WSP09805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aspen Highlands SkI Area ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE In accordance with CEQ regulations, I am required to identify the alternative(s) which could be considered to be environmentally preferable. The environmentally preferable alternative is defined by CEQ as the alternative causing the least impact to the biological and physical environment. This alternative would have the lowest level of ground and vegetation disturbing activities and would best protect, preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and natural resources. Based upon this definition, the environmentally preferred alternative is Alternative A: No Action, since it proposes no facilities for the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and would not increase environmental impacts to the area over current levels. I did not select Alternative A because it would not substantively improve the quality of the skiing opportunities available at the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. Alternatives Band C would offer a fair amount of additional terrain that would benefit primarily advanced and expert-level skiers and would enable either the City of Aspen or Aspen Highlands Ski Area to make more efficient use of their existing infrastructure. The following sections describe other factors I considered in selecting an alternative other than the environmentally preferable alternative. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The scoping process for this project identified a wide variety of issues that were later addressed in the Draft and EIS's. Brief discussions follow which describe how these issues were addressed in the environmental analysis process and how the selected actions deal with the concerns raised. I recognize that how I've decided to resolve these issues will be seen and understood differently among various individuals, and their reactions will depend on their personal interests and values. For example, many who commented on the Draft EIS felt that no further development should be allowed because the Aspen area already has four (4) mountains with 4,235 acres of skiable terrain. However, the purpose for this project and my decision was not driven by a need to make Aspen Highlands Ski Area larger. Instead, the analysis and my deliberations focused on the need for qualitative improvements. I have made every effort to consider all viewpoints in meeting my responsibility as a public land steward, GEOLOGY AND SOILS ill How might the development affect soil resources and can disturbed acres be successfully revegetated? ill Would the project affect slope stability or trigger mass movement? The EIS includes considerable discussion and analysis related to soil resources and revegetation. There will clearly be impacts to soils as lift lines are developed and facilities are constructed. At the same time, the soils found within the proposed development areas are very similar to those soils occurring throughout the remainder of the permit area and extensive development in these areas indicates soil resources can be satisfactorily protected and long-term productivity maintained. In addition, I have included as a condition of development that grading and stump removal be allowed only on a limited, case-by-case basis, This should substantially reduce soil erosion and enhance revegetation success. 28 COllSiderllfion of Envirollmenlallssues Geology and Soils