Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002G94 <br /> <br />Swnmary <br /> <br />Table v. Srtt;cif'lCdedsiilnsto be made bv>theForest SerViCe ....<>. <br />I) Whether to conslrUct additional lifts proposed by the ASC (Steeplechase, Highlands Bowl and Maroon Bnwllifts) and/or <br /> other lifts to access these areas. <br />2) Whether to develop the proposed new gladed and bowl tcrnlin in the Boomerang. Deep Steeplechase, Temerity, Highland <br /> Bow~ Maroon Bowl. and Loge Bowl areas. <br />3) Whether to develop the proposed Steeplechase, Highland Bowl and Loge Bowl C81Wa1ks. or alternative <br /> C81Wa1ks/maintenance roads in the Temerity area and from Loge Peak to the upper terminal of the Maroon Bowl Lift. <br />4) Whether to conslrUct a new Merry-Go-Round restaurant, ski patrol headquarters. and/or additional facilities. <br />5) Whether to expand the existing snowmaking capacity at Aspen Highlands. <br />6) Whether La authorize summer recreation activilies and operation of associatod facilities in the Merry-Go-Round or other <br /> areas. <br />7) How and when to implement any of the actions which are approved for development tJuough the HIS process. <br />8) What mitigation measures should be applied for those elements of the Proposed Action or Bltc:mativcs that are approved <br /> lhro~~h-the EIS nm=<s. <br /> <br />ScoPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND CotJCI:nHS <br /> <br />NEP A requires that the public and agency personnel be involved from an early stage in decision making on <br />federal lands. An important part of this strategy is scoping, which the CEQ regulatioos describe as the process <br />for determining the "scope of the issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a <br />proposed action" (40 CFR ~ 1501.7). In addition to revealing potentially significant issues, this process can also <br />identify alternatives to the Proposed Action that are coosistent with but may have less impact than the proposal. <br /> <br />The Notice of Intent (NOD for the Aspen Highlands EIS was printed in the Federal Register on Tuesday, May <br />30, 1995. Public scoping was formally initiated by mailing an informationalleller and map to interested <br />individuals on the Forest Service's mailing list and by notifying the general public through newspaper releases <br />and media coverage. The Aspen Daily News is the newspaper of record for this particular NEP A process, and <br />released informatioo regarding the public scoping period on June 13, 1995. The scoping notice was mailed on <br />JWle 15. 1995 and designated a 45-day respoose period ending July 31, 1995. The actual ending date was three <br />days later than the original deadline stated in the NOl as a result of delays in mailing the scoping notice. <br />Comments were to be directed to the Aspen Ranger District of the WRNF . Verbal comments on the proposal <br />W17e also recorded by Forest Service officials. Two public meetings were held in Aspen, Colorado, from 4:00 <br />to 6:00 p.m. and from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. 00 July 20. 1995, to explain the NEPA process and the proposed <br />development, to receive comments, and to answer any questioos. <br /> <br />A content analysis of the verbal and written comments was prepared. Eleven lellers were received and 79 verbal <br />responses were recorded by the Forest Service at the public meetings held on July 20, 1995. The main issues of <br />concern that were raised during scoping are summarized in Table 2. <br /> <br />LIST OF PERMITS AND ApPROVALS <br /> <br />A list of agencies which administer permits or approvals which may be needed by the proponent is provided in <br />the Draft EIS. Other permits may be required depending on what specific development is approved and the <br />regulatory processes in effect at the time of coostruction. The Forest Service assumes no respoosibility for <br />enforcing laws, regulations. or ordinances which are under the jurisdiction of other government agencies. <br /> <br />Section J <br />List of Permits and Approvals <br /> <br />5 <br />