|
<br />in~ 9:.5
<br />li!;;;:j.:.'';i;:;'C'<H''""'':'iA",,R'''''''''m.'''....,..E''''.,'9<'2....' i;;;:m';""''''a'''':''''''E':';A'' {E>Y..,..", "'E"""" 'g"""';"N"""""'.<"',.,,"':I'...'..g<E"..<S""",.';1,:;;;,;;;;:1
<br />...........-.....,.., .,. .. . "," ..,. ....,....... ..... ....... . .. .. . . .,.. ...'....:'$..-/:,;...,.
<br />~::;::}=:\<:.:;~<<:>: ,": : J.." . .:':=:~:. :::; ....:::. .?: .. ./'"::?"=:::.. :.;: :". .:.. . :';:' .:: ."'. ./ :"::=....." ..::...: :::. :. ::" :::....:.::. .,:,:.. ...::. .::>{:::~::~:::::::::~:::.::::~.~
<br />
<br />INTRODUCTION
<br />
<br />This chapter identifies and describes alternatives for additional development at the Aspen Highlands Ski Area
<br />which include No Action, the permiuee's Proposed Action and an alternative to the Proposed Action. The No
<br />Action Alternative (Alternative A) serves as a benchmark for comparing the action alternatives. Alternative B
<br />is the action alternative proposed by the ASC. The alternative action (Alternative C) is a Four Season Resort
<br />alternative which was developed in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations.
<br />It was designed after review of existing documents analyzing earlier developments on National Forest System
<br />(NFS) lands in the Aspen-Snowmass area, consultation with representatives of the Forest Service and other state
<br />and federal agencies, and completion of a public scoping analysis to identify issues of public concern.
<br />Alternative C is the Forest Service's Preferred Alternative since it represents a reasonable balance between
<br />meeting the purpose of the Proposed Action and fulfilling other resource objectives. In particular, this alternative
<br />would help the Forest Service accomplish its mission of offering high-quality recreation experiences while
<br />minimi7ing adverse impacts to important natural resources.
<br />
<br />Identification of a Preferred Alternative in the Draft ElS by the WRNF Forest Supervisor should not be consll'Ued
<br />as pre-decisional. The intent of such identification at this stage is consistent with other NEP A analyses that have
<br />been conducted recently, and provides the reader with a sense of the direction in which the Forest Service is
<br />leaning at this time. However, the comments received during the comment period are a very important part of
<br />the decision process. Therefore, while the Forest Service has tentatively identified a Preferred Alternative. the
<br />tinal decision that will be incorporated in the Record of Decision (ROD) rnay include all or part of any of the three
<br />alternatives.
<br />
<br />The specific objectives of the alternatives are listed below. Both action alternatives address issues, concerns, and
<br />opportunities raised by the public as well as development objectives discussed in Cbapter I. They also provide
<br />the decision-maker and the public with a clear basis for choice. It is assumed that the biological, social, economic,
<br />and developmental processes that currently characterize Aspen Highlands and the surrounding area. as described
<br />in Chapter 3 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), would persist under all alternatives.
<br />
<br />ALTERNATIVE A . No ACTION
<br />
<br />Under the No Action Alternative, activities would be limited to those using existing facilities and upgraded
<br />facilities already approved by the Forest Service, or those not requiring Forest Service approval. Several actions
<br />previously approved in the 1994 Decision Notice for Aspen Highlands (USDA-FS I994a, b) have not yet been
<br />implemented. These actions would take place under the No Action Alternative since NEP A requires that No
<br />Action incorporate continuation of the current management plan program, which. in the case of Aspen Highlands,
<br />is based on the developments approved under the Decision Notice pertaining to the 1994 EA. The No Action
<br />Alternative also assumes that. under anyon-mountain development scenario, access to and egress from Aspen
<br />Highlands would be affected by the Aspen Highlands base area development proposal submitted by Hines to
<br />Pitkin County for approval (and which has received general submission approval).
<br />
<br />In response to a request by the ASC to upgrade services at Aspen Highlands, the 1994 EA was prepared and
<br />resulted in the approval of a two-phase, short-term development for Aspen Highlands. The development was
<br />aimed at upgrading 30-year-old ski lifts to improve skier satisfaction, better utilizing public land committed to
<br />skiing under the SUP, and improving maintenance facilities and utilities to bring them into compliance with
<br />current codes so as to improve public safety. Based on the 1994 EA, the improvements were determined to be
<br />in compliance with laws and regulations affecting the White River National Forest (WRNF) and would not
<br />
<br />Allel'1l4li\lt A - No ACllOPl
<br />
<br />2-1
<br />
|