WSP09805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;VJ?1 ?5 '-' L- __ iJ Record of DecisIOn 404 pennining process, which includes obtaining approval of a detailed mitigation plan for compensation activities. Monitoring will be a critical part of the implementation and follow-up for development of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. Nonnally. Forest Service winter sports administrators oversee construction and ensure that it confonns with approved plans and resource protection measures. In order to ensure that limited Forest Service resources do not interfere with project oversight, I am requiring that all Forest Service winter sports administration costs associated with actual planning review and construction be provided by the Aspen Skiing Company through a reimbursable agreement. The list of required mitigation which follows was developed from a variety of sources. Many are taken directly from the list of potential mitigation measures developed specifically by the Interdisciplinary Team for the Aspen Highlands project and documented in chapters 2 and 4 of the EIS. Many best management practices are already in place for Aspen Highlands Ski Area in the fonn of standard procedures and protection measures specified in their summer operating and construction plans. These plans are updated annually and reviewed by the Forest Service. Appendix A contains a listing of the mitigation measures included in the 1994 ENDN for Aspen Highlands MDP improvements and still required for those actions. These measures were evaluated to detenn ine whether it was appropriate to apply them to the Aspen Highlands Deep Steeplechase and Thunderbowl areas. Those 1994 measures (which are not included below) will be considered in detailed project design and construction administration, but are not specific requirements of development. Similarly, the Warershed Conservariol/ Practices Hal/dbook, USDA-FS Region Two contains many measures that will be considered for application to individual portions of the development of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area, but are not established as required mitigation by this ROD. Mitigation measures required through this ROD are listed in Table 2. Unless otherwise noted, the Aspen Skiing Company is the party responsible for their implementation. Table 2. Impacts to be mitigated and required mitigation measures. Impact Mitigated Required Mitigation Effective- Responsible nessl Party Geology and Soils Risk ofstruClural damage I. Locate the top terminal of Steeplechase Lift. as well as the ski I FS/ASC 10 ski lift and building patrol headquanerslinterpretive facility/restaurant. away from foundations located in the large sadung cracks. vicinity: of gravitational 2. Inspection by an engineering geologist is required to identify I FSI ASC spreading (sackung smaller sackung crads during excavation. features). 3. If sackung cracks cannot be nvoided, lift and building 2 FS/ASC foundations should be designed to resist or absorb computed cumulatiye horizontal and vertical strains over the lifetime of the structure. Risk of structural failure I. Anchor lift tower foundations in stable milterial beneath the I FSI ASC of lift towers placed on actively-moving talus layer. as designed by a qualified talus slopes (e.g.. Highland engineer. Surface Lill). Risk of slope failure along I. On catwalks and access roads. cuts should be less than 8 feet 2 FS/ ASC catwalks superimposed on high and the inslope grades should be no less than 150 to 100 dip slopes with 60 to 70 percent (i.e., %: I to I: I slope ratio). percent (30 to 350) slope 2. As specified by engineering design. fill slope instability should I FS/ASC angles. be reduced through the construction of properly designed tie- back retaining walls. This will also reduce dOINTl slope disturbance width. Associated Actions and Requirements Required Mitigation and Momtoring 15