Green Mountain National Forest

Transcription

1 Green Mountain National Forest Sugarbush Stein s Run Trail Widening Project United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Eastern Region Town of Warren Washington County, Vt Decision Memo Prepared by: Eastern Region Winter Sports Team June, 2011 For Information Contact: Tom Paquette Special Use Permit Administrator Green Mountain National Forest 99 Ranger Road, Rochester, VT (802) x 521 FAX (802) tpaquette@fs.fed.us Responsible Official: Susan Mathison Eastern Region Winter Sports Team Leader 71 White Mountain Drive, Campton, New Hampshire (603) FAX (603) smathison@fs.fed.us

2 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. This document can be made available in large print. Contact Tom Paquette at (802) or tpaquette@fs.fed.us

3 Table of Contents 1 Summary Decision To Be Implemented Background and Project Area Purpose and Need Description of Decision Rationale for Categorically Excluding the Decision Category of Exclusion Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances Public Involvement Findings Required By and/or Related to Other Laws and Regulations Project Mitigation Measures Administrative Review or Appeal Implementation Date and Contact

4 1 Summary After careful consideration of public input, the recommendations of appropriate resource specialists, and the requirements of applicable laws and regulations, I have decided, as Team Leader of the Eastern Region Winter Sports Team, to authorize Sugarbush Resort to implement the Stein s Run Trail Widening Project. Activities authorized as part of this decision include the removal of trees in a 0.2 acre area at the top of the Stein s Run ski trail and the drilling of a hole in ledge to locate a groomer winch point. The trail widening will allow safer approach to the trail for grooming operations. The project is located on National Forest System land in the Town of Warren, Washington County, Vermont on the Rochester Ranger District of the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) (see attached map). 2 Decision to be Implemented 2.1 Background and Project Area Sugarbush has been operated and managed as a commercial ski resort since The area is currently authorized under a Special Use Permit issued to Summit Ventures NE, LLC. The resort consists of two mountains with ski facilities: Mount Ellen and Lincoln Peak. The ski resort s summit is 4,083 feet with a 2,600 vertical drop; the ski resort has 111 ski trails consisting of approximately 53 miles, and many gladed areas. The mountain operates 16 ski lifts. Over 70% of the mountain has snowmaking capabilities and average snowfall exceeds 250. On the average, Sugarbush is visited by over 250,000 guests annually, primarily in the winter months. About 50% of the total skiing acreage is located on National Forest System lands. Stein s Run trail is a 2,248 foot long trail with a 977 vertical foot drop and a 48% to 59% grade. The trail averages 129 in width and is rated as an expert trail. The trail is allowed to bump up and is only occasionally groomed. The current entrance to Stein s is less than 60 wide on the skier s far left side of the trail and is accessed from the Reverse Traverse trail after making a sharp turn off of Valley House Traverse trail. This intersection area, along with the Valley House lift unload area and The Mall trail entrance, has been identified as a complex high traffic merge area of skiers with all ability levels. Currently, in order to groom Stein s, the operator must free-groom (not anchored) the top section in order to get in position on the skier s right side of the trail. The operator then must leave the groomer on the steep section of trail to hook the winch cable to a tree. After 4

5 grooming is completed, the operator then gets out again to unhook the winch cable, and exits the trail at the narrow entrance at the top. Sugarbush Resort has submitted a request for authorization to create and maintain a new direct approach to the trail that would allow the groomer operator to attach the winch cable to a anchor in a safer location, and to directly access the trail for grooming operations. The project is located within the Sugarbush Resort Special Use Permit Area, Town of Warren, Washington County, Vermont on the Rochester Ranger District. The project area is located within an area designated as Alpine Ski Areas, Management Area (MA) 7.1, in the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 2.2 Purpose and Need The Green Mountain National Forest administers the Sugarbush Special Use Permit in order to maintain the range of recreation opportunities for alpine skiing, snowboarding, and year-round outdoor based recreation activities, managed by the permit holder. This is a major emphasis of the Alpine Ski Areas MA as provided in the Forest Plan (p. 63). Management and operating practices are designed to enhance permitted recreation activities at the area while protecting the natural resources and visual characteristics (Forest Plan, p. 63). The purpose of and need for the project is to create a safer entrance to Stein s Run for both skiers and for grooming operations by creating a direct trail access from its intersection with Reverse Traverse and Valley House Traverse trails. The new access would allow skiers to enter Stein s Run directly from Valley House Traverse without an additional turn in the complicated trail merge area, and without additional mixing with beginner skiers using Reverse Traverse trail. By creating this second direct access to Stein s Run, the trail could be groomed more frequently if the Resort desires, by providing a safer approach for the groomer. The winch cable would be hooked up directly above the entrance to a point anchored into the bedrock. The operator would not have to leave the groomer on the steep trail in order to hook the winch cable around the tree. The entire trail would be groomed from this one anchor point. 5

6 2.3 Description of Decision My decision is to authorize Sugarbush Resort to create a new direct entrance to Stein s Run trail. The new entrance will be created by removing all the trees and vegetation in a 0.2 acre area beginning at the intersection with Valley House Traverse ski trail. The opening will be about 60 wide at the top, 200 in length on skier s right side, and 170 in length on the left side blending in with the existing trail. An island of trees will remain at the top between the new and existing entrances to Stein s Run. All trees will be flush cut and then dispersed in the adjacent woods, or chipped and blown into the woods. Any large rocks in this new opening will be moved off the new trail by an excavator, if necessary. A steel winch anchor point will be created above Valley Traverse Trail by drilling a hole in ledge and placing a post in concrete in the hole. The existing trail sign and snowmaking hydrant will be relocated. No further earth disturbance is anticipated. The project area is at about 2850 in elevation and is located below the mapped Bicknell s thrush habitat area. The project is expected to be completed by September 15, It is my determination that based on the project analysis and including the specified mitigation measures, the project complies with the Green Mountain National Forest management plan (Forest Plan) and meets the permit holder s purpose to expand the range of recreation opportunities provided at the Ski Area. This decision contributes to accomplishment of the Forest Plan Major Emphasis for MA 7.1 to provide alpine winter sports opportunities and year-round recreation opportunities at the alpine ski areas managed by the private sector under Special Use Authority (Forest Plan, p. 63). This decision contributes to accomplishment of the Forest Plan Desired Future Condition for MA 7.1 including: Management and operating practices will be aimed at enhancing permitted recreation activities of the area while protecting the natural resources and visual characteristics. (Forest Plan, p. 63). This decision complies with Forest-wide and MA 7.1 Standards and Guidelines (Forest Plan, p. 19 through p. 44 and p. 63 through p. 65). 6

7 Non-native Invasive Species In keeping with Forest Plan standards and guidelines (S-1 and S-2, page 33), and in accordance with the Biological Evaluation for Non-native Invasive Species for this project, to prevent the spread of wild chervil onto these new trails, the following project design criteria are needed: Wild chervil infestations at Sugarbush have been mapped, so it is clear which trails are infested and which trails are not. Mow wild chervil prior to seed set, including using a weed-whacker in places the mower won t reach AND monitor the cut-back material to make sure neither the cut stems lying on the ground nor the remaining cut plants go to seed. These steps should be repeated annually until wild chervil is no longer present in these locations. To prevent introduction of new NNIS or spread of existing NNIS, the following project design criteria are needed: 1. Any equipment brought in to implement the project should be cleaned of all mud, seeds, or other debris prior to accessing each construction site 2. Mud and plant debris should be removed from equipment after the work is completed and before the equipment leaves one site to go to the next site 3. If re-vegetation is needed, a native seed mix and weed-free hay should be used; the Forest botanist can help choose a suitable mix This decision is based on my review of the project record, including input from appropriate resource specialists. The record shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. My decision is also based on my past experiences with permit administration of this and similar activities on the Green Mountain National Forest. 3 Rationale for Categorically Excluding the Decision Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment when they are within one of the categories found at 36 CFR 220.6(d) or (e), and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect. 7

8 3.1 Category of Exclusion Based upon the environmental analysis contained in the project planning record and on experience with similar activities on the GMNF, I have concluded that this decision can be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. I have determined that the selected action is a routine activity within the following category of exclusion found at 36 CFR 220.6(e)(1): Construction and reconstruction of trails. 3.2 Relationship to Extraordinary Circumstances Based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the project record, I have evaluated the resource conditions listed in 36 CFR 220.6(b)(1) and determined there are no extraordinary circumstances related to this project. As indicated in 36 CFR 220.6(b)(2), the mere presence of one or more of the listed resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these recourse conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist. I have considered the potential effects from the project associated with the resource conditions listed at 36CFR 220.6(b)(1) and conclude they are not significant. As a result, there are no extraordinary circumstances related to this action. My conclusion is based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the project planning record. A summary of the project s potential effects on each resource condition is as follows: Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. Threatened and Endangered species The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities not jeopardize the continued existence of any animal or plant species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species 8

9 designated critical habitat. As required by this Act, potential effects of this decision on listed species have been analyzed and documented in a Biological Evaluation (project record). The Forest Service Wildlife Biologist technician and Forest Botanist have determined that the likelihood for occurrence of any threatened and endangered (T&E) species in the project area is Low. The Green Mountain National Forest has historic occurrence records of three T&E species (eastern cougar, gray wolf, and Canada lynx), and current occurrence records for one specie (Indiana bat). The site is more than five miles from the nearest known Indiana bat hibernaculum and is at elevations of over 1600 ft. The project area does not include potential or critical habitat for T&E species. As detailed in the Biological Evaluation, this decision will have no effect on listed animal or plant species or designated critical habitats because no listed species or critical habitats have the potential to occur in the area that would be affected by this project. Sensitive species Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670 direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern. These species are listed as Regional Forester s Sensitive Species (RFSS). The Interdisciplinary Team has noted that the upper most section of the trail lies below the area known to be suitable for Bicknell s thrush nesting habitat. Forest Service biologists have reviewed the site and have determined that there will be no adverse effect to Bicknell s thrush habitat. This project will have no effect on any of the RFSS or their preferred habitats, and thus is not likely to lead to loss of viability or trend toward federal listing for any animal or plant on the RFSS list (Wildlife Biological Evaluation, June 10, 2011; Plant Biological Evaluation, June 10, 2011). Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds Executive Orders and direct federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts to floodplains or wetlands, which are defined in the executive orders. Based on map and site review, the project is not located within or directly adjacent to floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds (project record). Therefore, effects from this decision on floodplains and wetlands will be nonexistent. (Nancy Burt, Soils and Water Specialist, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). 9

10 Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas Wilderness Congressionally designated Wilderness is allocated to the Wilderness Management Area in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, p. 49). The Project is not within or directly adjacent to any Wilderness. This decision does not affect Wilderness. This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity and similar in nature, intensity and appearance as current activities, will not affect Wilderness Areas elsewhere on the Forest or the values for which they were designated (Donna Marks, Recreation Planner, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). National Recreation Areas The GMNF contains two National Recreation Area: the Moosalamoo NRA and the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks NRA. The project is not located within or near these areas as validated by the map and site-review. As a result, there will be no effects associated with the National Recreation Area resource expected from this project. (Donna Marks, Recreation Planner, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). Long National Recreation Trail (Long Trail) The Long Trail traverses the ridge top adjacent to the Special Use Permit boundary and affords viewpoints from nearby peaks. The proposed trail widening project is located about 1200 in elevation lower than the ridge. The project will not adversely affect visitors to the Long Trail or the values for which it was designated. There will be no effects to the Long Trail or its visitors (Donna Marks, Recreation Planner, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). Wild and Scenic Rivers Although the GMNF does not contain any Congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, there are many river segments that are eligible to be further considered for addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. These river segments and their associated corridors are within the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Management Area (Forest Plan, pp. 105 to 107). The project is not located within or near these eligible river segments. This has been validated by map and site-review. This decision will not affect the outstandingly remarkable values identified for any eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (Donna Marks, Recreation Planner, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). 10

11 Inventoried roadless area or potential wilderness area There are no inventoried roadless areas (2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule or 2006 Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas) in the project area. This decision will not affect inventoried roadless areas (Donna Marks, Recreation Planner, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). Existing and Candidate Research Natural Areas There are no Existing or Candidate Research Natural Areas (Forest Plan, pp. 90 to 93) within or directly adjacent to the project area. This decision, with impacts limited to the immediate area of activity, will not affect Existing or Candidate Research Natural Areas (Forest Ecologist, Diane Burbank, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). American Indian and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites; and archaeological sites, and historic properties or areas The Federal government has trust responsibilities to Tribes under a governmentto-government relationship to insure that the Tribes reserved rights are protected. Consultation with tribes helps insure that these trust responsibilities are met. There are no potentially affected tribes. No tribal concerns were identified for this project. This decision complies with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Melissa Reichert, acting for Forest Archaeologist, Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). Other Resources In addition to resource conditions that could lead to extraordinary circumstances, I also have considered the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to other resources such as soil/water, fisheries, visuals, recreation, and non-native invasive species. The project is not expected to result in any adverse effects associated with these resources, particularly because all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will be implemented (communication with Resource Specialists at Small Projects Day, March 22, 2011). 11

12 4 Public Involvement This project was listed in the quarterly Green Mountain National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning in April 2011, and will remain in the SOPA until the project is authorized for implementation, and posted on the GMNF Internet site. Additional scoping was done internally with Forest Service specialists at the Small Projects Day meeting on March 22, A scoping package was mailed out to 11 interested individuals and organizations. In response, one response was received which contained substantive comments regarding the project. The commenter was concerned about additional wind scour at the top of Stein s Run trail due to additional exposure and would require more snowmaking to keep the trail snow covered. Response to the comments: the prevailing wind at this site is westerly, the trail opening is northeast-southwest, and not expected to be impacted by wind scour. Also, trees will remain on both sides of the new clearing. The additional opening would add 0.2 acres to the snowmaking terrain. The capacity of the snowmaking system is not expected to be impacted by the addition of this small acreage. The commenter also thought the project would lead to additional skier traffic conflicts at the complicated intersection. In response, the new opening to Stein s Run at this intersection is expected to allow for skiers to more quickly get out of the main flow of traffic at the intersection, resulting in better skier traffic patterns. 5 Findings Required By and/or Related to Other Laws and Regulations My decision will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized some pertinent ones below. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. The entirety of documentation for this decision supports compliance with this Act. Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of longrange land and resource management plans, and that all site-specific project 12

13 activities be consistent with direction in the applicable Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Stein s Run Trail Widening project implements the 2006 GMNF Forest Plan, and its consideration is guided by direction for the Alpine Ski Area Management Area (Forest Plan, pp. 63 to 67). My decision is based on the best available science, including a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan including goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forestwide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines. Endangered Species Act See 3.2, Federally Listed Species, in this document. Clean Water Act The intent of the Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, specific project design criteria, and mitigation measures to ensure protection of soil and water resources. Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) See 3.2, Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds, in this document. Wilderness Act See 3.2, Congressionally Designated Areas National Trails System Act See 3.2, Congressionally Designated Areas National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act See 3.2, Native American Cultural Sites, and Archaeological / Historic Sites, in this document. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act See 3.2, Congressionally Designated Areas, this document. 13

14 Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 and Executive Order (Non-Native Invasive Species) The Federal Noxious Weed Act requires cooperation with State, local, and other federal agencies in the management and control of non-native invasive species (NNIS); Executive Order (EO) requires all pertinent federal agencies (subject to budgetary appropriations) to prevent the introduction of NNIS. This project s decision meets the intent of this law and EO by incorporating all pertinent Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to ensure the management and control of NNIS. See Standards and Guidelines discussion in section 2.3, page 7 of this document. Migratory Bird Treaty Act This decision is consistent with this Act, Executive Order 13186, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. The Biological Evaluation evaluates the likely effects to migratory birds of management concern that are known to nest and breed on the Green Mountain National Forest and finds there would be no adverse effects to any of these species. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) This order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this order. Public involvement occurred for this project, the results of which I have considered in this decision-making. Public involvement did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. This decision is not expected to adversely impact minority or low-income populations. 6 Project Mitigation Measures Implementation will occur within 36 months of this decision, Avoid cutting hemlock trees throughout the project area; Cut vegetation will remain on site; stems will be chipped, piled or scattered within the permit area, Prior to project implementation, the Permit Administrator will approve in writing the project s erosion control plan and associated construction dates, Woody stems will not be removed or burned; down woody debris will remain on site and will provide habitat for a variety of species, 14

15 Ground disturbance will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the trail construction, The introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants will be avoided with techniques discussed in section 2.3, p Administrative Review or Appeal This decision is not subject to an administrative review or appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 251 by those who hold or, in certain instances, those who apply for written authorizations to occupy and use National Forest System lands. An appeal for initial review may be filed by those who hold or, in certain instances, those who apply for written authorizations to occupy and use National Forest System lands. To appeal this decision under 36 CFR 251, a written Notice of Appeal, meeting the content requirements at 36 CFR , must be postmarked or received within 45 calendar days after the date of notice of this decision to applicants and holders of written authorization to occupy and use National Forest System land. However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal Holiday, the filing time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day. The Notice of Appeal must be sent to: USDA Forest Service, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, ATTN: Forest Supervisor, Colleen Madrid, 231 N. Main St. Rutland, VT (fax: ). The Notice of Appeal may alternatively be faxed to: USDA Forest Service, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests, Region 9, ATTN: Forest Supervisor, Colleen Madrid, (fax: ). A copy of the appeal must simultaneously be sent to the Eastern Region Winter Sports Team Leader, Susan Mathison, (fax: ). If an appeal is filed, I am willing to meet and discuss concerns. Additionally, if an appeal is filed, an oral presentation concerning the appeal (36 CFR ) and/or stay of implementation (36 CFR ) of the decision may be requested at any time prior to closing the appeal record. 15

16 8 Implementation Date and Contact Implementation of this decision may begin immediately. For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Tom Paquette at or by phone at ( , extension 521), or by FAX ( ). Additional information about this decision also can be found on the Green Mountain National Forest web page at: s/nepa_project.htm?project= /s/ Susan H. Mathison SUSAN H. MATHISON Date: June 22, 2011 Team Leader Eastern Region Winter Sports Team 16