Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service June 2011 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest Eagle County, Colorado Township 5S, Range 80W, Sections 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, Township 5S, Range 81W, Sections 9, 16 Deciding Official: Scott Fitzwilliams White River Forest Supervisor For Information Contact: Peech Keller 680 Blue River Parkway P.O. Box 620 Silverthorne, Colorado 80498 (970) 262-3495 cpkeller@fs.fed.us

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (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) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

Introduction and Background This notice documents my decision to implement the Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project and my rationale for this decision. It also documents my finding that this project will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) has analyzed implementation of a variety of vegetation treatments on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary of Vail Ski Resort. These treatments, which include hazard tree, salvage and regeneration treatments are designed to minimize risk for users and infrastructure, and to expedite forest regeneration following the ongoing Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) epidemic. A site-specific environmental analysis under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act has been completed and is documented in the Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment (Vail EA). The Vail EA is available for review at the Holy Cross Ranger District Office located in Minturn, Colorado and is also available at www.fs.usda.gov/whiteriver (navigate to Land & Resources Management then Projects ). The forest health vegetation treatments were developed in collaboration with Vail Resorts to address an increase in tree mortality as a result of the MPB. Areas within Eagle County (as well as other counties in Colorado and large areas of several western states) are experiencing heavy mortality in lodgepole pine forests due to an epidemic population of native MPB. The large numbers of dead and dying trees pose several concerns for forest managers, stakeholders, and the general public. These concerns include, among others: risks to public safety and infrastructure from falling trees, impacts to the experiences of visitors to one of the most popular and high profile outdoor recreational destinations in the country, and how this volume of dead timber could affect the regenerating forest and the many values placed on these landscapes. These concerns become greater where extensive human activity and developments are present or in close proximity as is the case with the Vail Ski Area. Purpose of and Need for Action The need for action is driven by the extent of dead and dying trees resulting from the MPB epidemic, specifically: The risk posed to visitors and employees by the potential for dead and dying trees to fall in areas that are regularly occupied. These risks affect year-round activities such as skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, and sightseeing. The risk to infrastructure from falling trees, and the accumulation of dead, combustible material in close proximity to ski area facilities. The concern that the sheer volume of dead and dying trees has the potential to affect the quality of the visitor experience. The loss of forest cover that provides the desired forest setting and supports management of the ski area. The purpose of the proposed action is to: Reduce risks to the public and employees from falling trees. Protect the physical assets of the ski area, including buildings, chairlifts, signs, and trails. 3

Enhance growth of new and existing forested areas to manage the flow of skier traffic through separation of ski trails, to provide for wind protection and snow retention and to maintain the visual setting in the long term. Project Location The Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project will occur within the SUP boundary for Vail Ski Resort on the WRNF, Holy Cross Ranger District, Eagle County, Colorado. See Figure 1-1, Proposed Forest Health Vegetation Treatment Vail Ski Area. Decision Of the two alternatives considered in detail, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 as described in the EA (pp. 9-20 and Appendix A, treatment unit silvicultural prescriptions). Alternatives Considered The proposed action was formulated by incorporating recommendations from the ski resort, and other agencies and organizations during the collaboration period. Additional issues relating to the proposed action raised during the public involvement period were documented and addressed in the analysis. The interdisciplinary team (ID Team) considered the affected area and estimated the environmental consequences for both the no-action and proposed action alternatives. These alternatives are summarized below. Alternative 1: No Action Maintenance of roads, trails, and ski area infrastructure would continue. With Forest Service approval and on an annual basis, hazard trees identified within the SUP boundary that pose a risk to the public or ski area would continue to be felled to reduce the immediate hazard to skiers and infrastructure. With Forest Service approval, high value trees within the SUP boundary may continue to be sprayed to a limited degree to prevent MPB infestation. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 2

Figure 1-1 - Proposed Forest Health Vegetation Treatment Vail Ski Area Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 3

Alternative 2: Proposed Action The Proposed Action was designed around the concept of adaptive management. This concept recognizes that many dynamic influences shape the natural world and that in certain circumstances the degree of change on a landscape may be more or less rapid than originally anticipated. An analysis method that allows management to adapt to specific conditions at the time of implementation allows the greatest assurance that the purpose of and need for action is most thoroughly met. To accomplish this, adaptive management alternatives typically analyze a range of possible actions within a single alternative to assure that effects are accurately described for whatever implementation method is eventually selected. For a project that will be implemented over a 10-year period in forests that are rapidly changing due to an epidemic outbreak of insects, adaptive management offers the greatest assurance that eventual treatment best meets both the purpose and the need to take any action at all. For this project forested stands were broken into four types, and possible silvicultural prescriptions were described as five different options (Table 2-1). The Proposed Action was developed after projecting that the MPB epidemic would progress to its anticipated conclusion of approximately 80 percent average mortality of the mature lodgepole pine within any given stand (recognizing that this could vary with some stands experiencing minimal mortality and other stands losing close to 100 percent of the mature trees). Therefore, the proposed action anticipates that a regeneration harvest could be the most appropriate silvicultural treatment for stands having a large lodgepole pine component. However, the actual treatment selected at the time of implementation will depend on the actual degree of pine mortality and the management objectives of the stand at the time of implementation, in which case another silvicultural treatment option could be selected. Actions described in Alternative 1 would also continue where The ID Team responsible for designing and analyzing this project reviewed the range of treatment options that could be applied to each stand being analyzed, from the least intensive prescription to the most intensive. Having this range of prescription options in hand while conducting their analyses, the members of the ID Team considered what is proposed for each stand and which prescription would cause the greatest environmental effect if implemented. By analyzing the effects of a regeneration harvest and assuming high tree mortality due to MPB attack, the ID Team considered the proposed treatment that would have the greatest environmental effect, while still meeting Forest Plan planning direction. If these treatment options would not cause an unacceptable effect on the human environment, it follows that any less intensive treatment, such as thinning or salvage, would also not cause an unacceptable effect on the human environment. Thus the analysis in the EA discloses the maximum effects one could expect if 984 acres were treated with the most intensive treatment within 10 years. In actuality, the ski area would likely treat no more than an average of 50 acres in any one year (over a 10 year span) due to funding and other constraints, and that less intensive treatments will be selected for certain stands due to conditions at the time of implementation. The following is a summary of the proposed activities. A more detailed description of the proposed action and its design features can be found in the EA, pages 9-20. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 4

Table 1- Acreage of Silvicultural Treatment Options per Stand Type within the Proposed Project Area Stand Types (and Total Acres within the Proposed Project Area) Silvicultural Treatment Options Option 1: Insecticide or Pheromone Application and Treating Infested Trees (Preventive Action) Option 2: Hazard Tree Removal (Partial Cut) Option 3: Clearcut Option 4: Small Clearcuts within a Thinning (Partial Cut) Option 5: Partial Cut (Remove all lodgepole pine) Stand 1: Lodgepole Pine with light mortality 23 acres (2%) None Stand 2: Lodgepole Pine with heavy mortality 211 acres (21%) 19 acres (2%) Stand 3: Lodgepole Pine (70 to 90%) mixed with other species 153 acres (15%) 278 acres (28%) None None None Stand 4: Lodgepole Pine (50 to 70%) mixed with other species 52 acres (5%) 156 acres (15%) 92 acres (9%) Implementation Methods Mechanical Treatment Mechanical felling will consist of using ground-based machinery to cut trees and remove them from the stand. In most cases this method is preferable to hand treatment as the trunks (boles) of the trees would be removed from the cutting units thereby opening up the ground surface to sunlight. This in combination with soil scarification caused by the ground-based machinery would create more favorable conditions for natural regeneration. Mechanical treatments are designed to follow forest stand boundaries where possible, with the intent of maintaining scenic integrity by following natural vegetation edges. Mechanical equipment will not be used on slopes greater than 40% except as described below. Mechanical equipment may also be used over the snow. Hand Treatment with Limited Mechanical Treatment In areas with slopes greater than 40% or wetland areas or where access by mechanical means is not possible, other methods may be used such as hand felling, over-the-snow skidding, helicopter yarding, cable yarding, or burning on-site. Hand felling will consist of using chainsaw crews to fell trees. In most areas, trees will be felled so that the boles of the tree lie directly on the surface of the ground to enhance decomposition. Limbs and some tree boles could be piled and burned or chipped to reduce flashy fuel accumulations. In some cases, trees may be winched out of the stand, cable yarded or helicopter yarded. In these units, a small amount of ground-based machinery may be used to treat vegetation if a site visit indicates that doing so would not be contradictory to the project design features. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 5

Transportation (Roads and Trails) No new roads will be constructed. Existing roads within the ski area will provide access to cut and remove timber and provide general access. Design Features Alternative 2 was developed with site-specific directions for implementation, called design features, to lessen or avoid effects associated with implementation. The list of the design features developed for this proposal is included in the description of Alternative 2 in the EA. An implementation guide will be developed from these design features to give managers tasked with accomplishing the project site-specific direction to ensure that implementation is consistent with the analysis supporting my decision. Rationale for Decision My decision is based on close and careful examination of the information in the EA and the project file, direct consultation with resource specialists, personal field review of areas proposed for treatment, and previous experience with similar activities. I have carefully weighed the environmental and social effects of the action against the purpose of and need for action, and fully considered issues identified through the planning process and public comments received during the public involvement period. I find that 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 extensive review has ensured that my decision to implement Alternative 2 complies with all applicable laws and regulations, is consistent with the Forest Plan for the White River National Forest, and best meets the purpose of and need for action. Specific reasons for my decision include: 1. The project proposal is consistent with management direction in the Forest Plan as required by 36 CFR 219.10 (e). Specifically, the project conforms to the White River Forest Plan s Goals and Objectives and direction for Management Area 8.25. Forest Plan consistency is provided at the end of each resource section in Chapter 3 of the Vail EA as well as in the individual specialist reports in the project file. 2. I find that Alternative 2 best meets the stated purpose and need for action in these areas because: Removal of dead standing timber and residual live timber that could be affected by windthrow or future beetle infestation will help mitigate the public safety hazard posed by natural, uncontrolled falling of trees. This extraordinary public safety concern is most profound along the various ski trails within the ski area, but exists everywhere across the landscape where people may travel or linger. It will hasten growth of the future forest by creating conditions favorable for natural regeneration and successful planting. Evidence in the EA and the project record, scientific literature, and abundant field evidence leads me to conclude that the proposed harvest activities are entirely appropriate to meet this purpose. 3. Consideration of the 11 issues identified by the Interdisciplinary Team through public involvement and analysis was central to my decision. I find that the analysis in Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record fully discloses how implementation of Alternative 2 will affect resource and social conditions in the context of each issue. I carefully considered these effects Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 6

and have determined that Alternative 2 with its associated activities and design features adequately addresses each of the issues and that formulation of other alternatives is not required. 4. The Selected Alternative will have no significant adverse effect on soils, hydrologic function, wildlife and their habitat, fisheries, vegetation diversity, scenic integrity, recreation, heritage resources, or socioeconomic issues as documented in the EA and the Biological Assessment (BA). 5. The Selected Alternative addressed issues brought up during scoping and responds to concerns raised by the public. 6. The project as developed allows Forest Service and ski area managers to have the flexibility to choose a less intensive silvicultural treatment than the one presented in this decision for each stand. In this way managers can adapt the actual treatment to the conditions on the ground at the time of implementation, and not be locked into a treatment that may not be 7. There is community and county support for the Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project (project record). I did not choose Alternative 1 (No Action) because it will not meet the objectives of forest regeneration and hazard tree treatments outlined in the EA. Ultimately, a critical factor in my decision is the recognition that large numbers of dead and dying trees trees meeting the Forest Service definition of a hazard are likely to fall at some point in the future whether we take direct action or not. We cannot state with 100% assurance when a tree will fall or in what direction unless we take direct action; and that leads to a great degree of uncertainty and risk when these conditions occur where people congregate, linger, or travel in large numbers as they do at Vail. Letting these conditions evolve naturally could result in large swaths of blown-down timber, or individual trees falling one at a time or in small groups, or perhaps not falling for years until some new factor plays a role. This action simply allows us to control the time and the direction these trees come to the ground rather than leave that entirely to the whims and influences of nature with potentially serious consequences for human life and property. Public Involvement In December, 2009, the Forest Service initiated collaborative efforts to begin developing this proposal. Members of the public as well as local officials were invited to a work group session on December 7, 2009 to discuss forest health issues and provide input in designing forest health treatments for the ski area. The Forest Service provided the proposal to the general public, interested stakeholders and other agencies for comment during the public involvement or scoping period beginning April 12, 2010. Scoping letters describing the proposed action were mailed to interested or possibly affected persons, organizations, government agencies, Indian Tribes, and news media. A news release announcing the opportunity to comment on the Vail project appeared in the Vail Daily on April 13, 2010. A public open-house informational meeting was held on April 22, 2010. Public comments for the Vail project were requested to be submitted by May 3, 2010. Five comment letters were received during the scoping comment period. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 7

At the time of scoping, the analysis was expected to follow the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) guidelines. Upon further consideration it was determined that it would follow conventional procedures for notice, comment, and appeal. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Findings Based on my review of the Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project, I have determined that the activities included in the Selected Alternative will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. This finding is based on the context and intensity of the actions (40 C.F.R. 1508.27) as explained below and in Chapter 3 of the Vail EA. Context The significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts and varies with the setting. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends on the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant (40 CFR 1508.27). This decision and the Vail EA incorporate by reference the Forest Plan Record of Decision and are tiered to the Forest Plan FEIS which analyzed and disclosed effects of potential Forest management at a larger scale. The activities planned in the Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project are similar to others completed on the White River National Forest and are within the range of effects anticipated in the Forest Plan FEIS. The environmental effects of this project are analyzed at varying scales (e.g. the project area or the watershed) as described for each resource in Chapter 3 of the Vail EA and in the project record. I have reviewed the cumulative effects of past management combined with this project and reasonably foreseeable future actions as they are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and feel that the context of this decision is limited to the land in and adjacent to the project area. The analysis in Chapter 3 indicates that project design and application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best management practices will minimize negative impacts to all resources. Given the finite time period and localized nature of impacts described in the EA, the project will have no measurable effects at the regional or national levels and therefore consideration of significance will focus on the local setting. Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from Chapter 3 of the Vail EA and the project record. I have determined that the ID Team considered the effects of this project appropriately and thoroughly with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. They took a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and their knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from numerous field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27b. 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 8

As described in Chapter 3 of the Vail EA and project record, there are likely to be both beneficial and adverse effects to certain resources from taking the actions proposed in the Selected Alternative. In reaching my finding of no significant impact, I did not ignore or trivialize negative effects by offsetting" them with beneficial effects. The EA demonstrates that, due to careful project design that incorporates protective measures (Forest Plan standards and guidelines, water conservation practices, and site-specific design features), the possible negative effects are relatively minor and of short duration, and are not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively significant. Additionally, I find that the beneficial effects associated with meeting the purpose and need actually maintain a condition that is expected as the norm at a major destination resort such as Vail. Consequently I find that the beneficial effects do not meet a threshold for significance either. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health and safety. As discussed throughout the EA there should be no significant adverse effects to public health and safety from the project. Effects of the proposed action from removal of hazard trees constitutes a benefit to public safety within the limited area of the project. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, research natural areas, or wild and scenic rivers in or near the project area, and therefore none would be affected by this project. The interdisciplinary team spent many days in the project area and identified areas and special features to be protected. Ecologically critical areas have been avoided in the design of treatment units. The cultural resources on or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and found within the project area have been or will be documented and will be flagged and avoided during operations. Activities do not enter into designated wilderness areas. As a result, the EA clearly demonstrates there will be no significant effects to any of these resources (Vail EA Chapter 3). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act, controversy refers to a substantial dispute in the scientific community regarding the effects of an action, not social opposition. Our contacts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and State Historic Preservation Office did not identify any scientific controversy regarding the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of this project. The interdisciplinary team for this project considered extensive scientific research (see project record), to determine its applicability to the project and found no controversy related to the predicted effects. Based on these factors, and the analysis provided in the EA and project record, I have concluded that the effects of the Selected Alternative on the quality of the human environment are not controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 9

The White River National Forest has considerable on-the-ground experience with the types of activities to be implemented in this project. The range of site characteristics is similar to those taken into consideration and disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS, Chapter 3, and the effects of this project are within the range anticipated in that FEIS and the Forest Plan Record of Decision. The effects analysis (Vail EA Chapter 3, project record) demonstrates that the effects of these activities are not uncertain or significant and do not involve unique or unknown risks. The body of knowledge gained through years of projectlevel and programmatic monitoring, stand examinations, wildlife surveys, and applied research provides a basis for the effects analysis in the Vail EA and supports my determination that there will be no highly uncertain effects or unique or unknown risks associated with this project. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This is not a precedent-setting decision. Similar actions have occurred for decades in the local area and across the Forest and the Region. The effects of implementing the Selected Alternative were disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record, and are within the range of effects of these similar actions. They also are within the range of effects disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS, which analyzed the effects of the types of activities that will be implemented under the Selected Alternative at a larger scale. While other, similar actions are currently under analysis for other ski areas on the White River National Forest, they are each stand-alone and site-specific, with proposed actions and alternatives developed to meet local conditions. The implementation of the Selected Alternative does not make a commitment to do anything in other areas on the White River National Forest or any other national forest. It will not set a regional or national precedent. For these reasons, I have determined this action does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Chapter 3 of the Vail EA and the individual resource reports in the project record disclose the combined effects of this project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. None of the actions included in Selected Alternative would create significant impacts alone or when considered with other actions. The ID Team carefully considered cumulative effects analysis areas and timeframes, including private lands where it made sense for the resource, that would most thoroughly examine and predict effects. Based on the analysis in the EA and incorporating by reference the range of effects predicted in the Forest Plan FEIS, I have determined that implementing the Selected Alternative will not result in significant cumulative effects. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. For the reasons explained in Chapter 3 of the EA (pp. 90-91), and as long as the stipulations in the Programmatic Agreement 1 (p.92) are followed, this project will not adversely affect the cultural 1 Programmatic Agreement Among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office, and the USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, White River National Forest, Pike and San Isabel National Forests, Regarding the Implementation of Spruce Bark Beetle and Mountain Pine Beetle Management, Hazardous Fuel Reduction, and Hazard Reduction Programs Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 10

resources. As mentioned above the cultural resources on or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and found within the project area have been or will be documented and will be flagged and avoided during operations. I find that this decision will not adversely affect any cultural or historical resources. No other significant scientific resources have been identified in the project area. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect all endangered or threatened species or its habitat that have been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The proposed action will result in a "May Affect But Not Likely To Adversely Affect" determination for the Canada lynx, a species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was initiated by the Forest Service on May 17, 2011 for this project. On June 17, 2011, the USFWS issued a letter of concurrence for this project. The USFWS concurred with the determination of "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" for the Canada lynx. The proposed action will not have an adverse affect on the Canada lynx and complies with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed action will have no affect on other Threatened or Endangered Species. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. As described in the EA and in the project record, Alternative 2 fully complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Forest Management Act. It is consistent with the Forest Plan for the White River National Forest and complies with Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). All applicable laws for the protection of the environment are incorporated into the standards and guidelines in the White River National Forest Plan. The Selected Alternative complies with the Forest Plan, as described above in the Rationale for the Decision, and in the Vail EA. I find that none of the actions in this decision threaten to violate applicable Federal, State, or local laws or other requirements to protect the environment. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. Only individuals or organizations that submitted substantive comments during the comment period specified at 36 CFR 215.6 may appeal this decision. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR 215.14 and sent by mail to USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region/ ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 740 Simms, Golden, CO 80401 or by e-mail in Microsoft Word format to appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Appeals may also be hand delivered to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office during normal business hours, 8a.m.-4:30p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). It must be submitted within 45 days after the date of the notice of this decision is published in the Glenwood Post Independent newspaper. Implementation If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 11

implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15 th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. Contact Person For further information regarding this decision, contact Peech Keller at the Dillon Ranger District, P.O. Box 620, Silverthorne, Colorado 80498; phone (970) 262-3495 or the Eagle/Holy Cross District Ranger, Dave Neely at P.O. Box 190, Minturn, Colorado, 81645; phone 970-827-5150. Scott Fitzwilliams Forest Supervisor Responsible Official Date Vail Ski Area Forest Health Project Decision Notice and FONSI 12