WSP07593 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002090 I I Aspen Highlands Ski Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Summary White River National Forest Aspen Ranger District Pitkin County, in the State of Colorado September 1996 Lead Agency: USDA, Forest Service , I , , Responsible Official: Veto J. LaSalle, Forest Supervisor Whitc River National Forest P.O. Box 940 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 For Further Information or Comment: Arthur Bauer, Special Projects Coordinator Aspen Rangcr 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 HigWands). Aspen Highlands operates under a special use permit on the White River National Forest. The Forest Service has prepared this Draft EIS pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of Ole National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA](l969, as anlended). Three alternatives are considered in this Draft EIS and present different arrangements of lift locations, ski terrain including access and egress, on-mountain support facilities, snowmaking, summer uses, and associated base area support facilities. The alternatives evaluated in terms of direct. indirect, and cumulative impacts on natural and human resources include: I) Ole No Action Alternative: 2) Ole pcrmittee's Proposed Action (Alternative B); and 3) an alternative which 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 Butlennilk were analyzed and Iimnd to be inappropriate and would not lessen potential impacts. This docwnent discusses the purpose of and need for Ole Proposed Action, describes the affected environment, details the potential effects of implementing each altemative, and identifies potential mitigation measures to lessen impacts. Comments: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the Draft EIS. This will enable the Forest Servicc tll analyze and respond to all conunents at once and to use information acquired to prepare the Final EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the NEPA process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions (Vermont Yanke", Nuclear Power COq). 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 until after completion of the Final EIS (City of An~oon v Hodel [9th Circuit, 1986] and Wismnsin Herita~es Inc v Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 IE.D. Wis. 1980)). Comments on the Draft EIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of Ole alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). ConmlCnts 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.