WSP06750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aspen Highlands SJa Area - Draft Enviro~ntallmpact StaleIMnl ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS NEP A requires that all current and approved future actions whicb are part of the existiog management plan are included as part of the No Action Alternative for EISs. Since no specific time frame has been set for the removal of the Olympic Lift and upgrading the Exhibition IT and Cloud Nine lifts (approved in the Notice Decision based on the 1994 EA), the existiog facilities on Aspen Highlands were considered as a separate alternative. This allowed determination of whether non-completion of the approved improvements would result in sigoificantly different terrain and lift capacities. Since implementation of the approved lift upgrades would neither eliminate nor add skiable terrain (albeit some lI'aiIs currently serviced by the Olympic Lift might be used less intensively), total terrain capacity and sider capacity will be essentially unaffected by completion of the approved upgrades. Moreover, the total number of siders that can be carried at one time by the existiog lifts does not vary significantly from the capacity calculated for the No Action Alternative. This is because the reduction in sider capacity due to the elimination of the Olympic Lift is almost exactly off-set (only 1 percent difference) by increased skier capacity provided by the upgraded Exhibition IT and Cloud Nine lifts. Consequently, the Existiog Facilities Alternative was not compared in detail with the No Action Alternative, Since the ASC owns and manages the skiing facilities on all four mountains in the Aspen-Snowmass area, intensified use of existiog terrain on Aspen Highlands and/or other ski areas on Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk, and Snowmass was considered as an alternative to the proposed expansion into advanced and expert skiing terrain in Steeplechase, Highland Bowl, and Maroon Bowl. However, the proposal is specifically aimed at providing advanced and expen gladed and bowl skiing opponunities, which are rare throughout the USA and all suitable areas for such siding on the Aspen-Snowmass are being used currently or are part of current approvals for development. In addition, one of the primary objectives of the ASC for developing Aspen Highlands is to provide high quality skiing experiences by maintaining sider density well below maximum sid terrain capacity. Due to the long narrow nature of the Aspen Highlands ridge, on which most of the current skiing terrain occurs. installation of additional lifts, would lead to congestion. Intensified use of existing facilities would therefore conflict with current management objectives of providing low density skiing opponunities. Increasing the number of lifts and sider densities would also result in additional impact on both vegetation and wildlife in the current skiing terrain. Consequently, this alternative was also eliminated from detailed analysis. A third alternative considered was a gondola connection from the City of Aspen and/or Aspen Mountain to Aspen Highlands. However, this alternative was not analyzed in detail for four main reasons. First, it is not consistent with the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Second, it is not consistent with the alternatives studied in the Aspen Highlands Ski Area Improvements EA (USDA-FS 1994a), the Snowmass Sid Area EIS (USDA-FS 1994c). the &1ll'ance to Aspen Highway 82 Draft EIS (CDOT 1995), and the Aspen Highlands Village Traffic Study (FHU 1994). Third. in order to install the gondola, several easements would bave to be obtained because the alignment would cross several parcels of private land. Fourth, it is not in the Forest Service's interest to study a peripheral alternative that has numerous unknown ramifications. In the future, should the community and the ASC wish to have such an interlink considered, the Forest Service would be willing to study any proposal for mountain community cable links. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Total area of skiable polygons, the acreage of skiable terrain within these polygons, and the area of different types of skiable terrain that would result under the current management plan (No Action), Alternative B and an alternative to Alternative B (Alternative C) are preseoted in Table 2.4. The total capacity of the sldable terrain, the total capacity of sid pods, the initial access capacity. and the base area delivery capacity estimated for each alternative is presented in Table 2.5. 2-16 Comparison of Alternalives