WSP07593 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

!8 m 002088 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service White River National Forest P.O. Box 948 9th & Grand Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 970-945-2521 TOO 970-920-3246 FAX 970-945-3266 RECEIVED OCl 03 1996 Reply To: 1920 Date: September 27, 1996 Dear Forest User: ColOl'.do Wo'o, Conservation Board As you are probably aware, the Forest Service has been evaluating the environmental impacts of various altemalives for expanding the development of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. This has resulted in the production of the enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). During initial scoping efforts, a number of issues were identified by the public for consideration during the analysis. After the scoping process, the Forest Service, through the services of Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc., produced a Scoping Content Analysis report which grouped the issues raised into several categories. The Forest Service accordingly set out to gather and analyze information to determine: (1) If the issues were significant, (2) What type of altemalives could be developed to minimize the issues of concems, and (3) What mitigation measures could be implemented to restore these issues to a level of non- significance. The results of this exercise are the attached Draft EIS. Two major concems raised during scoping were the potential impact of the expansion on the quality of the recreational experience, and health and safety concerns associated with the new ski terrain and high-speed lifts. The Recreation and Human Health and Safety sections of the Draft EIS address these two issues. The Recreation sections describes the skiability of the terrain and skier dynamics of the area. They quantify the terrain capacity, lift capacity, and the skier-at-one-time (SAOT) capacity. While the total terrain capacity would be increased under the proposed expansion (particularly due to the development of Highland and Maroon bowls), total mountain capacity would be limited by the initial access to the mountain. While the permitted mountain capacity would remain at 4,500 SAOT, the analysis indicates that initial lift access capacity would fimit the use of the mountain to about 3,500 SAOT. The Human Health and Safety sections, which follow the Recreation sections in the Draft EIS, focus on potential avalanche hazards in the terrain to be developed. For some, the issue of greatest concem was the potential effect of expanded use of Aspen Highlands on skier numbers and associated traffic volumes and air quality. A Transportation Analysis was conducted to determine how the projected change in skier numbers would effect traffic flows, parking, and transit facilitias. This analysis considered the effects of development on on-mountain facilities both with the base area as It is today and with development of the base area as proposed by Hines Interests Umited Partnel1lhip. Since the SAOT capacity of Aspen Highlands would not increase substantially compared with axisting conditions, transportation and parking needs would also not increase significantly and consequently the quality of the air would remain in compliance with the standards in the non-attainment area. In addition to the vehicular flow analysis, the Elected Officials Transportation Council (EOTC), representing all of Pitkin County, requested analysis of a cable connection from the base of Aspen Highlands to the top of Buttermilk. The results of this analysis are not included in the Draft EIS since this connection would not be directly linked with on-mountain developments at Aspen Highlands. However, if you have an interest in the details of this analysis, I invite you to visit our Special Projects Office at the Aspen Airport Business Center to review the Trensportation technical report. Caring for the Land and Serving the People Printed on Recycled Peper ,(JQ,... Fs.e2lXl-2ab 1(12183) '6eI -