individual- and population-level impacts, based primarily on surveys, published information on the species’ distribution and population status, and the efficacy of design criteria and proposed mitigation. These determinations are based on the laws, regulations, and policies regarding management of each category of species. Issue 2 – Invasive Species: Noxious and non-native invasive species pose an ongoing threat to the permit- area’s ecosystem. Construction-related soil disturbance would create habitat conditions favorable to many such species, and construction equipment could introduce their seeds. Use of hiking and biking trails could also introduce seeds and spread established infestations. As a result, these activities may affect the introduction and spread of these undesirable plant species. Indicator: Assessment of the current invasive species scenario in the permit area and analysis of the efficacy of design criteria in place and proposed mitigation. Compliance with applicable County regulations will provide an assessment criterion.

3.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Lee Canyon ski area is located at the upper extent of Lee Canyon in the Spring Mountains. The elevation ranges from approximately 8,540 feet in the lower parking lot to 11,290 feet at the summit of Lee Peak, though the upper elevation of the survey area for this analysis is approximately 9,700 feet. The area consists of alpine and montane forest and meadow communities. Due to both natural variation and previous resort development, the habitats are relatively segmented on the east side of the ski area. For example, the forest communities are divided by avalanche chutes, rock outcroppings, talus slopes, and cliff areas, especially at higher elevations. Ski runs and roads have further segmented forests. As a result, forest stands occur as islands or patches rather than large contiguous blocks. The forest is less divided on the west side of the ski area, though avalanche chutes and drainages are still present. The ground cover

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I varies across the disturbance area, but averages approximately 30 percent vegetation, 10 percent litter or duff, 15 percent bare ground, 35 percent gravel, and 10 percent rock. Within the ski area, the forested habitat is a mix of pine and fir species. At lower elevations and on south- facing slopes, the dominant tree species are ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with a component of white fir (Abies concolor). At higher elevations, ponderosa pine transitions to limber pine (Pinus flexilis) and bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva). Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) are also present adjacent to ski runs, in avalanche scars, and as a minor component of the evergreen stands lower on the slope. The understory vegetation consists of a mixture of shrubs, forbs and grasses dominated by common juniper (Juniperus communis), gooseberry currant (Ribes montigenum), Nuttall’s linanthus (Leptosiphon nuttallii ssp. pubescens), sharpleaf valerian (Valeriana acutiloba), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and bluegrass (Poa sp.). The meadow communities largely correspond to ski runs, some of which were replanted with a seed mix that includes introduced species, while others were not replanted and support more native species. The replanted ski runs are dominated by a mix of alfalfa (Medicago sativa), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium). The ski runs that were not replanted dominated by Nuttall’s linanthus, Clokey thistle (Cirsium clokeyi), and bottlebrush squirreltail. Herbaceous plant species appear to be more common in man-made or naturally-occurring clearings such as ski runs and avalanche scars or in relatively open forest stands, than they are in forested stands with closed canopies. The herbaceous species support a large number of pollinator species (i.e., insects, birds, and bats). The effect of this project on pollinators is discussed in section 3.13.7. As a result of the combination of the ground cover, steepness of the slope, erosivity of the soil (section 3.4.1), and the intensity of summer precipitation events, special-status plants growing in exposed sites are vulnerable to disturbance and soil erosion. Ongoing feral horse grazing and deer browsing also pose threats to special-status plants, primarily to those growing on ski runs and other open areas. Dispersed, off-trail hiking by summer recreationists has impacted special-status plants in the past (Flores et al. 2007). Fencing and signs have been placed near the BCT to curtail hiking in sensitive areas and encourage recreationists to remain on established trails.

3.5.2.1 Special-Status Species Portions of the ski area have been surveyed previously for special-status plants in conjunction with previous ski area-related projects, vegetation monitoring, and conservation efforts (NewFields 2006a, NewFields 2006b, NewFields 2007, Flores et al. 2007, Betzler 2009, Brickey 2012a, Brickey 2012b). Though not reviewed in this EIS in detail, the results of earlier surveys are incorporated into the description of the affected environment. The Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) maintains a geodatabase of the occurrences of rare plants across the state, which was also consulted for this analysis. An initial screening process was employed to determine which special-status plant species were most likely to occur in the project area, based on previous survey results and habitat requirements. Species were eliminated from further analysis at that point if the disturbance area is outside of known distribution of the species, so no potential habitat would be affected. The species list resulting from that initial screening – i.e., those which could have potential habitat in the disturbance area based on published information – was the focus of pedestrian surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017. The survey area included the footprint of projects associated with the proposed action and BCT alternative, plus a disturbance buffer, plus an additional buffer as a conservative measure. The survey area is therefore different from the disturbance area, which refers only to the element footprint and the disturbance buffer. The results of previous surveys and the 2016 and 2017 surveys completed for this analysis established the list of special-status plants actually occurring in the survey area and potentially affected by the proposed action and alternatives. Table 3-14 shows the results of the initial screening and subsequent surveys. It identifies the 13 species carried into detailed analysis and the 27 that are not.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-14. Special-status plant species1 occurring or suspected to occur on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and their level of analysis for this project. Status and Carried into Species Comments4,5 Rank2,3 Detailed Analysis? Rough angelica R4, MIS, CA, No Limited potential habitat exists near (Angelica scabrida) MSHCP springs, but there are no documented G1/G2, S2 occurrences in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and it was not observed during the pedestrian surveys. Charleston pussytoes R4, CA, No Species is known to occur in avalanche (Antennaria soliceps) MSHCP chutes and on the ridgeline upslope of G1/G2, S1/S2 the disturbance area (NNHP 2016). A group of plants was also observed near the BCT in 2003 but has not been relocated since. It was not observed during pedestrian surveys. White bearpoppy MSHCP G3, No Suitable habitat includes dry to moist (Arctomecon merriamii) S3 soils including alkaline clay and sand, gypsum, calcareous alluvial gravels, and carbonate rock outcrops at 2,000 to 6,280 feet in elevation. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. King’s rosy sandwort R4, CA, Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Arenaria kingii ssp. rosea = MSHCP area. Species was observed during field Eremogone kingii var. GNR, SNR surveys. glabrescens) Clokey’s milkvetch R4, CA, No Suitable habitat includes calcareous (Astragalus aequalis) MSHCP gravelly flats, hillsides, and open ridges G2, S2 beneath the canopies of sagebrush, pines, Gambel oak, Utah juniper or curl- leaf mountain mahogany at elevations between 5,970 and 8,400 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Halfring milkvetch CA No Suitable habitat includes carbonate (Astragalus mohavensis var. G3/G4, S2S3 gravels and soils on terraced hills, hemigyrus) ledges, open slopes, and along stream washes in creosote-bursage, blackbrush, and mixed-shrub communities at elevations between 3,000 and 5,600 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Clokey’s eggvetch R4, CA, Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Astragalus oophorus var. MSHCP area. Species observed during field clokeyanus) G4, S2 surveys.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-14(cont’d). Special-status plant species1 occurring or suspected to occur on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and their level of analysis for this project. Status and Carried into Species Comments4,5 Rank2,3 Detailed Analysis? Spring Mountains milkvetch R4, CA, No Suitable habitat includes rocky, gravelly, (Astragalus remotus) MSHCP and sandy calcareous soils in washes and G2, S2 drainages, or on hillslopes and rocky ledges of desert shrub communities at 3,400 to 7,050 feet in elevation. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Spring Mountains rockcress R4 No Habitat is present in clearings in the (Boechera nevadensis) G1, S1 disturbance area, especially on the south- and east-facing slopes near the BCT, but species is not known to exist in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Upswept moonwort R4, CA No The Three Springs area upslope of the (Botrychium ascendens) G3, S1 Sherwood lift is the most suitable habitat in the disturbance area, but species is not known to exist in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Dainty moonwort R4, CA Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Botrychium crenulatum) G3, S1? area. Species observed during field surveys. Slender moonwort R4 No Potential habitat occurs in disturbance (Botrychium lineare) G3, SNR area, but species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Moosewort R4 No There is potential habitat in sparsely- (Botrychium tunux) G3/G4, S1 vegetated open areas that correspond to ski runs and avalanche chutes, but species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Clokey’s paintbrush MIS, MSHCP Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Castilleja applegatei var. G3, S3 area. Species observed during field martini = C. martini var. surveys. clokeyi) Clokey’s thistle CA, MSHCP Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Cirsium clokeyi = C. eatonii G2, S2/S3 area. Species observed during field var. clokeyi) surveys.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-14(cont’d). Special-status plant species1 occurring or suspected to occur on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and their level of analysis for this project. Status and Carried into Species Comments4,5 Rank2,3 Detailed Analysis? Wasatch draba R4 No Disturbance area contains avalanche (Draba brachystylis) G1/G2, S1 chutes and drainages that are suitable habitat, primarily on north-facing slopes, but species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016), and was not observed during the pedestrian surveys. Jaeger’s draba R4, MIS, CA, No Disturbance area has areas of potential (Draba jaegeri) MSHCP habitat, primarily in the small clearings G2, S2 to the south of the base area, and a population was observed in the disturbance area in 1976. That population has not been relocated since (NNHP 2016). No plants were observed during the pedestrian surveys. Charleston Mountain draba R4, CA, No Suitable habitat exists within the (Draba paucifructa) MSHCP disturbance area, especially on the rock G1/G2, S1/S2 ledges and in drainages and avalanche chutes on the north-facing slopes. The species is known to occur on the hillslope and ridgeline above the disturbance area but not within the ski area (NNHP 2016). It was not observed during the pedestrian surveys. Nevada willowherb R4, CA No Potential habitat in the disturbance area (Epilobium nevadense) G3, S2 is located near the BCT, extending upslope to the ridgeline, but species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during the pedestrian surveys. Charleston Mountain goldenbush R4 Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Ericameria compacta) G2?, S2? area. Species observed during field surveys. Inch high fleabane MSHCP Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Erigeron uncialis ssp. G3/G4, S3? area. Species observed during field conjugans) surveys. Clokey’s buckwheat R4 No Suitable habitat includes carbonate (Eriogonum heermannii var. G5, S2 outcrops, talus, scree, and gravelly clokeyi) washes in creosote, shadscale, and blackbrush communities at elevations of 4,000 to 6,000 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

to occur in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during the pedestrian surveys. Smooth pungent greasebush R4, CA, No Suitable habitat includes crevices of (Glossopetalon pungens var. MSHCP carbonate cliffs and outcrops, avoiding glabra = G. p. var. glabrum = G. G2/G3, S2/S3 southerly exposures, in pinyon-juniper p. var. pungens) and montane conifer forests, and in mountain mahogany communities at elevations from 6,000 to 7,800 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Lemmon’s rubberweed MIS No The species is not known to occur in the (Hymenoxys lemmonii) G4, SNR vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Hidden ivesia R4, CA, No Suitable habitat includes moist to dry (Ivesia cryptocaulis) MSHCP carbonate scree, talus, outcrops, and G2, S2 gravelly soils on steep slopes, ridges and alpine flats in upper subalpine conifer

forests or alpine communities at elevations between 10,890 and 11,915 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Jaeger’s ivesia R4, MIS, CA, No Previous surveys documented (Ivesia jaegeri) MSHCP populations on the ridgeline south of the G2/G3, S2/S3 ski area, above the disturbance area (NNHP 2016), but the species was not observed during the pedestrian surveys. Hitchcock’s bladderpod R4, MSHCP Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Lesquerella hitchcockii = G3, SNR area. Species observed during field Physaria hitchcockii var. surveys. hitchcockii) Charleston pinewood lousewort MSHCP G4, Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Pedicularis semibarbata var. S3 area. Species observed during field charlestonensis) surveys.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-14(cont’d). Special-status plant species1 occurring or suspected to occur on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and their level of analysis for this project. Status and Carried into Species Comments4,5 Rank2,3 Detailed Analysis? Death Valley beardtongue CA No Suitable habitat includes sandy or (Penstemon fruticiformis ssp. G4, S2 gravelly washes within the Mojave amargosae) Desert scrub communities and pinyon- juniper woodlands at elevations between 3,100 and 6,332. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Charleston beardtongue R4, CA, Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Penstemon leiophyllus var. MSHCP area. Species observed during field keckii) G3, S2 surveys. Jaeger’s beardtongue R4, MSHCP No Suitable habitat is present in the majority (Penstemon thompsoniae ssp. G4, S2 of the disturbance area, but the species is jaegeri) not known to occur in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016) and was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Quaking aspen MIS Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Populus tremuloides) G5, SNR area. Species observed during field surveys. Golden currant MIS No Suitable habitat includes stream banks, (Ribes aureum) G5, SNR often including willow thickets at elevations between 6,000 and 8,000 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Clokey’s mountain sage CA, MSHCP Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Salvia dorrii var. clokeyi) G5, S3 area. Species observed during field surveys. Clokey’s catchfly R4, CA, No Suitable habitat includes dry to moist (Silene clokeyi) MSHCP carbonate scree, talus, and loose rocky G2, S2 soils on ridges, flats, and steep slopes, often near persistent snowbanks in open

areas in the upper subalpine and lower alpine zone at elevations between 9,940 and 11,580 feet. Disturbance area is outside of known distribution. Charleston tansy R4, CA, No Several associated species are present in (Sphaeromeria compacta) MSHCP the upper portion of the disturbance area, G2, S2 and occurrences have been recorded on the hillslope and ridgeline upslope of the disturbance area, along the south boundary of the ski area (NNHP 2016). The species was not observed during pedestrian surveys.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-14(cont’d). Special-status plant species1 occurring or suspected to occur on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and their level of analysis for this project. Status and Carried into Species Comments4,5 Rank2,3 Detailed Analysis? Charleston Mountain kittentails R4, CA, No Associated species occur in the (Synthyris ranunculina) MSHCP disturbance area, including adjacent to G2, S2/S3 Three Springs, and this species has been documented in avalanche chutes upslope of the disturbance area (NNHP 2016). The species was not observed during pedestrian surveys. Charleston ground-daisy R4, CA, Yes Suitable habitat exists in the disturbance (Townsendia jonesii var. MSHCP area. Species observed during field tumulosa) G4, S3 surveys. Charleston violet R4, MSHCP No Suitable habitat is present in the (Viola charlestonensis) G3, S2/S3 disturbance area, and a single population approximately 600 feet northeast of the ski area has been recorded (NNHP 2016). No Charleston violet was observed during pedestrian surveys. 1Special-status plants include those species identified as Forest Service sensitive, Forest Service management indicator species, Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement species of concern, and Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan covered species. 2Status: R4 = Region 4 Sensitive, MIS = management indicator species, CA = Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement species of concern, MSHCP = Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan covered species 3Conservation rank: G = global, S = state. 1 = critically imperiled, 2 = imperiled, 3 = vulnerable, 4 = apparently secure, 5 = secure, NR = not ranked. 4Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Available online at: http://heritage.nv.gov/atlas 5NatureServe Explorer. Available online at: http://explorer.natureserve.org

Note that when a species is listed in more than one status category, discussion of that species in this analysis is found under the most restrictive category. For example, Clokey’s eggvetch (Astragalus oophorus var. clokeyanus) is a Forest Service sensitive species, a CA species of concern, and a species covered by the Clark County MSHCP, so detailed discussion of this species is found in the sensitive species section of this analysis. 3.5.2.1.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species As mentioned above, there are no known occurrences of, or potential habitat for, federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species within the survey area. Federally listed species would not be affected by the proposed action or alternatives, and are not addressed further in this document. 3.5.2.1.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species A biological evaluation (BE) was also prepared for this project (Forest Service 2018b). The BE includes copies of pedestrian survey report forms. This document assessed the presence of Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species in the survey area and analyzed potential impacts on these species from project-related activities. A total of 29 Forest Service sensitive species are known or suspected to occur on the SMNRA (Table 3-14). Potential suitable habitat is present in the survey area for 23 of the 29 sensitive species. However, only seven sensitive species have been documented in the survey area,

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I including during the 2016 and 2017 pedestrian surveys. Those seven species are addressed further below. The 16 sensitive species for which there is no potential suitable habitat within the survey area would not be affected by the proposed action or alternatives, and are not addressed further in this analysis.

King’s Rosy Sandwort King’s rosy sandwort is a small wildflower with linear, grass-like leaves. It is endemic to the Spring Mountains and is known from Deer Creek, Lee, and Kyle canyons (Glenne and Johnson 2002). It occurs in dry, shallow, gravelly or rocky carbonate soils on wooded slopes and ridges in the upper pinyon- juniper, montane coniferous forest, and lower subalpine coniferous forest zones at elevations from 6,560 to 9,550 feet (NNHP 2001). It has been documented previously in the disturbance area (NewFields 2006a, Flores et al. 2007, NNHP 2016). In 2016, a total of 14 subpopulations were observed during the pedestrian survey. The subpopulations are found in relatively open ponderosa pine and white fir stands in the northern portion of the survey area, and on the Blackjack ski run. Collectively, the subpopulations are present on 12.0 acres of the survey area. Additional areas of potential habitat are present, but not occupied.

Clokey’s Eggvetch Clokey’s eggvetch is a perennial wildflower in the pea family with magenta flowers and speckled seedpods. It is considered to be endemic to the Spring Mountains and is known from Lee Canyon, Wheeler Pass, Willow Peak, Bonanza Trail above Cold Creek area, and Carpenter Canyon (Glenne and Johnson 2002). There is an ongoing debate as to whether the occurrence discovered in Nye County was correctly identified. Clokey’s eggvetch inhabits dry to slightly moist open sites, or drainages on gravelly soil derived from either limestone or rhyolitic volcanic parent material. It is often found growing either in the open or beneath the canopy of shrubs in ponderosa pine forests, in pinyon-juniper woodlands, or in old burned areas that have Gambel oak trees between elevations of 5,400 and 8,990 feet (NNHP 2001). Clokey’s eggvetch occurs at Lee Canyon and has been monitored for more than 20 years. The number of individuals in the largest population has fluctuated in that time from a low of 315 plants (2016) to a high of 3,140 (2007), with an average of 1,615. The extent of the population has also varied, from 1.9 acres (2001) to 11.1 acres (2005), with an average of 4.3 acres (Anderson 2008, Crum et al. 2012). The fluctuations in the number of individuals and the amount of occupied habitat do not correlate with annual precipitation, indicating that some other unknown factor is likely affecting the subpopulations. A second, smaller subpopulation was observed in 2012 and re-visited in 2016. The number of plants observed decreased from 52 in 2012 to 42 in 2016. Three new subpopulations were observed in 2016 that had a combined 15 plants. These subpopulations are all located on or adjacent to ski runs. There were a total of 4.8 acres of occupied Clokey’s eggvetch habitat in 2016 in the survey area.

Dainty Moonwort Dainty moonwort is a small, perennial fern with a single frond that grows above ground. It is known from the western U.S. and a number of counties in Nevada. Dainty moonwort is an aquatic or wetland dependent species (NNHP 2001), though it is also found occasionally in wet roadside swales, ditches, and other drainage ways that are partially to fully shaded (NatureServe 2017). It has also been discovered in a sedge community along a dry ridgeline (Glenne and Johnson 2002). A single population is known to occur on the hillslope south of the disturbance area, but still within the ski area (NNHP 2016). A second small population with three plants was observed during pedestrian surveys at the bottom of a steep ephemeral channel, in an accumulation of pine needles inside the disturbance area. This subpopulation covered approximately 28 square feet.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Charleston Mountain Goldenbush Charleston Mountain goldenbush is a compact, woody shrub, with dense foliage and yellow disc flowers. It is endemic to the Spring Mountains between Charleston and Griffith peaks, and the Sheep Mountains to the east (Glenne and Johnson 2002). It grows on forested carbonate slopes and adjacent ridges and low outcrops in montane and subalpine forests from 2,850 to 11,350 feet in elevation. The forest canopy overstory often includes bristlecone pine, limber pine, and ponderosa pine (NNHP 2001). A number of populations of Charleston Mountain goldenbush are known to occur in the vicinity of the ski area, including a population on the slopes above the BCT (NNHP 2016). The extent of that population, as well as 13 previously undocumented subpopulations associated with it, was mapped during the 2016 pedestrian surveys. Collectively, the population covers approximately 26.9 acres in the survey area.

Hitchcock’s Bladderpod Hitchcock’s bladderpod is a low-growing herb with ball-shaped fruit that grows on flat or sloping talus ridges and rocky hillsides in mixed conifer or bristlecone pine forests or alpine communities, between elevations of 8,200 and 11,400 feet (Recon 2000). It occurs in southern Utah (NatureServe 2017) and in Clark, Nye, and White Pine counties of Nevada. The Spring Mountain populations are located on Mummy Mountain, Kyle Canyon, and in the vicinity of the Charleston Peak Trail, South Loop Trail, and Big Falls area (Glenne and Johnson 2002). A number of populations have been identified in the vicinity of the ski area, some as early as the 1930s (NNHP 2016). Eleven subpopulations scattered over a collective 0.4 acres on the dry, south-facing slopes near the BCT were documented during the 2016 pedestrian surveys.

Charleston Beardtongue Charleston beardtongue is a small wildflower with pink to lavender flowers and pale, opposite leaves. It is endemic to the Spring Mountains and is known from Deer Creek, Mummy Mountain, and Lee and Kyle canyons (Glenne and Johnson 2002). Suitable habitat includes ledges, gravelly, rocky, or talus slopes, open meadows, mixed conifer, quaking aspen, and bristlecone pine forests between elevations of 7,000 and 11,200 feet (Recon 2000). NNHP records indicate that there are multiple populations in the vicinity of the ski area (NNHP 2016). It has been documented previously at the ski area (NewFields 2006a) and specifically in the alignment of Lift 2 (Brickey 2012a). A total of 52 subpopulations were observed during the 2016 pedestrian surveys, totaling 11.8 acres. They are predominantly on north-facing slopes, both beneath the forest canopy and in open areas. Four of the subpopulations are located in the narrow valley adjacent to the BCT.

Charleston Ground-daisy Charleston ground-daisy is a small, matted, short-lived perennial herb. It is endemic to the Spring and Sheep mountains. In the Spring Mountains, it occurs on Bonanza and Charleston peaks; Deer Creek; Mud Spring; Lee, Macks, Scout, and Clark canyons; and the North Loop Trail area (Glenne and Johnson 2002). Suitable habitats include open, sparsely vegetated calcareous areas with shallow, gravelly soils on slopes and exposed knolls in forest clearings of the pinyon-juniper, montane conifer, and lower subalpine conifer zone at elevations from 5,200 to 11,060 feet (NNHP 2001). Previous surveys have documented the presence of Charleston ground-daisy within the disturbance area (Flores et al. 2007, NNHP 2016). A total of 12 subpopulations were observed during pedestrian surveys, covering 15.4 acres. Those subpopulations are all located on the relatively open, drier, south-facing slopes on the north side of the disturbance area. A subpopulation that was observed adjacent to the snowmaking pond in 2010 was not observed in 2016 or 2017.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.5.2.1.3 Management Indicator Species The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; 36CFR 219.9(a)(1) requires the Forest Service to identify species that are indictors of ecosystem health and the success of resource management. In fulfillment of that requirement, the HTNF has designated MIS on the SMNRA according to land type association (LTA) communities and seral stage. Table 3-15 presents the LTA communities in the disturbance area and their associated MIS. Note that some of these species (i.e., rough angelica, Jaeger’s draba, Jaeger’s ivesia, and golden currant) are not carried into detailed analysis as there is no suitable habitat in the disturbance area. Palmer’s chipmunk, brown-headed cowbird, and chuckwalla are discussed in the wildlife analysis.

Table 3-15. Land type association communities in the disturbance area and their associated management indicator species. Communities Early Seral Mid Seral Late Seral Palmer’s chipmunk Mixed Conifer Rough angelica Aspen Brown-headed cowbird Upper Wash Rough angelica Aspen Golden currant Jaeger’s draba, Lemon hymenoxys (Lemmon’s rubberweed), and Charleston Indian Bristlecone Pine paintbrush (Clokey’s paintbrush) Cliffs Chuckwalla and Jaeger’s ivesia

Clokey’s Paintbrush Clokey’s paintbrush is a colorful wildflower that grows on dry, gravelly slopes in the understory beneath pinyon-juniper and limber pine at elevations between 2,730 and 11,515 feet (NNHP 2001). It is known to occur in the Cathedral Rock, Deer Creek, Peak Spring, Lee Canyon, Kyle Canyon, and Macks Canyon and along high elevation trails in the SMNRA, and in the Quinn Canyon and Sheep Mountain ranges in Nye and Clark counties, Nevada. Outside of Nevada, Clokey’s paintbrush is known from the Panamint and Inyo mountains of California (Glenne and Johnson 2002). It has been documented in the past at the ski area (NewFields 2006a, Flores et al. 2007, NNHP 2016), and it is abundant in the disturbance area, especially beneath the ponderosa pine canopy on south-facing slopes and in open areas on north-facing slopes. A total of 42 subpopulations were observed during 2016 pedestrian surveys, covering 40.9 acres of the survey area.

Quaking Aspen Quaking aspen is a deciduous tree with smooth, light-colored bark. Quaking aspen grows on a variety of soils, particularly porous, rocky, loamy or clay soils on mountain slopes, canyons, and along streambanks in mixed conifer forests at elevations from 6,500 to 10,000 feet (NatureServe 2017). It is shade intolerant and can be displaced by encroaching conifers. Disturbances including top removal, fire, windthrow, and disease-stimulated suckering (asexual reproduction). Quaking aspen has been noted in past surveys (NewFields 2006a, Brickey 2012a, Brickey 2012b). Within the disturbance area, quaking aspen are present along the margin of ski runs, in avalanche chutes and drainages, and intermixed in the fir and pine forest stands. Collectively, there are approximately 223 acres of quaking aspen within the survey area, ranging from contiguous clonal stands to clumps of individuals scattered within fir and pine stands. As expected, aspens growing within avalanche chutes are generally younger than those growing within and beneath the fir and pine canopy. Additional aspens occur further upslope within the ski area.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.5.2.1.4 Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern The 1998 Conservation Agreement for the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area – Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada (CA) is an agreement between Forest Service Region 4, the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Pacific Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The CA identifies species of concern for which the agencies involved will provide long-term protection. These species are considered rare, believed to be sensitive to human disturbance, or subject to threat. Potential habitat is present in the disturbance area for 17 of the 24 species of conservation concern listed in the CA (including those that are also Forest Service sensitive, etc.). All but two, Clokey’s thistle and Clokey’s mountain sage, are addressed above under other categories and not discussed further here. The seven species of concern for which there is no potential suitable habitat in the disturbance area are not addressed further in this analysis.

Clokey’s Thistle Clokey’s thistle has deeply lobed leaves with large spines on the leaf lobe that grows to a height of between 3 and 6 feet. It is a Spring Mountains endemic, occurring in eastside canyons and along the main ridge from Griffith Peak to Mummy Mountain (Glenne and Johnson 2002). Clokey’s thistle grows in dry to moist, rocky, carbonate soils of spring and seep areas, talus slopes, drainage bottoms, avalanche chutes, and snow depressions in openings of mixed conifer and bristlecone pine forests at elevations of 7,159 to 11,650 feet (NNHP 2001). It has been observed at the ski area in the past (NewFields 2006a) and was observed in the alignments of both Lifts 2 and 3 (Brickey 2012a, Brickey 2012b). Some of areas previously occupied by Clokey’s thistle were not occupied in 2016, perhaps as a result of erosion mitigation. In 2016, Clokey’s thistle was abundant in disturbed areas near the base area, in avalanche scars and drainages, and beneath the forest canopy in the lower elevations of the survey area. Thirty subpopulations were observed in the 2016 pedestrian surveys, covering 68.9 acres.

Clokey’s Mountain Sage Clokey’s mountain sage is a subshrub with pale green leaves and lavender, blue, or purple flowers. It is known from the Kyle, Macks, Scout, and Lee canyons, and Deer Creek, Bonanza Peak, Mud Spring, and Harris Mountain areas of the Spring Mountains, and the Sheep Mountains to the east (Glenne and Johnson 2002). Suitable habitat includes shallow rocky to gravelly carbonate soils on ridges, slopes, and drainages in pinyon-juniper, montane conifer, and subalpine conifer forests, and mountain mahogany communities from 7,070 to 9,840 feet (NNHP 2001). The NNHP has documented the presence of Clokey’s mountain sage in the survey area and on the slopes to the west (NNHP 2016). Flores et al. observed this species growing on the hillslope and ridgeline north of the BCT in 2007 (Flores et al. 2007). A total of five subpopulations, covering approximately 18.9 acres, was observed within the survey area in that same vicinity during the 2016 pedestrian surveys. 3.5.2.1.5 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species The 2000 MSHCP is an agreement between the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning and the FWS. The MSHCP identifies 79 species to be covered under an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a) Permit (allowing for incidental take) and specifies the actions necessary to maintain the viability of their natural habitat (Recon 2000). Potential habitat is present for 20 species listed in the MSHCP (including overlap with species also listed as Forest Service sensitive, etc.). All but two, inch high fleabane and Charleston pinewood lousewort, are addressed above under other categories and not discussed further here. Those MSHCP species for which there is no suitable potential habitat in the disturbance area are not addressed further in this analysis.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Inch High Fleabane Inch high fleabane is a small, slender, short daisy endemic to southern Nevada, specifically Clark, Nye, and White Pine counties. Within the Spring Mountains, it is known from Deer Creek, Kyle, Lee, Fletcher, and Carpenter canyons (Glenne and Johnson 2002). It grows on carbonate outcrops and crevices in pinyon-juniper, montane conifer, and subalpine conifer forests between elevations of 5,400 and 11,100 feet (NNHP 2001). Though inch high fleabane had not been documented in the vicinity of the ski area in the past (NNHP 2016), seven subpopulations were observed during the 2016 pedestrian surveys. The subpopulations are located in crevices in large rock outcrops in the southwest portion of the disturbance area, beneath a canopy of white fir (Abies concolor) and limber pine. They occupy 0.5 acres of the survey area.

Charleston Pinewood Lousewort Charleston pinewood lousewort is a perennial herb that grows on gravelly soils beneath the canopy of pine and mixed conifer forests at elevations between 8,400 and 9,800 feet (Recon 2000). It is a parasitic species associated with bristlecone and ponderosa pines. It occurs in Lee, Kyle, Carpenter, and Fletcher canyons, and near Harris Springs in the Spring Mountains (Glenne and Johnson 2002). Charleston pinewood lousewort has been documented previously at the ski area (NewFields 2006a), including on the hillslope above the BCT (Flores et al. 2007, NNHP 2016) and in the alignment of Lift 2 (Brickey 2012a). The 2016 surveys found that the species is widely distributed across the survey area, though it is more common at mid to lower slope areas where ponderosa pine is dominant. It is absent on open areas including ski runs, the base area, in avalanche scars, and on exposed south-facing slopes. The 12 extensive subpopulations observed in 2016 cover approximately 311.1 acres in the survey area.

3.5.2.2 Invasive Species The Nevada Department of Agriculture maintains a list of weed species considered noxious. Those species are harmful to agriculture, the general public, or the environment because they tend to displace native plants, degrade wildlife habitat, alter nutrient cycle and fire behavior, contribute to soil erosion, and potentially reduce recreational values. They have developed many characteristics, such as rapid growth rates, high seed production, and extended growing periods that give them competitive advantages over native plants (Creech et al. 2010). The Forest Service must consider the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds through ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed action. Weeds may be introduced if the equipment used has operated previously in an area with infestations. Disturbing soil adjacent to existing infestations may facilitate the spread of the infestation. Landowners with noxious weed infestations are required to implement control measures. The ski area is responsible for controlling noxious weeds in the permit area. Non-native invasive plants are also a concern. They are aggressive species capable of degrading environmental quality or causing economic harm. Invasive plants are undesirable in forest ecosystems for reasons similar to noxious weeds. Management direction has been provided with regard to noxious weeds and invasive species. Executive Order 13112, issued in February 1999, directs federal agencies to “…prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause…” One of the goals of NFMA is to provide a diversity of plant and animal communities. NFMA also includes a disclosure requirement for proposed noxious-weed-control activities on NFS lands. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) sets objectives, policies, and responsibilities for weed management on NFS lands and specifies the use of an integrated approach including prevention, control, cooperation, and education. Finally, specific guidance is provided to the HTNF in FSM 2080 Supplement 2000-2004-1 that establishes Forest policy for noxious weed procedures (i.e., best management practices) that include the use of a noxious weed risk assessment.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Because of the extensive number of special-status plant species at the ski area – many of them endemic to the Spring Mountains – the ski area’s special use permit includes a provision requiring a written request, approved by the Forest Service, in order for the ski area to use herbicides for weed control. Surveyors also documented the presence of noxious and non-native invasive plant species in the survey area during the 2016 and 2017 pedestrian surveys. No state or federal noxious weeds were observed in the survey area. Of the eight non-native invasive plant species known to occur on the SMNRA, three were observed: African mustard, prostrate knotweed, and common mullein (Table 3-16).

Table 3-16. Noxious and non-native invasive plant species occurring on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and their level of analysis for this project. Carried into Species Category1 Detailed Comments2, 3, 4, 5 Analysis? Russian knapweed Noxious, B No Grows in waste places, along roadsides, and adjacent (Acroptilon repens) to waterways in all Nevada counties. Reported from Kyle Canyon at elevation of 5,415 feet. Not observed during field surveys. Outside of known distribution. Curveseed butterwort Invasive No Dry upland communities. Reported from Lovell (Ceratocephala testiculata) Canyon at elevations between 5,400 and 6,000 feet. Not observed during field surveys. Redstem stork’s bill Invasive No Grows in open, disturbed areas at elevations between (Erodium cicutarium) 4,400 and 6,000 feet. Outside of known distribution. Not observed during field surveys. African mustard Invasive Yes Species observed during field surveys. (Malcolmia africana) Horehound Invasive No Grows near spring and in disturbed areas at (Marrubium vulgare) elevations between 3,750 and 6,000 feet. Outside of known distribution. Not observed during field surveys. Prostrate knotweed Invasive Yes Species observed during field surveys. (Polygonum aviculare) Cutleaf nightshade Invasive No Grows on a sandy site at Spring Mountain Ranch at (Solanum triflorum) elevation of 3,870 feet. Outside of known distribution. Not observed during field surveys. Saltcedar Noxious, C No Grows along waterways, lakes, and ponds in all (Tamarix spp.) Nevada counties. Not observed during field surveys. Puncturevine Noxious, C No Grows in dry, sandy soils, often near roadsides, in (Tribulus terretris) crop fields, or other waste areas in all Nevada Counties. Not observed during field surveys. Siberian elm Invasive No Grows in waste places, roadsides, and fencerows at (Ulmus pumila) elevations from 0 to 7,215 feet. Outside of known distribution. Not observed during field surveys. Common mullein Invasive Yes Species observed during field surveys. (Verbascum thapsus)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-16 (cont’d). Noxious and non-native invasive plant species occurring on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and their level of analysis for this project. 1Category A = weeds that are generally not found or that are limited in distribution throughout the state, and that are subject to active exclusion from the state and active eradication wherever found, and active eradication from the premises of a dealer of nursery stock. Category B = weeds that are generally established in scattered populations in some counties of the state, and that are subject to active exclusion where possible, and active eradication from the premises of a dealer of nursery stock. Category C = weeds that are generally established and widespread in many counties of the state, and that are subject to active eradication from the premises of a dealer of nursery stock. 2Nevada Department of Agriculture. Nevada Noxious Weed List. http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Noxious_Weed_List/ 3Welsh et al. 2015. 4Flora of North America. www.efloras.org 5Niles and Leary, 2013.

3.5.2.2.1 African Mustard African mustard is an annual, introduced, forb, with narrow, linear fruit that inhabits disturbed sites. It was previously documented at the Rainbow Quarry west of Las Vegas (Niles and Leary 2013). During the 2016 pedestrian surveys, three subpopulations of African mustard were observed on the south and west margins of the existing parking lot. Collectively, the subpopulations include 12 plants and cover approximately 555 square feet of the disturbance area. 3.5.2.2.2 Prostrate Knotweed Prostrate knotweed is a low-growing, mat-forming, annual forb. It is known from Spring Mountain Ranch, Red Spring, Bridge Mountain, Kyle Canyon, and near Whiskey Spring, typically at elevations from 3,700 to 7,680 feet (Niles and Leary 2013). A total of 16 separate subpopulations were observed in the disturbance area during the 2016 pedestrian surveys. The subpopulations are located on the south and west margins of the existing parking lot, in pockets along the shoulder of SR 156, on the Rabbit Peak ski run (learner hill), and at the base of Keno and Jacks ski runs near the base area. The subpopulations included approximately 13,000 plants and covered approximately 4.8 acres. The largest subpopulation is located on Rabbit Peak ski run in an area that was subsequently disturbed to expand a septic system. 3.5.2.2.3 Common Mullein Common mullein is a conspicuous perennial forb with large, velvety leaves and one or more slender raceme inflorescences with yellow flowers. It is known from the northwest Spring Mountains and the Cold Creek area, typically at elevations between elevations of 6,000 and 6,500 feet. Three subpopulations with a total of 18 plants were observed in the disturbance area during the 2016 pedestrian surveys. The subpopulations cover a total of 3,300 square feet and are located on the shoulder of SR 156, adjacent to a wash in the base area, and in the maintenance yard. 3.5.2.2.4 Risk Assessment Noxious and non-native invasive risk assessments involve two factors: 1) the likelihood of undesirable plant species spreading to the project area, and 2) the consequence of undesirable plant establishment in the project area. Both factors have ratings and associated point scores and are used to quantify the level of risk, as described in Table 3-17. The ratings are determined for each element associated with a proposed action or alternative.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-17. Noxious and non-native invasive species risk assessment ratings. Rating Points Description Factor 1: Likelihood of undesirable plants spreading to the project area. None 0 Undesirable plants, including noxious weed species not located within or adjoining the project area. Project activity is not likely to result in the establishment of undesirable species on the project area. Low 1 Undesirable plant species present in areas adjacent to but not within the project area. Project activities can be implemented and prevent the spread of undesirable plants into the project area. Moderate 5 Undesirable plant species adjoining or within the project area. Project activities are likely to result in some areas becoming infested with undesirable plant species even when preventative management actions are followed. Control measures are essential to prevent the spread of undesirable plants or noxious weeds within the project area. High 10 Heavy infestations of undesirable plants are located within or adjoining the project area. Project activities, even with preventative management actions, are likely to result in the establishment and spread of undesirable plants on disturbed sites throughout much of the project area. Factor 2: Consequence of undesirable plant establishment in the project area. Low 1 None. No cumulative effects expected. Moderate 5 Possible adverse effects on site and possible expansion of infestation within project area. Cumulative effects on native plant community are likely, but limited. High 10 Obvious adverse effects within the project area and probable expansion of undesirable plants, including noxious weed infestations to areas outside the project area. Adverse cumulative effects on native plant community are probable.

After both factors have been evaluated for the different elements, the points for each are multiplied to generate a total value for each element. That value is then used to assign a risk determination, as described in Table 3-18.

Table 3-18. Noxious and non-native invasive species risk assessment determinations. Value1 Risk Rating Action

0 None Proceed as planned. 1, 5, or 10 Low Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. 25 Moderate Develop preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 50 or 100 High Modify project design and implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 5 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. 1Values derived by multiplying the corresponding point value from Factor 1 and Factor 2. See Table 3-17.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The risk assessment results for the elements associated with the proposed action and BCT alternative are provided below in sections 3.5.3.2.2 and 3.5.3.3.2, respectively.

3.5.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.5.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.5.3.1.1 Special-Status Species Since there would be no ground-disturbing or habitat-altering elements under the no-action alternative, there would be no impact on Forest Sensitive species, MIS, CA species of concern, or MSHCP covered species. 3.5.3.1.2 Invasive Species As there would be no disturbance of the existing habitat due to proposed elements, the noxious and non- native invasive weed conditions would remain as described in the affected environment section. Given the nature of the noxious weeds present in the area, there is a moderate risk that African mustard, prostrate knotweed, and common mullein may continue to expand. The risk of expansion for African mustard is relatively low based on the small numbers present and the limited distribution. Prostrate knotweed would likely continue to be present at the lower extent of the ski runs and in the base area. The prostrate knotweed infestation on the Rabbit Peak ski run that was removed by the construction of the septic system upgrade would likely return from seeds in the soil or from the spread of the residual bordering infestation. And common mullein would continue to be present along the roadside and in the drainage near the base area. The ski area would treat existing weed infestations with the objective of either controlling or eradicating these known occurrences, consistent with the terms of their special use permit.

3.5.3.2 Proposed Action As described in section 3.2 the proposed elements will result in four disturbance types: clearing, glading, grading, and excavation. Clearing will be done to open corridors for the alignment of the zip line and Chairs 5 and 8. Glading will be done to open the forest canopy to facilitate tree skiing. Grading will recontour the ground surface for ski runs, hiking and biking trails, access roads to Chairs 5 and 8, the alignment of Lifts 4 and 6, and for the parking area. Excavation will occur at the terminals of Chairs 5 and 8, Lifts 4 and 6, zip line terminals, utilities, and buildings. Each has the potential to affect both the special-status plant species and the noxious and non-native plant species present in the project area. 3.5.3.2.1 Special-Status Species Table 3-19 indicates the extent of disturbance to occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the proposed action. Discussion of those impacts by category follows. Note again that since special-status categories overlap considerably, many species are on more than one list. In those instances, the species is addressed in detail under the most restrictive category and not under the others.

Several aspects of this impact assessment carry across special-status categories and species. They are summarized as follows and not repeated for each species below:  Recreation use during the winter season is not likely to impact special-status plants, since they would be dormant and insulated by a layer of snow.  Recreation use during the summer months is not anticipated to impact occupied habitat beyond the actual disturbance footprints indicated in Table 3-19. Although some visitors may hike/bike off trail, the continued use of vegetation design criteria and mitigation would minimize off-trail use (see Appendix B). Similar design criteria have been successfully employed at Lee Canyon to protect special-status plant species. Some impact may occur if bike riders crash and/or leave the trail in occupied habitats.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

 Impacts on pollinator species have the potential to impact plant communities, including sensitive species (section 3.13.8).  Design criteria for prevention of noxious weed introduction or spread would be employed, reducing competition and habitat alteration associated with the spread of noxious or non-native invasive species.

Table 3-19. Acres of occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the proposed action. Number of Percent of Acres Species Name Occupied Acres in Affected Acres Affected Survey Area King’s rosy sandwort 12.0 1.1 9 Clokey’s eggvetch 4.8 0.6 13 Dainty moonwort >0.1 0 0 Clokey’s paintbrush 40.9 3.3 8 Clokey’s thistle 68.9 21.1 31 Charleston Mountain goldenbush 26.9 1.6 6 Inch high fleabane 0.5 <0.1 2 Hitchcock’s bladderpod 0.4 <0.1 4 Charleston beardtongue 11.8 1.7 14 Charleston pinewood lousewort 311.1 100.4 32 Quaking aspen 223.0 95.2 43 Clokey’s mountain sage 18.9 1.9 10 Charleston ground-daisy 15.4 1.2 8

Forest Sensitive Species The seven Forest Service sensitive species potentially affected are discussed below. King’s Rosy Sandwort The proposed action would impact 1.1 acres of the 12 acres of occupied King’s rosy sandwort habitat in the survey area (Table 3-19), or 9 percent. The elements involving clearing (i.e., zipline) and glading would occur on 0.7 acres of occupied habitat and are likely to result in short-term impact since there would be limited ground disturbance. Clearing and glading would decrease canopy cover, but as suggested by the presence of King’s rosy sandwort in areas with little or partial canopy cover elsewhere in the ski area, the species can tolerate those conditions. Individuals impacted by foot traffic, falling trees, or machinery during clearing and glading may be replaced through reproduction of remaining plants. The remaining 0.4 acres of occupied habitat would be graded or excavated and would result in a long-term impact. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of King’s rosy sandwort because the majority of the impacts would be short- term, and because the long-term effects would occur on a small amount of the habitat present. Clokey’s Eggvetch As described above, the amount of occupied Clokey’s eggvetch habitat in the ski area has varied from 1.9 to 11.0 acres. In 2016, 4.8 acres of occupied habitat were documented in the survey area, 0.6 acres, or 13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Clearing for the zipline would occur on 0.1 acres of occupied habitat and is likely to result in short-term impact since there would be limited ground disturbance. Clearing would decrease canopy cover, but as suggested by the presence of Clokey’s eggvetch in areas with little or partial canopy cover elsewhere at the ski area, the species can tolerate those conditions. Individuals impacted by foot traffic, falling trees, or machinery during clearing and glading may be replaced through reproduction of remaining plants. The remaining 0.5 acres of occupied habitat would be graded (bike trails) or excavated (mountain coaster, utilities, and building) and would result in a long-term impact. Overall, the proposed action is likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s eggvetch. Since the populations at the ski area are experiencing so much numerical and spatial variability, impacting 13 percent of the current population extent could cross, or move toward, a threshold that would make recovery difficult. Dainty Moonwort There are an estimated 28 square feet of occupied dainty moonwort habitat in the survey area, none of which would be disturbed by project elements associated with the proposed action. Recreation use during the summer months is not anticipated to impact occupied habitat due to the steepness of the terrain and isolation of the occupied habitat. The proposed action would have no impact on dainty moonwort. The disturbance area does not overlap with occupied habitat, and recreation use patterns are not expected to change during the growing season in a manner that would have an effect on occupied habitat. Charleston Mountain Goldenbush There are an estimated 26.9 acres of occupied Charleston Mountain goldenbush habitat in the survey area, including 1.6 acres, or 6 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 0.3 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by clearing, which is unlikely to be detrimental since the species exists in open areas. The remaining acres would be impacted by grading for bike trails (0.7 acres) and excavation for Chair 8 and zip line terminals, the first aid building, and the mountain coaster (0.6 acres). Subpopulations in proposed graded areas may recover up to the footprint of the bike trails, but those in proposed excavation areas would be permanently displaced. The shrubby growth form of the plant provides some protection from trampling. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston Mountain goldenbush. Hitchcock’s Bladderpod There are an estimated 0.4 acres of occupied Hitchcock’s bladderpod habitat in the survey area, including 705 square feet, or 4 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 510 square feet of the occupied habitat would be impacted by grading for bike trails, and the remaining 195 square feet would be impacted by excavation for the mountain coaster. Subpopulations in proposed graded areas may recover up to the footprint of the bike trails, but those in proposed excavation areas would be permanently displaced. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Hitchcock’s bladderpod. Charleston Beardtongue There are an estimated 11.8 acres of occupied Charleston beardtongue habitat in the survey area, including 1.7 acres, or 14 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 0.2 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by glading. That impact is likely to be short-term or minimal, since the species exists in an area that was gladed in 2012 – 2013. The remaining 1.5 acres impacted by grading (ski runs, hiking and biking trails, and access roads), and excavation (lift terminals and snowmaking lines) would be a long-term displacement of occupied habitat. Because this species produces a conspicuous flower, individuals growing adjacent to trails may be targeted for wildflower collection by summer recreationists. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston beardtongue.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Charleston Ground-daisy There are an estimated 15.4 acres of occupied Charleston ground-daisy in the survey area, including 1.2 acres, or 8 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 0.2 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by clearing, which is unlikely to be detrimental since the species exists in open areas. The remaining 1.0 acres impacted by grading (biking trails), and excavation (zip line terminals and mountain coaster) would be a long-term displacement of occupied habitat. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston ground-daisy.

Management Indicator Species Clokey’s Paintbrush There are an estimated 40.9 acres of occupied Clokey’s paintbrush habitat in the survey area, including 3.3 acres, or 8 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 0.3 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by clearing for the zipline and glading. Those impacts are likely to be short-term or minimal, since the species exists in open areas and an area that was gladed in 2012 – 2013. The remaining 3.0 acres impacted by grading (ski runs, hiking and biking trails, and access roads), and excavation (zip line terminals, mountain coaster, buildings, and snowmaking lines) would be a long-term displacement of occupied habitat. Because this species produces a conspicuous flower, individuals growing adjacent to trails may be targeted for wildflower collection by summer recreationists. Overall, the proposed action would have a small effect on Clokey’s paintbrush. The proposed action would not alter the existing trend for forest- level Clokey’s paintbrush populations although it would reduce the amount of habitat. Quaking Aspen There are an estimated 223 acres of occupied quaking aspen sage habitat, including 95.2 acres, or 43 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 2.3 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by clearing (zip line, Chair 5, and Chair 8 alignments), 14.7 acres would be impacted by glading, 68.6 acres would be impacted by grading (hiking and biking trails, ski runs, access roads, and parking), and 9.6 acres would be impacted by excavation (utilities, snowmaking, lift and zip line terminals and towers, buildings, mountain coaster, and a water tank). The glading impact could be a short- term adverse impact if quaking aspen are cut, but may also create a beneficial impact by opening the canopy and facilitating regeneration. Clearing, grading, and excavation would result in a long-term impact and removal of quaking aspen from the footprints of those project elements. There may also be a beneficial impact in the adjacent areas by opening the canopy and stimulating regeneration, especially where quaking aspen are already present. Small trees with crowns extending above the snowpack may be damaged by skiers, snowboarders, or snow grooming equipment, if run over. Overall, the proposed action would have a small effect on quaking aspen. Adverse effects would be partially offset by potential beneficial effects. The proposed action would not alter the existing trend for forest-level aspen populations although it would reduce the amount of habitat.

Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern Clokey’s Thistle There are an estimated 68.9 acres of occupied Clokey’s thistle habitat, including 21.1 acres, or 31 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Due to the propensity of Clokey’s thistle to become established in disturbed areas, the elements involving clearing (Chair 5 and zipline), glading, and grading (biking and hiking trails, chair and lift alignments, access roads, and parking) would occur on 16.7 acres of occupied habitat and are likely to result in short-term adverse impacts or even a beneficial impact. Seeds present in the soil are likely to be adequate to re-establish the displaced individuals, and their germination may be facilitated by the ground disturbance. The remaining 4.4 acres of occupied habitat would be excavated and would result in a long-term adverse impact.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The abundance of spines and height Clokey’s thistle decrease the likelihood of users trampling on individuals. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s thistle. Short-term adverse effects would likely be partially offset by potential beneficial effects, and long-term effects would only occur in a small amount of occupied habitat. Clokey’s Mountain Sage There are an estimated 18.9 acres of occupied Clokey’s mountain sage habitat, including 1.9 acres, or 10 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 0.4 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by clearing, which is unlikely to be detrimental since the species exists in open areas. The remaining acres would be impacted by grading for bike trails (0.4 acres) and excavation for Chair 8 and zip line terminals (1.1 acres). Subpopulations in proposed graded areas may recover up to the footprint of the bike trails, but those in proposed excavation areas would be permanently displaced. The shrubby growth form of the plant provides some protection from trampling. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s mountain sage.

Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species Inch High Fleabane There are an estimated 0.5 acres of occupied inch high fleabane habitat, including 385 square feet, or 2 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 290 square feet of the occupied habitat would be impacted by grading for ski runs, and the remaining 95 square feet would be impacted by excavation for a snowmaking line. However, since inch high fleabane grows in crevices of large rock outcrops, they may be protected from impacts. When the ski area finalizes the on-the-ground layout for the ski run and the snowmaking line, it is possible that the location of those features may be slightly adjusted rather than remove, or drill into, those rocks. As a conservative measure, this analysis assumes that the 385 square-feet impact would occur. Recreation use during the summer months is not anticipated to impact occupied habitat because of the isolated nature of the occupied habitat. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of inch high fleabane. Charleston Pinewood Lousewort There are an estimated 311.1 acres of occupied Charleston pinewood lousewort habitat in the survey area, including 100.4 acres, or 32 percent, within the proposed action disturbance area. Approximately 21.6 acres of the occupied habitat would be impacted by glading. That impact is likely to be short-term or minimal, since the species exists in relatively open forest stands in the ski area. The remaining 78.8 acres impacted by clearing (lift and zip line alignments), grading (ski runs, hiking and biking trails, access roads, and parking areas), and excavation (lift and zip line terminals, utilities, snowmaking, and buildings) would be a long-term displacement of occupied habitat. Because this species is so abundant in the forested portions of the ski area, it is more likely to experience trampling by summer recreationists. However, that same abundance may also help minimize the impact of trampling because it is unlikely for all individuals to be affected. Overall, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston pinewood lousewort, based on the abundance of the species.

Summary The proposed action would have no impact on rough angelica, Charleston pussytoes, Spring Mountains rockcress, upswept moonwort, dainty moonwort, slender moonwort, moosewort, Wasatch draba, Jaeger’s draba, Charleston Mountain draba, Nevada willowherb, Clokey’s greasebush, Jaeger’s ivesia, Jaeger’s beardtongue, Charleston tansy, Charleston Mountain kittentails, Charleston violet, or Lemmon’s rubberweed, because the proposed action would not directly or indirectly disturb occupied habitat for these species.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of King’s rosy sandwort, Charleston Mountain goldenbush, Hitchcock’s bladderpod, Charleston beardtongue, Charleston ground-daisy, Clokey’s paintbrush, quaking aspen, Clokey’s thistle, Clokey’s mountain sage, inch high fleabane, and Charleston pinewood lousewort because occupied habitat is present for these species in the proposed action disturbance area. The proposed action may impact individuals and may cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s eggvetch because the observed numerical and spatial variation in the population at the ski area, which could amplify the affect associated with the presence of occupied habitat in the proposed action disturbance area. 3.5.3.2.2 Invasive Species

African Mustard There are an estimated 555 square feet of African mustard in the survey area, including 160 square feet within the proposed action disturbance area. The disturbance would be excavation for the vault toilets at the overflow parking lot. Design criteria would be employed to prevent the introduction of additional noxious weeds or the spread of African mustard, reducing impacts from competition and habitat alteration on residual desired species.

Prostrate Knotweed There are an estimated 4.8 acres of prostrate knotweed in the survey area, including 0.5 acres within the proposed action disturbance area. Much of the impact on prostrate knotweed would be near the base area (i.e., Rabbit Peak ski run, open areas near the lower terminals of the Sherwood and Bluebird lifts), all of which were previously cleared. As a result, clearing for the zip line (0.1 acres) would not be necessary, so prostrate knotweed would not actually be affected. The remaining 0.4 acres would be impacted by grading (bike trails, ski runs, access roads, hiking trails, lift alignments, and parking), and excavation (snowmaking, utilities, and buildings). Design criteria would be employed to prevent the introduction of additional noxious weeds or the spread of prostrate knotweed, reducing impacts from competition and habitat alteration on residual desired species.

Common Mullein There are an estimated 3,300 square feet of common mullein in the survey area, including 1,382 square feet within the proposed action disturbance area. The disturbances would be associated with grading the proposed parking lot and excavation for the rental building at the base area. Design criteria would be employed to prevent the introduction of additional noxious weeds or the spread of common mullein, reducing impacts from competition and habitat alteration on residual desired species.

Risk Assessment Results A risk assessment rating was calculated for each element associated with the proposed action by considering the likelihood of undesirable species spreading to the project area and the consequence of undesirable species becoming established in the project area, as described above in section 3.5.2.2.4. The majority of the project elements have a moderate risk rating (Table 3-20) and could be completed provided that design criteria (section 2.6) were implemented to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area, and that the disturbed areas were monitored for 3 consecutive years after construction and new infestations were controlled. The zip line would have a low risk and could proceed as planned, though a Forest Service-authorized control plan should be initiated to treat any undesirable plants that were established in the disturbance area. The glading, mountain coaster, and water tank would have no risk and could proceed as planned.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-20. Noxious and non-native weed species risk assessment results for the proposed action. Risk Assessment Project Element Factor 1 Value Factor 2 Value Rating Lift 4 5 5 25 Chair 5 Pod 5 5 25 Chair 8 Pod 5 5 25 Glading 0 1 0 Snowmaking Coverage 5 5 25 Mountain Coaster 0 1 0 Mountain Bike Trails 5 5 25 Hiking Trail 5 5 25 Zip Line 5 1 5 Equipment Rental/Food & Beverage Building 5 5 25 First Aid/Ski Patrol Building 5 5 25 Vault Toilet Facility at Overflow Parking Lot 5 5 25 New Parking Lot 5 5 25 Gate House 5 5 25 Water Tank 0 1 0

3.5.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative In order to provide a clear contrast between the proposed action and the BCT alternative, the following discussion focuses on how the impacts of the BCT alternative would differ from those of the proposed action, as described above. 3.5.3.3.1 Special-Status Species Table 3-21 indicates the extent of disturbance to occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the BCT alternative.

Table 3-21. Acres of occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the BCT alternative. Number of Percent of Acres Species Name Affected Acres Occupied Acres Affected King’s rosy sandwort 12.0 0.9 8 Clokey’s eggvetch 4.8 0.1 2 Dainty moonwort >0.1 0 0 Clokey’s paintbrush 40.9 2.4 6 Clokey’s thistle 68.9 20.4 30 Charleston Mountain goldenbush 26.9 0.7 3 Inch high fleabane 0.5 <0.1 2 Hitchcock’s bladderpod 0.4 <0.1 3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-21 (cont’d). Acres of occupied special-status plant species habitat affected by the BCT alternative. Number of Percent of Acres Species Name Affected Acres Occupied Acres Affected Charleston beardtongue 11.8 1.6 14 Charleston pinewood lousewort 311.1 93.8 30 Quaking aspen 216.7 88.3 41 Clokey’s mountain sage 18.9 0.4 2 Charleston ground-daisy 15.4 0.5 3

The same aspects of this impact assessment noted above for the proposed action carry across special- status categories and species under the BCT alternative:  Recreation use during the winter season is not likely to impact special-status plants, since they would be dormant and insulated by a layer of snow.  Recreation use during the summer months is not anticipated to impact occupied habitat beyond the actual project element disturbance footprints indicated in Table 3-19 above. Although some visitors may hike/bike off trail, the continued use of vegetation design criteria and mitigation would minimize off-trail use (see Appendix B). Similar design criteria have been successfully employed at Lee Canyon to protect special-status plant species. Some impact may occur if bike riders crash and/or leave the trail in occupied habitats.  Impacts on pollinator species have the potential to impact plant communities, including sensitive species (section 3.13.7).  Design criteria for prevention of noxious weed introduction or spread would be employed, reducing competition and habitat alteration associated with the spread of noxious or non-native invasive species. Overall, as indicated by comparing Tables 3-19 and 3-21, the BCT alternative would reduce impacts on special-status plants across the board. The same suite of species would be affected, and the impacts would be qualitatively similar to those outlined above for the proposed action, just reduced in extent.

Forest Sensitive Species King’s Rosy Sandwort The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 1.1 to 0.9, or from 9 to 8 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability because the majority of the impacts would be short-term, and because long-term effects would occur on a small amount of the habitat present. Clokey’s Eggvetch The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 0.6 to 0.1, or from 13 to 2 percent of the survey-area total. The impact may be amplified by the numerical and spatial variability of this species. However, impacting 2 percent of the current occupied habitat is not likely to cross, or move toward, a threshold that would make recovery difficult. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s eggvetch. Dainty Moonwort As under the proposed action, no occupied habitat for this species would be affected.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Charleston Mountain Goldenbush The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 1.6 to 0.7, or from 6 to 3 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston Mountain goldenbush. Hitchcock’s Bladderpod The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would be the same as under the proposed action at less than 0.1 acres, or 3 percent of the study area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Hitchcock’s bladderpod. Charleston Beardtongue The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 1.7 to 1.6, no notable change in the percentage of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston beardtongue. Charleston Ground-daisy The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 1.2 to 0.5, or from 8 to 3 percent of the survey-area total. Overall, implementing the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston ground-daisy.

Management Indicator Species Clokey’s Paintbrush The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 3.3 to 2.4, or from 8 to 6 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative would not alter the existing trend for forest-level Clokey’s paintbrush populations although it would reduce the amount of habitat. Quaking Aspen The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 95.2 to 88.3, or from 43 to 41 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative would have a small effect on quaking aspen. Adverse effects would be partially offset by potential beneficial effects. The BCT alternative would not alter the existing trend for forest-level aspen populations although it would reduce the amount of habitat.

Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern Clokey’s Thistle The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 21.1 to 20.4, or from 31 to 30 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s thistle. Short-term adverse effects would likely be partially offset by potential beneficial effects, and long-term effects would only occur in a small amount of occupied habitat. Clokey’s Mountain Sage The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 1.9 to 0.4, or from 10 to 2 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s mountain sage.

Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species Inch High Fleabane As under the proposed action, Less than 0.1 acres would be affected, or 2 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of inch high fleabane. Charleston Pinewood Lousewort The acreage of occupied habitat in the disturbance area would fall from 100.4 to 93.8, or from 32 to 30 percent of the survey-area total. The BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston pinewood lousewort, based on the abundance of the species.

Summary Similar to the proposed action, the BCT alternative would have no impact on rough angelica, Charleston pussytoes, Spring Mountains rockcress, upswept moonwort, dainty moonwort, slender moonwort, moosewort, Wasatch draba, Jaeger’s draba, Charleston Mountain draba, Nevada willowherb, Clokey’s greasebush, Jaeger’s ivesia, Jaeger’s beardtongue, Charleston tansy, Charleston Mountain kittentails, Charleston violet, or Lemmon’s rubberweed, because the proposed action would not directly or indirectly disturb occupied habitat for these species. Implementing the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of King’s rosy sandwort, Clokey’s eggvetch, Charleston Mountain goldenbush, Hitchcock’s bladderpod, Charleston beardtongue, Charleston ground-daisy, Clokey’s paintbrush, quaking aspen, Clokey’s thistle, Clokey’s mountain sage, inch high fleabane, and Charleston pinewood lousewort because occupied habitat is present for these species in the project area. The main differences would be reduced area of impact across species, and a significantly reduced impact on Clokey’s eggvetch. 3.5.3.3.2 Invasive Species As discussed above under Special-Status Plant Species, this discussion focuses on differences between the effects of the proposed action and the effects of the BCT alternative. The only differences to note are related: the acreage of disturbance within prostrate knotweed populations would grow from 0.5 to 0.8 acres, due primarily to relocation of the mountain coaster, and that change would raise the risk assessment rating for the mountain coaster from 0 to 5. That rating falls in the low range, so the mountain coaster element could proceed as planned, with control treatments initiated on any undesirable plant populations that establish in the area. As under the proposed action, 160 square feet of African mustard infestation would be disturbed by construction of vault toilets at the existing overflow parking lot, and 1,382 square feet of common mullein infestation would be disturbed by grading in the proposed parking lot and excavation for the rental building at the lower base area.

3.5.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. The Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction, Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction, Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Treatment, and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects meet the spatial and temporal overlap requirements. A brief summary of these projects is provided above in section 3.3.

3.5.4.1 Special-Status Species 3.5.4.1.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Since the proposed action and BCT alternative would have no effect on federally listed plant species, they would not interact cumulatively with the actions listed in section 3.3 to have a cumulative effect on federally listed species. 3.5.4.1.2 Forest Sensitive Species The cumulative actions listed in section 3.3 have the potential to interact cumulatively with the proposed action and the BCT alternative on the following Forest Service sensitive species: King’s rosy sandwort, Clokey’s eggvetch, Charleston Mountain goldenbush, Charleston ground-daisy, and Hitchcock’s

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I bladderpod. The impact analyses for those projects indicated that they may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of these same Forest Service sensitive species. The majority of those impacts are the result of concentrated recreation use, trampling, or vegetation treatments, though some are the result of construction. Since the determination for the Old Mill WUI project was made, the treatment area has decreased substantially, reducing impacts on these species. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project area overlaps some of the glading areas under the proposed action and BCT alternative. In areas where these projects overlap, they are likely to complement each other due to design criteria 11 requiring the ski area to consult with the Forest Service as to which trees would be cut in gladed areas. In areas where these projects do not overlap directly, populations of these species would likely be impacted to some degree by the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project. Considered together, the cumulative actions and the proposed action or BCT alternative may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Forest Sensitive species. 3.5.4.1.3 Management Indicator Species The impacts of the Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects have the potential to interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action and the BCT alternative on quaking aspen and Clokey’s paintbrush. The impact analysis for the Old Mill WUI project determined that it may impact these two species. However, since this determination was made, the treatment area has decreased substantially, reducing impacts on these species. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project area overlaps some of the glading areas in the proposed action and BCT alternative. In areas where these projects overlap, they are likely to complement each other due to design criteria 11 requiring the ski area to consult with the Forest Service as to which trees would be cut in gladed areas. In areas where these projects do not overlap directly, populations of these species would likely be impacted to some degree by the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project. These cumulative effects would not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations for these species although it would reduce the amount of habitat. 3.5.4.1.4 Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern The impacts of the Old Mill, Dolomite, and McWilliams Recreation Sites Reconstruction, Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction, and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects have the potential to interact cumulatively with the impacts of proposed action and BCT alternative on Clokey’s thistle and Clokey’s mountain sage. The impact analyses for those projects determined that they may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of these two species. Since the determination for the Old Mill WUI project was made, the treatment area has decreased substantially, reducing impacts on these species. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project area overlaps some of the glading areas in the proposed action and BCT alternative. In areas where these projects overlap, they are likely to complement each other due to design criteria 11 requiring the ski area to consult with the Forest Service as to which trees would be cut in gladed areas. In areas where these projects do not overlap directly, populations of these species would likely be impacted to some degree by the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project. Considering the small amount of habitat impacted relative to the amount of potential habitat in the Spring Mountains, the cumulative action projects and the proposed action or BCT alternative may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Clokey’s thistle or Clokey’s mountain sage. 3.5.4.1.5 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species The impacts of the cumulative actions listed in section 3.3 have the potential to interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action and the BCT alternative on Charleston pinewood lousewort. The

100

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I impact analyses for these projects indicated that they may impact individuals or habitat of this species. Since the determination for the Old Mill WUI project was made, the treatment area has decreased substantially, reducing impacts on these species. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project area overlaps some of the glading areas in the proposed action and BCT alternative. In areas where these projects overlap, they are likely to complement each other due to design criteria 11 requiring the ski area to consult with the Forest Service as to which trees would be cut in gladed areas. In areas where these projects do not overlap directly, populations of these species would likely be impacted to some degree by the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project. Based on the abundance of occupied habitat observed at Lee Canyon that will not be impacted by either the proposed action or BCT alternative and the amount of potential habitat elsewhere, these actions may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of Charleston pinewood lousewort.

3.5.4.2 Invasive Species The cumulative actions listed in section 3.3 would have a moderate short-term risk of invasive species increase because of the considerable soil disturbance, movement of equipment and materials, and increased vehicle traffic. Weed mitigation measures, including follow-up monitoring and treatment would ensure no long-term increase in weeds. Similar measures would be employed at Lee Canyon. The short- term risk of invasive species increase would be cumulative to the impacts of the proposed action or the BCT alternative.

3.5.5 MITIGATION In addition to the design criteria outlined in section 2.6, the determinations above require the following vegetation mitigation measures to be in place: 1. Install interpretive signs in prominent locations with information about special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitat, including reminders to stay on designated trails. 2. Include text on summer trail maps reminding visitors to stay on designated trails in order to protect special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitat. 3. Verbally remind visitors renting equipment, purchasing lift tickets, or asking for trail information to stay on designated trails in order to protect special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitat. 4. Install rope lines or signs to minimize entry into suitable special-status plant and wildlife species habitat near high traffic areas. 5. Employ preventative management measures for the proposed projects to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations.

3.5.6 FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE The proposed action complies with all vegetation-related SMNRA-wide standards and guidelines, except standard 0.31: New roads, administrative facilities, and developed recreation sites other than low-impact facilities (trails, trailhead parking, signs, restrooms, etc.) will be outside a 100-yard-buffer zone around known Clokey’s eggvetch and rough angelica populations or potential habitat, and outside biodiversity hotspots (defined as areas of particular biodiversity or sensitivity) (see Map 4 and Map 5).

101

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Under the proposed action, 11 acres of disturbance would occur within the 100-yard-buffer zone around occupied Clokey’s eggvetch habitat. That disturbance would include grading (Chair 5 ski runs and access road, Chair 8 ski runs and access road, Lift 4 and Lift 6 alignments, and parking) and excavation (utilities, Chair 8 towers, buildings, mountain coaster, snowmaking, water tank, and zip line terminals). As described above in section 3.5.3.2.1, the proposed action would directly impact 0.6 acres of occupied Clokey’s eggvetch habitat. Many of the project elements would also be located within the biodiversity hotspot. Under the BCT alternative, 6.6 acres of disturbance would occur within the 100-yard-buffer zone around occupied Clokey’s eggvetch habitat. The disturbed acres are associated with grading (Chair 5 ski runs and access road, Chair 8 ski runs and access road, Lift 4 and Lift 6 alignments, and parking) and excavation (utilities, buildings, mountain coaster, snowmaking, water tank, and zip line terminals). As described in section 3.5.3.3.1, the BCT alternative would directly impact 0.1 acres of occupied Clokey’s eggvetch habitat. Therefore, the BCT alternative would result in much less disturbance within the 100-yard-buffer zone, and to actual occupied habitat than the proposed action. Many of the BCT alternative project elements would also be located within the biodiversity hotspot. The proposed action and the BCT alternative comply with most Management Area 11 – Developed Canyons Standards and Guidelines. The exception is standard 11.57. Standard 11.57 allows for limited expansion at Lee Canyon provided that the expansion, among other things, “does not impact any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or species of concern, or its habitat.” As described above in sections 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3, the proposed action and BCT alternative would impact several species that fall within the categories listed in standard 11.57. 3.6 WILDLIFE

3.6.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue – Special-status Species: The SMNRA is a unique ecosystem, and the permit area includes habitat for a number of special-status species, including federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, CA species, species covered in the MSHCP, and migratory birds. Development and subsequent use of the proposed infrastructure would result in temporary habitat disruption during construction, permanent habitat conversion, and increased levels of human activity year round. These changes may affect special- status wildlife species or their habitats. Indicator: Species-specific determinations of the potential individual- and population-level impacts, based primarily on surveys, published information on the species’ habitat distribution and population status, and the efficacy of design criteria and proposed mitigation. The determinations are based on the laws, regulations, and policies regarding management of each category of species.

3.6.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Special-status wildlife include those species identified as threatened, endangered, or candidate species under the ESA; Forest Service sensitive species; Forest Service MIS; CA species of concern; and MSHCP covered species. Species from each of these categories are carried into detailed analysis below if individuals or habitat could be impacted by the project. Table 3-22 identifies these species.

102

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-22. Special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area. Carried into Species Species1 Habitat Description Detailed Rationale Status2 Analysis? Insects Spring Mountains dark R4, CA, Areas with open water in Yes Habitat exists in blue butterfly MSHCP mixed conifer forests the disturbance (Euphilotes anicilla (Thompson and Abella 2016). area. purpura) Morand’s checkerspot R4, CA, Open areas in conifer or mixed Yes Habitat exists in (Euphydryas anicia MSHCP conifer forests (Hiatt and the disturbance morandi) Boone 2004). area. Spring Mountains CA, MSHCP Areas with open water in Yes Habitat exists in comma skipper mixed conifer forests (Hiatt the disturbance (Hesperia colorado and Boone 2004). area. mojavensis) Charleston ant CA Subterranean nests in Yes Habitat may exist (Lasius nevadensis) unknown habitats (Cole 1956). in the disturbance area. Nevada admiral CA, MSHCP Varied forested habitats as Yes Habitat exists in (Limenitis weidemeyerii well as riparian areas (Hiatt the disturbance nevadae) and Boone 2004). area. Spring Mountains CA, MSHCP Open meadows in a wide Yes Habitat exists in icarioides blue butterfly variety of habitats (Hiatt and the disturbance (Plebejus icarioides Boone 2004). area. austinorum) Mt. Charleston blue Endangered, Open meadows where host Yes Habitat exists in butterfly CA, MSHCP and nectar plants are present in the disturbance (Plebejus shasta sufficient densities (FWS area. charlestonensis) 2015). Carole’s silverspot CA, MSHCP All habitats in the SMNRA Yes Habitat exists in (Speveria carolae) (Thompson et al. 2014). the disturbance area. Spring Mountains R4, CA, Pinyon-juniper areas with No No habitat exists in acastus checkerspot MSHCP rabbitbrush (Thompson et al. the disturbance (Chlosyne acastus 2014). area. robusta) Mammals Desert bighorn sheep R4 Associated with hot desert No No habitat exists in (Ovis Canadensis) environments on the SMNRA. the disturbance area. Pale Townsend’s big- R4,CA Roosts and hibernates in caves Yes Foraging habitat eared bat and mines. Forages in open exists in the (Corynorhinus forest (Bradley et al. 2006). disturbance area. townsendii pallescens)

103

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-22 (cont’d). Special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area. Carried into Species Species1 Habitat Description Detailed Rationale Status2 Analysis? Spotted bat R4, CA Roosts in crevices in cliffs. Yes Foraging habitat (Euderma maculatum) Forages in a wide variety of exists in the habitats (WBWG 2017). disturbance area. Silver-haired bat MSHCP Forages and roosts in forested Yes Foraging and (Lasionycteris areas (NatureServe 2017). roosting habitat noctivagans) exists in the disturbance area. Allen’s big-eared bat CA Mid-elevation riparian areas No The disturbance area (Idionycteris phyllotis) with open water (NatureServe is too high elevation 2017). for this species. Western small-footed CA Roosts and forages in a wide Yes Foraging and myotis variety of habitats (Hiatt and roosting habitat (Myotis ciliolabrum) Boone 2004). exists in the disturbance area. Long-eared myotis CA, MSHCP Roosts and forages in a wide Yes Foraging and (Myotis evotis) variety of habitats (Bradley et roosting habitat al. 2006) exists in the disturbance area. Fringed myotis CA, MSHCP Roosts and forages in a wide Yes Foraging and (Myotis thysanodes) variety of habitats (Bradley et roosting habitat al. 2006). exists in the disturbance area. Long-legged myotis CA, MSHCP Roosts in a wide variety of Yes Foraging and (Myotis volans) habitats. Forages in mixed roosting habitat conifer and pinion-juniper exists in the areas (Ramsey 1997). disturbance area. Palmer’s chipmunk CA, MSHCP, All forest types in the Yes Habitat exists in the (Neotamias palmeri) MIS SMNRA (Lowrey and disturbance area. Longshore 2010). Birds1 Brown-headed cowbird MIS Mixed conifer MIS on the Yes The disturbance area (Molothrus ater) SMNRA. is within the community association for this MIS. Northern goshawk R4, CA Conifer and mixed conifer Yes Habitat exists in the (Accipiter gentilis) forests (Squires and Reynolds disturbance area. 1997). Peregrine falcon R4, CA, Forages in open areas near Yes Foraging habitat (Falco peregrinus) MSHCP cliffs (White et al. 2002). exists in the disturbance area. Flammulated owl R4, CA Conifer and mixed conifer Yes Habitat exists in the (Otus flammeolus) forests (Linkhart and disturbance area. Mccallum 2013).

104

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table 3-22 (cont’d). Special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area. Carried into Species Species1 Habitat Description Detailed Rationale Status2 Analysis? Southwestern willow Endangered, Willow-dominated riparian No No habitat exists in flycatcher CA, MSHCP areas (Sedgwick 2000). the disturbance (Empidonax traillii area. extimus) Yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened, Large cottonwood-dominated No No habitat exists in (Coccyzus americanus) MSHCP riparian areas (Hughes 2015). the disturbance area. Fishes Pahrump poolfish Endangered Artificial populations exist in No No habitat exists in (Empetrichthys latos) three springs in the Pahrump the disturbance Valley (FWS 2017). area and no downstream impacts would affect this species. Reptiles Speckled rattlesnake MSHCP Low-elevation desert habitats No The disturbance (Crotalus mitchellii) (NatureServe 2017). area is too high elevation for this species. Western redtail skink MSHCP Low-elevation mesic sites No The disturbance (Plestiodon gilbert (NatureServe 2017). area is too high rubricaudatus) elevation for this species. 1 Migratory bird species are not listed but are addressed as a group below. 2Status: R4 = Region 4 Sensitive, MIS = management indicator species, CA = Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement species of concern, MSHCP = Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan covered species

Note that when a species is listed in more than one status category, discussion of that species in this analysis is found under the most restrictive category. For example, the Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly is a Forest sensitive species, a CA species of concern, and a species covered by the Clark County MSHCP, so detailed discussion of this species is found in the sensitive species section of this analysis.

3.6.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species A project-specific species list was obtained from the FWS Information for Planning and Conservation website on June 22, 2018 (FWS 2018). This list identified four species as potentially occurring in the project area or potentially being affected by the project. One of these species, the Mount Charleston blue butterfly (MCBB), does have potential habitat in the project area and is discussed in detail below. However, the project area contains no habitat or known occurrence of the southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, or Pahrump poolfish. As a result, the proposed action and BCT alternative would have no effect on these three species (see Table 3-22). A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared, the findings from the BA are summarized below (Forest Service 2018c) 3.6.2.1.1 Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly The MCBB is endemic to the Spring Mountains and was first described in 1980 based on seven males and seven females taken from Lee Canyon, from elevations of 2,515 – 2,682 meters (8,250 – 8,800 feet)

105

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

(Austin 1980). MCBB typically occur on open, exposed, sunny, gravelly, and well-drained flats, slopes, hilltops, or ridges (Sever 2011). The MCBB requires open habitat that supports its larval host plant, Torrey’s milkvetch (Astragalus calycosus var. calycosus), which grows between 5,000 and 10,800 feet on the east side of the Spring Mountains. Two other species of milkvetch have been confirmed as larval host plants (Andrew et al. 2013) for MCBB: mountain oxytrope (Oxytropis oreophila) and broadkeel milkvetch (Astragalus platytropis). The MCBB is presumed to diapause (period of suspended growth or development similar to hibernation) at the base of its larval host plant or in the surrounding substrate for at least one season. The number of years the MCBB can remain in diapause is unknown; however, some researchers have hypothesized that in response to unfavorable environmental conditions, a prolonged diapause period may be possible (Scott 1986; DataSmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008). Recent presence/absence surveys indicate population fluctuation that may be attributed to extended diapause and less-than-annual adult emergence (NewFields 2008; Thompson et al. 2014). Additionally, Scott states that P. shasta is a biennial species: spending the first winter as an ovum and the second as a late instar larva (Scott 1986). Shortly after snowmelt in mid- June, post-diapause P. shasta larvae were located leading to the conclusion that diapause is performed by partly grown larvae (Emmel and Shields 1978). Adults live one season, typically a short span of time (2 – 4 weeks) during the known flight or breeding period. The typical flight and breeding period for the MCBB is early July to mid-August with a peak in late July, although the species has been observed as early as mid-June and as late as mid-September (FWS 2013). Like most butterfly species, the MCBB is dependent on plants both during larval development (larval host plants) and the adult butterfly flight period (nectar plants). The MCBB requires areas that support both its larval host and one or more of its nectar plants. Clokey fleabane (Erigeron clokeyi), Lemmon’s bitterweed (Hymenoxys lemonii), Cooper’s bitterweed (Hymenoxys cooperi), buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum vars.), snake weed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and Aster spp. are all documented nectar sources for MCBB (Thompson et al. 2014, Andrew et al. 2013). Both the phenology (timing) and number of MCBB individuals that emerge and fly to reproduce during a particular year are reliant on the combination of many environmental factors that may constitute a successful (favorable) or unsuccessful (poor) year for the subspecies. Little is known regarding these aspects of this subspecies’ biology, since the key determinants for the interactions among the butterfly’s flight and breeding period, larval host plant, and environmental conditions have not been specifically studied. Observations indicate that above or below average precipitation coupled with above or below average temperatures influence the phenology of this subspecies and are likely responsible for the fluctuation in population numbers from year to year (FWS 2011). Most butterfly populations exist as regional metapopulations (groups of spatially separated populations that may function as single populations due to occasional interbreeding; Murphy et al. 1990). Boyd and Austin (1999) indicate this is true of the MCBB. Small habitat patches tend to support smaller butterfly populations that are frequently extirpated by events that are part of normal variation (Murphy et al. 1990). Boyd and Austin (1999) suggest smaller colonies of the MCBB may be ephemeral in the long term, with the larger colonies of the subspecies more likely than smaller populations to persist in ‘‘poor’’ years, when environmental conditions do not support the emergence, flight, and reproduction of individuals. The ability of the MCBB to move between habitat patches has not been studied; however, field observations suggest the subspecies has low vagility (capacity of a species to move about or disperse in a given environment), on the order of 10 to 100 meters (Weiss et al. 1995), and nearly sedentary behavior (DataSmiths 2007; Boyd and Murphy 2008). During 3 years of intensive field surveys as part of the butterfly autecology project, metapopulation structure was not detected in the MCBB (Thompson et al. 2014). Based on this information, the likelihood of long-distance dispersal is low for the MCBB. Using a resource selection model, Thompson and others (2014) recently described favorable habitat as containing low densities of the larval host plant and high densities of nectar plants, in particular Erigeron

106

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I clokeyi, low or no grass cover, and low tree density. The Federal Register defined suitable habitat as having a density of host plants greater than two plants per square meter and a density of nectar plants of greater than two plants per square meter for smaller nectar plants and more than 0.1 plants per square meter for larger nectar plants (FWS 2015). Fire suppression and other management practices have likely limited the formation of new habitat for the MCBB. The Forest Service began suppressing fires in the Spring Mountains in 1910 (ENTRIX 2008). Throughout the Spring Mountains, fire suppression has resulted in higher densities of trees and shrubs and a transition to a closed-canopy forest with shade-tolerant understory species (ENTRIX 2008) that is generally less suitable for the MCBB. Boyd and Murphy (2008) hypothesized that the loss of pre- settlement vegetation structure over time has caused the MCBB metapopulation dynamics to collapse in Upper Lee Canyon. Field surveys conducted by Sever (2011) in 2010 and 2011 recorded 63 observations in 2010 and 28 observations in 2011 within the SMNRA. There has been concern that populations of the MCBB have been declining, but surveys have not been consistent. Before Sever (2011) surveyed in 2010 the MCBB had not been seen since 2007. It appears the population has been gradually declining since 1995, but this has not been confirmed due to irregular survey effort. Based on the best available information, the FWS has concluded that these declines in distribution and abundance are a result of natural and human-caused factors. The MCBB is presumed extirpated (no longer present) from six of its 16 documented locations or occurrences (FWS 2013). At one point, the MCBB persistently occupied less than 23 acres of habitat in upper Carpenter and Lee canyons. Butterflies have been observed during surveys conducted in July and August of 2010 – 2012 and 2014, yet the population appears to be extremely low. There are an estimated 1,921 acres of suitable habitat for the MCBB across its known range (Gulley 2018).

Human Disturbance There is no literature available describing the impacts of human disturbance on the MCBB. However, a study of a related species, the Karner’s blue butterfly, identified 4.2 meters as the distance at which a flushing response was triggered by passing hikers (Bennett et al. 2010). This study further suggested that if a patch of habitat extended at least 35 meters from the point at which the individual butterfly was flushed, there was no impact on the population of butterflies in the area since flushed ovipositing females could use the area where they landed to lay eggs after the flush response had ended.

Occurrence in the Project Area Critical Habitat designated in June of 2015, covers all of the project area with the exception of the mid- mountain base area and maintenance area (FWS 2015). However, the entire project area does not constitute suitable habitat. This section discusses the latest known occurrences of individuals of the species in the project area as well as the latest known presence and condition of suitable habitat in the project area. Surveys for individuals conducted by Katy Gulley, GBI Research Coordinator over 12 days from June 26 through July 24, 2017, yielded 17 observations in the ski area permit boundary. Surveys conducted by Cirrus personnel during the summer of 2016 resulted in a MCBB GIS habitat layer providing coverage of all potentially disturbed areas at the ski area at a resolution of 25 by 25 meters. Previous habitat survey efforts at the ski area were dated and provided insufficient coverage for project planning at the scale required. Data from the 2016 survey was broken down into four habitat classes suggested by Dr. Daniel Thompson (Cirrus 2016). Classes are based on the density of both host and nectar plants in each cell. In order to meet the criteria for the highest density based class, a cell must have a host plant density equal to or greater than two plants per square meter and a nectar plant density of equal to or greater than two plants per square meter across the entire cell. For the next class, the density of host and nectar plants must be

107

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I between 1.5 and 1.999 (repeating). For the second to lowest class, host and nectar plant density must be between 1 and 1.499 (repeating). The final class is all cells with a host and nectar plant density less than 0.999 (repeating), with many cells in this category lacking host plants, nectar plants, or both. While this data cannot identify exactly where within a cell density of host and nectar plants may be sufficient to qualify as suitable MCBB habitat (as defined in the Federal Register, see above), it does identify cells that are most likely to have suitable MCBB habitat either across the entire cell or in a portion of it. Using the data collected during the summer of 2016, as well as some conservative assumptions, the amount of suitable habitat at the ski area can be estimated. Assuming that each cell is comprised of suitable habitat proportional to its assigned class (i.e., highest density class cells are 100 percent suitable habitat, the next lower density class cells are 75 percent suitable habitat, the second to lowest density class cells are 50 percent suitable habitat, and the lowest density class cells have no suitable habitat), the amount of suitable habitat at the ski area is estimated as 19.3 acres.

3.6.2.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species A biological evaluation (BE) was also prepared for this project (Forest Service 2018b). The BE includes copies of survey reports. This document assessed the presence of Forest Service Intermountain Region sensitive species in the survey area and analyzed potential impacts on these species from project-related activities. Potential suitable habitat is present in the survey area for seven sensitive wildlife species. These seven species are addressed below. 3.6.2.2.1 Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterfly The Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly is endemic to the Spring Mountains in Clark and Nye counties, Nevada. Dark blue butterflies have been observed puddling at stream banks, springs, and seeps in mixed conifer and pinyon-juniper habitat, and occasionally sagebrush communities, between 1,618 and 2,414 meters (ENTRIX 2008; Hiatt and Boone 2004). The known larval host and nectar plants are sulfur buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum var. subaridum), bastard toadflax (Comandra umbellate), and juniper buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum var. juniporinum). (Thompson et al. 2014) The Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly is considered locally common to abundant in some parts of the SMNRA. It has never been observed at the ski area, but some potential habitat exists in the northwest portion of the permit area. (Thompson et al. 2014) 3.6.2.2.2 Morand’s Checkerspot This butterfly primarily inhabits meadows and avalanche chutes within alpine, bristlecone pine, mixed conifer, and pinyon-juniper habitats. Sites at lower elevations appear to be associated with past fires, while other sites appear to be associated with avalanche chutes. The Morand’s checkerspot has a patchy distribution and forms discrete colonies around its larval host plants. Nectar plants include western wallflower (Erysimum asperum), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Lemmon’s hymenoxys (Hymenoxys lemmonii), Erigeron sp., mountain monardella (Monardella odoratissima), Pakera sp., and Penstemon sp., among others. Larval host plants include some paintbrush species (Castilleja sp.) and some penstemon species (Penstemon sp.). ( (Thompson et al. 2014) This species is abundant in other areas of the SMNRA but rare in Lee Canyon, with only six adults observed during surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Thompson et al. 2014). Habitat in the disturbance area occurs primarily in the avalanche chute in the Chair 8 pod. 3.6.2.2.3 Spring Mountains Icarioides Blue Butterfly The Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly is found primarily in disturbed open stands and open meadows within bristlecone pine and mixed conifer, as well as in pinyon-juniper, sagebrush communities, and wet areas near springs. The larval host plant is silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteus). Known nectar plants include sulphur-flower buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum), Douglas’ dustymaiden (Chaenactis

108

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I douglasii), cinquefoil (Potentilla spp.), sweetclover (Melilotus sp.), Erigeron spp., lobeleaf groundsel (Senecio douglasii), among others. Important ecological factors include wet sites and standing mud where adult butterflies obtain moisture, minerals, and nutrients before host plants are in bloom. (Thompson et al. 2014) This species is most common in Kyle Canyon, but it is predicted to occur anywhere lupine species (Lupinus spp.) are found (Thompson et al. 2014). In the disturbance area, lupines are found in two isolated locations in the northern portion of the permit area. 3.6.2.2.4 Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat This species is highly dependent on caves and mines but uses trees and buildings that offer cave-like spaces in areas where caves and mines are not available. Diet consists primarily of small moths, and foraging occurs in flight or near vegetation where prey is gleaned from vegetation surfaces. Telemetry studies have revealed over 95 percent of foraging activity to be concentrated in open forest habitat. (Bradley et al. 2006) This species was detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c). 3.6.2.2.5 Spotted Bat This species is found in a wide variety of habitats from low-elevation desert scrub to high-elevation coniferous forests. It primarily roosts in crevices in cliffs, and may use caves and mines in winter. It forages in canyons, open, and riparian areas in desert settings, over meadows, forest edges, and open coniferous woodland in montane settings. (WBWG 2017) This species was detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c). 3.6.2.2.6 Northern Goshawk This species is typically associated with late seral or old-growth forests, characterized by contiguous stands of large trees and snags with closed canopies and relatively open understory. The typical home range for a nesting pair is approximately 6,000 acres. Three major components make up the home range: nest area, post fledging-family area (PFA) and foraging area. The nest area (approximately 30 acres) may include more than one nest that may be used in alternate years. Stick nests are often built in larger, mature trees on north or northwest-facing slopes, near water and are typically associated with quaking aspen. Nest areas contain one or more stands of large, old trees with a dense canopy cover. The PFA (approximately 420 acres) surrounds the nest area. Due to its size, the PFA typically includes a variety of forest types and conditions. Goshawks may choose foraging areas based on prey availability, habitat structure, and composition. (Squires and Reynolds 1997) The disturbance area contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Surveys in 2016 determined that no goshawks were nesting in the disturbance area for the 2016 nesting season (Forest Service 2018c). There are no previous records of goshawks in the disturbance area, but there have been sightings elsewhere in Lee Canyon. Anecdotally, no individuals were detected during other survey activities in the disturbance area. 3.6.2.2.7 Peregrine Falcon This species generally prefers open country for hunting adjacent to cliffs for nesting. It is associated with mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, lowland riparian and grassland habitats. This falcon feeds primarily on medium-sized birds such as jays, flickers, meadowlarks, pigeons, starlings, shorebirds, waterfowl and other readily available species. Prey species are usually hunted over open habitat types such as waterways, fields, and wetland areas such as swamps and marshes. Nests typically consist of shallow depressions on rock ledges or small caves on high cliffs. (White et al. 2002)

109

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

There is suitable foraging habitat but no nesting habitat in the disturbance area. Cliffs near the ski area were surveyed using a spotting scope for whitewash associated with nest ledges but none was detected. Anecdotally, no individuals were detected during other survey activities in the disturbance area. 3.6.2.2.8 Flammulated Owl Flammulated owls typically occur in mixed coniferous forests of pine, spruce and fir at higher elevations, as well as oak and pinyon pine at lower elevations. They are secondary cavity nesters, nesting in relatively open stands of large-diameter (> 21-inch diameter) ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and aspen (Populus tremuloides). (Linkhart and Mccallum 2013) This species is an insectivorous, cavity nesting, neotropical migrant. Territories are established in early May and eggs are typically laid in early June. The young fledge in late July and disperse by September. Threats include loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and nest disturbance. (Linkhart and Mccallum 2013) There is suitable foraging and nesting habitat for this species in the disturbance area. Flammulated owls are known to occur at the ski area and were detected during surveys in 2015 (Forest Service 2018c).

3.6.2.3 Management Indicator Species The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; 36CFR 219.9(a)(1) requires the Forest Service to identify species that are indictors of ecosystem health and the success of resource management. In fulfillment of that requirement, the HTNF has designated MIS on the SMNRA according to land type association (LTA) communities and seral stage. Table 3-23 presents the LTA communities in the disturbance area and their associated MIS. MIS for LTAs not present in the disturbance area are not presented in Table 3- 23 or discussed in this document. MIS plants are discussed in section 3.5. Palmer’s chipmunk and brown- headed cowbird are discussed below. The project area is above the maximum elevation range of the chuckwalla and this species will not be discussed further.

Table 3-23. Land type association communities in the disturbance area and their associated management indicator species. Communities Early Seral Mid Seral Late Seral Palmer’s chipmunk Mixed Conifer Rough angelica Aspen Brown-headed cowbird Upper Wash Rough angelica Aspen Golden currant Jaeger’s draba, Lemon hymenoxys (Lemmon’s rubberweed), and Charleston Indian Bristlecone Pine paintbrush (Clokey’s paintbrush) Cliffs Chuckwalla and Jaeger’s ivesia

3.6.2.3.1 Palmer’s Chipmunk Palmer’s chipmunk is an endemic species that occurs throughout the Spring Mountains from the pinyon- juniper zone to above the bristlecone pine zone but is most abundant in the limber pine-white fir mixed conifer zone (Lowrey and Longshore 2010). The diet of the Palmer’s chipmunk consists mainly of conifer seeds, but it also eats flowers, berries, green vegetation, and insects (Hiatt and Boone 2003). Palmer’s chipmunk seeks shelter among large rocks, logs, holes in trees, or cliff crevices at the base of canyons (Hiatt and Boone 2003). This species is a management indicator for the late-seral stage of mixed conifer. Palmer’s chipmunks are abundant in the disturbance area and surrounding area.

110

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.6.2.3.2 Brown-headed Cowbird The breeding range of this species extends from southeast Alaska, to Newfoundland, and south to central Mexico, along the entire southern U.S. to Florida. Analysis of breeding bird survey data indicates a significant population increase (1968-2004) within the region for this species. (Sauer 2008) The species is a management indicator for the late-seral stage of mixed conifer and is associated with areas of disturbances such as roads, campgrounds, facilities, and housing developments (Forest Service 1986a). As an indicator of disturbance, presence of brown-headed cowbirds and upward population trends for this species are an indicator of habitat decline. Absence of this species or downward population trends are the management goal. Its numbers are documented on the SMNRA during annual breeding and winter bird surveys. Because the brown-headed cowbird is an indicator species for disturbance and fragmentation in mixed- conifer areas, populations would be expected to change in response to disturbances that create an edge effect advantageous to the species’ breeding success. While the SMNRA is highly fragmented in areas, surveys have indicated that this is a rare species with low numbers within the SMNRA. Suitable brown-headed cowbird habitat exists in the disturbance area. Anecdotally, no individuals were detected during other survey activities in the disturbance area.

3.6.2.4 Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern The 1998 CA is an agreement between Forest Service Region 4, the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Pacific Region of the FWS. The CA identifies species of concern for which the agencies involved will provide long-term protection. These species are considered rare, believed to be sensitive to human disturbance, or subject to threat. Potential habitat is present in the disturbance area for 18 of the 30 wildlife species of conservation concern listed in the CA (including those that are also Forest Service sensitive, etc.). All but eight, are addressed above under other categories and not discussed further here. The 12 wildlife species of concern for which there is no potential suitable habitat in the disturbance area are not addressed further in this analysis. 3.6.2.4.1 Spring Mountains Comma Skipper The Spring Mountains comma skipper inhabits riparian areas in mixed conifer forests and pinyon-juniper communities where there is surface water. It is speculated that larval host plants for the Spring Mountains comma skipper include perennial grasses and sedges (Carex sp.), which are common throughout the Spring Mountains (Thompson et al. 2014; Weiss et al. 1997). This species is widespread throughout the SMNRA but at fairly low numbers. Surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2012 documented 10 individuals at Lee Canyon (Thompson et al. 2014). Habitat in the disturbance area exists in the northwest portion of the permit area. 3.6.2.4.2 Charleston Ant Charleston ant is believed to be a Spring Mountains endemic, but its total distribution is unknown. One report exists of six ant colonies in Kyle Canyon at the junction of Echo Canyon and SR 157 (Cole 1956). It is believed that this species lives in subterranean nests, without cover, or beneath large stones. In 1956, nests were found in open coniferous forest habitat at 7,700 feet elevation (Cole 1956), but no data exist on the observation of this species since 1956. It is not known whether this species currently inhabits the disturbance area, and no surveys have been conducted within the disturbance area for this species. 3.6.2.4.3 Nevada Admiral The Nevada admiral occurs in riparian habitats, bristlecone pine forests, mixed conifer forests, and pinyon-juniper communities. The primary larval host plant is likely quaking aspen, as well as potentially

111

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I willow (Salix spp.) and serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis). Important ecological features include riparian areas and the presence of host plants. Nectar plants include western white clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), thistles (Cirsium sp.), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), and horehound (Marrubium vulgare) among others. (Thompson et al. 2014) The Nevada admiral population in the SMNRA appears to be secure because of its distribution throughout the Spring Mountains (NatureServe 2017). Surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2012 documented 10 individuals at the ski area (Thompson et al. 2014). Habitat for this species exists throughout the disturbance area. 3.6.2.4.4 Carole’s Silverspot Carole’s silverspot occurs throughout all vegetation zones in the SMNRA. They occur in bristlecone pine forests, white fir-Ponderosa pine forests, pinyon-juniper forests, sagebrush, chaparral, and desert habitats. The larval host plant is Charleston violet (Viola charlestonensis). Nectar plants include Arizona thistle (Cirsium arizonicum), sanddune wallflower (Erysimum capitatum), spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium), Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii), rough angelica (Angelica scabrida), dustymaiden (Chaenactis sp.), lupine (Lupinus sp.), mountain monardella (Mondardella odoratissima), and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa). (Thompson et al. 2014) Investigations have shown that this butterfly is widespread and common on slopes in the central portion of the Spring Mountains range, between approximately 6,560 and 8,860 feet in elevation. Surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2012 documented 14 individuals at the ski area (Thompson et al. 2014). Habitat for this species exists throughout the disturbance area. 3.6.2.4.5 Western Small-footed Myotis This species utilizes a variety of habitats including desert scrub, grasslands, sagebrush steppes, blackbrush, pinyon-juniper, pine-fir forests, and agriculture and urban areas between 1,683 and 9,108 feet. These bats can be found hibernating in caves or mines, but little else is known about them. They are known to roost in caves, mines, and under loose bark in trees. This species prefers to forage in the early evening, feeding on small insects such as moths and beetles, foraging along cliffs and rocky slopes. (Hiatt and Boone 2004) This species was detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c). 3.6.2.4.6 Long-eared Myotis The long-eared myotis primarily occurs in mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper, and sagebrush habitats at elevations between 5,400 and 9,600 feet. It is a year-round resident of the SMNRA and day roosts in hollow trees, caves and mines, and structures. This species forages along rivers and streams, over ponds, and within cluttered forest environment. (WBWG 2017) This species was detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c). 3.6.2.4.7 Long-legged Myotis This species occurs between 5,400 and 10,150 feet elevation on the Spring Mountains and primarily occurs in mixed conifer and pinyon-juniper habitats but may occasionally use desert scrub habitats. This species requires a consistent source of water and is associated with rivers and springs. Important ecological factors are hollow trees, caves, and mines for roosting and open water for foraging. Roost sites include hollow trees, large diameter snags, under bark, live trees with lightning scars, rock crevices, mines, and buildings. Large colonies utilize mines and caves that serve as hibernacula. Maternity roosts are in buildings, under bridges, in rock crevices, on cliffs, in trees, or in snags. (Ramsey 1997) This species was detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c).

112

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.6.2.4.8 Fringed Myotis Habitat for this species includes desert scrub, pinyon-juniper, and coniferous forest habitats, usually at elevations of 3,500 – 7,000 feet. This bat is a year-round resident in the SMNRA that roosts in mines, caves, trees, and buildings. Fringed myotis prefer to forage on beetles, but they also eat other insects, including moths. Foraging occurs in and among vegetation. (Bradley et al. 2006) This species was not detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c). However, suitable foraging habitat exists in the disturbance area, and there is roosting habitat in the area.

3.6.2.5 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species The 2000 MSHCP is an agreement between the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning and the FWS. The MSHCP identifies 79 species to be covered under an ESA Section 10(a) Permit (allowing for incidental take) and specifies the actions necessary to maintain the viability of their natural habitat (Recon 2000). Potential habitat is present for 13 wildlife species listed in the MSHCP (including overlap with species also listed as Forest Service sensitive, etc.). All but one, the silver-haired bat, are addressed above under other categories and not discussed further here. Those MSHCP species for which there is no suitable potential habitat in the disturbance area are not addressed further in this analysis. 3.6.2.5.1 Silver-haired Bat These are the most common bats in forested areas, most closely associated with coniferous, mixed coniferous, and deciduous forest types. They appear to hibernate mainly in forested areas, though they may be making long migrations from their summer forest to a winter forest site. Typical hibernation roosts include small hollows beneath exfoliating bark of large trees, in wood piles, and in cliff faces. They feed on insects, mainly within disturbed areas, sometimes at tree-top level, but often in small clearings and along roadways or water courses. (WBWG 2017) This species was detected during surveys conducted at the snowmaking pond during the summer of 2016 (Forest Service 2018c).

3.6.2.6 Migratory Birds Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Executive Order 13186 details the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect bald and golden eagles and other migratory birds. In December 2008, an MOU between the Forest Service and the FWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds was signed (Forest Service 2008). Pursuant to the Executive Order and the MOU, the Forest Service ensures that environmental analyses of federal actions required by NEPA evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of conservation concern. A list of birds of conservation concern is published and maintained by the FWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management (FWS 2008). The current list is available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. The disturbance area is located within the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts Bird Conservation Region (BCR 33). The official species list for this project, obtained from the FWS on June 22, 2018, identifies 28 species of conservation concern that could occur in the vicinity of the ski area (FWS 2018). These species occupy a wide variety of habitat types and could occur in the disturbance area year-round or during the breeding or migration seasons.

113

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.6.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.6.3.1 No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, no development would take place at the ski area. Therefore, there would be no impacts on any special-status wildlife species because no action impacting individuals or habitat would take place.

3.6.3.2 Proposed Action Under this alternative, disturbance would occur as described in section 2.2 and enumerated in section 3.2. The direct and indirect impacts of this disturbance on special-status wildlife species are described below. 3.6.3.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly With the design criteria and mitigation measures described in section 2.6 and 3.6.5 in place, the direct effects of the proposed action should be limited. Most of the construction would take place outside of suitable habitat, so the potential for impacts on adults, larvae, pupae, or eggs would be small. However, flushing of adults or trampling of larvae, pupae, or eggs could occur as a result of surveys to mark suitable habitat or of construction activities within suitable habitat. Flushing of adults could also occur due to construction activities within a 5-meter buffer around suitable habitat (Forest Service 2018c). The estimated area in which these construction-related impacts could occur is 6.4 acres, of an estimated 19.4 acres of suitable habitat at the ski area. In application, much of the 6.4 acres of habitat within the construction disturbance buffer would not be completely lost (i.e., no longer qualify as suitable habitat per the Federal Register definition). As an example, a patch of suitable habitat within an area proposed for glading may be completely lost by the cutting and skidding of nearby trees, or it could be avoided entirely, depending on the details of where the patch was situated and how exactly individual trees were felled and skidded. Mitigation measure 3 in section 3.6.5 requires that areas of suitable habitat be avoided in situations like this, where practical, but avoidance will not always be practical or even possible. In this analysis, habitat within the construction disturbance buffer is assumed lost but the 6.4 acres reported here should be viewed as an upper limit rather than an estimate of actual results. The main potential effect of maintenance of new infrastructure is flushing of adult MCBB from adjacent habitat. This is because all maintenance activities associated with the new infrastructure would take place within the construction disturbance buffer, where all habitat (and larvae, pupae or eggs associated with that habitat) is assumed to have been lost during construction. As discussed above, this is a conservative assumption. Habitat will persist outside the construction disturbance buffer, and those areas are where adults could be flushed by maintenance activities. In time, MCBB habitat may grow back into areas within the construction disturbance buffer, and habitat may expand beyond the estimated 6.4 acres of existing habitat in that area. Should that occur, maintenance of new infrastructure would have direct impacts on adults, larvae, pupae, and eggs due to trampling and flushing of adults. The degree to which these impacts would occur is not possible to determine at this time since the extent of potential habitat regeneration and expansion is not known. Future monitoring would be necessary to quantify impacts of maintenance activities on new habitat. Operation-related effects are less clear and certain than construction-related effects. This is primarily due to the uncertainty of predicting human behavior. Another component introducing uncertainty is the potential increase in habitat resulting from tree cutting that would occur during construction (see below). Winter operations have few direct impacts on the MCBB since all individuals are snow covered most of the time these activities are ongoing. However, during some years when ski run coverage is thin, patches

114

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I of habitat and potentially individual larvae, pupae, or eggs may be exposed. Mitigation measures 13 and 14 in section 3.6.5 require closure of such areas to avoid impacts during the winter. In the short term, direct effects of on-trail use of the proposed summer recreational infrastructure would be limited to accidents in which a biker was thrown from, or a hiker fell from, the trail into the 5-meter buffer around suitable habitat. It is anticipated that such events could occur on the order of 10 incidents per day. In order to directly impact the MCBB, these accidents would have to occur within the approximately 1.7 percent of the trail system that would be within 8 meters (5 meter buffer plus a 3 meter accident impact area) of suitable habitat, and an adult MCBB would have to be present at the near edge of the suitable habitat patch at the time of the accident. Approximately 0.8 acres of the estimated suitable habitat would be within 8 meters of the trail system. This represents 4 percent of the estimated suitable habitat outside the construction disturbance buffer. In short, this risk would be small. Final layout of the mountain bike trails may shift and trails would be located within forested areas wherever possible. Off-trail use by hikers in MCBB habitat at the ski area would likely be reduced due to the addition of trails. Currently, most hikers ride up Chair 1 and walk down where they choose, or simply walk around at will, since there are no trails for them to use. Some hikers use the access roads, but the roads are too loose and rocky for most users’ preference. The increased educational measures described in the vegetation mitigation section (3.5.5), in conjunction with the proposed hiking trail, would likely result in fewer direct impacts on adults, larvae, pupae, and eggs when compared with the existing situation. Over the long term, if MCBB habitat extended into open areas created by clearing and glading of trees, incidents of flushing of MCBB adults related to accidents on the trails could be expected to increase. However, if such expansion were to occur, it would be highly likely that flushed adults would have more than 35 meters of habitat to fly into, avoiding adverse effects, as described above in section 3.6.2.1.1. Similarly, any adults flushed by the mountain coaster would have ample habitat to fly into and suffer no adverse effects. Potentially offsetting the loss of suitable habitat within the construction disturbance buffer is the possible increase in the amount and connectivity of suitable habitat at the ski area. This could result from the removal of trees that are currently providing too much shading for sufficient densities of MCBB host and nectar plants to grow underneath them. The proposed action would glade or remove trees entirely from approximately 124 acres in five patches. Specific elements of the proposed action could generate habitat expansion in three ways. First would be the gradual expansion at the perimeter of suitable habitat patches as the plants there propagated into newly habitable areas. Second would be the increase in host and nectar plant density in areas where shading is currently a limiting factor for new plant establishment. Third would be propagation by seeds from distant habitat patches finding their way to newly habitable areas. Increased connectivity among habitat patches would occur in two ways. First would be removal of tall vegetation, which serves as a barrier to MCBB movement, by glading and clearing. Second would be establishment of conditions that could lead to the development of suitable habitat in patches (e.g., gladed areas) or linear features (e.g., cleared ski runs) in intervening areas between established patches. This would reduce the barriers for individuals and subpopulations to move and populate existing or newly created suitable habitat. Should they occur as predicted, all of these processes would result in increased acreage of suitable habitat as well as the eventual connection of currently distinct habitat patches. Anecdotal evidence from the recent Carpenter 1 fire, as well as observation of previous disturbance at the ski area, supports these anticipated improvements. If habitat were to expand, maintenance activities associated with control of erosion or encroaching forest vegetation would protect the new habitat from being destroyed or shaded out. Some maintenance activities such as grading of access road and trail surfaces have the potential to impact MCBB habitat that could encroach on the margins of these features but these impacts are impossible to quantify at this time.

115

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. While the overall effect of this project is likely to be beneficial to the MCBB, some adverse effects will occur. Since all effects are not beneficial, it is my determination that these actions may affect and are likely to adversely affect the MCBB or its designated critical habitat. 3.6.3.2.2 Forest Sensitive Species

Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterfly There are an estimated 63 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 5 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the proposed action. Of these 5 acres, approximately 1 acre of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The proposed action could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The gladed areas in the Chair 5 pod are near existing habitat, and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Morand’s Checkerspot There are an estimated 48.5 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 4.2 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the proposed action. Of these 4.2 acres, approximately 0.8 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), but the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in

116

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The proposed action could result in an increase in habitat for this species over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in open areas as well as areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The ski runs and gladed areas in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, as well as the glading above the snowmaking pond, are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Morand’s checkerspot within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Spring Mountains Icarioides Blue Butterfly There are an estimated 0.3 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 0.1 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the proposed action. The area impacted would be subject to long term disturbance due to the proposed parking lot. This disturbed patch of habitat is very low density habitat relative to the undisturbed patch, five lupine plants versus 50 plants. The remaining patch of habitat would not be subject to any disturbance. The closest element of the proposed action would be a mountain biking trail 10 meters from the habitat patch. Habitat expansion as a result of the proposed action would be unlikely for this species since no tree clearing would occur near the remaining patch of habitat at the ski area. Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat No cliff or cave roosting habitat for this species would be impacted under this alternative. Approximately 124.1 acres of forested potential foraging habitat for this species would be altered. Of this area, 23.4 acres would be gladed, resulting in better open-forest foraging habitat. The remaining 100.7 acres would be cleared. Some edge foraging habitat would be created as a result but the remainder would no longer provide preferred foraging habitat for this species. However, there is a substantial amount of open-forest type habitat in the immediate area. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the pale Townsend’s big-eared bat within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that there would be no impact on preferred roosting habitat and only a small percentage of the foraging habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

117

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Spotted Bat No cliff or cave roosting habitat for this species would be impacted under this alternative. Due to the wide variety of habitats that this species uses for foraging, the change from forested to open habitats would have no impact on this species. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action will have no impact on the spotted bat.

Northern Goshawk The alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of both nesting and foraging habitat at the ski area. However, forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area and no goshawks are known to have nested in the disturbance area. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted and the impacted habitat is not known to be occupied. Furthermore, mitigation measure 9 would prevent cutting of trees this species could use as nesting habitat, during the nesting season.

Peregrine Falcon No cliff nesting habitat for this species would be impacted under this alternative. The tree cutting associated with this alternative, particularly the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, would create additional open foraging habitat. Given the open nature of the forest habitat in the vicinity and the existing open areas (e.g., ski runs, meadows, campgrounds, and roadways), the additional foraging habitat would not be a substantial improvement in the amount and quality of foraging habitat in the vicinity. It is my determination that the implementation of the proposed action may benefit individuals and therefore is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that no nesting habitat would be impacted and foraging habitat would be slightly improved.

Flammulated Owl The alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of both nesting and foraging habitat at the ski area. Based on the results of surveys in 2016, it is likely that there has been flammulated owl nesting activity in the disturbance area, potentially in the areas of the Chair 5 pod and the new parking lot. However, forested habitat suitable for nesting is extremely common in the immediate area and flammulated owls are common in suitable habitat on the SMNRA (eBird 2017). It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the flammulated owl within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted. Furthermore, mitigation measure 9 would prevent cutting of trees this species could use as nesting habitat, during the nesting season. 3.6.3.2.3 Management Indicator Species

Palmer’s Chipmunk The entire disturbance area for this alternative provides some sort of habitat for this species. The largest impact on this species would be related to the alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forest. Palmer’s chipmunks in the area use these trees as shelter and the seeds they produce for food. Forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. It is my determination that the proposed action will not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations of this species although it will reduce the amount of potential habitat.

118

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Brown-headed Cowbird The proposed action would result in a substantial increase in the amount of edge habitat due to the increased juxtaposition of forest and open areas created by new ski runs. The additional edge habitat would expose more forest-nesting birds to potential brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds due to increased visibility of the nests. However, brown-headed cowbirds are rare at the ski area, and it is unlikely that the increase of edge habitat would result in a measurable increase in populations of this species in the area. It is my determination that the proposed action will not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations of this species although it will increase the amount of potential habitat. 3.6.3.2.4 Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern

Spring Mountains Comma Skipper There are an estimated 178.3 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 42.8 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the proposed action. Of these 42.8 acres, approximately 6.4 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), but the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The proposed action could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in open areas as well as areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The ski runs and gladed areas in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, as well as the glading above the snowmaking pond, are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Spring Mountains comma skipper within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Charleston Ant Given the unknown distribution of this species, impacts of the proposed action are unclear. Any individuals or colonies present in the disturbance area could be destroyed by ground disturbing activities such as those requiring grading or excavation (see Table 3-2). It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Charleston ant within the planning area. While the extent of this species and therefore the impacts are unclear, erosion control measures described in section 3.4.5 will minimize impacts on subterranean habitat for this species.

119

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Nevada Admiral There are an estimated 89.9 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 30.5 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the proposed action. Of these 30.5 acres, approximately 5 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), but the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The proposed action could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in open areas as well as areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The ski runs and gladed areas in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, as well as the glading above the snowmaking pond, are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Nevada admiral within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Carole’s Silverspot There are no host plants (Viola charlestonensis) for this species in the surveyed area, but there are a substantial number of nectar plants and individuals have been observed in the area. There are an estimated 249 acres of nectaring habitat for this species in the surveyed area. Approximately 66.7 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the proposed action. Of these 66.7 acres, approximately 8.4 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), but the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. Nectar plants for this species are found throughout the ski area, with the exception of the Chair 5 pod area. The proposed action could result in an increase in nectaring habitat for this species in the Chair 5 pod, over the long term.

120

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Climate change could impact this species, as described in section 3.13.7. Any impacts of climate change on this species would occur long after the project area had recovered from the initial disturbance of construction and would not exacerbate the short-term impacts of this project. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Carole’s silverspot within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the nectaring habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Western Small-footed Myotis The alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of roosting habitat at the ski area. Foraging habitat would not be impacted. Forested roosting habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the western small-footed myotis within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Long-eared Myotis and Long-legged Myotis No cliff or cave roosting habitat for these species would be impacted under this alternative. The alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of forested roosting habitat at the ski area. Foraging habitat would not be impacted by the proposed action. Forested roosting habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the long-eared myotis or the long-legged myotis within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Fringed Myotis No cliff or cave roosting habitat for this species would be impacted under this alternative. The alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of forested roosting and foraging habitat at the ski area. Forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the fringed myotis within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted. 3.6.3.2.5 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species

Silver-haired Bat The alteration of approximately 124.1 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of both roosting and foraging habitat at the ski area. However, forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. It is my determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the spotted bat within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

121

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.6.3.2.6 Migratory Birds The proposed action has the potential to impact migratory bird nesting in all disturbed areas. With mitigation measure 9 in place, these impacts would be eliminated. Habitat impacts would occur as a result of the proposed action, but none of the impacted habitats are rare or limiting in the immediate area or on the SMNRA. Therefore, with mitigation measure 9 in place, the proposed action will not adversely impact migratory bird species. 3.6.3.2.7 Summary The proposed action would have no impact on spotted bats because no roosting habitat would be impacted and value of the area as foraging habitat would not be changed. The proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the MCBB because habitat is present in the disturbance area and short-term effects are likely to be detrimental. The proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the following species: Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly, Morand’s checkerspot, Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, Spring Mountains comma skipper, Charleston ant, Nevada admiral, Carole’s silverspot, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, fringed myotis, and silver-haired bat because habitat is present for these species in the disturbance area but impacts are not substantial relative to available habitat in the area. The proposed action would not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations of Palmer’s chipmunk or brown-headed cowbird on the Forest because habitat for Palmer’s chipmunks is ubiquitous and brown- headed cowbirds are rare in the project area.

3.6.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative In order to provide a clear contrast between the proposed action and the BCT alternative, the following discussion focuses on how the impacts of the BCT alternative would differ from those of the proposed action, as described above. 3.6.3.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly Effects of the BCT alternative would be similar to those discussed under the proposed action. However, under this alternative, the amount of suitable habitat within the construction disturbance buffer would be reduced to 5.4 acres and the acreage of trees to be removed would be reduced to approximately 95 acres. While the overall effect of this project is likely to be beneficial to the MCBB, some adverse effects will occur. Since all effects are not beneficial, these actions may affect and are likely to adversely affect the MCBB or its designated critical habitat. 3.6.3.3.2 Forest Sensitive Species

Spring Mountains Dark Blue Butterfly There are an estimated 63 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 1.8 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the BCT alternative. Of these 1.8 acres, approximately 0.8 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, parking, and access roads), the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be

122

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The BCT alternative could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The gladed areas in the Chair 5 pod are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Morand’s Checkerspot There are an estimated 48.5 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 2.3 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the BCT alternative. Of these 2.3 acres, approximately 0.8 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers or unsanctioned off-trail hiking/biking), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. Alternative A could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in open areas as well as areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The ski runs and gladed areas in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, as well as the glading above the snowmaking pond, are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Morand’s checkerspot within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat No cliff or cave roosting habitat for this species would be impacted under this alternative. Approximately 114.9 acres of forested potential foraging habitat for this species would be altered. Of this area, 28.3 acres would be gladed, resulting in better open-forest foraging habitat. The remaining 86.6 acres would be cleared. Some edge foraging habitat would be created as a result but the remainder would no longer provide preferred foraging habitat for this species. However, there is a substantial amount of open-forest type habitat in the immediate area. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the pale Townsend’s big-eared bat within the planning area. The

123

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I rationale for this determination is that there would be no impact on preferred roosting habitat and only a small percentage of the foraging habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Northern Goshawk The alteration of approximately 114.9 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of both nesting and foraging habitat at the ski area. However, forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area and no goshawks are known to have nested in the disturbance area. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted and the impacted habitat is not known to be occupied. Furthermore, mitigation measure 9 would prevent cutting of trees this species could use as nesting habitat, during the nesting season.

Flammulated Owl The alteration of approximately 114.9 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of both nesting and foraging habitat at the ski area. Based on the results of surveys in 2016, it is likely that there has been flammulated owl nesting activity in the disturbance area, potentially in the areas of the Chair 5 pod and the new parking lot. However, forested habitat suitable for nesting is extremely common in the immediate area and flammulated owls are common in suitable habitat on the SMNRA (eBird 2017). Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the flammulated owl within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted. Furthermore, mitigation measure 9 would prevent cutting of trees this species could use as nesting habitat, during the nesting season. 3.6.3.3.3 Spring Mountains Conservation Agreement Species of Concern

Spring Mountains Comma Skipper There are an estimated 178.3 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 40.4 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the BCT alternative. Of these 40.4 acres, approximately 6.2 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The BCT alternative could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in open areas as well as areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The ski runs and gladed areas in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, as well as the glading above the snowmaking pond, are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Spring Mountains comma skipper within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be

124

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Nevada Admiral There are an estimated 89.9 acres of habitat for this species in the surveyed area, based on host and nectar plant presence. Approximately 29.5 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the BCT alternative. Of these 29.5 acres, approximately 4.7 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. The BCT alternative could result in an increase in habitat for this species, over the long term. Currently, suitable habitat exists in open areas as well as areas with low to moderate tree canopy cover. The ski runs and gladed areas in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, as well as the glading above the snowmaking pond, are near existing habitat and host and nectar plants for this species may eventually expand into these areas. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Nevada admiral within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted, the majority of impacts would be short term, and long-term expansion of habitat may offset some of the detrimental impacts.

Carole’s Silverspot There are no host plants (Viola charlestonensis) for this species in the surveyed area, but there are a substantial number of nectar plants and individuals have been observed in the area. There are an estimated 249 acres of nectaring habitat for this species in the surveyed area. Approximately 63 acres of this habitat would be impacted by the BCT alternative. Of these 63 acres, approximately 8.5 acres of habitat would be impacted long term (e.g., habitat in the footprint of bike trails, mountain coaster footings, parking, access roads, and structure footprints), the remainder would be short term disturbance related to construction in areas that would not be subject to long-term ground disturbance (e.g., ski runs, snowmaking and utility trenches, glading, and construction disturbance buffers around infrastructure). This habitat is also in proximity to summer activities that have the potential to disturb adults. In the rare circumstance of off-trail incidents (e.g., falls/crashes by hikers/bikers), summer activities also have the potential to trample eggs, larvae, and pupae. It is anticipated that the magnitude of this impact would be very small due to the propensity of mountain bikers at ski areas to stay on-trail, as well as mitigation in place to protect MCBB habitat (Forest Service 2017). This is not necessarily because habitat for this species and the MCBB is collocated, but that mitigation measures to protect the MCBB are intended to create a culture of appropriate trail use at the ski area that would affect all habitats. Nectar plants for this species are found throughout the ski area, with the exception of the Chair 5 pod area. The BCT alternative could result in an increase in nectaring habitat for this species in the Chair 5 pod, over the long term. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Carole’s silverspot within the planning area. The rationale for

125

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I this determination is that only a small percentage of the nectaring habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Western Small-footed Myotis The alteration of approximately 114.9 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of roosting habitat at the ski area. Foraging habitat would not be impacted by the BCT alternative. Forested roosting habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the western small-footed myotis within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Long-eared Myotis and Long-legged Myotis No cliff or cave roosting habitat for these species would be impacted under this alternative. The alteration of approximately 114.9 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of forested roosting habitat at the ski area. Foraging habitat would not be impacted by the BCT alternative. Forested roosting habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the long-eared myotis or the long-legged myotis within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted.

Fringed Myotis No cliff or cave roosting habitat for this species would be impacted under this alternative. The alteration of approximately 114.9 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of forested roosting and foraging habitat at the ski area. Forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the fringed myotis within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted. 3.6.3.3.4 Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species

Silver-haired Bat The alteration of approximately 114.9 acres of forested habitat would result in a reduction of both roosting and foraging habitat at the ski area. However, forested habitat is extremely common in the immediate area. Implementation of the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the spotted bat within the planning area. The rationale for this determination is that only a small percentage of the habitat on the SMNRA would be impacted. 3.6.3.3.5 Summary Similar to the proposed action, the BCT alternative would have no impact on spotted bats because no roosting habitat would be impacted and value of the area as foraging habitat would not be changed. Impacts on the Spring Mountains icarioides blue butterfly, peregrine falcon, and Charleston ant would be identical to those described under the proposed action. Similar to the proposed action, the BCT may affect and is likely to adversely affect the MCBB because habitat is present in the disturbance area and short-term effects are likely to be detrimental. However, impacts under this alternative would be reduced relative to the proposed action.

126

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Implementing the BCT alternative may impact individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the following species: Spring Mountains dark blue butterfly, Morand’s checkerspot, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, flammulated owl, Spring Mountains comma skipper, Nevada admiral, Carole’s silverspot, western small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, fringed myotis, and silver-haired bat because habitat is present for these species in the disturbance area but impacts are not substantial relative to available habitat in the area. In each case, impacts would be reduced under the BCT alternative relative to the proposed action. Similar to the proposed action, the BCT alternative would not alter the existing trend for forest-level populations of Palmer’s chipmunk or brown-headed cowbird on the Forest.

3.6.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. The Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction, Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction, Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Treatment, and Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction projects meet the spatial and temporal overlap requirements. A brief summary of these projects is provided above in section 3.3.

3.6.4.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species The analysis completed for the Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction Project indicates that, while there is no known historical use within the project area, there are 2.6 acres of marginal MCBB habitat located within the interior of the campground loops that would be impacted by the project. The lack of historic use, the location of the disturbed habitat within an already highly trafficked area, and the small acreage make the loss of this habitat unlikely to interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative on the MCBB in any way that would jeopardize the viability of MCBB populations in the area. The analysis completed for the Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project indicates that no known MCBB individuals or habitat exists within the project area yet concludes that the project is likely to adversely affect the MCBB due to possible habitat expansion in the years following project implementation. If MCBB populations and habitats were to expand into the Foxtail project area, this would constitute a substantial expansion for both populations and habitat. Under this scenario, the detrimental impacts of recreationists at Foxtail on the MCBB would be minimal in the context of the population and habitat gains that brought the MCBB into conflict with Foxtail recreationists. These minimal impacts would not interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative on the MCBB in any way that would jeopardize the viability of MCBB populations in the area. The analysis for the Old Mill WUI Hazardous Fuels Treatment project indicates that there will be no direct effects of the project on the MCBB and that the only indirect effects would be the potential trampling of nectar plants and the possible expansion of MCBB habitat into newly thinned areas. Due to the reduction of treated area since the analysis was completed, trampling impacts should be substantially reduced. Since all treatments are scheduled to be completed before the implementation of the elements of the proposed action or BCT alternative are authorized, the trampling impacts associated with the Old Mill WUI project will not overlap in time and space with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project area overlaps some of the glading areas in the proposed action and BCT alternative. In areas where these projects overlap, they are likely to complement each other due to design criteria 11 requiring the ski area to consult with the Forest Service as to which trees would be cut in gladed areas. In areas where these projects do not overlap directly, populations of MCBB would likely be impacted to some degree by the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project. Design criteria would be in place to avoid MCBB habitat during the project. Any minimal impacts would not interact cumulatively

127

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative on the MCBB in any way that would jeopardize the viability of MCBB populations in the area.

3.6.4.2 Forest Sensitive, CA, and MSHCP Covered Wildlife Species The analysis documents for the three past cumulative actions indicate very few long-term impacts on Forest sensitive, CA, and MSHCP covered wildlife species. Long-term impacts identified are very small acreages of habitat loss due to cutting of trees or paving of surfaces. Since the determination for the Old Mill WUI project was made, the treatment area has decreased substantially, reducing impacts of that project on these species. While the proposed action and BCT alternative do include substantial amounts of tree cutting and a small amount of paving, the long-term impacts of the cumulative actions do not interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action and BCT alternative in any way that would alter the determinations made in this document for each species, due to the small magnitude of the impacts of the cumulative actions. In other words, no populations of Forest sensitive, CA, or MSHCP covered wildlife species would be moved in the direction of a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability as a result of cumulative effects. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project area overlaps some of the glading areas in the proposed action and BCT alternative. In areas where these projects overlap, they are likely to complement each other due to design criteria 11 requiring the ski area to consult with the Forest Service as to which trees would be cut in gladed areas. In areas where these projects do not overlap directly, populations of these species would likely be impacted to some degree by the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project. Design criteria would be in place to avoid substantial impacts on these species during the project. Any minimal impacts would not likely interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative in any way that would move these species in the direction of a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability.

3.6.4.3 Wildlife Management Indicator Species The analysis documents for the three past cumulative actions indicate minimal long-term impacts on Palmer’s chipmunk due to removal of downed woody debris that provides denning habitat for this species. The Old Mill WUI project anticipated direct mortality associated with burning of fuel piles. Since the determination for the Old Mill WUI project was made, the treatment area has decreased substantially, reducing impacts of that project on this species. None of these projects anticipated an impact on Forest- wide population trends for either Palmer’s chipmunk or brown-headed cowbird. Impacts of the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project would likely be similar to those of the past projects. The impacts of these cumulative actions would not interact with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative in a way that would impact Forest-wide population trends for these MIS.

3.6.5 MITIGATION In addition to the design criteria outlined in section 2.6, the determinations above require the following mitigation measures to be in place: 1. In order to ensure that design criteria and mitigation measures are understood and followed, assign a qualified biologist to be on site when construction begins to educate contractor and construction crews and periodically to ensure that design criteria and mitigation measures are being followed throughout project implementation. The project will be monitored as required by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and supplemental General Management Plan for the SMNRA, and as outlined in Chapters 5 and 32 of FSH 2509.19 National BMP Handbook and the National Corp BMP Technical Guide. Frequency of monitoring will be determined prior to construction in cooperation with the Forest Service and FWS.

128

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

2. Mark areas of suitable MCBB habitat, as described in the Federal Register (FWS 2015), prior to implementation of construction activities in an area. In addition, mark a 5-meter buffer around each patch of suitable MCBB habitat. 3. Wherever practical, avoid impacting marked suitable MCBB habitat within the construction disturbance area. If areas of marked habitat must be disturbed, delineate the disturbed habitat and subtract the acreage from the incidental take allowance described in the determination section of the BA. 4. Do not stage equipment or materials within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 5. Do not store or chip slash within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 6. Spread chipped slash no deeper than 4 inches. 7. Do not burn slash piles within 10 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 8. When broadcast burning, remove slash or other fuels from a band between 5 and 10 meters from suitable MCBB habitat, if suitable habitat is adjacent to the area to be burned. 9. If possible, use access routes that do not cross, or enter within a 5 meter buffer around, suitable habitat. If not possible, see measure 17. 10. Complete final layout of hiking and mountain biking trails after suitable MCBB habitat has been marked. In order to avoid the potential for flushing individuals, no mountain biking or hiking trails will be placed within the 5-meter buffer around marked habitat. 11. Do not deposit excavated material within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 12. When constructing the vault toilet, no personnel or equipment will be allowed within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 13. Whenever possible maintain snow cover in areas where suitable MCBB habitat exists while the ski area is open for skiing. If insufficient snow cover exists in an area of suitable habitat, mark the area as a hazard so skiers will avoid damaging habitat or individuals with their skis. 14. Whenever possible maintain snow cover in areas where suitable MCBB habitat exists while the ski area is open for skiing. If insufficient snow cover exists in an area of suitable habitat, mark the area as a hazard and ensure that no grooming takes place in areas where the tiller could hit the ground. 15. Do not plow/blow snow into areas of suitable habitat. 16. When construction or operations access across suitable habitat is necessary, select a route that minimizes the amount of habitat impacted. Education, signage, and fencing measures (1–4 in section 3.5.5) would also be necessary to protect special status wildlife, particularly the MCBB.

3.6.6 FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE The only wildlife-related standard or guideline that the proposed action and BCT alternative do not comply with is standard 11.57. This standard allows for limited expansion at Lee Canyon provided that the expansion, among other things, “does not impact any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or species of concern, or its habitat.” As described above in sections 3.6.3.2 and 3.6.3.3, the proposed action and BCT alternative would impact several species that fall within the categories listed in standard 11.57.

129

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.7.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue 1 – Historic Properties: The Spring Mountains have a rich pre-history and history, including Native American use dating back to the Paleolithic era. Construction of the proposed infrastructure would entail grading and excavation which could inadvertently damage cultural sites. Indicator: Assessment of the potential for project-related disturbance to affect historic properties through identification of properties and determination of proximity to ground-disturbing project elements. Issue 2 – Historic Integrity of the Ski Area: Lee Canyon ski area dates back to 1964. While most of the facilities were developed more recently, some may date back to over 50 years ago. How would construction and use of the proposed infrastructure affect historic properties in the permit area that relate to the historic integrity of the ski area? Indicators: Assessment of the potential for any project-associated activity to affect the historic integrity of the ski area through identification of any structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and determination of effects of project disturbance. Issue 3 – Cultural Concerns: The Spring Mountains remain an important feature in the culture of local and regional Tribal groups. Charleston Peak itself is sacred to some and considered to be the birthplace of their people. Construction-related disturbance, the resulting permanent, physical changes, and the increased level of year-round human activity may affect Tribal cultural concerns for the area as a whole or for specific traditional cultural places (TCPs). Indicator: Government-to-government consultation with Native American Tribes of concern regarding this proposed action and providing Tribal entities with the results of the NHPA Section 106 compliance process. Assessment of how the proposed development could affect any cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs.

3.7.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Most of the following historic background information is excerpted from the Historic Resources Documentation & Analysis: Big Horn Lodge Lee Canyon Ski Resort (Sladek 2017), and Cultural Resource Narrative Report (Santarone et al. 2017). These documents are incorporated by reference and are included in the project record.

3.7.2.1 Historic Properties 3.7.2.1.1 Prehistoric Era The Spring Mountains have a history of human presence dating back thousands of years. The region was originally inhabited by prehistoric peoples who left behind scattered remnants of their lives, including pictographs, petroglyphs and stone tools. Southern Paiutes settled in the Las Vegas Valley by around 2,700 before present (BP) and were the primary group residing there when the first Euro-Americans arrived in the nineteenth century. Small numbers of Paiutes lived in the desert valley during the winters and moved into the Spring Mountains to escape the summer heat. For archaeological purposes the Great Basin is generally treated as a single entity or culture area. Traditionally, the prehistory of the Great Basin has been divided up into four periods, based on changes in subsistence strategies and practices, and inferred changes in technology. These periods are discussed briefly below.

130

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Paleoindian/Paleoarchaic (12,500–8,500 BP) Based on excavations at Paisley Caves in Oregon, people have been present in the Great Basin for at least the last 12,500 years. Paleoindian sites in the Great Basin tend to be closely associated with pluvial lakes, wetlands and related areas. Paleoindian sites in the uplands are extremely rare and very poorly known in comparison to the lower elevations. Expansive wetlands and relatively low population densities are argued to have allowed a subsistence strategy focused on movement between and within productive wetland environments, without the need to incorporate comparatively “expensive” upland resources. Studies of the movement of volcanic glass across the landscape using geochemical sourcing have been used to posit lithic conveyance zones, which are argued to reflect past mobility patterns. The results of these studies are argued to support large territorial ranges. In terms of subsistence, the Paleoindian peoples of the Great Basin are characterized as having a broad diet-breadth, relying on small animals and highly ranked plant resources, with a focus on wetland tethered resources. Grinding stones are known to occur in Paleoindian contexts, suggesting that at least some seed processing was also being practiced. Isotopic results from the burial of a Paleoindian woman near Buhl, Idaho indicate a diet that relied on game and the exploitation of fish. This burial also included several artifacts including a stemmed biface (typologically consistent with a Great Basin Stemmed series projectile point). The later Paleoindian period can be characterized as a time of technological and subsistence diversification. The desiccation of pluvial lakes, at the close of the Pleistocene, led to changes in patterns of subsistence, and a general widening of the diet-breadth. To actualize the wider diet-breadth, a greater diversity of ecological niches was exploited. Presumably, the diversification of projectile point forms during this period, reflect changing cultural or technological parameters. To summarize, the Paleoindian period in the Great Basin is generally poorly known due a lack of well- provenanced sites and limited organic preservation, despite being subject to intense research interest and exploration. The poor existing chronological controls likely obscure changes to culture and technology that occurred within this time period.

Archaic (8,500–700 BP) The Archaic is marked by a continued drying trend, leading to the continued reduction and often complete desiccation of lakes and wetlands. This environmental trend is argued to have led to economic and technological changes for the peoples of the Great Basin. Changes in subsistence and residence patterns at the terminal end of the Paleoindian period can be viewed as the transition to a fully Archaic lifeway. The reduction of wetlands led to the necessity of incorporating upland resources into the economic system. In terms of subsistence, the already wide diet-breadth is further widened by the introduction of labor intensive, low-ranked resources like small seeds. This inference is supported by the fact that grinding stones become a much more common artifact class, and the degree of use shown on the surface of grinding stone increases. This suggests that intensive plant (particularly small seed) use increases in importance during the Archaic. Some researchers have proposed the Great Basin Archaic consists of two interfacing adaptive strategies— a lowland focused strategy counterpoised against, an upland focused strategy. The lowland strategy is a continuation or evolution of the lacustrine adaptation of the Paleoarchiac. Groups employing the lowland adaptation used a pattern of low-residential mobility to exploit productive niches along and within lakes and wetlands. Residential movement was cyclical, but the overall territory was protracted. The lowland adaptive strategy is contrasted with an upland adaptive strategy, in which the vertical relief that characterizes the Great Basin was exploited to provide an elevationally keyed, serially available, resource base. The upland strategy relied on high residential mobility and large catchment areas. Low- land and upland adaptations are likely to be spatially patterned on a regional scale. Low-land adaptations will be more common on the comparatively well-watered periphery of the Great Basin. It is unlikely that

131

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I the lowland/upland strategies are dichotomous, more likely these pure strategies represent poles on a continuous range of behaviors keyed to local conditions. Presumably, based on the similarity in tool kits, these two lifeways reflect differential subsistence strategies engaged in by related groups of people. However, the material culture inventory of peoples using the lowland strategy is less well known, due to the location of the sites and related preservation issues. Ethnohistorical information suggests that the lowland adaptation may have employed a considerably more diverse and specialized material cultural assemblage. Given what has been observed ethnographically, membership between groups practicing these strategies was likely quite fluid.

Late Prehistoric (Post 700BP) The Late Prehistoric period is marked by material culture attributes which strongly resemble those in place when first Europeans and Euroamericans arrive in the area. The Late Prehistoric is marked by a return to a pattern of high residential mobility and broad-spectrum seasonally arranged subsistence, broadly similar to the Archaic. The exploitation of ecological zones formed by changes in altitude was an important element of this lifeway. The lowland adaptive strategy discussed in the Archaic section was also still viable in some areas. Large, semi-sedentary populations remained in some particularly favorable areas. In this period, Numic speaking peoples are thought to have moved into the area, either replacing, displacing, or absorbing the existing population. These Numic speaking peoples are the groups in residence at the time of Euroamerican contact.

Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Overview The project area lies within the traditional territory of the Southern Paiute. European/Euroamerican interactions and documentation of the Southern Paiute began in the late eighteenth century. Two Spanish expeditions (Father Francisco Garces explorations and the Dominguez-Escalante expedition) in 1776 documented interactions with natives who were most likely Southern Paiute. These explorations traveled primarily through what are now the Four Corners states of Colorado, Utah and Arizona. The Spanish encountered people in small extended family groups, practicing a combination of horticulture and hunting and gathering. Sporadic contact with Southern Paiute people continued through the 1840s, with Spanish expeditions giving way to expeditions mounted by citizens of the United States. The springs at Las Vegas were mapped and became a stopping point along the Old Spanish Trail, running between Santa Fe and Los Angeles. The impacts of the merchant caravans along the Old Spanish Trail, through the Las Vegas area from 1831-1848 on the Southern Paiute are poorly documented. However, they probably resulted in frequent contact between native and non-native peoples. In 1855 Mormon settlers established a fort near Las Vegas. As Euroamerican encroachment in the area increased, tensions between groups mounted, and hostilities became more common place. By the 1850s-1860s the material culture of the Southern Paiute shows a prevalence for Euroamerican manufactured goods, as traditional lifeways were undergoing considerable change. By the 1870s most Southern Paiute were located on reservations, or tied to Euroamerican settlements. By the first decade of the twentieth century the traditional life of the Southern Paiute had been largely abandoned. From an ethnographic perspective, the Southern Paiute closely resemble surrounding groups in terms of language, sociopolitical structure, and subsistence. Linguistically, the Southern Paiute are a Numic speaking people of the Shoshonean branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family. The Southern Paiute maintained good relations with the neighboring Shoshoni groups, engaging in cooperative support in the event of crop failures or food shortages. Southern Paiute subsistence consisted of mixed horticulture and hunting and gathering, depending on the area. Horticulture was not sufficient for subsistence without the addition of hunted and gathered foods. Cultigens included maize, squash, beans and sunflower. Potatoes were added in the nineteenth century.

132

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Important gathered resources included: grass seeds, yucca, agave, prickly pear fruit, and pinion nuts. The Spring Mountains were a particularly important area for the gathering of pinion nuts. Pinion tracts were owned by men and were inherited father to son. Women gathered pine cones from their husband’s tracts. Pine cones were gathered from trees using long wooden hooks and placed in baskets. Piles of cones were burned to extract the nuts. Extracted nuts were transported to the winter village location. Unprocessed cones were stored in the mountains in pits. Large and small game were taken as part of Southern Paiute subsistence, although the scarcity of game limited the role of hunted foods. Important hunted foods included: rabbits, pronghorn, mountain sheep, and deer. Some researchers report that cooperative rabbit drives; such as those practiced by the Shoshoni were not practiced by the Southern Paiute. However, historical references to rabbit nets as part of Southern Paiute material culture call this assertion into question. The Spring Mountains were an important deer hunting location. Deer were hunted by individuals or small groups without formal leadership. Animals taken were butchered and dried in the mountains. The preserved meat and skins were transported back to the village location. Hunting territories were not owned. 3.7.2.1.2 Historic Era

Trade, Exploration, and Surveying (1830 –1890s) In the late 1820s and 1830s, American and Mexican traders established and utilized a northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail that traversed the Las Vegas Valley. Throughout the middle decades of the nineteenth century, this served as a preferred route between New Mexico and California. The primary feature that attracted travelers to the area, as it had for generations of Southern Paiutes, was the Las Vegas Springs. This oasis in the desert provided drinking water and grassy meadows (Las Vegas translates from Spanish as “the Meadows”) for their horses and livestock. American explorer Captain John C. Fremont arrived at the Las Vegas Springs in May 1844 leading a team of surveyors from the U.S. Army Topographical Corps. They mapped the region for the first time, and Fremont is credited with naming Mount Charleston in the Spring Mountains after his hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. With cessation of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Nevada became part of the United States. Congress established the Nevada Territory in 1861 and 3 years later the State of Nevada was admitted to the Union. In 1867, southern Nevada and the Springs Mountains were added to the state when Congress carved the area from the Arizona Territory. Detailed surveying and mapping still needed to be completed to divide the land into legal parcels that could be bought and sold. This was also important for the United States and State of Nevada to understand the character of the landscape and its resources, and to arrange for the transfer or retention and management of public lands. The Spring Mountains, including the 36-square-mile area within Township 19 South-Range 56 East that contains Charleston Peak and the upper reaches of Lee Canyon, were first surveyed in the summer of 1881 by contractor Theodore Binge. On the plat map he submitted to the Surveyor General’s office in Virginia City, Binge noted that the area was characterized by “Mountains broken by high Ridges and Spurs” and contained “Pine, Fir and Mahogany Timber.” Also marked on the map were a number of drainages along with “Clark’s Steam Saw Mill,” situated in the north half of Section 6 over 3 miles west of Lee Canyon. The sawmill and an associated cabin were the only developed features Binge encountered in the entire township. Through the end of the century, most of the land in and around Lee Canyon continued to be owned by the federal government, although it was beginning to attract the attention of private parties interested in the area’s natural resources.

Logging in the Spring Mountains (1890s–19010s) Limited logging had already begun in the Spring Mountains by the early 1880s, when the region was first mapped, and appears to have continued at a low level through the 1890s. During the first decade of the

133

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I twentieth century, logging increased due to regional developments that spurred an increase in the demand for milled lumber. Surrounded by extensive desert lands devoid of trees, the Spring Mountains were one of the few sources of lumber in southern Nevada. In 1905, the San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad (SPLA&SL) was completed through the desert and into Las Vegas, which at the time was the site of a ranch. Because of its location and the presence of water, the site became a division point along the rail route, where repair shops and workers’ houses were soon built. This marked the birth of the town of Las Vegas. During the first several years of the century, gold was discovered at Tonopah and Goldfield, launching a mining boom in the southern area of the state. In 1906-07, the Las Vegas & Tonopah Railroad (LV&T) was constructed from Las Vegas toward the northwest, passing through Indian Springs along the broad valley north of the Spring Mountains. Although not completed to Tonopah, the route connected Las Vegas to the mines and growing communities of Beatty, Rhyolite and Goldfield. With these developments, the region’s railroads, mines and mining camps were suddenly in dire need of milled lumber. Logging increased throughout the Spring Mountains to meet the demand, and sawmills emerged in several locations, including Kyle and Lee Canyons. From the forests that carpeted the upper reaches of these canyons, lumber was hauled to the LV&T Railroad line below and likely provided the ties used in its construction. Once the route was in operation, the lumber was loaded onto rail cars and transported to Las Vegas and the mining camps to the northwest. Many of the earliest buildings still standing in Las Vegas and Goldfield are likely to contain wood harvested from the Spring Mountains and perhaps even Lee Canyon. To accommodate logging activities, a dirt road was extended up Lee Canyon during the first few years of the twentieth century that followed the same basic alignment as present-day State Route 156. This was designated on maps from 1908 and 1914 as the “Lee Canyon Steam Traction Road,” indicating that it was used by steam-powered tractors carrying heavy loads of lumber out of the mountains. By 1906, a sawmill had appeared along the road in Section 2, in the forest just over 1-mile northeast of the current ski resort base area. Heavy logging came to an end in the Spring Mountains and Lee Canyon during the mid-1910s due to federal intervention, closure of a nearby rail line, and the fact that milled lumber shipped by rail became available from Los Angeles.

Recreation in the Spring Mountains (1900s–1950s) In addition to the remarkable growth of Las Vegas during the twentieth century, the development of recreation in the Spring Mountains was aided by the corresponding increase in automobile ownership and personal mobility. The automobile made it convenient for Americans to travel and visit the nation’s forests and parks, where they could engage in recreational activities. This was especially the case with sites located within a short drive of urban areas. As Las Vegas grew during the twentieth century and tourism increased, the Spring Mountains west of town became an attraction for recreationists and those interested in the development of recreational opportunities. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the Lee Canyon Road’s southern terminus was south of the sawmill at a location identified on maps as “McWilliams.” This geographic spot, which appears to have been close to or just north of today’s Clark County Youth Camp, held two small buildings. The name McWilliams has long been associated with both Lee Canyon and the birth and early development of the City of Las Vegas. In April 1929, just a few months after the State of California announced that it would be improving the Los Angeles Highway, the Automobile Club of Southern California published an article in its monthly Touring Topics magazine titled “A Yosemite in the Sagebrush.” Focusing upon the Spring Mountains, the author regaled readers with information about the range’s rugged topography, isolated beauty, and animal and plant life. He also wrote of its forests and early history of logging and sawmills. Motorists from Southern California were encouraged to drive through the desert and visit the Spring Mountains,

134

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I accessing its heights for hiking and camping by way of the logging roads that had been cut into Kyle and Lee canyons. Through the 1930s, winter sports in the Spring Mountains continued to be concentrated in Kyle Canyon. However, in 1939, Forest Supervisor Alonzo Briggs speculated that “Winter sports are developing rapidly and Lee Canyon rather than Kyle Canyon will be the center of these sports activities.” Exactly what led him to make this comment is unknown. While cross-country skiing seems likely to have taken place in Lee Canyon through the 1940s and into the 1950s, any development of downhill skiing was delayed for a number of years. The Forest Service produced a pamphlet in 1946 titled Charleston Mountain: A Division of the Nevada National Forest, Nevada. This document hailed the range’s year-round recreational opportunities, including not only the campsites and resort in Kyle Canyon but also the Youth Camp and nearby McWilliams campground in Lee Canyon. By that time, a Forest Service guard station had been installed in Lee Canyon, along with a telephone line that connected the Youth Camp to Kyle Canyon and Las Vegas. In terms of winter activities, the pamphlet stated that “Practice slopes, ski runs, and jumping hills are now developed in Kyle and Lee Canyons. Roads are kept open winter-long. The children’s camp in Lee Canyon is always open as a refuge for travelers who come to explore the almost endless winter trails.” No mention of lifts or facilities that would have served downhill skiers appears in any of the period’s literature. In 1952, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the Clark County recreation board was considering the possibility of establishing a large-scale winter sports facility in Lee Canyon. However, this plan was not followed through to completion. The Lee Canyon Recreation Area was established in 1956 through a Forest Service public land order, and since then it has been managed and developed in accordance with agency rules, guidelines and restrictions.

3.7.2.2 Historic Integrity of the Ski Area The Lee Canyon Ski Resort opened in January 1965 with a 3,000-foot-long T-bar lift that cost about $150,000 and transported skiers to the top of the single run. The area proved immensely popular and drew hundreds of visitors each week. In the summer and fall of 1965, the facility was expanded with a 700-foot rope tow along with a beginner’s slope and both intermediate and expert runs. Ken and Margaret Highfield operated the resort, and Bill and Jan Bonazelli provided ski lessons for those wishing to sign up. A ski patrol unit offered assistance to visitors who ran into trouble on the mountain. During the same period, the Highfields also oversaw construction of the two-story Big Horn Lodge. The new building, which served as the resort’s base facility, housed a cafeteria, ski shop, and equipment rental shop. It also offered skiers a place to warm up between runs, with a second floor deck that looked south over the lift and ski mountain. On 18 December 1965, the lodge’s completion was celebrated with a grand opening party attended by at least 75 guests, including Nevada’s lieutenant governor, Paul Laxalt. Just over 2 weeks later, in early January 1966, the Las Vegas Sun ran a large article on the Lee Canyon ski area in its Sunday Scene magazine: A new era in winter sports life for Southern Nevada residents is now underway with the recent opening of the Big Horn Lodge in Lee Canyon. For those who would prefer simply to take it easy on a visit to Lee Canyon, the new lodge affords ample comfort, food and sunshine for the sun-porch skiers. Plans for the lodge include a lounge, expected to be opened soon, and ultimately some overnight accommodations. Proprietors Ken and Margaret Highfield recently opened a ski shop in the lodge where a complete line of domestic and imported skiwear and equipment is available. With the building completed and opened for use, the lodge became the center of the ski resort. A full-page photo spread on the Lee Canyon ski area appeared in the January 19, 1968, edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. One photograph shows the lodge’s upper floor deck filled with skiers, with the

135

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I following caption: “Half the fun of skiing is getting together with friends at the Mount Charleston Lodge [Big Horn Lodge] after a day of runs and regaling each other with stories of those spills, near-misses, and perfectly executed schusses.” The No. 1 double chair lift opened that same month, transporting skiers a distance of 3,000 feet up the mountain. This was in addition to the 1965 T-bar lift that was still operating. As the Lee Canyon Ski Resort became established, the space provided by the Big Horn Lodge soon proved inadequate. In 1970, the Highfields had a larger two-story lodge constructed on the adjacent ground to the west. Known as the Main Lodge, the new building was designed to hold a cocktail lounge, coffee shop, restrooms, ski school and a ski shop. It also offered a much larger patio than the deck on the Big Horn Lodge. The original building continued to be used by the rental shop and administrative offices. In 1983, Ken and Margaret Highfield turned management of the Lee Canyon Ski Resort over to their son Russell. By that time, the Big Horn Lodge had been remodeled, with changes made to its exterior architecture. During the early 1980s, the double chair No. 2 and No. 3 lifts were installed to replace the original T-bar and rope tow. From that point on, the three lifts were capable of transporting hundreds of skiers up the mountain each hour. Most of the 13 runs were named for gambling terms, including Blackjack, Keno, High Card, Low Card, Kings, Queens, Jacks, Slot Alley, and The Strip. Snowboarding was first allowed at the resort in the late 1980s. By the end of the decade, the small resort was handling about 60,000 skiers each season. Night skiing was launched at Lee Canyon in the early 1990s. Lee Canyon was acquired in 2003 by the Powdr Corporation of Park City, Utah, together with the Thomas & Mack Company. Improvements were launched that included a Magic Carpet surface lift for beginners and the tubing run, an expanded terrain park, and the purchase of new snowmaking equipment. The chairlifts were also replaced during the first two decades of the twenty-first century as the No. 1 became the triple Sherwood Lift and the No. 2 became the quad Bluebird Lift. The quad Rabbit Peak lift was also built to serve the beginner’s slope by the same name. In 2008, the resort’s owners presented an expansion plan to the Forest Service that called for additional lifts, a new lodge to replace the two existing ones, a groomed tubing area, and increasing the number of runs to 51. The 10-year project was expected to involve an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. Although the work was not completed, improvements continue to be made there to the present day, and more are planned for the coming years. The 1965 Big Horn Lodge continues to stand on the site, housing the rental shop and administrative offices.

3.7.2.3 Cultural Concerns On April 27, 2017, the SMNRA Area Manager met with the Nuwuuvi Working Group that is made up of representatives from the Paiute tribes whose ancestral home is the Spring Mountains. This working group has been designated to represent the various bands and to provide input on projects and issues related to the SMNRA. A presentation of the proposed ski area developments and maps showing the areas and types of changes was provided to the group. There were several questions but no significant concerns were raised. The Coalition of Colorado River Indian Tribes responded to the public scoping notice in March 2017 and requested that cultural resources be avoided if feasible and that they be contacted in the event that any human remains or cultural resources are discovered during construction. As documented below in section 3.7.3, avoidance of cultural resources was incorporated into project planning. Design criteria intended to protect undiscovered cultural resources have been included in section 2.6. Also see sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.

136

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.7.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.7.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.7.3.1.1 Historic Properties In October 2016, in compliance with section 106 of the NHPA, archaeologists working under the direction of the HTNF completed a file search at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and a pedestrian survey to identify any historical properties in the area affected by the proposed projects. As a result of these efforts, one previously identified prehistoric site was relocated, re-recorded, and determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. Due to the sensitive nature of the site, it will not be described further in this document. However, in accordance with the section 106 process, a report documenting these efforts and findings was prepared and submitted to the HTNF (Cultural Resources Narrative Report; Santarone et al. 2017), where it was reviewed by the SMNRA Archaeologist. The report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence. The NRHP-eligible prehistoric site is not in an area impacted by current ski area operations or activities but is being impacted by dispersed recreation use in upper Lee Canyon. 3.7.3.1.2 Historic Integrity of the Ski Area The file search noted above also identified one building, the Bighorn Lodge, that merited investigation of its eligibility for listing on the NRHP. As discussed above under affected environment, this lodge was built in 1965, making it more than 50 years old. As documented in the assessment report (Historic Resources Documentation & Analysis: Big Horn Lodge Lee Canyon Ski Resort; Sladek 2017) the building has undergone several remodels and renovations and currently serves as the ski area’s administrative offices and rental shop. The assessment report concludes that the building no longer conveys its original architectural style, age, or historical significance to modern day visitors. It recommended that the lodge did not warrant listing on the NRHP. The report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence. No other existing structures date back beyond the 50-year threshold. As a result, no historic properties from the ski area’s early years exist, and there is no historic integrity to be affected. 3.7.3.1.3 Cultural Concerns No cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs have been identified at the ski area. Beyond that, under this alternative, no development would occur at the ski area, and there would be no impacts on any unknown cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs.

3.7.3.2 Proposed Action 3.7.3.2.1 Historic Properties Following the re-recording of the NRHP-eligible site, elements of the proposed action were relocated to avoid any direct impact on the site. However, additional dispersed use of upper Lee Canyon, spurred by new summer activities at the ski area, has some potential to increase activity at the NRHP-eligible site, resulting in indirect effects. However, the Cultural Resources Narrative Report concludes that this alternative would have no adverse effect on the NRHP-eligible site after mitigation measures recommended in the report were implemented (Santarone et al. 2017). The report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence. 3.7.3.2.2 Historic Integrity of the Ski Area As discussed above (section 3.7.3.1.2), the Bighorn Lodge building has been recommended as not warranting listing on the NRHP. The report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence. As is was the only structure warranting assessment for the NRHP, no historic properties or other evidence of the ski area’s early days could be affected by the proposed action. No impact on the ski area’s historic integrity is possible.

137

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.7.3.2.3 Cultural Concerns No cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs have been identified at the ski area. Under this alternative, development would occur at the ski area but design criteria would prevent any impacts on unknown cultural resources.

3.7.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative 3.7.3.3.1 Historic Properties The impacts of this alternative with regard to historic properties would be the same as those described under the proposed action. 3.7.3.3.2 Historic Integrity of the Ski Area The impacts of this alternative with regard to the ski area’s historic integrity would be the same as those described under the proposed action. 3.7.3.3.3 Cultural Concerns The impacts of this alternative with regard to cultural concerns, Native American sacred sites, or TCPs would be the same as those described under the proposed action.

3.7.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. None of the cumulative actions identified would affect eligible site, so there would be no cumulative interaction with any potential indirect effects of the proposed action and BCT alternative.

3.7.5 MITIGATION As discussed above, elements of the proposed action and BCT alternative were relocated to avoid direct impacts on the NRHP-eligible site. To address ongoing impacts and potential indirect impacts on the site, mitigation measures described in the Cultural Resources Narrative Report are necessary (see section 11 in Santarone et al. 2017). Design criteria listed in section 2.6 will also serve to protect any undiscovered cultural resources. 3.8 SCENERY RESOURCES

3.8.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue – Scenic Integrity: The permit area landscape has been affected by more than 50 years of ski-area development but generally retains its natural character. The proposed addition of more infrastructure at the base area and on the mountain would alter the landscape and may adversely affect the area’s scenic integrity. Indicator: Analysis of effects using the methods prescribed in the Forest Service Visual Management System (VMS; Forest Service 1974) and other relevant agency direction, in accordance with the TNF Forest Plan and GMP. ROS classifications are used as a reference.

3.8.1.1 Background and Methods The TNF Forest Plan and GMP direct how scenic resources factor into SMNRA management activities, with the overall objective of maintaining or enhancing scenic quality and desired landscape character. The Forest Plan includes this goal (p. IV-3): “The Forest will be managed with a sensitivity for visual quality.”

138

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The GMP provides similar direction specific to the SMNRA (p. SMNRA-wide 7): “Under the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Act, the SMNRA is managed to achieve six general purposes, which provide themes for organization of more specific goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines: - The conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, cultural, and other values contributing to public enjoyment…” More specifically, for Management Area 11 – Developed Canyons, the GMP states (p. Management Area 11-30): “Lands are managed to maintain high levels of scenic quality, with an emphasis on views from major roads and use areas. From these areas, management activities are not visually evident or are visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Regularly scheduled maintenance of facilities under special use permit reduces their visual contrast.” In terms of analysis methods, the Forest Plan’s Analysis of the Management Situation (p. II-6) notes that “An inventory of the scenic resources has been completed using the visual management system outlined in National Forest Visual Management, Vol. 2.” Under the VMS, Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) are assigned to all management areas based on land allocations established by the Forest Plan. VQOs define how the landscape will be managed, the level of acceptable changes to the natural landscape character permitted in the area, and under what circumstances management activities or recreational development may be allowed. The Forest Plan (p. IV-14) includes this standard and guideline for recreation: “Protect the scenic quality of the Forest by achieving the designated visual quality objectives (VQO), unless modified by a site- specific environmental assessment.” The GMP (p. Management Area 11-32) provides the following guideline: “(11.12) Designate ski area sub-basin visual quality objective as Partial Retention. (Guideline)” The Forest Plan (p. IV-3) defines the VQO of partial retention as “Management practices are visually subordinate,” a very broad definition. Compliance with VQOs is assessed according to the “…degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape based upon the importance of aesthetics. The degree of alteration is measured in terms of visual contrast with the surrounding natural landscape” (Forest Service 1974). A second piece of management direction that factors into this analysis is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The Forest Service developed the ROS “to help determine the scale, amount, and type of development at different sites. It is based on the premise that people expect certain levels of development related to the character of the setting and the type of recreation they prefer” (Forest Service 2007). The ski area has been assigned two ROS classifications: Roaded Natural (RN) for roughly the lower half of the permit area, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) for the upper half (Forest Service 1982). RN is defined as: Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities. (Forest Service 1986b) SPNM is defined as: Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size (2,500 acres). Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted. The third piece of direction considered in this analysis deals with the built environment. Both the Forest Plan and GMP support developed recreation, including the ski area, making the built environment (e.g., roads, trails, ski lifts, buildings, and other infrastructure) part of the landscape. The built environment of

139

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I the SMNRA serves as a viewing platform from which the public enjoys the predominantly natural landscape as well as being part of that landscape. To ensure that the built environment blends as well as possible with the natural landscape, the HTNF developed the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG, Forest Service 2007). The BEIG provides recommendations focused “on the appearance and function of facilities. Facilities should have a uniform character and use of materials that both reflect and fit into their setting. Final design must respond to the specific environment and user needs.” That guidance is used in this analysis to assess how much the existing and proposed elements of the built environment alter and depart from the natural landscape.” The fourth and final management direction pertinent to this analysis focuses on highways. The GMP calls for several SMNRA highways, including Lee Canyon Road (SH 156) to be designated as state and/or national scenic byways (p. PMP-62). In 1998, Nevada designated SH 156 as a Nevada Scenic Byway. This means that the Nevada Department of Transportation shall:  Maintain designated routes and enhance their scenic qualities.  Assure and maintain the proper signing of all scenic routes.  Facilitate Federal funding for projects related to scenic routes.  Coordinate with Nevada Commission on Tourism and the Scenic Byways Committee to perform evaluations on roadways that have been nominated for review.  Prepare agreements to ensure federal funds are expended properly on projects related to Scenic Byways.  Update biannually the Scenic Byways procedural manual.  Recommend to the Director of NDOT that a route be designated as scenic. (https://web.archive.org/web/20141220125438/http://www.nevadadot.com/traveler_info/scenic_byways/n evada_scenic_byways.aspx) Based on these four pieces of management direction, the methodology for this analysis can be summarized as follows. First, the accuracy of current VQO and ROS classifications are assessed to ensure an accurate baseline for comparison. Second, changes to the project-area landscape due to the proposed action and alternatives are assessed for compliance with these baseline VQO and ROS classifications, and with management direction for Nevada scenic byways. Impacts are then summarized from three viewpoints: SH 156 at upper Lee Meadows, the Bristlecone Trailhead, and the scenic viewpoint about 1.7 miles up the BCT (see Figure 3-3). These viewpoints were selected because they are the primary places, on roadways or trails, from which large numbers of visitors to the area who are not ski area guests, and thus may not expect or appreciate the proposed ski area infrastructure, would view the project area. They are the most sensitive and highly used viewpoints. The analysis area is the viewshed – i.e., the area visible from – these three viewpoints.

3.8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The three points define the high-use areas from which the ski area and proposed improvements are visible. Intervening terrain blocks it from view from SH 156 outside the ski area itself, both below and above the Meadows, and it is not visible from McWilliams Campground, Camp Lee Canyon, or the few private residences between the Meadows and ski area entrance. In short, the ski area is in a hidden pocket at the extreme upper end of Lee Canyon. The natural aspects of the analysis area include the cliffs, rock bands, and talus falling steeply from the ridgelines of Mummy Mountain east of the ski area, Charleston Peak to the south and west, and the Sisters to north. Sparse coniferous forest begins on the higher slopes, dominated by limber pine,

140

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I bristlecone pine, and white fir. Moving down the slope, forest vegetation thickens and shifts to ponderosa pine and white fir. Stunted aspens grow in avalanche chutes, erosion gullies, and drainage bottoms. Understory vegetation is thin throughout. As to the built environment, the ski area was first permitted in 1964, and the lodge (now the administration and rental building) was constructed in 1965. The main lodge was completed in 1970. Aside from these major developments, piecemeal additions to the built environment, primarily at the lower (maintenance facilities and ski patrol) and mid-mountain base areas (main lodge and administration/rental building) have been constructed over the intervening years. The result is a mixture of wood-faced buildings (main lodge and administration/rental buildings), steel structures of various sizes (largest is the maintenance shop; others include generator and storage buildings), house trailers, yurts, and shipping containers. There is no consistent architectural theme. On the mountain, the first major lift, a T-bar, was constructed in 1965. The first chairlift, Chair No. 1 (now Sherwood) was completed in 1970. In the early ‘80s, Chair No. 2 and Chair No. 3 (now Bluebird and Rabbit Peak, respectively) were installed. These lifts access about 385 acres of groomed ski runs. In 2012-13, about 10 acres of forested terrain on the west side of the Sherwood Forest lift alignment was gladed (i.e., thinned to reduce tree density, similar to what is included in the proposed action for other areas) to provide tree skiing opportunities. The top lift terminals are colored to blend with the natural background, and from several perspectives they are screened by trees. The cleared lift alignments are visible where they cut through forest vegetation, particularly in winter when the snow contrasts sharply with the surrounding vegetation. Similarly, the groomed ski runs are clearly visible, particularly in winter. However, they are not linear features and have a similar appearance to avalanche paths in some instances. Run edges are cleanly cut, not feathered, which increases the contrast. The gladed area is difficult to discern from most viewing angles because the density of forest vegetation varies so much at the ski area. Some service roads are visible, but most are within groomed ski runs. The photos below in section 3.8.3.2 illustrate existing conditions from the target viewpoints. In terms of the indicators for this analysis, the BEIG establishes criteria to make the built environment of the SMNRA blend more effectively into the landscape. These criteria vary for different elevations and ecosystems. The ski area falls under the Forested classification, where the criteria include emphasis of vertical design elements, use of stone and milled wood in construction, peaked roofs, and windows and doors on south and east exposures. Building should be limited to two levels, with smaller footprints to reduce surface impacts. Despite the variety of current architectural styles and materials, no existing structures truly match these criteria. As noted above, the VQO for the permit area is Partial Retention, defined by the Forest Plan as “Management practices are visually subordinate.” The current setting generally complies with this management direction with the exception of the base-areas, where the concentration of existing buildings, parking lots, and other infrastructure matches the VQO or Modification. The lack of a consistent architectural theme makes these facilities a greater departure from the natural setting. Based on the current setting, baseline conditions are a VQO or Modification for the base areas and their immediate surroundings, and a VQO or Partial Retention for the remainder of the permit area. Regarding ROS assignments, the lower roughly half of the ski area is classified as RN, as described above, a designation that also does not fit the existing base areas. By definition, those areas are not predominantly natural appearing. They do not harmonize with the natural setting, especially without a consistent architectural theme and BEIG compliance, and low to moderate interaction with other users is not realistic for a ski area base area. As a result, the current setting in and around the base areas better matches an ROS of Rural. Beyond the base area, the lower ski lifts and runs, as well as the expected level of interaction with other users conform to the RN description. Accordingly, baseline conditions are an ROS classification of Rural for the base areas and their immediate surroundings, and a RN classification for the remainder of the permit area.

141

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-3. Three viewpoints.

142

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

The upper slopes of the ski area lie in SPNM classification, defined by a largely natural-appearing environment, low level of interaction among users, few site controls, and no motorized use. The first criterion is met on the upper mountain, and the ski area’s use of motor vehicles for maintenance and operations is not precluded by last criterion, which addresses public use. Compliance with the second and third criteria is an issue. Interaction among guests on a busy day can be high, and the timing and location of guest use is dictated by operating hours, rope lines, signage, and area closures for safety concerns. Like the lower mountain outside the base areas, the upper mountain more accurately reflects the RN classification. As to the scenic byway designation, except for the very top of Bluebird pod, the ski area is not visible from SR 156 outside the ski area boundary, and that point is only visible from a short stretch of the road through Lee Meadow. Once the highway enters the ski area, it is functionally part of the ski area, which is responsible for road maintenance and snow removal for the short distance from the entry to Bristlecone Trailhead. Based on these considerations, the ski area is consistent with management direction for Nevada scenic byways.

3.8.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.8.3.1 No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, little change is anticipated in ski area development and infrastructure, and the conclusions outlined above for the current setting would remain valid. BEIG criteria would not be met, retaining the built environment’s departure from the natural landscape. The mid-mountain and lower base areas would continue to reflect the Modification VQO and the Rural ROS designation. The rest of the permit area would remain consistent with the Partial Retention VQO and RN ROS classification. Management would be consistent with stipulations for SR 156. From Viewpoints 1 and 3, at Lee Meadow and the BCT scenic overlook, these conclusions would be inconsequential; only undeveloped portions of the ski area are visible from these locations except in distant background (i.e., the upper end of Bluebird pod). However, from Viewpoint 2, at the Bristlecone Trailhead, the entry gates and building tops at the mid-mountain base areas are visible (terrain screens the lower base area). As a result, visitors who are not there to ski would continue to find the ski area – and particularly the mid-mountain base area – to be a significant departure from the natural landscape. The current views from the three viewpoints are shown in Figures 3-4 – 3-6 below. (Note that impacts on the recreational experience of BCT users, including visual impacts, are addressed in section 3.9, Recreation.)

3.8.3.2 Proposed Action Implementation of the proposed action would have mixed effects on the project area’s landscape character. New development of both base-area structures and on-mountain recreational infrastructure would be widespread across the ski area. In terms of the built environment, several elements of the proposed action would replace existing structures and facilities (e.g., the equipment rental/food & beverage building and the first aid/ski patrol building). In accordance with project design criteria (section 2.6), these new structures would be designed and built in accordance with the BEIG. As a result, they would blend more effectively with the natural setting and start the process of establishing a consistent architectural theme at the ski area. Other proposals (e.g., the gatehouse, toilet facility at the overflow parking lot, and new parking lot) would be additions to the built environment, but they would be designed and built in accordance with the BEIG. As a result, they would blend with the landscape better and further establish the consistent architectural theme. On-mountain infrastructural changes would be more widespread. In terms of acreage, development of the Chair 5 (including Lift 6) and Chair 8 pods would be the biggest changes to the landscape, adding approximately 73 acres of cleared lift corridors and ski runs to the landscape. By necessity, the lift

143

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I corridors would be linear, while the ski runs would generally mimic more natural features such as avalanche chutes and drainage channels. In accordance with project design criteria, the edges of both lift alignments and ski runs would be feathered (i.e., cut to leave an irregular fringe of trees) to reduce contrast and blend with the background vegetation. Glading would be done on 33.5 acres to reduce tree density and allow tree and glade skiing. As noted above, previously gladed areas are indistinguishable from most viewing angles, and this element of the proposed action is expected to have similar effects. The 1.2-mile mountain coaster track would be a new and, at least initially, unexpected addition to the landscape. In foreground views, the loading/unloading terminal would be a clear departure from the natural landscape, as would the curving track. From more distant perspectives, its visual impact would vary according to distance and intervening terrain and vegetation. Higher sections of the track would be more evident from more viewing angles, relative to lower sections of the track. The hiking trail and mountain bike trail system would add 13 miles of trails up to 4 feet wide to the ski area landscape. The trails would be non-linear, generally conforming with natural features. Alignments would not require tree clearing, and forest vegetation would screen the majority of the trails. While section of trail would be visible from some perspectives, particularly prior to site rehabilitation, the trail system overall would blend with the landscape increasingly over time. The joint-use hiking and biking trail might be an exception due to its greater width and central location, as would the flow trail in the Bluebird pod due to the number of terrain features it would include and its central location. Both of these trails would be in more heavily developed parts of the ski area. The zip line itself would be difficult to discern except where it required tree clearing. This is anticipated to be a small part of the alignment, and clearing would be done in accordance with the design criterion requiring feathered edges. The four launch and landing towers, up to 25 feet high, pose more of a visual concern. However, most would be on higher slopes, and design criteria call for coloring these towers, like the lift terminals, natural colors blending with the background earth, rock, and vegetation. Overall, the zip line would have little effect on the landscape. Lift 4, snowmaking system expansion, and the new water tank would have negligible effect on the natural landscape. The lift would replace an existing handle tow on the side of the cleared Rabbit Peak beginner run. The snowmaking expansion would be buried and not visible after site rehabilitation. The water tank would be painted to blend in with the environment, and screened from most viewing angles by vegetation. In terms of the indicators in this analysis, bringing the BEIG into effect would improve integration of the built and natural environments, but not to a large degree. The lower and mid-mountain base areas would continue to be consistent with the VQO of Modification, with no major change from current conditions but a positive trend established due to the BEIG. The on-mountain infrastructure of lifts, ski runs, hiking and biking trails, the mountain coaster, and the zip line would, in general, be more of the same type of development at the ski area. The greater extent would be offset in part by the design criteria established to reduce contrast with the natural setting. As to consistence with the Partial Retention VQO, the question is whether these additions would result in an unacceptable degree of change from the natural landscape. Given the baseline of past development at the ski area, the change would be incremental rather than something entirely new, and therefore acceptable. Visitors expect to see ski area infrastructure ski lifts and runs at a ski area. Regarding ROS classifications, the base areas would remain consistent with the Rural classification for the reasons outlined above for current conditions. The slopes above would remain consistent with the current RN classification. From Viewpoint 1, none of these changes would be visible. See Figure 3-4. The proposed action would have no impact on the viewed landscape.

144

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

From Viewpoint 2, portions of the Chair 5 pod and the zip line would be visible – an increased departure from the natural landscape but consistent with the changes made to date. Terrain would block most development at the mid-mountain base and portions of the ski area west of there, including the mountain coaster. Distance would reduce or eliminate any visual impact of development higher on the mountain. Glading would not be discernible to the casual observer. See Figure 3-7. From Viewpoint 3, development of the Chair 8 pod and the Chair 8 top-terminal access road would be a clearly noticeable change. The lift, most of the cleared runs, and the cut and fill slopes of the access road would contrast sharply with unbroken forest currently visible from that vantage point. Terrain and vegetation would block views of the mountain coaster, base-area elements, and Chair 5 pod. Glading would not be discernible. Distance would reduce or eliminate views of more easterly elements of the proposed action on the higher slopes. See Figure 3-8.

3.8.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative This alternative would basically shorten the Chair 8 pod so it did not extend down to the BCT (including associated shortening of snowmaking system coverage of Chair 8 ski runs), shift the mountain coaster to an alternative location in the Chair 5 pod, and shift the zip line to a new alignment in the Sherwood Forest and Chair 5 pods. These changes would reduce the visual impact of these three elements on BCT users, but they would not alter the conclusions regarding VQO, ROS, or scenic byway considerations outlined above for the proposed action. As to the three viewpoints, the most striking difference would be that some zip line clearing and towers would be visible from Viewpoint 2. As discussed above under the proposed action, this would be an increased departure from the natural landscape but consistent with the changes made to date. Shortening the Chair 8 pod would generally not be visible from Viewpoint 3, but the ski run alignments would be shifted. The viewshed from Viewpoint 1 would remain unchanged from the current conditions. See Figures 3-4, 3-9, and 3-10.

3.8.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. Only the Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project described in section 3.3 would impact the viewshed impacted by the proposed action and BCT alternative. Impacts of this project on the viewshed would not likely be noticeable, similar to the proposed glading discussed in 3.8.3.2. The Lee Canyon Fuels Reduction Project would not interact cumulatively with the impacts of the proposed action or BCT alternative in any way that would alter the conclusions regarding VQO, ROS, or scenic byway considerations outlined above for the proposed action.

3.8.5 MITIGATION Beyond the design criteria listed in section 2.6, no additional mitigation measures are required for this resource.

145

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-4. Viewpoint 1, no-action alternative.

146

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-5. Viewpoint 2, no-action alternative.

147

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-6. Viewpoint 3, no-action alternative.

148

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-7. Viewpoint 2, proposed action.

149

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-8. Viewpoint 3, proposed action.

150

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-9. Viewpoint 2, Bristlecone Trail alternative.

151

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Figure 3-10. Viewpoint 3, Bristlecone Trail alternative.

152

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.9 RECREATION

3.9.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue 1 – Impacts on BCT Users: The upper BCT passes through the permit area, and the upper trailhead is within the permit area. This trail is one of the most heavily used in the SMNRA, and use occurs year round. The proposed Chair 8 and associated ski runs, mountain coaster, zip line, and mountain bike trails would all intersect the BCT, altering the viewscape, generating noise, bringing more people to the area, and overall shifting to a less natural setting. This may affect the recreational experience provided by the BCT. Indicator: A qualitative assessment of current recreational use of the BCT and how visual character, noise, and use levels would change. ROS classifications are used as a reference. Issue 2 – Climate Change and Ski Area Viability: Reductions in snowpack due to climate change are a major concern for the ski industry. Lee Canyon could be particularly vulnerable given its southern location. Climate change could affect the future viability of this area as a winter recreation site. Indicator: A review of recent research on regional climate change and its effects on resources and resource uses, specifically snowpack depth and duration and developed winter sports sites, to assess likely effects on Lee Canyon.

3.9.1.1 Background and Methods 3.9.1.1.1 Impacts on BCT Users The TNF Forest Plan and GMP direct how recreation factors into SMNRA management activities, recognizing that recreation use of the Forest and the SMNRA is extremely high. The Forest Plan includes this Forest-wide goal: “The Toiyabe will increase the quality and quantity of developed and dispersed recreation opportunities with particular emphasis in the Sierra Nevada and the Spring Mountains of southern Nevada” (p. IV-1). When the Forest Plan was written, the SMNRA accounted for nearly 22 percent of recreation visitor-days on the Forest, a number that is likely higher today. A decade after the forest plan, the GMP recognized the SMNRA’s unique resources as the management priority, listing the following SMNRA-wide goals (p. 7):  Conserve the health, diversity, integrity, and beauty of the ecosystem.  Protect American Indian cultural uses and heritage resources.  Avoid disruptions to current uses and users of the Spring Mountains.  Where consistent with the above, provide additional opportunities for recreation. Trails of various types, including multi-use trails, are emphasized in the GMP. They are among the current uses specifically noted in discussion of the third goal listed above, as is skiing. BCT is a popular multi-use trail, pre-dating creation of the SMNRA in 1993. In accordance with the third and fourth goals above, disruption of the trail and its users should be avoided in the development of additional recreational opportunities such as those considered in this proposed action. Potential disruptions identified through public scoping and internal, interdisciplinary review of the proposed action include adverse impacts on the landscape viewed from the trail, noise impacts associated with new recreational infrastructure (e.g., the mountain coaster), increased levels of trail use, and introduction of incompatible uses, specifically skiers and snowboarder traveling down a trail where snowshoers may be climbing up. There will also be some temporary, construction-related disruption. In terms of analysis methods, the Forest Service developed the ROS “to help determine the scale, amount, and type of development at different sites. It is based on the premise that people expect certain levels of

153

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I development related to the character of the setting and the type of recreation they prefer” (Forest Service 2007). The ski area has been assigned two ROS classifications: Roaded Natural (RN) for roughly the lower half of the permit area, and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) for the upper half (Forest Service 1982). RN is defined as: Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities. (Forest Service 1986b) SPNM is defined as: Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size (2,500 acres). Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted. Within the ski area boundary, the BCT starts in the RN classification and continues for about 0.8 miles before crossing into the SPNM classification for the remaining 0.4 miles to the ski area boundary. Based on these four pieces of management direction, the methodology for this analysis can be summarized as follows. Disruption of BCT use and users is assessed for compliance with assigned ROS classifications. The variables used to assess compliance are visual impacts, noise impacts, increased interaction with other users, and incompatible uses. The analysis area is the roughly 1.7-mile section of the BCT from which the ski area is visible, the first 1.1 miles of which is inside the ski area boundary. Figures 2-1 – 2-3 illustrate the proposed action, and Figure 2-4 shows the BCT Alternative. 3.9.1.1.2 Climate Change and Ski Area Viability Extensive analysis completed by the Forest Service addressing the HTNF (Tausch 2011) and the western U.S. (Halofsky et al 2018) provides the best projections currently available on climate change and its effects on ecosystems, resources, and resource uses. While these broad studies do not provide detailed data to support in-depth site-specific analysis and conclusions, they do provide meaningful insight into this issue. The studies address effects on both snowpack and winter recreation.

3.9.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.9.2.1 Impacts on BCT Users BCT is a roughly 6-mile loop, with a lower trailhead below McWilliams Campground on SR156 and an upper trailhead in the ski area, at the end of SR 156. Due to parking availability at the ski area and other considerations, many Forest visitors prefer out-and-back hikes from the upper trailhead. Roughly at the midpoint on the loop a linking trail connects to the Bonanza Trail. The trail is very popular as an easily accessible option to escape the valley heat. Peak use occurs from late spring through fall. Section 3.5.2 addresses potential impacts on scenic resources, with a focus on effects visible from three sensitive viewpoints. Two of these viewpoints are on the BCT, one at the upper trailhead and the other about 1.7 miles up from the trailhead (Viewpoints 2 and 3 on Figure 3-3). This analysis addresses the whole trail segment within the ski area boundary, but section 3.5.2 provides a good description of the overall ski area landscape and potential effects on it. Relevant parts of that description are summarized here. Potential effects are noted below in section 3.9.3. The ski area is in a hidden pocket at the extreme upper end of Lee Canyon. The natural aspects of the landscape include the cliffs, rock bands, and talus falling steeply from the ridgelines of Mummy Mountain east of the ski area, Charleston Peak to the south and west, and the Sisters to north. Sparse

154

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I coniferous forest begins on the higher slopes, dominated by limber pine, bristlecone pine, and white fir. Moving down the slope, forest vegetation thickens and shifts to ponderosa pine and white fir. Stunted aspens grow in avalanche chutes, erosion gullies, and drainage bottoms. Understory vegetation is thin throughout. From the upper trailhead, the BCT climbs quickly northwest to a sparsely forested ridge then across a dry, southeast-facing slope about 0.4 miles before dropping into a shaded, more heavily forested drainage bottom with some aspens and an overall cooler, more moist environment. At the upper end of this drainage bottom, roughly a mile from the trailhead, the trail crosses the ski area boundary and climbs northwest onto a drier, thinly forested southeast-facing slope. At about 1.7 miles, it crosses a ridge and drops into the next drainage. From this section of the trail, ski area development is visible only for the first 1,500 feet up from the trailhead. Further up the BCT, and particularly from the drainage bottom, topography and forest vegetation screen developed portions of the ski area. While the northern and western parts of the permit area are used by some skiers, no ski area infrastructure exists. The same situation holds as the trail leaves the ski area, climbs the ridge, and then crosses to the other side, leaving the ski area viewshed. Figures 3- 5 and 3-6 illustrate current views from the trailhead and the scenic viewpoint near where the trail crosses into the next drainage. In terms of noise, a number of human activities potentially add to the sounds of nature on the affected section of the BCT, including trail use, ski area maintenance and operations, traffic on SR 156 and parking lots near its upper end, and activity at Camp Lee Canyon and McWilliams Campground. However, similar to the visual setting, intervening terrain and vegetation provide the trail some screening from these sounds. A study conducted for this analysis (Cirrus 2017a) measured average ambient noise levels on the BCT in July and early August at 31.4 dBA. This is similar to other coniferous forest environments recorded in published literature with values ranging from 25 to 35 dBA, and is categorized as a forest with no wind or a light wind. Regarding the level of interaction among users, a survey conducted for this analysis indicates that from July 7, 2017, through August 7, 2017, 4,996 used the BCT above the upper trailhead, for an average of 156 per day (Cirrus 2017b). The survey identified a 14-hour active-use period, so this translates to about 11 users per hour. This is indicative peak-season use, when the number of trail users potentially impacted by the proposed action would be greatest. This measurement was taken just above the trailhead; given the casual nature of the user group, use falls off sharply with distance from the trailhead. In terms of types of use, the BCT is a multi-use trail, open to hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, snowshoers, and cross-country skiers. Dogs must be leashed. While peak use occurs from late spring through fall, some snowshoeing and cross-country skiing use occurs through the winter. Based on the definitions of the trail’s ROS classifications provided above (section 3.9.1.1), portions of the trail in the RN classification are generally consistent with that designation. A natural-appearing environment characterizes the viewshed but, as outlined above, there is moderate evidence of man-made sights and sounds. As discussed in section 3.8, the view of the base areas from the trailhead does not harmonize particularly well with the natural environment, but the base areas are not visible beyond the first 1,500 feet of the trail. Resource utilization practices blend with the natural setting. At 31.4 dBA, ambient noise levels reflect the range of human activity in the area. During peak season, with an estimated 11 people per hour using the trail, interaction between users is low to moderate, with evidence of other users prevalent. Given the blend of authorized uses, this interaction involves diverse forms of recreation from hikers to bikers and horseback riders. The upper portion of the trail passing through the SPNM classification also complies with its designation, primarily because the base areas are at sufficient distance that their sights and sounds are not evident. With less than 11 users per hour on average at this distance from the trailhead, interaction among users is low. Site controls are minimal.

155

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.9.2.2 Climate Change and Ski Area Viability The Tausch (2011) and Halofsky et al (2018) studies address potential climate change effects on snowpack, and latter addresses developed winter recreation. In terms of snowpack, precipitation is one of the more difficult variables to predict, especially in mountainous areas. However, temperature can be predicted more reliably, and both precipitation and temperature come into play in determining depth and duration of snowpack. Precipitation is the more important factor in colder areas, while temperature is more influential in warmer areas. The Sierra Nevada Range, and to a greater degree the Spring Mountains, are at the warmer end of the snow zone, making their snowpacks more sensitive to temperature change. The Halofsky et al (2018) study projects a 4 degree F increase in both minimum and maximum temperatures by the mid-21st century. The study’s precipitation projections are highly variable with no discernible trend, and no projections were made for the SMNRA area. However, the projected temperature increase will likely decrease the depth and duration of snowpack to some extent. In terms of winter recreation, the studies cite a number of sources who conclude that overall warming is expected to reduce season length and the likelihood of reliable winter recreation seasons. Halofsky et al (2018) also notes that “although developed downhill skiing sites are fixed improvements, potential adaptations include snowmaking and new run development at higher elevation. Warmer temperatures and increased precipitation as rain may increase availability of water for snowmaking in the near term during winter, but warmer temperatures may also reduce the number of days per season when snowmaking is viable. Large ski resorts owned and operated by corporations will probably be more resilient and have more options for maintaining viable skiing opportunities than smaller, locally-owned businesses” (p. 721).

3.9.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.9.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.9.3.1.1 Impacts on BCT Users Under this alternative, little change is anticipated in ski area development and infrastructure, and the conclusions outlined above for the current setting would remain valid. The landscape viewed from the BCT would remain generally natural appearing with moderate exposure to man-made sights and sounds, particularly the mid-mountain base area. Resource modification and utilization practices would be evident but generally harmonize with the natural environment. Noise levels would be consistent with a coniferous forest setting. The level of user interactions would remain low to moderate, with other users evident. Those interactions would continue to involve users of various types. Overall, the recreational experience on the potentially affect section of the BCT would remain consist with assigned ROS classifications. 3.9.3.1.2 Climate Change and Ski Area Viability As it relates to Lee Canyon and this analysis, the Tausch (2011) and Halofsky et al (2018) studies underscore the risk posed by climate change. Halofsky et al (2018) also identifies adaptations being made in the ski industry to offset this risk, including increased snowmaking and offering summer recreation opportunities and year-round operations, a shift that is evident across the mountain resort industry. Under this alternative, snowmaking would remain as it currently exists, and much of the developed ski terrain would not be covered by the system. Summer recreation infrastructure would also not be developed, and the ski area would continue to close when the snowpack was not sufficient for skiing. In short, Lee Canyon would not make any meaningful adaptions and would remain highly vulnerable to any warming effects of climate change.

156

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.9.3.2 Proposed Action 3.9.3.2.1 Impacts on BCT Users Implementation of the proposed action would have a number of effects on BCT users. In terms of impacts on the trail’s viewscape, the main impacts would be associated with proposed summer recreation infrastructure. This infrastructure would be in use during the same season the trail use peaks, adding to its impact. Both the up and down legs of the proposed mountain coaster would cross the lower portion of the trail, and farther up the alignment the coaster’s down leg would parallel the trail at a distance of less than 50 feet. Other parts of the 1.2-mile coaster alignment would be visible from various trail viewpoints. The movement of carriers when the coaster was in operation would increase its visual impact beyond the track itself. Both legs of the proposed zip line would cross the BCT roughly midway up the affected trail section, and the terminals between the two legs would likely be visible from some viewpoints. While the lines themselves would not stand out visually, any clearing necessary to accommodate them would be a change from the natural setting. Feathered edges would help reduce this impact (see section 3.8). Similar to the mountain coaster, riders on the zip line would be a visual distraction from the natural landscape. According to preliminary alignments, proposed mountain bike trails would intersect the BCT at three locations, near the trailhead, near the midway point, and near the ski area boundary farther up the trail. These would be easier and intermediate bike trails. The visual impact of the trails themselves would be minimal, but riders on them would be a visual distraction, as would cautionary signage identifying the intersections. Proposed winter infrastructure would also affect the trail’s viewshed, particularly the access roads, lift alignment, and ski runs in Chair 8 pod. These would be clearly visible from the upper portion of the affected trail section – a clear break from the current, more natural landscape. They would be visible year round. The bottom-terminal access road is a particular concern. It would be a permanent road used to build and maintain the lift and ski runs, and it would basically overlap the portion of the BCT passing through the drainage bottom, roughly 1,200 feet. It would be a sharp deviation from the narrow trail currently in place. In terms of noise, the mountain coaster is the main concern. The analysis of its noise impact completed for this EIS (Cirrus 2017a) projected that 3,915 feet of the BCT, or 44 percent of the 1.7-mile affected section, would be subject to noise above the ambient level of 31.4 dBA. Small increases above ambient levels would not be noticeable to casual observers. However, of those 3,915 feet, 1,546 feet (17 percent of the affected trail section) would experience an increase of 10 dBA over ambient, and 407 feet (5 percent) would see a 20-dBA increase. The 10 dBA increase would be discernible to many trail users. The 20 dBA increase would be clear to all. Effects would be greatest where the coaster alignment crossed the BCT and generally decrease with distance from the coaster. Trail-use would likely increase. Ski area visitation would increase as a result of the new summer amenities, and some visitors would likely take advantage of the BCT. However, the user groups would be different. The mountain bike trails are projected to be the biggest draw, and mountain bikers are unlikely to either take their bikes on the BCT (after having paid for lift-accessed, purpose-built mountain bike trails) or to hike the BCT. The mountain coaster and zip line would attract primarily families and young adults looking primarily for the element of excitement these facilities would offer. While some visitors might opt to walk up the BCT while others in their group took advantage of the coaster or zip line, their number would likely be low. The ski area provided the following projections of summer visitors using the proposed facilities on a peak day: mountain bike trails, 650; mountain coaster, 1,500; and zip line, 300 (Hooper 2017). Average use is projected to be 70 percent of those figures. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that no mountain bike trail visitors would use the BCT but that 5 percent of the projected mountain coaster and zip line

157

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I patrons would. That indicates 6 additional trail users per hour on a peak day, 5 on an average day. Those figures represent increases of 58 and 40 percent, respectively. Most of the increase would likely be near the trailhead. The proposed action would also result in incompatible uses. The Chair 8 pod lower terminal access road, discussed above in terms of scenic impact, would also be a cat track and skiway in winter. It would be used by snowcats and by skiers leaving the pod to return to the mid-mountain base area. Skiers would drop onto the skiway from the Chair 8 pod ski runs and turn downward toward the base area. This would conflict with any snowshoer or cross-country skier traffic coming up the trail. Another notable impact of Chair 8 pod development would result from construction of the lift and ski runs. The access road would be used heavily during construction by heavy equipment and other construction vehicles. To avoid the risk of injury to BCT users, approximately 0.5 miles of the trail would be closed for all or most of one spring-through-fall construction season. Most of the affected section of the BCT falls under the RN classification. The users’ experience of the trail under the proposed action may be consistent with that classification, but by a narrow margin. The BCT viewshed would remain predominantly natural appearing, with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. However, the proposed summer recreation infrastructure – particularly the mountain coaster and the zip line – would not harmonize with the natural environment. The zip line would be a fairly minor deviation, but the mountain coaster would be a clearly unnatural feature. Regarding winter infrastructure, co-locating the Chair 8 bottom-terminal access road with a section of the BCT would also detract noticeably from the natural environment. In terms of noise, an increase of up to 20 dBA over ambient sound levels may be considered moderate evidence of human activity. However, the mountain coaster would be most audible on the section of the BCT that drops from the initial ridge toward the drainage bottom – where trail users have left the sights and sounds of the highway, parking area, and trailhead behind them. Beyond that, part of the added sound would be the excited voices of riders, which would be distinctive and highly unnatural. With the projected increase in user numbers, interactions would remain at moderate levels, though evidence of other users would grow. During winter, the introduction of snowcats and downhill skiers on the trail section shared by the access road/skiway might not be strictly incompatible given the trail’s multi-use designation, but it would certainly alter the experience of winter trail users. In regard to resource modification, the Chair 8 pod development would be the most striking element of the proposed action. However, in accordance with project design criteria, the edges of both the lift alignment and ski runs would be feathered (i.e., cut to leave an irregular fringe of trees) to reduce contrast and harmonize with the background vegetation. Access roads would appear less natural. The upper portion of the affected BCT section in the SPNM classification would be altered only by one mountain bike trail crossing and views of the Chair 8 pod, and it would remain consistent with this classification. The impact of the bike trail crossing would be minor and manageable, and design criteria in place would reduce the visual impact of ski runs. 3.9.3.2.2 Climate Change and Ski Area Viability As discussed above, the Halofsky et al (2018) report identifies some factors that mitigate the risk posed by climate change to ski areas. Most important is probably the timeframe; the 4 degree F temperature increase is projected for 2050, by which time the proposed improvements would have provided decades of high-quality recreation and probably reached the end of their useful life. They would have served their intended purpose. Snowmaking is another adaptation that will likely become more important as the climate continues to warm. As reflected in the proposed snowmaking system expansion, Lee Canyon recognizes this emerging need. The last key adaptation to climate change is the shift across the mountain resort industry to offering

158

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I summer recreation opportunities and year-round operations. This shift is evident in Lee Canyon’s proposal. Collectively, these adaptations would help Lee Canyon offset the most likely impacts of climate change, increasing its prospects of remaining a viable mountain resort.

3.9.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative 3.9.3.3.1 Impacts on BCT Users As indicated in Chapter 2’s discussion of alternatives, this alternative was developed specifically to reduce the adverse impacts of the proposed action on BCT users. To summarize, it would move or modify the three projects with the greatest potential impacts: the mountain coaster, zip line, and Chair 8 pod. The coaster and zip line would shift to the other side of the ski area, where they would be visible only in background views from the trailhead and lowest trail section. The Chair 8 lower access road/skiway would be shifted up slope away from the trail, and the runs feeding onto it would be shortened, reducing interactions of uphill BCT users with downhill skiers and eliminating interactions with snowmobiles and snowcats. A forested buffer would screen it from the trail. The mountain bike trail intersections would remain, but as noted they would be a minor and manageable impact. Only the first 345 feet of trail (less than 4 percent) would be subject to a sound increase of 10 dBA over the ambient level. The projected increase in trail users would not change, but separating the Chair 8 pod lower access road/skiway from the BCT would eliminate the potential for incompatible uses. In other respects, the effects of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed action. The BCT alternative would retain consistence with both ROS classifications. The reduction in the sights and sounds of human activity would eliminate any doubt about consistence with the RN classification on the lower trail section, and not enough of the added trail users would reach SPNM-classified section to generate more than a low level of interaction among users. These are the only two factors potentially threatening ROS consistence. 3.9.3.3.2 Climate Change and Ski Area Viability The potential effects of climate change on ski area viability under this alternative would be the same as under the proposed action.

3.9.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. The Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction and Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction projects meet the spatial and temporal overlap requirements. A brief summary of these projects is provided above in section 3.3. Both the Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction Project and the Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project impacted recreation in Lee Canyon. In each case the recreation conditions were improved within the campgrounds and day-use areas. Impacts of these projects on users of the BCT are unclear. It is likely that improvements at McWilliams Campground led to an increase of users on the BCT since both the upper and lower trailheads are in close proximity to the campground. The improvements at the Dolomite, Old Mill, and Foxtail recreation sites may also have had an effect on the level of use on the BCT. However, the impacts of all of these projects on the use of the BCT are reflected in the BCT use data presented in section 3.9.2.1. Therefore, no additional cumulative interactions impacting users of the BCT between the cumulative actions and the proposed action and BCT alternative are expected.

159

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

With regard to climate change and the continued viability of the ski area, the improvements made by the Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction Project and the Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project would likely interact with the addition of summer activities included in the proposed action and BCT alternative to promote the continued viability of the ski area. The moves to improve conditions at the recreation sites and increase the number of day-use sites would likely continue to provide a base for activities and services that the ski area would be more equipped to provide under a scenario where the proposed action or BCT alternative were implemented.

3.9.5 MITIGATION Beyond the design criteria listed in Section 2.6, no additional mitigation measures are required for this resource. 3.10 SAFETY

3.10.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue 1 – Collision Hazard: The proposed action includes mountain bike trails and a dual-use, hiking and biking trail. Some of the mountain bike trails cross the BCT, as do some of the proposed ski runs. This mix of trail types and uses may result in collision hazards for trail and ski run users. Indicator: An assessment of collision risk on multiple-use trails and trail intersections based on use levels and the efficacy of design criteria and proposed mitigation. Issue 2 – Emergency Services: Most medical and fire services in the SMNRA are based in Kyle Canyon, and the distance to Lee Canyon, coupled with traffic congestion, can result in slow response times. As a result, additional, year-round visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may affect provision of emergency services. Indicator: A quantitative assessment of the estimated increase in demand for emergency services and an evaluation of the ability of new and existing infrastructure to accommodate any increase.

3.10.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.10.2.1 Collision Hazard From late spring through fall, hiking is a poplar recreational activity in Lee Canyon. The upper canyon offers a unique opportunity to escape the heat in the valley below. The BCT is one of the most heavily used trails in the canyon. A mixed user group of hikers, mountain bikers, and occasional horseback riders use the trail. The BCT has two trailheads, generally referred to as the upper and lower trailheads due to one being higher up the canyon than the other. The more popular upper trailhead is at the ski area, at the upper end of SR 156. That portion of the roadway has been widened to provide parking for BCT users as well as ski area visitors. Approximately 150 people per day use this trailhead during peak season (see section 3.9). With so many users on the trail, interactions between user groups are common (e.g., hikers moving to the side to let bikers pass). The nature of the BCT (i.e., a relatively straight trail through open forest with little understory) reduces the potential for collisions since trail users have good visibility down the trail ahead of them. No data exists on collisions involving trail users of different types, but despite the high use on the trail these are reportedly rare events. In the winter, use of the BCT declines substantially (see section 3.9). The occasional snowshoer or backcountry skier uses the trail, but these activities are restricted by the specialized equipment required for uphill winter travel. The predominant use of the BCT in the winter is as egress from the backcountry- like skiing in the portion of the ski area where the Chair 8 pod is proposed. This terrain is used frequently,

160

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I and a well-packed path usually coincides with the BCT for roughly 1,500 feet in the gully, approximately 0.4 miles up from the trailhead, leading back to the mid-mountain base area. Trail conflicts in the winter are extremely rare. This is partially due to the mostly unidirectional flow of trail users (i.e., skiers going downhill to the mid-mountain base area) but also because winter users going either direction are not restricted to the actual trail since the snow cover allows them to easily shift on and off the trail.

3.10.2.2 Emergency Services Whenever the ski area is open, there are trained and certified emergency medical technicians (EMTs) on duty to provide appropriate on-site treatment. In addition to medical qualifications, these personnel have avalanche rescue, lift evacuation, and vehicle accident training and experience. However, they do not have the capability to transport accident victims to hospitals. The nearest provider of ambulance service and outside emergency support is the Mount Charleston Fire District (MCFD) in Kyle Canyon, 26 road miles from the ski area via SR 157, SR 158, and SR 156. Emergency service calls at the ski area are currently very limited during the summer due to the few days the area is open and the limited activities available. When calls for emergency services do occur, response time is limited by the distance from the MCFD facility. Traffic and road conditions are generally not factors delaying emergency response in the summer (see section 3.11). During the winter, the number of emergency service calls is higher due to the increased activity at the ski area. The area is open virtually every day of the average 120-day ski season, the range of activities available is greater, and visitation is higher. Activities such as skiing, snowboarding, and tubing have inherent risks, and accidents requiring a response from emergency service providers are more common than in the summer. Over the last five ski seasons, the average skier-visits per season was 63,348 and the average number of MCFD responses to calls from the ski area was 40.8. On average, MCFD emergency services responded once per every 1,553 skier-visits at the ski area (Cirrus 2017c). Skier-visits are not distributed evenly throughout the ski season but are concentrated on weekends and around holidays. Data obtained from MCFD did not include the date of individual responses but was summarized for the ski season. For this analysis, it is assumed that MCFD responses are concentrated around high-use periods at the ski area, since the number of people engaged in higher-risk activities is logically correlated with the number of incidents requiring emergency services. Currently the MCFD stages an ambulance at the ski area during most of these high-use periods. This is done not only because of the greater likelihood of a call but also because the high-use periods at the ski area correlate to high-use and high-traffic periods in Lee Canyon (see section 3.11). During these periods, the travel time from Kyle Canyon to the ski area can be excessive. A summer response time of 20 minutes from the MCFD facility to the ski area can increase to 45 minutes or more on weekend days in the winter. This ties up MCFD emergency service resources and delays overall response time and effectiveness in the service area.

3.10.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.10.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.10.3.1.1 Collision Hazard Under this alternative, no trail development would occur and the situation described in the affected environment section above would continue. The number of trail conflicts would likely increase with growth in the number of trail users reflecting expansion of the Clark County population.

161

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.10.3.1.2 Emergency Services Under this alternative, no changes in summer activities or levels of winter use would occur. The emergency services situation described in the affected environment section would continue. Growth in the county population, equating to increased SMNRA visitation, would increase demand for MCFD emergency services overall, as well as traffic on SMNRA roads.

3.10.3.2 Proposed Action 3.10.3.2.1 Collision Hazard Under this alternative, expanded summer operations would bring many more visitors to the ski area. However, due to a variety of factors, it is unlikely that a substantial number of these visitors would use the BCT, and the ones who did would not change the overall trail experience (see Section 3.9). A marginal increase in BCT users would not change the collision risk situation described in the affected environment section. Mountain bike trails operated by the ski area would cross, or come very near to, the BCT in four places. Unmitigated, these crossings would present a substantial collision risk due to the high speed of bikers on the downhill-traffic-only trails, and the high density of hikers on the BCT. In order to reduce this risk to an acceptable level, mitigation measures would be required. Mitigating collision risk would involve a combination of signage notifying bikers that a crossing with a multi-use trail was approaching and features intended to slow riders. Multiple signs would be used, and each successive sign would tell bikers the distance to the crossing. Slowing features could include narrowing of the trail, sharp turns, obstacles such as rocks, or less steep grades. Trail design would ensure that the intersection was visible from an adequate distance and that mountain bikers could see up and down the BCT before arriving at the intersection. With the mitigation measures detailed in section 3.10.5 in place, the collision risk for users of the BCT under this alternative would remain low in the summer. In the winter, there would be more downhill skier traffic on and around the BCT. Most of the Chair 8 pod ski runs would terminate on, or cross, the BCT. Furthermore, the path of egress from the Chair 8 pod would continue to be down the BCT, and substantially more skiers and snowboarders would be using the pod due to the proposed developments. However, the risk of collisions with uphill traffic would remain low for the same reasons they are low currently. Specifically, there are very low numbers of uphill users in the winter and, due to snow cover, the optimal uphill route is not necessarily the same as the downhill route, and the uphill and downhill traffic are separated as a result. 3.10.3.2.2 Emergency Services Under this alternative, the ski area anticipates that annual skier visits would increase by approximately 96,000. Using the average ratio of skier visits to MCFD responses of 1,553 to 1, this would result in an increase of 61.8 MCFD responses per year relative to the no-action alternative. Assuming once again that MCFD responses are primarily concentrated around high-use periods at the ski area, these responses would likely occur at times when MCFD already stages an ambulance at the ski area (i.e., around holidays and busy weekends). According to projected skier visit data provided by the ski area, there would be 38 days over the course of the season where the expected MCFD responses would be greater than or equal to 1 (i.e., with 1,553 or more expected skier visits), with a range of 1 to 1.8. All of these days occur during the holiday season or on weekends. The increase in the likelihood of calls during this period would likely be accommodated by the current MCFD practice of staging an ambulance at the ski area during high-use periods, but this practice may need to be extended to a few additional weekends. Additional calls outside high-use periods would require MCFD response from Kyle Canyon; however, these would occur during times of low traffic, so response times would be on the lower end of the 20-to-45-minute range. Of the summer activities that would be added under this alternative, only the mountain bike park has the potential to lead to noticeably increased MCFD responses due to injuries. It is anticipated that the

162

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I mountain bike park at the ski area would draw approximately 10,000 biker visits the first year of operation and gradually increase to a maximum of 25,000 biker visits in 5 to 10 years (Kelly 2017). Based on industrywide data for mountain bike parks across the country, the rate of injuries requiring ambulance transfer is approximately 1 per 1,000 biker visits, yielding 10 to 25 MCFD responses per season (Kelly 2017). Calls for service would be concentrated around weekends and holidays, when higher numbers of bikers would be expected at the mountain bike park. In order to deal with the increased need for ambulance services during high-use periods, it may be advisable to station an ambulance at the ski area on weekends and holidays that the mountain bike park is open. The new ski patrol/first aid building and associated staff would provide substantially better suited facilities than currently exist at the ski area, including a dedicated ambulance-loading area. However, the ski area would still not have the capability to transfer patients to facilities in the valley. An increase of approximately 87 MCFD responses per year once buildout of all infrastructure was completed, and peak visitation was reached (~10 years after buildout), would likely be taxing on the existing resources of the MCFD. Additional medical staff at the ski area, or arrangements with private ambulance companies may be needed to ensure adequate patient care. Nevada Department of Transportation efforts to improve traffic flow on SMNRA highways under their management could also alleviate this issue.

3.10.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative 3.10.3.3.1 Collision Hazard Under this alternative, summer trail collision risk would be the same as under the proposed action. The same mitigation measures would be in-force. Winter collision risk would be less than under the proposed action – approximately the same as under the no-action alternative and current conditions. While substantially more people would be using the Chair 8 pod, the egress route from the pod would be shifted upslope from the BCT, and no ski runs would terminate on, or cross, the BCT. Some Chair 8 pod users would likely continue down to the old egress route from the pod that they used in the past but this option would be far less attractive than the official egress route created under this alternative. 3.10.3.3.2 Emergency Services Under this alternative, impacts related to emergency services would be the same as under the proposed action.

3.10.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. The Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction and Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction projects meet the spatial and temporal overlap requirements. A brief summary of these projects is provided above in section 3.3. Any impacts of the Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction Project and the Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project related to trail conflicts on the BCT and provision of emergency services are reflected in sections 3.10.2.1 and 3.10.2.2 since they would have already occurred. Increased use of these facilities could result in more injuries, adding cumulatively to demands on MCFD emergency services. Given the limited increase in campground and day-use facility capacity, this potential change is likely small. No further cumulative effects are expected.

163

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.10.5 MITIGATION The impacts described above depend on the following mitigation measures being in place: 1. Use at least four signs to notify riders of each intersection with the BCT. Signs will be spaced approximately 100, 50, 25, and 0 feet from the intersection. Additional signs may be used if deemed necessary. 2. For each intersection of mountain bike trails with the BCT, use two signs on the BCT, one facing each direction, to notify BCT users of the intersection. 3. Where appropriate, use slowing features to reduce the speed of mountain bike trail users at intersections with the BCT. 4. When determining the final layout of mountain bike trails, ensure that users of the trail can see at least 20 feet up and down the BCT from a distance of 30 feet away from the intersection. 3.11 TRAFFIC

3.11.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue – Traffic Congestion: The road network serving the SMNRA provides adequate service with one exception. On winter weekends and holidays, people flock to the SMNRA for the novel snow-play opportunity. The Lee Meadows area is especially popular, and county-provided parking is insufficient. As a result, traffic flow is often impaired by vehicles parked on the roadway, drivers slowing to find parking places, and overall congestion. Additional winter visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may contribute to traffic congestion. Indicators: An assessment of existing and expected traffic volumes and patterns, and how these patterns would affect the level of service (LOS) on Lee Canyon road (SR 156), based on existing information.

3.11.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SR 156, also known as the Lee Canyon Road, is a state highway under the administration of the Nevada Department of Transportation. It is one of two highways accessing the SMNRA from U.S. Highway 95. The SR 156/US 95 junction is 18 miles northwest of Las Vegas. SR 156 is about 17 miles long, ending at the ski area. The Forest Service’s avalanche control artillery piece is deployed in a turnaround at the end of the highway during the winter, and the upper 1,700 feet of the road are used for ski area parking as well as parking for the upper BCT trailhead. The ski area is responsible for snow removal on SR 156 within the ski area boundary. The last traffic study that addressed SR 156 was the 2005 Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Traffic Study, completed by an interagency team including representatives of the Forest Service, Nevada Department of Transportation, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Clark and Nye counties, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Federal Highway Administration (Core Team 2005). No traffic counts or other data collection efforts have occurred since that study was completed. As a result, the 2005 study and anecdotal information from various people involved in and affected by the traffic situation are the basis for this description of the current setting. Traffic on SR 156 has increased incrementally since the 2005 study was completed, reflecting population growth in Las Vegas and its surrounding communities, but traffic patterns and LOS remain similar. During normal winter days, traffic on SR 156 normally flows fairly freely, operating at acceptable LOS ratings of A to C (free flow to stable flow near free flow), with uphill traffic during the morning peak period experiencing minor delays in certain stretches (Core Team 2005). However, during busy periods LOS on SR 156 drops substantially.

164

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

There is little current, quantitative information on LOS on SR 156 during congested winter weekends and holidays, when the novelty of snow in the desert brings valley residents of all types to Lee Canyon. On January 1, 2005, over 6,600 vehicles were counted entering the SMNRA (Core Team 2005). No breakdown of where on the SMNRA those vehicles went was provided in the report. However, data on vehicle occupancy, in the same report but from a different date, shows 41 percent of the inbound weekend traffic was in Lee Canyon on SR 156. Assuming a similar traffic distribution for the 6,600 vehicles observed in on January 1, 2005, yields 2,706 vehicles entering the SMNRA via SR 156 on a very busy day. Between 2005, when the Core Team study was completed, and 2015, the population of Clark County grew from 1,708,800 to 2,114,800 people, an increase of 24 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). Applying a corresponding increase to the 2005 traffic data yields 8,184 vehicles in the SMNRA, and 3,355 vehicles in Lee Canyon, on a winter peak day. Factors other than population growth contribute to changes in the number of vehicles in Lee Canyon on peak days, and the number of vehicles Lee Canyon can accommodate has a physical upper limit. However, it is reasonable to assume that traffic has increased roughly proportionally to population growth in the surrounding area. The ski area currently has 728 parking spaces available in the winter. Other than parking at the ski area, there are 218 designated, plowed parking spaces at the three campgrounds in Lee Canyon during the winter (66 at Foxtail, 62 at Old Mill, and 90 at Sawmill). On a peak winter day, with an estimated 3,355 vehicles in Lee Canyon as discussed above, this leaves up to 2,409 vehicles without legal parking in the canyon. This is a conservative estimate, as most vehicles are not in the canyon all day, so parking spaces may accommodate more than one vehicle per day, and some visitors are just out for a drive. In any case, many vehicles park illegally on the side of the road or even in the road. Much of this illegal parking is concentrated around Lee Meadows, since it is a popular snow-play destination. The combination of a large number of vehicles in the canyon and a substantial amount of illegal, unsafe parking causes serious congestion around popular recreation areas such as Lee Meadows. The LOS on SR 156 around the meadows falls to a rating of F (severe traffic congestion and roadway failure) during busy periods. These conditions occur on an estimated 20 days per year. In an attempt to address the congestion problems around Lee Meadows, the Nevada Department of Transportation blocked approximately 40 roadside parking spaces at the meadows during the winter 2017/2018 season. The goal was to prevent the congestion caused by vehicles moving in and out of parking spaces in this area and vehicles waiting in the roadway for a parking space to open up. The decision to block these spaces was based on observations during the winter of 2016/2017, when unusually high snowfall resulted in snow piled by snowplows in this parking area and along both sides of SR 156 through the meadows. Traffic flowed freely under these conditions; since no parking was available, motorists had no reason to slow down or stop and wait. Based on the estimated peak-day vehicle count on SR 156 (i.e., approximately 3,355 in 2015) and the limit that parking availability places on ski-area visitation (currently 728 spaces, or 22 percent of the vehicles entering the canyon), the ski area is a relatively minor contributor to traffic in the canyon and to congestion around snowplay areas. Regional population growth is the driving factor. The Census Bureau identified Nevada as the second fastest growing state in the nation in 2016, with growth near 2 percent. Clark County accounted for 86 percent of the statewide growth, with 47,828 new residents, or an annual growth rate of 2.3 percent. (Brean 2017)

3.11.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.11.3.1 No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, no development would occur at the ski area, and traffic volumes and patterns would remain similar to those described above. Ski area parking would remain at 728 spaces, limiting ski

165

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I area visitation on peak days and offering few surplus spaces for recreationists not visiting the ski area. Over time, as the population of the Las Vegas area grew, traffic volumes and congestion problems would get worse without improvements to SR 156, further decreasing LOS during high-use periods.

3.11.3.2 Proposed Action Implementation of the proposed action would have mixed effects on winter traffic volumes and patterns, and thus on the LOS on SR 156. The most notable adverse impact would be the additional skiers attracted by the proposed improvements. While new skiers would be accommodated at the ski area and not add to parking demand lower in the canyon, they would add to congestion in areas where illegal parking limited the LOS. Under the proposed action, skier numbers are projected to increase from 1,880 to 2,850 on peak days. At an industry-standard of 2.5 skiers per car, this would equate to 388 additional vehicles on SR 156, a 12 percent increase over the 2005 peak-day vehicle count. However, the majority of skier vehicles would be on the road during 1.5-hour periods around the ski lift start time of 9 a.m. and the closing time of 4 p.m. The net effect would be to prolong periods of congestion and low LOS at existing choke points like Lee Meadows. One potential positive impact would be increased parking in the upper canyon. The additional 500-car lot would bring the ski area total to 1,228 spaces. This increase may reduce the number of illegally parked cars in the canyon by providing non-skiing visitors with more legal options. However, two factors may limit this benefit. First, the new parking lot would be at the lower base area, roughly 0.6 miles from the meadows. This distance would limit the lot’s attraction to some canyon visitors. Second, the ski area would charge for parking in the new lot, as it does for parking in existing lots at the ski area and at canyon campgrounds maintained by the ski area under permit during the winter. The HTNF authorizes this practice to allow the ski area to offset their costs for snow removal from these parking areas. This cost may discourage some potential parking lot users. Based on these limitations, the new ski area parking in itself may not significantly reduce illegal parking and associated congestion down canyon. Another potential positive impact would be a shift toward ski area recreation as an alternative to snowplay at undeveloped sites. The entire package of proposed ski area amenities – including additional parking, restrooms, food service, and tubing and other recreational opportunities – will likely draw some winter canyon visitors to the ski area rather than the undeveloped areas where parking was problematic and other services limited or unavailable. This would reduce the rate of growth in congestion associated with regional population growth and help maintain an acceptable LOS on SR 156. Overall, the ski area would remain an important contributor to traffic on SR 156 but far less important than regional population growth. Beyond that, the additional parking in the upper canyon may reduce parking-related congestion to some degree, and the proposed improvements as a whole may draw an increasing proportion of canyon visitors to the ski area.

3.11.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative The impact on traffic volume, traffic patterns, and LOS on SR 156 under this alternative would be the same as those described for the proposed action.

3.11.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. The Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction and Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction projects meet the spatial and temporal overlap requirements. A brief summary of these projects is provided above in section 3.3.

166

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Any impacts of the Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction Project and the Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project related to traffic on SR 156 are reflected in section 3.11.2 since they have already occurred. No further cumulative effects, beyond increases in traffic proportional to population growth, could be expected.

3.11.5 MITIGATION This analysis did not identify any needs for mitigation available to the HTNF or the ski area. 3.12 LAND USE

3.12.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Issue – Adjacent Land Uses: The ski area adjoins or is in close proximity to other permitted facilities (i.e., Camp Lee Canyon and McWilliams Campground). Additional year-round visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may result in property damage, disruption, or other adverse effects on these adjacent land uses. Indicators: A qualitative assessment of the potential for property damage or disruption of permitted uses and the effectiveness of design criteria and proposed mitigation.

3.12.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT There are two permitted facilities on NFS lands adjacent to or in close proximity to the ski area, namely, Camp Lee Canyon and McWilliams campground. While use of these areas is non-exclusive, damage and disruption can occur when other members of the public enter these areas. Camp Lee Canyon is a 17-acre camp operated by Clark County Parks and Recreation Department under special use permit from the SMNRA. It is located adjacent to the ski area permit boundary on the northeast side. The camps seven buildings were constructed in 1936 by the Works Progress Administration, and the camp is included on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district. The camp has sleeping accommodations for 145 people and a variety of recreational amenities. It is used primarily by youth groups, and use occurs sporadically throughout the year. McWilliams Campground is a 45-acre Forest Service operated campground located adjacent to the ski area permit boundary on the northwest side. The campground contains 75 single- and double-family sites with picnic tables, grills and campfire rings. Sites accommodate both tent and recreational vehicle use. Flush toilets, drinking water and trash collection are provided. Roads and parking spurs are paved. The campground is open year-round with 14 campsites available in the winter, as well as winter parking for snowplay. There is no data on the frequency of incidents of property damage or disruption caused by ski area visitors on adjacent facilities; however, anecdotal observations indicate that some incidents have occurred. Such incidents are most likely limited to the winter season since the only summer activity that takes place near the boundaries of the ski area is a single disk golf hole, north of the maintenance shop, near Camp Lee Canyon. Use levels for the disk golf course are very low, and it is unlikely that the few participants in the vicinity of Camp Lee Canyon are creating a substantial summer issue. During the winter, people have been known to sled down the hill on the east side of the ski area’s lower parking lot. This unsanctioned run starts within the ski area permit boundary and ends within the Camp Lee Canyon permit boundary. Skiers and snowboarders have also been observed coming down from slopes in the proposed Chair 5 pod into Camp Lee Canyon and either hiking back up to the ski area or continuing down through the camp to SR 156. Entry into Camp Lee Canyon can lead to property damage and can cause disruption of camp activities, if the camp is in use.

167

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Incidents of property damage or disruption by ski area visitors have not been reported at McWilliams Campground. This is likely because there is no direct, downhill access from the parking lots or lift-served terrain at the ski area to the campground.

3.12.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

3.12.3.1 No-Action Alternative Under this alternative, no development would occur at the ski area and any problems related to property damage or disruption would remain as described above in the affected environment section.

3.12.3.2 Proposed Action Under the proposed action, summer activities at the ski area would increase substantially, and infrastructure near Camp Lee Canyon and McWilliams campground would be developed. The new parking lot would be constructed within approximately 70 feet of the permit boundary between Camp Lee Canyon and the ski area. A single bike trail would be constructed on the slope approximately 450 feet above McWilliams Campground. It is unlikely that any bike-trail users would choose to go off-trail down toward McWilliams Campground (see section 3.9). The majority of the new parking lot would not be used during the summer since it would be providing stormwater control functions (see section 3.4). A few parking spaces near the new first aid building and existing maintenance buildings would be used, but mostly by ski area employees. However, it is likely that the overall increase in the number of people at the ski area during the summer would increase the potential for property damage or disruption at Camp Lee Canyon. In order to mitigate this increase, a fence and signage would be erected along the northeast permit boundary between the ski area and Camp Lee Canyon. This fence would be approximately 500 feet long and span the drainage below the new parking lot. The fence would not need to be a permanent installation and could be removed during the winter to prevent snow damage. The fence would inform ski area visitors about the boundary and deter casual access to Camp Lee Canyon; therefore, it does not need to be a substantial barrier. During the winter, the potential for property damage or disruption at Camp Lee Canyon would increase due to the increased number of skiers and snowboarders in the Chair 5 pod and the proximity of the new parking lot to the camp. With the increased usage of the area there is a greater chance for ski area visitors to either accidentally enter the camp or intentionally attempt to pass through the camp to SR 156. In order to mitigate this increase, snow fencing would be erected along the north edge of the Chair 5 pod ski runs and between the north edge of the new parking lot and the permit boundary. Signage would indicate that the area beyond the fence is outside the ski area boundary. Such in-bounds area closures are common at Forest Service-permitted ski areas. With mitigation measures in place, implementation of this alternative would not result in a substantial increase in the incidents of property damage or disruption at Camp Lee Canyon or McWilliams campground.

3.12.3.3 Bristlecone Trail Alternative Impacts related to property damage or disruption under this alternative would be the same as those described for the proposed action.

3.12.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS As discussed in section 3.3, the cumulative actions considered in this analysis are any projects listed in the HTNF SOPA that would have temporally and spatially overlapping impacts on the same resources affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and alternatives. Each of the cumulative actions

168

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I described in section 3.3 could have impacts that would temporally and spatially overlap with those of the proposed action. Increased visitation in the upper canyon, particularly growth associated with the Dolomite-McWilliams-Old Mill Campgrounds Reconstruction Project and the Foxtail Group Picnic Area Reconstruction Project, would increase the potential for cumulative effects on property damage or disruption of Camp Lee Canyon.

3.12.5 MITIGATION The impacts described above require the following mitigation measures to be in place. 1. Construct a fence and signs along the northeast permit boundary between the ski area and Camp Lee Canyon. This fence will be approximately 500 feet long and span the drainage below the new parking lot. The fence does not need to be a permanent installation and may be removed during the winter to prevent snow damage. The fence will inform ski area visitors about the boundary and deter casual access to Camp Lee Canyon; therefore, it does not need to be a substantial barrier. 2. Erect snow fencing along the north edge of the Chair 5 pod ski runs. Signage will indicate that the area beyond the fence is outside the ski area boundary. 3.13 OTHER DISCLOSURES

3.13.1 HEALTHY FOREST RESTORATION ACT This proposed action would implement a land management plan and is not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. As a result, it is subject to subparts A and B of the Project-level Predecisional Administrative Review Process (36 CFR 218).

3.13.2 FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT As discussed in sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, a project-specific Forest Plan amendment to exempt the proposed action and alternatives other than the no-action alternative from standards 0.31 and 11.57 is necessary for Forest Plan compliance. Section 2.2.5 describes the amendment, and sections 3.5.6 and 3.6.6 describe in detail the effects on vegetation and wildlife, respectively, that establish the need for this amendment. As stated in section 1.4, the proposed action could not be revised, or an alternative developed, in a way that complied with these standards and still met the stated purpose and need for action. Accordingly, if the proposed amendment were not made, the project could not be authorized, and resource conditions would remain as described in the affected environment discussions for each resource addressed in Chapter 3.

3.13.3 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY NEPA requires that an EIS considers “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). This includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and to fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA, Section 101). Lee Canyon’s permit allocates the NFS lands occupied by the ski area to provision of recreation opportunities through the term of the permit. This land use has some inherent impacts. This analysis identifies several adverse environmental effects, but few have important implications for the long-term productivity of the site. Surface and subsurface water systems are largely absent and would not be notably affected. Changes in soil loss and fertility would be minimal. Vegetation changes would be reversible

169

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I through succession. The question here is whether this land use justifies any loss in long-term productivity of the resources involved. Through issuance of ski area permits, the Forest Service helps provide outdoor recreation for a high number of visitors on a relatively small proportion of our NFS lands; in 1986, the most recent year for which Forest visitor data is available, the SMNRA accounted for 22 percent of the total recreational site visits on the TNF but involved only a small percentage of the Forest’s area. Lee Canyon is the only ski area on the SMNRA, so Forest users have no other option for the types of recreation offered there. In short, the potential impacts of this proposal on the long-term productivity of the ski area are minimal, especially in relation to the value of the short-term use. No important distinction among the proposed action and alternatives can be drawn.

3.13.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS The preceding resource-specific analyses identify a range of impacts of the proposed action and alternative. Where appropriate, these impacts are assessed – generally post mitigation – on the basis of some regulatory or procedural scale or classification to determine their severity or importance. The purpose of this section is to summarize adverse impacts that would be unavoidable. These are impacts that would not be eliminated by design criteria or mitigation. While the analyses might conclude that these impacts were not severe or important, they would be adverse nevertheless.

3.13.4.1 Soil, Water, and Watershed Resources Given the project area’s steepness and erodible soils, a fairly high erosion risk is inherent. Soil disturbance under these conditions can only elevate the erosion risk. As discussed in sections 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.3.3, the suggested mitigation would maintain low risk levels for all elements except the ski runs in the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods. However, a low risk rating does not mean there would be no adverse effect. A major runoff event occurring during or immediately following construction, when bare ground was exposed and physical erosion-control measures were incomplete, would generate increased erosion. As to the ski runs, these disturbances, totaling 70.7 acres under the proposed action and 56.8 acres under the BCT alternative, would create moderate erosion hazard until revegetation was established. The lack of an approved seed mix would prolong this period. As discussed above, the ski area routinely repairs gullying on their ski runs, so this adverse effect on erosion hazard would not be anything new, but the risk of erosion occurring would unavoidably increase temporarily during and after construction, then remain somewhat higher until revegetation was complete.

3.13.4.2 Vegetation The SMNRA supports a unique suite of plants and animals, many of which are only found there. This limited distribution in itself makes most of them special-status species of one classification or another. The ski area occupies a “biodiversity hotspot,” defined by the Forest Plan, and virtually any surface disturbance has an adverse effect on at least potential habitat for some special-status species, if not on occupied habitat or plants themselves. As discussed in section 3.5.3.2, the proposed action would have a small adverse effect (i.e., disturb a small proportion of the occupied habitat within the ski area) on 11 special-status plant species and a moderate effect on one, Clokey’s eggvetch. These effects were a primary driver for development of the BCT alternative, which affect the same suite of species but reduce the amount of habitat affected for nearly all of them. For Clokey’s eggvetch, the figure drop from 13 percent of habitat effected to 2 percent, a small impact. In terms of formal determinations, the proposed action “May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability” for the 11 species and “May impact individuals and

170

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability” for Clokey’s eggvetch. Under the BCT alternative, the former determination would apply to all 12 species. This unavoidable adverse effect might be temporary. As discussed throughout the EIS (e.g., sections 2.2, 3.6.3.2, 3.6.3.3), one objective of the proposed development was to increase the amount and connectivity of MCBB habitat. The same habitat supports a number of these special-status plant species. To the degree that habitat improvement efforts are successful, this adverse effect would be reversed over time.

3.13.4.3 Wildlife As discussed above under vegetation, the SMNRA and the ski area support a unique suite of species, including wildlife as well as plants. This includes many endemic species. The proposed action would have a small impact on 18 special-status wildlife species, including the federally listed MCBB. The BCT alternative would reduce this to 14 species subject to small impacts due to habitat disturbance. The formal determination for all but one of these species, under either alternative, would be “May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.” The exception would be the federally listed MCBB. The Forest Service’s determination under both alternatives is “this project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the MCBB or its designated critical habitat.” However, that determination reflects immediate effects and, as discussed above, improving habitat conditions for the MCBB was an objective in designing the proposed development. To the degree that that objective is met, this adverse impact will be reversed over time. The adverse effects noted above for several other special-status wildlife species may also be offset by MCBB habitat improvement.

3.13.3.4 Cultural Resources As discussed in section 3.7.3 and in the Cultural Resources Narrative Report (Santarone et al. 2017) prepared as part of this analysis, one previously identified prehistoric site was relocated, re-recorded, and determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The analysis concluded that under the no-action alternative, no ski-area related activities would impact the site and that the proposed action and BCT alternative would not affect the site. There would be no unavoidable adverse effects with regard to cultural resources.

3.13.4.5 Scenery Resources Section 3.8 concludes that the effects of the proposed action and the BCT alternative on the area’s scenic integrity would be mixed. The base area is currently a striking departure from the natural landscape, and the proposed new structures and facilities would increase the scope of the base area’s impact. However, new structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with the SMNRA BEIG. As a result they would blend better with the landscape and help establish a more consistent architectural theme for the ski area. Similarly, on-mountain infrastructure, particularly the Chair 5 and Chair 8 pods, would substantially increase the footprint of ski area development. Two factors would mitigate this impact. First, the new development would be a quantitative increase in the visual impact of existing facilities – basically more of the same. Second, design criteria and required BMPs would help blend new ski runs with the natural setting. While changes both at the base area and on the mountain would be consistent with viewers’ expectations for a ski area, some people would likely perceive the expansion of infrastructure as an adverse effect. Design criteria and BMPs would mitigate but not eliminate this effect.

3.13.4.6 Recreation The analysis of potential impacts on recreation documented in section 3.9 identifies the BCT as main resource affected. This popular trail passes through the ski area now, but through a relatively undeveloped portion of it. While trail users experience the sounds and views of ski area operations, most of these

171

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I effects are limited and distant. The proposed action would alter that scenario substantially by putting both winter and summer infrastructure in close proximity to the trail. Trail use is considerably reduced in winter, but those choosing to ski or snowshoe would have to share the trail with downhill skier traffic from the new Chair 8 pod. Summer trail users would be exposed to views of the Chair 8 pod, the mountain coaster, the zip line, and bike trails. The noise generated by the summer attractions – primarily from the riders – would affect a substantial portion of the trail through the ski area. These impacts were one of the primary considerations in developing the BCT alternative. It would reduce winter impacts on the BCT by shortening the Chair 8 pod to provide separation from the trail. More importantly, it would shift most of the summer infrastructure to the other side of the ski area, away from the trail, substantially reducing the sights and sounds experienced by trail users. Nevertheless, the proposed developments – particularly development of the Chair 8 pod – would affect the viewshed of the trail through the ski area, and the dramatic increase in summer use of the ski area would affect the experience of BCT users accustomed to a less active and active setting.

3.13.4.7 Safety The safety analysis documented in section 3.10.3 addresses two issues, and both analyses indicate minor unavoidable adverse effects. The first issue is increased risk to BCT summer users associated with the proposed mountain bike trail system that would cross or pass near the BCT in four places. With suggested mitigation in place to reduce collision hazard, the risk would remain low, but mitigation would not eliminate it entirely. This minor risk does not warrant changing the layout of the mountain bike trail system. Winter use of the BCT is much lower than summer use, but skiers returning to the base area from the Chair 8 pod could pose a collision risk to anyone coming up the BCT. This would be a minor but unavoidable risk under the proposed action. The BCT alternative would pose the same minor risk to summer BCT users, but by shifting the Chair 8 pod upslope and constructing a separate, new egress skiway, it would eliminate the risk to winter BCT users. The second safety issue is increased demand for emergency services, specifically ambulance service for injured ski area visitors needing transportation to Las Vegas-area medical facilities. The analysis projects 61.8 more ambulance calls per season due to the projected growth in annual skier numbers. As accidents would be more likely on peak skier days, an ambulance would probably be stationed at the ski area to shorten the response time. However, the number of days requiring an ambulance to be on-site may increase. The mountain bike trail system might attract up to 25,000 visitors per year and generate a projected 25 additional ambulance calls. That would bring the total increase in ambulance calls to 87. This increase in demand for emergency services, particularly the logistics necessary to station an ambulance at the ski area during busy winter periods, would be a minor but unavoidable effect of the proposed action. This scenario would not change under the BCT alternative.

3.13.4.8 Traffic The traffic issue addressed in this analysis (section 3.11) is additional winter visitation associated with the proposed infrastructure may contribute to traffic congestion on the Lee Canyon highway (SR 156). Under the proposed action, skier numbers are projected to increase from 1,880 to 2,850 on peak days. At an industry-standard of 2.5 skiers per car, this would equate to 388 additional vehicles on SR 156, a 12 percent increase over the last peak-day traffic count in 2005. The majority of skier vehicles would be on the road during lower traffic periods (i.e., 1.5-hour periods around the ski lift start time of 9 a.m. and the closing time of 4 p.m.), but overall the additional vehicles are projected to prolong periods of congestion and low LOS at existing choke points like Lee Meadows. This adverse effect would be the same under the

172

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

BCT alternative. In the near term, it could only be avoided by action on the part of the Nevada Department of Transportation to improve traffic flow on SR 156.

3.13.4.9 Land Use The primary concern addressed in this analysis was the potential for vandalism or disruption at adjacent permitted facilities, particularly Camp Lee Canyon, associated with increased year-round visitors to the ski area (section 3.12). The analysis concludes that the potential for such effects could increase with visitation, but that proposed mitigation (i.e., fences to deter entry) would minimize it. However, some small increase in the potential for property damage or disruption at the camp would remain. The BCT alternative would not be different in this regard.

3.13.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Irreversible commitment of a resource means that, once committed to a given use, the resource is lost to other uses. In general this term applies to non-renewable resources (e.g., minerals, geologic features, or historic sites) or to resources which are renewable only over a very long period of time (e.g., soil fertility or perhaps old-growth forests). Most of the impacts identified in this analysis do not fall in this category. If the decision were made to terminate the resort’s permit, the site could be reclaimed, and most resource functions could be returned to their previous levels. However, there may be some exceptions:  Soil productivity at some of the larger grading areas, such as the Chair 8 pod and the new parking lot, would likely not return to previous levels for a long time, if ever.  Succession to pre-disturbance vegetation types would also be a slow process, particularly for old- growth forest stands. Irretrievable commitments of resources involve lost use or productivity of resources. Any lost use or production resulting from this proposal’s commitment of resources to recreation development would fall in this category. This could include the timber production lost to maintenance of open ski runs, access roads, and trails. However, the productivity of the forest stands in question is low, and logging is not permitted in the SMNRA. While this proposal involves both irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, most of the commitments were made decades ago when the ski area was developed, and they are likely to continue. The incremental impact of this proposal would be minimal, and no important distinctions can be made among the proposed action and alternatives in this regard.

3.13.6 INCOMPLETE AND UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION No information necessary to appropriate analysis and disclosure of the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives was incomplete or unavailable.

3.13.7 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION Implementation of the proposed action or BCT alternative would increase the ski area’s energy demands in the short-term due to the need for construction vehicles and machinery. In the longer term, the additional ski lifts and buildings would consume energy, but the increase would be offset by removal of less efficient, older facilities with modern, high-efficiency technology. Lee Canyon is a participant in the National Ski Areas Association’s Climate Challenge program, which is dedicated to helping participating ski areas reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce costs for energy use. Energy use and conservation would be similar under the proposed action and the BCT Alternative.

173

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.13.8 POLLINATORS A Presidential Memorandum was signed June 20, 2014, establishing the Pollinator Heath Task Force (PHTF), calling for the creation of a national pollinator health strategy, and directing federal land management agencies to review any new or renewing land management contracts and grants for the opportunity to include requirements for enhancing pollinator habitat (Obama 2014). The resulting 2015 National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators discusses Forest Service efforts to, among other things, restore pollinator habitat through prescribed fire and silvicultural thinning of forested stands and educate the public about pollinators (PHTF 2015). The USDA-Agricultural Research Service’s Bee Biology & Systematics Laboratory completed a study in Clark County to determine which pollinator species are present in the area (USDA-ARS 2006). The results of this study indicate that Clark County is a hotspot of bee diversity, with over 600 bee species alone.. Additional pollinators inhabiting the area likely include birds, bats, and other insects, including the special-status butterflies discussed above in section 3.6.3. This diverse group pollinates a wide number of plant species. Both the proposed action and BCT alternative would decrease tree cover in forested stands on proposed ski runs, lift alignments, and in gladed areas. Those treatments would likely increase plant species diversity and likely benefit pollinator species. Climate change could temper this positive conclusion. Recent research on climate change effects on the HTNF (Tausch 2011) and on western lands managed by the Forest Service and the National Park Service Halofsky et al 2018) indicates several relevant conclusions. First, in alpine ecosystems forbs are important for bees and other pollinators. Second, changes in the winter climate can expose alpine and subalpine plants and seeds to frost damage, disease outbreaks, and habitat fragmentation, and can result in plant phenology that is out of sequence with pollinators. Third, these effects may favor generalist pollinators over alpine specialist pollinators. These include some of the butterflies endemic to the Spring Mountains. Overall, the net effect of the proposed development on pollinators will depend on the efficacy of efforts to restore, increase and link MCBB habitat, which includes a variety of alpine forbs that support and are supported by the area’s pollinators. Success would offset some of the adverse effects of climate change. 3.14 CONSISTENCE WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES

3.14.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The analysis of potential impacts on federally listed plant and wildlife species documented in sections 3.5 and 3.6, respectively, and in the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for this analysis document compliance with the ESA. The BA concludes that both the proposed action and BCT alternative may affect and are likely to adversely affect the MCBB or its designated critical habitat. However, as discussed in section 3.6, the net effect on this species is anticipated to be beneficial over time.

3.14.2 CLEAN WATER ACT The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. in order to protect their beneficial uses – in this case, those assigned by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Beneficial uses reflect resources or activities that would be directly affected by a change in water quality or quantity. As discussed in the soil, water, and watershed resources analysis (section 3.4), the project area includes no live water and has no surface hydrologic connectivity with waters outside the project area. These factors limit the scope of potential impacts on water quality. The disturbed site rehabilitation practices, design criteria, and mitigation measures (section 2.6 and Appendix B) include a requirement for HTNF approved site rehabilitation plans incorporating BMPs, including those described in Ski Area BMPs:

174

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Guidelines for Planning, Erosion Control, and Reclamation (Forest Service 2001). However, given the lack of surface water and hydrologic connectivity, such mitigative considerations bear more on soil loss and productivity than water quality. The only issue addressed in the water and watershed resources analysis (section 3.4.3) that falls under the purview of the CWA is the potential for groundwater contamination associated with the proposed parking lots. Required permitting would ensure that the septic system for the proposed first aid building complied with regulations. As this analysis concludes, no reduction in groundwater quality would occur as a result of these actions under the proposed action (section 3.4.3.2) or the BCT alternative (section 3.4.3.3).

3.14.3 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with Forest Service regulations, compliance with the accessibility guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to the design of structures proposed as part of this project. The ADA applies because Lee Canyon operates as a “public accommodation,” that is, it is a business open to the public. Section 504 applies because the ski area operates under a special-use permit authorized by a federal agency, the Forest Service. Implementation guidelines for Section 504 that apply to recreation special-use permit holders are located in 7 CFR 15b. UFAS and ADA accessibility guidelines were combined in November 8, 2005, and are now known as the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (ABAAS). The ABAAS replaces the former guidelines as the current standard for federal agencies, including the Forest Service. These guidelines are included in the Accessibility Guidebook for Ski Areas Operating on Public Lands – 2012 Update (Forest Service 2012b). HTNF engineering review of construction plans prior to notification to proceed will ensure compliance with ABAAS.

3.14.4 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11644 - USE OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES ON PUBLIC LANDS Public use of off-road vehicles is not authorized within Lee Canyon’s permit area. Only the ski area may use such vehicles in conducting authorized activities. The proposed action and BCT alternative would not alter this.

3.14.5 EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988 AND 11990 - PROTECTION OF FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS As discussed in the soil, water and watershed analysis (section 3.4), there are no wetlands in the project area and thus no potential for direct effects. The analysis states that there are also no surface waters and thus no floodplains subject to direct effects. The lack of surface hydrologic connectivity effectively eliminates the potential for indirect impacts on these resources.

3.14.6 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186 - PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS This order and the protection it affords to migratory birds is discussed in the wildlife analysis (section 3.6). That analysis concludes that potential impacts on migratory birds would be eliminated by the addition of design criteria 12, which requires trees to be cut outside of the nesting season unless they are specifically determined to be free of nesting birds. A small fraction of available habitat for forest nesting species would be lost under either alternative, but populations would not be impacted given the large amount of habitat in the area.

175

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

3.14.7 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 - ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The proposed action or BCT alternative would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. Scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns associated with the principles of environmental justice. No mitigation measures to offset or improve adverse effects on these populations have been identified. All interested and affected parties will continue to be involved with the public involvement and decision process.

3.14.8 USDA CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY The proposed action and BCT alternative would not result in any civil rights impacts on Forest Service employees, visitors to Lee Canyon, or the general public. All would be free from reprisal or discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or familial status, political beliefs, parental status, receipt of public assistance, or protected genetic information.

3.14.9 PRIME FARMLAND, RANGELAND, AND FOREST LAND The proposed action and BCT alternative do not include any use of prime farmland or rangelands, and the term “prime forest land” does not apply to NFS lands. Under the proposed action and BCT alternative, NFS lands would be managed with sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.

176

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

CHAPTER 4: LIST OF PREPARERS

Name Position Contribution Forest Service Team Donn Christiansen SMNRA Area Manager Project oversight. SMNRA Area Manager Deborah MacNeill Project oversight. (Acting) Jim Winfrey Land Management Planner Project NEPA Lead Chris Linehan Recreation Staff Officer Project Interdisciplinary Team Lead. Developed Recreation Jonathan Stein Project Interdisciplinary Team Lead. Director Jim Hurja Soil Scientist Watershed resources review and oversight. John McCann Forest Hydrologist Watershed resources review and oversight. Forest Botanist/Invasive Dirk Netz Vegetation resources review and oversight. Plant Program Supervisor Charles Woodard Wildlife Biologist Wildlife resources review and oversight. Butterfly species analysis review and Katy Gulley District Ecologist oversight. Wildlife Program Kristie Boatner Manager/Forest Wildlife Wildlife resources review and oversight. Biologist Kelly Turner District Archaeologist Cultural resources review and oversight. Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC Team Project management, NEPA oversight, Neal Artz Project Manager QA/QC review, and preparation of cultural, scenery, and recreation analyses. Management assistance and preparation of Assistant Project Manager Matt Westover wildlife, safety, traffic, and land use and Wildlife Biologist analyses. Preparation of soil, water, and watershed Eric Duffin Hydrologist resources analysis. Botanist and Wetland Tim Royer Preparation of vegetation analysis. Specialist Document Production Document production and preparation of the Judy Seamons Specialist project record. Cannon Heritage Consultants, Inc. Completion of cultural resources survey and Ken Cannon Archeologist report. JUB Engineers, Inc. Hydrological modeling and run-off Nathan Smith Project Engineer projection report. Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Completion of historical structures survey Ron Sladek Archaeologist and report.

177

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5.1 PUBLIC SCOPING On March 23, 2017, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF) issued a public scoping notice summarizing Lee Canyon’s proposed project elements (the proposed action) and inviting comments regarding the scope of the associated NEPA review. The elements included in the proposed action are included in Lee Canyon’s current MDP, accepted by the HTNF in June 2011. Information regarding the scoping period, available materials for review, and a public meeting was sent to the agencies, organizations, and individuals on the HTNF mailing list. The scoping notice was posted on the HTNF website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50649 and made available on CD or in hard-copy form to anyone requesting it. The scoping period began on March 23, 2017, when a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (NOI) was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 82, No. 55, p. 14865). The scoping period closed 45 days later on May 8, 2017. The scoping notice, NOI, comment letters, and scoping report identifying the issues raised and their disposition in the EIS are included in the project record. Comment letters were received from the following five agencies, six organizations, and 89 individuals (including multiple letters from single individuals): Agencies:  Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office  Mt. Charleston Fire District  Nevada Department of Wildlife, Southern Region  Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of State Lands, State Land Use Planning Agency, State Clearinghouse  National Park Service Organizations:  Red Rock Audubon Society, Conservation Chair  Center for Biological Diversity, Nevada Wildlife Advocate  Colorado River Indian Tribes, Tribal Historic Preservation Office  Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Southern Nevada Director  International Mountain Bicycling Association, Southwest and Alaska Regional Director  The Nature Conservancy, Southern Nevada Field Office, Mojave Desert Program Director Individuals:  Andrea Acosta  Barrett Casella  Bobbye and Pat  Adam  Ian Cattanach Fitgibbons  Mike Angel  Chad  Bill Freberg  Jeffrey Bagdade  Jeannette Chapman  Ken Freeman  Ronald Beehler  Thomas Dellavalle  Robert Furtek  Greg Bernhardt  Corey DeMaio  Andria Garbiso  Kay Blackwell  Lynn Dickton  Jim Gentleman  Jim Boone  Justin Doucette  John Giacomello  Steve Brittingham  June Egi  Michelle Gregory  Victoria Brogan  Frank Evans  Pam Gullickson  Skip Canfield  Maria Gutierrez

178

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

 Steve Hartley  Ron McMenemy  Jamie Schofield  George Hasse  Ryan McPhee  Read and Carol  Hermi Hiatt  Troy Meier Schrotel  Jeanette Hogue  Brenda Morrow  Robert Sherman  Tim Hopson  Robert Morrow  Richard Sinden  Brian Johnson  Susan Murphy  Neal and Mora  Kevin Johnston  Stephanie Myers Snyder  Jean Perry-Jones  Richard Naito  Harlan Stockman  Lynn Kantor  Thomas O’Neill  Lisa Taylor  David Kress  Jason Otter  Sebastian Trost  Liz Langille  Janine Packer  Robert Ungar  Martha Law  Robin Padden  Joanne Urioste  Kurtis Lee  Tom Padden  John Ward  Lisa Lorenzo  Rita Peerenboom  Judy Warner  Jack Mabry  Jean Public  Timothy Williams  Dolores Mack and  Natalie Rath  Quinn Winter Norman Angell  Richard Rosenheim  Jose Witt  Mike McDonald  Sam Scheller  Kathleen Womack 5.2 NOTICE AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT EIS A Notice of Availability (NOA) of this Draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register, initiating a 45-day comment period, in accordance with 36 CFR 218 Sub-parts A and B. The document will be posted to the HTNF website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50649. Specific notifications will be sent to those who provided scoping comments. 5.3 OTHER CONSULTATION

5.3.1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 As discussed in the wildlife analysis (section 3.6), the HTNF consulted with the FWS regarding impacts on the endangered MCBB. Informal consultation with FWS biologists and administrators began in 2014 when Forest Service, FWS, and contractor personnel met to discuss the ski area’s development plans and how they could be refined to reduce potential adverse effects and increase benefits for the MCBB, listed as endangered in 2013. A biological assessment (BA) was prepared based on ongoing interaction among these three entities, addressing potential effects on the MCBB. Through this process, most disruptive development was moved away from suitable MCBB habitat, and developments that could enhance or connect MCBB habitat were added or relocated to maximize their beneficial effects. Once the BA is submitted to and accepted by the FWS, formal consultation will be initiated. The FWS will prepare a biological opinion (BO) based on the BA and any additional consultation necessary. The BO will document the FWS opinion as to whether or not the preferred alternative is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the MCBB or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Consultation documentation will be included in the project record.

5.3.2 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 As discussed in the cultural resources analysis (section 3.7), all consultation regarding heritage resources required under the National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 11593 has been completed. A

179

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I specialist report addressing the Big Horn Lodge at the ski area (Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 2017) and another dealing with the remaining elements of the proposed action will be submitted for State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review. Once obtained, SHPO concurrence letters will be included in the project record.

5.3.3 TRIBAL CONSULTATION On April 27, 2017, the SMNRA Area Manager met with the Nuwuuvi Working Group that is made up of representatives from the Paiute tribes whose ancestral home is the Spring Mountains. This working group has been designated to represent the various bands and to provide input on projects and issues related to the SMNRA. A presentation of the proposed ski area developments and maps showing the areas and types of changes was provided to the group. There were several questions but no significant concerns were raised. A site visit to view the area was offered, and some participants expressed interest but have not followed through to see the site. Additional updates will be provided, and a site visit will be recommended to the group. The Coalition of Colorado River Indian Tribes responded to the public scoping notice in March 2017 and requested that cultural resources be avoided if feasible and that they be contacted in the event that any human remains or cultural resources are discovered during construction. As documented in EIS section 3.7.3, avoidance of cultural resources was incorporated into project planning. In order to address undiscovered cultural resources, design criteria have been included in section 2.6.

180

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES

Anderson, M. 2008. Biological monitoring report for Astragalus oophorus var. clokeyanus (Clokey eggvetch) on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Las Vegas, Nevada. Andrew, G., M. Glenn, P. Jacoby-Garrett, and D. Thompson. 2013. Surveys and habitat assessment for Plebejus shasta charlestonensis (Mount Charleston blue butterfly) in the Spring Mountain Range of Nevada. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern Nevada Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. 65 pp. plus appendices. Austin, G.T. 1980. A New Plebejus (Icaricia) Shasta (Edwards) From Southern Nevada (Lycaenidae). Journal of Lepidopterists’ Society 34: 20-24. Bennett, V., P. Zollner, and V. Quinn. 2010. Simulating the implications of recreational disturbance on Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Bernhardt, G. 2017. Director Camp Lee Canyon. Personal communication with Eric Duffin, watershed scientist Cirrus Ecological Solutions re. Existing conditions at Camp, groundwater wells, and runoff from historic and recent storm events. Betzler, J.A. 2009. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort snowmaking water storage pond, access road, and spoils storage area botany survey report. Las Vegas Nevada. Bonnin, G.M., D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M. Yekta, D. Riley. 2011. NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation- Frequency Atlas of the United States. Volume 1 Version 5.0: Semiarid Southwest (Arizona, Southeast California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Boon, S. 2012. Snow accumulation following forest disturbance. Ecohydrology, 5(3), 279-285. doi:10.1002/eco.212 Boyd, B.M. and G.T. Austin. 1999. Final Report on Butterfly Investigations in the Spring Mountains, Nevada, 1998, and a Proposed Monitoring Program for Endemic Species. Unpublished report to the U.S. Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, Nevada. 121 pp. Boyd, B.M. and D. Murphy. 2008. A Report on the Status of the Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly and its Essential Resources at and Adjacent to the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort. Prepared for the Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort. Bradley, P., M. O’Farrell, J. Williams, and J. Newmark. (Editors). 2006. Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, NV. 216 pp. Brean, Henry. 2017. Clark County 3rd in nation for population gain. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Las Vegas, Nevada. Brickey, J. 2012a. TES plant survey results, LVSSR lift 2 surveys. USDA Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, Nevada. Brickey, J. 2012b. TES plant survey results, LVSSR lift 3 surveys. USDA Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, Nevada. Cirrus (Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC). 2016. Notes taken by Matt Westover on meeting between Matt Westover and Dan Thompson. October 13. Cirrus. 2017a. Draft Noise Analysis with the NMSim Noise Model Simulation. Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC, Logan, UT. Sep. 18.

181

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Cirrus. 2017b. Memo report on statistical analysis of Bristlecone Trail user photos. Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC, Logan, UT. Sep. 19. Cirrus. 2017c. Analysis of data provided by Lee Canyon Ski Area and Mount Charleston Fire District regarding ambulance calls to the ski area. Cirrus Ecological Solutions LC. Logan, UT. Core Team. 2005. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area transporation study. Final report. Clark County and Nye County, Nevada. Creech, E., B. Schultz, and L. Blecker. 2010. Nevada noxious weed field guide. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Cole, A.C., Jr. 1956. Studies of Nevada ants. II. A new species of Lasius (Chthonolasius)(Hymenoptera; Formicidae). Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 31:26-27. Crum, K., C. Twellmann, and J. Brickey. 2012. Rare Plant Survey Report: Re-inventory of rough angelica and Clokey’s eggvetch populations in the Spring Mountains NRA. The Great Basin Institute and Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Las Vegas, Nevada. DataSmiths. 2007. Report on butterfly surveys at three locations in the Spring Mountains, Clark County, Nevada. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. eBird. 2017. eBird Explorer. Available online at: www.ebird.org. Ecosign. 2011. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort Master Development Plan 2011. Ecosign Mountain Resort Planners Ltd. Whistler, BC. Canada. Emmel, J.F. and O. Shields. 1978. The biology of Plebejus (Icaricia) shasta in the Western United States (Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 17:129–140. ENTRIX. 2008. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Landscape Analysis. Final Report. Chapters 3 and 4: Current and Reference Conditions. Prepared for Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Service, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. August 2008. Contract #RFP-AG- 9360-S-05-0030. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. The Public Notification Rule: A Quick Reference Guide. Office of Water (4606M). EPA 816-F-09-010. August. EPA . 2010a. Ground Water Rule: A Quick Reference Guide. Office of Water (4606M). EPA 816-F-08- 029. Revised March. EPA. 2010b. Total Coliform Rule: A Quick Reference Guide. Office of Water (4606) EPA 816-F-01-035. Revised March. EPA. 2015. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual Version 5.1. National Risk Management Laboratory Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. EPA-600/R-14/413b. Revised September. Flora of North America (FNA). 2017. Hymenoxys lemmonii. Species description available online at: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=250066992. Accessed September. Flores, M., A. Gaiennie, R. Noval, and G. Radieve. 2007. Upper Lee Canyon species of concern surveys. Great Basin Institute. Forest Service (United States Forest Service). 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 2. Chapter 1: The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook 462. Forest Service. 1982. ROS Users Guide. USDA Forest Service.

182

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Forest Service. 1986a. Land and Resource Management Plan, Toiyabe National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Sparks, NV. Forest Service. 1986b. ROS Users Guide. U.S. Forest Service. Available online at: http://www.reclink.us/page/forest-service-ros-users-guide-1986. Forest Service. 2001. Ski Area BMPs: Guidelines for Planning, Erosion Control, and Reclamation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT. Forest Service. 2006. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). Denver, Colorado. FHS 2509.25. Forest Service. 2007. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Built Environment Image Guide. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Feb. Forest Service. 2008. MOU between the USDA Forest Service and the USFWS to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Forest Service 2012a. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. April. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_ April2012.pdf Forest Service. 2012b. Accessibility Guidebook for Ski Areas Operating on Public Lands – 2012 Update. USDA-Forest Service. FS-703. Forest Service. 2017. Scoping Report: Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan Phase I Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Las Vegas, NV. Forest Service. 2018a. Decision Memo: Lee Canyon Hillside Building. SMNRA, HTNF. Las Vegas, NV. Forest Service. 2018b. Biological Evaluation and Plant and Wildlife Technical Report for Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan – Phase 1. SMNRA, HTNF. Las Vegas, NV. Forest Service. 2018c. Biological Assessment for Lee Canyon Ski Area Master Development Plan - Phase 1. USDA Forest Service, Las Vegas, NV. FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. FWS. 2011. 12-month finding on a petition to list the Mt. Charleston blue butterfly as endangered or threatened. Federal Register Vol 76(45) 12667-12683. FWS. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly. Federal Register 78(182) 57750-57775. FWS. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Mount Charlesont Blue Butterfly (Icaricia (Plebejus) shasta charlestonensis). Federal Register 80:28. FWS. 2017. Pahrump Poolfish. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species /fish/species/pahrump_poolfish.html. FWS. 2018. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, NV. Furniss, M.J., S. Flanagan, and B. McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically-connected roads: an indicator of the influence of roads on chronic sedimentation, surface water hydrology, and exposure to toxic chemicals. USDA Forest Service, Stream Systems Technology Center, Stream Notes, July, 2000. Fort Collins, CO.

183

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Glenne, G. and D. Johnson. 2002. Guide to species of concern in the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern Nevada Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. Gulley, K. 2018. Personal communication. Email from Katy Gulley, Forest Service District Ecologist, to Matt Westover, Cirrus Wildlife Biologist, regarding rage wide acreage of MCBB habitat. Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, N.J. Little, L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Intermountain Region. Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR375. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Hiatt, H. and J. Boone (editors). 2003. Clark County, Nevada species account manual. Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada. Hiatt, H. and J. Boone (editors). 2004. Clark County, Nevada species account manual. Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada. Holmes, R.R., Jr. and K. Dinicola. 2010. 100-Year flood–it's all about chance: U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product 106. Hooper, D. 2017. Mountain manager Lee Canyon Ski resort. Personal communication with Eric Duffin, watershed scientist Cirrus Ecological Solutions re. mountain operations, groundwater wells, and historic and recent runoff conditions. Howard, R. and R. Stull. 2013. IR Radiation from Trees to a Ski Run: A Case Study. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 52(7), 1525-1539. doi:10.1175/jamc-d-12-0222.1 Hughes, J. 2015. Yellow-billed cuckoo. The Birds of North America. Available online at: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/yebcuc/. Accessed 1 Jan 2017. J-U-B Engineers Inc. 2017. Lee Canyon Hydrology Report. J-U-B #55-17-113. Prepared by J-U-B Engineers. October. Linkhart, B. D., and D. A. Mccallum. 2013. Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus). The Birds of North America. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/093. Lowrey, C. and K. Longshore. 2010. Long-term conservation strategy for the Palmer‟s chipmunk (Tamias palmeri) within the Spring Mountains, Nevada. Report prepared for Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and U.S. Geological Survey. Lundquist, J., S. Dickerson-Lange, J. Lutz, and N. Cristea. 2013. Lower forest density enhances snow retention in regions with warmer winters: A global framework developed from plot-scale observations and modeling. Water Resources Research, 49(10), 6356-6370. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20504 Moreo, M., G. Senay, A. Flint, N. Damar, R. Laczniak, and J. Hurja. 2014. Hydroclimate of the Spring Mountains and Sheep Range, Clark County, Nevada. Scientific Investigations Report 2014-5142. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas, and S.B. Weiss. 1990. An Environmental-Metapopulation Approach to Population Viability Analysis for a Threatened Invertebrate. Conservation Biology 4: 41–51. NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Available online at: expplorer.natureserve.org. Accessed 10 Apr. Nevada DEP (Nevada Department of Environmental Protection). 2008. Nevada Contractors Field Guide for Construction Site Best Management Practices. 901 South Stewart Street, Carson City, Nevada, 89701. Prepared in cooperation with the Truckee Meadows Storm Water Coordinating

184

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Committee, Washoe County Regional Water Planning Commission, and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District. Nevada Conservation Commission. 1994. Best Management Practices Handbook. State of Nevada State Conservation Commission, Capitol Complex, Carson City, Nevada 89710. Nevada Department of Agriculture. Nevada Noxious Weed List. Available online at: http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Noxious_Weed_List/. Accessed September 2017. NNHP (Nevada Natural Heritage Program). 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Rare plant species fact sheets. Available online at: http://heritage.nv.gov/atlas. Accessed August 2017. NNHP. 2016. Geodatabase of rare plant occurrences from the vicinity of Lee Canyon ski area. Provided to Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LC on June 6, 2016. NewFields. 2006a. Final 2005 monitoring report for the adaptive management vegetation plan, Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort (2005-2011). Las Vegas, Nevada. NewFields. 2006b. Draft 2006 monitoring report for the adaptive management vegetation plan, Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort (2005-2011). Las Vegas, Nevada. NewFields. 2007. Draft 2007 monitoring report for the adaptive management vegetation plan, Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort (2005-2011). Las Vegas, Nevada. NewFields. 2008. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort 2007 Butterfly Survey Report. Unpublished report for Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort, Mount Charleston, Nevada. 32 pp Niles, W.E., and P. Leary. 2013. Flora of the Spring Mountains, Clark and Nye counties, Nevada. Draft taxonomic key. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2004. Chapter 10 Estimation of Direct Surface Runoff from Storm Rainfall. Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook. July. NRCS. 2006. Soil Survey of Clark County Area, Nevada. United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. NRCS. 2017a. Lee Canyon SNOTEL data. Available online at https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=1112. Downloaded on September 26. NRCS. 2017b. Bristlecone Trail SNOTEL data. Available online at https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=1111. Downloaded on September 26. NRCS. 2017c. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Clark County, Nevada. Available online at https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/ . Accessed September 27. Obama, B. 2014. Presidential Memorandum – Creating a federal strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. The White House, Washington D.C. June 20. PHTF. 2015. National strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. The White House, Washington D.C. May 19. Plume, R.W., 1989. Ground-water Conditions in Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, Part 1, Hydrogeologic Framework, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2320-A, 14 p., 2 figures, 5 plates. PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. 2017. Mean annual temperature and precipitation depths for Lee Canyon, Spring Mountains, Nevada. Available online at http://prism.oregonstate.edu Accessed November 10.

185

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Ramsey, Marikay. 1997. Final Report on the Maternity Roost Study and Status of Bat Species of Concern of the Spring Mountains, Nevada. Unpublished Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Nevada. On file at the Spring Mountains NRA. Recon 2000. Final Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of 79 Species in Clark County, Nevada. Available online at: http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/airquality/dcp/Pages/ CurrentHCP.aspx. Accessed September 2017. Santarone, P., J. Blong, and K. Cannon. 2017. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Cultural Resource Narrative Report. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort: Development of Master Development Plan, Phase 1 Proposal. FS Report No. R2016041702584. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 – 2007-State of Nevada. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Scott J.A. 1986. The butterflies of North America: a natural history and field guide. Stanford, California. Stanford University Press. Sedgwick, J. A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher. The Birds of North America. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/533. Sever, A. 2011. Butterfly Monitoring and Inventories Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark County, Nevada. Final Project Report, October 15, 2011. Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management, Las Vegas, NV. Sladek, R. 2017. NHPA Section 106 Historic Resources Documentation & Analysis: Big Horn Lodge, Lee Canyon Ski Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark County, Nevada. Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. Feb. 20. Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). The Birds of North America. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298. Stantec. 2008. Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort Master Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Produced by Stantec Inc. Prepared for Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort. December 2008. Svoma, B. 2017. Canopy effects on snow sublimation from a central Arizona Basin. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 122(1), 20-46. doi:10.1002/2016jd025184 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 2017. NHPA Section 106 Historic Resources Documentation & Analysis Big Horn Lodge Lee Canyon Ski Resort. Fort Collins, CO. Tausch, R. 2011. Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Climate Change Vulnerability Report, April 2011.USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Thompson, D., and S. Abella. 2016. Spring Mountains Butterfly Life History and Autecology Studies : Phase III Baseline Habitat Conditions and Prescriptions for Habitat Enhancement , Restoration , and Augmentation. Las Vegas, NV. Thompson, D., G. Andrew, P. Jacoby-Garrett, H. Stevens, and S. Abella. 2014. Spring Mountains butterfly autecology final report 2010 to 2012. Las Vegas, NV. USDA-ARS. 2006. Pollination Ecology Final Report 2003 Biennium Clark County, Nevada (2004-2005). USDA-ARS Bee Biology & Systematics Laboratory, Utah State University. Logan, UT. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Data from U.S. Census Bureau via Google Public Data website. Date Accessed 11/6/17. Available online at: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore ?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=county:32003&hl=en&dl=en.

186

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

USGS (U.S. Geographical Survey). 2017. StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report. USGS Station Number 09419610 Lee Canyon near Charleston Park, Nevada. Available online at https://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/09419610.htm Accessed October 3, 2017. WBWG. 2017. Western Bat Working Group. Available online at: wbwg.org. Accessed 10 Apr 2017. Weiss S.B., A.D. Weiss, D.D. Murphy, and G.T. Austin. 1995. Final report on candidate butterfly taxa of the Spring Mountains. Unpublished report. April 30, 1995. 30 pp. Weiss S.B., A.D. Weiss, D.D. Murphy, and G.T. Austin. 1997. Final Report on Endemic Butterflies of the Spring Mountains. Reno, Nevada. Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 2015. A Utah Flora, 5th Edition. Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah. White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon. The Birds of North America. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660. Winograd, I., A. Riggs, and T. Coplen. 1998. The relative contributions of summer and cool-season precipitation to groundwater recharge, Spring Mountains, Nevada, USA. Hydrogeology Journal Vol. 6: p. 77-93.

187

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

APPENDIX A: FOREST SERVICE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Table A-1. Relevant standards and guidelines from HTNF Forest Plan Amendment 5, General Management Plan for the SMNRA. In # Relevant Standards & Guidelines Compliance (Y,N)

0.16 Use seed mixtures or seedlings for site rehabilitation, fire rehabilitation, or Y permit requirement, in order of preference: (Guideline) 1. Native plants; 2. No seeding (only if erosion is not a serious concern and there is no cheatgrass invasion); 3. Non-persistent (sterile) exotics; 4. Persistent exotics. 0.24 Reseed/rehabilitate at a minimum all disturbed areas outside Wilderness and Y WSAs meeting the following criteria (Standard): LTA Size Slope Creosote, Blackbrush >50 acres any Creosote, Blackbrush ≤50 acres 20% Pinyon-Juniper, Mixed >100 acres any Conifer Pinyon-Juniper, Mixed ≤100 acres 25% Conifer

Notes on 0.24: Both the proposed action and BCT alternative include disturbed areas of mixed conifer where slopes are greater than 25 percent. Section 2.6 of the DEIS and Appendix B include design criteria and mitigation measures for rehabilitating all disturbed areas. 0.27 All species listed as candidates for the federal threatened or endangered Y species list, all species listed as protected rare, endangered, and critically endangered by the State of Nevada, and all Forest Service sensitive species will be considered 'species of concern' and treated as if they were on the Forest Service sensitive species list. (Standard) 0.29 Limit negative impacts to all species of concern due to management activities. Y Enclosed species list is the current (9/96) list of species of concern. (Guideline) Notes on 0.29: Section 2.6 and Appendix B include design criteria and mitigation measures intended to limit negative impacts on species of concern. The Biological Assessment prepared for this project discusses planning-phase design changes that were made in order to limit negative impacts and promote beneficial impacts on the MCBB. 0.31 New roads, administrative facilities, and developed recreation sites other than N low impact facilities (trails, trailhead parking, signs, restrooms, etc.) will be outside a 100 yard buffer zone around known Clokey’s eggvetch and rough

188

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table A-1(cont’d). Relevant standards and guidelines from HTNF Forest Plan Amendment 5, General Management Plan for the SMNRA. In # Relevant Standards & Guidelines Compliance (Y,N) angelica populations or potential habitat, and outside biodiversity hotspots (defined as areas of particular diversity or sensitivity) (see Map 4 and Map 5). (Standard)

Notes on 0.31: As discussed in sections 1.6 and 3.5.6 of the DEIS, the entire ski area is within a biodiversity hotspot, and elements of the proposed action and BCT alternative would be within the 100- yard buffer for Clokey’s eggvetch. Bringing the proposed action or BCT alternative into compliance with this standard would require a project-specific Forest Plan amendment, as discussed in sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6. 0.36 Retain all snags that do not pose a threat to public safety or extreme fire Y danger. Snags are retained to provide habitat for cavity nesting animals and animals that feed upon the insects living within dead trees. Retain a minimum of 5 snags per acre in late seral stages of the Pinyon/Juniper, Mixed Conifer, and Bristlecone Pine Land Type Associations in all cases. (Standard) 0.68 Educate the public to the sensitivity of endemic species of the Spring Y Mountains, the importance of diversity, the significance of the Spring Mountains' biodiversity, and how to recreate without impacting these resources. (Guideline) Notes on 0.68: Mitigation measures in section 3.5.5 of the DEIS address public education programs that will be instituted at the ski area. 11.7 Where possible, control access to, and revegetate areas that are adjacent to Y recreation developments and have slopes greater than 25 percent. (Guideline) Notes on 11.7: Section 2.6 of the DEIS and Appendix B include design criteria and mitigation measures for rehabilitating all disturbed areas. 11.8 Close and rehabilitate trail to and "Gary Abbot Campground" site. Close area Y to overnight use. (Standard) 11.9 Revegetate and restore understory at appropriate locations within developed Y recreation areas and new administrative sites consistent with defensible space (i.e., fire safety) guidelines. Where possible, control access using temporary barriers at locations where revegetation efforts are occurring. (Guideline) Notes on 11.9: Section 2.6 of the DEIS and Appendix B include design criteria and mitigation measures for rehabilitating all disturbed areas. 11.12 Designate ski area sub-basin visual quality objective as partial retention. Y (Guideline) 11.13 Work cooperatively with federal, state and local agencies to designate State Y Highways 156, 157, 158 as state and/or federal scenic byways. Protect the scenic viewshed of State Highway 156, 157, and 158 to maintain naturally appearing scenery. (Guideline)

189

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

Table A-1(cont’d). Relevant standards and guidelines from HTNF Forest Plan Amendment 5, General Management Plan for the SMNRA. In # Relevant Standards & Guidelines Compliance (Y,N)

11.28 Discourage snow play, where possible, in unsafe and unmanaged areas. Y (Guideline) 11.35 Address user conflicts on Bristlecone Trail through a site specific planning Y involving US Fish and Wildlife Service, trail users, and interested groups. (Guideline) Notes on 11.35: Section 3.10 of the DEIS addresses user conflicts on the BCT. 11.43 Maintain at least 10 parking spaces at the Bristlecone Trailhead available at all Y times to trail users during summer operations at the ski area. (Standard) 11.57 Allow limited expansion of ski area in Lee Canyon and enhancement of skiing N opportunities and facilities within the scope of an approved master development plan and under the following constraints: (Standard) 1. Expansion occurs within the existing sub-basin. 2. Does not impact any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or species of concern, or its habitat. 3. Expansion is commensurate with development of additional parking in the lower Lee Canyon area, and shuttle services. 4. Expansion incorporates defensible space design and fire safe facilities. 5. Where consistent with other standards and guidelines. Notes on 11.57: “Enhancement of skiing opportunities and facilities” would occur under both the proposed action and BCT alternative. No expansion of the ski area would take place since all elements of both the proposed action and BCT alternative would be within the existing permit area. As discussed in sections 3.5 and 3.6 impacts on one endangered species and several species of concern would occur under both the proposed action and BCT alternative. Section 1.6 states that the proposed action and BCT alternative include a 500-vehicle parking lot at the ski area, precluding the need for down-canyon parking and shuttle service. Based on these considerations, as discussed in sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6, a project-specific Forest Plan amendment would be required to bring either the proposed action or BCT alternative into compliance with this standard. 11.68 Provide additional mountain bike trail opportunities, within the constraints of Y the biodiversity hotspots. (Guideline) Notes on 11.68: The analyses in sections 3.5 and 3.6 indicate that the proposed action and particularly the BCT alternative (with its lower level of impacts across all species) can be implemented within the constraints of the biodiversity hotspots that encompass the ski area.

190

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

APPENDIX B: MITIGATION MEASURES See section 2.6 for design criteria pertaining to each resource.

SOIL, WATER, AND WATERSHED Pre-Construction 1. Conduct appropriate soil and water studies, including modeling, to support design of runoff and erosion control structures. Provide documentation to justify the design life. 2. Develop engineering drawings for each runoff and erosion control structure described in a project plan. Include plan and profile views of structures as appropriate. 3. Comply with all federal, state and local codes related to construction disturbance and runoff from construction sites. As required, develop and implement an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed areas, including borrow, stockpile, skid trails, roads, or any areas disturbed by development activities. 4. Design and locate parking, staging, and stockpiling areas of appropriate size and configuration to accommodate expected vehicles and avoid or minimize adverse effects to adjacent soil, water quality, and riparian resources. 5. Coordinate all phases of sanitation system management (planning, design, field surveys and testing, installation, inspection, operation, and maintenance) with appropriate agencies to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 6. Locate ski area facilities (including buildings, runs, and lifts) on stable geology and soils to minimize risk of slope failures. 7. Develop an erosion structure maintenance schedule showing structures needing annual maintenance and those where non-recurring maintenance is expected. Display hand-crew or machine maintenance if appropriate. 8. Plan projects to minimize re-entry after the site is stabilized. Construction 9. Limit the amount of exposed or disturbed soil at any one time to the minimum necessary. Define outer boundaries of disturbance with markers. Install sediment and stormwater controls prior to disturbance where practicable. 10. When topsoil is present or can be salvaged, remove and stockpile with appropriate cover and erosion control methods. Consult Forest Service soil scientist for determination of presence of viable top soil. Revegetation specifications and seed mixes must be approved by the Forest Service. 11. Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments. 12. Confine all light vehicle traffic, parking, staging, and stockpiling materials to designated areas to minimize ground disturbance. Heavy equipment (e.g. feller buncher, dozer, etc.) will be used but also rely on helicopters to deliver lift towers and place equipment. 13. Consider over the snow removal of large trees when conditions allow. Small trees, branches and other small residue created during clearing or glading activity will be chipped, mulched, burned, or moved off site. Avoid damage to remaining trees and root systems adjacent to cut slopes and cleared areas.

191

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

14. Prevent water from running down ski run prism particularly on steep grades (20 to 40 percent) and from accumulating on gentle slopes (0 to 30 percent). Water bar spacing will account for slope as follows:

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

2% 250

5% 150

10–30% 100

>30% 75

192

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

26. Use and maintain surfacing materials suitable to the trail site and use to withstand traffic and minimize runoff and erosion. Pay attention to areas where high wheel slip (curves, acceleration, and braking) during motorized use generates loose soil material. 27. Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas and waterways before seasonal shutdown of project operations or when severe or successive storms are expected. 28. Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable. 29. Use and maintain suitable measures to collect and contain oil and grease in larger parking lots with high use and where drainage discharges directly to channels.

VEGETATION 1. Install interpretive signs in prominent locations with information about special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitat, including reminders to stay on designated trails. 2. Include text on summer trail maps reminding visitors to stay on designated trails in order to protect special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitat. 3. Verbally remind visitors renting equipment, purchasing lift tickets, or asking for trail information to stay on designated trails in order to protect special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitat. 4. Install rope lines or signs to minimize entry into suitable special-status plant and wildlife species habitat near high traffic areas. 5. Employ preventative management measures for the proposed projects to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations.

WILDLIFE 1. In order to ensure that design criteria and mitigation measures are understood and followed, assign a qualified biologist to be on site when construction begins to educate contractor and construction crews and periodically to ensure that design criteria and mitigation measures are being followed throughout project implementation. The project will be monitored as required by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and supplemental General Management Plan for the SMNRA, and as outlined in Chapters 5 and 32 of FSH 2509.19 National BMP Handbook and the National Corp BMP Technical Guide. Frequency of monitoring will be determined prior to construction in cooperation with the Forest Service and FWS. 2. Mark areas of suitable MCBB habitat, as described in the Federal Register (FWS 2015), prior to implementation of construction activities in an area. In addition, mark a 5-meter buffer around each patch of suitable MCBB habitat. 3. Wherever practical, avoid impacting marked suitable MCBB habitat within the construction disturbance area. If areas of marked habitat must be disturbed, delineate the disturbed habitat and subtract the acreage from the incidental take allowance described in the determination section of this BA. 4. Do not stage equipment or materials within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 5. Do not store or chip slash within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 6. Spread chipped slash no deeper than 4 inches.

193

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

7. Do not burn slash piles within 10 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 8. When broadcast burning, remove slash or other fuels from a band between 5 and 10 meters from suitable MCBB habitat, if suitable habitat is adjacent to the area to be burned. 9. If possible, use access routes that do not cross, or enter within a 5 meter buffer around, suitable habitat. If not possible, see measure 17. 10. Complete final layout of hiking and mountain biking trails after suitable MCBB habitat has been marked. In order to avoid the potential for flushing individuals, no mountain biking or hiking trails will be placed within the 5-meter buffer around marked habitat. 11. Do not deposit excavated material within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 12. When constructing the vault toilet, no personnel or equipment will be allowed within 5 meters of suitable MCBB habitat. 13. Whenever possible maintain snow cover in areas where suitable MCBB habitat exists while the ski area is open for skiing. If insufficient snow cover exists in an area of suitable habitat, mark the area as a hazard so skiers will avoid damaging habitat or individuals with their skis. 14. Whenever possible maintain snow cover in areas where suitable MCBB habitat exists while the ski area is open for skiing. If insufficient snow cover exists in an area of suitable habitat, mark the area as a hazard and ensure that no grooming takes place in areas where the tiller could hit the ground. 15. Do not plow/blow snow off of roads or parking areas into areas of suitable habitat. 16. When construction or operations access across suitable habitat is necessary, select a route that minimizes the amount of habitat impacted.

CULTURAL RESOURCES Elements of the proposed action and BCT alternative were relocated to avoid direct impacts on the NRHP-eligible site. To address ongoing impacts and potential indirect impacts on the site, mitigation measures described in the Cultural Resources Narrative Report are necessary (see section 11 in Santarone et al. 2017). Design criteria listed in section 2.6 will serve to protect any undiscovered cultural resources.

SCENIC RESOURCES No additional mitigation measures identified.

RECREATION No additional mitigation measures identified.

SAFETY 1. Use at least four signs to notify riders of each intersection with the BCT. Signs will be spaced approximately 100, 50, 25, and 0 feet from the intersection. Additional signs may be used if deemed necessary. 2. For each intersection of mountain bike trails with the BCT, use two signs on the BCT, one facing each direction, to notify BCT users of the intersection. 3. Where appropriate, use slowing features to reduce the speed of mountain bike trail users at intersections with the BCT.

194

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lee Canyon Ski Area MDP Phase I

4. When determining the final layout of mountain bike trails, ensure that users of the trail can see at least 20 feet up and down the BCT from a distance of 30 feet away from the intersection.

TRAFFIC No additional mitigation measures identified.

LAND USE 1. Construct a fence and signs along the northeast permit boundary between the ski area and Camp Lee Canyon. This fence will be approximately 500 feet long and span the drainage below the new parking lot. The fence does not need to be a permanent installation and may be removed during the winter to prevent snow damage. The fence will inform ski area visitors about the boundary and deter casual access to Camp Lee Canyon; therefore, it does not need to be a substantial barrier. 2. Erect snow fencing along the north edge of the Chair 5 pod ski runs. Signage will indicate that the area beyond the fence is outside the ski area boundary.

195