Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · proposal to include a Nordic jump venue, which would provide

BUTTERMILK MOUNTAINIMPROVEMENT PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Decision Notice andFinding of No Significant Impact

February 2010

USDA Forest ServiceWhite River National ForestAspen-Sopris Ranger District

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment DN-1

DECISION NOTICE

and

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN

USDA FOREST Service, Rocky Mountain Region

White River National Forest

Aspen-Sopris Ranger District

Pitkin County, Colorado

February 2010

This Decision Notice documents my decision and rationale for approving proposed projects within the

Buttermilk Mountain Special Use Permit (SUP) boundary on the White River National Forest (WRNF)

and located within Pitkin County, Colorado. My decision is based on and supported by the December

2009 Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment.

In 2007, the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District received a proposal from the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) to

initiate a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of specific projects in order to improve the

guest experience and operational efficiencies at Buttermilk Ski Area. In 2008, ASC submitted a revised

proposal to include a Nordic jump venue, which would provide training opportunities for athletes in

Roaring Fork Valley and the western slope of Colorado. An environmental assessment (EA) analyzing

and disclosing the environmental effects of the proposed projects was distributed for public review and

comment in December 2009.

The accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) documents and supports the determination

that the Selected Alternative is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the human or natural

environment.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

After thoroughly considering the project purpose and need, issues, alternatives and analyses presented in

the EA, as well as public comments that were received, I have decided to select and approve a

combination of Alternatives 2 and 3 from the EA. My decision meets the project purpose and need (as

stated on pages 1-8 through 1-10 of the EA), is consistent with the White River National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision, as amended (2002 Forest Plan). My decision includes all

components of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as described in Chapter 2 of the EA plus the

additional components of Alternative 3 with respect to the Nordic jump venue. All project design criteria

(PDC) included in Appendix A are required to be adhered to by ASC. In addition to the general PDCs

applicable to avoid or minimize impacts to resources, the summary below highlights PDCs that apply to

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact


specific project elements approved in this decision. Refer to the attached Selected Alternative map for

project locations. Specifically, my decision includes:

Snowmaking Reservoir Capacity, in Accordance with Alternative 2

Construction of an upper reservoir with a capacity of 9.1 acre feet and requisite dam. The

proposed lower reservoir is located on private lands, not under Forest Service jurisdiction.

Wetland mitigation (0.15 acres) at the southern end of the upper reservoir.

PDCs 17, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 63 and 68 are specific to construction of the snowmaking reservoir.

Snowmaking Coverage, Alternative 2 and Javelin Trail from Alternative 3

Additional snowmaking coverage on 87 acres including: Ridge Trail (18 acres), Westward Ho (10

acres), Jacob’s Ladder (4 acres), Racer’s Edge (7 acres), Tiehack Parkway (17 acres), Teaser (5

acres), Uncle Chuck’s Glade (5 acres), Savio (9 acres), Tom’s Thumb (2 acres), Homestead Road

(3 acre), and Javelin (7 acres).1

PDCs 18, 28, 35 and 38 are specific to the installation and operation of approved snowmaking

coverage.

Lift Maintenance Facility, in Accordance with Alternative 2

A single-level, approximately 3,000-square foot lift maintenance facility with a 0.5-acre shop

yard including a 30-foot wide paved apron and access from the adjacent mountain road.

PDC 62 is specific to the installation of the lift maintenance facility.

Summer Recreation, in Accordance with Alternative 2

Horseback trail rides operation from June 1st through September 30th on existing summer roads

and trails, allowing guests to ride a short trail loop (2.8 miles), a mid-length loop (3.6 miles) or a

longer trail loop (5.2 miles) within the ski area boundary.

PDCs 9, 10, 11, 69 and 70 are specific to the implementation of the horseback trail ride program.

Nordic Jump Venue, in Accordance with Alternative 3

Surface lift with a length of approximately 970 feet (approximately two-thirds of the lift will be

located on NFS lands).

Surface lift top terminal access road.

65 m, 35 m, 15 m Nordic jumps with jump structures.

1 With is approval ASC anticipates extending snowmaking coverage onto private lands on Racer’s Edge (2 acres)

and Jacob’s Ladder (2 acres).



Coaching platforms adjacent to each jump.2

PDCs 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 50 and 63 are specific to the construction of the Nordic jump venue.

RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION

In reaching my decision I relied upon an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team comprised of Forest Service

resource specialists to analyze the effects of the three alternatives documented in the EA. I considered the

following issues and concerns: anticipated effects to vegetation, wildlife and water and wetland resources

within the project area, geological characteristics across the SUP, the visual effects the proposed projects

would have on the area, changes in the recreation character and opportunities afforded to local residents

and resort visitors, and effects to traffic and access between Highway 82 and the Tiehack base area. I also

reviewed the proposed PDCs, best management practices (BMP) and mitigation measures, reviewed the

public comments on the EA, and considered how the Selected Alternative would respond to the stated

purpose and need.

The EA public comment period primarily generated supportive comments from the Aspen community,

with the receipt of ten supportive comments out of 11 total letters received. The Colorado Division of

Wildlife (CDOW) suggested several more design measures, which I have included in this decision (refer

to the PDC table in Appendix A). One exception is CDOW’s recommendation for 5:1 slopes for the sides

of the snowmaking ponds. This measure cannot be accommodated due to the space requirements to

achieve that design and the volume requirements of the snowmaking ponds. The reservoir located on

NFS lands was analyzed with 2:1 slopes. Prior to construction, ASC is required to submit construction

details, including a design that will facilitate wildlife/pet egress out of the pond should they happen to

enter on one of the stepped in banks of the reservoir.

During the EA process, the Forest Service received comments from the Maroon Creek Club Master

Association (MCCMA) regarding the impacts the Nordic jump venue may have on parking and traffic in

the Tiehack area, as well as potential safety and security issues that might arise should the Nordic jump

structures be built. Anticipated impacts due to the construction of the Nordic jump venue were analyzed

in the EA, and more specifically, effects to parking and traffic and potential impacts to adjacent residents

due to the operation of the Nordic jump venue were analyzed. I feel design measures incorporated into

this decision will address issues under the Forest Service’s purview. In regards to parking in the Tiehack

area, the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction to enforce or require operational mitigation measures

due to the fact that the lot is located on private land. I will, however, suggest that ASC and the MCCMA

jointly work on a parking management plan for this area to address the potential for increased vehicle

parking demand that may occur during Nordic jump competitions and other special events. Safety and

security of public access to the ski jumps (e.g., signage and securing access to stairways) will be

addressed in an operations plan for the Nordic jumps prior to final construction plan approval.

2 A judging building will be constructed on private lands near the bottom of the jumps, and is therefore not subject

to Forest Service authorization.



In reviewing the qualitative and quantitative effects on the human and biological environment presented

in the EA, I find they have been adequately addressed and disclosed. Although I considered all the

resource issues and concerns described in the EA, one project element in particular required a greater

lever of level of analysis—additional snowmaking coverage. The ID Team thoroughly analyzed the

proposed snowmaking’s impact to exposed soils and slope stability due to increased water inputs from

snowmaking. As presented in the EA, Buttermilk currently has areas on existing ski trails that exhibit

rilling, gullying and insufficient vegetative cover. A requirement of my decision is for ASC to

collaborate with our forest hydrologist to correct these issues and improve drainage conditions on the ski

area. I understand this will be an on-going effort as ASC and the Forest Service take progressive steps to

address the drainage and revegetation concerns, all of which were outlined in the EA. The EA also

analyzed slope stability concerns across Buttermilk, and more specifically in locations subject to

additional snowmaking coverage. The EA adequately analyzed this issue and included design measures

to reduce the amount of water typically applied to a trail that includes snowmaking coverage at

Buttermilk. With the required reduction in the amount of water input that can be applied, slope stability

concerns are addressed and minimized. When considering the analysis and design measures for

Alternative 2 and 3 (full snowmaking coverage on Savio at a reduced depth and partial snowmaking

coverage on Savio with a full depth, respectively), I determined that Alternative 2 will better meet the

purpose and need for snowmaking coverage on this important trail at Buttermilk. Alternative 2 will

accommodate a wider trail width of snowmaking coverage, and due to the limited terrain irregularities on

the trail, a lesser amount of snowmaking depth will be needed to open this trail. Moreover, the effects of

each alternative were nearly identical with respect to the slope stability analysis that was prepared.

The analysis presented in the EA demonstrates that snowmaking coverage on trails listed above in my

decision are approvable projects that appropriately respond to the purpose and need and, with the

implementation of requisite PDCs and mitigation measures, are consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan. I

believe the EA thoroughly identified and analyzed the effects of increased water volume and change in

snowmelt runoff to address the concerns to rilling, gullying and overall drainage management with

implementation of the Selected Alternative.

Overall, my decision will improve the guest experience at Buttermilk for the public visiting from near and

far; provide a great training ground for Nordic athletes in the Roaring Fork Valley and western slope of

Colorado; and increase the operational efficiencies of the ski area through the construction of a lift

maintenance building and the development of snowmaking storage. More specifically, my decision to

authorize snowmaking on the aforementioned trails represents an important step towards addressing

Buttermilk’s existing deficiencies in providing the appropriate learning and teaching terrain. Further, my

decision will improve low-intermediate and intermediate terrain during the early season and low snow

years.



PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

The EA presents the PDCs on pages 2–27 through 2–34, all of which have been incorporated into the

Selected Alternative. My decision includes following PDC and BMPs as described in Table 2-3 of the

EA and Appendix A of this Decision Notice. The effectiveness of many design criteria will be dependent

upon implementing specific components of the proposal in a certain order or sequence. Appendix B

includes a sequencing strategy to ensure ASC and the Forest Service monitor both project implementation

and effectiveness over time. I want to emphasize the following PDC and sequencing of actions:

Prior to installing infrastructure for new snowmaking, ASC will be required to prepare site-specific

drainage and revegetation plans for Forest Service review and approval. Revegetation efforts using

suggested measures in the EA (p. 3-33) must occur at least one growing season prior to the

commencement of snowmaking. These efforts shall be included with the ski area’s summer project

construction plans when ready to implement. If monitoring after one growing season does not reveal

adequate growth, snowmaking will be delayed at least one more season in order to promote plant

establishment. Similarly, the final design plan for restoration/armoring of an 800-foot channel between

Ridge and Savio will need to be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service prior to its construction,

and finished before installing any snowmaking equipment in this area.

The current lift maintenance building will need to be completely removed whether or not ASC decides to

maintain a warming hut in this location. If replaced, the design of a new warming hut structure will need

to stay within the existing footprint at this site and the building design will require architectural review

and approval by the Forest Service.

Authorization of horseback riding on NFS lands is contingent upon keeping the corral staged on private

land at Main Buttermilk. Additionally, a waste management plan for horse manure will need to be

prepared before the activity continues. As stated in the EA, I want to emphasize that no grazing of horses

will be allowed on NFS lands.

The Aspen-Sopris Ranger District winter sports administrator and the forest hydrologist will be

responsible for monitoring ASC’s compliance with the required PDCs and ensuring effectiveness in

coordination with resource specialists. Failure to comply with the required PDCs will constitute a breach

of the project approval and could temporarily suspend construction and/or operations on the facilities

approved by this decision.

The Selected Alternative, along with my decision to require all of the PDC, meets all applicable laws,

regulations, and policies. With the application of PDCs and mitigation measures, the project will not

result in any unacceptable effects to NFS lands.



ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

In addition to the Proposed Action, two other alternatives were analyzed in the EA: the No Action

Alternative and Alternative 3. For a more detailed discussion of these alternatives considered, refer to

pages 2-1 through 2-15 of the EA.

The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA and provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the

action alternatives. No Action essentially reflects a continuation of existing management practices

without changes, additions, or upgrades. No new recreational opportunities, facilities, snowmaking

infrastructure or stream health/trail condition improvements would be implemented as a result of this

analysis.

Alternative 2—the Proposed Action—includes project components designed to enhance operation and

maintenance efficiencies of on-mountain infrastructure and improve winter and summer recreational

opportunities on Buttermilk. The Proposed Action includes a snowmaking reservoir with a storage

capacity of 9.1 acre feet; snowmaking coverage with specific application rates on 80 acres across the SUP

area on NFS lands; a 3,000-square foot lift maintenance facility and associated utilities; a summer

horseback trail ride program on existing trails and roads; and a Nordic jump venue with three jump

structures, surface lift and associated infrastructure.

Alternative 3 responds to environmental and recreational issues raised during scoping. Alternative 3

evolved throughout the NEPA process as on-site field verification conducted by resource specialists,

mountain planners and Forest Service ID Team members revealed the unique resource and mountain

planning challenges within certain project areas. This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action with

the exception of the following:

No snowmaking on portions of Savio.

Approximately 7 acres of snowmaking is proposed on Javelin.

With the additional snowmaking coverage on Javelin, a specific application rate is required for

snowmaking coverage.

An extended surface lift to a higher elevation at the Nordic jump venue.

Extended construction access road to the higher surface lift top terminal.

ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

Lift Maintenance Facility

Early in the planning process, an alternative lift maintenance facility location was identified west of the

West Buttermilk Express top terminal. The project wildlife biologists determined that the site would



create unnecessary impacts to Canada lynx habitat. Therefore, this location was removed from further

site-specific analysis.

Alternative Snowmaking Storage Reservoir Site

During a site reconnaissance, an alternative snowmaking reservoir site was identified on the east side of

Jacob’s Ladder trail. The site is relatively flat and near an existing ski trail. Because the Proposed

Action and Alternative 3 snowmaking storage reservoir site would involve the impact of a relatively low

quality, 0.11 acre, open water wetland, this alternative site was considered in compliance with Section

404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 that each requires the avoidance and

minimization of wetlands. The alternative location was eliminated from further site-specific analysis due

to its proximity to a higher quality kettle pond wetland, and existing benefits of the reservoir site in the

Proposed Action and Alternative 3. The Proposed Action and Alternative 3 sites possess existing

depressions (limiting necessary cut and fill requirements with excavation), would have less overstory

vegetation removal requirement, and is immediately adjacent to previously-disturbed soils (minimizing

new disturbance for power and plumbing). The proximity of the higher quality kettle pond to the

alternative reservoir site was a concern because the kettle pond is groundwater fed. Furthermore, altering

adjacent groundwater flows through the excavation of a reservoir could indirectly impact the existing

kettle pond.

Other reservoir sites, on and off-site of the ski area, were considered through a study of aerial

photography. Aerial photography indicates that sites proximate to Buttermilk do not possess the qualities

of the proposed site. The proposed site will require less overstory vegetation removal (lynx habitat) and

excavation that could affect groundwater flows. In addition, it was determined that having an on-site

snowmaking reservoir would require less infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, pump stations, and utility

corridors) than an off-site location. Additional infrastructure could create impacts to overstory vegetation

(wildlife habitat) removal, hydrology/erosion effects, and soil compaction. The proposed site was

determined to be the least environmentally damaging site when taking overall resource effects into

account.

Alternative Nordic Jump Alignment

Alternative Nordic jump alignments were considered to address overstory vegetation removal and scenery

impacts associated with the proposed 65 m jump structure. The Nordic jump design team considered

different alignments during a site visit on September 24, 2008 but due to the amount of additional ground

disturbance that would be required by moving the top of the jump structure to the east or west, this

alternative was eliminated from further site-specific analysis.



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In December 2007, a scoping notice was mailed to 33 community residents, interested individuals, public

agencies, and other organizations. This notice was specifically designed to elicit comments, concerns,

and issues pertaining to the Proposed Action. The scoping package provided a brief description of the

Proposed Action, the purpose and need for action, preliminary issues raised, and an illustrative map. In

addition, a legal notice was published in the newspaper of record Glenwood Post Independent on

December 20, 2007 initiating the 30-day scoping period. The scoping package was posted on the WRNF

website and an e-mail address was provided for submitting electronic comments.

Three supportive comment letters, and a letter from the Corps of Engineers, and a letter from the EPA

were received during the scoping period. During an ID Team meeting, Forest Service specialists

provided additional comments on the project and discussed resources that must be analyzed in the EA.

Concerns raised in public scoping comments or by the ID Team were used to formulate potential

alternatives to the Proposed Action. Through extensive discussion, the ID Team determined that there

was one key issue that would drive an additional action alternative: the erosion effects from gullying and

rilling and the resulting sedimentation related to additional snowmaking on Savio. To address this issue,

snowmaking on portions of Savio were not included in Alternative 3.

Following the close of the first 30-day public scoping period, Aspen Valley Ski Club approached ASC

regarding the use of lands within ASC’s SUP boundary and private lands as a Nordic jump venue. ASC

notified the Forest Service of this proposal. After reviewing this new project component the Forest

Service agreed to include this action into the ongoing site-specific NEPA review process. Subsequently,

the Forest Service prepared a second scoping package in June 2008 for public review and comment. The

second scoping package included the original scoping letter along with a purpose and need statement and

detailed description of the Nordic jump venue project components, a map of all projects proposed and a

map detailing the jump venue. A legal notice was published in the Glenwood Post Independent on June

16, 2008, initiating a second 30-day scoping period. Again, the scoping package was posted on the

WRNF website and an e-mail address was provided for submitting electronic comments.

The Forest Service received five comment letters and emails during the second scoping period. Based on

the comments received, the Forest Service identified more issues to analyze in the EA. In addition,

during a site visit to the Nordic jump venue it was determined that snowmaking on lower Javelin and a

longer surface lift would better accommodate athletes using the venue as well as racers training on

Javelin, thus these elements were added to Alternative 3.

During these two scoping periods, the proposal included grading on Uncle Chuck’s Glade trail and a

terrain park overpass on Teaser trail, among other projects. In January 2009, the Forest Service ID Team

identified additional snowmaking and slope stability analyses that would be required as a result of

snowmaking coverage included in the proposal. Furthermore, the Forest Service determined that an EA

and potential approval would not be achieved during the 2009 construction season. The Uncle Chuck’s



Glade and Teaser projects were considered independent actions from the other EA projects scoped to the

public and no comments were received on these specific actions, therefore they could be categorically

excluded from site-specific analysis. A Decision Memo approving these two projects was signed and

published on April 13, 2009.

In December 2009, notification letters and CDs containing an electronic copy of the EA were mailed to

members of the public and agencies who indicated interest in the project during the scoping period. The

EA was also posted on the WRNF website and an e-mail address was provided for submitting electronic

comments. The EA was available to the public for a 30-day review and comment period. Ten supportive

comments were received as well as one recommendation letter from CDOW. The response to CDOW’s

comments are addressed in the ―Rationale for My Decision‖ section of this Decision Notice, and design

features requested by CDOW have been incorporated in Appendix A.



FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

After reviewing the EA, I have determined that implementation of the Selected Alternative will not,

individually or cumulatively, significantly affect the quality of the human or natural environment. The

provisions of 40 CFR 1508.27(b) indicate that project significance must be judged in terms of both

context and intensity. Based on a review of these provisions, I have determined that an environmental

impact statement is not required. I base my findings on the following definitions of context and intensity:

CONTEXT

Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several ways such as society as a

whole (human, national), in the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. The effects of

implementing the Selected Alternative are localized, with implications only for the immediate vicinity of

the ski area. Cumulative effects of past management, combined with the current proposal and reasonably

foreseeable future actions, are displayed and analyzed in the EA for each resource.

INTENSITY

Intensity refers to the severity of the anticipated impact. The following ten intensity factors are used to

evaluate intensity:

1) Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts.

I have considered both the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the Selected Alternative as

presented in the EA and this Decision Notice. The Selected Alternative will provide recreational benefits

to many users of the WRNF and will improve recreation opportunities on NFS lands. Adverse impacts to

water, soils, geology and geotechnical resources, vegetation, wildlife, scenery, traffic, parking and ski

area access are thoroughly documented in Chapter 3 of the EA and are determined to be non-significant.

My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action.

2) Consideration of the effects on public health and safety.

The Selected Alternative will not significantly affect public health or safety. The Nordic jump venue will

be designed to accommodate beginner to advanced ability level Nordic athletes by providing a range of

jump structures. Qualified athletes in training and competitions would be properly segregated from

general skiers on Javelin to maintain existing use of this ski trail while accommodating jump athletes.

3) Consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area.

The area affected by the approved project elements does not represent a unique geographic area, contain

historic features, park lands, prime farmlands, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical

areas. Therefore, the Selected Alternative will not significantly impact any of the aforementioned unique

characteristics.



4) Consideration of the degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are

likely to be considered controversial.

Based on comments received during scoping and on the EA, I do not consider the effects of this project

on the quality of the human environment to be controversial, nor is there scientific dispute about these

effects. The EA has provided the appropriate level of documentation for this analysis and the Selected

Alternative, and therefore I am confident that it achieves the stated purpose and need while minimizing

potential resource impacts. Furthermore, design measures are incorporated into the Selected Alternative

to ensure the jump structures are constructed in a manner to blend with the surround landscape to the

greatest extent practicable.

5) Consideration of the degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are

highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

The projects approved within the Buttermilk SUP area are common at ski areas that operate on NFS

lands. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks.

Geotechnical resources have been adequately analyzed and design measures have been identified and are

included in this decision. Therefore, based on the Forest Service’s experience with implementing these

types of activities, as well as the requirement to implement PDC to minimize effects, I have determined

that there will not be significant effects on the human environment.

6) Consideration of the degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions

with significant effects or that it represents a decision in principle about future considerations.

I have determined that this decision does not establish precedence for future actions with significant risks

to the environment. The Selected Alternative grants approval for projects and activities which, for the

most part, are extremely common at a developed ski area such as Buttermilk. Prior to accepting ASC’s

proposal for the Nordic jump venue to initiate the requisite NEPA review, the Forest Service completed

our due diligence process to ensure Nordic jumps are an appropriate use of public lands. In addition, the

Forest Service determined that jumps similar to what is approved have existed and/or currently reside on

NFS lands.

7) Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts.

The Cumulative Effects analyses presented for each resource throughout Chapter 3 in the EA discloses a

series of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions with potential to lead to effects which are

cumulative in nature. The analysis does not identify any cumulatively significant impacts that are

anticipated to result from implementation of the Selected Alternative.

8) Consideration of the degree to which the action may affect listed or eligible historic places.

As indicated on page 3-126 of the EA, no eligible sites or findings are recorded within the project area,

therefore no effects to eligible heritage and cultural resources are anticipated to occur as a result of

implementation of the Selected Alternative. Additionally, as stated in the PDC (Appendix A), if



undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are discovered during ground disturbing or planning

activities associated with construction, they would be treated as specified in 36 CFR 800.11 concerning

Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking.

9) Consideration of the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or

threatened species or its critical habitat.

The Selected Alternative will have no significant adverse effect on any federally listed threatened,

endangered or proposed plant or animal species. Approximately 1.83 acres of lynx ―winter forage

habitat‖ and ―other suitable habitat‖ would be converted to ―non-habitat.‖ The Selected Alternative is

consistent with all applicable lynx-related provisions of the Southern Rockies Lynx Management

Direction and the associated FEIS/ROD, as well as with Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act.

10) Consideration of whether the action violates Federal, State, or local laws or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

I have reviewed in the EA, Biological Assessment, and the project file and have determined that no

Federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or requirements for protection of the environment will be

violated with implementation of the Selected Alternative. These laws and requirements are detailed in the

next section.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

I have determined the Selected Alternative is consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan goals and objectives

and forest-wide and Management Area 8.25 standards and guidelines, and therefore this project complies

with the National Forest Management Planning Act of 1976. In addition, implementation and effects of

this decision will be consistent with the following acts and executive orders:

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990

Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1978

Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended

Clean Water Act of 1948, as amended

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, as amended

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended

Organic Administration Act of 1897

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended

Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990



ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. The appeal must

be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at:

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms, Golden, CO 80401; FAX: (303) 275-5154.

The office business hours for submitting hand-delivered appeals are: Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to

4:00 p.m., excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an email

message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-

[email protected]. The appeal must have an identifiable name attached or verification of identity will be

required. A scanned signature may serve as verification on electronic appeals.

Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of this notice in

the Glenwood Post Independent, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45-day appeal

period will not be considered. The publication date in the Glenwood Post Independent is the exclusive

means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely

upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Individuals or organizations who

submitted comments during the comment period specified at Section 215.6 may appeal this decision. The

notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR 215.14.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but

not before, five (5) business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed,

implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal

disposition.

CONTACT

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact: Roger

Poirier, Winter Sports Program Manager at (970) 945-3512 or Jim Stark, Winter Sports Administrator at

(970) 945-3314.

_________________________________________ __________________

Scott Fitzwilliams Date

Forest Supervisor

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!! !! !! !! !! !!!!

!! !! !!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!! !! !!

!!! !

!!

!!!! !! !!

!!!! !!

!! !! !!!! !!

!!!! !! !!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!

!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!! !

! !! !

! !! !

! !!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!

!! !!!! !!

!!!!

!! !!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!

!! !! !! !! !! !!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

! !! !

! !!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!! !! !!!!

!!!! !!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

! !!!

!!

!!!!

!! !! !! !! !!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!! !

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!

! !!!

!!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!!!

!!

!! !!

!!!!

!! !!

!!!! !!

!!!! !! !!

!!!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

Cliffhouse

LEGEN D

Date: February, 2010Scale: 1 In = 800 FtContour Interval: 100 Ft

Tiehack Parkway Tom's Thumb

Savio Homestea d Road

Uncle Chuck'

s Glade

Jacob'

s Lad

der

Racer's Edge

Approved Motor Room Replacement

S e l e c t e d A l t e r n a t i v e

Ridge Tr

ailTea

ser

Westward Ho

Summit Express

Panda Peak

West

Butte

rmilk

Expr

ess

Upper Tiehack

Lower Tiehack

Previously Approved Tiehack Express

Washington Utah Colorado VermontWWW.SEGROUP.COM

0 400 800 Ft

Existing Buildings

Existing Lifts

Existing Snowmaking

Mountain Access Roads

SUP BoundaryPrivate Lands (ASC)

Existing Lifts to be Removed

Approved Surface LiftPreviously Approved Lift to be Constructed

Approved Snowmaking

Approved Horse Trails!(!( !( !(

!(

Approved Snowmaking Reservoir

Approved Mountain Access Roads

$+A

$+AApproved Lift Maintenance FacilityApproved Snowmaking Reservoir

$+B$+C$+D

RESORT FAC IL ITIE S

Approved Nordic Jump Venue Area

Stream Restoration

A p p r o v e d P r o j e c t s

BUTTERMILK MOUNTAINIMP ROV EME NT PL AN

ENVIRONMENTAL ASS ESSMENT

$+D

$+C

$+B

Appendix A

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Appendix A

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment A-1

Project Design Criteria Incorporated into the Selected Alternative

GENERAL

1. Project construction and grading plans.

2. Pre-construction erosion control/drainage management plans and CDPHE stormwater construction permit.

3. Pre- and post-construction noxious weed control plans.

4. Post-construction erosion control plans.

5. Post-construction revegetation plans.

VEGETATION

6. Understory vegetation will be preserved to the extent possible in all areas designated for flush cutting and/or overstory vegetation removal.

7. Prior to construction, the disturbance limits of the site will be flagged. Pop fencing, flagging, or a staked rope line will be established to denote the limits

of construction proximate to sensitive resource boundaries.

8. Prior to removal of merchantable timber, decking areas and removal routes will be designated in the field and approved by the Forest Service.

9. Topsoil replacement, seeding, and weed-free mulching (as necessary) will be used to stabilize disturbed soils in all areas where grading and soil

disturbance will occur to promote native plant re-establishment.

10. Revegetation should use native plants. Genetically local (at the ecological subsection level) seeds could be used if available. Seed mixtures and mulches

should be noxious weed-free. To prevent soil erosion, non-persistent, non-native perennials or sterile perennials may be used while native perennials

become established. The Forest Service should approve the seed mixtures prior to implementation.

11. Local seeding guidelines will be used to determine detailed procedures and appropriate mixes. Preference is given to local seed sources, cultivars, and

species available commercially. To avoid weed contamination, all seed purchased shall be certified weed-seed free.

12. Adequately mark leave trees, islands, and tree clearing limits to avoid mistakes in clearing limits during construction.

13. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, identify and locate all equipment staging areas in the SUP. Treat existing noxious weeds in these areas prior

to the staging of any equipment. Establish equipment wash stations at the base of the ski area for construction activities. Each station shall have a filter

system, for example at least 6 inches of large cinder or gravel spread over an area 10’x 30’. Filter cloth may be used for temporary stations. The area

will be a perched drainage to allow excess moisture to drain after being filtered. Equipment wash stations shall be located at least 200 yards from any

natural drainage to avoid contamination. All soiled equipment shall be washed before entering and before leaving the project area. This includes

construction personnel vehicles in addition to trucks and other heavy equipment. Equipment wash stations shall be monitored frequently and after

completion of all construction activities. All weed materials shall be removed promptly.




14. Monitor all construction areas and roadways within the SUP annually for at least five growing seasons and treat any noxious weeds found. Annually

inspect all parking lots and areas surrounding guest service and maintenance facilities at the base of the ski area within the SUP and document and treat

any new noxious weed infestations.

15. Effective ground cover (mulch) upon completion of ground disturbing activities will meet minimum level of the pre-treatment habitat type.

SOIL AND WATER

16. In areas of existing rilling and gullying where snowmaking is proposed, a restoration and management plan will be prepared jointly by ASC and the

Forest Service and approved by the Forest Service. The goal of this plan will be successful re-establishment of adequate vegetation cover density on

areas of Savio and Ridge Trail proposed to receive snowmaking, where bare soils currently predominate and no O-horizon is present. This plan may

include the following components:

Pre-snowmaking monitoring of ground cover and drainage conditions. ASC would be required to implement drainage and erosion control measures

prior to or concurrently with the installation of snowmaking. ASC and the Forest Service will design ground restoration activities as part of the

sequencing of snowmaking infrastructure installation and operation. The Forest Service expects proactive involvement from ASC to improve

surface drainage conditions in areas of critical concern.

Post-snowmaking implementation monitoring of ground cover and drainage conditions. After implementation of snowmaking, areas of new

snowmaking should be monitored each season during runoff conditions to check for development of or potential exacerbation of drainage problems.

Should snowmaking negatively affect vegetative cover or result in either new or re-established rills on these trails, then responsive measures must

be taken in order to address further drainage concerns in these critical areas. If post-implementation adaptive measures are unsuccessful in

addressing development of identified drainage concerns, then operational practices would be adjusted so as to address problems in these areas of

concern.

The measures outlined above would be paired with ongoing maintenance and improvement activities in order to maintain or improve ground cover and

surface drainage conditions

17. ASC will be required to submit detailed design plans for the snowmaking impoundments to the WRNF for review and approval prior to construction.

The design plans must include specifications for outlet works that will enable a portion of the water stored in the reservoir to be drained into the water

lines of the snowmaking system. Design plans shall also include an evaluation of culvert sizing and channel capacity for the channel downslope of the

reservoirs, to ensure that it is capable of withstanding anticipated flows from the impoundment outlet works both during the course of normal operations

and/or the potential need to drain the impoundments in the event of an emergency.

18. The drainage that carries seasonal runoff to the proposed upper snowmaking pond would be protected from further bank erosion, head-cutting, and

down-cutting by the design and construction of structures that would route excess water away from this area and potentially armor certain areas

determined appropriate by the Forest Hydrologist. The intent is to stabilize the channel and prevent further bank destabilization and subsequent

sediment loading.

19. A grading and erosion control plan will be developed and submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval prior to implementation of proposed

project elements that include grading.




20. Soil-disturbing activities will not be initiated during periods of heavy rain, spring runoff or excessively wet soils.

21. Immediately following completion of approved ground disturbing activities and seeding, all areas of ground disturbance will be mulched with weed-free

straw, wood chips, bark, jute mat, etc.

22. In all areas where grading or soil disturbance will occur, stockpile topsoil and re-spread topsoil following slope grading and prior to re-seeding. The

stockpiled soil will be protected from wind and water erosion.

23. Areas determined to have been compacted by construction activities may require mechanical subsoiling or scarification to the compacted depth to

reduce bulk density and restore porosity.

24. Vegetative buffers would be maintained adjacent to any intermittent or perennial drainages and wetlands, to the extent possible.

25. Check dams and sediment barriers (i.e., silt fence, weed-free hay bales, wattles, etc.) will be placed in all temporary erosion channels with minimum

sufficient spacing to control runoff velocity and encourage sediment deposition. When check dams, sediment barriers, or sediment detention dams fill

with sediment and exceed their design effectiveness, sediment will be excavated (by hand or mechanically) and removed from the site to a permanent

upland storage area where erosion would not occur.

26. Logs and logging debris removal will minimize dragging or pushing through soil to minimize disturbances.

27. In areas where site conditions necessitate (i.e., excessively steep slopes and/or highly erosive soil types), temporary sediment detention basins will be

created to detain runoff and trap sediment. Sediment basins will be created within the overall disturbance limits of the applicable project elements.

Temporary sediment basins will be reclaimed following reestablishment of permanent vegetation and will likewise be revegetated.

28. On steeper slopes (>30% slope gradient), areas exposed by grading may require implementation of jute-netting or other appropriate measures to further

stabilize disturbed soils. Installation should include:

Seeding and mulching of the disturbed area.

Burial of the top end of the netting in a trench of at least 4 inches depth and 8 inches width. The trench shall be backfilled and tamped.

Netting should extend beyond the edge of the mulched and/or seeded area at least 1 foot on the sides and 3 feet on the top and bottom.

The netting should be rolled downslope and secured with staples or pins.

Netting should overlap at least 4 inches on the sides and secured with staples 5 feet apart along the overlap.

The lower end of the uphill strip should overlap the downhill strip at least 1 foot and should be secured with staples 1 foot apart.

29. The drainage management plan will be implemented to disperse road surface runoff, prevent rill erosion, sediment delivery, and channel formation.

Drainage features will be inspected seasonally, maintained, and cleared of sediment at regular intervals as necessary.

30. Prior to construction, a construction access plan will be developed detailing access routes to pertinent project elements (i.e., lift terminals, building sites,

pond locations). The construction access plan will also include construction access timing (during year and day).




31. Fuel, oil and other hazardous materials will be stored in structures placed on impermeable surfaces with impermeable berms designed to fully contain

the hazardous material plus accumulated precipitation for a period at least equal to that required to mitigate a spill.

32. An oil spill contingency plan will be developed and approved prior to initiation of construction activities.

33. Concrete truck washout areas will be designated in the field and approved by the Forest Service prior to construction commencement.

34. Where snowmaking and utility lines will be installed on slopes greater than 30%, temporary check dams will be placed within open sections of trench

when those open sections exceed 100’ in length.

GEOTECHNICAL

35. To reduce additional water infiltration inputs in Slide A and C, the reduced snowmaking application rate, as described in Table 2-2 and Chapter 3B,

must be followed.

36. Prior to jump venue development a detailed site plan including design criteria to protect slope stability would be submitted for Forest Service approval.

37. To prevent future debris flows from potentially impacting the Nordic jump runouts, the lower northeast corner of the amphitheater would be raised to

guide the debris flow north, away from the jump runout.

38. The full depth of man-made snow should be mechanically removed only from the area tributary to the bowl-shaped amphitheater within Slide A prior to

snowmelt. A drainage plan would be required prior to any developments on Tiehack to convey runoff/removed man-made snow to a suitable location.

39. To accommodate potential movement of the Upper Tiehack slide the bottom terminal of the Nordic jump venue surface lift would be engineered to

accommodate land movement or moved/located 50 feet southwest off of the Upper Tiehack slide.

40. To avoid destabilizing a portion of the Upper Tiehack slide, no materials would be removed from the toe of the slope during use of the lower existing

access road.

41. The 65 m jump structure would be designed to permit debris flows to pass beneath the structure.

42. The reservoir liner should be designed to resist tearing if earth movement should occur. The liner would also prevent infiltration which would decrease

the risk of slope creep.

43. The upper reservoir dam should be built to withstand potential earth movement and may include a bentonite layer to prevent water from the pond from

saturating/inundating soils in the area of the ponds.

44. Monitoring wells may be installed to detect changes in ground water level.

45. The pond would be designed so that they could be drained if monitoring deemed it necessary.




WETLANDS

46. Underground utility and snowmaking lines would be installed in a manner that would prohibit or impede groundwater movement along utility or

snowmaking line. This would involve the use of impervious structures/substances (e.g., clay collars) periodically spaced within the linear disturbance

within affected wetland areas. In addition, trench backfill would be compacted to prohibit the diversion of subsurface flows within the pipeline corridor.

These provisions would maintain wetland hydrology. Topsoil would be stockpiled during construction and replaced in order to preserve the wetland

seed bank. Additional plantings (of approved native plant material) would be utilized where necessary in order to speed the recovery of the wetland

community.

47. Apply BMPs for all ground disturbing activities to avoid sediment migration from ground disturbance into wetlands.

48. Wetlands proximate to potential disturbance zones of project elements will be re-identified and flagged prior to the initiation of construction related

activities. Construction limits will be clearly defined prior to construction.

DUST ABATEMENT

49. During construction under dry conditions, all exposed soil, including roadways, parking lots, buildings and lift terminal areas will be sufficiently

watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering or other dust abatement measures will be applied whenever construction activities occur and dry

conditions exist. This measure excludes trail grading or other project elements that do not have sufficient road access to facilitate water truck access.

PARKING AND TRAFFIC

50. ASC will work with adjacent homeowners on road/parking signage, as necessary, on private lands minimize ski area access and construction related

traffic impacts.

AIR QUALITY

51. Grading areas would be watered, as necessary and practical, to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In the absence of natural precipitation, watering of

these areas would occur as practical.

52. Burning of cleared timber would occur when air quality standards would not be compromised.

53. All equipment will be properly tuned and maintained. Idling time will be minimized to the extent practical.

SCENERY RESOURCES

54. Avoid straight edges where removing trees. The edges of lift lines, trails and structures, where the vegetation is removed, need to use a variable density

cutting (feathering) technique applied to create a more natural edge that blends into the existing vegetative. Edges should be non-linear, and changes in

tree heights along the edges of openings should be gradual rather than abrupt. Soften hard edges by selective removal of trees of different ages and

heights to produce irregular corridor edges where possible.




55. Stumps should be cut as low as possible to the ground to avoid safety hazard.

56. Regrade to restore a natural terrain appearance. Prior to grading, strip topsoil and save for revegetation. Where there is disturbed ground for new lifts

including terminals, towers and foundation placements, and water storage ponds and structures including the culverts, put any excess material back to

the area with grading to avoid stockpile of material and maintain a natural appearance at transitions. Any site grading should blend disturbance into the

existing topography to achieve a natural appearance and minimize cuts and fills at the transition with proposed grading and existing terrain.

57. Utilities must be buried as per Forest Plan Standard.

58. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. Seeding should be repeated until satisfactory revegetation is

accomplished. Reseed with a native seed mixture using a variety of native seed grasses, wildflowers and forbs.

59. Facilities or structures including buildings and lift terminals need to meet color and 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 should 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: Facilities and 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.

Structures, including lift towers, lift terminals, sign backs and posts, utility boxes and transformers, etc, should meet R2 color darkness standard of 4.5

on the Munsell Scale to blend into the summer background vegetation.

60. Facilities or structures including buildings, lift terminals and towers, culverts need to meet color guidelines. Bright colors are inappropriate for the forest

setting. The colors should be muted, subdued colors because they blend well with the natural color scheme. The Forest Service Handbook No. 617,

“National Forest Landscape Management for Ski Areas, Volume 2, Chapter 7,” refers recommended colors for ski areas on page 37 of that handbook.

The colors are darker colors; greens, browns, navy blue, grays and black.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

61. If undocumented historic and/or prehistoric properties are located during ground disturbing or planning activities associated with construction, they

would be treated as specified in 36 CFR 800.11 concerning Properties Discovered During Implementation of an Undertaking.

WILDLIFE

62. Surveys of suitable habitat surrounding the proposed lift maintenance facility should be conducted during March, April, or May 2010 in order to

confirm the presence or absence of nesting or roosting boreal owls in the project area.

63. Surveys should be conducted again for flammulated owls and purple martin prior to construction of the snowmaking pond and Nordic jump venue.

64. All construction activities should be confined to daylight hours, excluding emergencies.




65. During construction of the facility, contractors are required by Pitkin County code to provide a bear proof container on site for all edible and food

related trash in order to minimize conflicts with black bears. No food products or food containers can be thrown in the larger roll-off type dumpsters.

66. No food/drink should be kept/stored in construction worker vehicles. All windows should be kept closed and doors locked on all vehicles to prevent

bear entry.

67. Construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site during construction.

68. ASC will consider fencing, if appropriate, the perimeter of the reservoir to address both wildlife and public safety concerns.

69. Authorization of horseback riding on NFS lands is contingent upon keeping the corral staged on private land at Main Buttermilk. Additionally, a waste

management plan for horse manure will need to be prepared before the activity continues.

70. Horse feed containers located on private lands must be kept in bear-proof containers.

Appendix B

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact - Appendix B

Selected Alternative ‐ Implementation Guide for Watershed Mitigation Project Component

Location EA Issue Required Mitigation EA Pages Tracking DocumentImplementation Sequencing

Snomaking Reservoir

Upper Reservoir Historic Landslide Extra heavy duty liner2‐5; 2‐29; 3‐56

Dam/ res final design; summer construction plan

Concurrent with reservoir construction

Snomaking Reservoir

Upper Reservoir Historic Landslide

Engineer dam to withstand expected sheer stress; install ground water monitoring wells

2‐31; 3‐56Dam/ res final design; Summer Construction Plan


Snomaking Reservoir

Upper Reservoir Wetlands ImpactsWetland Mitigation (approx. 0.15 acre)

2‐6; 3‐37

Dam/ res final design; Summer Construction Plan; Delineation Report/ Jurisdicational Determination

Prior to reservoir construction

Snomaking Reservoir

Upper Reservoir

Ability to drain reservoir and bypass increased peak flows associated with snowmaking

Outlet works on reservoir; culvert upgrades downstream

2‐29; 3‐30Dam/ res final design; DMP; Summer Construction Plan


New SnowmakingSlide C Microdrainage

Downcutting/ headcutting on 800 feet of existing channel above reservoir

Construct structures to route excess water away. Armor existing channel in key spots, if needed.

2‐6; 2‐29; 3‐36

DMP; Summer Construction Plan

Complete before snowmaking begins

Buttermilk Mountain Improvement Plan Environmental AssessmentB-1




New SnowmakingSlide C Microdrainage

Historic Landslide

Max snowmaking application rate 0.825 AF/ac ski runs and 1.275 AF/ac for terrain parks

2‐7; 3‐54 Winter Operation Plan Yearly Implementation

New SnowmakingSlide A Microdrainage

Historic LandslideMax snowmaking application rate 0.7 AF/ac

2‐13 Winter Operation Plan Yearly Implementation

New SnowmakingSlide A Amphitheater Microdrainage

Historic Landslide

Mechanically remove a depth of snow equivalent to amount made on an area of 1.7 acres; complete structural

2‐7; 3‐56Winter Operation Plan; DMP; Summer Construction Plan

Implement yearlyMicrodrainage structural

improvements for drainage at snow disposal area

Construction Plan

New Snowmaking Jacob's LadderRilling/ gullying (0.2ac)

Complete structural drainage improvements; stabilize soils; reestablish vegetation

3‐32; 3‐33Summer Construction Plan; DMP

At least one year before installing snowmaking; No snowmaking until after one successful growing season.





New Snowmaking Ridge TrailRilling/ gullying (1.6ac)




New Snowmaking SavioRilling/ gullying (0.3ac)




Rilling/ gullying

Complete structural drainage

Summer Construction

At least one year before installing snowmaking;

New Snowmaking Lower SavioRilling/ gullying (0.8ac)

gimprovements; stabilize soils; reestablish vegetation


g g;No snowmaking until after one successful growing season.

New Snowmaking Tiehack ParkwayRilling/ gullying (0.7ac)








New Snowmaking TeaserRilling/ gullying (0.1ac)




Existing Snowmaking

Lower Tiehack Area

Rilling/ gullying

On‐going compliance with Forest Plan and Drainage Management Plan for drainage improvements, soil stabilization, and re‐vegetation

3‐47Summer Construction Plan; DMP

Yearly Implementation

Nordic Jump Venue (65 m Jump)

Slide A Amphitheater

Historic/ future debris flows

Earthwork to control debris flows; design jump towers to withstand debris flows

2‐31; 3‐53Summer Construction Plan; Grading plan

Concurrent to jump venue construction

Nordic Jump Venue

Slide AHistoric landslide; slope stability

Protect slope stability through stability neutral grading

2‐31; 3‐54Summer Construction Plan; Grading plan

Concurrent to jump venue construction





Surface Lift (Nordic Jump Venue)

Slide AHistoric landslide; slope stability

Either design lift to accommodate potential eastward movement; or move lift 50 feet uphill (off slide A)

2‐31; 3‐54 Grading PlanPrior to Contstruction Activities

Snowmaking Lines

AllGround disturbance ‐ 60 ft wide corridor

EA requires reveg, but 60ft wide disturbance may be more than is necessary

Summer Construction Plan

Concurrent with installation

Existing Drainage Management Problems

SUP

Ongoing erosion, road drainage problems, bare ground, etc.

On‐going compliance with Forest Plan and Drainage Management Plan

3‐47DMP; Summer Construction Plan

Yearly Implementation


Documents

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · proposal to include a Nordic jump venue, which would provide