WSP09805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aspen Highlands Ski Area counties, existing infrastructure and human services within these communities would continue to be stressed with or without this decision. While some population growth as a direct and indirect result of this project approval would occur, the relative impact among alternatives to towns within Pitkin. Eagle, and Garfield counties would be negligible. A concern of many local residents is the impact of additional winter and summer recreational uses on the "quality of life" in the Aspen/Snowmass area, and even in the greater Roaring Fork Valley. Some people are concerned that these areas cannot adequately handle anticipated future growth and associated impacts to roads, housing, taxes, schools, and social services. There is a strong community ethic to protect the quality of life in Pitkin County and the surrounding area. The residents of this county and their government representatives are deternlined to preserve quality of life values. The quality of life issues for this project center around potential cumulative impacts (i.e., exacerbation of existing problems) such as lack of social services and affordable housing due to rapid population growth: congested roads and highways; and loss of the "small town ambience" and rural character. Local community planners and elected officials are very concerned with these issues and are actively pursuing solutions. The socioeconomic effects associated with authorized actions will primarily be long-tenn off-site impacts. Although the Forest Service has no regulatory authority over off-site activities. I am committed to participating with Pitkin County, City of Aspen, and Town of Snowmass Village to develop and implement mitigation that may be needed to avoid or reduce any negative economic and social impacts within these communities. Direct on-site social and economic effects of ski area development will be very limited, confined primarily to short-tenn construction-related effects. However. as a result of the increase in recreation opportunities afforded by the ski area and the likely role of ski area improvements and/or expansion in stimulating additional residential and commercial uevdopment on adjacent or nearby private lands, there are considerable secondary effects associated with this project. Off-site residential and commercial development on private lands at the base of Aspen Highlands is expected to occur irrespective of actions on NFS lands. I am keenly aware of these situations in making my decision regarding the Aspen Highlands Ski Area development proposal, and the analysis in the EIS recognized these challenges. While not in any way downplaying the seriousness of these problems, the EIS concludes that development of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area would affect these issues and trends insignificantly. The impact of the project would be spread over a three-county area, with more than a half-dozen different communities involved. I am aware that the Aspen Skiing Company is a major community player in addressing many of these issues. including providing housing for many of its employees, I expect this cooperation to continue and will encourage the Aspen Skiing Company to intensifY its efforts in this area. Key to these conclusions is that the existing approved capacity of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area is not to be exceeded. Through the tenns of the Special Use Penn it, the Aspen Skiing Company's newly authorized capacity of 3,500 skiers-at-one- time (SAOT's) is to remain in force. Through this ROD I have required that skier visitation statistics be provided to the Forest Service on a daily basis throughout the ski season in order to ensure greater oversight in Forest Service monitoring of peak-day use. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING . How will levels of and patterns of vehicle traffic on roads, streets, and highways be affected? Specifically, how will the long-tenn Highlands Base Village build-out and attraction of 34 Consideration of Environmental Issues TransportatiQfl and Parking