Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Steamboat Ski Area Summer Trails Project USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Routt County, Colorado Lead Agency Responsible Official For more information, contact: USDA Forest Service Phil Cruz, Forest Supervisor Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland 2468 Jackson Street Laramie, WY. 82070 (307) 745-2400 Kent Foster, Team Leader Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Routt National Forest 925 Weiss Drive Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487 (970) 870-2142 This document is available on the Internet at http://fs.usda.gov/goto/mbr/projects under Steamboat Ski Area Summer Trails Project 1
Decision and Reasons for the Decision Background The Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation (SS&RC) operates under a Forest Service special use permit, first issued in 1962. The ski area s summer trail system was first developed in 1982 and new trails have been constructed periodically since that time. Approximately 29 miles of trails were designed and currently provide opportunities for mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding. To continue the development of Steamboat Ski Area as a premier, four-season resort, and to meet the increasing demands for summer uses, specifically addressing the growing popularity of downhill/free ride mountain biking, a comprehensive trails plan was proposed by SS&RC. An updated Summer Trails Master Plan was accepted by the Forest Service in July, 2010. In September 2010, the Medicine Bow/Routt National Forests (Forest) received a proposal from SS&RC to construct new summer trails and change the use of some existing trails as described in this updated plan. Mountain biking is an important part of the summer recreation base in Steamboat Springs. The trails within the ski area s summer operational boundary are part of a larger network of trails in the Steamboat area that provide opportunities for multi-use/multi-directional (cross-country) opportunities on City, BLM, Federal, and private (SS&RC) lands. Downhill (DH) mountain biking is increasing in popularity locally and nation-wide and is sometimes not compatible with all other trail uses. The Steamboat Ski Area had approximately 28,000 summer visitors on the gondola in 2010. Purchased mountain bike passes increased by more than 1,000 in 2010, as compared to 2008 and 2009. Cross-country mountain biking on the trail system continues to increase with users accessing the mountain during and after hours of lift operations. Several mountain bike and running events occur within and adjacent to the Steamboat Ski Area and depend heavily on the recreational trail system and nearby National Forest System Trails (NFSTs). The demand for similar recreational events is expected to increase in response to population growth in Colorado, notwithstanding the normal increase in use by the general public. Decision Based on my review of all alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 Proposed Action -Modified, as described in the EA (June 2011). This alternative proposes up to 36 miles of new trail construction;15 miles machine-built, and 21 miles hand-built. All monitoring requirements and design criteria listed in Appendix A of the EA will be followed. Monitoring requirements are also listed in this Decision Notice (DN). It is also my decision to authorize Amendment 1 from Alternative 2 in the EA. Amendment 1 from alternative 2, changes in Management Area 5.41 Recreation Standard 2 which reads Do not allow construction of new recreation facilities. This standard is amended by waiving the standard entirely to allow for construction of summer trails within the area covered by the Steamboat Ski Area Summer Trails EA Amendment 1. 2
This is not an amendment to change land use or Forest Plan Management, only to modify a standard to allow existing uses to continue in a portion of the specific MA. Monitoring of new and existing trails will determine effectiveness of design criteria in minimizing potential adverse effects to soil and water resources, and results will determine if more future trail development can occur. Minor watershed improvement opportunities such as road surfacing, creating sediment traps on existing travel ways, and other erosion control measures to reduce the effects of existing roads and trails have been identified and would be implemented. Specific projects to be implemented include those listed in the description of Alternative 2 Modified in the EA, pages 11-12. A summary of the projects include: Mountain Bike Trails: New Trails Blue/Intermediate Trail DH only New Black/Advanced Trail DH only Blue Jump Trail DH only Green/Beginner Trail (on private SS&RC land)-dh only Green DH only Zig Zag New segment multi-directional/multi-use Valley View new segment multi-directional/multi-use Additional Trails 10 to 12 trail and trail segments would be built in the DH trail zone Converted - DH-only Trails Yoo Hoo Trail (from the top of See Ya to the base area). Creekside Trail: Commensurate with the 2011 summer operating season, Creekside Trail would be designated as a DH-only mountain bike trail until the first DH-only trail is completed, and then it would revert back to a multi-directional/multi-use trail. Multi-Use trails to be Eliminated from the Trail System The Shortcut Trail would be eliminated. Yoo Hoo Trail/Road would be eliminated. Actions to Improve Watershed Condition: Multi-Use trails to be Eliminated from the Trail System The Shortcut Trail would be eliminated. Yoo Hoo Trail/Road would be eliminated. Existing Trail Reroutes and Improvements to improve alignment and drainage. Zig Zag Trail at Vagabond Sunshine Trail under lift line Valley View Trail at Boulevard 3
Valley View stream crossing bridge. Road Improvements gravel/surfacing or roads, improving erosion control. Road between base of Storm Peak lift and Pony Express lift. So What Road near Burgess Creek. Why Not Road by Tower 3. Shortcut Road. When compared to other alternatives, Alternative 2 best meets the purpose and need as described below, and addresses significant issues. It maintains trail access and connectivity from public and private lands to SS&RCs trail system. The new downhill-only mountain bike trail construction and designations will reduce existing user conflicts and improve safety issues while providing a variety of summer recreational trail opportunities and skill levels within the trail system. Alternative 3 was developed to address the potential for adverse cumulative watershed impacts to the Burgess Creek and Priest Creek watersheds, however, reduced miles of trail proposed does not meet the purpose and need as completely. To avoid the potential adverse effects to watershed health attributes that led to the development of Alternative 3, Alternative 2 will be implemented in the following manner: Trails will be constructed using a phased approach as described in the EA, with two trails constructed in 2011, and other trails built in subsequent years upon approval of design, trail management objectives and other clearance requirements. Monitoring will be done on newly constructed trails and construction of new trails can continue until monitoring identifies adverse watershed effects are occurring. If specified monitoring determines design criteria and implementation to protect the soil and water resources are effective, the other trails would be built. If results show adverse effects, trail construction will cease. The Forest Service and SS&RC will periodically assess and monitor implementation of the project considering all resources. Upon completion of 20 miles of trail, a monitoring report will document findings. Opportunities to reduce the effects of existing roads and trails have also been identified and would be implemented before or concurrently with trail development. Important considerations that influenced my decision included how well it responded to the Purpose and Need for Action (EA pages 3-4) and comments received from the public during both 30 day scoping and formal comment periods. Prior to making my decision, I reviewed information from the following sources: The analysis described in the EA and associated project record. Comments received on the proposed action and alternatives analyzed. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision (Forest Plan). 4
Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to encourage and maintain a safe and enjoyable recreational experience, while providing trails and management strategies that offer opportunities for all types of trails users. This action is needed to meet the current and predicted increase in the popularity of ski areas as summer recreational destinations, and the increase and change in mountain biking uses. The development of a comprehensive trail plan identified the need that includes designating trails for particular uses and adding trails to address new technology related to mountain biking. Mountain bikers, especially the downhill rider user group, typically travel at higher rates of speed, and are not always fully compatible with other uses, such as horseback riding, hiking, or even cross-country mountain biking (uphill riding). Currently, all utilize the same existing trail system. Additionally, new trails are being created without authorization both inside and outside the permit area. These user-created trails generally do not meet sustainable environmental standards and lead to unacceptable resource impacts. The specific objectives of this project are: Reduce the potential for collisions, risk of injury, and to avoid conflict between users. Provide a variety of DH-only mountain bike trails, accessed by the ski area lifts, for the novice to the experienced rider, including technical trail features. Continue to offer cross-country mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding opportunities and access to trails beyond the ski area boundary. Ensure trails are built to be environmentally sustainable over time and can be maintained with minimal cost. Reduce the unauthorized user-created mountain bike trail construction currently taking place within the ski area boundary and in other areas on the Routt National Forest. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, two other alternatives were considered. Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue in the project area. Previously approved trails projects would be implemented as authorized in the Decision Notice of the Environmental Assessment of Proposed Improvements at Steamboat Ski Area (May 2006). The Thunderhead Hiking Trial connection and the Storm Peak Challenge/Sunshine connector multi-use trail would be constructed, and improvements to the Zig Zag Trail would be completed. No new DH-only, cross-country mountain biking, or hiking trails would be built, and unauthorized trail construction would likely continue to impact resources. Alternative 3 Watershed Management This alternative was developed to address the significant issue of the potential for adverse cumulative soil and watershed effects in the Burgess Creek and Priest Creek watersheds; while still meeting the purpose and need for the project. This alternative proposed construction of up to 20 miles of new trail; approximately 15 miles machine-built, and 5 miles hand-built. 5
Approximately 1.2 miles of new DH-only mountain bike trails were proposed and designed outside the ski area permit boundary. Public Involvement The proposal was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on September 26, 2010. The proposal was also provided to the public and other agencies to solicit formal comments (comment period - September 26 to October 25, 2010) through a legal notice published in the newspaper of record (The Laramie Boomerang) on September 26, 2010. Additionally, a press release was provided to the Steamboat Pilot and published on September 23, 2010. Based on comments received and the analysis process, the SS&RC s initial proposal was slightly modified. In response to Forest Service resource concerns, design criteria, and monitoring measures, a third alternative was also developed. To be consistent with Forest Plan standards, a site-specific amendment to the Forest Plan is needed to address the construction of trails, considered recreational facilities, specifically within Deer and Elk Winter Range (Management Area Prescription 5.41). Because of these identified changes, the Forest Service decided to request additional input from the public. A second scoping letter was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on March 27, 2011. A legal notice was also published in the newspaper of record (The Laramie Boomerang) on March 27, 2011. Furthermore, to allow public comment from the local community affected, a press release was provided to the Steamboat Pilot and an article was published on March 31, 2011 regarding the project. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for additional comments during this second comment period (March 27, 2011 to April 25, 2011). These comments were also included in the EA. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: 1. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. 2. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety, because this is a continuation of an ongoing activity that is not unique. 3. Effects to historic, prehistoric and paleontological values are also addressed in the EA. The analysis area is known to contain cultural resources; however, it is the conclusion of the District Archaeologist that Alternative 3 will have minimal effect on these resources. 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the action. This EA is tiered to the Forest Plan Final Environment Impact Statement. The selected alternative, with design criteria, meets Forest Plan standards and guidelines. In addition, public comment was sought to identify issues of potential controversy. These issues were used to focus development of alternatives, design criteria, and the EA itself. Therefore, it is unlikely that the environmental effects associated with the action will be highly controversial. 6
5. We have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis shows the effects of this decision do not involve unique or unknown risks and are similar to the effects of past similar actions. The interdisciplinary team that conducted the analysis used current literature and the results of past actions to estimate effects of the alternatives (see Literature Cited section, Appendix G in the EA). Based on these findings there are no unique or unusual characteristics about the area not previously encountered that would constitute an unknown risk upon the human environment. 6. This project does not establish precedents for future actions with unknown risks to the environment. Recreation Special Use permits authorized on the National Forest is not without precedent and is consistent with Forest Plan direction. 7. The cumulative effects discussion in the EA evaluates the combined effects of the project with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions. Based on the EA discussion and information identified during public review of the EA, there are no cumulatively significant impacts. 8. Based on this analysis, there will be no effect to cultural resources for this project. No currently recorded sites within the analysis area of potential effect are listed as eligible or as needing data. The action will not cause the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. No projects will be implemented until the Forest Service receives a signed a letter of concurrence of no adverse effect for the proposed project from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 9. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973. The Animal Biological Assessment (BA) concluded that this action would have a may affect - not likely to adversely affect determination for the Canada lynx and their habitat. This determination has programmatic concurrence as clarified in the July 1, 2004 letter of concurrence for screened activities and therefore does not need to be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to lynx. The BA also concluded that this action will have no effect for the Western Yellowbilled cuckoo, and North American Wolverine. The Aquatics Biological Assessment concluded that this action will have a no effect for the following species or their critical habitat: Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker. 10. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This action is fully consistent with the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Plan, the National Forest Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Forest Plan Consistency and Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations This decision to implement Alternative 2 as described in this document is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives listed in the EA by providing a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities and experiences to meet a full range of visitor expectations. The project was designed in conformance with land and resource management plan standards and incorporates appropriate land and resource management plan guidelines In one specific area, a non-significant site specific Forest Plan Amendment was prepared to maintain Forest Plan consistency. 7
I have also determined that my decision complies with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, dealing with floodplains and wetlands. It also complies with other laws and regulations such as the National Forest Management Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historical Preservation Act. This is demonstrated in the Design Criteria section of this Decision Notice, and FONSI. There will be no adverse effects on any threatened, endangered and/or sensitive species or on heritage resources. Roadless Areas This proposal does not occur within any inventoried roadless areas, so there will be no effect to roadless character. Implementation Date Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215, if no appeal is filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15 th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities Notices of appeal that do not meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 or 36 CFR 251.90, as appropriate, will be dismissed. Names and addresses of appellants will become part of the public record. Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215 Appeals filed under 36 CFR, Part 215, must be submitted (by regular mail) to: USDA Forest Service Region 2, Appeals Deciding Officer, 740 Simms Street, Golden, CO. 80401 or (by fax) to 303-275-5134. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are 8:00 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an email message, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to appealsrocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of this notice in the Laramie Boomerang, the newspaper of record. The publication date in the Laramie Boomerang, the newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR 215.14. Contact For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact me or Kent Foster, Recreation Specialist, Hahns Peak Bears Ears Ranger District, 925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, CO, 80477, (970) 870-2142. 8
Design Criteria and Management Requirements Design Criteria: Appendix A in the EA lists design criteria for all resources. Some items are project specific, and some are a summation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All of the design criteria listed in Appendix A will be incorporated into this decision. Monitoring: Monitoring requirements are also listed in Appendix A of the EA, and are listed below. Recreation Trail construction will be monitored for compliance with Design Criteria and Trail Design Standards by Forest Service trails and engineering personnel. Periodic inspections will be done as trail construction is completed to assure quality control. Hydrology The following identifies project specific monitoring to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan. Short term monitoring measures to verify BMP and design criteria implementation and effectiveness will be conducted, as well as long-term monitoring to determine the overall cumulative effects of additional trail construction. Short-term: At four stream crossing locations specified by the hydrologist following construction, photo monitoring will be established to determine if sedimentation is increasing in the stream course, and if channel scour is increasing due to increased flows. Photos will be taken both upstream and downstream. Photo points and monitoring protocol will be established by both the Forest Service and ski area personnel; ski area personnel will be responsible for annual follow-up photo monitoring and providing the results to the Forest Service on an annual basis. Short-term: On two intermittent or perennial streams, a permanent cross-section will be established downstream of the trail-stream crossing to determine if stream channel crosssectional area is increasing due to increased flows, or if channel widening is occurring due to increased sedimentation. Photos will also be taken of the cross-sections. The initial monitoring would be established by both the Forest Service and ski area personnel; ski area personnel would be responsible for the annual re-surveying, and providing results to the Forest Service on an annual basis. Short-term: Photo monitoring will be established at three locations at the outlet of drainage features with an emphasis on those areas where switchbacks cause the trail to drain back onto the trail at a lower point. Photo points and monitoring protocol will be established by both the Forest Service and ski area personnel; ski area personnel will be responsible for annual follow-up photo monitoring and providing the results to the Forest Service on an annual basis. Short-term: During or immediately after three rainstorms equaling or exceeding 0.5 inches of precipitation, turbidity measurements would be taken at four identified locations 9
to determine the effect of that trail crossing on stormwater runoff and water quality. Three locations will be selected that would reflect increased turbidity from new trail construction; the fourth location would act as the control reach and should not be affected by new trail construction. These turbidity monitoring locations will be determined by the Forest Service and ski area personnel. Ski area personnel will be responsible for conducting the three turbidity sampling rounds each year and providing the results to the Forest Service. Long-term: Pebble counts (Bevenger, 1995) and a longitudinal profile will be conducted on both Burgess Creek and Priest Creek on USFS lands in the summer of 2011. These will be repeated every 3 years to determine if sedimentation to either of these streams is increasing, and if stream health is declining. If adverse effects are detected, additional remedial actions including trail and road decommissioning will be taken to reduce the connected disturbed area and potential for additional sedimentation. These surveys will be a cooperative effort between the Forest Service and ski area personnel. If the short-term monitoring identifies improper implementation of the design criteria, actions would be immediately taken to correct the implementation. If short-term monitoring determines the design criteria are not effective at protecting the soil and water resources, remedial actions will be taken which may include installation of additional erosion control, or possibly decommissioning if it is felt that additional erosion control would not be effective. In all cases, a Forest Service hydrologist should be consulted. /s/ Phil Cruz June 10, 2011 Phil Cruz Date Forest Supervisor Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland 10
11