WSP07593 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aspen Highlands Ski Area - Draft EnviroN7lelllal Impact Slalemelll several patented Homestead Entry Survey, Homestead Entry, and Cash Entry parcels of land along both Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. No economic mineral or energy deposits are known to occur in the ski area, while four mineral claims that could be on NFS land are all well outside of the SUP area. There is no evidence of prospecting nor records of mining claims within the Aspen Highlands Ski Area, and no gas, oil, coal, potassium or sulfur leases are currently registered nor have there been any locatable sales of sand, gravel, or rock during the last 5 years. The mineral potential for locatable, leasable, and saleable minerals within the Aspen Highlands ski area are low. An order withdrawing from location and entry under the General Mining Law 3,333 acres of NFS land in Aspen Highlands until 2046, was published in the Federal Register on December 21,1995. The present SUP for Aspen Highlands covers 3,116 acres of NFS land and includes Highland Peak, the lower Highland Peak Ridge, and Highland and Maroon bowls. The existing MDP, approved in 1979 and updated in the ASC's 1995 development proposal, includes recently approved and completed improvements, and restricts the use of Aspen Highlands to a capacity of 4,500 SAOT. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Since the Forest Service SUP designates Aspen Highlands as a recreation area with skiing as a main activity, and there are no mining, logging, or grazing activities, there would be no new negative impact on land use activities under the No Action Alternative. Since not all of the area covered by the SUP has been developed for the designated recreation land use, the expansion proposed under Alternative B for undeveloped segments is in compliance with the t.argeted land use. Expansion in these areas would not conflict with any other land uses since none exist. Maroon Bowl would be excluded from the SUP area under Alternative C, and expansion of ski facilities into the undeveloped areas would be in compliance with the land use designated under the SUP. There would not be any conflicts with other land uses within this area. POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are proposed since the proposed developments would be in compliance with the Forest Services designated land use for the Aspen Highlands. IRRE\I'~SlBLE/lRRETRlEVABLE CoMMnMENT OF RdOURCd An irreversible commitment of a resource cannot be changed once it occurs and results in the loss of future options, while an irretrievable commitment of resources applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. Expansion of the ski facilities within the SUP area shows the Forest Service's long-term commitment to allocate the terrain within this area to recreation. This would result in the irretrievahle loss of some renewable resources, such as timber and certain wildlife resources, but would not result in an irreversible commitment of resources. lmplementation of any of the alternatives, including No Action, could continue or accelerate both the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with use of the SUP area for winter recreation. Irreversible commitments associated with the a1lematives could occur due to the following resource issues: 1) the functions and heritage values of small montane wetlands and riparian zones could be irreversibly reduced by the development of proposed catwalks/maintenance roads within and adjacent to such areas; 2) opening of canopy cover along lift lines and catwalkslmaintenance roads and artificial snowmaking may produce additional localized runoff which could result in some irreversible topsoil losses, especially on steep slopes; and 3) the slow recovery time of alpine tundra and recruitment old growth stands to disturbance would preclude their reestablishment for decades or even centuries following cessation of ski area activities. 36 Set:,jo1l11J l,reversib/e!/rretriCtlable COmnUunelll of ResolUces