WSP09805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jn131 Record of Decision ALTERNATIVES OTHER ALTERNATIVES Public scoping following receipt of the proposal from the Aspen Skiing Company highlighted a number of potential alternatives that were carefully considered, but were not included for detailed study in the EIS. NEPA requires that all current and approved future actions which are part of the existing management plan are included as part of the No Action Alternative for EIS's. Since no specific tirne frame has been set for the removal of the Olympic Lift and upgrading the Exhibition \I and Cloud Nine lifts (approved in the Decision Notice based on the 1994 EA), the existing facilities on the Aspen Highlands Ski Area were considered as a separate alternative. This allowed detennination of whether non-completion of the approved improvements would result in significantly different terrain and lift capacities. Since implementation of the approved lift upgrades would neither eliminate nor add skiable terrain (albeit some trails currently serviced by the Olympic Lift might be used less intensively), total terrain capacity and skier capacity will be essentially unaffected by completion of the approved upgrades. Moreover, the total number of skiers that can be carried at one time by the existing lifts does not vary in capacity due to the elimination of the Olympic Lift. The capacity is almost exactly off-set (only one percent difference) by increased skier capacity provided by the upgraded Exhibition II and Cloud Nine lifts. Consequently, the Existing Facility Alternative was not compared in detail with the No Action Alternative. Since the Aspen Skiing Company owns and manages the skiing facilities on all four (4) mountains in the Aspen-Snowmass area, intensified use of existing terrain on Aspen Highlands and/or other ski areas on Aspen Mountain, Buttennilk, and Snowmass was considered as an alternative 10 the proposed expansion into advanced and expert skiing terrain in Steeplechase. Highland Bowl, and Maroon Bowl. However, the proposal is specifically aimed at providing advanced and expert gladed and bowl skiing opportunities, which are rare throughout the US All suitable areas for such skiing on the Aspen-Snowmass mountains are currently being used or are part of current approvals for development. In addition, one of the primary objectives of the Aspen Skiing Company for developing the Aspen Highlands Ski Area is to provide high quality skiing experiences by maintaining skier density well below maximum ski terrain capacity. Due to the long narrow nature of the Aspen Highlands ridge (on which most of the current skiing terrain occurs), conflict occurs with current management objectives of providing low density skiing opportunities. Increasing the number of lifts and skier densities would also result in additional impact on both vegetation and wildlife in the current skiing terrain. Consequently, this alternative was also eliminated from detailed analysis. A third alternative considered was a gondola connection from the City of Aspen and/or Aspen Mountain to Aspen Highlands. However, this alternative was not analyzed in detail for three (3) main reasons. First. it is not consistent with the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Second, it is not consistent with the alternatives studied in the Aspen Highlands Ski Area Improvements EA (USDA-FS 1994a), the Snowmass Ski Area EIS (USDA-FS ] 994b), the Entrance to Aspen Highway 82 Draft EIS (CDOT 1995), and the Aspen Highlands Village Traffic Study (FHU 1994). Third, in order to install the gondola, several easements would have to be obtained because the alignrnent would have to cross several parcels of private land. In the future. should the community and the Aspen Skiing Company wish to have such an interlink considered, the Forest Service would be willing to study such a proposal. Alternatives Other ,4ltemati\'es 27