UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST...

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST TRUCKEE RANGER DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES REPORT

Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project

April 27, 2018

Prepared by: _________________________________ Date: ________________ Carlos Alvarado, Wildlife Biologist, Ascent Environmental Reviewed by: _________________________________ Date: ________________ Tahoe National Forest Zone Biologist

i

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.a. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS Habitat ................... 1

1.b. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Bioregional Scale. ............................................................................................................ 2

MIS Habitat Status and Trend.......................................................................................... 2

MIS Population Status and Trend. ................................................................................... 3

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend. ................................................................. 4

2. Selection of Project-Level MIS ........................................................................................ 4

3. Bioregional Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis ..... 5

3.a. MIS Monitoring Requirements. ....................................................................................... 5

3.b. How MIS Monitoring Requirements Are Being Met. ...................................................... 6

4. Description of Proposed Project. ...................................................................................... 6

4a. Action Alternatives. .............................................................................................. 7

5. Effects of Proposed Project on the Habitat for the Selected Project-Level MIS. .......... 11

5.a. Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) ........................................... 11

Habitat/Species Relationship ......................................................................................... 11

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat ...................................... 11

Section 303(d) Listing Status ......................................................................................... 12

Barstool Lake ................................................................................................................. 12

Alpine Meadows Snowmaking Ponds ........................................................................... 12

Alternative 2................................................................................................................... 13

Alternative 3................................................................................................................... 17

Alternative 4................................................................................................................... 17

5.b. Riparian Habitat (Yellow Warbler) ................................................................................ 19

Habitat/Species Relationship. ........................................................................................ 19

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Riparian Habitat ........................................................ 19

Alternative 2................................................................................................................... 20

Alternative 3................................................................................................................... 22

Alternative 4................................................................................................................... 22

5.c. Freshwater Emergent Habitat (Pacific Tree (Chorus) Frog) .......................................... 24


ii

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Freshwater Emergent Wetland .................................. 24

Alternative 2................................................................................................................... 25

Alternative 3................................................................................................................... 26

Alternative 4................................................................................................................... 27

5.d. Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain Quail) ................................ 28


Project-Level Effects Analysis – Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat ....... 28

Alternative 2................................................................................................................... 29

Alternative 3................................................................................................................... 30

Alternative 4................................................................................................................... 31

5.e. Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy Woodpecker) ............................ 33


Project-Level Effects Analysis – Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component ......... 33

Alternative 2................................................................................................................... 34

Alternative 3................................................................................................................... 35

Alternative 4................................................................................................................... 35

References Cited ........................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola EIS/EIR

Resource Protection Measures

1

1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project on the habitat of the Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1990) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007a). This report documents the effects of the action alternatives on the habitat of selected project-level MIS. Detailed descriptions of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project alternatives are found in the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) (USDA Forest Service and Placer County 2018).

MIS are animal species identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the TNF LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS, as identified in the TNF LRMP as amended.

1.a. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS Habitat

Project-level effects on MIS habitat are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This involves examining the impacts of the proposed project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the habitat in the survey area.

These project-level impacts on habitat are then related to broader scale (bioregional) population and/or habitat trends. The appropriate approach for relating project-level impacts on broader scale trends depends on the type of monitoring identified for MIS in the LRMP as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment ROD. Hence, where the TNF LRMP as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment ROD identifies distribution population monitoring for an MIS, the project-level habitat effects analysis for that MIS is informed by available distribution population monitoring data, which are gathered at the bioregional scale. The bioregional scale monitoring identified in the TNF LRMP, as amended, for MIS analyzed for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project is summarized in Section 3 of this report.

Adequately analyzing project effects on MIS generally involves the following steps:

• Identifying which habitat and associated MIS would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project.

• Summarizing the bioregional-level monitoring identified in the LRMP, as amended, for this subset of MIS.

• Analyzing project-level effects on MIS habitat for this subset of MIS.

2

• Discussing bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of MIS.

• Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at the bioregional scale for this subset of MIS.

These steps are described in detail in the Pacific Southwest Region’s draft document MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination (May 25, 2006) (USDA Forest Service 2006a). This MIS Report documents application of the above steps to select project-level MIS and analyze project effects on MIS habitat for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project.

1.b. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Bioregional Scale.

The bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the TNF’s MIS is found in the SNF MIS Amendment ROD of 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is identified for all twelve of the terrestrial MIS. In addition, bioregional scale population monitoring, in the form of distribution population monitoring, is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, the bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat. The current bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the MIS is discussed in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

MIS Habitat Status and Trend. All habitat monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

Habitats are the vegetation types (e.g., early seral coniferous forest) or ecosystem components (e.g., snags in green forest) required by an MIS for breeding, cover, and/or feeding. MIS for the Sierra Nevada National Forests represent 10 major habitats and 2 ecosystem components (USDA Forest Service 2007a), as listed in Table 1. These habitats are defined using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2005). The CWHR System provides the most widely used habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (ibid). It is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the Sierra Nevada Forests. Habitat trend is the direction of change in the amount or quality of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). As of May 2017, the Region is awaiting updated mapping products to facilitate updated habitat status and trend analysis following the recent (2014-2017) drought-induced tree mortality in the Southern Sierra Nevada. Habitat status and trend information in this report is updated with hypotheses based on suspected mortality effects where applicable and will be updated and confirmed once the maps are complete.

3

Table 1. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project.

Habitat or Ecosystem Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the habitat or ecosystem component1

Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species

Scientific Name

Category for Project

Analysis 2 Riverine & Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) aquatic macroinvertebrates 3 Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types) (Tahoe National Forest only)

montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC)

fox sparrow Passerella iliaca

1

Sagebrush Sagebrush (SGB) greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

1

Oak-associated Hardwood & Hardwood/conifer (Tahoe National Forest only)

montane hardwood (MHW), montane hardwood-conifer (MHC)

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

1

Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley foothill riparian (VRI)

yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

3

Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM), freshwater emergent wetland (FEW)

Pacific tree (chorus) frog Pseudacris regilla

3

Early Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and 3, all canopy closures

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus

3

Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 4, all canopy closures

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus

3

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy closures S and P

Sooty (blue) grouse Dendragapus obscurus

1

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6.

California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

1

Pacific marten Martes caurina3

northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in green forest

hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

3

Snags in Burned Forest Medium and large snags in burned forest (stand-replacing fire)

black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

1

1 All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast height; Canopy Closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy closure); Tree size classes: 1 (Seedling) (<1 inch dbh); 2 (Sapling) (1 to 5.9 inches dbh); 3 (Pole) (6 to 10.9 inches dbh); 4 (Small tree) (11 to 23.9 inches dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree) (>24 inches dbh); 6 (Multi-layered Tree) [In PPN and SMC] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 2 Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project. Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. 3 Identified as American marten (Martes americana) in original MIS designation. Later classified as a separate species by Dawson and Cook (2012).

MIS Population Status and Trend. All population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The information is presented in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

4

Population monitoring strategies for MIS of the TNF are identified in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Population status is the current condition of the MIS related to the population monitoring data required in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD for that MIS. Population trend is the direction of change in that population measure over time.

There is a myriad of approaches for monitoring populations of MIS, from simply detecting presence to detailed tracking of population structure (USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E, page E-19). A distribution population monitoring approach is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment, except for the greater sage-grouse (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Distribution population monitoring consists of collecting presence data for the MIS across a number of sample locations over time. Presence data are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods, such as surveys (population surveys), bird point counts, tracking number of hunter kills, counts of species sign (such as deer pellets), and so forth. The specifics regarding how these presence data are assessed to track changes in distribution over time vary by species and the type of presence data collected, as described in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, condition and trend is determined by analyzing macroinvertebrate data using the predictive, multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to reference condition within perennial water bodies. This monitoring consists of collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates and measuring stream habitat features according to the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005). Evaluation of the condition of the biological community is based upon the “observed to expected” (O/E) ratio, which is a reflection of the number of species observed at a site versus the number expected to occur there in the absence of impairment. Sites with a low O/E scores have lost many species predicted to occur there, which is an indication that the site has a lower than expected richness of sensitive species and is therefore impaired.

2. Selection of Project-Level MIS MIS for the TNF are identified in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The habitats and ecosystem components and associated MIS analyzed for the project were selected from this list of MIS, as indicated in Table 1. In addition to identifying the habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), the CWHR type(s) defining each habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column), and the associated MIS (3rd column), Table 1 discloses whether or not the habitat of the MIS would potentially be affected by the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project (4th column).

Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types), sagebrush, oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer, late seral open canopy coniferous forest, late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat, as defined in this document, do not occur in the survey area and thus will not be analyzed further in this document.

5

Although late seral open canopy coniferous forest and late seral closed canopy coniferous forest occur adjacent to the survey area, project activities would occur outside of these habitat types. Furthermore, project activities would occur outside of existing protected activity centers, home range core areas and seasonal work restrictions would eliminate or minimize potential effects on these habitats or species.

As per Forest Service direction (Sierra Nevada Project-level MIS Report Template Outline and Key Points for its Use [dated 13 January 2011], which was provided by the TNF), black-backed woodpecker, and the ecosystem component of snags in burned forest, are only analyzed for fire salvage and fire restoration projects. Additionally, no stand-replacing burned forest and associated snag habitat for black-backed woodpecker are found within the survey area or vicinity.

The MIS whose habitat could be either directly or indirectly affected by the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project, identified as Category 3 in Table 1, are carried forward in this analysis, which will evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives on the habitat of these MIS. The MIS selected for project-level MIS analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project are: aquatic macroinvertebrates, yellow warbler, Pacific tree frog, mountain quail, and hairy woodpecker.

3. Bioregional Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis

3.a. MIS Monitoring Requirements. The SNF MIS Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007a) identifies bioregional scale habitat and/or population monitoring for the Management Indicator Species for ten National Forests, including the TNF. The habitat and/or population monitoring requirements for the TNF’s MIS are described in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and are summarized below for the MIS being analyzed for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project. The applicable habitat and/or population monitoring results are also described in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and are summarized in Section 5 below for the MIS being analyzed for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project.

Habitat monitoring at the bioregional scale is identified for all the habitats and ecosystem components, including the following analyzed for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project: shrubland, riparian, wet meadow, early seral coniferous forest, and snags in green forest.

For bioregional monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates, Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and habitat condition and trend are measured by collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates, and the resulting data are analyzed using the RIVPACS (Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to reference condition within perennial water bodies. In addition, stream habitat features are measured according to the SCI manual (Frasier et al. 2005).

6

Population monitoring at the bioregional scale for yellow warbler, Pacific tree frog, mountain quail, and hairy woodpecker involves monitoring for changes in distribution of these species. Distribution population monitoring consists of collecting presence data for the MIS across a number of sample locations over time (also see USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E).

3.b. How MIS Monitoring Requirements Are Being Met. Habitat and/or distribution population monitoring for all MIS is conducted at the Sierra Nevada scale. Refer to the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a) for details by habitat and MIS.

4. Description of Proposed Project. The Squaw Valley Ski Area (Squaw Valley) and the Alpine Meadows Ski Area (Alpine Meadows) are separate ski facilities north of Lake Tahoe, both owned and operated by Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, LLC (SVSH). One lift ticket (or season pass) provides access to both facilities. A shuttle bus currently provides roadway access between the ski areas throughout the day. This intra-resort access is often considered inconvenient, as it requires skiers/boarders to exit the mountain, walk with their equipment to the shuttle stop, wait up to 30 minutes for the shuttle, and travel approximately 15 minutes to the shuttle stop at the other ski area. There is very low shuttle ridership relative to the number of visitors to the two resorts. SVSH is proposing a gondola, operated in the winter time only, that provides direct access between Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows, and modifications to Alpine Meadow’s snow safety and avalanche hazard mitigation program involving installation of a Gazex system north-northwest of the Alpine Meadows base area. The project is being proposed to enhance the visitor experience at both Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows by providing more direct access to existing ski terrain and/or resort amenities via a gondola lift system.

A portion of the project would be within the TNF, in a part of Alpine Meadows that operates under the Forest Service Alpine Meadows Special Use Permit. Issuance of a special use permit amendment will require compliance with NEPA.

Four alternatives are being evaluated in the joint EIS/EIR being prepared to comply with NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act:

• Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative: Assumes continuation of existing conditions. No new development would occur on the project site and no Gazex exploders would be installed. The existing shuttle bus system would continue to operate.

• Alternative 2: Would include the proposed gondola, operated in the winter time only, that provides direct access between Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows, and modifications to Alpine Meadow’s snow safety and avalanche hazard mitigation program in proximity to the proposed gondola (i.e., the Gazex exploders).

• Alternative 3: Would modify the southern half of the proposed alignment by changing the southern bearing from the Alpine Meadows mid-station from south to south-east. In general, the southern portion of Alternative 3 is farther east than Alternative 2.

7

• Alternative 4: Would move the proposed gondola to a different, modified alignment to the east. Includes a modified location for the Squaw Valley base station, Squaw Valley mid-station, and Alpine Meadows mid-station. The entirety of Alternative 4 is farther east than the other alternatives.

4a. Action Alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are collectively called the action alternatives. The project site is located in the Sierra Nevada, in Placer County. The survey area for the action alternatives is defined as the area within a 100-foot buffer centered along all project elements, including temporary and permanent disturbance areas, access routes, and staging areas. For the purposes of the MIS analysis, the survey area is limited specifically to those areas within National Forest System (NFS) lands.

The proposed gondola would extend from the base of Alpine Meadows to the base of Squaw Valley. The portion of the survey area within Alpine Meadows would be located on NFS lands that are part of the TNF and are leased by Alpine Meadows and subject to special use permit by the Forest Service. Approximately one quarter of the proposed gondola would be located on NFS lands. Immediately north of Alpine Meadows, the alignment of the Alternative 2 crosses an area of private property that is not part of Alpine Meadows or Squaw Valley. The remainder of the full survey area is within Squaw Valley and would be on private lands owned by SVSH. The alignments of all action alternatives have this split of crossing NFS lands, private lands, and SVSH lands. A portion of the private land crossed by Alternative 2 is within the congressionally designated boundary of the Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW). However, the Wilderness Act does not apply to private property and this private property is not managed, maintained, or considered part of the GCW. The other action alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) do not cross this portion of the congressionally designated GCW boundary on private land.

The applicant proposes to install, operate, and maintain an aerial ropeway system connecting the Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows base areas as well as an avalanche control system consisting of remotely operated gas-activated exploders (Gazex exploders). For all action alternatives the proposed lift would be configured as a gondola carrying eight-passenger cabins and have a design capacity of approximately 1,400 persons per hour in each direction. Travel time between the ski areas is estimated at approximate 16 minutes. In total, the lift would be approximately 12,200 to 13,000 feet in length (based on slope length) of which, approximately 25 percent would be sited on NFS lands (i.e., in the TNF) (with some variations in length and percentages across action alternatives). Table 2 provides a comparison of the proposed facilities and the land ownership for each facility.

Each of the base terminals would include a deck and cabin storage areas, and the total facility (base terminal, deck, and cabin storage area) would disturb approximately 0.5 acre. Additionally, grading is proposed at the Alpine Meadows base area to improve the connectivity between the base lodge and the Summit and Roundhouse chairlifts.

8

Table 2. Project Facilities Alternative 1 –

No Action Alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Aerial Ropeway System (length)

Private Land 0 9,700 feet 10,200 feet 9,400 feet

NFS Land 0 3,300 feet 2,400 feet 2,300 feet

Total 0 13,000 feet 12,600 feet 11,700 feet

Towers

Private Land 0 25 29 28

NFS Land 0 10 5 5

Total 0 35 34 33

Terminals

Private Land 0 1 base terminal, 1 mid-station

1 base terminal, 2 mid-stations

1 base terminal, 2 mid-stations

NFS Land 0 1 base terminal, 1 mid-station

1 base terminal 1 base terminal

Total 0 2 base terminals, 2 mid-stations

2 base terminals, 2 mid-stations

2 base terminals, 2 mid-stations

Gazex Exploders


NFS Land 0 7 7 7

Total 0 8 8 8

Gazex Shelters


NFS Land 4 4 4 4

Total 4 4 4 4

Gazex HDPE Pipe

Private Land 0 400 feet 400 feet 400 feet

NFS Land 0 2,600 feet 2,600 feet 2,600 feet

Total 0 3,000 feet 3,000 feet 3,000 feet

Installation of the Alternative 2 would necessitate changes to Alpine Meadows’ current snow safety and avalanche hazard mitigation program. However, for safety and efficiency, Alpine Meadows wishes to modify the existing avalanche hazard mitigation system as part of all action alternatives. Therefore, all action alternatives would include installation, operation, and maintenance of the same Gazex system consisting of up to eight Gazex exploders (seven on NFS lands) in the vicinity of The Buttress, Bernie’s Chute, Bernie’s Bowl, North Poma Rocks Gully, Pond Slide, and Poma Rocks areas. Gazex exploders ignite propane and oxygen gas in a controlled volume explosion within the Gazex tubes, creating a concussive blast above the snow surface in key avalanche trigger locations. Filling of the tubes with gas and ignition is controlled remotely. Installation of the Gazex exploders would require two concrete footings for anchoring

9

of each tube. The upper concrete footing would be approximately 58 square feet, with a total disturbance area of approximately 225 square feet. The lower concrete footing would be approximately 25 square feet, with a total disturbance area of approximately 49 square feet. The disturbance required for each exploder would vary depending on its location (e.g., based on slope at installation location). Operation of the Gazex system would also include installation of four shelters to house propane and oxygen tanks. Each shelter would be approximately 49 square feet and would be set on a small aboveground platform (approximately 120 square feet), anchored for stability. Alpine Meadows would ensure that all combustible gasses are removed or depleted from each shelter at the end of each ski season to diminish wildfire concerns. Refilling of the tanks would be conducted annually using over-the-snow vehicle or a helicopter to deliver full tanks to the shelters.

All action alternatives contain the same Gazex avalanche control system. See Chapter 2 of the Project EIS/EIR, “Description of Alternatives,” for full project description of the action alternatives.

Land cover types identified during field surveys for the action alternatives were classified following the Manual of California Vegetation and the National Vegetation Classification and whenever possible these landcover types were “crosswalked” into CWHR types for this MIS analysis.

The acreages of CWHR types, and Habitat or Ecosystem Components as defined for MIS, are displayed in Table 3. Estimated changes in these acreages for each alternative are summarized in Table 4

Table 3. Summary of Existing CWHR Type Acres per Alternative CWHR Vegetation Community/

Land Cover Type Alternative 2 (acres) Alternative 3 (acres) Alternative 4 (acres)

Lacustrine (LAC) -- 0.52 0.64

Riverine (RIV) 0.17 0.40 0.37

Riparian 0.64 0.48 0.40

Wetland 0.07 0.87 0.44

Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest 0.79 2.33 1.72

Medium and large snags in green forest 0.79* 2.33* 1.72*

Source: Data received from Forest Service in 2017 for the year 2016; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2018. *Snag data not available, using Early Seral and Mid-Seral acreages for analysis.

10

Table 4. Pre- and Post-Construction Acres per Alternative MIS Habitat Existing (acres) Temporary Effect

(acres) Permanent Effect

(acres) Post-project MIS Habitat (acres)

Alt. 2

Lacustrine (LAC) — — — —

Riverine (RIV) 0.17 0.07 0.10 0.07

Riparian 0.64 0.39 — 0.69

Wetland 0.07 — 0.05 0.02

Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest

0.79 0.08 0.03 0.68

Medium and large snags in green forest

0.79 0.08 0.03 0.68

Alt. 3

Lacustrine (LAC) 0.52 0.16 — 0.52

Riverine (RIV) 0.40 0.07 0.13 0.27

Riparian. 0.48 — — 0.48

Wetland. 0.87 0.17 0.07 0.80


2.33 0.17 — 2.33


2.33 0.17 — 2.33

Alt. 4

Lacustrine (LAC) 0.64 0.26 — 0.64

Riverine (RIV) 0.37 0.03 0.13 0.24

Riparian. 0.40 — — 0.40

Wetland. 0.44 0.11 0.07 0.37


1.72 0.22 <0.01 1.71


1.72 0.22 <0.01 1.71

Source: Data received from Forest Service in 2017 for the year 2016; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2018. *Snag data not available, using Early Seral and Mid-Seral acreages for snag analysis.

11

5. Effects of Proposed Project on the Habitat for the Selected Project-Level MIS.

This section documents the analysis for the following ‘Category 3’ species: aquatic macroinvertebrates, yellow warbler, Pacific tree (chorus) frog, mountain quail, and hairy woodpecker. The analysis of the effects of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project on the MIS habitat for the selected project-level MIS is conducted at the project scale within NFS lands. The analysis used habitat data derived primarily from the following sources:

• Aquatic Resource Delineation Reports for the Squaw Valley-Alpine Gondola (Hydro Restoration 2016, 2017);

• Squaw Valley – Alpine Meadows Interconnect Project Botanical Survey Report 2015-2017 (EcoSynthesis 2017); and

• Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Tree Survey for Alternative 2, 3 and 4 (Under the Trees – Forestry & Environmental Service 2015, 2016, 2017).

Detailed information on the MIS is documented in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Cumulative effects at the bioregional scale are tracked via the SNF MIS Bioregional monitoring and detailed in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

5.a. Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates)

Habitat/Species Relationship Aquatic or benthic macroinvertebrates were selected as the MIS for riverine and lacustrine habitat in the Sierra Nevada. They have been demonstrated to be very useful as indicators of water quality and aquatic habitat condition (Resh and Price 1984; Karr et al. 1986; Hughes and Larsen 1987; Resh and Rosenberg 1989). They are sensitive to changes in water chemistry, temperature, and physical habitat; aquatic factors of particular importance are: flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade.

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Flow; Sedimentation; and Water surface shade.

Analysis Area for Project-Level Analysis: The analysis area for project-level effects is the same as the survey area, which includes the 100-foot survey area centered along the gondola alignment on NFS lands where construction, grading, staging areas, vegetation removal, and temporary and permanent access roads would be located. Habitat disturbance, loss, and/or alteration as a result of implementing the project would also occur within the construction/disturbance boundary of the project on non-NFS lands. However, because these areas are outside of the jurisdiction of the TNF, and MIS management does not apply there, this MIS analysis focuses only on the FS parcel in the survey area which is the Alpine Meadows Special Use Permit area.

12

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: Lacustrine/Riverine habitat areas in the survey area include Bear River (a perennial stream) and associated seasonal tributaries, Barstool Lake, and human created ponds used as snowmaking ponds at the base of Alpine Meadows.

Bear Creek, Bear Creek Tributaries, and the Bear Creek Watershed: The Bear Creek watershed is a small (approximately 9 square miles) watershed located in Alpine Meadows, Placer County, 6 miles northwest of Tahoe City. The watershed encompasses NFS, California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC), and private land holdings. The southern portion of all project alternatives is located in the Bear Creek watershed. The upper reaches of this watershed primarily consist of bedrock with wide bowls of alluvial deposits that are volcanically derived. Bear Creek drains Alpine Meadows and flows southeast from its headwaters to its confluence with the Truckee River approximately 3 miles downstream. Seasonal tributaries to Bear Creek originate within Alpine Meadows at elevations of approximately 8,600 feet above mean sea level. Flow rates in Bear Creek and its seasonal tributaries are highly variable throughout the year, with peak flows during freshet and significant precipitation events in fall and winter. Almost all peak flow events take place between late fall and early spring. Within the survey area, these seasonal tributaries are partially shaded by mountain alder, willow, huckleberry oak and conifers.

Alpine Meadows, surrounding the headwaters of Bear Creek, on NFS and CTC land, is one of the principal land users of the upper Bear Creek watershed. Alpine Meadows has 14 lifts in operation, 2,000 acres of skiable terrain, three snowmaking ponds, a base lodge development, and two parking areas that are connected by development. At the mid-stream location, private land holdings and housing developments span more than half the reach of Bear Creek.

Section 303(d) Listing Status Bear Creek was formerly listed for sedimentation/siltation on the Section 303(d) list but was recommended for delisting in 2006 and has not since been relisted for any chemical constituents or parameters (Lahontan RWQCB 2016).

Barstool Lake Barstool Lake, located less than 150 feet from the disturbance boundary of Alternative 2, is a perennial lake that receives snowmelt. It encompasses approximately 0.87 acre and is 8.5 feet deep at its deepest point. Substrate consists of silt, bedrock, and large boulders, and shore vegetation consists of rushes, willow, mountain heather, and mountain spirea. A few pines provide shade in the southeastern portion of the lake. Barstool Lake drains into an adjacent pond, and during snowmelt, both ponds drain into the southernmost lake of the Five Lakes in the GCW. It also drains over the cliffs of the granite shelf during snowmelt and, when water levels are high enough, through the Caldwell property, with runoff eventually reaching Caldwell Pond and Bear Creek.

Alpine Meadows Snowmaking Ponds Three snowmaking ponds are located near the base of Alpine Meadows. These snowmaking ponds are used to make snow during winter operations and are also used as water storage for fire suppression during the summer months. These ponds vary in depth between 1217 feet with

13

substrate consisting of silt and dirt. These ponds are drained on a rotational basis to maintain and service them. Sedimentation within all three ponds was evident during field surveys. Vegetation surrounding portions of these ponds includes conifer tree species, mountain alder, willow, bitterbrush, and ruderal grasses.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Project components of Alternative 2 would cross, or be implemented near, several water features and waterways that provide aquatic habitats for amphibians, birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other species, including Barstool Lake, Bear Creek and its seasonal tributaries, and one snowmaking pond. Construction activities such as vegetation clearing, tower installation, creation of temporary access ways, and potential staging near aquatic habitats could temporarily result in adverse impacts on aquatic resources, including removal of riparian vegetation, which provides shade, cover, and bank stability; accidental spill and contamination from construction chemicals, fuels, or other hazardous materials; increased erosion, downstream sedimentation, and turbidity; small amounts of fill placed in aquatic habitats; and direct mortality or injury of aquatic species caused by vehicles or equipment passing through aquatic habitats.

Some clearing of trees and woody riparian vegetation along stream channels may be required to provide adequate clearance for construction activities and operation of the gondola. Although no construction is planned within stream channels, work adjacent to these areas could result in minor, short-term water quality impacts (increased turbidity, sedimentation) if sediment is inadvertently transported into aquatic habitats during tower foundation construction, tower placement, corridor clearing, or other construction activity; and, the crossing of small stream channels by vehicles and equipment for construction access may be unavoidable in some cases.

The gondola cables would span streams and riparian areas, and most towers would be placed outside of and at a sufficient distance from stream/drainage channels to avoid excavation, pouring of tower foundations, or other ground-disturbing activities within the stream/drainage channels. Because no towers would be placed within wetland or below the ordinary high-water mark of the stream or drainages, impacts on aquatic resources, and riparian areas are anticipated to be minor; and potential effects of any tower construction along the alignment on invertebrates would be minimal.

Construction of Alternative 2 would result in the indirect loss (through permanent fill) of approximately 0.10 acre of riverine habitat. It also would result in the short-term change in habitat quality of 0.07 acre of riverine habitat attributable to construction disturbance; following construction, the habitat would be restored to its original contours and revegetated. Implementation of Alternative 2 would have no effect on lacustrine habitat on NFS land. Construction and operation of the Gazex avalanche mitigation system are not expected to have direct or indirect effects on wetlands or other waters.

The following Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) have been incorporated into the project design for all action alternatives being considered and would result in the minimization, avoidance, and/or reduction in potential effects on MIS. Additional RPMs are also part of the project; however, for purposes of this report, only those RPMs relevant to MIS that may occur in the project area, their habitats, or other resources and issues that could affect MIS are listed

14

below by their individual alphanumeric designation. Descriptions of the listed RPMs, and all other RPMs included as part of the project, are provided in Appendix A, “Resource Protection Measures.”

• RPM BIO-1 • RPM BIO-19 • RPM BIO-24 • RPM BIO-25 • RPM BIO-26 • RPM BIO-33 • RPM BIO-34 • RPM BIO-35 • RPM BIO-36 • RPM BIO-39 • RPM BIO-40 • RPM MUL-1 • RPM MUL-2 • RPM MUL-3

• RPM MUL-5 • RPM MUL-6 • RPM SOILS-1 • RPM SOILS-3 • RPM SOILS-4 • RPM SOILS-5 • RPM SOILS-9 • RPM SOILS-12 • RPM TREE-1 • RPM WQ-1 • RPM WQ-4 • RPM WQ-5 • RPM WQ-6

• RPM WQ-8 • RPM WQ-9 • RPM WQ-10 • RPM WQ-11 • RPM WQ-12 • RPM WQ-13 • RPM WQ-14 • RPM WQ-15 • RPM WQ-16 • RPM WQ-17 • RPM WQ-18 • RPM WQ-19 • RPM WQ-20

The project design and incorporation of applicable RPMs would reduce project impacts on aquatic resources, and most potential residual impacts on aquatic habitat functions would not be considered substantial.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project on MIS habitat is the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek, and the Five Lakes watersheds. The temporal scale for the analysis is t20 years from the present, which is the period of time the direct effects of the project should occur and for which there is information on reasonably foreseeable future actions in the survey area.

This cumulative analysis uses the “list” approach to identify the cumulative setting. The effects of past and present projects on the environment are reflected by the existing conditions in the survey area. Probable future projects are those in the project vicinity that have the possibility of interacting with the proposed project to generate a cumulative impact (based on proximity and construction schedule) and either:

• are partially occupied or under construction,

• have received final discretionary approvals,

15

• have applications accepted as complete by local agencies and are currently undergoing environmental review, or

• are proposed projects that have been discussed publicly by an applicant or that otherwise become known to a local agency and have provided sufficient information about the project to allow at least a general analysis of environmental impacts.

The list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects considered in this cumulative effects analysis is provided below. Projects that are listed are in the project vicinity and within the cumulative spatial scope of the analysis and have the possibility of interacting with the proposed project to generate a cumulative impact.

Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in these watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, recreational development and activities, urban and commercial development, and habitat restoration and enhancement projects. Some present and future projects expected to improve habitats for aquatic macroinvertebrates through restoration or enhancement include the Squaw Creek restoration project.

Project Potential Impacts Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development (Includes Rollers Chair)

Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

Squaw Valley Red Dog Lift Replacement Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement


Timberline Twister Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

Squaw Valley Olympic Museum and Winter Sports Heritage Center

Disturbance

White Wolf Development (aka Caldwell property)


General Development in Olympic Valley Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

General Development in Alpine Meadows Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

16

Project Potential Impacts TNF LRMP Habitat modification, disturbance, mortality

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Habitat modification, disturbance, mortality

TNF Motorized Travel Management Plan Habitat modification, disturbance, mortality

Tahoe West Project Habitat modification, disturbance, mortality

Truckee River Tributaries Project Habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, mortality

Five Creeks Project Habitat modification, disturbance, mortality

Alpine Stables Equestrian SUP Habitat degradation, disturbance

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Some past and current projects in the region have contributed to an adverse cumulative effect on aquatic habitats. Reasonably foreseeable future projects that encompass or are near aquatic habitats include Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan, White Wolf Development, Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan, White Wolf Development, Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, Truckee River Tributaries Project, and the Five Creeks Project could further contribute to this cumulative effect, although various laws and regulations (e.g., Clean Water Act [CWA], Fish and Game Code Section 1602, Local Ordinances, and Forest Service Regulations) would minimize these effects.

As described previously, under Alternative 2, construction activities such as vegetation clearing, tower installation, creation of temporary access ways, and staging near aquatic habitats could temporarily result in adverse impacts on invertebrates and aquatic habitat, including removal of riparian vegetation, accidental spill and contamination from construction chemicals, fuels, or other hazardous materials; and direct mortality of aquatic species cause by equipment use within aquatic habitats. However, the project’s design, construction methods, incorporation of several RPMs designed to avoid and protect aquatic resources, would minimize, avoid, and compensate for these potential impacts on aquatic habitats. Specifically, these measures require that: (1) aquatic habitat be avoided to the extent feasible; (2) aquatic habitats that cannot be avoided be restored following construction; (3) any unavoidable losses be compensated for in a manner that results in no net loss of aquatic habitats; and (4) project implementation be consistent with the aquatic and riparian habitat protection provisions of the CWA, regional water quality control board (RWQCB), Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and Forest Service. Because any residual effects on aquatic habitats would be minor, temporary, and mitigated; the no net loss standard would be implemented; and there would be no permanent impacts on the quality, amount, or function of aquatic habitats, implementation of Alternative 2 would not make a considerable contribution to any cumulative impact related to aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat. In addition, habitat enhancements that could occur as a result of other projects (i.e., Truckee River

17

Tributaries Project, and Five Creeks Project) in the spatial scope of the analysis may also improve the condition of aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat in the analysis area.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 3, potential effects on aquatic habitats would be similar to those described for Alternative 2. Slightly more acreage of perennial stream habitat would be permanently lost because of the change in project footprint for Alternative 3. Permanent impacts on ephemeral streams and ponds would be approximately the same under Alternatives 2 and 3. Construction of Alternative 3 would result in the indirect loss (through permanent fill) of approximately 0.13 acre of perennial stream habitat (Table 4). Implementation of Alternative 3 would have no effect on lacustrine habitat on NFS land.

Short-term changes in habitat quality would be similar for riverine habitat (0.07 acre) under both alternatives, but the effect on lacustrine habitat (ponds) would be greater under Alternative 3. No effect would occur under Alternative 2, but 0.16 acre of lacustrine habitat would be affected under Alternative 3 during overhead vegetation removal. The Gazex avalanche mitigation system is the same for all three alternatives, as such, construction and operation of the Gazex avalanche mitigation system are not expected to have direct or indirect effects on wetlands or other waters.

The same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be applied for Alternative 3 and would reduce the adverse effect of loss and degradation of lacustrine and riverine habitats by minimizing indirect effects of runoff and erosion and compensating for direct loss of habitat.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects on MIS habitat is the same as that described above under Alternative 2. In addition, the effects of past, present, and future actions are the same as those described above under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Under Alternative 3, potential cumulative effects on aquatic habitats would be the same as those described for Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 4, approximately 0.13 acre of perennial riverine habitat would be filled, slightly more than under Alternative 2 and the same as under Alternative 3 (Table 4). As under Alternatives 2 and 3, no lacustrine habitat would be permanently affected.

Temporary impacts on riverine habitat under Alternative 4 would be less (0.03 acre) than under Alternative 2 or 3; however, the temporary impact on lacustrine habitat during overhead vegetation removal would be slightly greater under Alternative 4 (0.26 acre) than under either of the other action alternatives. The Gazex avalanche mitigation system is the same for all three alternatives, as such, construction and operation of the Gazex avalanche mitigation system are not expected to have direct or indirect effects on wetlands or other waters.

The same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be applied for Alternative 4 and would reduce the adverse effect of loss and degradation of lacustrine and riverine habitats by minimizing indirect effects of runoff and erosion and compensating for direct loss of habitat.

18



Summary of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The TNF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; hence, the lacustrine and riverine effects analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project must be informed by these monitoring data. The sections below summarize the Biological Integrity and Habitat status and trend data for aquatic macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat and Index of Biological Integrity Status and Trend. Aquatic habitat has been assessed using Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) data collected since 1994 (Frasier et al. 2005) and habitat status information from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) (Moyle and Randall 1996). Moyle and Randall (1996) developed a watershed index of biotic integrity (IBI) based on distributions and abundance of native fish and amphibian species, as well as extent of roads and water diversions. According to this analysis, seven percent of the watersheds were in excellent condition, 36 percent were in good condition, 47 percent were in fair condition and nine percent were in poor condition.

Sierra Nevada MIS monitoring for aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates (BMI) has been conducted annually since 2009. Data collected between 2009 and 2012 were analyzed in detail (Furnish 2013); this analysis is summarized below. Work is ongoing to fully integrate MIS survey results (2009–2016) with statewide and regional surveys to produce the next statewide assessment of stream condition (with expected completion in 2018).

Sixty samples of stream and lake aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected from randomly selected sites throughout the Sierra Nevada Province national forests from 2009–2012. At least 290 distinct macroinvertebrate species have been identified from flowing water samples and 114 from lake samples. Collections of periphyton algae, both diatoms and soft-bodied, were made in 2009-10 and 220 algal taxa have been recognized.

Stream MIS biological data were available from 21 sites collected from 2009-10 and evaluated using two models: RIVPACS Observed-to-Expected ratio and western Sierra hydropower Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). An additional aquatic macroinvertebrate data set was available from the State Perennial Stream Assessment (PSA) program, which allowed for a more robust analysis with a larger sample size. Both programs have used the same probabilistic sampling design, which allowed for a pooling of the data from both programs. The State Perennial Stream Assessment (PSA) program provided 53 samples from all 10 national forests based on a random site selection process from 2000–2010.

19

For the combined MIS-PSA data set of 74 samples, 78 percent of the perennial stream miles in the Sierra Nevada forests scored in the excellent-to-good category, meaning they were in reference condition, comparable to the least disturbed streams in the region. A majority of 54 percent of all perennial stream miles assessed were considered to be in excellent condition. This compares to an estimate of 65 percent of stream distance in reference condition for the Sierra Ecoregion from the latest report from the State PSA program (Ode et al. 2011). Therefore, current data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that status and trend in the RIVPACS scores appears to be stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts on Bioregional-Scale Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Habitat Trend. Construction activities such as vegetation clearing, tower installation, creation of temporary access ways, and staging near aquatic habitats could temporarily result in adverse impacts on aquatic habitat and invertebrates. Potential project-related effects on aquatic resources may include removal of riparian vegetation; accidental spill and contamination from construction chemicals, fuels, or other hazardous materials; and direct mortality of aquatic species caused by equipment use within aquatic habitats. However, the project’s design, construction methods, and incorporation of several RPMs designed to avoid and protect aquatic resources would minimize, avoid, and compensate for these potential impacts on aquatic habitats. Specifically, these measures require that: (1) aquatic habitat be avoided to the extent feasible; (2) aquatic habitats that cannot be avoided be restored following construction; (3) any unavoidable losses be compensated for in a manner that results in no net loss of aquatic habitats; and (4) project implementation be consistent with the aquatic and riparian habitat protection provisions of CWA, RWQCB, Fish and Game Code Section 1602 and Forest Service. Because any residual effects on aquatic habitats would be minor, temporary, and mitigated; the no net loss standard would be implemented; and there would be no permanent impacts on the quality, amount, or function of aquatic habitats, implementation of Alternative 2, 3 or 4 would not alter the existing trend in the habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

5.b. Riparian Habitat (Yellow Warbler)

Habitat/Species Relationship. The yellow warbler was selected as the MIS for riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This species is usually found in riparian deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CDFG 2005). Yellow warbler is dependent on both meadow and non-meadow riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel and DeSante 1999).

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Riparian Habitat Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of riparian habitat (CWHR montane riparian (MRI) and valley foothill riparian (VRI)). (2) Acres with changes in deciduous canopy cover (Sparse=10-24%; Open=25-39%; Moderate=40-59%; Dense=60-100%). (3) Acres with changes in total canopy cover (Sparse=10-24%; Open=25-39%; Moderate=40-59%; Dense=60-100%). (4) Acres with changes in CWHR size class [1/2 (Seedling/Sapling) (<6 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]); 3 (Pole) (6 to 10.9 inches dbh); 4 (Small tree) (11 to 23.9 inches dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree) (>24 inches dbh)].

20

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: Montane riparian habitat in the survey area consists of riparian shrubland made up of mountain maple (Acer glabrum Provisional Shrubland Alliance), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus Shrubland Alliance), and mountain alder thicket (Alnus incana Shrubland Alliance).

Riparian shrubland includes vegetation that is intermediate between the upland shrubland types, such as bitter cherry thickets or montane chaparral and truly riparian woody vegetation that is consistently associated with the presence of surface water or saturated soil for a portion of the year (see the discussion of mountain alder thicket later in this subsection). It occurs almost exclusively on moderate slopes (in this project survey area) with shallow to deep, sometimes loamy soils. The aspect is generally north or east, and the vegetation is characterized by deciduous leaves that are much thinner and more susceptible to desiccation than those of the species characteristic of montane chaparral or bitter cherry thickets.

Common plant species in mesic and riparian shrubland vary spatially but include one or more of the following species: mountain maple (Acer glabrum), Scouler’s willow (Salix scouleriana), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), currants and gooseberries (Ribes nevadensis, R. roezlii, R. viscosissimum), elderberries (Sambucus spp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis), and serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.).

Mountain alder thicket occurs in the lower elevation portion of Alpine Meadows, on lower slopes adjoining the southern snowmaking pond, and in several other small exposures. The aspect is variable, and slopes vary from steep, with the thicket fed by groundwater emerging at a point-source or diffuse spring, to nearly level. In general, the water source is entirely, or supplemented by, groundwater, although for convenience, the small areas of streamflow-supported riparian vegetation are included in this land cover type. The distinguishing physical characteristic of mountain alder thicket is the presence of saturated soil at or near the ground surface through most or all of the year.

The dominant species is mountain alder (Alnus incana), but scattered groups of willow species (Salix spp.) may also occur. A small patch of Eastwood’s willow (S. eastwoodiae) near the pond where the Alternative 3 and 4 alignments cross was mapped within adjacent alder thicket for simplicity.

There is little or no understory in most of the alder thickets, but some openings are vegetated by wetland or facultative herbaceous species. In the present survey area, these herbaceous areas are dominated mostly by forbs (specifically, fireweed [Chamerion angustifolium] and corn lily [Veratrum californicum]) but may also include species of Juncus and Carex.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Approximately 0.64 acre of montane riparian habitat on NFS lands occurs in the survey area for Alternative 2. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not permanently remove montane riparian habitat. However, implementation of Alternative 2 would temporarily affect 0.39 acre of montane riparian habitat during overhead vegetation removal (Table 4). Because the disturbance area would be reduced in sensitive habitat areas and RPMs would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts in these areas, the acreage of habitat within the permanent and temporary disturbance presented in Table 4 are considered a

21

maximum and overestimate the area of actual impacts. For example, riparian habitat is present between two tower locations, and the area is marked as overhead vegetation removal, but the riparian shrubs are shorter than the proposed bottom height of the gondola and the slope of the towers would help span the riparian area and no construction or disturbance would likely occur.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would not cause a substantial loss of montane riparian habitat for yellow warbler because vegetation in the riparian areas is not tall and there likely would be no overhead vegetation that would need to be removed. The gondola would span the riparian areas. RPM BIO-24 would be implemented to minimize the removal of riparian habitat by limiting vegetation removal to only those areas necessary for construction, particularly in riparian zones. (Full descriptions of all RPMs are provided in Appendix A, “Resource Protection Measures.”) For Alternative 2, towers would be located outside of montane riparian areas. Although some towers would be close to drainages, it is possible that the preliminary location of the towers could be adjusted to provide distance from the drainage channel sufficient to minimize effects on aquatic habitats. Similarly, although some of the Gazex avalanche control system components are proposed for locations in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), but they would be located outside the riparian habitat or drainages within chaparral or rock and talus land cover types. The disturbance footprint of the Gazex system would be small. Approximately 280 square feet of upland habitat would be removed for each Gazex facility foundation, and 120 square feet of upland habitat would be removed for each shelter. The high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe used for the Gazex would remain aboveground, and no substantial vegetation removal likely would be needed.

Potential construction- and operation-related impacts on montane riparian and yellow warbler habitat are anticipated to be minimal because willows, alders, and mountain maples, unlike conifer species, rarely grow above the minimum clearance for the gondola and therefore would require little vegetation management along the gondola corridor.

RPMs BIO-24, BIO-35, BIO-36, and BIO-39 would require that aquatic habitats be avoided to the extent feasible; a wetlands report be verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); compensatory mitigation be provided for the loss of wetlands and riparian habitats; and a Mitigation Monitoring Implementation Program be prepared, approved, and implemented. RPM WQ-5 would require that permits be obtained from the appropriate regulatory agency and that all permit conditions be implemented. Implementation of these RPMs would ensure that riparian habitat is avoided to the extent feasible and that riparian habitat that cannot be avoided is restored following construction or, if the habitat cannot be restored, that the project proponent compensates for unavoidable losses in a manner that results in no net loss of riparian and other sensitive habitats.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale, past and present activities, foreseeable future activities, and approach used in the cumulative effects analysis for riparian habitat are the same as those described above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat.

Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek and Five Lakes watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, habitat restoration, recreational development and

22

activities. Other projects that may interact with the proposed project on a cumulative basis are listed above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat. Some development and recreation projects planned in the survey area (including Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, White Wolf Development, General Development within Olympic Valley and Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, Truckee River Tributaries Project, Five Creeks Project and fuel reduction projects) could contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on riparian habitat.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in temporary disturbance of riparian habitat for yellow warbler. However, the shrub species and stand types that would be temporarily affected are common locally and regionally and occur within montane riparian habitat types that are abundant in the region. RPMs have been incorporated into the project design to avoid and minimize vegetation removal to the extent feasible and project temporary effects would not result in substantial changes in stand structure or composition or in the distribution or abundance of shrub species or montane riparian habitat in the region. Because temporary disturbance of montane riparian habitat would occur along a narrow linear corridor and would be small relative to the total available in the survey area, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in a long-term adverse cumulative effect on montane riparian habitat.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 3, potential effects on montane riparian habitat would be less than those described for Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would not require the permanent removal or short-term change in habitat quality of montane riparian habitat because the towers would be located outside of riparian habitat and the gondola would span montane riparian habitat areas.

Nevertheless, the same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be applied for Alternative 3 and would reduce any adverse effect of loss or degradation of montane riparian habitats by minimizing indirect effects of runoff and erosion and, if necessary, compensating for permanent and temporary loss of riparian habitat.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects on riparian habitat is the same as that described above under Alternative 2. In addition, the effects of past, present, and future actions are the same as those described above under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Under Alternative 3, there would be no direct or indirect effects on riparian habitat within NFS lands and thus implementation of Alternative 3 would not contribute to cumulative effects on riparian habitat.

Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 4, potential effects on montane riparian habitat would be less than those described for Alternative 2 and the same as those under Alternative 3. Alternative 4 would not require the permanent removal or temporary disturbance

23

of montane riparian habitat because the towers would be located outside of riparian habitat and the gondola would span montane riparian habitat areas. Nevertheless, the same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be applied for Alternative 4 and would reduce any adverse effect of loss or degradation of montane riparian habitats by minimizing indirect effects of runoff and erosion and, if necessary, compensating for permanent and temporary loss of riparian habitat.


Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Under Alternative 4, there are no direct or indirect effects on riparian habitat within NFS lands and thus implementation of Alternative 4 would not contribute to cumulative effects on riparian habitat.

Summary of Yellow Warbler Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The TNF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the yellow warbler; hence, the riparian habitat effects analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the yellow warbler. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 38,140 acres of riparian habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is stable.

Population Status and Trend. Monitoring of the yellow warbler across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with Point Blue Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also includes mountain quail, hairy woodpecker, and fox sparrow (USDA Forest Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/apps/snamin/#resourceHeadingBioregional, Roberts and Burnett 2016). Yellow warblers were detected on 13.7% of 160 riparian point counts in 2009, 19.4% of 397 riparian point counts in 2010, and 22% of 374 riparian point counts in 2015; additional detections were documented on upland point counts. Occupancy ranged from 0.31-0.35 between 2010 and 2015. Yellow Warbler population distributions have shown a slow but significant increase from 2010 to 2015 (Roberts and Burnett 2016). In addition, the yellow warblers continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count, spot mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable or increasing.

http://data.prbo.org/apps/snamin/#resourceHeadingBioregional

24

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts on Bioregional-Scale Yellow Warbler Trend. The disturbance of montane riparian habitat would result in short-term changes in the quality of riparian habitat for yellow warbler. However, the shrub species and stand types that would be temporarily affected are common locally and regionally and occur within montane riparian habitat types that are abundant in the region. RPMs have been incorporated into the project design to avoid and minimize effects on sensitive habitat areas (including riparian areas and RCAs) and reduce vegetation removal to the extent feasible. The project’s temporary effects would be mitigated or compensated for and would not result in substantial changes in stand structure or composition or in the distribution or abundance of shrub species, montane riparian habitat, or RCAs in the region. Because any residual effects on riparian habitats would be minor, temporary, and, if needed, mitigated, and the no-net-loss standard would be implemented, none of the action alternatives would alter existing trends in riparian habitat, nor would construction of any of the action alternatives lead to a change in the distribution of yellow warbler across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

5.c. Freshwater Emergent Habitat (Pacific Tree (Chorus) Frog)

Habitat/Species Relationship. The Pacific tree frog (now known as the Pacific chorus frog) was selected as an MIS for wet meadow habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This broadly distributed species requires standing water for breeding; tadpoles require standing water for periods long enough to complete aquatic development, which can be as long as 3 or more months at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada (CDFG 2005). During the day during the breeding season, adults take cover under clumps of vegetation and surface objects near water; during the remainder of the year, they leave their breeding sites and seek cover in moist niches in buildings, wells, rotting logs or burrows (ibid).

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Freshwater Emergent Wetland Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of wet meadow habitat [CWHR wet meadow (WTM) and freshwater emergent wetland (FEW)]. (2) Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes [short herb (<12 inches), tall herb (>12 inches)]. (3) Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes (Sparse=2-9%; Open=10-39%; Moderate=40-59%; Dense=60-100%). (4) Changes in wetland hydrology.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: Herbaceous wetland vegetation occurs in extremely small patches in slight topographic depressions in tributary drainages in the survey area. Dominant species include sedges (Carex leporinella and C. heteroneura), rushes (Juncus chlorocephalus or J. bufonius), grasses (Agrostis exarata and/or A. humilis), and forbs (e.g., Oreostemma alpigenus). In one seasonally ponded area, woody species, such as mountain willow (Salix eastwoodiae) and huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.), are also present. A sedge wetland is also present at the fringe of the middle snowmaking pond, located at the southern end of the Alternative 4 alignment. A small, vegetated wetland area occurs near the Alpine Meadows base lodge, and freshwater emergent wetland associated with Bear Creek is present in the survey areas for Alternatives 3 and 4. The total amount of wetland acres present for each alternative are presented in Table 3.

25

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Construction of the project, under Alternative 2, would result in direct loss of approximately 0.05 acre of freshwater emergent wetland habitat. No wet meadow habitat is present within the portion of the project in NFS lands. Construction and operation of the Gazex Avalanche Mitigation System is not expected to have direct or indirect effects on wetlands or other waters. Implementation of RPMs to protect water quality, as described in the project EIS/EIR Section 4.16, “Soils, Geology, and Seismicity,” and Section 4.17, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” would prevent indirect impacts on wetlands and waters by preventing erosion and runoff into adjacent waters and require any temporarily disturbed areas to be restored and revegetation.

RPMs would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on wetland areas. The same RPMs as those described under lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat would apply to freshwater emergent wetland habitat. As examples, RPM BIO-24 requires that aquatic habitats are avoided to the extent feasible; and, if they cannot be avoided, a delineation report be prepared to quantify the aquatic habitats in the area to be disturbed. All permanent impacts will be mitigated according to USACE’s no-net-loss policy. RPM BIO-35 also requires that a wetland report is submitted to USACE and CDFW for verification. RPM BIO-36 requires that compensation for loss of wetlands shall be provided by purchase of mitigation credits at a qualified mitigation bank or constructed at an off-site location acceptable to the regulatory agencies or a combination. The success of the replacement of the wetlands and riparian habitat shall be monitored according to RPM BIO-39 and achieve a no-net loss standard (RPM WQ-5). RPM WQ-5 also requires that permits shall be obtained from the appropriate agency and all permit conditions are implemented. A permit for fill of waters of the United States and water quality certification under CWA Sections 404 and 401 shall be obtained prior to any ground disturbing activities. Waters that may be considered isolated and not subject to USACE jurisdiction may be regulated under the Porter Cologne Act and subject to water discharge requirement by the RWQCB. In addition, the streams and ponds, as well as the associated wetland and riparian habitats, may be regulated by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Fish and Game Code Section 1602. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained for any substantial diversion or obstruction to natural flow or alteration of the bed, channel, or bank.

Although some clearing of overhead vegetation would occur to provide adequate clearance and access for construction activities, vegetation removal in freshwater emergent wetland, wetland habitat, or other sensitive habitats would be minimized to the extent feasible and in general would not be required because the existing freshwater emergent wetland vegetation does not grow as tall as the conifers that would need to be removed from the gondola corridor.

The final placement of project elements would be sited and constructed in a matter that are consistent with CWA, RWQCB, and CDFW requirements to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat and the hydrology of these wetland areas is not affected.

Overall, implementation of Alternative 2 would not cause a substantial permanent loss of freshwater emergent wetland habitat for Pacific tree frog. Vegetation treatment in these areas typically would not be required because the vegetation does not grow tall, towers would be located outside wetland features, and the gondola would span most or all of these areas. As part

26

of the project, RPMs described previously for lacustrine/riverine habitat (aquatic macroinvertebrates) would be implemented to minimize impacts on aquatic habitats. Although some freshwater emergent habitat suitable for Pacific tree frog may still be disturbed or removed during project construction, very little is expected to be permanently removed.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale, past and present activities, foreseeable future activities, and approach used in the cumulative effects analysis for freshwater emergent habitat are the same as those described above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat.

Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek and Five Lakes watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, habitat restoration, recreational development and activities. Other projects that may interact with the proposed project on a cumulative basis are listed above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat. Some development and recreation projects planned in the survey area (including Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan, White Wolf Development, Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, Truckee River Tributaries Project, and the Five Creeks Project and fuel reduction projects) could contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on riparian habitat.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Minor construction disturbance and alteration to a small amount (0.05 acre) of freshwater emergent wetland habitat on NFS lands would occur as a result of Alternative 2. However, because the amount of unavoidable habitat disturbance and loss would be very small relative to the total amount available in the area, and any habitat disturbance or loss would be mitigated to achieve no net loss of wetland habitat, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in long-term adverse cumulative effects on freshwater emergent habitat.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 3, potential effects on freshwater emergent wetland habitat would be similar to those described for Alternative 2. Slightly more acreage of wetland habitat would be permanently lost because of the change in project footprint for Alternative 3 (0.07 acre under Alternative 3 compared to 0.05 acre for Alternative 2 [Table 4]).

Alternative 3 would temporary disturb up to 0.17 acre of wetland habitat during overhead vegetation removal. Although as mentioned for Alternative 2, overhead vegetation removal would likely avoid any freshwater emergent vegetation because this type of vegetation does not reach the clearance height of the proposed gondola.

The same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be applied for Alternative 3. These RPMs would reduce the adverse effect of loss and degradation of freshwater emergent wetland habitat by minimizing direct and indirect effects of runoff and erosion and compensating for direct loss of habitat.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects on freshwater emergent wetland habitat is the same as that described above under

27

Alternative 2. In addition, the effects of past, present, and future actions are the same as those described above under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Under Alternative 3, potential cumulative effects on freshwater emergent wetland habitats would be the same as those described for Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 4, potential effects on freshwater emergent wetland habitat would be less than those described for Alternative 3. Approximately 0.07 acre of freshwater emergent wetland habitat would be lost under Alternative 4 (Table 4). Implementing Alternative 4 has the potential to cause a short-term reduction in the quality of up to 0.11 acre of freshwater emergent wetland habitat during overhead vegetation removal; however, as discussed, it is likely that overhead vegetation removal would not affect freshwater emergent wetland vegetation because only conifers in the alignment would need to be removed or trimmed to allow clearance for the gondola.

The same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be applied for Alternative 4. These RPMs would reduce the adverse effect of loss and degradation of freshwater emergent wetland habitats by minimizing direct and indirect effects of runoff and erosion and compensating for direct loss of habitat.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects on freshwater emergent wetland habitat is the same as that described above under Alternative 2. In addition, the effects of past, present, and future actions are the same as those described above under Alternative 2.


Summary of Pacific Tree (Chorus) Frog Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The TNF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Pacific tree (chorus) frog; hence, the wet meadow effects analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the Pacific tree (chorus) frog. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 61,247 acres of wet meadow habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is stable.

Population Status and Trend. Since 2002, the Pacific tree (chorus) frog has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan (USDA Forest Service 2006b, 2007b, 2009, 2010b; Brown 2008). These data indicate that Pacific tree (chorus) frog continues to be

28

present at these sample sites, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of Pacific tree (chorus) frog populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts on Bioregional-Scale Pacific Tree (Chorus) Frog Trend. Because the amount of unavoidable disturbance and loss of wet meadow habitat would be very small relative to the total amount available in the area, none of the action alternatives would alter existing trends in wet meadow or freshwater emergent wetland habitat, nor would they lead to a change in distribution of Pacific tree frog across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

5.d. Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain Quail)

Habitat/Species Relationship. The mountain quail was selected as the MIS for early and mid-seral coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Early seral coniferous forest habitat comprises primarily seedlings (<1 inch dbh), saplings (1 to 5.9 inches dbh), and pole-sized trees (6 to 10.9 inches dbh). Mid-seral coniferous forest habitat comprises primarily of small-sized trees (11 to 23.9 inches dbh). The mountain quail is found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of conifer and deciduous forest and woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer, and broods are seldom found more than 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) from water (CDFG 2005).

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Acres of early (CWHR tree sizes 1, 2, and 3) and mid-seral (CWHR tree size 4) coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat [CWHR ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, 3, and 4, all canopy closures]. (2) Acres with changes in CWHR tree size class. (3) Acres with changes in tree canopy closure. (4) Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: The patches of coniferous forest within the survey area are so small that, for many of them, it was not possible to definitively assign them to one or another forest alliance as described in Manual of California Vegetation 2nd Edition. Overall, seven species of arborescent conifers were observed: Sierra juniper (Juniperus grandis), white fir (Abies concolor), red fir (Abies magnifica), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), western white pine (Pinus monticola), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). The prostrate shrub Juniperus communis var. saxatilis also was observed. Species dominance varies along the alignment, with as many as five of these species dominating different small patches of forest. The understory was generally sparse to non-existent, and because of the small size of forest patches, no herbs or shrubs could be identified as being consistently dominant or as being characteristic associates of the coniferous woodland. Coniferous trees were also encountered as scattered individuals in non-forest vegetation types and, in one area, in the rock outcrop land cover type. For purposes of this analysis, the coniferous forest mapped within the survey area is considered Sierran mixed

29

conifer. In general, much of the forest habitat throughout the survey area is evenly split between early seral and mid-seral forest with few occurrences of large trees.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Construction of Alternative 2 within NFS lands would disturb up to 0.11 acre of Sierran mixed conifer habitat (Table 4)—a combination of overstory (limb-trimming and tree topping), permanent, and temporary effects. Total overstory vegetation removal is expected to be 0.05 acre, total vegetation removal (from grading and construction) would be up to 0.03 acre, and the short-term change in habitat quality is anticipated to be 0.03 acre. As discussed previously, much of the forest habitat in the survey area is evenly split between early seral and mid-seral forest with few occurrences of large trees.

Tree surveys conducted for Alternative 2 identified 476 trees > 6 inches dbh (Under the Trees 2015). Construction of Alternative 2 on NFS lands would require the removal of 20 trees (approximately 5 percent) of the total for the alignment. Construction would also require the trimming or topping of up to 71 trees (approximately 15 percent) of the total for the alignment.

Removal of conifers from the Sierran mixed conifer habitat would open the canopy somewhat and potentially reduce local tree size classes. Additionally, vegetation and tree removal in this habitat type could lead to indirect construction-related tree/vegetation effects, such as soil compaction, which can cause tree mortality through loss of soil aeration and root suffocation, and trenching, grading, and heavy traffic, which can cause damage to the primary root zone of ground vegetation and trees. For example, grading the soil around the primary root zone or damaging the root zone can reduce water and nutrient uptake, eventually leading to tree disease or death.

Complying with the County tree removal permit and implementing RPMs BIO-24, REV-3, TREE-10, and TREE-11, which require that ground disturbance and vegetation and tree removal be restricted to the extent necessary for construction, would reduce significant impacts on trees protected by local ordinances. By requiring the use of the County tree removal permit, consistent with County ordinances, tree removal would be conducted in a manner that would preserve and protect surrounding natural resources, and removed trees would be compensated for through new plantings or payment of tree replacement mitigation fees.

While up to 0.03 acre of early and mid-seral coniferous forest and up to 20 conifer trees would be permanently removed during construction of Alternative 2, the loss of this amount of common habitat from the region would not substantially reduce the quantity or quality of this habitat in the region and would not change the distribution or viability of any MIS. Some of the loss of conifer forest vegetation would be compensated through new plantings or payment of tree replacement mitigation fees. Additionally, implementation of RPMs would require that vegetation removal is minimized to the extent feasible and that habitat is restored to pre-project conditions in temporary construction areas.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale, past and present activities, foreseeable future activities, and approach used in the cumulative effects analysis for early and mid-seral conifer forest are the same as those described above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat.

30

Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek and Five Lakes watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, habitat restoration, recreational development and activities. Other projects that may interact with the proposed project on a cumulative basis are listed above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat. Some development and recreation projects planned in the survey area (including Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan, White Wolf Development, Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, Truckee River Tributaries Project, and the Five Creeks Project and fuel reduction projects) could contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the removal of early and mid-seral coniferous forest for mountain quail. However, the tree species and stand types that would be removed are common locally and regionally and occur within common coniferous habitat types that are abundant in the region. RPMs have been incorporated into the project design to avoid and minimize vegetation removal to the extent feasible and project early and mid-seral coniferous forest removal would not result in substantial changes in stand structure or composition or in the distribution or abundance of tree species or coniferous communities in the region. Because loss of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat would occur along a narrow linear corridor and would be small relative to the total available in the survey area, implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in long-term adverse cumulative effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 3, potential effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be similar to those described for Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, no trees from early or mid-seral coniferous forest would be removed; however, the amount of acreage that would be temporarily disturbed would be greater under Alternative 3 (0.17 acre) than under Alternative 2 (0.08 acre) (Table 4).

Construction of Alternative 3 would also require the removal of individual trees that are within the gondola corridor. A total of 1,090 trees >6 inches dbh were identified during surveys for Alternative 3, similar in species composition as for Alternative 2. On NFS lands, 20 trees would have to be removed (approximately 2 percent of the total), and 22 trees would require overhead trimming (2 percent of the total).

The same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be implemented under Alternative 3, requiring that ground disturbance and vegetation and tree removal be restricted to the extent necessary for construction. In addition, significant impacts on trees protected by local ordinances would be reduced by requiring the use of County tree permits, consistent with County ordinances. Tree removal would be conducted in a manner that would preserve and protect surrounding natural resources, and removed trees would be compensated for through new plantings or payment of tree replacement mitigation fees.

While up to 0.17 acre of early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be temporarily affected during construction of Alternative 2, and up to 20 trees would be removed, the disturbance and loss of this amount of habitat and trees from the region would not substantially reduce the

31

quantity or quality of this habitat in the region and would not change the distribution or viability of any MIS. Some of the loss of conifer forest vegetation would be compensated through new plantings or payment of tree replacement mitigation fees. Additionally, implementation of RPMs would require that vegetation removal is minimized to the extent feasible and that habitat is restored to pre-project conditions in temporary construction areas.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects on MIS habitat is the same as that described for Alternative 2. In addition, the effects of past, present, and future actions are the same as those described above for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Under Alternative 3, the project contribution to potential cumulative effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat would be slightly more than under Alternative 2 because the temporary disturbance to this habitat from construction activities and overhead vegetation trimming and from the removal of individual trees would be somewhat greater. However, because the temporary disturbance of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat would occur along a narrow linear corridor and would be small relative to the total available in the survey area, implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in long-term adverse cumulative effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest.

Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Under Alternative 4, potential effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be similar to those described for Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternative 4, slightly less early or mid-seral coniferous forest (<0.01 acre) would be permanently removed, but the amount of acreage that would be temporarily disturbed would be greater under Alternative 4 (0.22 acre) than under Alternative 2 (0.08 acre) or Alternative 3 (0.17 acre) (Table 4).

Construction of Alternative 4 would also require the removal of individual trees that are within the gondola corridor. A total of 947 trees >6 inches dbh were identified during surveys for Alternative 4, similar in species composition as for Alternative 2. On NFS lands, 14 trees would have to be removed (approximately 1.5 percent of the total), and 79 trees would require overhead trimming (approximately 8 percent of the total).

The same RPMs identified for Alternative 2 would be implemented under Alternative 4, requiring that ground disturbance and vegetation and tree removal be restricted to the extent necessary for construction. In addition, significant impacts on trees protected by local ordinances would be reduced by requiring the use of County tree permits, consistent with County ordinances. Tree removal would be conducted in a manner that would preserve and protect surrounding natural resources, and removed trees would be compensated for through new plantings or payment of tree replacement mitigation fees.

While less than 0.01 acre of early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be removed and up to 0.22 acre of early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be temporarily affected during construction of Alternative 4, and up to 14 trees would be removed, the loss of this amount of habitat and trees from the region would not substantially reduce the quantity or quality of this habitat in the region and would not change the distribution or viability of any MIS. Some of the loss of conifer forest vegetation would be compensated through new plantings or payment of tree

32

replacement mitigation fees. Additionally, implementation of RPMs would require that vegetation removal is minimized to the extent feasible and that habitat is restored to pre-project conditions in temporary construction areas.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale for the cumulative effects on MIS habitat is the same as that described above under Alternative 2. In addition, the effects of past, present, and future actions are the same as those described for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Under Alternative 4, the project contribution to potential cumulative effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat would be slightly more than Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 due to the increase in temporary disturbance to this habitat from construction activities and overhead vegetation trimming and the removal of individual trees. However, because the removal and temporary disturbance of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat would occur along a narrow linear corridor and would be small relative to the total available in the survey area, implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in long-term adverse cumulative effects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest.

Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The TNF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the mountain quail; hence, the early and mid-seral coniferous forest effects analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the mountain quail. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 530,851 acres of early seral and 2,776,022 acres of mid-seral coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend for early seral is decreasing (changing from 9% to 5% of the acres on National Forest System lands) and the trend for mid-seral is increasing (changing from 21% to 25% of the acres on National Forest System lands). Due to recent (2014–2017) extensive tree mortality in the Southern Sierra Nevada, as well as large fires in the Central Sierra, the decreasing trend in early seral habitat may now be reversing. However, we cannot yet quantify this change, and will update this information when the vegetation mapping products currently in development allow for more direct comparison between pre- and post- mortality conditions. Mid seral conditions likely continue to increase, as older/larger trees are disproportionately dying, leaving the younger, smaller trees on the landscape.

Population Status and Trend. Monitoring of the mountain quail across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also includes fox sparrow, hairy woodpecker, and yellow warbler (USDA Forest Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/apps/snamin/#resourceHeadingBioregional, Roberts and Burnett 2016). Mountain quail were detected on 40.3 percent of 1,659 point counts in 2009 and


33

47.4% of 2,266 point counts in 2010. Methodology shifted slightly after initial years to consider transects, rather than points, as independent samples and Mountain Quail were detected at 28% of 474 transects in 2014 and 29% of 474 transects in 2015, with detections on all 10 national forests across years. Occupancy was steady across years, ranging from 0.63-0.65 between 2010 and 2015 (Roberts and Burnett 2016). These data indicate that mountain quail continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. In addition, mountain quail continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of mountain quail populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts on Bioregional-Scale Mountain Quail Trend. As discussed previously for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 and summarized in Table 4, implementing any of the action alternatives would result in disturbances and removal of small amounts of early and mid-seral conifer forest habitat for mountain quail. However, the tree species and stand types that would be removed are common locally and regionally and occur within common coniferous forest types that are abundant in the region. RPMs have been incorporated into the project design to minimize vegetation and tree removal to the extent feasible and project tree removal would not result in substantial changes in stand structure or composition or in the distribution or abundance of tree species or forest communities in the region. Because the loss of early and mid-seral coniferous forest would occur along a narrow linear corridor and would be small relative to the total available in the survey area, none of the action alternatives for the gondola project would alter existing trends in early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat, nor would implementation of any action alternative lead to a change in distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

5.e. Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy Woodpecker)

Habitat/Species Relationship. The hairy woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in green forests. Medium (diameter breast height between 15 and 30 inches) and large (diameter breast height greater than 30 inches) snags are most important. The hairy woodpecker uses stands of large, mature trees and snags of sparse to intermediate density; cover is also provided by tree cavities (CDFG 2005). Mature timber and dead snags or trees of moderate to large size are apparently more important than tree species (Siegel and DeSante 1999).

Project-Level Effects Analysis – Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: (1) Medium (15–30 inches dbh) snags per acre. (2) large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area: Several coniferous forest types are present on throughout the survey area for all three alternatives. The dominant forest

34

habitat type is Sierran mixed conifer within NFS lands, but stands of white fir, Jeffrey pine, and red fir are also common outside of NFS lands. The survey area has not been inventoried for snags as part of this analysis; however, medium and large snags exist within forested habitats that could be affected by project implementation. Based on observations during reconnaissance-level biological surveys, medium and large snags are not uncommon in the survey area and vicinity.

Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Construction under Alternative 2 would remove snags in association with vegetation clearance necessary for project construction, including clearance of the 60-foot construction corridor, temporary access roads, staging areas, and other areas outside of the 60-foot construction corridor that would require clearing for project construction. As part of the vegetation management activities associated with maintenance of the ROW, hazard trees (dead, dying, diseased, decaying, or infested) would also be removed. Hazard tree removal may extend beyond the 60-foot construction corridor more distant trees are tall enough to fall and damage the gondola, gondola lines, or towers. Under Alternative 2, a total of 0.79 acre of coniferous woodland occurs within the proposed gondola corridor on NFS lands (Table 3). However, the number and quality of medium and large snags that may require removal within this area are unknown. Snag retention needs for wildlife would be taken into consideration in areas where temporary vegetation removal associated with project construction would occur, but generally snags that are also considered hazard trees that have potential to fall onto and damage the gondola, gondola cables, towers or any component of the project would be removed.

Cumulative Effects on Habitat in the Analysis Area. The spatial scale, past and present activities, foreseeable future activities, and approach used in the cumulative effects analysis for snags in green forest are the same as those described above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat.

Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek and Five Lakes watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, habitat restoration, recreational development and activities. Other projects that may interact with the proposed project on a cumulative basis are listed above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat. Some development and recreation projects planned in the survey area (including Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan, White Wolf Development, Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, TNF LRMP, Sierra Nevada Forest Plant Amendment, Tahoe West Project, Truckee River Tributaries Project, and the Five Creeks Project, and fuel reduction projects) could contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on snags in green forest ecosystem component.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: An unknown number of medium to large snags would likely be removed as a result of project implementation. However, due to the narrow and linear distribution of the project, and the overall abundance of snags in the survey area and vicinity, the number of medium to large snags removed relative to the amount available in the region is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a cumulative effect on the abundance, distribution, and availability of medium and large snags in the region is considered minor.

35

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Construction under Alternative 3 would remove snags in association with vegetation clearance necessary for project construction, including clearance of the 60-foot construction corridor, temporary access roads, staging areas, and other areas outside of the 60-foot construction corridor that would require clearing for project construction. As part of the vegetation management activities associated with maintenance of the ROW, hazard trees (dead, dying, diseased, decaying, or infested) would also be removed. Hazard tree removal may extend beyond the 60-foot construction corridor more distant trees are tall enough to fall and damage the gondola, gondola lines, towers or any component of the project. Under Alternative 3, a total of 2.33 acres of coniferous woodland occurs within the survey area on NFS lands (Table 3). However, the number and quality of medium and large snags that may require removal within this area are unknown. Snag retention needs for wildlife would be taken into consideration in areas where temporary vegetation removal associated with project construction would occur, but generally snags that are also considered hazard trees that have potential to fall onto and damage the gondola, gondola cables, towers or any component of the project would be removed.


Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek and Five Lakes watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, habitat restoration, recreational development and activities. Other projects that may interact with the proposed project on a cumulative basis are listed above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat. Some development and recreation projects planned in the survey area (including Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, TNF LRMP, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Tahoe West Project, and fuel reduction projects) could contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on snags in green forest ecosystem component.


Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects on Habitat. Construction under Alternative 4 would remove snags in association with vegetation clearance necessary for project construction, including clearance of the 60-foot construction corridor, temporary access roads, staging areas, and other areas outside of the 60-foot construction corridor that would require clearing for project construction. As part of the vegetation management activities associated with maintenance of the ROW,

36

hazard trees (dead, dying, diseased, decaying, or infested) would also be removed. Hazard tree removal may extend beyond the 60-foot construction corridor more distant trees are tall enough to fall and damage the gondola, gondola lines, towers or any component of the project. Under Alternative 4, a total of 1.72 acres of coniferous woodland occurs within the survey area on NFS lands (Table 3). However, the number and quality of medium and large snags that may require removal within this area are unknown. Snag retention needs for wildlife would be taken into consideration in areas where temporary vegetation removal associated with project construction would occur, but generally snags that are also considered hazard trees that have potential to fall onto and damage the gondola, gondola cables, towers or any component of the project would be removed.


Past, present, and foreseeable future activities that have affected or may affect biological resources, including MIS habitats, in the Squaw Creek, Bear Creek and Five Lakes watersheds include logging, grazing, fuels management, habitat restoration, recreational development and activities. Other projects that may interact with the proposed project on a cumulative basis are listed above for lacustrine/riverine (aquatic macroinvertebrate) habitat. Some development and recreation projects planned in the survey area (including Alpine Meadows Master Plan Development, Alpine Meadows Hot Wheels Lift Replacement, TNF LRMP, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Tahoe West Project, and fuel reduction projects) could contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on snags in green forest ecosystem component.


Summary of Hairy Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The TNF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the hairy woodpecker; hence, the snag effects analysis for the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the hairy woodpecker. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and distribution population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Ecosystem Component Status and Trend. The current average number of medium-sized and large-sized snags (> 15" dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir,

37

productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.5 per acre in eastside pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these types ranged from 1.4 per acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Data from the early to mid-2000s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir (+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35), and red fir (+1.25) and decreased within ponderosa pine (-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14)

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Due to recent (2014–2017) extensive tree mortality in the Southern Sierra Nevada, it is likely that significant increases in snags per acre have occurred in the pine and mixed conifer forest types, particularly in the Southern Sierra National Forests. Other national forests within the Sierra Nevada also may have significant increasing trends. However, we cannot yet quantify these changes, and will update this information when the vegetation mapping products currently in development allow for more direct comparison between pre- and post- mortality conditions.

Population Status and Trend. Monitoring of the hairy woodpecker across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also includes mountain quail, fox sparrow, and yellow warbler (USDA Forest Service 2010a, http://data.prbo.org/apps/snamin/#resourceHeadingBioregional, Roberts and Burnett 2016). Hairy woodpeckers were detected on 15.1% of 1,659 point counts (and 25.2% of 424 playback points) in 2009 and 16.7% of 2,266 point counts (and 25.6% of 492 playback points) in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. Methodology shifted slightly after initial years to consider transects, rather than points, as independent samples and Hairy Woodpeckers were detected at 54% of 474 transects in 2014 and 58% of 474 transects in 2015. Hairy Woodpecker population distributions have shown a slow but significant increase from 2010 to 2015 (Roberts and Burnett 2016). These data indicate that hairy woodpeckers continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. In addition, the hairy woodpeckers continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of hairy woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable or increasing.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts on Bioregional-Scale Hairy Woodpecker Trend. Hairy woodpecker is a common species in the survey area and the region, and suitable habitat for this species is abundant. Construction of the gondola and Gazex Avalanche Control System necessary for project construction, including clearance of the 60-foot construction corridor, temporary access roads, staging areas, and other areas outside of the 60-foot construction corridor that would require clearing for project construction. As part of the vegetation management activities associated with maintenance of the gondola corridor, hazard


38

trees (dead, dying, diseased, decaying, or infested) would also be removed. Depending on the action alternative, a total of 0.79 to 2.33 acres of coniferous forest occurs within the gondola corridor on NFS lands (Table 3). However, the number and quality of medium and large snags that may require removal within this area are unknown. Snag retention needs for wildlife would be taken into consideration in areas where temporary vegetation removal associated with project construction would occur, but generally snags that are also considered hazard trees that have potential to fall onto and damage the gondola, gondola cables, towers or any component of the project would be removed. However, due to the narrow and linear distribution of the project, and the overall abundance of snags in the survey area and vicinity, the number of medium to large snags removed relative to the amount available in the region is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, implementation of the Project under any of the alternatives would not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of hairy woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

References Cited Brown, C. 2008. Summary of Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) Occupancy in the Sierra Nevada within the range of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Sierra Nevada Amphibian Monitoring Program draft assessment, January 18, 2008. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008). Dawson, N.G.; Cook, J.A. 2012. Behind the genes: diversification of North American martens (Martes americana and M. caurina). In: Aubry, K.; Zielinski, W.; Raphael, M.; Proulx, G.; Buskirk, S., eds. Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 23–38. EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulatory Services, Inc. 2017 (December 18). Squaw Valley – Alpine Meadows Interconnect Project Botanical Survey Report 2015-2017 Truckee, California. Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab, S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp. Furnish, J. 2013. 2012 Annual Report on the monitoring of aquatic management indicator species (MIS) in the Sierra Nevada Province: 2009-2012. February 14, 2013. 31pp. Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive model for assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national forests. Completion Report. Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems. Utah State University. Logan, Utah 23 pp. Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493. Hydro Restoration. 2016 (January). Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, Squaw Valley-Alpine Gondola, Placer County, CA. Prepared by Katrina D. Smolen, P.H. for Squaw Valley Resort, Olympic Valley, CA. Hydro Restoration. 2017 (January). Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, Squaw Valley-Alpine Gondola, Placer County, CA. Prepared by Katrina D. Smolen, P.H. for Squaw Valley Resort, Olympic Valley, CA.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp

39

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, Champaign, IL. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2016 (January 14). Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region North and South Basins. Effective March 31, 1995, including amendments through January 14, 2016. South Lake Tahoe, CA. Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp Moyle, P.B. and P.J. Randall. 1996. Biotic Integrity of Watersheds. Pages 975-985 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options, Vol II, chp 34. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, CA 95616. http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C34.PDF Ode, P.R., T.M. Kincaid, T. Fleming and A.C. Rehn. 2011. Ecological Condition Assessments of California’s Perennial Wadeable Streams: Highlights from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA) (2000-2007). A collaboration between the State Water Resources Control Board’s Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program (NPS Program), Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), California Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/reports/psa_smmry_rpt.pdf. Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental Management 8:75-80. Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatial-temporal variability and the study of aquatic insects. Canadian Entomologist 121:941-963. Roberts, L.J., and R.D. Burnett. 2016. Sierra Nevada National Forest Avian Management Indicator Species, 2015 Annual Report. Point Blue Report. http://data.prbo.org/apps/snamin/uploads/images/bioreg/PB_Report_MIS_annual_2015.pdf Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available on-line: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html. Under the Trees – Forestry & Environmental Service. 2015 (December). Project Area – Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Alternative 2 Gondola Tree Survey, Placer County, CA. Under the Trees – Forestry & Environmental Service. 2016 (December). Project Area – Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Alternative 3 Gondola Tree Survey – Placer Co – Squaw Alpine Interconnect 1. Under the Trees – Forestry & Environmental Service. 2017 (November). Project Area – Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Alternative 4 Gondola Tree Survey – Placer Co – Squaw Alpine Phase 2. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1990 https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5214243.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html

40

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Draft - MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination, May 25, 2006. Pacific Southwest Region. 3pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Accomplishment Monitoring Report for 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December 2007. 18pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Accomplishment Monitoring Report for 2006. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2009. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Accomplishment Monitoring Report for 2007. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2007/ USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. December 2010. 132pp. USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Accomplishment Monitoring Report for 2008. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/ USDA Forest Service and Placer County. 2018 (April). Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR. State Clearinghouse No. 2016042066. Prepared by Ascent Environmental and SE Group.

Appendix A Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola EIS/EIR Resource Protection Measures

SE Group & Ascent Environmental Appendix A

U.S. Forest Service and Placer County Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project A-1

To minimize potential environmental impacts from construction and implementation of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola project (project), Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) have been incorporated into all action alternatives. A comprehensive list of all RPMs is provided in the table below. These measures were developed by the Forest Service and Placer County and resource specialists in the pre-analysis and analysis phases to reduce environmental impacts and comply with applicable laws and regulations. They include, but are not limited to, best management practices (BMPs), Forest Service standards and guidelines, Placer County standard permit conditions, and standard operating procedures. RPMs come from federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies; forest plans; scientific research; and the experience provided by lead agencies and consulting specialists in designing similar projects. Specific sources for RPMs include (but are not limited to):

1990 Tahoe National Forest Lands and Resource Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service 1990), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (U.S. Forest Service 2004);

June 2017 Amendment of the Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad (USFWS 2017);

Placer County Community Development Resource Agency Sample Conditions (Placer County 2012); and

nonnative invasive plant management RPMs for project-related nonnative invasive plant control taken from Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers (Cal-IPC 2012).

The RPMs are considered part of the project by the Forest Service and will be conditions of approval of the Placer County Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Responsibility for ensuring that required RPMs are implemented rests with the Forest Service and Placer County; in some cases, it is a joint responsibility, whereas in others, it is agency specific. Responsibility is identified in the table below. Some RPMs also include participation by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Placer County Air Pollution Control District. When the enforcement of an RPM is the responsibility of the Forest Service, the ultimate enforcement mechanism will be compliance with the terms and conditions of the Ski Area Term Permit and associated construction and operation plans administered by the Forest Service Mountain Sports Administrator, the District Ranger, and the Forest Supervisor. When the enforcement of an RPM is the responsibility of Placer County, the ultimate enforcement mechanism will be contained in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and conditions of approval in the CUP.

In the table of RPMs provided below, to the right of the RPM descriptions, the table identifies whether the responsible jurisdiction for the RPM is the Forest Service, Placer County, or both agencies. The role of the responsible jurisdiction is identified through a plain reading and interpretation of the text of the RPM. For example, RPM BIO-28 states, “No pets or firearms will be allowed in the project area.” In this case, the Forest Service and the County are both identified as responsible jurisdictions, and their role would be in an enforcement capacity, responding to any observations by the environmental monitors, the public, or others regarding violation of this RPM. As another example, RPM WQ-16 states, in part, “The USFS hydrologist or qualified specialist must approve locations of skid trails, travel routes and other areas of heavy equipment operations….” In this case, the Forest Service is identified as the responsible jurisdiction, and the Forest Service has a clear review and approval role before an action is taken and would have an enforcement role if a skid trail were created prior to receipt of necessary approval.

To the right of the two “Responsible Jurisdiction” columns in the table of RPMs are two additional columns identifying the applicable lands, or geographic area, where the RPM is applicable. Using the example of RPM WQ-16 identified above, this RPM applies specifically to actions to be taken by the Forest Service, and the RPM is applicable only on Forest Service lands. This RPM does not provide a Forest Service “hydrologist or qualified specialist” with the authority to review and approve the location of skid trails and travel routes on

Appendix A SE Group & Ascent Environmental

U.S. Forest Service and Placer County A-2 Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-to-Base Gondola Project

private lands. However, the limitations on pets and firearms in the project area provided in RPM BIO-28 are common and prudent measures to protect native wildlife, and this RPM is applicable to both Forest Service and private lands (i.e., the entirety of the project area).

Although not anticipated, if any circumstances occur where two or more RPMs provide different standards/level of protection for the same resource, the RPM with the most stringent standards/level of protection will apply.

At the end of some of the RPM descriptions, one or more BMPs are indicated by numeric designations (e.g., 2.1, 5.4). These numeric BMP designations correspond to Best Hydrologic Management Practices provided in the Forest Service Region 5 (R5) Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (U.S. Forest Service 2011). These BMPs will be implemented with the RPMs. The BMPs are associated with the particular RPMs because the RPM itself satisfies all or part of the applicable elements of the BMP, or the RPM and BMP address similar resources. The Soil and Water Conservation Handbook provides BMPs for a broad range of activities undertaken on R5 forests, such as grazing, timber harvests, and facility development. Only BMPs applicable to the project are identified in the table below. Implementation of the BMPs that are applicable to the project are required to meet R5 policies and to be consistent with the provisions of the 1981 Management Agency Agreement between the State Water Resources Control Board and the Forest Service as the designated Water Quality Management Agency on NFS lands.



RPM Number RPM Description

Responsible Jurisdiction Applicable Lands

Forest Services

Placer County

Forest Service Lands

Private Lands

Review and Approval Process

REV-1 The applicant will prepare and submit Improvement Plans, specifications, and cost estimates (per the requirements of Section II of the Land Development Manual [LDM] that are in effect at the time of submittal) to the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) for ESD review and approval. The same plans shall be submitted by the applicant to the Forest Service for their review and comment. All Placer County Improvement Plans (and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans) shall show the entire alignment and project design of the gondola on private and public lands, and all physical improvements as required by the conditions for the project as well as pertinent topographical features both on and off site. All existing and proposed utilities and easements, on site and adjacent to the project, which may be affected by planned construction, shall be shown on the plans. The applicant shall pay plan check and inspection fees and Placer County Fire Department improvement plan review and inspection fees with the 1st Improvement Plan submittal. It is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain all required agency signatures on the plans and to secure department approvals. If the Placer County Design/Site Review process and/or Development Review Committee (DRC) review is required as a condition of approval for the project, said review process shall be completed prior to submittal of Improvement Plans. Record drawings shall be prepared and signed by a California Registered Civil Engineer at the applicant's expense and shall be submitted to the ESD in both hard copy and electronic versions in a format to be approved by the ESD prior to acceptance by the County of site improvements. Any Building Permits associated with this project shall not be issued until, at a minimum, the Improvement Plans are approved by the ESD and confirmation from the Forest Service that the project on Forest Service lands conforms to all relevant Forest Service regulations, standards, Special Use Permit conditions and RPMs listed in this table. All contents of the approved Improvement Plans and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans, including drawings, specifications, and notes, must be implemented by the applicant.

X X

REV-2 Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit an erosion and sediment control plan or SWPPP, including site-specific construction site BMPs, for County and Forest Service review and approval, as required by the NPDES Phase II MS4 Permit. The County and Forest Service shall review and approve any proposed revisions to the approved erosion and sediment control plan or SWPPP. The plan or SWPPP shall include the rationale used in selecting BMPs including supporting soil loss calculations, if necessary. The plan or SWPPP shall also include a list of applicable permits directly associated with the grading activity, including, but not limited to the State Water Board’s Construction General Plan, State Water Board 401 Water Quality Certification, U.S. Army Corps 404 permit, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1600 Agreement. The applicant shall submit evidence to the County that all permits directly associated with the grading activity have been obtained prior to Improvement Plan Approval

X X X X

REV-3 Construction and Operation Plans and maps for activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands will be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service prior to the initiation of any part of project construction on NFS lands, including tree removal. The plans shall show the entire alignment and project design of the gondola on both private and public lands. Plan/map review will be used to ensure sensitive areas are adequately represented on the map or on the ground, including stream courses and their respective protection limits, Waterbody Buffer zones (WBBZs), and limits of operations within WBBZ in accordance with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) Board Order R6-T-2014-0030. GPS information is also included in the project record to identify and record locations of sensitive areas. These same maps shall be submitted by the applicant to Placer County for review and comment.

X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

REV-4 Placer County General Plan Policy C-2, in the Housing Element, requires that new development in the Sierra Nevada provide housing for a minimum of 50 percent of the full-time equivalent (FTE) employees generated by a development project. Because the gondola project would generate ten new FTE positions (two full-time, year-round employment positions and eight full-time, seasonal positions), housing would need to be provided for five employees. The applicant shall meet this obligation by either providing on-site housing, dedication of land for needed units and/or secure units elsewhere. If it can be demonstrated to the County that these mechanisms are infeasible, the applicant may pay an in-lieu fee. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans the applicant shall provide Placer County verification of compliance with General Plan Policy C-2.

X X

Multiple Resources

MUL-1 As project design and construction proceed, there is the potential that new locations may be added to the construction disturbance area (e.g., temporary access roads, temporary staging areas). If this occurs, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will complete botanical, wildlife, wetland, and cultural resources surveys, and a Non-Native Plant Risk Assessment for any areas not previously surveyed. Survey methods will follow preconstruction survey requirements provided in other RPMs. Survey results will be reported to the Forest Service and Placer County and applicable RPMs, and therefore mitigation measures, will be applied based on the resources present. Coordination with, and authorization from other agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board [LRWQCB]) will be undertaken as applicable. Use of any new location cannot begin until authorization is received from the Forest Service and Placer County and any other applicable regulatory agencies.

X X X X

MUL-2 The Improvement Plan(s) and Construction and Operation Plans submitted to Placer County and the Forest Service for review and approval shall identify the stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas with locations as far as practical from existing dwellings and protected resources in the area. Work areas shall be clearly marked with fencing, staking, flagging, or another appropriate material. All project personnel and equipment will be confined to delineated work areas. In the event that work must occur outside of the work area, approval from lead and other agencies with jurisdiction over the property will be obtained prior to the commencement of activities. Fencing/flagging of resource exclusion area (e.g., aquatic habitats, invasive weed infestations) are addressed in RPMs specific to these resources.

X X X X

MUL-3 To the maximum extent possible, use existing roads to access the project site and construction area. Temporary access routes and overland travel routes must be approved by the Forest Service and Placer County before use. BMP 2.1

X X X X

MUL-4 For Alternative 2, the Alpine Meadows mid-station may be open to skier entry/exit through April 15th only, to minimize the potential for adverse effects on Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog at Barstool Lake. For Alternatives 3 and 4, skier entry/exit at the Alpine Meadows mid-station will correspond directly with overall gondola operation. The only operation during the non-winter/ski season would be for short periods associated with maintenance and testing, including occasionally moving individual cabins, or small numbers of cabins, across the system. These operational conditions will be reflected in the Forest Service special use permit (SUP) and the Placer County Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

X X X X

MUL-5 At least one environmental monitor, as specified by Placer County, Forest Service or other permitting authority requirements, will be on-site during all construction activities. Environmental monitors will be qualified to address the environmental resources being protected (e.g., biological, cultural) per the requirements of each applicable RPM and approved by the Forest Service and Placer County. Unless specified otherwise in other RPMs, monitors will be allowed to cover up to 0.75-mile of the project area at once to allow multiple crews to work in close proximity to each other at the same time. Environmental monitors will have the authority to stop work or direct work in order to help ensure the protection of resources and compliance with all permits.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

MUL-6 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will design and, with approval by the Forest Service and Placer County, implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) that will be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors. Prior to construction, all Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, contractor, and subcontractor project personnel will receive training from qualified resource specialists regarding the appropriate work practices necessary to effectively implement the RPMs and any mitigation measures, and to comply with the applicable environmental laws and regulations. The training will identify appropriate wildlife avoidance measures, impact minimization procedures, the importance of sensitive resources, and the purpose and methods for protecting such resources. The training will also include a discussion of BMPs to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction and measures for the safe transport, use, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. For cultural resources, the training will identify, at a minimum: types of heritage and cultural resources that could be encountered in the project area; types of evidence that indicates heritage or cultural resources might be present (e.g., ceramic shards, trash scatters, lithic scatters); roles and responsibilities of the construction monitors; what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; what to do if a worker encounters bones or possible bones; and penalties for removing or intentionally disturbing heritage and cultural

resources.

X X X X

MUL-7 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings has committed to completing all ground disturbing activities and construction of the gondola alignment in a single construction season. All site clean-up, soil stabilization, revegetation, winterization, and related activities will be completed by October 15. Although vertical construction may continue if weather and soil conditions permit as determined by the Forest Service, Placer County, and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). Materials and equipment required to complete site clean-up and stabilization/winterization will not be permitted to be removed from the project site until Forest Service and Placer County have inspected the site and determined that the work is adequate.

X X X X

Recreation

REC-1 A public-liaison will be assigned by Squaw Valley Ski Holdings to provide the public with advance notification of construction activities at least 15 days prior to the start of construction activities. A project website will be developed for the public to ask questions about the construction process and schedule. Concerns related to dust, noise, odor, trail closures, and access restrictions associated with construction activities will be addressed within this program.

X X X X

REC-2 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will provide the Forest Service, as part of the Construction and Operation Plans, notice of all construction activities potentially affecting recreation areas and trail systems, including temporary trail closures, within the Forest Service trail system. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will coordinate with Forest Service prior to preparation of the plan to avoid conflicts with known, scheduled, permitted events. Such avoidance will be reflected in the annual construction plan. Notification to Forest Service officials will be provided at least 60 days before construction begins in these areas.

X X

REC-3 Signs advising recreationists of construction activities and directing them to alternative trails will be posted at all trail access points or in locations as determined through coordination with the respective jurisdictional agencies. Signage describing the closures will be posted at trail access points one week prior to closures, will remain posted during the entire closure period, and will be removed upon completion of construction.

X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

REC-4 Signage will be posted at both the Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows base terminals and mid-stations stating that walking or hiking trail access directly from the gondola (i.e., by exiting at a mid-station) is strictly prohibited. The applicant will not permit foot traffic to exit at the Squaw Valley mid-station, or the Alpine Meadows mid-station under Alternative 2.

X X X X

Scenic Resources

SCE-1 Prior to development of above ground structures, facilities, and features, design plans will be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service as part of the Design Review Process. Applicable structures must meet the Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) guidelines (available at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/beig/). It has been determined that the Forest Service BEIG guidelines are more stringent than County design standards, and in an effort to maintain a consistent aesthetic and level of design throughout the project, these standards will provide the basis for design related approvals by both the Forest Service and Placer County Design Site Review (also see RPM SCE-7)

X X X X

SCE-2 Choose structure design, scale, and color of materials, location, and orientation to meet the Forest Service visual quality objective of the Project Area and reduce potential visual contrast. It has been determined that the Forest Service BEIG guidelines are more stringent than County design standards, and as such, these standards will provide the basis for design related approvals by both the Forest Service and Placer County Design Site Review.

X X X X

SCE-3 Stumps must be cut as low as possible to the ground to avoid safety hazards and lessen scenic impacts. X X X X

SCE-4 All structures, facilities, and above ground features will meet color guidelines. Bright colors are inappropriate for the forest setting. The colors must be muted, subdued colors because they blend well with the natural color scheme. The FSH 617, “National Forest Landscape Management for Ski Areas, Volume 2, Chapter 7,” identifies recommended colors for ski areas. It has been determined that the Forest Service guidelines are more stringent than County design standards, and as such, these standards will provide the basis for design related approvals by both the Forest Service and Placer County Design Site Review.

X X X X

SCE-5 All structures, facilities, and above ground features will meet applicable reflectivity guidelines. This includes any reflective surfaces (metal, glass, plastics, or other materials with smooth surfaces), that do not blend with the natural environment. They must be covered, painted, stained, chemically treated, etched, sandblasted, corrugated, or otherwise treated to meet the solar reflectivity standards. The specific requirements for reflectivity are as follows: Structures with exteriors consisting of galvanized metal or other reflective surfaces will be treated or painted dark non-reflective colors that blend with the forest background to meet an average neutral value of 4.5 or less as measured on the Munsell neutral scale.

X X X X

SCE-6 Trees will be retained, where possible, to provide species and size diversity, maintain forest cover, and screen facilities. X X X X

SCE-7 The project is subject to review by the Placer County Design/Site Review Committee (D/SRC) and approval by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC). In addition, the portion of the project in Olympic Valley is subject to review and recommendation by the Squaw Valley Design Review Committee. Such a review shall be conducted prior to the submittal of the Improvement Plans for the project and shall include, but not be limited to: architectural colors, materials, and textures of all structures; signs; exterior lighting; snow storage areas; storage area(s); fences and walls; tree impacts, tree removal, and tree replacement areas. It has been determined that the Forest Service BEIG guidelines are more stringent than County design standards, and as such, these standards will provide the basis for design related approvals. This process will be coordinated with, and be consistent with, the Forest Service Design Review process (also see RPM SCE-1)

X X

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/beig/





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

SCE-8 Prior to Improvement Plan approval, a detailed lighting and photometric plan shall be submitted to the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC) for review and approval, which include the following: A) The site lighting plan shall demonstrate compliance with the Squaw Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance (SVGPLUO), the Alpine Meadows

General Plan, and the Placer County Design Guidelines. The night lighting design shall be designed to minimize impacts to adjoining and nearby land uses. No lighting is permitted on top of structures.

B) Building lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such that the bulb or ballast is not visible. Lighting fixture design shall complement the building colors and materials and shall be used to light entries, soffits, covered walkways and pedestrian areas such as plazas. Roof and wall pack lighting shall not be used. Lighting intensity shall be of a level that only highlights the adjacent building area and ground area and shall not impose glare on any pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

C) Landscape lighting may be used to visually accentuate and highlight ornamental shrubs and trees adjacent to buildings, monument signs, and in open spaces. Lighting intensity shall be of a level that only highlights shrubs and trees and shall not impose glare on any pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

It has been determined that the County’s guidelines are more stringent than the Forest Service BEIG guidelines for lighting, and as such, the County standards will provide the basis for lighting related approvals. The photometric plan shall be submitted to the Forest Service for review and comment.

X X X X

Public Safety/Hazards

HAZ-1 Prior to construction, all Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, contractor, and subcontractor project personnel will receive training regarding the work practices necessary to effectively implement the RPMs to comply with the applicable environmental laws and regulations associated with hazardous materials.

X X X X

HAZ-2 Prior to construction, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will prepare a Fire Suppression and Prevention Plan that will discuss necessary fire equipment to be stored at the project staging areas, appropriate protective wear, preconstruction and construction fire prevention measures, fire-fighting methods, and notification procedures in the event of a fire. This plan will be submitted to the Forest Service, Placer County, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, and the Squaw Valley Fire Department for review and approval prior to the start of construction.

X X X X

HAZ-3 Prior to construction, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will prepare a Flammable Gasses Safety Plan that address the storage, transport, and disposal of propane, oxygen, and any other flammable gases associated with operation of the proposed Gazex facilities. The plan will address the timing/criteria for the required removal of flammable gases from the Gazex facility prior to the beginning of fire season, and the timing/criteria for when flammable gases may be returned to the facility. The plan will also address response and reporting procedures for events such as potential gas leaks and damage to storage tanks. This plan will be submitted to the Forest Service, Placer County, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, and the Squaw Valley Fire Department for review and approval prior to the start of construction.

X X X X

HAZ-4 During project construction, maintenance, and repairs, smoking will only be allowed in designated cleared areas or enclosed vehicles to reduce the potential for wildfires.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

HAZ-5 Prior to Improvement Plan approval by Placer County, the applicant shall submit one of the following: A) A business plan and fee payment required fees to Placer County Environmental Health Services (EHS) Hazardous Materials Section, for review and

approval. The actual fees paid will be those in effect at the time payment occurs. “Hazardous” materials, as defined in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Articles 1 & 2, shall not be allowed on any premises in regulated quantities without notification to EHS.

B) A Placer County Hazardous Materials Project/Business Activities Screening Form to an Environmental Health Services (EHS) Technician, for review and approval. “Hazardous” materials, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Articles 1 & 2, shall not be allowed on any premises in regulated quantities without notification to EHS.

These documents shall also be provided to the Forest Service for review and comment.

X X X

HAZ-6 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement Plans and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: If at any time during the course of constructing the proposed project, evidence of soil and/or groundwater contamination with hazardous material is encountered on National Forest System (NFS) lands or private lands, the applicant shall immediately stop the project and contact the Placer County Environmental Health Services (EHS) Hazardous Materials Section. The project shall remain stopped until there is resolution of the contamination problem to the satisfaction of EHS and to the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LWQCB), and to the Forest Service if the contamination is on NFS lands.

X X X X

HAZ-7 Any hazardous materials used or collected during the life of the project shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable hazardous materials laws and regulations.

X X X X

HAZ-8 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plans: On private lands, and during construction, temporary storage and use of hazardous substances shall comply with Placer County Fire and (Environmental Health Services) EHS regulations and requirements, and spill prevention practices shall be used.

X X

HAZ-9 The project is located within a “State Responsibility Area” and, as such, is subject to fire protection regulations established by the State Board of Forestry. Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, compliance with these regulations shall be evidenced by submittal of a letter from California Department of Forestry (CAL FIRE) or the local fire authority having jurisdiction to the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD).

X X

HAZ-10 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall show that the applicant shall comply with any conditions imposed by the California Department of Forestry (CAL FIRE) or the serving fire districts.

X X

HAZ-11 The County shall require all new development projects to prepare and implement an emergency preparedness and evacuation plan (EPEP) consistent with Government Code Section 65302(g) (protection from unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismic, geologic or flooding events or wildland fires, etc.) and in furtherance of the Placer Operational Area Eastside Emergency Access Evacuation Plan.

X X X

Utilities

UTL-1 During the project design process, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will coordinate with utility providers in the project area to identify the location of underground facilities in the vicinity of the selected alignment and staging areas. The final excavation and grading plans provided to Placer County and the Forest Service will avoid existing utilities where possible; and where it is not possible to avoid utilities, the applicant will coordinate with service providers to minimize disturbance. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant will verify utility locations through field surveys and use of the Underground Service Alert (USA) services. Any buried utility lines will be clearly marked in construction areas.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

UTL-2 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall be approved by the water supply entities for water service, supply, and maintenance. The water supply entities shall submit to the Placer County Environmental Health Services (EHS) and the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) “will-serve” letters or a “letters of availability” from the water district indicating that the agency has the ability and system capacity to provide the project’s domestic and fire protection water quantity needs. The applicant shall connect the project to this treated domestic water supply.

X X

UTL-3 Prior to Placer County Building Permit issuance, the domestic water supplying entity shall be in compliance with the requirements of Placer County Code, Section 16.08.040(e).

X X

Noise

NOI-1 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will designate a Disturbance Coordinator, who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Disturbance Coordinator will determine the nature of the noise complaint and will propose reasonable measures to correct the problem.

X X X X

NOI-2 All internal combustion-engine driven equipment will be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

X X X X

NOI-3 Helicopter flight patterns will be designed to avoid and minimize flights over residential areas and the Granite Chief Wilderness Area to the extent practical.

X X X X

NOI-4 Include the following standard note on the Improvement Plans and Construction and Operation Plans: In the event of blasting, three copies of an approved plan and permit shall be submitted to the County not less than 10 days prior to the scheduled blasting. A blasting permit must be obtained from the Placer County Sheriff's Department for all blasting to be done in Placer County. Additionally, the County must be notified and give approval for all blasting done within County right-of-way. If utility infrastructure is in the vicinity where blasting is to occur, the appropriate utility companies must be notified to determine possible damage prevention measures. If blasting is required, the blasting schedule shall be approved by the County and any other utility companies with facilities in the area prior to the commencement of work. Blasting will only be conducted by State licensed contractors. This measure applies to both National Forest System and private lands.

X X X X

NOI-5 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, the project owner or authorized managing entity shall insure that all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within close proximity of a residential dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers at all times during project construction. It is the owner’s/applicant’s responsibility to obtain the services of a qualified acoustical professional to verify proper equipment mufflers if concerns relating to the issue arise. A note to this effect shall be added to the Placer County Improvement Plans where applicable.

X X X

NOI-6 Construction noise emanating from any construction activities, including any blasting and helicopter flights, is prohibited on Sundays and Federal Holidays, and shall only occur: a) Monday through Friday, 6:00 am to 8:00 pm (during daylight savings) b) Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 8:00 pm (during standard time) c) Saturdays, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

In addition, temporary signs 4 feet x 4 feet shall be located throughout the project, as determined by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC), at key intersections depicting the above construction hour limitations. Said signs shall include a toll free public information phone number where surrounding residents can report violations and the developer/builder will respond and resolve noise violations. This condition shall be included on the Placer County Improvement Plans and shown in the County’s development notebook. Quiet activities, which do not involve heavy equipment or machinery, may occur at other times. Work occurring within an enclosed building, such as a house under construction with the roof and siding completed, may occur at other times as well. The Planning Director is authorized to waive the time frames based on special circumstances, such as adverse weather conditions. This same plan shall be submitted to the Forest Service for their review and incorporation into the Construction and Operation Plans.

Air Quality –a Indicates that this RPMs also falls under the Placer County Air Pollution Control District’s (PCAPCD) jurisdiction and PCAPCD also has enforcement authority.

AQ-1 The applicant will submit a Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) for approval prior to ground disturbance or vegetation removal associated with construction of the proposed project. The Dust Control Plan will summarize the RPMs related to emissions control during construction. BMP 2.4, 2.5, 2.13

Ax

Xa

X X

AQ-2 Unpaved areas subject to vehicle access will be stabilized using water at least two times daily, or as needed to control fugitive dust. Water will be preferred except on roads where distance limits practical application of water. A locally approved chemical dust palliative, applied according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, may be substituted for watering. On NFS lands, palliatives would be used in accordance with T Spec 806. Palliatives cannot be applied within a 25-foot buffer from any flowing water; this includes culverts or bridges that are currently flowing water. Dust stabilization and/or reduction measures will also be required where helicopters land, take-off, or where the helicopter is close enough to the ground (e.g., material delivery) to generate a dust plume. BMP 2.4, 2.5, 2.13

X X X X

AQ-3 All inactive, disturbed portions of the project’s right-of-way (ROW) will be covered, seeded, or watered, as needed to control fugitive dust, until suitable vegetative cover is established, as determined by the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) and the Forest Service. BMP 2.4, 2.5, 2.13

X X X X

AQ-4 If wind-driven or helicopter generated fugitive dust cannot be sufficiently stabilized using water, chemical dust suppressant, or other means such that the resulting dust plume crosses into a residential/lodging land use, the dust generating activities must cease until dust can be effectively controlled. BMP 2.4, 2.5, 2.13

X X X X

AQ-5 Exposed stockpiles (e.g., dirt, sand, etc.) will be covered and/or stabilized with water or a locally approved chemical dust stabilizer as needed to control fugitive dust emissions. When loading or unloading stockpiled material, material will be stabilized using water and/or drop heights will be minimized to control fugitive dust. BMP 2.4, 2.5, 2.13

X X X X

AQ-6 Any visible trackout deposited on paved, public roadways will be cleaned up at the conclusion of each workday or at 24-hour intervals for continuous operation. If trackout extends for a cumulative distance greater than 50 feet, it will be cleaned up within 1 hour. Trackout will be cleaned with a wet sweeper or vacuum device.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

AQ-7 Trucks transporting bulk materials off-site will be maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in the cargo compartments. Loads will be completely covered or the bulk material will be wetted and loaded to maintain 6 inches of freeboard from the top of the container.

X X X X

AQ-8 All off-road diesel engines with a rated output of greater than 100 horsepower will, at a minimum, meet the Tier II California Emissions Standards for Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. If reasonably available, Tier III engines will be employed.

Xa Xa X X

AQ-9 If the project’s emissions of criteria pollutants exceed applicable thresholds, resulting in a significant impact, to mitigate the project’s contribution to long-term emission of pollutants, the applicant shall implement one of the following: A) Participate in the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) Offsite Mitigation Program by paying the equivalent amount of money, which

is equal to the project’s contribution of pollutants (ROG and NOx), which exceeds the cumulative threshold of 55 pounds per day. The actual amount to be paid shall be determined, per current California Air Resource Board guidelines, at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. Verification of participation in the Offside Mitigation Program shall be provided prior to approval of Improvement Plans for the project.

or, B) Participate in an offsite mitigation program, coordinated through the PCAPCD, to offset the project’s long-term emission of pollutants. Examples

include participation in a “Biomass” program, retrofitting mobile sources (i.e. busses, heavy duty diesel equipment), or any other program that is deemed acceptable by the Director of the PCAPCD. Any proposed offsite mitigation shall be located within the same region as the project. This condition shall be satisfied prior to approval of Improvement Plans for the project.

Xa Xa X X

AQ-10 A) Prior to Placer County approval of Grading or Improvement Plans, on project sites greater than one acre, the applicant shall submit a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). If PCAPCD does not respond within twenty (20) days of the plan being accepted as complete, the plan shall be considered approved. The applicant shall provide written evidence, provided by PCAPCD, to Placer County that the plan has been submitted to PCAPCD. It is the responsibility of the applicant to deliver the approved plan to Placer County. The applicant shall not break ground prior to receiving PCAPCD approval of the Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan and delivering that approval to Placer County. B) Include the following standard note on the Placer County Grading Plan or Improvement Plans: The prime contractor shall submit to the PCAPCD a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower of greater) that will be used in aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall contact PCAPCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide PCAPCD with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, name, and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman. C) Prior to approval of Placer County Grading or Improvement Plans, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a written calculation to the PCAPCD, for approval by the District, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction as required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The following link shall be used to calculate compliance with this condition and shall be submitted to the PCAPCD as described above: http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/ (click on the current “Roadway Construction Emissions Model”).

Xa X X

http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

AQ-11 A) In order to control dust, operational watering trucks shall be on site during construction hours. In addition, dry, mechanical sweeping is prohibited. Watering of a construction site shall be carried out in compliance with all pertinent Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) rules (or as required by ordinance within each local jurisdiction). B) Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans,: The prime contractor shall be responsible for keeping adjacent public thoroughfares clean of silt, dirt, mud, and debris, and shall “wet broom” the streets (or use another method to control dust as approved by the individual jurisdiction) if silt, dirt, mud or debris is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 228 / section 401.5) C) Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: The contractor shall apply water or use other method to control dust impacts offsite. Construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off-site. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 228 / section 401.1, 401.4)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-12 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 228 / section 401.5)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-13 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: The prime contractor shall suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) are excessive and dust is impacting adjacent properties. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 228)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-14 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: In order to minimize wind driven dust during construction, the prime contractor shall apply methods such as surface stabilization, establishment of a vegetative cover, paving, (or use another method to control dust as approved by Placer County and the Forest Service). (Based on PCAPCD Rule 228 / section 402)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-15 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: The contractor shall suspend all grading operations when fugitive dust exceeds Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) Rule 228 (Fugitive Dust) limitations. The prime contractor shall be responsible for having an individual who is California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE). This individual shall evaluate compliance with Rule 228 on a weekly basis. It is to be noted that fugitive dust is not to exceed 40% opacity and not go beyond the property boundary at any time. Lime or other drying agents utilized to dry out wet grading areas shall not exceed PCAPCD Rule 228 Fugitive Dust limitations. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits will be notified by PCAPCD and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 228)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-16 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) Rule 202 Visible Emission limitations. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits are to be immediately notified by PCAPCD to cease operations and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 202)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-17 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: During construction the contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel (i.e. gasoline, biodiesel, natural gas) generators rather than temporary diesel power generators.

Xa Xa X X

AQ-18 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of five (5) minutes for all diesel-powered equipment.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

AQ-19 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: During construction, no open burning of removed vegetation shall be allowed. All removed vegetative material on private land, other than marketable lumber, shall be either chipped on site (if approved by the land owner) or taken to an appropriate recycling site, or if a site is not available, a licensed disposal site. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 310)

Xa Xa X

AQ-20 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: If required by the Placer County Engineering Division and/or the Department of Public Works and Facilities, the contractor shall hold a pre-construction meeting prior to any grading activities. The contractor shall invite the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Placer County staff, and Forest Service staff to the pre-construction meeting in order to discuss the construction emission/dust control plan with employees and/or contractors.

Xa Xa X X

AQ-21 Include the following standard note on the Placer County Improvement/Grading Plan and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans: Processes that discharge two (2) pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit from the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). Permits may be required for both construction and operation. Developers/contractors shall contact the PCAPCD prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Based on the California Health & Safety Code section 39013: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=39001-40000&file=39010-39060)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-22 Include the following standard note on all building plans approved in association with this project: Stationary sources or processes (i.e. certain types of engines, boilers, heaters, etc.) associated with this project shall be required to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit from the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) prior to the construction of these sources. In general, the following types of sources shall be required to obtain a permit: 1). Any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower, 2). Any boiler that produces heat in excess of 1,000,000 Btu per hour, or 3) Any equipment or process which discharge 2 pounds per day or more of pollutants. Developers / contactors shall contact the PCAPDC prior to construction for additional information. (Based on PCAPCD Rule 501 and the California Health & Safety Code, Section 39013).

Xa Xa X X

AQ-23 For those projects which include stationary emission sources (i.e. gasoline dispensing facility, auto painting, dry cleaning, large HVAC units, etc.), the applicant shall obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit from the PCAPCD prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from Placer County. NOTE: A third party detailed Health Risk Assessment may be required as a part of the permitting process.

Xa X X

AQ-24 Include the following standard note on all building plans approved in association with this project: To limit the quantity of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), all projects must comply with PCAPCD Rule 218. Please see the District’s website for additional information: (Based on PCAPCD Rule 218)

Xa Xa X X

AQ-25 Prior to approval of Placer County Grading/Improvement Plans, the applicant shall provide a landscaping plan for review and approval by the Placer County Design/Site Review Committee. As required by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), landscaping shall include native drought-resistant species (plants, trees and bushes) in order to reduce the demand for irrigation and gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. As a part of the project design, the applicant shall include irrigation systems which efficiently utilize water (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non- vegetated surfaces and systems which create runoff). In addition, the applicant shall install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls, rain “shut off” valves, or other devices as reviewed and approved by the Placer County Design/Site Review Committee.

Xa X

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=39001-40000&file=39010-39060

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=39001-40000&file=39010-39060





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

AQ-26 If the project exceeds the cumulative air quality thresholds as established by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) (a maximum of 55 pounds per day of ROG and/or NOX), to mitigate the project’s contribution to long-term emission of pollutants, the applicant shall either: A. (preferred by PCAPCD): Establish mitigation on-site by incorporating design features within the project. This may include, but not be limited to:

“green” building features such solar panels, energy efficient heating and cooling, exceeding Title 24 standards, bike lanes, bus shelters, etc. NOTE: The specific amounts of “credits” received shall be established and coordinated through the PCAPCD.

B. Establish mitigation off-site within the same region (i.e. east or west Placer County) by participating in an offsite mitigation program, coordinated through the PCAPCD. Examples include, but are not limited to, participation in a “Biomass” program that provides emissions benefits; retrofitting, repowering, or replacing heavy duty engines from mobile sources (i.e. busses, construction equipment, on road haulers); or other program that the project proponent may propose to reduce emissions.

C. Participate in the PCAPCD Offsite Mitigation Program by paying the equivalent amount of money, which is equal to the projects contribution of pollutants (ROG and NOx), which exceeds the cumulative threshold of 10 pounds per day. The actual amount to be paid shall be determined, and satisfied, per current California Air Resource Board (CARB) guideline.

D. Any combination of a, b, or c, as determined feasible by the Director of the PCAPCD. NOTE: All mitigation measures (either a, b, c, or d) must be satisfied prior to approval of Placer County Improvement Plans. It is the applicant’s responsibility to forward written proof of satisfaction of this condition to PCAPCD.

Xa Xa X X

Biological Resources

BIO-1 Qualified environmental monitors, approved by the Forest Service and Placer County, will be present with each crew during all vegetation-removal activities to help ensure that impacts to biological resources are minimized to the extent possible.

X X X X

BIO-2 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will conduct a complete pre-construction floristic survey of construction activity areas (including all construction vehicle travel routes, but not paved public roadways), and lands within 50-feet of construction activity areas. The pre-construction floristic survey will include all rare plants, fungi, and non-native invasive plants, and be conducted during a time that coincides with the greatest number of blooming periods for target species. This survey will be conducted no more than one year prior to the start of construction. Surveys conducted previously in support of the EIS/EIR process may fulfill this requirement if they meet the timeframe limitations. Populations of rare plants or fungi and weed-infested areas within the survey area will be flagged or fenced no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. Flagging and fencing will be refreshed and maintained throughout construction. Implementation of this measure will occur in coordination with the Forest Service and Placer County.

X X X X

BIO-3 Before construction activities begin, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will treat invasive plant infestations in the construction activity area, and within 50-feet of the construction activity area. Any new invasive plant infestations discovered during construction will be documented, reported to the land owner, and treated where needed as determined by the Forest Service on National Forest System (NFS) lands and by Placer County on private lands. As the Forest Service invasive plant infestation criteria are more stringent than Placer County’s, the same criteria applied by the Forest Service will be applied to private lands. After construction is complete, the applicant will monitor all construction disturbance areas for new noxious weed invasions and expansion of existing weed populations and treat invasive plan infestations where needed as determined by the Forest Service on NFS lands and by Placer County on private lands. Post-construction monitoring for noxious weeds would be conducted annually for three years.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

Invasive plant treatments will be selected based on each species ecology and phenology and responses to treatments. For example, for perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), the only consistently effective treatment is use of herbicides. Whereas some other species may be effectively eradicated through mechanical removal or other means. Examples of potential removal methods include hand pulling, tarping, mowing, thermal treatment, and herbicide application. All treatment methods—including the use of herbicides—will be conducted in accordance with the law, regulations, and policies governing the land owner. On NFS lands and private lands, the Forest Service District Botanist or their designated appointee will be consulted prior to initiation of any invasive plant treatment. Land owners will be notified prior to the use of herbicides for invasive plant treatment. If there are any areas where pre-construction treatment is not feasible, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will clearly flag or fence non-native invasive plant areas in order to delineate the area as a work exclusion zone. [Nonnative Invasive Plant Management Resource Protection Measures for Project related Non-native Invasive Plant Control taken from “Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers” (Cal-IPC 2012).] If the use of herbicides is selected as the most appropriate control method for invasive plant infestations, the following restrictions will apply: Herbicides will only be applied by licensed applicators. Prior to herbicide application, the application area will be clearly identified by flagging or other means. The application area will be the minimum

necessary to achieve the eradication of the invasive plant infestation as judged by the District Botanist or their designated appointee on NFS lands, and an environmental monitor approved by Placer County on private lands, and in coordination with the licensed applicator.

A Forest Service employee and/or an environmental monitor approved by the Forest Service and Placer County will be present during all herbicide applications to ensure that herbicide remains within the designated application area.

Spraying will not be used as an herbicide application method if wind speeds are sufficient to carry herbicide outside of the designated application area.

Chlorsulfuron and Triclopyr will not be applied within 50 feet of perennial or seasonal waterbodies or wetlands. Only dipping, wiping, or spot applications of Aminopyralid or the aquatic formulation of Glyphosate will be used within a zone between 10

to 50 feet of perennial or seasonal waterbodies or wetlands, including adjacent to occupied Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) habitats (consistent with Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment [SNFPA] Standard and Guideline #98).

Herbicide application will not take place within six hours of predicted rainfall that has a high probability of producing measurable runoff. Streams or other surface waters shall not be used for washing herbicide application equipment or personnel, unless required in an

emergency situation. As required by law, water soap and towels will be available within ¼ mile of applicators and at mixing sites. Mixing of herbicides for application will take place more than 100 feet from perennial or seasonal waterbodies or wetlands.

BIO-4 Equipment will arrive at the project area clean and weed-free. Equipment will be inspected by the on-site environmental monitor for mud or other signs that weed seeds or propagules could be present prior to use in the project area. If the equipment is not clean, the monitor will deny entry to the work areas. BMP 2.8

X X X X

BIO-5 Vehicles and equipment will be cleaned using high-pressure water or air at designated weed-cleaning stations after exiting a weed-infested area, as specified by the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (NWRA). Cleaning stations will be designated by a botanist or noxious weed specialist and located away from aquatic resources. BMP 2.8

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

BIO-6 Any revegetation, erosion control, dust control, and similar plans prepared for the project that call for the use of mulch will identify that native materials such as conifer needles or locally produced chips from non-infested, nearby areas, would be preferred as mulch material. Manure is not an acceptable mulch material. Plans would be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service and Placer County as identified in applicable RPMs. BMP 5.4

X X X X

BIO-7 Only certified weed-free construction materials, such as sand, gravel, straw, or fill, will be used throughout the project. X X X X

BIO-8 An available method of treatment for those noxious weeds which typically spread by seed and not roots is to dig, grub or hand pull, remove the top portion of the roots and dispose of the material in a special landfill which buries the bags of material, or dispose, or destroy in another manner acceptable to the Forest Service and Placer County. As an alternative to, or in addition to digging or hand pulling, layers of mulch, degradable geotextiles, or similar materials may be placed over infestation areas to minimize the spread of seeds and plant materials by equipment and vehicles during construction. These materials will be secured so they are not blown or washed away. Noxious weeds which do spread by root rhizomes may be treated by placing black plastic or some other non-breathable barrier, if the infestation is small enough. Problematic rhizomatous noxious weed infestations may require the use of appropriate herbicides.

X X X X

BIO-9 Exclusion zones will be established around any identified special-status plants if they are found. In consultation with a qualified botanist, the Forest Service, and Placer County, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will first attempt to avoid effects of project implementation on rare plants and protect their occurrences/populations in situ. In the event that a rare plant cannot be avoided by construction activities, CDFW and/or USFWS will be notified, as applicable, depending on the species regulatory status. Coordination with CDFW and/or USFWS will be undertaken, in collaboration with the Forest Service and Placer County, to establish appropriate mitigation measures. If sacrifice seed collection or transplantation are selected as appropriate mitigations, then the following measures would apply: a) Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will collect any mature seeds from the affected plants and store them at an appropriate native plant nursery or comparable facility; b) upon the completion of work, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will redistribute the seeds within the original location of the population; c) Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will establish performance standards for survivorship and will also monitor and document the success rate of the transplanted individuals for three consecutive growing seasons; d) if performance standards are not met, corrective measures will be implemented and monitoring and adaptive management continued until success criteria are met.

X X X X

BIO-10 Any rare plants identified during floristic surveys (e.g., surveys conducted at new disturbance areas or if project construction begins more than a year after completion of the most recent survey) will be documented and photographed, and a Native Species Field Survey Form will be submitted to the CNDDB. The Forest Service or Placer County will notify CDFW, and/or Forest Service, as applicable depending on the species listing status.

X X X X

BIO-11 Construction or tree removal work within 50-feet of a sensitive plant occurrence will be monitored by a qualified environmental monitor to ensure protective measures are sufficient.

X X X X

BIO-12 Nesting bird surveys will be conducted no more than 30 days prior to construction activities if work is scheduled to occur during the breeding season—March to September. Survey details (e.g., dates, survey area, specific methods) will be coordinated with a Forest Service biologist at least 30-days before surveys are initiated. Surveys will extend a minimum of 100-feet beyond the boundary of the construction area; however, surveys for nesting spotted owls will cover an area within 0.25 mile of the construction area and surveys for nesting goshawk will cover an area within 0.5 mile of the construction area. Exclusionary buffer zones (to be determined based on species-specific needs) will be created surrounding any active nests found during the surveys. Buffers will be established by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction. If an area is given clearance to proceed with

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

construction and nesting subsequently occurs, it will be assumed that the individuals are acclimated to the ongoing disturbance of construction and a buffer need not be established. However, if circumstances exist such that a qualified biologist determines that there is a high likelihood that future activities may result in the abandonment or failure of the nest, an appropriate exclusionary buffer will be established by Squaw Valley Ski Holdings in coordination with the CDFW and/or USFWS, as well as the Forest Service and Placer County.

BIO-13 No falling of trees will occur within 0.25 mile of active California spotted owl nests during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31) or within 0.50 mile of active northern goshawk nests during the breeding season (February 15 to September 15), unless surveys confirm that the birds are not nesting. All helicopter flight paths will be coordinated with a Forest Service biologist to limit disturbance to PACs (Protected Activity Centers). A qualified biologist will have the ability to amend the start and end dates of these breeding seasons with concurrence from appropriate agencies if it can be determined that breeding has not started or that fledglings have left the nest. If the location of a nest site within a PAC is unknown, either surveys are required to locate the nest stand and determine nesting status or, as an alternative to surveys, an activity buffer will be applied to the 0.25-mile area surrounding the PAC. The activity buffer may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nest site will be shielded from planned activities by topographic features that will minimize disturbance, the buffer distance may be modified in coordination with the Forest Service.

X X X X

BIO-14 Preconstruction biological surveys will be conducted no more than 30 days prior to construction activities to identify biological resources, including burrows and den sites of sensitive mammal species, which could be impacted by construction activities. All burrows and den sites will be inspected for use by sensitive mammals, and buffers may be established based on occupation. If an area is given clearance to proceed with construction and burrowing or denning activities subsequently occur, it will be assumed that the individuals are acclimated to the ongoing disturbance of construction. If circumstances exist such that future activities may result in the abandonment of the burrow or den site, as determined by a qualified biologist, an appropriate exclusionary buffer will be established by Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, in coordination with CDFW, Forest Service, and, if necessary, the USFWS.

X X X X

BIO-15 If, during tree removal, signs of active denning or large stick nests associated with sensitive avian or mammal species are observed in or near trees that are designated for removal or in down logs, work will cease in the immediate area and the occurrence and location will be reported to the wildlife biologist to determine the need for further review.

X X X X

BIO-16 If a potentially active sensitive mammal burrow or den site is unavoidable, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will employ den-dusting or scoping to determine the species and reproductive status of the animal. If the burrow or den is determined to be active and does not contain young, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will excavate the burrow by hand, remove the den, or block the entrance to prevent re-entry until after the completion of work. If the animal is determined to be raising young, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will establish a 200-foot exclusionary buffer surrounding the burrow or den until it is determined that the young have left the den. After it is determined that young have left the den, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will commence hand excavation or removal of the den structure. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will contact CDFW, Forest Service and/or USFWS prior to any den-dusting, scoping, burrow excavation, or den structure removal.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

BIO-17 There are currently no known occurrences of wolverine or Sierra Nevada red fox in the project area. If there are any detections of a wolverine or Sierra Nevada red fox in the project area, they will be validated by a forest carnivore specialist. If a verified sighting occurs within 5-miles of the project site, conduct an analysis to determine if project construction will have the potential to adversely affect the species. If the analysis determines the potential to adversely affect the species, consider applying limited construction periods from January 1 to June 30 to avoid adverse impacts to potential breeding. Evaluate activities for a 2-year period for detections not associated with a den site.

X X X X

BIO-18 Concurrent with the preconstruction surveys described in other RPMs, surveys will be conducted on both National Forest System (NFS) lands and private lands for amphibians, including eggs, tadpoles, larvae, or juveniles, at aquatic habitat crossed by the project. On NFS lands and in habitat identified as suitable for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF), the field survey and reporting will, at a minimum, follow the methodology identified in Section III of the Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide (Frazier et al. 2005). The results of the field investigation will be used to inform compensation ratios and any other required responses to SNYLF habitat loss associated with the project. If adults or juveniles of amphibians are discovered, a permitted specialist will identify them to species. If the adults/juveniles are identified as a special-status species, and there will be ground disturbance or construction vehicle travel in the occupied site, a biologist with appropriate permits/authorizations to handle the species will relocate the individuals to suitable habitat outside of the construction area. No movement of egg masses shall occur and the environmental monitor shall create a 200-foot no-construction buffer around that water feature. If adult amphibians are discovered in the construction area after the start of work, the environmental monitor will first allow the individuals to leave under their own volition. If the individual has not left the construction area after 4-hours, a biologist with appropriate permits/authorizations to handle the species may relocate the individuals from the project area to similar, suitable habitat. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will coordinate with the CDFW, USFWS, and/or Forest Service prior to relocating any individuals.

X X X X

BIO-19 To reduce the potential of impacts to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF), actions will be consistent with requirements established by the USFWS in the Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada for the SNYLF. 1. Within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and other aquatic habitat areas noted by the Forest Service aquatics biologist as SNYLF habitat or

breeding areas, there will be no ground disturbing activities without a qualified ecological monitor (approved by the Forest Service and Placer County) present. Potential SNYLF habitat, as identified by the Forest Service aquatics biologist, will be clearly identified on construction drawings and Placer County Improvement Plans prior to the start of construction.

2. If SNYLF is encountered within a project site, stop all activities in the surrounding area that may have the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual. The situation shall be assessed by a Forest Service Biologist or Forest Service approved biologist (e.g., qualified environmental monitor) in order to select a course of action that will minimize adverse effects to the individual.

3. Tightly woven fiber netting or similar material, plastic mono-filament netting or similar material shall not be used for erosion control or other purposes. Materials such as coconut fiber rolls or burlap rolls may be used.

X X X X

BIO-20 Bat surveys will be conducted in the construction disturbance area the spring, no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction, in order to identify active bat roosting sites, such as snags, dense trees, and rock crevices. All potential roosting sites in the construction disturbance area will be surveyed by a qualified biologist in order to determine usage. All non-active roosting sites in the construction disturbance area will be trimmed or removed within 30 days of the surveys in order to prevent new roosts from being established. If it is determined that an active roosting site will be directly affected, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will consult with CDFW, Forest Service, and/or USFWS in order to acquire appropriate authorizations to

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

remove the roosting sites. All active non-maternity roosting sites will be fitted with passive exclusion devices, such as one-way doors, and all bats will be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is confirmed that all bats have left the roost, the roost may be removed if necessary, and crews will be allowed to continue work in the area. If a maternity roosting site is discovered, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will consult with the CDFW, Forest Service, and/or USFWS in order to establish appropriate exclusionary buffers until all young are determined to be volant by a qualified biologist. Once it is determined that all young are volant, passive exclusion devices will be installed and all bats will be allowed to leave voluntarily. Once it is determined by a qualified biologist that all bats have left the roost, crews will be allowed to work within the buffer zone, and the roost removed if necessary.

BIO-21 If any Federally or State threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, or Forest Service sensitive species, or CDFW species of special concern previously unknown in the project area is detected or found nesting or present within 0.25 mile of project activities, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented based on coordination with the Forest Service aquatics biologist, botanist, and/or wildlife biologist, Placer County, and the regulatory agency(ies) with authority over the species (USFWS and/or CDFW). Avoidance and minimization measures would be sufficient to provide compliance with applicable species protection law(s) (ESA, California ESA, CEQA). Measures can include, but are not limited to, flagging and avoiding species habitat, implementing a species specific LOP, or designating a protected activity center.

X X X X

BIO-22 An environmental monitor will inspect all tower placement locations and areas of active construction on a daily basis for trapped wildlife. Wildlife found in active construction areas will be allowed to passively leave the site. If after 4-hours the wildlife has not left the site, or if for safety or other reasons a more rapid response is necessary, wildlife may be relocated by a qualified biologist with appropriate permits/authorizations to handle the species. The construction foreman will notify the environmental monitor immediately if any wildlife enters or becomes trapped in the work area.

X X X X

BIO-23 To facilitate revegetation in temporarily disturbed areas, topsoil, where present, will be salvaged in areas that will be graded or excavated. Topsoil will be segregated, stockpiled separately from subsoil, and covered. The topsoil will then be replaced to the approximate location of its removal after project construction has been completed to facilitate revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas. Topsoil may also be salvaged from where permanent facilities are planned or where operation and maintenance activities preclude the establishment of vegetation and used to assist in revegetation of adjacent areas.

X X X X

BIO-24 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will minimize ground disturbance and vegetation and tree removal to only the areas necessary for construction, especially in riparian areas/RCAs.

X X

BIO-25 Any work conducted within 100 feet of waters of the United States, waters of the State, and wetlands, and within RCAs designated by the Forest Service, will have an environmental monitor present.

X X X X

BIO-26 The project will be designed to avoid disturbance to, and vehicle travel in, identified aquatic habitats (with the exception of qualifying over snow travel consistent with applicable RPMs). If an aquatic habitat cannot be fully avoided, prior to disturbance of the habitat a qualified biologist will conduct a delineation of waters of the United States according to methods established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Supplement (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The delineation will map and quantify the acreage of all aquatic habitats in the area to be disturbed and will be submitted to USACE for verification and also submitted to the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) for identification of waters of the State. The delineation may also be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to satisfy requirements of RPM BIO-35. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, in coordination with USACE and LRWQCB, will determine, based on the verified wetland delineation and the project design plan, the acreage of impacts on Waters of the United States and Waters of the State that would result from project implementation. Impacts will be minimized to the extent practicable.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

Where feasible, work in wetlands or wet meadow habitats with saturated soil conditions will be scheduled when soils are dry (as defined in applicable RPMs). Disturbed wetland areas will be restored to preconstruction conditions and seeded with a native annual species to stabilize the soils and minimize the introduction of noxious weeds, as specified by the USACE and Lahontan RWQCB. In accordance with the USACE “no net loss” policy, all permanent wetland impacts will be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. This mitigation will come in the form of either contribution to a USACE-approved wetland mitigation bank or through the development and implementation of a Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Plan aimed at creating or restoring wetlands in the surrounding area. BMP 2.1, 2.8

BIO-27 All trash and food will be removed from the work site at the end of each workday in order to deter wildlife from entering the site. Any outdoor trash receptacles will be bear proof containers.

X X X X

BIO-28 No pets or firearms will be allowed in the project area. X X X X

BIO-29 No harm, harassment, or collection of plant and wildlife species will be allowed. Feeding of wildlife will be prohibited. X X X X

BIO-30 As part of the Improvement Plan and Construction and Operation Plan submittals, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will develop a Restoration Plan that will address pre-disturbance condition documentation, final clean-up, stabilization, and revegetation procedures for areas disturbed by the project. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings may develop a single plan for both the Forest Service and Placer County addressing restoration on National Forest System (NFS) lands and private lands, or separate plans for each agency. Both agencies have review and approval authority for restoration planning and implementation in their respective jurisdictions. On Forest Service lands, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will coordinate with the Tahoe National Forest to determine an appropriate seed mix or tree-planting plan. On private land, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will develop a seed mix based on consultation with Placer County, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the landowner. The plan will include approved seed mixes and soil amendments, application rates, and application methods. If broadcast seeding is determined to be the most feasible application method, seeding rates will be doubled and the seeding method rationale will be explained. The plan will also include long-term erosion and sediment control measures, slope stabilization, and monitoring procedures. BMP 5.4

X X X X

BIO-31 Reclaim disturbed areas promptly to prevent resource damage and invasion of noxious weeds. Restoration of disturbed sites will be overseen by a qualified biologist and will likely consist of a combination of the following: Pre-disturbance documentation of site conditions to guide restoration success criteria. Loosen soil compacted by construction activities, and/or loosen existing compaction, to promote restoration success. The need for, and

depth of soil loosening would be determined by a Forest Service soil scientist or hydrologist on National Forest System (NFS) lands, and by a qualified restoration ecologist or soil scientist on private lands.

Apply appropriate erosion control BMPs (e.g., installation of straw bale check dams, mulch, log stabilization) in areas where evidence of sheet, rill, or gully erosion exists.

Seed with a certified weed-free seed mix, approved by the applicable agencies and land owners, containing native and site-appropriate species.

Apply 1 to 2 inches of locally obtained mulch such as pine needles, wood chips, or tub grindings.

X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

Monitor for new noxious weed invasions and expansion of existing weed populations following treatments and implement weed control measures where needed. Post-treatment monitoring for noxious weeds would be conducted annually for up to three years, similar to the frequency and duration specified for USFS land in the USFS Noxious Weed Risk Assessment prepared for the project.

Conduct post-treatment monitoring and reporting annually for the first three years, then every two years for up to 10 years, to evaluate success of restoration treatments. The details of the monitoring and reporting program, including identification and implementation of potential adaptive management actions based on monitoring results, will be developed jointly by Squaw Valley Ski Holdings and the land owner/manager.

These items, as well as details of a monitoring and reporting program, including identification and implementation of potential adaptive management actions based on monitoring results, will be developed jointly by Squaw Valley Ski Holdings and the land owner/manager and Placer County. These measures will be reflected in the Restoration Plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service and Placer County. BMP 5.4

BIO-32 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, a Revegetation Plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect or similar professional, shall be submitted and approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). This Revegetation Plan may consist of the Restoration Plan identified in other RPMs, if the Restoration Plan contains all the Revegetation Plan components required by Placer County. Prior to Improvement Plan submittal, a conceptual Revegetation Plan shall be submitted to the Placer County DRC. The revegetation shall be installed to the satisfaction of the County prior to the County’s acceptance of the subdivision’s improvements. All landscaping shall consist of native plant species with a water-conserving drip irrigation system to be installed by the developer. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of said revegetation and irrigation. All areas that are disturbed shall be re-established with hydro seeding, broadcast seeding, and/or planting. A vegetation monitoring program report, prepared by a licensed landscaping architect, shall be submitted annually to the Planning Services Division for a 3-year period (note there is a longer 5-year monitoring period for replacement of native trees under RPM BIO-38 and wetland and riparian vegetation under RPM BIO-39). Said report shall define areas that have been disturbed/replanted with a description of the seeding and/or planting materials, and status of re-established vegetation, including survival rate. Any corrective actions required are the responsibility of the applicant. A letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount of 125 percent of the accepted proposal shall be deposited with the Placer County Planning Services Division to assure performance of the monitoring program. Evidence of this deposit shall be provided to the satisfaction of the DRC. Violation of any components of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) may result in enforcement activity per Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance Article 18.28.080 of the Placer County Code. An agreement between the applicant and the County shall be prepared which meets DRC approval that allows the County use of the deposit to assure performance of the MMRP in the event the applicant fails to perform.

X X

BIO-33 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan and Construction and Operation Plan approval, the applicant shall furnish to the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC) and the Forest Service, evidence that California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been notified by certified letter regarding the existence of any wetlands, streams, and/or vernal pools on the project site. Prior to Improvement Plan approval, if permits are required, they shall be obtained and copies submitted to DRC and the Forest Service. Any clearing, grading, or excavation work shall not occur until the Improvement Plans have been approved.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

BIO-34 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall include a note and show placement of Temporary Construction Fencing. The applicant shall install a four (4) foot tall, brightly colored (usually yellow or orange), synthetic mesh material fence (or an equivalent approved by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC)) at the following locations prior to any construction equipment being moved on-site or any construction activities taking place: 1. Adjacent to any and all wetland preservation easements that are within 50 feet of any proposed construction activity; 2. At the limits of construction, outside the critical root zone of all trees six (6) inches dbh (diameter at breast height), or 10 inches dbh aggregate for

multi-trunk trees, within 50 feet of any grading, road improvements, underground utilities, or other development activity, or as otherwise shown on the Improvement Plans;

3. Around any and all “special protection” areas as discussed in the project’s environmental review documents. 4. Around all Open Space Lots within 50 feet of any development activity. No development of the site, including grading, shall be allowed until this condition is satisfied. Any encroachment within these areas, including critical root zones of trees to be saved, must first be approved by the DRC. Temporary fencing shall not be altered during construction without written approval of the DRC. No grading, clearing, storage of equipment or machinery, etc., may occur until a representative of the DRC has inspected and approved all temporary construction fencing. This includes both on-site and off-site improvements. Efforts should be made to save trees where feasible. This may include the use of retaining walls, planter islands, pavers, or other techniques commonly associated with tree preservation.

X X

BIO-35 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, the wetlands report/delineation shall be field verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) as deemed necessary by these agencies. If significant discrepancies arise between the report and the field investigation of these agencies that cannot be resolved, the DRC may schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider revocation or modification of the project’s permit approvals if deemed necessary.

X X

BIO-36 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval or issuance of a Building Permit, where off-site mitigation has been determined to be acceptable for compensation of wetland/riparian impacts, and the area impacted is in excess of 1,000 square feet, the applicant or agent shall provide mitigation using one of the mechanisms below: A) Provide written evidence of payment that compensatory habitat has been established through the purchase of mitigation credits at a County-

qualified wetland mitigation bank. Evidence of payment shall describe the amount and type of habitat purchased at the bank site. The amount of money required to purchase credits shall be equal to the amount necessary to replace wetland or riparian habitat acreage Evidence of payment shall describe the amount and type of habitat purchased at the bank site and resource values including compensation for temporal loss. Evidence of payment, which describes the amount and type of habitat purchased at the bank site, must be provided to the County prior to issuance of Improvement Plan.

B) Construct wetland and/or riparian habitat in an off-site location acceptable to Placer County and any State or Federal resource agency with jurisdiction over the habitat. A wetland/riparian mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by Placer County and any affected State or Federal resource agency prior to initiation of construction of any compensatory habitat.

C) Provide a combination of mitigation bank credit purchase and off-site construction as outlined above.

X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

BIO-37 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall include a note that includes the wording of this RPM and show placement of all protective fencing for those trees, and large snags identified for protection within the raptor report described below. Prior to any grading or tree removal activities, a focused survey for raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the raptor nesting season (March 1 - September 1). A report summarizing the survey shall be provided to Placer County and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) within 30 days of the completed survey. If an active raptor nest is identified, appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented in consultation with CDFW. If construction is proposed to take place between March 1st and September 1st, no construction activity or tree removal shall occur within 500 feet of an active nest (or greater distance, as determined by the CDFW). Construction activities may only resume after a follow up survey has been conducted and a report prepared by a qualified raptor biologist indicating that the nest (or nests) are no longer active, and that no new nests have been identified. A follow-up survey shall be conducted 2 months following the initial survey, if the initial survey occurs between March 1st and July 1st. Additional follow up surveys may be required by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC), based on the recommendations in the raptor study and/or as recommended by the CDFW. Temporary construction fencing and signage as described herein shall be installed at a minimum 500-foot radius around trees containing active nests. If all project construction occurs between September 1st and March 1st no raptor surveys will be required. Trees previously approved for removal by Placer County, which contain stick nests, may only be removed between September 1st and March 1st.

X X

BIO-38 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan submittal, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the replacement of native trees, prepared by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, Registered Forester, or Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Placer County Planning Services Division, for review and approval by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC). Said plan shall provide for a minimum of native trees based on replacement on an inch for inch basis to be planted by the project developer within Common Area Lots and any other areas determined appropriate by the DRC. The Plan shall include a site plan that indicates the trees’ location, installation and irrigation requirements and other standards to ensure the successful planting and continued growth of these trees. Installation of all trees and irrigation systems must be completed prior to the County’s acceptance of the improvements. An annual monitoring report for a minimum period of five (5) years from the date of installation, prepared by the above-cited professional,

shall be submitted to the DRC for review and approval. Any corrective action shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Prior to the Improvement Plan approval, a Letter of Credit, Certificate of Deposit, or cash deposit in the amount of 100 percent of the

accepted proposal shall be deposited with the Placer County Planning Services Division to assure on-going performance of the monitoring program. Evidence of this deposit shall be provided to the satisfaction of the DRC prior to the approval of Improvement Plans. For the purposes of administrative and program review by Placer County, an additional 25 percent of the estimated cost of the Monitoring Program shall be paid to the County, in cash, at the time that the 100 percent deposit is made. With the exception of the 25 percent administrative fee, 100 percent of the estimated costs of implementing the monitoring program shall be returned to the applicant once the applicant has demonstrated that all five (5) years of monitoring have been completed to the satisfaction of the DRC. Refunds will only be available at the end of the entire review period.

It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the MMRP. Violation of any components of the approved MMRP may result in enforcement activities per Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance, Article 18.28.080 (formerly Section 31.870). If a monitoring report is not submitted for any one year, or combination of years, as outlined in these conditions, the County has the option of utilizing these funds and hiring a consultant to implement the MMRP. Failure to submit annual monitoring reports could also result in forfeiture of a portion of, or all of, the deposit. An agreement between the applicant and County shall be prepared which meets DRC approval that allows the County use of this deposit to assure performance of the MMRP in the event the applicant reneges.

This RPM addresses issues similar to RPM TREE-11 and Placer County will coordinate the implementation of these two RPMs.

X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

BIO-39 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the replacement of wetlands/riparian vegetation which resembles the density and species composition of the existing wetland area shall be prepared by a qualified wetlands biologist. Said MMRP shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division and shall comply with Article 18.28 of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. Where stormwater detention/retention is proposed in conjunction with wetlands replacement or enhancement, the monitoring program shall consider sediment removal and restoration within disturbed areas. Project construction and project monitoring shall comply with the criteria defined in the EIR, MMRP, and the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). An annual monitoring report for a minimum period of five (5) years from the date of installation, prepared by the above-cited professional,

shall be submitted to the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC) for review and approval. Any corrective action shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

Prior to the Improvement Plan approval, a Letter of Credit, Certificate of Deposit, or cash deposit in the amount of 100 percent of the accepted proposal shall be deposited with the Placer County Planning Services Division to assure on-going performance of the monitoring program. Evidence of this deposit shall be provided to the satisfaction of the DRC prior to the approval of Improvement Plans. For the purposes of administrative and program review by Placer County, an additional 25 percent of the estimated cost of the Monitoring Program shall be paid to the County, in cash, at the time that the 100 percent deposit is made. With the exception of the 25 percent administrative fee, 100 percent of the estimated costs of implementing the monitoring program shall be returned to the applicant once the applicant has demonstrated that all five (5) years of monitoring have been completed to the satisfaction of the DRC. Refunds will only be available at the end of the entire review period.

It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the MMRP. Violation of any components of the approved MMRP may result in enforcement activities per Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance, Section 18.28.080. If a monitoring report is not submitted for any one year, or combination of years, as outlined in these conditions, the County has the option of utilizing these funds and hiring a consultant to implement the MMRP. Failure to submit annual monitoring reports could also result in forfeiture of a portion of, or all of, the deposit. An agreement between the applicant and County shall be prepared which meets DRC approval that allows the County use of this deposit to assure performance of the MMRP in the event the applicant fails to perform.

X X

BIO-40 Prior to Placer County Building Permit issuance, for projects which permanently alter or destroy riparian habitat or wetland habitat, where the impacted area is less than 1,000 square feet in area, the project proponent shall provide mitigation in the form of cash or other security, acceptable to the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC). These funds shall be used for the purchase, enhancement, restoration, or re-creation of wetland/riparian habitat and resource values which will be modified, damaged, and/or destroyed by this project. The monies shall be held in a trust fund until such time that habitat credits are purchased at a County-qualified mitigation bank. The funds will be used solely for the above-described purpose. The amount of payment shall be that which was determined during the environmental review process as a fair share mitigation, based upon acres of wetland and/or riparian habitat lost on-site. The amount of money required to purchase credits shall be equal to the amount necessary to replace wetland or riparian habitat acreage and resource values, including compensation for temporal loss. The amount to be paid shall be the fee in effect at the time the Use Permit is exercised.

X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

Soil and Erosion

SOILS-1 Temporary sediment control structures, such as silt fencing, straw mulch, waddles, straw bale check dams, and sediment traps will be installed, as appropriate, to contain sediment within construction work areas and staging areas. Where soils and slopes exhibit high erosion potential, additional sediment control structures, such as erosion control blankets, matting, and other fabrics may be installed. Erosion-control matting on steep fill slopes (i.e., land with a slope angle of 35% or greater) will be utilized to protect soils and enhance conditions for vegetation re-establishment. However, tightly woven fiber netting or similar material, plastic mono-filament netting or similar material, shall not be used for erosion control or other purposes. Materials such as coconut fiber rolls or burlap rolls are acceptable. Implementation and maintenance of these erosion control measures, and any others identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), would be monitored by a qualified environmental monitor. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6

X X X X

SOILS-2 Design, implementation, and monitoring roles and responsibilities will be clearly defined and included in the construction management plan, submitted to the Forest Service and Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) by April 1 of the intended construction season. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6

X X X X

SOILS-3 Properly design, install, and maintain all BMPs for erosion and sediment control. Remove non-natural and non-biodegradable materials before leaving the site following construction. All BMPs on Forest Service lands are required to meet the Forest Service Region 5 regional policy and to be consistent with the provisions of the 1981 Management Agency Agreement between the State Water Resource Control Board and the Forest Service as the designated Water Quality Management Agency on National Forest System Lands. Site-specific BMPs and management requirements and careful implementation and monitoring of BMPs, consistent with the requirements of these RPMs, are primary means of minimizing erosion and water quality impacts in this project area. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6

X X X X

SOILS-4 Temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs intended to be retained for more than a year to ensure soil stabilization will be inspected and maintained at least once annually until stabilization success criteria have been achieved. Results of annual inspections and maintenance, including identification of any repairs or improvements that were completed, will be reported to the Forest Service and Placer County within 60-days of completion. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6

X X X X

SOILS-5 Soil-disturbing activities will be avoided during periods of heavy rain or excessively wet soils consistent with criteria developed by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/waste_discharge_requirements/timber_harvest/docs/timber_waiver/atta_def14.pdf) BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6

X X X X

SOILS-6 Temporarily place construction spoils in upland areas in locations that will not migrate to wetland areas, provide protection measures from weed establishment, cover to prevent spoil displacement during precipitation events, and provide erosion control measures to prevent transport of loose materials. No long-term storage of spoil will be retained onsite. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.5

X X X X

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/waste_discharge_requirements/timber_harvest/docs/timber_waiver/atta_def14.pdf





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

SOILS-7 Do not locate roads, trails, or other disturbed areas on slopes that show signs of instability, such as slope failure, mass movement, or slumps. BMP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13

X X X X

SOILS-8 The Placer County Improvement Plan(s) and Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans shall identify the stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas with locations as far as practical from existing dwellings and protected resources in the area. BMP 2.10

X X X X

SOILS-9 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall show all proposed grading, drainage improvements, vegetation and tree removal and all work shall conform to provisions of the County Grading Ordinance (Ref. Article 15.48, Placer County Code) and Stormwater Quality Ordinance (Ref. Article 8.28, Placer County Code) that are in effect at the time of submittal. No grading, clearing, or tree disturbance shall occur until the Improvement Plans are approved and all temporary construction fencing has been installed and inspected by a member of the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC). All cut/fill slopes shall be at a maximum of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) unless a soils report supports a steeper slope and the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) concurs with said recommendation. The applicant shall revegetate all disturbed areas. Revegetation, undertaken from April 1 to October 1, shall include regular watering to ensure adequate growth. A winterization plan shall be provided with project Improvement Plans. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure proper installation and maintenance of erosion control/winterization before, during, and after project construction. Soil stockpiling or borrow areas, shall have proper erosion control measures applied for the duration of the construction as specified in the Improvement Plans. Provide for erosion control where roadside drainage is off of the pavement, to the satisfaction of the ESD. The applicant shall submit to the ESD a letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount of 110 percent of an approved engineer’s estimate for winterization and permanent erosion control work prior to Improvement Plan approval to guarantee protection against erosion and improper grading practices. One year after the County’s acceptance of improvements as complete if there are no erosion or runoff issues to be corrected, unused portions of said deposit shall be refunded to the project applicant or authorized agent. If, at any time during construction, a field review by County personnel indicates a significant deviation from the proposed grading shown on the Improvement Plans, specifically with regard to slope heights, slope ratios, erosion control, winterization, tree disturbance, and/or pad elevations and configurations, the plans shall be reviewed by the DRC/ESD for a determination of substantial conformance to the project approvals prior to any further work proceeding. Failure of the DRC/ESD to make a determination of substantial conformance may serve as grounds for the revocation/modification of the project approval by the appropriate hearing body.

X X

SOILS-10 Except in locations where work/disturbance has been authorized in wetlands or similar mesic habitats (e.g., see RPM BIO-26), soils will be dry to an appropriate depth for the equipment to be used consistent with the requirements of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). Equipment with a higher ground pressure would require dryer soil than equipment that exerts a lower ground pressure. Overland movement of equipment may require dryer soils than movement on identified access roads. On National Forest System (NFS) lands, soil suitability will be determined by a Forest Service soil scientist or hydrologist. On private lands soil suitability will be determined by a qualified environmental monitor. BMP 2.1, 2.13

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

SOILS-11 To protect against accelerated erosion and hydrophobicity and to maintain long-term soil productivity, the following guidelines should be applied during the planning and implementation of tree removal and project construction on NFS lands: Maintain downed wood retention adequate to contribute to organic matter while attaining desired conditions. All down logs greater than 15 inches diameter and 10 feet long will be retained. Crushing of logs with equipment will be avoided. Target

down log levels would be approximately 5 of the largest logs available per acre. Downed logs in contact with soils within waterbody buffer zones (WBBZs) (as defined by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control

Board Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management Activities) or downed large woody debris in the 100-year floodplain will not be removed.

On soils with low to moderate erosion hazard ratings (0-25% slope), maintain 45% ground cover. On soils with high erosion hazard ratings (25-50 % slope), maintain 55% ground cover. On soils with very high hazard ratings (greater than 50% slopes), maintain 70% ground cover. All areas disturbed from project implementation will be stabilized before the winter period or at conclusion of operations whichever is sooner. BMP 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4

X X

SOILS-12 Within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) on National Forest System (NFS) lands, mulching will occur over bare ground created by project activities within the RCA, with particular attention paid near the hydrologic feature. Upland areas of the RCA will meet the following General Ground Cover requirements: On soils with low to moderate erosion hazard ratings (0-25% slope), maintain 70% ground cover. On soils with very high erosion hazard ratings (greater than 25% slope), maintain 75% ground cover. In near stream zones for perennial streams and intermittent streams or seasonally wet areas with riparian and meadow features,

approximately 75% ground cover will be required. Large patches of bare ground will be mulched. Within Waterbody Buffer Zones (WBBZs) (as defined by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management Activities), ground cover should meet an average of 2 inches in depth and a maximum of 4 inches with 85% ground cover.

Mulch will be required on endline drag channels that exceed 4 inches depth on greater than 5% slopes in RCAs and 10% slopes on adjacent uplands where endlining is required.

BMP 2.13

X X

SOILS-13 Improvement Plan submittals shall include a final geotechnical engineering report produced by a California Registered Civil Engineer or Geotechnical Engineer for Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) review and approval. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following: A) Road, pavement, and parking area design B) Structural foundations, including retaining wall design (if applicable) C) Grading practices D) Erosion/winterization E) Special problems discovered on-site, (i.e., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils, etc.) F) Slope stability

X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

Once approved by the ESD, two copies of the final report shall be provided to the ESD and one copy to the Building Services Division for its use. It is the responsibility of the developer to provide for engineering inspection and certification that earthwork has been performed in conformity with recommendations contained in the report.

Hydrology and Water Quality

WQ-1 Prior to initiating ground disturbing activities (including tree removal) or staging construction equipment, the project applicant will have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPPC) Plan approved by the Forest Service, complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and receive appropriate authorization from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). The SPPC and SWPPP will be implemented during project construction. The SPPC and/or SWPPP will address the following items related to the storage and use of fuels and other toxic materials: 1. Fuels and other toxic materials will be stored outside of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), critical aquatic refuges, and aquatic habitats. 2. Identify appropriate sites for regular equipment refueling and servicing. These sites will also be identified in the Placer County Improvement Plans.

The sites must be outside of Riparian Conservation Areas, critical aquatic refuges, and aquatic habitats. 3. Allow temporary refueling and servicing (e.g., a piece of equipment needs refueling or repair in the field, outside of the designated regular equipment

refueling and servicing sites) only at locations either pre-designated for this purpose in the SPCC and/or SWPP, or that are approved by an environmental monitor. Temporary equipment refueling and services sites must be outside of RCAs, critical aquatic refuges, and aquatic habitats.

4. Emergency spill kits adequate to contain spills that could result from onsite equipment or from stored toxic materials will be available at all sites used for equipment refueling, servicing, or storage of toxic materials. Secondary containment will be installed at each of these sites to control accidental spills.

5. Provide training for all personnel handling fuels and chemicals in their proper use, handling, storage, and disposal; methods and practices to avoid spills; and the proper use of spill kits and methods for incident reporting in the event of a spill.

6. As a condition of the LRWQCB Timber Waivers all equipment used must be monitored for leaks. Spills must be immediately contained and spilled materials and/or contaminated soils must be properly disposed.

7. Environmental monitors will regularly inspect refueling and servicing areas, and toxic material storage areas, to help ensure that proper measures are being implemented in accordance with the project’s SPCC, SWPPP, RPMs, and mitigation measures.

BMP 2.11, 2.13, 7.4, 7.5

X X X X

WQ-2 All concrete washouts will be conducted either into excavations where the concrete was poured, within designated concrete washout areas, or will be captured using a washout-recycling system. Crews will not be allowed to dispose of concrete or concrete washout material directly onto the ground. BMP 7.5

X X X X

WQ-3 Where feasible, all stormwater or groundwater within excavations will be discharged overland into well-vegetated areas to promote the settling of sediment. BMP 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

WQ-4 No vehicle and equipment usage within stream channels and other aquatic resources will take place. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will utilize alternative access routes, helicopters, and other means to access either side of the aquatic resource to avoid vehicles or equipment needing to enter or pass through the stream channel or aquatic resource. This does not apply to the movement of over snow-vehicles when at least 3-feet of snow is over the aquatic habitat. BMP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 7.3, 7.5

X X X X

WQ-5 Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will obtain permits from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to commencing work in Waters of the United States or Waters of the State, and in stream and riparian habitats, and implement all applicable permit conditions. Following construction, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will restore any adversely affected riparian habitats, water bodies, and wetlands to pre-project conditions and compensate for any permanent wetland impacts in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) “no net loss” policy. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 7.3, 7.5

X X X X

WQ-6 For ground-disturbing activities near aquatic habitats, ensure that roads, road ditches, and other disturbed areas drain, to the maximum extent possible, to undisturbed soils rather than directly to aquatic habitats. Direct drainage from disturbed areas as necessary using natural topography, rolling dips, waterbars, etc. This may not apply, based on approval from the Forest Service and/or Placer County, to locations where ground disturbance is temporary and as part of restoration to pre-project conditions drainage flows would be restored to aquatic habitats. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4

X X X X

WQ-7 All construction and operation water use will be sourced from existing domestic sources (i.e., existing plumbing systems, wells, fire hydrants). No water will be drawn directly from surface water sources. BMP 2.7

X X X X

WQ-8 Slash and debris will not be placed in wetlands. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.5

X X X X

WQ-9 The Placer County Improvement Plan submittal shall include a drainage report in conformance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Land Development Manual and the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual that are in effect at the time of submittal, to the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) for review and approval. The report shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and shall, at a minimum, include: A written text addressing existing conditions, the effects of the improvements, all appropriate calculations, a watershed map, increases in downstream flows, proposed on- and off-site improvements and drainage easements to accommodate flows from this project. The report shall identify water quality protection features and methods to be used both during construction, as well as long-term post-construction water quality measures. The final Drainage Report shall be prepared in conformance with the requirements of Section 5 of the Land Development Manual and the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual that are in effect at the time of improvement plan submittal. The drainage report shall also be submitted to the Forest Service for review and comment. Portions of the drainage report addressing activities or facilities on National Forest System (NFS) lands will be prepared in coordination with the Forest Service and the Forest Service will have approval authority for these portions of the report. The portion of the report addressing NFS lands will, at a minimum, be in conformance with the performance requirements of Section 5 of the Land Development Manual and the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual; however, the Forest Service may require more stringent standards.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

WQ-10 The Placer County Improvement Plan submittal and Drainage Report shall provide details showing that storm water run-off shall be reduced to pre-project conditions through the installation of retention/detention facilities. Retention/detention facilities shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual that are in effect at the time of submittal, and to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) and shall be shown on the Improvement Plans. The Forest Service Construction and Operation Plans shall include the same details regarding storm water -run off and retention/detention facilities. Storm water run-off management techniques and any potential retention/detention facilities on National Forest System (NFS) lands will be planned for and developed in coordination with the Forest Service and the Forest Service will have approval authority for these items. On NFS lands, storm water run-off shall be reduced to pre-project conditions, and if retention/detention facilities are needed, they shall, at a minimum, be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Placer County Storm Water Management Manual that are in effect at the time of submittal; however, the Forest Service may require more stringent standards. The ESD, on private lands, and the Forest Service, on NFS lands, may, after review of the project drainage report, delete requirements for retention/detention facilities, if it is determined that drainage conditions do not warrant installation of this type of facility. Maintenance of retention/detention facilities by the applicant shall be required. No retention/detention facility construction shall be permitted within any identified wetlands area, floodplain, or right-of-way, except as authorized by project approvals.

X X X X

WQ-11 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain a State Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater quality permit and shall provide to the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) evidence of a state-issued Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number or filing of a Notice of Intent and fees.

X X X X

WQ-12 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall show that water quality treatment facilities/Best Management Practices (BMPs) on private lands shall be designed according to the guidance of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Construction, for New Development / Redevelopment, and for Industrial and Commercial (or other similar source as approved by the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD). Storm drainage from on- and off-site impervious surfaces (including roads) shall be collected and routed through specially designed catch basins, vegetated swales, infiltration basins, water quality basins, filters, etc. for entrapment of sediment, debris and oils/greases or other identified pollutants, as approved by the ESD. BMPs shall be designed in accordance with the East Placer County Storm Water Quality Design Manual for sizing of Permanent Post-Construction Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality Protection. No water quality facility construction shall be permitted within any identified wetlands area, floodplain, or right-of-way, except as authorized by project approvals. All BMPs shall be maintained as required to insure effectiveness. The applicant shall provide for the establishment of vegetation, where specified, by means of proper irrigation. Proof of on-going maintenance, such as contractual evidence, shall be provided to ESD upon request. Maintenance of these facilities shall be provided by the project owners/permittees and certification of completed maintenance reported annually to the County DPWF Stormwater Coordinator, unless, and until, a County Service Area is created and said facilities are accepted by the County for maintenance. Prior to Improvement Plan easements shall be created and offered for dedication to the County for maintenance and access to these facilities in anticipation of possible County maintenance.

X X

WQ-13 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall show that materials with the potential to contaminate stormwater that are to be stored outdoors shall be placed in an enclosure such as, but not limited to, a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the stormwater conveyance system, or protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. The storage area shall be paved to contain leaks and spills and shall have a roof or awning to minimize collection of stormwater within the secondary containment area.

X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

WQ-14 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall show that vehicle/equipment wash areas, if needed, shall be designed to be self-contained and/or covered and equipped with a clarifier or other pretreatment facility. Direct connection of a vehicle/equipment wash area to the storm drain system is prohibited. The applicant/permittees shall properly connect to a sanitary sewer via an external grease or sand/oil interceptor and contact the Department of Facility Services or other applicable sewer agency to obtain an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit, if required. If so, said permit shall be provided to the Placer County Engineering and Surveying Division (ESD) prior to Improvement Plan approval. If connection to sanitary sewer is not available, the method of discharge shall be subject to review and approval by Placer County.

X X

WQ-15 On both public and private lands, equipment will not cross seasonal streams except at designated crossings as reviewed and approved on the Improvement Plans and Construction and Operation Plans. Within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (i.e. on public lands) all bare ground resulting from equipment operations will be mulched to standards. Within Waterbody Buffer Zones (WBBZs) (as defined by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management Activities) all bare ground resulting from equipment operations will be mulched to 85%. BMP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 7.3, 7.5

X X X X

WQ-16 The USFS hydrologist or qualified specialist must approve locations of skid trails, travel routes and other areas of heavy equipment operations within RCAs on NFS lands. Construction and tree removal equipment will be excluded from meadows according to boundaries identified in the field with Forest Service and/or Placer County staff and consistent with applicable RPMs. The exclusion area will be flagged on the ground. BMP 2.1, 2.13

X X X X

WQ-17 Roads used for project construction on NFS lands will be brought back to the pre-existing standards following implementation. This work includes: grading, clearing, ditch and culvert cleaning and repair of water conveyance features. The repair work must repair and restore the road to accommodate the planned traffic and be consistent with the existing traffic service level, water quality objectives, and Road Management Objectives If any temporary crossings of ephemeral drainages are needed, they will be designed to pass flow using drainage dips, waterbars or culverts when needed (if flowing). Removal of temporary roads on ephemeral drainages will include re-establishing drainage passage, mulching, and pulling outside berms to restore overland flows. If any temporary crossings are needed, they will be removed no later than October 15th of the season of installation. BMP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5

X X

WQ-18 Construction activities on all roads, including hauling of removed trees, will be restricted to the dry season when roads are stable. No winter construction activities will be permitted, although some operations may continue past October 15 to November 30 if conditions permit as determined by the Forest Service, Placer County, and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). BMP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13

X X X X

WQ-19 All necessary post ground disturbance erosion control measures will be implemented as soon as possible after ground disturbance at any particular project feature (e.g., tower, mid-station, base station, Gazex exploder, Gazex storage shelter, staging area, temporary access way) ceases. BMP 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

WQ-20 Temporary road design and location, including skid trails for tree removal will follow the following principles: Temporary roads/skid trails will follow previously-used road beds where available and appropriately located. Use rolling dips and an out-sloped road template. Limit the amount of temporary road construction associated with tree removal by maximizing the skidding distance (i.e., for tree removal,

favor the use of skid trails versus the construction of temporary roads). Minimize the length and width of the roads/skid trails. Avoid unstable areas where there is potential for mass soil erosion. If a temporary road requires crossing flowing water, incorporate a method of passing water under the running surface to minimize

sediment transport if the road is used while water is flowing. Any stream crossings will not create barriers to aquatic species. Initiate decommissioning all temporary roads/skid trails immediately after use is complete. Complete decommissioning before the end of

the construction season. Temporary roads/skid trails on NFS lands will be decommissioned according to Renewable Resources Planning Act (16 USC 1608): appropriately draining the road to establish a hydrologically neutral state, pulling berms (particularly including the mineral soil) and re-establishing the natural contour in necessary areas. Particular attention will be paid to roads/skid trails within RCAs or when crossing drainages.

Where needed, mulch will be applied to control erosion. Subsoil temporary roads where determined to be necessary after review by a soils scientist or hydrologist.

Decommissioned temporary roads/skid trails in RCAs will be mulched to control erosion, but mulch will not be placed in the 100-year flood plain.

Block or otherwise prevent long-term access over temporary roads/skid trails, where needed to deter unauthorized use, place logs and logging slash over the first 200 feet.

BMP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.13

X X X X

WQ-21 Per the State of California NPDES Phase II MS4 Permit, this project is a Regulated Project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. A final Storm Water Quality Plan (SWQP) shall be submitted, either within the final Drainage Report or as a separate document that identifies how this project will meet the Phase II MS4 permit obligations. Site design measures, source control measures, and Low Impact Development (LID) standards, as necessary, shall be incorporated into the design and shown on the Improvement Plans. In addition, per the Phase II MS4 permit, projects creating and/or replacing one acre or more of impervious surface (excepting projects that do not increase impervious surface area over the pre-project condition) are also required to demonstrate hydromodification management of stormwater such that post-project runoff is maintained to equal or below pre-project flow rates for the 2 year, 24-hour storm event, generally by way of infiltration, rooftop and impervious area disconnection, bioretention, and other LID measures that result in post-project flows that mimic pre-project conditions.

X X X X

Tree Removal

TREE-1 Skidding of trees will not be permitted in waters of the United States or waters of the State, including wetlands. Within these waters tree removal may be conducted by hand, use of cable systems, helicopter yarding, or use of ground based equipment so the aquatic habitat can be fully protected from disturbance and sedimentation. BMP 2.13

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

TREE-2 Keep skid trail grades as gentle as possible, avoid straight up and down the slope skidding over distances greater than 200 feet. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, skid trail patterns shall be agreed to by the Forest Service and Placer County in advance of felling and main skid trails shall be flagged on the ground in advance of felling. Skid trails on slopes over 30%, and the erosion control procedure for these trails, must be approved by the Forest Service and Placer County in advance of felling. Needed main skid trails will be constructed in advance of skidding. Main skid trails will be spaced no less than 75 feet apart, except when converging. Additional skid trails may be agreed upon when soil conditions permit. Tree removal operations will be confined to designated main skid trails until soil conditions are dry (as defined in previous RPMs). Existing skid trails will be used whenever possible except when they do not satisfy other RPMs. BMP 2.13

X X X X

TREE-3 After completion of project construction, all skid trails over 30% slope will have natural slash mulching to control soil erosion. Skid trails will have waterbars spaced according to Forest Service standards based on soil erodibility and slope. Implement mulching of skid trails using slash, certified weed free rice, straw or wood chips, whichever is available, on soils with very high erodibility, and where the residual % ground cover does not meet Forest Service standards. This requirement may be modified after an on-site inspection by the soil scientist or hydrologist. If slash is used for mulch, the Forest Service fuels officer will be involved prior to and during implementation. BMP 2.13

X X X X

TREE-4 When decommissioning landings and skid trails, decompact the soil with a mechanism that lifts the soil rather than turning the soil over on landings and the first 100 feet from the landing’s primary skid trails. Subsoiling other skid trails in highly compacted areas will be evaluated on a site by site basis by Forest Service and Placer County staff. The need for the tilling of skid trails would be reviewed by a soil scientist or hydrologist and would be restricted to areas on slopes less than 25%, where residual trees would not be excessively damaged (root tearing leaving areas open to disease) and on those trails that do not contain excessive rocks unless otherwise agreed with the hydrologist/soil scientist. BMP 2.13

X X X X

TREE-5 Where vehicle access is not permitted, any trees identified for removal may be endlined out of this location as long as resource damage can be avoided. BMP 2.13

X X X X

TREE-6 Utilize existing locations suitable for landings wherever possible. Locate all new landings off of main public travel corridors outside of any aquatic habitats and designated buffer zones. Landing locations shall be carefully planned to minimize the number needed, and will consider site-specific factors such as topography, watershed and other resource protection concerns, and operational needs. Where using existing sites that need to be increased in size to function as landings, the landing site will be extended in size away from drainages. Landings on NFS lands not located in an existing disturbed area must be approved by the Forrest Service hydrologist or qualified specialist prior to use. BMP 2.13

X X X X

TREE-7 No new landings will be located within aquatic habitats, Waterbody Buffer Zones (WBBZs) (as defined by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management Activities), or the 100-year floodplain of drainageways. BMP 2.13

X X X X

TREE-8 Avoid the felling of large snags where possible (15 inches dbh or greater), and where they do not provide a public safety hazard, to maintain their value to wildlife. On National Forest System Lands, trees greater than 10” dbh will be removed by whole tree yarding, that is, the whole tree will be removed, including branches/slash. It is preferred that trees between 3” and 10” dbh also be removed by whole tree yarding, but this is not mandatory. Where slash remains after tree removal, it will be cut into 6’ lengths and scattered to a depth of less than 18”.

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

TREE-9 Restrict hauling of removed trees on Forest Service and public roads on weekends and holidays, and during special events that generate high levels of traffic on local roadways or State Route 89.

X X X X

TREE-10 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, a Tree Permit shall be required for all trees six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (County Tree Ordinance) or greater, or multi-trunked trees 10 inches dbh or greater, that are located within 50 feet of any development activity, including grading, clearing, or other site disturbance.

X X

TREE-11 Prior to Placer County Improvement Plan approval, trees identified for removal, and/or trees with disturbance to its critical root zone, shall be mitigated through replacement with comparable species on-site, in an area to be reviewed and approved by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC) or through payment of in-lieu fees, as follows: (The County shall choose one or more of A, B, or C below) A) For each diameter inch of a tree removed, replacement shall be on an inch-for-inch basis. For example, if 100 diameter inches are proposed to be

removed, the replacement trees would equal 100 diameter inches (aggregate). If replacement tree planting is proposed, the tree replacement/mitigation plan must be shown on Improvements Plans and must be installed by the applicant and inspected and approved by the Placer County Development Review Committee (DRC). At its discretion, the DRC may establish an alternate deadline for installation of mitigation replacement trees if weather or other circumstances prevent the completion of this requirement.

B) A revegetation plan, as recommended by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-certified arborist or similarly qualified professional, to provide an appropriate level of mitigation to offset the loss of trees, and as approved by the DRC, shall be shown on the Improvements Plan. If replacement tree planting is proposed, the tree replacement/mitigation plan shall be shown on Improvements Plans and shall be installed by the applicant and inspected and approved by the DRC. At its discretion, the DRC may establish an alternate deadline for installation of mitigation replacement trees if weather or other circumstances prevent the completion of this requirement.

C) In lieu of the tree planting mitigation for tree removal listed above, a tree replacement mitigation fee of $100 per diameter inch at breast height for each tree removed or impacted or the current market value, as established by an Arborist, Forester, or Registered Landscape Architect, of the replacement trees, including the cost of installation, shall be paid to the Placer County Tree Preservation Fund. The unauthorized disturbance to the critical root zone of a tree to be saved shall be cause for the Planning Commission to consider revocation of this permit/ approval.

This RPM addresses issues similar to RPM BIO-38 and Placer County will coordinate the implementation of these two RPMs.

X X

TREE-12 All trees above 10” dbh to be removed from National Forest System (NFS) lands must be marked and approved by the Forest Service prior to removal. The applicant will conduct initial marking to identify trees for removal and the marking will be verified by Forest Service personnel. Trees/logs removed from NFS lands will be segregated from trees/logs removed from private lands. Trees/logs removed from NFS lands will be transported, processed, and processed materials sold consistent with applicable laws and regulations.

X X

Cultural Resources

CUL-1 Prior to construction, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will prepare for Forest Service and Placer County approval an Unanticipated Discovery Plan that will present, in detail, procedures to be implemented during construction (e.g. work stoppage guidelines). At a minimum, if a potential heritage or cultural resources is discovered, construction will be halted within 50-feet of the site until a qualified archeologist can evaluate the find. The Placer County Planning Services Division and Department of Museums must also be contacted for review of the archaeological find(s). If the archeologist can

X X X X





Forest Services

Placer County


Private Lands

determine at the time that the find would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and does not contain human remains, construction may proceed after the find is properly documented and/or collected. Otherwise, applicable elements of other RPMs will be implemented. The Unanticipated Discovery Plan will also discuss procedures for immediate work stoppage and treatment in the event of discovery of human remains during construction activities.

CUL-2 If human remains are discovered, all work within 50 feet of the discovery site will halt immediately. Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will notify the County Coroner, as stipulated in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are Native American and, if so, will contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. The commission will follow the stipulations in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), including notification of those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. If the commission is unable to identify a descendant, the descendant is unable to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will mediate any dispute between the parties. Where such mediation fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner shall reinter the human remains and associated funerary items with appropriate dignity on the property, in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If human remains are discovered on federally managed lands, the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) will apply. For NAGPRA-associated discoveries, it may be necessary to provide 24-hour, onsite security. Work may only proceed after authorization is granted by the County coroner, the Placer County Planning Services Division, and the Forest Service if the find is on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

X X X X

CUL-3 The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) prepared for other resources will also address the identification and appropriate treatment of potential fossil finds. If fossils or other paleontological resources are encountered during construction, all work will be halted within a 30-foot radius of the find and a qualified paleontologist will be contacted to examine the find and evaluate its significance. If the find is deemed to have scientific value, the paleontologist and Squaw Valley Ski Holdings will formulate a plan to either avoid impacts or to continue construction without disturbing the integrity of the find (e.g., by carefully excavating the material containing the resources under the direction of the paleontologist followed by routine conservation, laboratory preparation, and curation). Any excavated finds shall be offered to a State-designated repository such as Museum of Paleontology, U.C. Berkeley, the California Academy of Sciences, or any other State-designated repository. Otherwise, the finds shall be offered to the Placer County Department of Museums for purposes of public education and interpretive displays. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources shall be subject to approval by the Department of Museums. If there are any fossil finds, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report to the Department of Museums and Planning Services Division which shall include the period of inspection, an analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of fossils.

X X X X

CUL-4 The Placer County Improvement Plans shall include a note stating that if any archaeological artifacts, exotic rock (non-native), or unusual amounts of shell or bone are uncovered during any on-site construction activities, all work must stop immediately in the area and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the deposit. The Placer County Planning Services Division and Department of Museums must also be contacted for review of the archaeological find(s). Following a review of any new find and consultation with appropriate experts, if necessary, the authority to proceed may be accompanied by the addition of development requirements that provide protection of the site and/or additional mitigation measures necessary to address the unique or sensitive nature of the site.

X X

Sources: Cal-IPC 2012, Frazier et al. 2005



References California Invasive Plant Inventory. 2012. Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management

Practices for Land Managers. Second edition. Cal-IPC Publication 2012-02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA.

Cal-IPC. See California Invasive Plant Inventory.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987 (January). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Available: http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/Wetlands/1987-Army-Corps-Wetlands-Delineation-Manual.pdf.

————. 2010 (May). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Version 2.0. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Frazier J. W., K. B. Roby, J. A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J. B. Reiner, D. L. Azuma, J. L. Furnish, B. P. Staab, and S. L. Grant. 2005 (July). Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

Placer County. 2012. Placer County Community Development Resource Agency Sample Conditions. Number 1. Auburn, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017 (June 15). Amendment of the Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.

————. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

————. 2011 (December 5). Chapter 10, Water Quality Management Handbook. In Region 5 Forest Service Handbook (R5 FSH) 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Available: http://www.sierranevadaconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/USFS-Water-quality-handbook.bmps_.2011.pdf.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/Wetlands/1987-Army-Corps-Wetlands-Delineation-Manual.pdf

http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/Wetlands/1987-Army-Corps-Wetlands-Delineation-Manual.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST...

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST...