WSP06750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O O. l':I -~ "I _ v . J Aspen Highlands Ski Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement White River National Forest Aspen Ranger District Pitkin County, in the State of Colorado September 1996 Lead Agency: USDA. Forest Service Responsible Official: Veto 1. LaSalle. Forest Supervisor White River National Forest P,O, Box 940 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 For Further Information or Comment: Arthur Bauer. Special Projects Coordinator Aspen Ranger District 806 West Hallam Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 (970) 925-3445 Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to a proposal submitted by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) to the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) to amend their Master Development Plan for the Aspen Highlands Ski Area (Aspen Highlands), Aspen Highlands operates WIder a special use pennit on the White River National Forest. The Forest Service has prepared this Draft E1S pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA](I969. as amended), Three alternatives are considered in this Draft EIS and present different arrangements of lift locations, ski terrain including access and egress, on-moWltain suppon facilities, snowmaking. summer uses. and associated base area suppon facilities, The alternatives evaluated in terms of direct. indirect, and cumulative impacts on natural and human resources include: I) the No Action Alternative: 2) the pennillee's Proposed Action (Alternative B): and 3) an alternative wllich reduces safety and visual concerns and adds summer recreation (Alternative C). In addition, an existing facilities alternative comparing the current situation with the No Action Alternative and an alternative that would intensify use of the current ski areas including Aspen Highlands. Aspen Mountain. Snowmass. and Buttennilk were analyzed and found to be inappropriate and would not lessen potential impacts, This document discusses the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes the affected environment. details the potential effects of implementing each alternative, and identifies potential mitigation measures to Jessen impacts. Comments: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the Draft EIS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to all comments at once and to use information acquired to prepare the Final EIS, thus avoiding Wldue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the NEP A process so that it is meaningful and alens the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions (Vermont Y"nkep Nuclear Power COqJ v NRDC, 435 U.S, 519, 553 [1978]), Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised Wltil after completion of the Final EIS (Citv of An~oon v Hodel [9th Circuit, 1986] and Wisconsin Heritages Inc v Harris. 490 F. Supp, 1334, 1338 [E,D, Wis. 1980]), Comments on the Draft EIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3), Comments will be allowed by the public and other agencies for a period of 45 days following publication of the Federal Register Notice of Availability of this Draft EIS, Comments must be received by November 20,1996.