WSP09805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0]2134 Record of Decision Bowl area is appropriate given current information and analysis from an avalanche safety standpoint. Therefore. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the public to allow lift-served skiing in Highland Bowl at this time. SOCIOECONOMICS ill How will the project affect the demand for community services such as housing, sewage, water, health care, welfare, landfills, police and fire protection, emergency medical services, and schools? ill What is the relationship between development on NFS lands and that on private land, specifically the Highlands Base area and the greater Pitkin County area? How would development on private land affect the public's ability to access NFS lands? ill What will be the effect of the development on lifestyles and quality of life in the Aspen/Snowmass area? Impacts to socioeconomics as a result of this decision are projected to be much less than those described in the EIS for alternatives Band C, but somewhat similar to the No Action Alternative. The EIS discloses three growth scenarios with respect to projected growth in skier numbers. Scenario 2 seems to be the most realistic for the Aspen-Snowmass area. Under scenario 2, the maximum number of skiers would likely be reached during the first season following completion of approved facilities, after which skier numbers would probably decrease before increasing again at about the one percent per year rate. Therefore, the maximum skiers per day would be reached by about 1999/2000, but not during the subsequent 15 years. As with the no action situation, the estimated direct and indirect jobs that could be generated by growth in skier numbers within the next 20 years could be as high as 82 jobs. This is a conservative estimate. Direct estimates of employee requirements for running the base area skier facilities, operating the ski lifts, and patrolling the expanded ski terrain would be a reduction of two persons from the current situation. Operation of the expanded Merry-Go-Round Restaurant would add four full-time and five part-time employees. Therefore, the total number of direct employees would increase by seven persons. However. as a result of this approval the actual increase in full time equivalents (FTEs) will be determined through an employee audit by Pitkin County. Within the area of influence, the population of Pitkin, Eagle (within proximity of the Roaring Fork Valley), and Garfield counties is projected to grow to 17,011, 1,623. and 37,521 persons, respectively by the year 1999/2000. The EIS projects that the percentages of Aspen workers living in Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield counties are about 54, 22, and 23 percent, respectively. The increased number of direct and indirect employees (82 persons) would be insignificant with respect to the projected increased population of these areas. The greatest impact of growth due to direct and indirect employees would occur in the Eagle County portion of the Roaring Fork Valley. The percent of projected growth in the area of influence (Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield counties) that is attributable to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area (direct and indirect) would be lA, 5.3, and 0.4 percent for Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield counties. However, the direct impact would only be 0.1, 0.6, and 0.04 percent for Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield counties, respectively. Current growth in the down-valley communities is producing a severe strain on the services provided by these communities, but the small increment of employee growth resulting from this approval would differ only by timing and would therefore have too small an impact on the population of outlying communities to warrant further analysis or mitigation. With the projected growth in Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield ConsIderation oJ Environmental Issues Socioeconomics 33