My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06750
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06750
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:24:13 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:50:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.765
Description
White River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
9/1/1996
Author
USFS
Title
Aspen Highlands Ski Area - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
355
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />AJp~n Highlands Ski Ar~a - Draft Enviro1ll1Vnlal Impac' Slal~1Il <br />also identify possible alternatives related to the Proposed Action for consideration in analyzing the impacts of <br />the proposal. <br /> <br />The Notice of Intent (NO!) for the Aspen Highlands ElS was printed in the Federal Register (Vol 60, No. 103 <br />pp. 28094-28085) on Tuesday, May 30, 1995 (Appendix A). Public scoping was formally initiated by mailing <br />an informational letter and map (Appendix A) to interested individuals on the Forest Service's mailing list and <br />by notifying the general public through newspaper releases and media coverage. The Aspen Daily News is the <br />newspaper of record for this particular NEP A process, and released information regarding the public scoping <br />period on June 13, 1995. The scoping notice was mailed on June 15, 1995 and designated a 45-day response <br />period ending July 31, 1995. The actual ending date was three days later than the original deadline stated in the <br />NO! as a result of delays in mailing the scoping notice. Comments were to be directed to the Aspen Ranger <br />District of the WRNF. Verbal comments on the proposal were also recorded by Forest Service officials. Two <br />public meetings were held in Aspen, Colorado, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. on July 20, <br />1995, to explain the NEPA process and the proposed development, to receive comments, and to answer any <br />questions. <br /> <br />A content analysis of the verbal and written comments was prepared (pioneer 1995). Eleven letters were <br />received and 79 verbal responses were recorded by the Forest Service at the public meetings held on July 20, <br />1995. A summary of the issues and concerns, grouped by discipline or resource, that were identified during the <br />scoping process follows while a more detailed record of responses received is provided in the Scoping Content <br />Analysis (pioneer 1995). <br /> <br />ISSUES AND CONCERNS <br /> <br />RECREATION <br />The most common issue raised was concern that implementation of the proposal would change the quality of the <br />recreation experience at Aspen Highlands. Respondents felt that the proposed Aspen Highlands expansion <br />focused excessively on providing expert terrain instead of terrain that would also meet the needs of beginning to <br />intermediate skier abilities. Concern was also expressed over increased crowding as a result of the proposed <br />installation of the high-speed quad in Thunderbowl. It was suggested that the estimated Aspen Highlands <br />mountain capacity, skier egress capacity, and snowboarding descent patterns be analyzed. Other respondents' <br />comments suggested improved trail signage, such as identification of the easiest way down on catwalks, ski <br />slopes, and trail maps. One respondent opposed mountain biking access on the mountain and another requested <br />that one trail be reserved for pedestrian access only. <br /> <br />PUBUC HWTH AND SAFm <br />The primary concern regarding public health and safety was the potential for increased accidents (skier collisions) <br />due to introduction of skiers of various levels of ability Onto the mountain, particularly in the Thunderbowl area. <br />Concern was also expressed about increased risk and liability if the Forest Service approves development of <br />exll'eme skiing terrain, particularly in bowl areas with potentially significant avalanche hazards. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />The most common concern regarding the alternatives was the proposed high-speed quad in Thunderbowl and <br />Golden Horn areas. Some respondents suggested rell'ofitting a high-speed quad with double chairs to access this <br />area rather than installing a quad. A request was made to preserve Olympic chair rather than replace it because <br />of the exceptional views from ihat lift. <br /> <br />TRANSPORTATION <br />Respondents expressed concern about potential short-term (during consll'UCtion) and long-term impacts on <br />transportation due to the proposed Aspen Highlands expansion. A suggestion to study the impact on traffic <br /> <br />1-10 <br /> <br />Public Involvmse.1Il and Scoping <br />IssUI!s and Conurns <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.