Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project. Preliminary Environmental Assessment. April, Day Comment Report

Transcription

1 Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project Town of Waterville Valley Grafton County, NH Preliminary Environmental Assessment 30-Day Comment Report April, 2013 For Information Contact: Susan Mathison White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH Phone: Fax: ; Attn: Susan Mathison

2 This document is available in large print. Contact the White Mountain National Forest TTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 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, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on Recycled Paper ii

3 Table of Contents List of Tables... v List of Figures... vi 1.0 Introduction Document Structure Project Introduction Project Area Forest Service Authority, Policy, and Management Direction Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Decision Framework Public Involvement Description of Alternatives and Issues for Analysis Introduction Proposed Action and Alternatives Issues Identification Resources Not Analyzed in Detailed Comparison of Alternatives Existing Conditions and Environmental Effects Water Resources Soil Resources Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Vegetation Resources and Non-Native Invasive Species Wildlife Resources Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species (TEPS) and Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) Visuals Winter Recreation Resources Socioeconomic Consultation or Coordination USDA Forest Service Participation Other Governmental Agencies Contacted iii

4 5.0 References Abbreviations and Acronyms iv

5 List of Tables Table Summary of Alternatives Analysis Table Snowmaking Demand and Completion under Existing and Proposed Conditions Table Recent or Probable Future Projects within the WMNF to be considered for Cumulative Effects Table Ecological Land Types mapped within the Waterville Valley Green Peak Project Area Table Mad River Fish Stocking Table Likelihood of Occurrence of TEPS Plant Species and/or Habitat with the potential to occur in the Green Peak Expansion Area, based on field reviews Table TEPS and RFSS Table Existing Terrain Distribution by Ability Level Table Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Terrain Distribution by Ability Level Table State, County and Town Population Estimates Table Housing Supply Characteristics Table Employment and Wage Data Table Employment by Industry Sector for Grafton County, Table Quarterly Unemployment Data, Table Regional Employment Derived From Waterville Valley Ski Resort, Table Waterville Valley Skier Visits, Snowfall and Days Open to Table Summary of Estimated Socioeconomic Effects to Grafton County and Local Communities v

6 List of Figures Figure Waterville Valley Ski Resort Location Map Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Area Figure Mad River Watershed Area Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Water Resources Map Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Wetlands and Surface Waters Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Effects to Wetlands and Surface Waters Figure Green Peak Expansion Project and USFS Ecological Land Types Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Vegetation Communities Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Viewpoint Location Map Figure Viewpoint 2A Village Area Figure Viewpoint 2B Village Area Figure Viewpoint 3 The Scaur Figure Viewpoint 4 Goodrich Rock Figure Viewpoint 5 - Mt. Osceola Figure Viewpoint 6 Mt. Tripyramid Figure Recent National, Regional and Waterville Valley Skier Visitation Trends vi

7 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Document Structure The USDA Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in response to Waterville Valley Ski Resort s proposal for the Green Peak Expansion Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the analysis for the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that may result from the Proposed Action and alternatives, if one were implemented. The document is organized into six chapters to support the analysis. 1) Introduction: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the Purpose of and Need for the project, and information on how the Forest Service will make a decision. This chapter also details the public involvement process for the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project. 2) Description of Alternatives and Analysis of Issues: This chapter provides a description of the Proposed Action which was developed to specifically address and respond to the Purpose and Need for the project. This chapter also introduces the issues for analysis identified during public involvement and discussion among the Forest Service Interdisciplinary (ID) team. 3) Existing Conditions and Environmental Effects: This chapter is organized into sections by resource. Each section begins with the issue statement(s) that tie the resource to the respective issue(s) identified from public comments and by resource specialists. The existing conditions of the resource are described as they relate to the effects analysis. Finally, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the implementation of the alternatives are disclosed. 4) Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of Forest Service staff that assisted in the preparation of the EA, as well as other agencies, organizations or individuals consulted during its development. 5) References: This chapter provides a list of reference material cited in the environmental assessment. 6) Abbreviations and Acronyms: This chapter provides a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project Environmental Assessment. Additional documentation may be found in the Waterville Valley Ski Resort Green Peak Expansion Project file located at the White Mountain National Forest Headquarters in Campton, New Hampshire. 1.2 Project Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to authorize Waterville Valley Ski Resort, LLC (Waterville Valley) to implement the Green Peak Expansion Project (the Project), located on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Green Peak area of Waterville Valley s Special Use Permit (SUP) on Mt. Tecumseh. The project as proposed would include the construction of one detachable, four-person chairlift, eight new trails and one glade. The Waterville Valley Black and Blue Trail Smashers (BBTS) Competition building would be removed to accommodate the lower terminal for the new lift. Services associated with the BBTS Competition building would be relocated to a new facility located elsewhere in the base area. The Proposed Action would occur entirely on lands designated in the Forest Plan as Management Area (MA) 7.1 Alpine Ski Areas. 1

8 1.3 Project Area Waterville Valley is located in central New Hampshire, approximately fifteen miles northeast of Plymouth, Grafton County, New Hampshire, and twenty miles south of Franconia Notch and the Presidential Range (Figure 1.3-1). Waterville Valley is a four-season resort operated on National Forest System lands in the Pemigewasset Ranger District at the southern end of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF). Waterville Valley s close proximity to Interstate-93 provides an easily accessible mountain and recreation experiences for New Hampshire residents and out-of-state guests from the south and U.S. and Canadian visitors from the north. Waterville Valley Holdings, LLC, owns the ski area lifts, lodges, snowmaking equipment, etc. Waterville Valley Ski Resort operates under a Special Use Permit (SUP) authorized by the WMNF and administered by the Eastern Region Winter Sports Team. The SUP authorizes use of 3,010 acres of NFS lands for alpine skiing areas at Mt. Tecumseh (816 acres) and Snow s Mountain (40 acres) and for Nordic skiing, sled dog tours and mountain bike terrain surrounding the Town of Waterville Valley (2,154 acres). Waterville Valley has operated under a SUP since the 1960s; the current SUP was issued in 2010 and expires on October 8, The SUP authorizes the permit holder to provide four-season, developed recreation opportunities to the public on NFS lands. While the Forest Service oversees the management of the lands and resources associated with the ski area, the improvements, including lifts, lodges, snowmaking systems, etc., are owned and operated by the permit holder. The cost of construction (and removal, when necessary) of these facilities is the responsibility of the permit holder as are all operating expenses, environmental analyses and environmental protection measures. In addition, the permit holder pays user fees to the US Government; these fees are based on the holder s business receipts. This analysis is also funded in advance by the permit holder, irrespective of the outcome of the Responsible Official's decision. There are approximately 220 skiable acres at the resort that encompass the following features: 52 maintained trails, five gladed areas, and terrain features that include six Mogul fields, four different terrain parks and a learner s area (WVSR 2012). With the exception of the deficiencies currently identified and discussed below, the trail and terrain network accommodates a range of ability levels from beginner to expert for both skiers and riders. For the purpose of analyzing the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project and the development of this document, the Green Peak Expansion Area (GPEA; Project Area) has been defined as a subset of those specific lands operated by Waterville Valley within the SUP area (Figure 1.3-2). This is a slightly larger area than that upon which the various project activities are proposed to take place; however, it is designed as such to encompass a majority of the proposed direct and indirect resource effects. Each resource analyzed in Chapter 3 identifies the specific analysis area for that resource. 1.4 Forest Service Authority, Policy, and Management Direction The enabling authorities of the Forest Service derive from many laws enacted by Congress and the regulations and administrative directives that implement these laws, as described in numerous Forest Service documents and on the USDA-Forest Service website ( The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires site specific analysis and documentation for projects proposed for the implementation of the Forest Plan. Compliance with NEPA at the project level involves environmental analysis for a specific proposal to implement the Forest Plan. It includes the disclosure of environmental effects of proposed activities and alternatives, public participation, analysis of alternatives and preparation of a decision document that provides specific direction for project implementation if an action alternative is selected by the decision maker. The Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project analysis is documented in this site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA), which is tiered to the Environmental Impact 2

9 Figure Waterville Valley Ski Resort Location Map. 3

10 Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Area. 4

11 Statement (USDA 2005b; EIS) and Record of Decision (USDA 2005c; ROD) for the Forest Plan. With the exception of one Forest Plan standard for Canada lynx, all of the expected effects from this project are consistent with, and within the range of, the expected effects disclosed in the Forest Plan EIS. The Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project is designed to achieve multiple resource benefits and work towards Desired Conditions as established in the Forest Plan (USDA 2005a; Forest Plan). As noted in the Forest Plan Goals and Objectives (Chapter 1, Forest Plan), a goal for the Forest is to maintain and provide quality alpine skiing and related opportunities on the Forest through partnerships with the private sector. Objectives to meet this goal include allowing Waterville Valley to continue to be operated by the private sector under SUP authority, consistent with permit language and the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Ch. 1, p. 1-4). The Project s Proposed Action includes activities that work towards meeting the Forest Plan Recreation Goals and Objectives of: providing a range of quality recreation activities and opportunities. (Forest Plan p.1-10); and, working with the private sector through Special Use Permits to provide recreation opportunities (areas, facilities, services, and events) that the Forest Service alone is not able to offer, and that are consistent with the Desired Condition. (Forest Plan, P. 1-15). The Forest Plan allocates the Forest among Management Areas (MAs) and identifies a purpose, desired condition of the land, and standards and guidelines for each of these MAs. The purpose and desired condition for each MA describe the role of the MA in moving the Forest toward the Forest-wide goals. Management Area standards and guidelines are defined the same way as their Forest-wide counterparts, except that they apply only to land allocated to a specific MA. If there is no direction specific to an MA for a resource, there is a reminder that Forest-wide standards and guidelines still apply, which is true for all resources (Forest Plan Preface p. iv). The Proposed Action is located entirely within Management Area (MA): 7.1 Alpine Ski Areas (USDA 2005a). The major emphasis of MA 7.1 is to provide alpine winter sports and year-round recreational opportunities at alpine ski areas on the Forest managed by the private sector under the Special Use Permit authority. The Desired Condition of MA 7.1 includes: Large numbers of users may be present, sights and sounds of human activity will be readily evident, and the interaction between users will be moderate to high. Facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities including parking lots, structures, and utilities will be evident, and are designed to be compatible with the values that make the area attractive to the users. Management and operating practices are aimed at enhancing permitted recreation activities at the area while protecting the natural resources and visual characteristics. (Forest Plan, p. 3-31) The standards and guidelines for MA 7.1 include all Forest-wide standards and guidelines, with a few exceptions specific to this MA as discussed within each resource analysis section in Chapter 3. Except for a site-specific Forest Plan amendment for Canada lynx (discussed below in Section 1.5), the Project would be designed to be consistent with all applicable Forest-wide and MA 7.1 goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, as outlined in the Forest Plan. 1.5 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The proposed expansion would increase terrain and offer a more gradual continuum of terrain challenges at the resort. This project was included in the Forest Service-accepted Waterville Valley 1999 Master Development Plan (MDP). The ski area has proposed this project to provide an improved visitor experience. In addition to providing additional trails and glade skiing, this project would also expand opportunities and improve safety for skiers. 5

12 Currently, novice and intermediate skiers and riders who have mastered the lower intermediate Valley Run area of the resort but do not have sufficient skills to use more advanced trails have limited ability-appropriate access to the resort s upper elevation trail system. The additional trails proposed would provide a skill-level-appropriate summit experience to introductory skiers and boarders. In addition, skiers of lower technical abilities would be disbursed over more of the mountain instead of being concentrated on the few trail options currently available. Because Valley Run also serves as the primary egress trail for the south side of the resort, congestion and ability-level mixing compromise both safety and skier experience. Direct access to the proposed Green Peak Expansion Area would be provided by the proposed Green Peak detachable quad ski lift, as identified in the 1999 MDP. The principal goal of the 1999 MDP is to provide a plan that will direct improvements to enhance the guest experience at Waterville Valley. Planning for this project included extensive market research and guest surveys (conducted in 1997/98 and summarized in the MDP) that were used to evaluate guest preferences and needs, thus ensuring that the proposed improvements are consumer-driven and that improvements focus on terrain opportunities to enhance the skier experience. Results of this market research, supplemented by the NSAA 2011/12 Demographic Skier/Snowboarder Research New Hampshire (NSAA & RRC Associates 2012, NSAA Survey) show: skiers who come to the resort for a single day experience, including local residents and from nearby states, account for 60% of Waterville Valley s guests. These data are consistent with the 2012 NSAA Survey data which found that 50% of the 2012 NH ski resort visitors were day-trippers; approximately 35% of Waterville Valley s guests are traditional family groups (i.e., parents and children), a higher percentage than many other resorts in the region. Furthermore, the 2012 NSAA Survey data showed that nearly 60% of all NH skier and riders are visiting NH resorts with other family members (i.e., families and/or siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles, etc.); guests are primarily novice to intermediate in ability level. Waterville Valley s draft 1999 MDP indicates that 75% of the skier/rider market in this region is intermediate or lower; nearly one-fifth of guests surveyed in the 1997/98 season were attending the resort for the first time. These numbers are consistent with the 2012 NSAA Survey data which found that 21% of skiers/riders visiting NH ski resorts were doing so for the first time; and, approximately 21% of snowboarders consider themselves beginners, with over 12% of visitors being snowboarders. The 2012 NSAA Survey data found the 31% of 2012 NH snowboarders consider themselves as beginners and that 20% of the 2012 NH winter resort users were snowboards. The 2012 NSAA Survey data support Waterville Valley management belief that its 1997/1998 market research data accurately reflect the current user group at the resort. Given that Waterville Valley focuses on providing a quality recreational experience for families, and that guests are primarily novice to intermediate in skill level, Waterville Valley needs to provide an adequate distribution of terrain to meet or exceed industry standards to maximize guest experience and safety for this user group. Need for a Forest Plan Amendment The proposed Green Peak Expansion Project is consistent with most applicable Forest Plan direction; however during preliminary planning, the ID team identified that the proposed action, if implemented, would result in an inconsistency with one Standards and Guideline (S&Gs) for Canada lynx. The WMNF Canada lynx S&Gs (USDA 2005b, p to 2-16) are designed to protect lynx habitat. The Proposed Action would be inconsistent with the following Forest-wide Canada lynx standard (Forest Plan, p. 2-14): 6

13 S-3: Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner: a) If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur because of vegetation management activities by Federal agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to improve future snowshoe hare habitat. LAU s are intended to provide a landscape-scale planning tool to identify large blocks of potential lynx habitat (e.g. across a Forest). The Project Area is located within LAU 11 which includes both lynx habitat and non-habitat. (See lynx habitat definitions in the Biological Evaluation in the Project Record). Currently, more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in LAU 11 is considered to be in unsuitable condition; thus the potential project effects to lynx habitat would not be consistent with the Forest Plan (see S-3 a), above). The Proposed Project is adjacent to a highly developed area in the extreme southern edge of potential lynx habitat on the Forest. Currently known occurrences of lynx or evidence of lynx occur well north of the Green Peak project area. The likelihood of lynx occurring in this southernmost mapped LAU now or in the foreseeable future is considered to be very low. Lynx have a large home range, and the Proposed Action would alter only a small fraction (approximately 0.3%) of the 12,992 acres of suitable lynx habitat mapped in LAU 11. Based on the low potential for occurrence in the project area and the minimal amount of effects to habitat (< 0.3%), the project may affect but would not likely adversely affect individual Canada lynx. In order to implement the proposed action in an LAU that already has >30% of lynx habitat in unsuitable condition, an amendment to the Forest Plan is necessary. The scope of this Forest Plan amendment is limited to this Project; the amendment would not change management of Canada lynx or its habitat anywhere else or any of the remaining S&Gs for this species. The Forest Service ID team is made up of specialists representing resource areas which have the potential to be affected by the Proposed Action. The ID team explored alternative project designs that would minimize effects to lynx habitat but determined that those alternatives would not meet the purpose and need for the project. 1.6 Decision Framework The primary decision to be made by the Responsible Official is whether to implement management activities as proposed (Proposed Action), an alternative to the Proposed Action, if any, or the No-Action alternative. The Responsible Official will review the Proposed Action, the alternatives, and the anticipated effects of implementation as provided in this EA and supporting documentation. The Responsible Official will then select the alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need and addresses issues and concerns while keeping environmental effects to an acceptable level. Consideration will be given to how well each alternative meets Forest Plan goals and objectives. Other decisions to be made include: If an action alternative is selected, what mitigation measures and monitoring should be required? Is a Forest Plan amendment is necessary to implement the process? Is the information provided by the analysis sufficient to implement the proposed activities? Does the proposed project have a significant effect that would trigger a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement? 7

14 The Responsible Official for the decision will be Thomas G. Wagner, Forest Supervisor for the White Mountain National Forest. Actions under Other Agency Purview The proposed expansion and increase of terrain and associated snowmaking would be accomplished via a combination of actions located on NFS lands. Only the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and the cumulative effects of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, whether related to the Proposed Action or not, will be included in this analysis. The Forest Service has primary regulatory jurisdiction over the Proposed Action. However other federal, state, and local agencies may have regulatory jurisdiction through Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, including the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The Forest Service will consult with USFWS under the Endangered Species Act regarding effects to Canada lynx. Other agencies such as the NH Fish and Game Department (NHF&G), the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources (NHDHR) or the Town of Waterville Valley may choose to comment on the project. 1.7 Public Involvement A Scoping Report for the Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project was mailed to interested and/or potentially affected members of the public on December 23, An informational open house was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at the Waterville Valley Conference and Event Center at 56 Packards Road, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire from 4-7 pm. The public was invited to attend anytime during this period to ask questions of the Forest Service staff or their representatives, review maps of the proposed expansion, and/or leave verbal or written comments on the project. The public or other interested parties could also submit comments on the Project to the Forest Service via , fax, or phone per directions provided in the Scoping Report. The scoping comment period was open from December 23, 2011 to February 3, This project has been continually published in the WMNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) since October 1, The Scoping Report and associated figures were posted on the WMNF web site and have been available for download since December 23, In addition to the public scoping process, the Forest Service has consulted with other Federal and State agencies. These include the USFWS, NHF&G, NHDHR and NHDES. Forty comments were received from letters, telephone conversations, s and the public meeting as a result of public scoping. A Scoping Content Analysis was prepared which recognizes all of the comments received and provides more information on specific comments and how they were categorized. This document is a part of the Project file. 8

15 2.0 Description of Alternatives and Issues for Analysis 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides a description of the Proposed Action which was developed to specifically address and respond to the Purpose and Need for the project and discusses alternatives that were considered but were not analyzed in detail. This chapter also introduces the issues for analysis identified during public involvement and discussion among the Forest Service ID team and identifies resources that were not analyzed in detail due to lack of project effect on those particularly resources. 2.2 Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes and compares the alternatives that have been considered for the Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project. It presents alternatives in comparative form and defines the differences between them. This comparison provides a clear basis for choice by the Responsible Official to implement the alternative that best meets the Purpose and Need and addresses the issues identified through public involvement. Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis Alternative A: No-Action The No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline to compare the environmental effects of the Proposed Action alternative. Under Alternative A, there would be no implementation of any of the management activities on NFS lands associated with the Proposed Action. Alternative A serves as a mechanism for analyzing the effects of no expanded terrain, no construction of an additional chairlift, and no relocation of the BBTS building. No site-specific Forest Plan amendment would be required. Alternative B: Proposed Action The proposed Project Action would include the construction of one detachable, four-person chairlift, eight new trails and one glade, as detailed below. The project will comply with all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guides, with the exception of lynx S-3 a) as noted below. In addition, all constructed facilities will be designed to meet the guidelines provided in Agricultural Handbook No. 617 which includes guidance on building design elements, tower colors and trail edge design. Overview Green Peak, with an elevation of approximately 2,860 feet, is located southeast of Mt. Tecumseh (elevation ~3,840 feet) in the southeast quadrant of the Waterville Valley s Mt. Tecumseh SUP (Figure 1.3-2). The proposed project would create a network of trails in the Green Peak area. This proposed terrain would be serviced by a new detachable quad chairlift. The Black and Blue Trail Smashers (BBTS) Competition building (Old Valley Run lift building) would be removed to accommodate the lower terminal of the new chairlift. A new BBTS Competition building would be constructed within the Project Area. Additional skier services would continue to be provided by the existing base area facilities. Lift The lower lift terminal of the proposed detachable quad chairlift would be constructed adjacent to the current location of the BBTS competition building. The lift would then extend about 4,000 feet to the top of Green Peak, running 9

16 adjacent to and south of the Valley Run trail system (Figure 1.3-2). The capacity would be 2,800 skiers and riders per hour. Vertical rise would be approximately 1,000 feet. The proposed top chairlift terminal would be in approximately the same location as indicated in the 1999 MDP, but the bottom chairlift terminal location would deviate slightly from this plan, shifting slightly to the north to be more accessible from Waterville Valley s existing trail and lift system. The proposed chairlift and associated towers would be designed to comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The BBTS competition building would be removed to accommodate the lower terminal of the new chairlift. Services provided by this building would be relocated to a new building to be constructed at the lower end of the tree island that separates Lower Periphery and The Pasture (as shown on Figure 1.3-2). The new structure would be two stories, approximately 40 X 60 at the base, thus containing about 4,800 sq. ft. Less than 0.1 acre of tree clearing would be required to construct this building. The Main BBTS/Ski Rental Building (Figure 1.3-2) would remain in place and its existing functions would remain unchanged. Trails The proposed project would create a network of eight new trails that would connect to and generally parallel the existing trail network along Stillness and Upper Valley Run, eventually merging and then emerging in the Lower Valley Run base area. This proposed trail network would be similar to that shown in the 1999 MDP, but would eliminate some trails leading away from the current base area (Figure 1.3-2). Mapped trail boundaries are approximate final locations would be determined by specific ground conditions discovered during final layout prior to construction. In general, trails and the chairlift line would be cut, stumped, graded and stabilized, in compliance with applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines for tree/vegetation removal. Tops, small trees and brush from the trails and the glade would be cut and chipped or burned on-site and the resulting chips and/or ashes worked back into the soil during trail construction. No ground disturbance would occur in the proposed 12-acre glade area. Per Forest Plan Standards for MA 7.1, the use-cycle approach, or a rotational sequence of cutting and re-vegetation, would be used in the glade area and protective measures implemented (Forest Plan, Ch. 3, p. 34). There are several large boulder areas that would be left, if possible, with trails directed around these locations. Clearing for the Green Peak Expansion Project would include approximately 44 acres for new trails, the chairlift, and for widened, existing trails that are adjacent to the proposed expansion. Snowmaking The new trails in this Proposed Action would be covered by natural and machine-made snow to a depth similar to other existing trails at Waterville Valley. Waterville Valley proposes to use the existing water supply sources (Mad River, Corcoran s Pond) to supply machine-made snow to the expansion on Green Peak. All water withdrawals (inclusive of the needs of existing and proposed trails) would meet currently established minimum flow requirements. Waterville Valley operates under a minimum flow requirement of 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm) of watershed. This minimum flow was established by the Forest Service in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the late 1980s when Waterville Valley established the current Mad River water withdrawal location. As part of the permitting process under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, this withdrawal could be subject to additional conditions imposed by NHDES. As with current snowmaking operations, no withdrawal would occur if stream flow was less than the required minimum. To insure that minimum flow requirements are met, Waterville Valley s water withdrawal intake structures are set at an elevation that prevents withdrawal of water when flow is less than the required minimum. Furthermore, Waterville Valley is required by the Forest Service to annually re-survey the 10

17 stream cross-section at their snowmaking withdrawal site and reset the elevation of their intakes prior to each ski season. The Proposed Action would require running spur snowmaking air and water lines, most likely off existing snowmaking lines on Valley Run. A small, doghouse-sized valve house would be constructed to separate the lines and to house a booster pump, pending final engineering. Because engineering has not yet been completed for this system expansion, the exact location of the valve house and the booster pump requirements are not known. However, its location would be at a site that provides the greatest energy efficiency and one that would not require additional tree clearing. Upgrades to the base air compressor and water pumping systems are not anticipated. Energy efficient snowmaking guns would be used. Project Revisions since Scoping Some modifications have been made to the background description and the Proposed Action to reflect updated information obtained since the December 2011 Project Scoping Report was distributed. The Scoping Report mistakenly listed Waterville Valley s skiable terrain as 259 acres, while the actual value is approximately 220 acres. The Purpose and Need at the time of scoping included the expansion of beginner terrain as a need for the project; however, no new beginner terrain would be created. Rather, it is the intent of the Proposed Action to increase safety and improve the guest experience for all skiers by providing more terrain for novice and intermediate skiers, allowing less congestion on existing beginner and novice trails and to provide a more gradual continuum of terrain from lower mountain experiences to summit experiences. In addition, the location of the lower end of the new trails as well as the location of the new BBTS Competition building was altered slightly from the original design to avoid or minimize effects to wetlands and surface waters. Tree clearing for the new BBTS building increased from 2,400 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. to accommodate a small, cleared area surrounding the building. Forest Plan Amendment The Green Peak project would be consistent with all Forest Plan standards except one for Canada lynx. Currently 42% of the total lynx habitat in LAU 11 is in an unsuitable condition for lynx (See Biological Evaluation in the Project Record for lynx definitions). The project would convert approximately 41 acres (0.3%) of suitable foraging habitat into open ski trails and a glade, with undisturbed forest inclusions. Forest Service biologists discussed the intent of this standard and conditions associated with this project with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies agreed that the effects of this to lynx are minor to nonexistent. Although lynx may be recolonizing former habitats in New Hampshire, recent occurrences are considerably further north than the project area. In addition, although the stands in question may meet the definition of suitable foraging habitat, their proximity to highly developed areas (Waterville Valley Ski Area, the town of Waterville Valley, and Highway 49) makes this specific location marginal at best for lynx use. Therefore a site-specific Forest Plan amendment is proposed that would allow the project to go forward as proposed (italics indicate proposed amendment text). S-3 Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner: a. If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur because of vegetation management activities by federal agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to 11

18 improve future snowshoe hare habitat. The Green Peak Expansion Project at the Waterville Valley Ski Resort is an allowed exception to this standard. Alternatives Considered But Not Developed for Complete Analysis In response to input received during the scoping process, several additional alternatives were considered for full development. None of the alternatives were fully developed for a variety of reasons. Visual Resources: In response to comments regarding visual resources and habitat fragmentation, the ID team considered an alternative that would construct narrow trails and glade skiing areas to reduce tree removal. The ID team determined that this project design with narrow trails and glade skiing would not provide appropriate beginner terrain and would pose safety hazards for beginner and intermediate skiers. Fewer New Trails: In order to reduce effects to wildlife habitat and scenery, the ID Team considered an alternative that would have constructed a reduced number of trails. It was determined that reducing the number of trails sufficiently to minimize effects to wildlife habitat and scenery would not provide a suitable distribution of trails for each ability level of skiers at Waterville Valley. Reduced Lift Tower Heights: Modification to the chairlift, such as reducing tower height, in response to comments on visual appeal, was found to be inconsistent with industry design and safety standards for the chairlift. Tower height is dictated by manufacturers design and Forest Service review of lift specifications. Therefore, no additional alternatives were developed for analysis. 2.3 Issues Identification Public scoping brought forth a number of ideas, suggestions and important information used in developing and analyzing this project. The ID team reviewed all public comments, identified the issues raised, and determined how they would be used in the analysis (see Scoping Content Analysis in the project file). Some issues were identified as being conjectural, outside the scope of the project or already decided by law or regulation. These issues were not used in the analysis. The ID team developed issue statements (listed below) for the remaining issues. The issue statements were derived from one or more comments received expressing concern on a particular topic. The ID team evaluated these issues to determine if they could be addressed through the use of mitigation measures or in the effects analysis, or if an alternative would be needed to address any of them. Alternatives were considered to address three of the issues (numbers 2, 4, and 5), though none of those alternatives were analyzed in detail for various reasons (see Section 2.2). The team determined that all these issues would be most appropriately addressed in the effects analysis for the associated resource (see Chapter 3). Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 1. There is concern that the Proposed Action would affect species, individuals or their habitat that are listed for Federal or State protection or are listed on the Eastern Region (R9) Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List, including bats, Peregrine falcons, and Bicknell s thrush. 2. There is concern that implementation of the Proposed Action, specifically tree removal and trail development, would result in habitat fragmentation for listed and non-listed species. 12

19 Water 3. There is concern that there would not be adequate water availability to cover the new terrain with snowmaking, that the increased need for water availability would result in exceeding the current minimum flow standards in the Mad River, set at 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm) and that the minimum flow of 0.5 csm may not be high enough to protect aquatic habitat. Visual Appeal 4. There is concern that the chairlift towers would affect the views from nearby mountains. 5. There is concern that the overall visual effect of trail development and the new BBTS building would not fit the current appealing visual character of Waterville Valley. Climate Change 6. There is concern that the removal of trees needed for trail development would increase global warming and affect climate change. 2.4 Resources Not Analyzed in Detailed As discussed in Section 1.4, this site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) has been designed to comply with the regulations established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Compliance with NEPA at the project level through an EA uses the environmental analysis process to disclose the environmental effects of the proposed activities and determine if an Environmental Statement (EIS) is warranted. An EA is not intended to be a complete discussion of all potential environmental and human variables. Unlike an EIS which by NEPA regulation must be comprehensive, an EA is only required to briefly discuss the need for the Proposed Action, the alternatives, if any, and the environmental effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives. The Waterville Valley Green Peak Expansion Project analysis documented in this EA is tiered to the Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2005b; EIS) and Record of Decision (USDA 2005c; ROD) for the 2005 Forest Plan. All of the expected effects from this project are consistent with, and within the range of, the expected effects disclosed in the Forest Plan EIS and its supplements with the exception of one Forest Plan Standard and Guideline for Canada lynx, as discussed in Section 2.2. The following resources were considered during project development and at the start of the effects analysis, but have not been carried forward for further analysis in this EA for one or more of the following reasons: the Proposed Action will not affect them; the effects are so negligible that they are unable to be analyzed; the effects are within the expected range of operational effects of Waterville Valley as currently permitted; and/or there was no comment received from the public that would indicate concern over these resources. There are no known historic or cultural/heritage resources within the Project Area (see the project file for a site-survey). While this project is intended to increase visitation to Waterville Valley, visitation and associated traffic are not expected to exceed levels achieved during the 1990s. Accordingly, it is anticipated that traffic will remaining at levels already anticipated and designed for with respect to existing highway, parking and shuttle bus infrastructure already in place. Noise levels are anticipated to be consistent with the typical operational levels of a ski resort and with the exception of temporary construction sounds during tree removal and chairlift installation, would not increase substantially beyond what currently occurs. The proposed expansion would not increase noise levels at any new sensitive noise receptors. 13

20 \ Because this project would not be expected to increase traffic beyond previously achieved levels and because modern snowmaking fan gun operations have substantially reduced energy needs associated with snowmaking, the Forest Service has concluded that potential effects to air resources would be negligible. There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas, designated or eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Wilderness Areas within or near the Project Area. 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives The proposed alternatives differ by several factors. Table displays and compares each alternative and summarizes the environmental effects of each alternative on various biological, physical, social and economic resources that are disclosed in more detail in Chapter 3. 14

21 Table Summary of Alternatives Analysis Resource Area Alternative A: No-Action Alternative B: Proposed Action 3.1 Water No change No significant effect with implementation of Forest Service Standards and Guidelines; no change to snowmaking withdrawal minimum flows. 3.2 Soils No change No significant effect with implementation of Forest Service Standards and Guidelines. 3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic No change No significant effect with implementation of Forest Service Standards and Guidelines; no change to snowmaking withdrawal minimum flows. 3.4 Vegetation and NNIS No change Conversion of 44 acres of forest vegetation, replaced with vegetation typical of ski trails; risk of NNIS introduction minimized through implementation of Forest Service Standards and Guidelines control measures. 3.5 Wildlife No change Conversion of 44 acres of forested habitat, but no significant effect to any wildlife species. 3.6 TEPS and RFSS No change Proposed project-specific Forest Plan amendment to address minor to nonexistent impacts to Canada lynx habitat. No impact to TEPS and RFSS animals and plants. 3.7 Visual No change Project consistent with Scenic Integrity Objectives for MA Winter Recreation No change Improvement in winter recreation opportunities. 3.9 Socioeconomic 3.10 Climate Change No short-term change; potential long-term gradual decline in socioeconomic benefits from the resort. No change Anticipated improvement in direct, indirect and cumulative socioeconomic benefits from the resort No significant effects to or from global warming. 15

22 3.0 Existing Conditions and Environmental Effects This chapter discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects to the physical, biological, social, and economic resources from the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative as described in Chapter 2. It consists of a description of the existing conditions for each affected resource area, and then summarizes the environmental effects of each alternative. These effects are summarized in a comparative format in Table in Chapter 2. Detailed background information or raw data (i.e., results of field surveys) from which the environmental effects are concluded can be found in the project file. For each resource area, an analysis area is identified in both space (how broad a geographic area should be analyzed) and time (how far into the past and the future should be analyzed). A rationale is provided for these bounds. The analysis area described for the direct and indirect effects for each resource discipline may differ depending on the characteristics of the resource. Since cumulative effects are based on the time and geographical space of the effects of other actions that may overlap with the Proposed Action, the analysis area for cumulative effects may differ from that described for direct and indirect effects for the same resource. Actions on NFS and non- NFS lands are included when considering cumulative effects. Assessment of Cumulative Effects NEPA regulations state that an appropriate analysis of cumulative effects requires that the incremental effect of the [present] action be added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR ). Per Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 220), a reasonably foreseeable action on NFS lands is one for which the Forest Service has received a proposal which describes the Proposed Action in sufficient detail (when, where, how) to allow for substantive effects analysis. Reasonably foreseeable future actions need to overlap with direct and indirect effects in both space and time. Therefore, both when and where an activity will occur are required in order to know whether the Proposed Action would add measurable cumulative effects when combined with such projects. A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit supports this concept, stating that future projects must be at a point in development that allows for meaningful discussion of effects for it to be considered reasonably foreseeable (Habitat Education Center, Inc., et al. v. USFS, 2012). The Waterville Valley Master Development Plan (MDP) includes a conceptual development framework for the ski area. It describes the possible projects that might be proposed for development and implementation over a 10 to 20 year period. The MDP includes possible projects that might overlap with or be in close proximity to the current Proposed Action. However, because these projects have not been developed or formally proposed, the details of those projects are not known, which precludes the ability to substantively analyze their respective cumulative effects. More importantly, the timing of implementation of MDP projects, or even if they will be implemented, is unknown. Therefore whether the projects described in the MDP will overlap in space and time with direct and indirect effects cannot be determined. Until the possible actions in the MDP are brought forth in a proposal and accepted as an application with sufficient descriptive detail, they are not reasonably foreseeable future actions. 3.1 Water Resources The issues central to water resources focus on water availability for snowmaking: First, would the water needs for snow coverage of the new terrain result in withdrawals exceeding the minimum flow standards in the Mad River, irrespective of minimum flow requirements, and second, is the current minimum flow requirement of 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (cms) sufficient to protect aquatic habitat. 16

23 Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The watershed area for the Mad River is shown in Figure Most of the watershed is downstream of the project area. While the downstream limits of the direct and indirect effects of the project would in theory be all of the Mad River downstream of the project area and even beyond, consideration of potentially significant effects to water resources more practically limits the direct and indirect analysis area to those stream, river, wetland and seasonal pool waterbodies that receive runoff from areas that would be disturbed and/or modified by the Proposed Action and to the Mad River immediately downstream of the snowmaking withdrawal structure. Accordingly, the analysis area for the direct and indirect effects on water resources is substantially smaller than the Mad River watershed downstream of the project area, as shown in Figure Existing Conditions Surface Waters The Mad River (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code HUC ) is the principal water resource associated with the Proposed Action. The Mad River is part of the Pemigewasset River drainage basin, joining the Pemigewasset River in the Town of Campton, NH, approximately 12.5 miles southwest of the ski area. The Mad River watershed is approximately 61 square miles at its mouth and located almost entirely within the southern portion of the White Mountain National Forest. The Mad River is approximately 17.9 miles long originating at Greeley Ponds in Mad River Notch, a gap between East Peak of Mount Osceola and Mount Kancamagus in Livermore, NH and flowing in a southwesterly direction to its confluence with the Pemigewasset near Interstate-93 in Campton. The Mad River is characterized as a moderately fast-flowing stream with coarse bottom material including boulder, rubble and minor sand and gravel. Tributaries to the Mad River within or near the analysis area include the West Branch of the Mad River, Tecumseh Brook, Snows Brook, and Corcoran Pond, a 5.2 acre impoundment on Snows Brook, as well as several unnamed intermittent streams (Figure 3.1-2). The unnamed streams are direct or indirect tributaries to the Mad River and are located on the west side of the river along the base of Mount Tecumseh between the confluences of the West Branch and Snows Brook. In September, 2011, Normandeau Associates, Inc. conducted a surface water survey of the proposed areas of disturbance (NAI 2012b). The majority of the streams on site are small ephemeral and intermittent streams that drain north into an unnamed perennial stream (S-6) flowing in the ravine between Valley Run and Stillness ski trails (Figure 3.1-3). This perennial stream channel ranges in width from approximately 3 to 30 feet. It has been further channelized by trail building activities that have built the banks up to a height from 3 to 15 feet with large boulders. Many of the smaller streams begin at water-bars and culverts under existing trails or access roads before forming defined channels in the adjacent forest. All of the streams located on site appear to have been affected by Tropical Storm Irene, a major precipitation event occurring in late August, 2011, prior to surveys. Extensive deposition of coarse material is evident in most channels as a result of overtopped and eroded culverts and ditches, as well as natural streams that were flowing beyond capacity. In general, the culverts that were overtopped and eroded by the effects of Tropical Storm Irene, estimated to be a 100-year storm event, were structures that had been in place since the trail was originally constructed in the 1970 s. Updated Best Management Practices for ski trail construction and contouring as well as revised guidelines for culvert sizing would avoid similar effects in the future. Surface Water Quality The overall water quality in the Mad River watershed is considered to be good to excellent. Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to monitor the quality of surface waters, publish the results periodically, and to list those waters that are impaired with respect to one or more Water Quality Criteria and are in need of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determination. The following waters within or adjacent to the analysis 17

24 Figure Mad River Watershed Area. 18

25 Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Water Resources Map. 19

26 area are listed on the NH 2010 Integrated Listing of Threatened or Impaired Waters That Require a TMDL (which includes both 305(b) and 303(d) waters; NHDES 2010): the 0.9 mile stretch of the Mad River as it winds through the Village of Waterville is marginally impaired for aquatic life due to low ph from unknown sources; and 1.4 miles of the Mad River below the Village are marginally impaired for aquatic life for low ph from unknown causes. Low ph is typical across the WMNF and may be due to a combination of naturally low buffering capacity in the soil and bedrock of Forest watersheds, naturally occurring organic acids and human-caused acid deposition effects (Hornbeck, et al. 2001). The Mad River and its tributaries are classified as Class B waters according to the State of New Hampshire (RSA 485-A:8). Class B waters are considered suitable for fishing, swimming and other recreational purposes and, after adequate treatment, for use as water supplies. The river quality is high enough to support all stages of life for resident trout and non-game species such as longnosed dace and slimy sculpin. The Mad River is currently an important Atlantic salmon rearing river for the Merrimack River Atlantic salmon restoration program. Hydrology The Mad River watershed consists of steep terrain with an elevation change of approximately 2,500 feet in the watershed of the project area; this type of terrain lends itself to rapid flooding as was seen during Tropical Storm Irene. Snowmaking Waterville Valley currently withdraws water from the Mad River for snowmaking at a point approximately 450 feet east of the Tripoli Road crossing. Under agreement with the Forest Service and with involvement from NH DES and USFWS (at the time of permitting, USFWS was the only agency that had developed minimum flow guidance), Waterville Valley Ski Resort is permitted to withdraw water from the Mad River when streamflow is above the New England average Median August Flow (MAF) of 0.50 cubic feet per second per square mile (csm). At the intake point, the watershed of the Mad River consists of 26.1 square miles; thus application of MAF results in a minimum flow requirement of 13 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the point of withdrawal. When the Mad River water flow is greater than 0.5 cfsm, water is pumped from the intake area at a maximum rate of 2,700 gallons per minute (gpm) (6.02 cfs) to a 200,000 gallon holding pond at the base of the ski area. In addition to the Mad River, Corcoran Pond serves as a secondary water source for snowmaking, providing water at a rate of up to 1,000 gpm when water available for withdrawal in the Mad River flow drops below the minimum flow requirement. Conditions of the withdrawal permit for Corcoran Pond state that outflow must equal inflow. To insure that Waterville Valley does not withdrawal water when the stream flow is less than 0.5 csm, Waterville Valley contracts annually with an independent consulting firm to survey the stream cross section at the point of withdrawal to determine the water surface elevation that equals 0.5 csm. The intake pumps are then set at that elevation which makes it physically impossible to withdraw water if the stream flow drops below 0.5 csm. Forest Service permit administrators verify that this survey has taken place each year and monitor the site throughout the withdrawal season. In addition, treated wastewater has been historically utilized for snowmaking by Waterville Valley since This source was temporarily abandoned in 2009, but a recent Groundwater Discharge Permit from NHDES allows renewed utilization of this water with the installation of appropriate UV disinfection units. When utilized for snowmaking, the treated wastewater can contribute an additional 380 gpm for snowmaking purposes. Since the time 20

27 the recent permit was issued, Waterville Valley has not needed to access this additional water supply, and the UV disinfection units have not been installed. At present, Waterville Valley has snowmaking infrastructure in place to provide machine-made snow on 100% of its trail terrain (~199 acres). The resort attempts to meet two theoretical snow production goals each year: 1) 100% coverage by December 25; and 2) 100% re-coverage by February 1 (Snomatic 2012). Because of the variability of natural snow, snowmaking demand planning generally assumes that snow coverage will be met entirely by machinemade snow. In the absence of natural snowfall, each coverage goal requires approximately 325,000 gallons of water per acre, so the total snowmaking water demand for existing terrain is 64.8 million gallons by December 25 and million gallons by February 1. With the existing snowmaking system, Waterville Valley can only meet the December 25 demand in 57% of the years, and the February demand in 83% of the years. While this does not meet the theoretical snowmaking goals, this capacity is sufficient to allow the continued viability of the resort. In some years, natural snowfall mitigates for some of Waterville Valley s lack of snowmaking capacity, but in others (e.g. 2012), natural snowfall plays almost no role in providing suitable skiing conditions. Wetlands In September, 2011, Normandeau Associates, Inc. conducted a wetland survey of the proposed areas of disturbance (NAI 2012b). All identified wetlands were delineated using the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (USACE 2011). Normandeau also conducted vernal pool surveys on June 13, The entire Green Peak expansion area was reviewed again for potential vernal pools during the 2011 wetland survey and bird surveys. A total of 2 wetlands, 18 streams and 0 vernal pools were identified during field surveys (NAI 2012b). All of the features occurred on the northeast side of the site, on the lower portion of the Green Peak Expansion Area (Figure 3.1-3). Wetlands W-1 and W-2 are in close proximity to each other and entirely contained within the existing Lower Stillness trail. These areas are currently subject to a high amount of disturbance, including annual mowing and hydrologic input from snowmaking. It is likely that these actions, combined with past tree removal and grading during trail construction, resulted in compaction and saturation that was not present prior to clearing, thus creating an environment suitable for wetland development. W-1 is approximately 0.46 acres, and W-2 covers 0.18 acres. They are classified as palustrine emergent wetlands dominated by the following herbs associated with disturbance: sallow sedge (Carex lurida), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), and New York fern (Thelypteris novaboracensis). Shrub species observed included meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia), raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and willows (Salix spp.). Groundwater Groundwater resources have been studied at Waterville Valley for many years. Hydrogeologic data from test wells drilled in the mid-1990 s showed groundwater availability to be limited to domestic supply only (such as drinking and household use) and insufficient for snowmaking needs. Although most of the area of the Mad River Valley floor has been mapped as a major stratified-drift aquifer by USGS (Cotton and Olimpio 1996), water yield even in these generally water-rich geologic formations is not sufficient to support snowmaking. Direct and Indirect Effects All ground-disturbing activities have the potential to have direct and indirect effects on water resources. 21

28 Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Wetlands and Surface Waters. 22

29 Alternative A: No-Action Alternative A would not change the current conditions of water resources. There would be no additional grounddisturbing activities and thus no increased risk of soil erosion and sedimentation or wetland effect. Existing snowmaking withdrawals would continue at the current minimum flow requirements of 0.50 csm and snowmaking on existing terrain would remain the same. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative B would result in several types of potential effects to water resources as a result of the Proposed Action. These include: small increase in runoff quantity during snowmelt due to the increased snow depths and snowmaking coverage on the mountain; temporary, small increases in erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and increased snowmelt; no effects to wetlands, but crossing of several ephemeral streams with new ski trails; crossing one perennial stream by ski trail and lift and an intermittent stream by trail; and, increased water withdrawal, over current withdrawal, for snowmaking but maintenance of the existing minimum flow requirement of 0.5 csm. Each of these potential effects is discussed below. Increased Runoff Peak run-off and streamflow during snowmelt events are controlled primarily by climatic conditions affecting the rate of melting. Carlson and Fay (1998) analyzed effects of snowmaking to water resources and concluded that more snow does not usually mean faster melting or increased runoff rates. They found that the maximum water-depth equivalent from snowmelt is approximately 0.5 inches per day, whether it is a natural or artificial snowpack that is melting. As a result, the net effect of an increased snowpack caused by snowmaking on new trails is generally one of a longer snowmelt season and a greater duration of the seasonal higher stream flow period instead of an increase in peak runoff quantities. Initially, this prolonged period of higher flows may cause some minor modifications to downstream channel bank and substrate conditions, but those effects appear to be short-term. Snowmaking did not appear to produce long-term erosion effects on the streams examined (Carlson and Fay 1998). The presence of snow on new ski trails may also reduce peak runoff discharges from those areas because snow can provide additional water storage. The time difference between rain falling on snow and the release of the rain from the snowpack causes slower runoff and a reduction in peak discharges in areas of channelized flow, relative to snowfree area. In addition, areas that receive machine-made snow often produce snowmelt runoff later in the spring due to a denser snowpack which generally takes longer to melt than the snowpack in areas other than ski trails (Carlson and Fay 1998). This delayed runoff effect would be expected to be further aided by the increased volume and density of machine-made snow at Waterville Valley from this proposed project. While there would always be periodic floods due to extreme natural climatic events, and those extreme floods could significantly modify downstream channels (as was seen on the Mad River and elsewhere from Tropical Storm Irene), additional snowmaking would provide only negligibly increased runoff volumes and would therefore not measurably affect winter or spring flooding events. Thus, there would be no significant downstream effects associated with snowmelt runoff. 23

30 Carlson and Fay (1998) also reviewed the effects of snowmelt on water quality and found there to be no significant effects for the areas that were examined. Accordingly, it is expected that existing and proposed snowmaking at Waterville Valley has had and would have no significant effect on project area streams. Erosion and Sedimentation The Proposed Action would result in substantial, though temporary, soil disturbance from trail and chairlift line clearing and grading, chairlift installation and BBTS building clearing and construction. Earthwork would occur on all new trails due to clearing and grading and in small, localized areas directly in the footprint of the chairlift towers and the new BBTS building. Although approximately 44 acres of forest would eventually be cleared and graded, soil disturbance would be limited in location and duration. Forest Service Standards and Guidelines for trail construction limit linear earth disturbance to no more than 600 lineal feet or 2 acres on any one trail, without stabilization, so the potential for erosion of unstabilized soils is substantially reduced. Furthermore Forest Service Standards and Guidelines require all soil disturbing activities to implement erosion control measures (for example, silt fences, hay bales, rock check dams, etc.) prior to and during disturbance, further limiting the potential for significant erosion and sedimentation. Experience on the Forest and as documented in monitoring reports has shown that these measures are effective in containing erosion and sedimentation. Accordingly, it is expected that sediment entering waterbodies from the Proposed Action would be minor and in compliance with New Hampshire Water Quality Standards as long as the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are followed. As discussed above, the Proposed Action would not generally result in an increased peak rate of runoff; thus the potential for increased erosion or sedimentation is negligible. And because channel forming flows (i.e., flood flows) would not be affected appreciably, the potential for excessive scouring or channel/bed erosion is minimal. Wetlands and Surface Waters The original trail layout as presented in the Scoping Report would have affected one wetland and required crossing of several ephemeral, one intermittent and one perennial stream. The extent of clearing was modified after the scoping process to reduce these effects. The modified alignment of the proposed Green Peak lift and trail expansion reduced all effects to wetlands and reduced s effects to the intermittent and perennial streams (Figure 3.1-4). Effect to one intermittent stream was reduced to 459 square feet. Approximately 50% of this effect results from culverting a portion of the stream that presently flows in a ditch beside a mountain service road. The remaining effect results from replacement of an existing culvert section where the stream crosses Lower Stillness. This culvert replacement provides improved resource protection and allows for the elimination of what would otherwise need to be a 90 o turn to accommodate the culverted ditch section. s Effects to the unnamed perennial stream would occur in two locations totaling 1,087 square feet. One section is under the 40-foot wide lift corridor at the base of the lift, where overstory clearing in the perennial stream ravine would be necessary. Waterville Valley would be able to leave the existing understory and allow limited shrub and sapling regeneration to provide shade to the stream channel. The shading would minimize thermal effects to the stream. The current trail connection between Lower Stillness and Valley Run crosses a perennial stream and would be widened approximately 20 feet to the west to relieve congestion as skiers leave the Green Peak area for the main lodge. To avoid direct effects to the stream, a slatted bridge to support skiers and snowmaking will be installed adjacent to the existing culvert; this would require widening the existing crossing by approximately 20 feet. Effects to ephemeral streams would total 1,044 square feet; these effects would be minimized by upgraded trail contouring and culvert sizing and placement. 24

31 Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Effects to Wetlands and Surface Waters. 25

32 Snowmaking With the proposed addition of approximately 44 acres of terrain at Green Peak, Waterville s snowmaking terrain acreage would increase to about 243 acres. Using the resort goal of 100% coverage, the water demand for snowmaking would increase from 64.8 to 79.0 million gallons by December 25 and from to million gallons by February 1. With the existing snowmaking withdrawal system, Waterville Valley would only meet the December 25 demand in 43% of the years, and the February demand would only be met in 50% of the years (as compared to 57 and 83%, respectively for the existing terrain). Snowmaking demand and completion modeling by Snomatic (2012) has shown that with increased pumping capacity of approximately 25% and fan gun only coverage in the expansion area, available water is sufficient to meet the December 25 snowmaking demand in 57% of the years and the February 1 snowmaking demand in 83% of the years. This completion is identical to the existing conditions, and while not ideal, Waterville Valley has proven that it is sufficient to allow continued viability of the resort. Snowmaking demand and completion summaries for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 scenarios are shown in Table Table Snowmaking Demand and Completion under Existing and Proposed Conditions Alternative 2 Existing on-mountain Modified on-mountain Alternative 1 system system Snowmaking Terrain (acres) Water Demand (Mgal) for 100% coverage by Dec. 64.8/ / /57 25/% of years goal achieved Water Demand (Mgal) for 100% coverage by Feb / / /83 1/% of years goal achieved It is therefore concluded that the existing sources of snowmaking water are sufficient to meet the increased snowmaking needs of the proposed Green Peak Expansion Project with modification of the on-mountain snowmaking system and continued operation within Waterville Valley historic snowmaking coverage rates. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to water resources is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects to water resources and that portion of the Mad River watershed that is upstream of the wastewater discharge outfall for the Town of Waterville Valley. The analysis timeframe is 10 years before and 10 years after present. This timeframe was selected because water quality effects from land use changes resulting from ski trail construction and associated vegetation management, erosion control and stabilization would be expected to stabilize totally within a 10-year timeframe. The past and present land uses affecting water resources are: public land management activities on the WMNF and private residential or business development within the Town of Waterville Valley. Public land management activities include ski area and cross country ski trail development and maintenance, timber management activities and hiking trail and road maintenance such as those listed in Table On private lands, construction and maintenance of residential and commercial developments has occurred and is expected to continue within the analysis timeframe and assessment area, including construction and maintenance of roads and facilities to provide water supply and wastewater treatment. Adverse effects to water resources from Waterville Valley Ski Resort s activities have likely occurred and are likely occurring, but at low and acceptable levels. Development and expansion within the Town of Waterville Valley and at the ski resort has potentially resulted in some level of erosion and sedimentation. Alteration of natural flows and minor increased runoff in the spring due to snowmaking occurs annually during the ski season 26

33 and immediately thereafter. Some of these actions may have affected water quality, but none of the analysis area water resources are listed as impaired by NHDES (except for ph, the source of which is likely atmospheric), which indicates the past and present effects are acceptable from a water quality perspective. Implementation of federal, state and local regulations governing these activities has mitigated potential effects. Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that provide opportunity for potential cumulative effects from the Green Peak Expansion Project are shown in Table For each of these projects, resource effects have been avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent that they are not significant. Table Recent or Probable Future Projects within the WMNF to be considered for Cumulative Effects Past Recent or Future Green Mountain Timber Sale, 158 Acres Treated in Hix Mountain Timber Sale, 184 Acres in the Sandwich Range 2012 Addition of Communication Building on Mount Tecumseh Communications Site 2012 Mad River Path Trail Reconstruction 2005 Waterville Valley Tree Skiing Project foot XC Town WV Ski Bridge Replacement 2006 Valley Run Trail Widening Conversion of Campton Group Campground to Campton Day Use Area 2007 Waterville Valley Test Well Drilling Sites for a Town 2012/13 Waterville Valley Municipal Water Well Project Water Supply 2008 Forest-wide Wildlife Opening Maintenance 2013 Tripoli Road & Campsite Redesign 2010 Swans Way Nordic Trail Relocation Project 2013 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Relocation 2011 Greeley Ponds Trail and Flume Brook Trail Closure 2013 Waterville Valley Municipal Water Well Project Use of Mt Tecumseh for Boy Scout Jamboree, 2013/2014 Waterville Valley Super G course Possible Reuse of this Site every Four Years for Same Activity 2011 Closure of Campton Group CG to Overnight Camping and Motorized Access The foreseeable future actions/land uses are expected to be similar to those of the present. Private development will continue as envisioned by the Town of Waterville Valley in its longstanding Master Plan. Additional timber harvesting on public lands is not presently planned within the cumulative effects area and timeframe. Limited ski area expansion and other less significant trail expansion may occur within the Special Use Permit boundary. Projects on the Forest would not be expected to affect water resources within the analysis area because of implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and, if necessary, appropriate mitigation strategies. Effects from private development for home sites, roads, other development sites, and recreational activities are more difficult to quantify, but effects to water resources are likely to continue at low levels, in part because private lands account for less than 5% of Mad River watershed in the analysis area and in part because continued implementation of federal, state and local regulations would be expected to mitigate potential effects to acceptable levels. Downstream of the Mad River snowmaking intake, streamflow would continue to be modified during periods of water withdrawal. Because this withdrawal would continue to meet the current minimum flow requirement of 0.5 csm (permit administrators monitor the water withdrawal intake annually), no significant effects to aquatic resources would be expected. Continued development activity within the Town of Waterville Valley and improved skier visitation to the resort would be expected to increase wastewater treatment and disposal volumes, but not beyond the currently constructed and 27

34 permitted capacity of the treatment plant; thus no adverse effects to water quality are expected from increased wastewater disposal. Consequently, it is concluded that the Proposed Action would not add any measurable cumulative effect to water resources when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the analysis area. Snowmaking in a Globally Warming Environment The potential future effects of global warming and climate change on snowmaking efforts in the Northeast are uncertain. There is strong evidence from a wide variety of observations that the world as a whole is warming at an increasing rate (USFS 2010). Since 1899, the average annual temperature in the Northeast has increased approximately 2 o F (Wake and Markham 2005), with average winter seasonal temperatures increasing by approximately 3 o F (Wake and Markham 2005). During the period between 1970 and 2000, average winter seasonal temperatures in the Northeast increased by approximately 4 o F (USC 2006; Rustad, et al 2012). Average annual precipitation in the Northeast has not shown a definitive trend over the past century (USFS 2010a); however, the portion of total annual precipitation that fell as snow in northern New Hampshire and Maine declined between 1949 and 2000 (Huntington et al 2004) and between 1971 and 2000 there was a decline in the number of days with snow on the ground in Durham, NH of almost 30 days (Wake and Markham 2005). The average growing season in the Northeast has expanded by eight days in the 20 th century, with most occurring after 1970 (USC 2006). Predictive modeling efforts that attempt to estimate the climate in the future continue to improve but are based on inherent sensitivities or biases that produce inconsistent results upon comparison (USFS 2010a). Because data output is given at a global or continental scale, translating that to a regional level creates considerable uncertainty. However, based on a combination of climate predictions from a model called Climate Wizard, and a review of scientific literature by the Forest Service, temperatures are expected to increase in and around the WMNF by several degrees F in the next three decades (USFS 2010a, Rustad, et al 2012). Even so, the potential effect of global warming, at least here in the northeast and at the levels discussed above, can be mitigated at our more northern and higher elevation ski resorts, including Waterville Valley, by implementing more aggressive snowmaking (Dawson and Scott 2013). This would require larger and more reliable sources of snowmaking water (generally storage ponds) and greater on-mountain pumping and snowmaking capacity. In much the same way that more southern resorts operate now, our more northern snowmaking systems may need to be upgraded to take greater advantage of the smaller but still reasonably dependable snowmaking windows of opportunity. As long as global warming in the Northeast is consistent with current forecasts, most New Hampshire ski areas should be able to adapt and thrive in a globally warming climate (Burakowski and Magnusson 2012). At Waterville Valley, any proposal for increasing snowmaking capacity in response to climate change would require separate NEPA review and analysis. Given the uncertainty of regional climate change models, the need for increased snowmaking is not presently foreseeable and is therefore not considered in this document. 3.2 Soil Resources There is concern that the Proposed Action could cause increased stormwater runoff and associated erosion and reduced soil nutrients. 28

35 Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to soil resources is that portion of the Mad River watershed as described in Section 3.1 except for those portions downstream of the snowmaking withdrawal intake and the wastewater discharge outfall which are too far removed from the action areas to be significantly affected. Existing Conditions A detailed Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for the project area is not available. Per Forest Service recommendation, Forest Service Ecological Land Type (ELT) data was used to review for shallow soils and ledge. Table gives detailed information about these soil types. A site verification of ELT boundaries and questionable soils was conducted by Normandeau Associates, Inc. (NAI) over a 3-day period from October 11 to October 13, Table Ecological Land Types mapped within the Waterville Valley Green Peak Project Area. ELT Code Soil Description ELT 2 ELT 6 ELT 115a Soil materials are typically bouldery to very bouldery, friable, non-plastic rapidly permeable sandy loams, one to two feet deep to bedrock. Boulders range from 30 to 60% of total volume. Soil textures range from sandy loams to loamy sand and are moderately well to moderately poorly graded. Inclusions include: ELT 14 and ELT 6. Very bouldery, very non-plastic, very permeable. Textures range from moderately well to well drained sandy loam, which are deep over till and occasional ledge. Colluviums contain 40 to 60% by volume of rock fragments, 6 inches to 4 feet in diameter. Inclusions include: ELT 2 and ELT 105. Soils are deep over slightly to densely compact till. Textures are poorly graded, ranging from sandy loam to silt loam. Cobbles and boulders are typically less than 20% by volume. Inclusions include: ELT 115c and ELT111. ELT Mapping The ELT 2 map unit, Softwood Knolls, Ridges and Steep Side Slopes with Ledgy, Bouldery Soils, follows the uppermost elevation of Green Peak, extending from an elevation of approximately 2040 feet upslope to 2840 feet at the peak. The ridge, which trends in a northeasterly direction, is steep to moderately steep, with cliffs and extremely steep side slopes to the east along the edge of the Project Area. Observations within the map unit confirmed that the area mapped as ELT 2 contains extensive areas of bedrock and associated shallow soils which are assumed to make up at least 50% of the map unit. The ELT 6 map unit, Predominantly Softwoods on Steep Upper Mountain Side Slopes with Deep Bouldery Colluvium, is generally very steep to moderately steep within the Project Area. Surface boulders represent greater than 15% cover. Bedrock outcrops were noted at a number of locations. Separate observations of shallow soils were also noted. Observations of shallow soils may indicate subsurface boulders rather than bedrock but could not be differentiated with a hand auger and are noted as shallow to bedrock requiring a revision to the ELT. The map unit boundary for ELT 2 has been revised on Figure based on site observations. The northeastern most segment of the unit does not reflect shallow to bedrock conditions and therefore should be considered ELT 6. Based on observations of either bedrock or shallow soils, the area of ELT 2 has been extended to the north and west into an area previously mapped as ELT 6. The bedrock outcrops reflect ELT 2 conditions while the area of shallow soils without bedrock outcrops may just be a reflection of extremely stony and bouldery subsurface soils. 29

36 USFS Figure Green Peak Expansion Project and USFS Ecological Land Types. 30

37 ELT 115a map unit, Softwood-Hardwood Lower Slopes and Depressions with Thick Compacted Sediments, is located within the lower section of the study area, bordering the existing Stillness Trail. The area north of the Trail has been ed affected by past trail construction with boulder piles randomly situated within the woods. A section of the northern bank of a perennial stream flowing between two trails has nearly 100% cover of boulders probably placed there during past trail construction. Erosion Potential The soil textures within the three ELT s are primarily fine sandy loam with scattered areas of organic soils (folistic epipedons). The erosion potential for shallow to bedrock soils with either fine sandy loam soils or soils with folistic epipedons on steep slopes are considered severe by NRCS. The erosion potential on high elevation, deep soils, with moderate to steep slopes is considered moderate. Consequently, the anticipated erosion potential within ELT 2 is severe and moderate for ELT 6 and ELT 115a. Direct and Indirect Effects The degree and extent to which a Proposed Action affects soil is a function of the extent (acres) of disturbance, the severity of disturbance (for example, a thinning results in less soil disturbance than a clear cut), and the ability of the soil to resist change due to certain soil characteristics. Alternative A No action Alternative A would not result in soil disturbing activities. Soils would be undisturbed on Green Peak. In areas currently developed as part of ski area operations, soils would not be subject to disturbance outside of the ongoing operations typical to a ski resort; thus erosion and stormwater runoff would not change from current levels. Inherent soil processes and functions would continue, and soils would become more enriched because all biomass would remain on-site. There would be no increase in snowmaking and therefore no increase in runoff from current conditions. Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B would have minimal direct and indirect effects on soil erosion and runoff. Construction of the chairlift and clearing, stumping and grading of ski trails would create substantial soil disturbance. As shown on Figure 3.2-1, a significant percent of the area that would be cleared for new ski trails has a severe erosion potential. However, Waterville Valley has extensive and proven experience with ski trail soil stabilizing/revegetation methods from their Forest Service-approved operations and maintenance of their existing ski terrain. Any potential effects would be minimized by the use of erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC) measures such as barrier fences/construction fences, silt fences, water bars, sediment traps, swales and check dams, stabilized outfalls and temporary and permanent soil stabilization efforts. All EPSC measures would be implemented in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Standards and Guidelines for MA 7.1 also limit the amount of contiguous exposed mineral soil to no more than 600 total slope feet (and no greater than two acres) on any ski trail; this limits the amount of exposed soil at any one time which further protects soil resources. Because soil disturbance is limited to the immediate construction period and exposed soil is limited in extent to 600 total slope feet and protected by proven EPSC, no significant direct or indirect effects to soil resources are anticipated. The Forest Plan does not allow whole tree removal on thin ledge soils without mitigation. Waterville Valley would mitigate potential nutrient loss from tree removal by chipping small trees and leaving tops and limbs of trees onsite to meet the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 31

38 Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to soil resources is the same as that identified for Water Resources, as identified in Section 3.1, but the analysis timeframe for assessment of the cumulative effects of past, present, and future soil disturbing activities includes 50 years in the past, when acid deposition began to affect soil productivity, and extends 10 years into the future. Within the analysis timeframe and area, there have been many past activities that have affected soils. The resource issue to be addressed in this cumulative effects analysis is the need to maintain or improve long-term soil productivity. In order to maintain soil productivity, organic matter and fertility must be retained, and soil displacement (mixing and physically moving soil from one place to another), compaction, erosion and the introduction of contaminants must be prevented. Past and present land uses/actions which have reduced soil productivity are development within the Town of Waterville Valley, ski area development within the WMNF and various types of recreational use on both private and public lands. The effects of these land uses/actions on soil productivity have not been quantified; however, reasonable assumptions about the effects can be made. Development includes construction and maintenance of roads, homes, businesses and associated water supply and wastewater disposal systems, all of which result in some localized losses in long-term soil productivity. For example, construction of a new road would result in soil displacement, compaction and potentially erosion. Development of ski terrain requires tree cutting, stumping, grading, limited snowmaking line burial, work roads, parking lots, access roads and ski lodge and accessory building construction, all of which have resulted in localized loss of soil productivity. Recreational activities in the form of hiking and cross country ski trails add to the cumulative loss of soil productivity. Timber harvests in the analysis area may also temporarily affect soils. The foreseeable future action/land uses in the analysis area are expected to have effects similar to recent past and present activities, mainly soil displacement and compaction and reduced soil productivity (See Table 3.1-2). These projects have the potential to affect soil resources within the analysis area during both construction and operation of the projects; effects could include erosion, displacement, compaction and loss of soil productivity. Federal, state and local regulations are designed to minimize current and future project-related effects on soils. These regulations have been and would continue to be effective in reducing the severity of soil effects; however, there will continue to be minor effects to soil resources from additional projects both on and off NFS lands. The cumulative effect of past, present and future actions/land uses on long-term soil productivity is difficult to quantify but can be estimated to range between locally minor to major, depending on the type of effect. However, within the analysis area as a whole, these actions have not significantly reduced soil productivity, as evidenced by the wellvegetated landscape. Similarly, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would contribute minimal and insignificant cumulative effects to analysis area soils productivity. 3.3 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources There is concern that the Proposed Action could affect fisheries habitat due to changes in water withdrawal, increased runoff, stream sedimentation and aquatic habitat degradation. Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to fisheries is that portion of the Mad River watershed as described in Water Resources (Section 3) and includes those areas adjacent to, along and downstream of streams and riparian areas where fisheries habitat could be disturbed or affected by vegetation removal, water withdrawal or wastewater discharge. 32

39 Existing Conditions The Mad River is the principal water resource which provides habitat for fish that would be affected directly and indirectly by the Proposed Action. Historic fish surveys have indicated that the Mad River and its tributaries are dominated by eastern brook trout with smaller components of white sucker, sculpin and dace (Marancik 1976). The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHF&G) stocks the Mad River with two species of fish to encourage recreational fishing: eastern brook trout and rainbow trout. Table provides the age, species of fish, and quantity stocked in the Mad River in It is expected that perennial tributaries to the Mad River all contain native eastern brook trout, but it is not expected that intermittent streams, particularly within the Project Area, would contain fish. NHF&G, in partnership with USFWS, participates in the Merrimack River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. The Program began in 1969 as a cooperative effort of NHF&G, the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, USFWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Forest Service. As part of this program, Atlantic salmon restoration began in 1976 and is ongoing. Agencies continue to capture sea-run adult salmon at the Essex Dam in Lawrence, MA and transfer these fish to the Nashua National Fish Hatchery for egg production, while sea-run kelts are maintained at the North Attleboro National Fish Hatchery to support stock development. Salmon fry are used to stock tributaries to the Merrimack River, including the Pemigewasset River and its East Branch, Souhegan River, Piscataquog River, Smith River, Baker River and Mad River (NHF&G 2011). Direct and Indirect Effects The Forest Plan Goals for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat (Forest Plan pp. 1-15) include the following: Protect, restore, or improve riparian area conditions to benefit riparian dependent resources and values; and manage riparian areas to provide for coldwater, coolwater and warmwater aquatic communities within the ecological capability of the landscape. This framework is useful for estimating the potential effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on fisheries habitat and resources. Table Mad River Fish Stocking 2011 Town Species Age Number Campton Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 1,000 Farmington Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 250 Thornton Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 1,250 Thornton Eastern Brook Trout 2+YR 100 Thornton Rainbow Trout 1+YR 555 Waterville Valley Eastern Brook Trout 1+YR 1,250 Waterville Valley Eastern Brook Trout 2+YR 100 Waterville Valley Rainbow Trout 1+YR 555 Source: NHF&G 2011 stocking report As discussed fully in Section 3.2, the Proposed Action would result in temporary soil disturbance. Any potential water quality effects due to erosion would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. Soil sediments entering waterbodies and floodplain areas from the Proposed Action would be minor as long as the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, FSM , and associated design criteria are followed. Water for snowmaking would be withdrawn, when available while maintaining required minimum flows, from the existing snowmaking withdrawal pump station on the Mad River. 33

40 The Proposed Action would result in effects to 522 linear feet (1044 square feet) of ephemeral stream, 153 linear feet (459 square feet) of intermittent stream and 122 linear feet (1087 square feet) of perennial stream. Alternative A No action Alternative A would not result in effects to fisheries and aquatic resources. Soils would not be subject to disturbance, thus erosion and stormwater runoff would not change from current levels. There would be no increase in snowmaking and therefore no additional modification of streamflow in the Mad River. There would be no effects to ephemeral, intermittent or perennial streams within the Project Area. Consequently, no effects to fisheries and aquatic resources would be expected under this alternative. Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B would result in minor and insignificant effects to fisheries and aquatic resources. Construction related effects due to chairlift installation and trail construction would be negligible with implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. No significant sedimentation to the Mad River or surrounding riparian habitats would result from soil disturbing activities. Any potential water quality effects due to erosion would be minimized by implementation of appropriate erosion control measures. Soil sediments entering waterbodies and floodplain areas from the Proposed Action would be minimized and in compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, FSM , and associated design criteria. Therefore, no effects to fish or aquatic resources from soil erosion or stream sedimentation are anticipated. Water for snowmaking would be withdrawn, when available, from the existing snowmaking withdrawal pump station on the Mad River. However, as with current operations, no water would be withdrawn when stream flow was at or below 0.5 csm which is the existing permitted minimum flow value for Waterville Valley. No changes to the pumphouse or intake structure are proposed. Therefore, no adverse effect on fish or aquatic resources is expected. The Proposed Action would result in effects to 522 linear feet (1044 square feet) of ephemeral stream, 153 linear feet (459 square feet) of intermittent stream and 122 linear feet (1087 square feet) of perennial stream. Potential effects have been minimized to the extent feasible by modifying trail locations and widths, culverting an intermittent stream located in an existing work road ditch and bridging with a temporary bridge the only perennial stream crossing. The culvert replacement/installation on the intermittent stream would be accomplished in the dry during a period of low/no flow. All of the affected streams are isolated from the rest of the Mad River watershed by Waterville Valley s existing, on-mountain snowmaking pond. If fish are present in any of these streams, effects to them would have little ecological consequence due to the probably low numbers of fish potentially affected and their isolation from other fish populations. Effects to aquatic resources due to overstory clearing, culverting and bridging are anticipated to result in negligible effect to the temperature regime and overall aquatic ecology of these streams. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to fisheries and aquatic resources is the same as that identified for Water resources, as identified in Section 3.1, and downstream to the Campton Dam. The analysis timeframe for assessment of the cumulative effects of past, present, and future fisheries and aquatic habitat disturbing activities includes 50 years in the past and extends 10 years into the future. The resource issues of primary importance include maintenance and improvement of fisheries and fishery habitat by maintaining minimum flows associated with snowmaking withdrawals, continuing to control erosion and improving those water quality parameters that directly or indirectly affect fishery resources. Although much of the Mad River watershed was heavily logged during the early 1900s, establishment of the WMNF allowed for reforestation of the vast majority of the watershed, resulting in largely restored watersheds and aquatic 34

41 ecosystems. Nevertheless, past and present land use activities in the form of residential and commercial development in the Town of Waterville Valley and recreational activities including ski area development on the WMNF all have likely contributed to minor effects on fisheries and aquatic resources from resulting temporary erosion and sedimentation and streamflow modification from domestic water supply and snowmaking withdrawals. However, implementation of federal, state and local regulations regarding erosion control have effectively limited potential effects from erosion to acceptable levels. Similarly, minimum flow requirements for snowmaking withdrawals and the return of domestic water to the Mad River in the form of highly-treated (tertiary) wastewater have largely eliminated potential significant effects of streamflow modification on fisheries and aquatic resources. Foreseeable future actions (see Table include implementation of erosion control measures and minimum flow regulation, which will provide continued protection of fisheries and aquatic resources. In summary, recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to cumulatively affect, in a negative manner, fish, fish habitat or aquatic resources. Consequently, the minor effects from the Proposed Action, when combined with recent past, present and foreseeable other actions, are not expected to negatively affect fisheries or aquatic resources within the analysis area. 3.4 Vegetation Resources and Non-Native Invasive Species The issues related to vegetation resources center on concerns that the project alternatives would affect the existing vegetation within the Project Area. Specifically, tree and vegetation removal due to trail development will be examined herein. There is also concern that implementation of the Proposed Action would allow the introduction or expansion of non-native invasive species (NNIS) to the extent that native populations would be negatively affected. NNIS are of concern because infestations can reduce the biodiversity of the surrounding area, compete with rare plants, and contribute to a decline in the quality of wildlife habitat by out-competing more desirable native species. Finally, there is concern that tree removal for trail construction would contribute to increased greenhouse gases and global warming. Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to vegetation resources includes all of the direct disturbance area within the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Section 1.3 Project Area. Existing Conditions On September 1, 2011, Normandeau personnel surveyed the greater Green Peak Expansion Area, including base area parking lots, in order to describe the natural communities on-site (NAI 2011). Natural community types observed within the Project Area during the survey were classified in accordance with The Nature of New Hampshire: Natural Communities of the Granite State (Sperduto and Kimball 2011). The Project Area is dominated by four different types of upland forest communities: high elevation spruce fir forest, northern hardwood spruce fir forest, sugar maple beech yellow birch forest, and semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest. The general locations of these communities within the Project Area are shown in Figure No rare species or outstanding natural communities as defined by the WMNF Forest Plan were observed during survey efforts, nor are any previously mapped occurrences known. NNIS On September 1, 2011, Normandeau personnel surveyed the greater Green Peak Expansion Area, including base area parking lots, for invasive species. Three invasive species were observed in vegetated areas between and along the edges of the parking lots, with one of the species also occurring on existing ski trails. No invasive species were 35

42 Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Vegetation Communities. 36

43 observed in currently forested portions of the Project Area (NAI 2011). A previously documented infestation of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is known to occur within the Project Area, but was not observed on this date. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) was observed in wet ditches and slopes on the existing ski slopes within the survey area as well as along margins of the parking lot areas within and north of the Project Area. Based on these observations, reed canary grass is probably broadly distributed on ski slopes and other parking lot margins. This species was not observed in any of the forested areas. A few individual coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) plants were observed along the southern edge of Parking Lot 8 (OP 12). This was the only location observed for this plant. More likely exist in disturbed, wet roadside areas, but it is not as widely distributed or abundant as reed canary grass. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) was also observed along the margins of the parking lot. A maturing pole-sized individual was observed in Lot 8, and several other saplings were seen in Lot 9. Small patches of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) occur in several wet ditches along several of the parking lots. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A- No Action Alternative A would not affect existing vegetation; ongoing operational and maintenance changes in ski area operations would occur as they currently do. The vegetation types that are present in the analysis area would not be substantially altered. Alternative B Proposed Action Alternative B would directly affect approximately 44 acres of currently forested terrain which would be cleared to provide new ski trails. These effects are in keeping with the Purpose and Need for the Project, and have been anticipated in association with the designation of this Management Area as 7.1 for use in alpine skiing. Effects have been reduced, avoided and minimized as much as possible while still meeting the goals of an improved guest experience and safety. The conversion of 44 acres of common forest types to ski trail and associated ski trail vegetation would have no significant effect on vegetation integrity or biodiversity of the greater Green Peak area. In addition, a very minor amount of vegetation would be temporarily removed for snowmaking pipeline installation (including the water, air and electrical lines) that would take place along the edge of the proposed ski trails. This effect to vegetation would be negligible to structure and function of the meadow habitats in the analysis area as these areas would be expected to return (except immediately under the pipe) to the existing cover type once construction is complete. NNIS Alternative A would have minimal effects to NNIS. Continued recreation use and management of roads, trails, and other infrastructure would continue at historic levels. These activities may spread NNIS into currently unoccupied habitat. The current areas with infestations of invasive plants would receive treatments to control these species under the authority of the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007). Until such time that each of the existing infestations are treated and completely eradicated, they would continue to persist and potentially spread. Forest Service Manual outlines the process to determine the risk of NNIS introduction or spread as part of the NEPA process for proposed actions. Given the implementation of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for controlling the introduction or spread of NNIS, and the known NNIS populations in and around the Project Area, the 37

44 overall risk rating assigned for the Green Peak Expansion Project is low (USDA-Forest Service 2005e, Project NNIS Risk Assessment 2012). According to the project NNIS risk analysis, Alternative B would have minimal effects on NNIS species. Soil and vegetation disturbance associated with project activities, as well as recreation use, have the potential to spread NNIS. Alternative B may increase the spread of NNIS, especially because reed canary grass is known to occur immediately adjacent to the direct effect areas. NNIS seeds or other propagules could be inadvertently introduced to newly disturbed ground by construction equipment, wildlife or wind during trail and lift construction and installation of the snowmaking lines. This potential is greatest in the vicinity of existing infestations and construction activities. NNIS spread and introduction could occur in other areas due to long-distance seed dispersal via vehicles, wildlife and wind. All project activities would implement the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines related to NNIS. This would reduce but not eliminate the possibility of introducing NNIS. The 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project (USDA Forest Service, 2007) and WMNF Monitoring and Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, Monitoring and Evaluation Guide, 2006, pp 30-31) requires de novo monitoring, as well as follow up monitoring at active control locations. Control and monitoring activities reduce the likelihood of invasive plants spread by project activities becoming established and ensure compliance with Forest Plan direction relating to NNIS (Forest Plan, pp ). However, these measures likely would not eliminate all potential for spreading invasive plants within the Project Area. Consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Waterville Valley would use weed free materials for hay, mulch, etc. and seed used for re-vegetation will be of native or non-persistent species. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for vegetation resources is the Project Area, including adjacent trails and forest stands which are managed by Waterville Valley under the SUP, as well as other adjacent or nearby NFS and private lands that due to their proximity with the Project Area may have connected vegetation values. Issues of concern for cumulative effects to vegetative resources differ from direct or indirect effects in that these concerns examine the potential for decrease of biodiversity through the reduction of native plant species. The time frame covers a 20-year (10 years past to 10 years in the future) period. The temporal scope was chosen because it represents the time period in which a forested area cleared of trees would typically re-vegetate to a fully stocked condition with commercial tree species. Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that provide opportunity for potential cumulative effects with the Green Peak Expansion Project are shown in Table Many of the effects on the vegetation resources are from timber harvesting on the WMNF and development on private lands within the cumulative effects analysis area. Under Forest Service management, the effects on vegetation from timber harvesting are largely limited to conversion of mature timber age classes and associated late successional plant communities on small scattered tracts. These effects result in a mosaic of forested vegetative communities that gradually succeed more mature forest. In the foreseeable future, vegetation is and will continue to be managed to accommodate ski operations within the Special Use Permit boundary. This includes removal of hazardous trees along trail edges, trimming of vegetation along trail edges, and the removal of understory vegetation in areas designated for tree skiing. In addition, it is expected that the development activities cited above would continue. Recent development activities on private land in the Town of Waterville Valley relate to primary and secondary homes, businesses, cross country ski trails and associated facilities and supporting roads. These areas have undergone repeated and continuing human disturbance resulting in the long-term loss of native plant communities and overall reduction in the biodiversity of the 38

45 area. Recent development actions have probably not resulted in significant effects on biodiversity or on timber resources. There would be continuing minimal loss of native vegetation on private land but not on such a scale that significant cumulative effect on vegetation resources or biodiversity is expected. Alternative B would result in negligible effects to vegetation resources. Consequently, these actions would not add any measurable effect when combined with other past, present or foreseeable future actions. NNIS The Analysis Area for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the lands within the Project Area, and the adjacent NFS land and private land in the nearby Town of Waterville Valley. The private property includes a mix of upland hardwoods, softwood, mixed-wood intermixed with ponds, wetlands, perennial and intermittent streams, and residential/commercial development. Any activity that involves ground disturbance or the movement of equipment from locations where NNIS occur to areas where they are not yet present has the potential to increase the effect of NNIS on other resources. The temporal scope for cumulative effects of non-native invasive species is the past and future ten years (2003 to 2023). This considers temporary ground disturbing activity by project activities (anything over ten years will have reestablished a canopy and/or re-vegetated areas of soil disturbance making it unlikely that new infestations would be introduced by wildlife or human activity.) This time frame also allows consideration of the forest-wide invasive plant inventory conducted by the New England Wild Flower Society ( ) that covered 220,000 acres across the National Forest and adjacent lands, including portions of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (USDA-Forest Service, 2005b, Chap ). The cutting of the ski trails from forest and conversion to open grasslands has created the opportunity for NNIS to be introduced and become established. Existing trail maintenance activities including mowing and edge brushing may all increase the chance of NNIS spreading. Similarly, recreational mountain biking in the Snows Mountain area may contribute to NNIS spread along the trails because of continued soil disturbance in small areas. Given that infestations of the four NNIS identified in the vicinity of the Proposed Project are relatively small, adverse cumulative effects can be avoided through the implementation of Standards and Guidelines, as well as control efforts authorized in the 2007 White Mountain National Forest Forest-wide Invasive Plant Control Project Environmental Assessment. Treatment of these infestations is not being analyzed in the Green Peak Expansion Project. Alternative A would not create any ground disturbance, and therefore would not add cumulatively to opportunities for NNIS to spread. With the implementation of appropriate controls, it is unlikely that Alternative B would substantially increase the cumulative risk of NNIS spread. The Proposed Action would not add any measurable cumulative effect to vegetation resources or NNIS when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Project Area. 3.5 Wildlife Resources Wildlife resource concerns center around the potential for the Proposed Action to affect wildlife species, including breeding, nesting or foraging behaviors, as well as effects to their habitat. Project-related effects may stem from tree removal, trail development and/or disturbance related to ski area operations or increased levels of non-ski area recreational activities as a result of the trail improvements. Existing conditions in the Green Peak Expansion Area and the potential effects of the Proposed Action as they relate to habitat and wildlife in general are discussed below. Potential effects to federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS), including, Canada lynx or 39

46 Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) including Bicknell s thrush and woodland bats are discussed in Section 3.6. Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat includes all of the direct disturbance area within the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Section 1.3 Project Area.. The temporal scale for analysis of direct and indirect effects is the duration of trail construction. Existing Conditions The habitat within the Project Area appears to be suitable for all common wildlife species expected to be present in these forest types and elevations in New Hampshire. The only notable source of existing disturbance to wildlife and their habitat within the Green Peak Expansion Area appears to be the recreational and operational activities associated with the ski area. Cover, in the form of blowdowns, high stem-density regenerating stands, including spruce-fir, and boulder slopes was most abundant at the mid- to higher elevations. Food for herbivores and omnivores, in the form of seeds, fruits, browse, and buds was common if not abundant, and available throughout site. Small mammals (such as mice, squirrels, snowshoe hare) appeared common, providing a suitable forage base for a wide range of predators. There are limited sources of surface water within the Project Area. Important Wildlife Habitats Normandeau surveyed for three types of specialized, species-specific habitats in 2011 and The presence and extent of deer wintering areas (DWAs) for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the area was evaluated by observing forest stand structure, availability of browse species, and the presence of historic browse use. No DWAs were identified in the area. In general DWAs are located in coniferous stands with south trending aspects, at lower elevations (Bennett 2010). On-site coniferous stands have a primarily northern exposure and high elevation. Additionally, no signs of historic use were observed (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a). American beech (Fagus grandifolia) stands or inclusions representing high quality black bear (Ursus americanus) habitat are defined as those stands that exhibit bear scarring made within the past 10 years and include at least 15 to 25 scarred beech trees within a stand (Hamlin, 2011). The density of bear-scarred beech (BSB) in the Project Area was evaluated. The hardwood cover on-site did not qualify as a beech stand or contain a beech inclusion. Although beech trees are present in the understory throughout much of the hardwood area and mature beech dominated the canopy in some locations, no part of the hardwood stand had 80% of its stocking in beech. All the mature beech trees were moderately to heavily diseased, and if bear scarring was present, it was not readily discernible. However, a fresh bear scat containing beech nut hulls was observed near one of the sample plots. Additionally, fresh (2011 vintage) bear scarring was observed on a single, mature, non-diseased beech tree along the western edge of the Project Area (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a). The area does provided some beech resources to bears. However, the low stocking rate of beech in the Project Area likely limits the value of the resource. Additionally, although moderately to heavily diseased beech trees are used by bears as a food source, they typically produce fewer nuts than healthy trees (Hamlin, 2011), which may further limit the value of the beech nut resource for bears in the Project Area. The presence and density of suitable roost trees for tree-roosting bats (large, tall, deciduous trees and snags with intact bark and moderate levels of decay and hollows) in the Project Area was evaluated within hardwood dominated and mixed forest portions of the Project Area. The Green Peak Expansion Area offers roost habitat for tree-roosting bats (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a). 40

47 Ecological Indicators Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum): Peregrine falcons are a WMNF ecological indicator for cliff habitat since these birds nest on high cliffs or ledges often overlooking riparian habitats. Peregrines usually occupy the same cliff each year arriving back at the nest site between March and April. Medium-sized birds are the major food item taken by peregrine falcons. Falcons require an area with abundant prey. Because prey is taken in flight, openings may be beneficial, especially near riparian areas. Breeding peregrine falcons are not expected to occupy the Project Area either now or in the future because there is no cliff nesting habitat. The adjacent existing ski trails and future forest openings created by the ski trails in the Project Area may provide foraging habitat for hunting falcons that are nesting outside of the Project Area. American Marten (Martes americana) is used as a WMNF indicator to assess effects on landscape-scale fragmentation of habitat connectivity (USFS 2005). Marten are wide-ranging and utilize their entire home range daily which includes all habitat types and age classes though they prefer mature softwood. They are vulnerable to habitat changes. The Green Peak Expansion Area was surveyed for use by medium-sized forest carnivores and their prey species using snow tracking methods, based on a protocol developed by the Forest Service (Squires et al. 2004). Tracks from potential prey species were observed throughout the Project Area, and included mouse spp., red squirrel, snowshoe hare, and ruffed grouse. An extensive marten trail was identified at the higher elevations of the Project Area and ran parallel to the existing ski trails on the eastern boundary of the Project Area, following a hiking trail in spruce/fir cover about m from the edge of the ski trail. The tracks and trails observed suggested that both red fox and American marten are permanent residents in or around the Project Area. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Potentially suitable habitat for four of the five WMNF MIS is present in the Project Area. These species consist of scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea; mature hardwoods), magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia; regeneration age softwoods), Blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca; mature softwoods) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus; all ages of aspen/paper birch). There is little to no potentially suitable habitat for chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica; regeneration age class hardwoods) present in the Project Area. No directed surveys for these species were conducted, but ruffed grouse tracks were noted during winter tracking surveys of the Green Peak Expansion Area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A: No-Action Alternative A would have no effect on wildlife and their associated habitats. Changes to habitat in forested areas would occur primarily through natural events (e.g., natural forest growth, ice or wind damage, etc.). Snowmaking on areas outside of the proposed expansion area would continue at current levels, therefore runoff and snow retention of slopes would be unchanged. Continuing maintenance activities would keep vegetation on ski slopes in its current condition, thus spring foraging opportunities for bears and use of the area by other wildlife throughout the year would be unchanged. There would be no effects to American marten or MIS, deer or bear. Alternative B: Proposed Action Alternative B would have effects on wildlife resources, including all four MIS and American marten. The Proposed Action would result in conversion of existing habitat, specifically 44 acres of tree clearing and temporary soil disruption. None of these alterations would be so extensive that extant wildlife populations including all four MIS and American marten, deer and bear would not be able to shift foraging, denning, nesting or mating behaviors to similar 41

48 localized habitat within and adjacent to the Project Area. All disturbed areas would be regraded and seeded with an approved seed mix. Collectively, these minor changes to habitat conditions would have minimal effect on wildlife, though there would be beneficial effects via increased foraging opportunities in open canopy areas. There would be no direct effect on Peregrine Falcon though new open canopy areas may provide improved foraging habitat. Likewise, extant wildlife populations coexist with ongoing recreational and operational activities, and would be expected to quickly acclimate to the incremental increase in these sources of disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action. Alternative B might create a deeper and denser snow pack locally as a result of increased snowmaking on the expanded terrain, which in turn may result in extended run-off periods or delayed snow melt on slopes, as described in Section 3.1 Water Resources. Water withdrawal would not cause any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on wildlife. Changes to the snow pack would, on average, result in a somewhat delayed on-set of the growing season on the slopes. These changes could result in minor and short-term effects to the foraging quality of the ski slopes in early spring, but are not anticipated to substancially alter use of wildlife habitat by any species present including American marten and MIS, showshoe hare, deer or bear. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects to wildlife resources is the project area plus the adjacent NFS,including the 45,272-acre Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 11, and nearby private lands that incorporate the home ranges of the wildlife species that occur in the Project Area,. Analysis of cumulative effects for the project area considered actions over the past last ten years, and actions that are reasonably foreseeable in the next ten years. For wildlife-related issues, the 10-year timeframe is based primarily on the phenology of early-successional habitat. This cumulative effects analysis relates to wildlife resources and includes primarily conversion of habitat. Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that may potentially contribute cumulative s with the Green Peak Expansion Area are shown in Table For each of these projects, effects to wildlife, including Peregrine Falcon, deer, bear, snowshoe hare, American marten and MIS have been avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent that they are not substantial. Regional commercial, residential or industrial development on non-nfs lands, although small, exists within the analysis area, but most is limited to the 500-acre portion of the Town of Waterville Valley that is in private ownership. As noted in Section 3.9 Socioeconomics, the Town has reached more than 87% of its planned development (Master Development Plan 2005), so any potential substantial effects to wildlife from development on private lands occurred prior to the analysis timeframe. Further additional development activities on private land would have minimal effect on wildlife. Implementation of Alternative B would result in minor and short term direct and indirect effects to wildlife, including American marten and MIS. Consequently, the proposed action would not add any measurable cumulative effect when combined with minimal effects from recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative effects analysis area. 3.6 Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species (TEPS) and Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) Concerns for species listed for Federal protection or that are listed on the Eastern Region (R9) Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List center around the potential for the Proposed Action to affect species or individuals, including breeding, nesting or foraging behaviors, as well as effects to their habitat. Project-related effects to TEPS and RFSS 42

49 may stem from tree removal, trail development and/or disturbance related to ski area operations or increased levels of non-ski area recreational activities as a result of the trail improvements are listed. A Biological Evaluation (BE) for plants and animals which are Federally-listed as Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species (TEPS) and/or on the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) list was completed March 2013, for the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative. The process used and the sources examined to determine potential occurrence of TEPS or RFSS presence are listed in the BE, which is available in the project record. Conclusions about whether threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitat are known or suspected within the Project Area are based on best available science. Plants The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to TEPS and RFSS plant species and their habitat includes all of the direct disturbance area within the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Figure This area is selected as it represents the area within which potential effects may occur if any species or habitat were present. The timeframe for direct effects is the duration of project related, ground disturbing activity and for indirect effects when soils disturbed by the project are substantially re-vegetated typically within two growing seasons. Existing Conditions The Region 9 RFSS list (December, 2011) includes RFSS plant species that occur on the WMNF. To determine which TEPS plant species could be affected by the Proposed Action, a "Likelihood of Occurrence" (LOC) table was completed, and is available in the BE. In this table, all plant TEPS species tracked by the WMNF are listed along with their status and a brief description of habitat requirements. These requirements were compared to existing habitat within the Project Area and existing data regarding habitat and species distribution. This comparison was then used to determine the likelihood of occurrence for each TEPS and/or RFSS species in the Project Area (Table 3.6-1). Based on the results of the pre-field review and the field reconnaissance, three plant species were determined to have potential to be present within the Project Area as a result of field surveys (Normandeau 2012). No RFSS species were found in the Project Area. A full discussion of the environmental effects with regard to TEPS and RFSS plant species and their habitat can be found in the BE, available in the project file. Table Likelihood of Occurrence of TEPS and RFSS Plant Species and/or Habitat with the potential to occur in the Green Peak Expansion Area, based on field reviews. Scientific Status Species Likelihood of Occurrence Name RF- Sensitive RF- Sensitive RF- Sensitive Bailey's Sedge Carex baileyi Northern Adder's Tongue American Ginseng Direct and Indirect Effects Ophioglossum pusillum Panax quinquefolius Low. Disturbed wet ski slopes are potential habitat, although circumneutral conditions were not observed. Project Area surveyed at appropriate time of year without discovery of any individuals. Low. Wet ski slopes are potentially suitable habitat for this species, but no individuals were observed during surveys. Low. Rich mesic forests were absent in the Project Area. Semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest areas were searched but this species was not observed. Alternatives A and B would have no effect on TES and RFSS plant species. Based on a review of all available information, it was the Forest Service Botanist s determination that there is no potential for this project to affect any TEPS plants nor does it have the potential to affect any RFSS plants because none occur. 43

50 Any effects would be on species potential habitats. Direct effects of the Green Peak Expansion Project would include tree removal in proposed ski trails, glades, and the lift line corridor. Grading within the ski trails would further alter topography and disturb existing soils. No grading is proposed within the glades and lift line corridor. The expansion would directly reduce the total acres of forest currently within the Project Area by managing open areas for ski trails. The cutting of trees would indirectly increase sunlight reaching the forest floor adjacent to affected areas, which could benefit plants that compete well in open woods and clearings, but be detrimental to plants that compete well in deep shade. Similarly, the annual mowing of the ski trails would directly benefit plants adapted to open, disturbed conditions and adversely affect plants adapted to more stable, forest shade conditions. A decrease in capillary uptake of water by plants would occur due to trail clearing and may accelerate runoff or cause more wetland seepage habitats to form in the trails. Disturbance would be concentrated within the ski trails and minimize overall effects to vegetation, soil, and snow compaction. Creating more open disturbed areas could benefit species such as Bailey s sedge and northern adder s tongue. The semi-rich mesic sugar maple forest that is marginally suitable for American ginseng habitat would not be affected by the expansion. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for this cumulative effects analysis for TEPS/RFSS plant species is defined as the Project Area plus NFS land in the immediate vicinity of the direct and indirect effects analysis area because plants have a limited ability to transport themselves over great distances through seed dispersal. Unless populations are in close proximity to one another, site effects affecting one population are unlikely to cause cumulative effects to multiple populations outside the analysis area. The Forest Service Manual (2670) provides direction to prevent loss of viability of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) on the Forest or a trend toward federal listing. The determination of viability concerns for plants that are on the RFSS list was derived from data gathered during the Forest Plan revision process; thus, the temporal context for this analysis is from that date forward. Other activities that could result in cumulative effects include logging or habitat maintenance or restoration, road or trail maintenance or construction, and habitat conversion or land development, any time they occur at other known sites for these species. Currently, none of these activities is thought to be occurring at known sites for these species within the cumulative effects analysis area, nor are any planned for these known sites. Past, present and foreseeable future Waterville Valley activities within the 79-acre area of proposed disturbance (trails, lift line, glade and undisturbed enclosed tree islands) have and would affect plant habitat. The land adjacent to the Project Area is all part of the WMNF. Since there are no known RFSS plants on site, nor any within the cumulative effects analysis area, there would be no cumulative effects to plants from implementation of the Proposed Action. Conflict Determination: Implementation of the Green Peak expansion would cause no impact to the population or individuals of RFSS-listed plants listed in Table The No Action alternative would not cause any effects to RFSS plants or their habitat. Rationale: Based on site-specific Project Area plant surveys and best available information from database and scientific literature reviews: 1. There are no documented occurrences of RFSS or TEPS plant species in the Green Peak Expansion Area. 2. Potential habitat may occur for 3 species within the Green Peak Expansion Area. Site work for the expansion could result in improved potential habitat for two species, Baileys sedge and northern adder s tongue. The rich woods with the potential to support American ginseng are outside of the area of effect. 44

51 Animals The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to TEPS and RFSS animal species and their habitat includes the Green Peak Expansion Area as identified in Figure Existing Conditions Bicknell s thrush (Catharus bicknelli), R9SS is a passerine endemic to the Northeast, and breeds in high elevations in disturbed, fir-dominated forests. The elevation of suitable habitat varies with longitude, and the Project Area is just at or below the elevation for Bicknell s longitudinal location. The elevation of Green Peak is a maximum of 2855 and the spruce-fir forest on the peak supplies only marginal habitat for Bicknell s thrush as it is a relatively small, isolated patch at the top of Green Peak. Nevertheless, to determine if Bicknell s thrush is present in the Project Area, three surveys were conducted within suitable habitat between June 20 and July 8, No Bicknell s thrushes were detected during these surveys (Wildlife Report, Normandeau 2012a). The proposed Project Area is located within mapped suitable habitat for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and contains suitable habitat for four bat species, listed in Table (Normandeau 2012). Because of their potential to be present, surveys to determine the presence of these species and/or their habitats were conducted within the proposed Project Area, and the survey type and results are also presented in Table Table TEPS and RFSS Species Status Habitat Requirements Survey Type and Results Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis FT RFSS RFSS RFSS Favor coniferous or mixed wood forests with structure suitable for snowshoe hare. Travel corridors include ridges, saddles, and riparian corridors. Uses caves, mines and old buildings for winter hibernacula. Uses rock outcrops and crevices in cliffs exposed to sun, buildings and bridges. Most likely forages in openings and along forest roads and wetlands. Hibernates in abandoned caves and mines. Roosts in barns, attics, outbuildings, and tree cavities. Feeds over wetlands and still water. Hibernates in caves with stable temperatures. Roosts in live, tall, large hardwood trees with decay. Forages in the upper canopy. Hibernates in caves, mines, & other structures. Roosts in live or dead foliage of deciduous trees. Tri-colred bat RFSS Perimyotis subflavus FT= Federally Threatened, SE = State Endangered, RFSS = Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list Winter tracking survey; prey base and suitable foraging present, no lynx tracks observed Summer roost survey; no rock outcrops, crevices, or cliffs observed. Roost tree survey; suitable roost trees are present Roost tree survey; suitable roost trees are present Roost tree survey; suitable roost trees are present In agreement with the USDI-FWS (USFS- FS 2000), the WMNF defined 13 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) within the Forest boundaries, and then mapped the Suitable Forage Habitat, Suitable Denning Habitat, Unsuitable Habitat, and Non-lynx Habitat within each. The definitions of these habitat categories are taken from the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, Glossary, pgs ) and are provided in the Biological Evaluation (Project Record). The GPEA is located within the southeast portion of LAU 11 Based on Forest Service mapping from the Canada Lynx Assessment and Strategy (USDA 2000b), the Project Area is includes mapped lynx habitat, consisting of approximately 38 acres of currently Unsuitable Habitat and approximately 41 acres of Suitable Foraging Habitat. There is no Suitable Denning Habitat. Section 1.5 of this EA provides further discussion of Lynx Analysis Units (LAU). 45

52 Several woodland bat species have been recorded across the WMNF during bat surveys conducted in the early 1990s and 2000s (Krusic et al. 1996; Sasse 1995; Chenger 2002, 2004). The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) does not occur on the WMNF. Unlike the eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii), the other bat species that occur on the Forest commonly roost in trees, most often snags and partially dead trees near foraging habitat, or buildings. The Green Peak Expansion Area provides suitable foraging habitat for Northeastern forest bats, and the surveys revealed that potential roost trees for tree-roosting bats are present throughout the analysis area, and are not likely limiting for any of the species of interest. Direct and Indirect Effects Bicknell s thrush No Bicknell s thrush are present, thus there would be no direct or indirect effect to Bicknell s thrush from implementation of the Proposed Action or the No Action alternatives. Canada Lynx There is a very low potential the Proposed Action could cause the direct effect of displacing a lynx (if present) from the project area during trail construction and other proposed expansion activities. If a lynx were displaced, extensive areas of Suitable Habitat are available in LAU 11 and the adjacent LAU 8. Subsequent skier and trail maintenance activities would likely render the ski trail unsuitable for lynx during the winter season due to human presence. Ski trails and glades in and of themselves in this area would not create unsuitable habitat for lynx, but skier and trail maintenance activities would likely render these trails and the tree islands and glade between the trails unsuitable for lynx during the winter season due to human presence. The amount of Suitable Foraging Habitat that would be unsuitable is 41 acres, or approximately 0.3% of the total amount of Suitable Habitat available in LAU 11. Therefore indirect effects to lynx habitat include a minor reduction in the amount of foraging habitat in the LAU. Due to the conversion of the minor amount of suitable habitat, the Proposed Action would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan s Standards and Guidelines for Canada lynx, specifically Standard 3a as discussed in Section 1.5 Introduction and a site-specific Forest Plan amendment is required. This amendment would read as follows (italics indicate proposed amendment text): S-3 Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner: a. If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur because of vegetation management activities by federal agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to improve future snowshoe hare habitat. The Green Peak Expansion Project at the Waterville Valley Ski Resort is an allowed exception to this standard. If the Proposed Action were implemented, the relatively minor amount of mapped suitable habitat that would be converted into open ski trail, glade and enclosed tree islands (approximately 41 acres, or 0.3% of the mapped suitable habitat) would not prevent lynx movement in and around the Green Peak Expansion Area. Because of existing levels of year-round human activity, the proposed expansion area is unlikely to provide core home range habitat for lynx now or in the future. 46

53 Woodland Bat Species Direct effects to woodland bats are possible as a result of the Proposed Action if roost trees containing non-flying juveniles are felled, but any bat capable of flight would be expected to exit the tree as soon as disturbance (chain sawing) began. If project-related tree clearing occurs within the June 1 July 15 period, there is a small potential to adversely affect some young individuals. The Proposed Action would also have direct positive effects on bats due to the ski trail clearing. The value of some remaining potential roost trees may be improved for some species, as snags will receive greater solar exposure (warmth) due to the clearing created by the ski trail edges. Warm nursery areas accelerate juvenile development which in turn enhances bat survival. The new ski trails would also create new linear flyways that could be used for travel and foraging. Indirect effects to roosting habitat are expected to be a minor reduction in roost habitat as a result of the proposed project. There would be no direct or indirect effects on winter habitat, as there are no documented caves within the Green Peak Expansion Area. Cumulative Effects The analysis areas for cumulative effects to TEPS and RFSS animal species is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects plus the adjacent NFS and nearby private lands that incorporate the home range of the TEPS and RFSS species that occur in the Project Area; for Canada lynx the cumulative effects analysis area included the 45,000-acre Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 11. Analysis of cumulative effects of the proposed action considers actions over the past last ten years, and actions that are reasonably foreseeable in the next ten years. For wildlife, the 10- year timeframe is based primarily on the phenology of early-successional habitat. The cumulative effects analysis considers wildlife resources and included primarily conversion or fragmentation of habitat. Commercial, residential or industrial development on non-nfs lands, although small, exists within the analysis area, but most is limited to the 500-acre portion of the Town of Waterville Valley that is in private ownership. As noted in Section 3.9 Socioeconomics, the Town has reached more than 87% of its planned development (Master Development Plan 2005), so any potential effects to TEPS and RFSS animal species from development on private lands occurred prior to the analysis timeframe. Further additional development activities on private land would have minimal effect on TEPS and RFSS. Recently developed or proposed projects on the WMNF that are within, adjacent, or nearby to the proposed action and that may potentially contribute cumulative effects with the Green Peak Expansion shown in Table For each of these projects, impacts to TEPS/RFSS animal effects have been avoided, reduced or minimized to the extent that they are not substantial. Although some of these projects may affect species individuals, none of them, individually or in combination, would cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability. Canada Lynx As only a very small portion of the currently Suitable Habitat in LAU 11 would be seasonally unavailable due to the Proposed Action, it would not meaningfully contribute to the cumulative effects, if any, of all other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions in LAU 11 over the next ten years and would not alter the resources to irreversible or irretrievable commitments that might foreclose options for the future recovery of Canada lynx in New Hampshire. Woodland Bat Species The Proposed Action would not add any cumulative effects to the RFSS-listed woodland bats on the WMNF or their habitat. While minor reductions in the amount of roost trees may occur, roost trees are not limiting in the Project Area. No bat hibernacula have been found on the WMNF. All proposed activities would occur outside of known caves that are off-forest, with no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on hibernacula (USFS 2010, 2012). 47

54 Consequently, the proposed action would not add any measurable cumulative effect to woodland bats when combined with recent past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Project Area. Conflict Determinations Canada Lynx: Conflict Determination: Implementation of the No Action alternative would cause a no effect to Canada lynx. Implementation of the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect individual Canada lynx. Rationale: This determination was based on site-specific surveys and field reviews, Forest-wide wildlife surveys, prior Forest Service BEs in the same watershed, and best available information from internal and external databases, scientific literature reviews, and communications with internal and external professional biologists. 1. The revised designation of Critical Habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population of the Canada lynx (Federal Register Notice, February 24, 2009) does not include any part of New Hampshire. 2. In 2011, four lynx kittens were documented in two locations in northern Coos County in Pittsburg, NH (approximately 80 miles north of the Project Area). In winter of 2006, tracks and scat were found on private land north of US Route 2 in the Town of Jefferson (approx. 30 miles northeast of the Project Area). DNA tests confirmed the scat was from one female lynx. In April 2013, tracks were observed along Kinsman Ridge. These observations suggest that a breeding population of lynx may be reoccupying a portion of their former range in NH (which includes the WMNF) after having been absent during the later portion of the 1900s. 3. No lynx or their sign was detected during two winter track surveys conducted on the Project Area in No lynx or their sign was detected during 1999 and 2004 Forest-wide National Lynx Detection hair snare surveys, or during and Forest-wide winter track surveys. However lynx competitors for snowshoe hare prey base (coyote, fox, and fisher) have been observed within the proposed Green Peak expansion area as well as throughout the WMNF. 4. Lynx have a large home range and the Proposed Action would alter only a small fraction (approximately 0.3%) of the Suitable Habitat mapped in LAU 11. Because of existing levels of year-round human activity, the Expansion Area is unlikely to provide core home range habitat for lynx now or in the future. The relatively minor amount of mapped Suitable Foraging Habitat (approximately 41 acres) that would be converted into open ski trail would not prevent lynx movement in and around the Green Peak Expansion Area. 5. The project meets the WMNF Forest Plan s Standards and Guidelines for protecting lynx habitat with one exception to Standard 3a. A proposed Forest Plan amendment is presented above. Woodland Bat Species Conflict Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species of: Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Under the No Action Alternative there would be lost opportunities to open the forest canopy and create favorable roosting and foraging habitat along ski trails for woodland bats due to no vegetation removal in the Project Area at this time. 48

55 Rationale: Determinations were based on best available local and relevant science and new information (USFS 2010, 2010b, 2011, 2012) and on site-specific field surveys (Normandeau 2012), WMNF mist-net surveys (Chenger 2002, 2004; Yamasaki 2000), and recent cave surveys in NH (NHFG 2010, Veilleux and Reynolds 2010, Veillexx 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010), and woodland bat surveys off the WMNF in NY & VT (Kiser et al. 2001, 2002). 1. Forest-wide mist net surveys of woodland bats (including similar habitat as found in the Project Area(Chenger 2002, 2004 and USDA FS 2009, 2010, 2011) detected eastern small-footed, little brown, northern long-eared, and tri-colored bat 2. The Proposed Action would remove trees and vegetation for trail construction and allow sunlight into adjacent areas, potentially removing some roost trees and simultaneously improving solar conditions for other roost trees, as well as creating open foraging habitat along ski trails for woodland bats. 3. If tree-clearing for the Proposed Action occurs during the June 1 July 15 period, some trees may potentially contain non-flying juveniles, creating a small possibility for direct effects to a limited number of individuals. However, if the tree clearing takes place outside of this period, there would be no direct effects as a result of the Proposed Action. 4. There are no documented overwinter hibernacula (caves, mines, or tunnels) and no old buildings exposed to sun as roost sites (USFS 2005, Appendix G, pages ) within the Project Area. 3.7 Visuals The issues central to visual resources focus on concerns that the chairlift towers and trail clearing would affect the viewshed from nearby mountain vistas and that the overall visual effect of the Proposed Action would not fit the currently appealing visual character of Waterville Valley. Forest Service Management Direction The quality of the visual environment or scenery is an important component in the management of NFS lands. Basic direction for scenery management is outlined in FSM Forest Service policy calls for the National Forest to ensure that scenery is treated equally with other resources and that scenery management principles are applied routinely in all National Forest activities (FSM ). The Forest Service manages scenic quality for the lands it manages by assigning Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) developed under the process described in Agriculture Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. The Scenery Management System (SMS) provides guidelines by which the quality of the visual resource may be evaluated and then managed within the context of other resource management activities. The resulting SIOs developed under the Scenery Management System establish a desired level of scenic quality and define the degree of acceptable alteration of the landscape resulting from human activity. The WMNF has completed the process for establishing SIOs and established specific standards and guidelines for scenery management in the Forest Plan. The WMNF overall goal for scenery management states: The White Mountain National Forest will conduct all management activities to be consistent with assigned Scenic Integrity Objectives, realizing the importance to local communities and Forest users of a natural-appearing landscape, distinct from the human-made environments dominant in the East (Forest Plan, Page 1-16). The levels of Scenic Integrity are defined in the SMS Handbook and in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan Glossary, Page 28). SIOs for the WMNF are assigned based on Scenic Class and Management Area (MA) combinations. For some MAs a single SIO is assigned based on MA desired condition factors or overriding management direction established through legislative or other land management directives. For MA 7.1 Alpine Ski Areas, which includes the Green 49

56 Peak Expansion Project, the assigned SIO is Low (Forest Plan, p. 27). A Low SIO refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetation type changes or architectural styles from outside the landscape being viewed. For the adjacent landscape surrounding Waterville Valley s MA 7.1, the SIO is identified as High. For those surrounding areas, the natural appearing environment should remain dominate while development should remain subordinate in the view. Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to visual resources is shown in Figure The Green Peak Expansion Project lies within a well-defined location. On its longer axis the Project Area is bounded by the ridge running in a northeasterly direction from Green Peak on one side and by the existing ski area development on the other. However, the geographic scope for the scenic resources analysis encompasses a much larger area of influence to include all areas from which the proposed project is potentially visible. This includes viewpoints in the Waterville Valley area, including the Village, valley access roads, and a system of hiking trails on adjacent NFS lands. The slopes associated with Mt. Tecumseh and the adjacent peaks serve as a backdrop to views observed from Waterville Valley and National Forest trails and vista locations surrounding the valley. Existing Conditions Existing Visual Condition The Project lies on the northwest facing slope of the ridge running to the northeast of Green Peak and is densely forested with little noticeable development occurring. Spruce and fir dominate the higher elevations (above 2200 feet) that include Green Peak and the upper ridge. Spruce and fir become interspersed with deciduous northern hardwoods as elevation decreases. Northern hardwoods dominate at the lower elevations. While within the existing alpine ski area SUP for Waterville valley, the general character of the undeveloped Project Area is that of a natural appearing forested mountain slope with vegetation patterns similar to the other forested lands which surround the more highly developed portions of the SUP. Visually, the adjacent ski area development reflects a linear pattern of trails and chairlift lines lying on the eastern slope of Mt. Tecumseh and that, in their current layout or configuration, have been a part of the landscape since the mid-1960s. Currently there are 7 chairlifts and 5 surface lifts of varied length located at the ski area. Additional developments visually evident include the base lodge and other service buildings, parking lot area, entrance road, utility lines or right of ways, terminals and towers associated with the chairlifts, and communication tower located at the top of the mountain. The ski area sits by itself within the surrounding forested landscape away from the Village center as well as the residential and condominium development and other recreation facilities found in the valley. Visibility and Concern Levels Map, field review, and other research identified several locations from which portions of the existing Waterville Valley Ski Resort and the proposed Green Peak Expansion Project would be visible, (Figure 3.7-1). For all locations, concern level and distance zones are discussed. Concern levels are a measure of the degree of public importance placed on landscapes viewed from travel ways and use areas. They are identified under the Scenic Management System as level 1 (high), 2 (moderate) and 3 (low). Distance zones are defined as foreground (observer to ½ mile away), middleground (½ mile to 4 miles from the observer) and background (4 miles to infinity from the viewer). Locations having views toward the Project Area and identified for assessment are: 50

57 Viewpoint 1 Waterville Valley Ski Area (On-Site View) The primary viewpoint identified for on-site assessment is located in front of the ski area base lodge. This immediate foreground view provides a dominant view of the lower portion of the proposed Green Peak Expansion Area as well as the lower slopes of the existing ski area development. The existing view is dominated by the BBTS Competition building (which is to be removed) and other service buildings, lower chairlift terminals, chairlifts, and ski trails. The overall visibility of the Project Area is limited in other locations of the existing ski area development. Views from the entrance road are blocked by existing vegetation and the base lodge and other buildings located at the base. Views from the parking lot are also blocked due to the orientation of the parking bays and island vegetation. Some limited visibility may occur during the winter months when the vegetation is off the trees. Use at this site is primarily limited to the winter season. It is assumed that views of the existing trail network and other ski area facilities from this viewpoint at the base are consistent with the overall visual character of the site and expectation level of the visitors using the site. Viewpoint 2A and 2B Village Area Several locations can be found around the Village area having views toward Green Peak and the associated ridge running to the northeast. Two locations were selected within the Village area to represent the multiple view locations. Viewpoint 2A (Figure 3.7-2) is representative of views in the core area of the Village and that occur from points along the various roads, some of the residential and condominium areas, commercial center, and golf course. Viewpoint 2B (Figure 3.7-3) represents the northern part of the Village that is closest to the Green Peak ridge and provides some indication of what effects may occur from the trails and residential area found on the lower slopes of Snows Mountain. From points throughout the Village, Mt. Tecumseh is a dominant focal point observed in the middleground distance zone. Green Peak and the southwest face of the ridge are also dominant as near middleground land features. The upper slopes of the existing ski area development can be viewed but the lower ski area runs are blocked from view by the Green Peak ridge. Viewpoint Concern Levels within the Village are assessed with respect to the tourism and the four-season recreation use associated with the area. Other than the higher elevation ski runs that are visible, the remaining mountain slopes are heavily vegetated with no other development visible. Views from within the Village frequently include foreground building structures or other development as illustrated in Viewpoints 2A and 2B. Viewpoint 3 The Scaur The Scaur is a popular ledge overlook site with views to the southwest toward Mount Tecumseh and the existing ski area/expansion slope around to the northeast toward several major mountain peaks found in the White Mountains (Figure 3.7-4). These include the peaks of Mt. Tripyramid. It is at an elevation of approximately 2200 feet and provides an extensive view of a natural appearing forested landscape. Other than the ski area development that is dominant in the view, little if any other development is readily noticeable. Visible elements of the existing ski area include clearings for ski trails and chairlifts and evidence of building structures at the base. The chairlift towers are not highly visible. Some textural change in the vegetation associated with past timber sale activity can be observed in the view. The Scaur is inventoried as a Concern Level 2 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 2.3 miles. 51

58 Figure Green Peak Expansion Project Viewpoint Location Map. 52

59 Figure Viewpoint 2A Village Area. 53

60 Figure Viewpoint 2B Village Area. 54

61 Figure Viewpoint 3 The Scaur. 55

62 Viewpoint 4 Goodrich Rock Goodrich Rock is notable as a geologic feature and is one of the largest glacial erratics in New Hampshire. Access to the top of the rock can be ascended by a steep ladder. From the top of the rock, views over the tree tops look south / southwest toward the existing ski area development and Project slope (Figure 3.7-5). The view toward the Project slope is similar to that from the Scaur and is at approximately the same elevation. Because it faces more to the south it provides a slightly better view of the face of the Project slope. Goodrich Rock is inventoried as a Concern Level 2 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 2.2 miles. Viewpoint 5 Mt. Osceola Mt. Osceola is one of the 4000 peaks (Elevation 4340 ) located in the WMNF and is a popular hiking destination. It can be readily accessed from the valley floor and is reached by the Mt. Osceola Trail that runs from the Tripoli Road to the Greeley Pond Trail. The peak can be reached from either end of the trail. While various views in different directions exist along the trail, Mt. Osceola peak provides the most expansive views, including to the south toward the Village area, the existing ski area, and the Project slope (Figure 3.7-6). While the vista from Mt. Osceola is extensive and encompasses natural appearing views of the surrounding landscape, it also includes more visible development compared to the other middle and background viewpoints identified. Openings related to many of the Waterville Valley Ski Resort trails and chairlifts as well as the parking area can be observed. There is also evidence of base building structures. In addition, openings and development within the Village area can be observed along with evidence of the valley access roads. Mt. Osceola is inventoried as a Concern Level 1 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 3.0 miles. Viewpoint 6 Mt. Tripyramid Mt. Tripyramid, also a 4,000 peak and located in the Sandwich Range Wilderness Area, has extensive views. Access is a more difficult due to the length of trails and grades to ascend the mountain. Mt. Tripyramid incorporates three peaks with Middle Tripyramid (Elevation 4140 ) providing extensive views to the northwest around to the southeast (Figure 3.7-7). The existing Waterville Valley Ski Resort is readily visible to the west and is the only notable development visible in an otherwise natural appearing landscape. Visible elements of the existing ski area are primarily clearings for ski trails and chairlifts. Other structures or ski area facilities are not readily discernable at this distance. Most of the area proposed for expansion is located on the northwest slope of the Green Peak ridge which faces away from the viewer at this view location. Mt. Tripyramid is inventoried as a Concern Level 1 feature and the viewing distance to the mid-point of the Green Peak ridge is approximately 4.5 miles, a background view. 56

63 Figure Viewpoint 4 Goodrich Rock. 57

64 Figure Viewpoint 5 - Mt. Osceola. 58

65 Figure Viewpoint 6 Mt. Tripyramid. 59