Buttermilk Mountain Improvements Plan Environmental Assessment 2-2 Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT December 2009 USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Aspen-Sopris Ranger District The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Proposed Action: Responsible Official: Further Information: Buttermilk Mountain Scott Fitzwilliams Roger Poirier Forest Supervisor Winter Sports Program Manager Location: White River National Forest (970) 945-3212 White River National Forest Glenwood Springs, CO or Pitkin County, Colorado Jim Stark Winter Sports Administrator (970) 945-3314 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Aspen-Sopris Ranger District White River National Forest Pitkin County, Colorado Abstract: Buttermilk Mountain (Buttermilk) is located on the White River National Forest in Pitkin County, Colorado and operates in accordance with the terms and conditions of a 40-year Ski Area Term Permit issued by the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service). This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze a proposal designed to respond to current and anticipated consumer demands for public enjoyment and operational efficiencies on lands within Buttermilk’s special use permit (SUP) area. The purpose of the proposed improvements is to enhance operation and maintenance efficiencies of on- mountain infrastructure and improve winter and summer recreational opportunities on Buttermilk. In addition, the proposal would help Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) achieve its goals of broadening the variety of winter and summer sports activities offered at Buttermilk and providing youth programs in the Aspen Valley. This would be accomplished through the following projects: 1) constructing snowmaking water storage; 2) installing snowmaking infrastructure; 3) constructing a lift maintenance facility; 4) providing trails for horseback trail rides; and 5) constructing a Nordic jump training and competition venue. This EA discusses the Purpose and Need for the proposal, the process used to develop alternatives, potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of implementing the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3, and project design criteria (PDC). Following review of the EA, as well as review of public and agency comments on the EA, the Forest Supervisor will make a final determination as to which alternative best serves the public interest on National Forest System lands. The Selected Alternative can be a modification of alternatives presented. Important Notice: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period for the EA. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time, and to use the acquired information in the preparation of subsequent documentation, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Comments on the EA should be specific and should address the adequacy of the EA and the merits of the alternatives discussed (36 CFR 215.14). Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this project and will be subject to review pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Comment Period: The comment period for the EA will extend 30 calendar days from the date on which the Legal Notice is published in the paper of record—the Glenwood Post Independent. Public notice of availability has also been provided in newspapers of local distribution. Please send comments to Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, c/o Roger Poirier, 900 Grand Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO 81602, FAX (970) 945-3266. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 THE NEPA PROCESS ............................................................................................................................................. 1-7 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................... 1-8 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 1-10 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ............................................................................................................................ 1-10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 1-11 CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST SERVICE POLICY..................................................................................................... 1-12 Land and Resource Management Plan Consistency ....................................................................................... 1-12 Forest Service Management Direction ........................................................................................................... 1-13 RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS ANALYSES AND APPROVALS .................................................................................. 1-13 DECISION TO BE MADE ........................................................................................................................................ 1-13 OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS, LICENSES, ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR CONSULTATION ........................................... 1-14 2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2-5 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 2-13 ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN COMPONENTS CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........... 2-17 Lift Maintenance Facility ............................................................................................................................... 2-17 Alternative Snowmaking Storage Reservoir Site ........................................................................................... 2-17 Alternative Nordic Jump Alignment .............................................................................................................. 2-17 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX ................................................................................................................. 2-18 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE ............................................ 2-19 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................... 2-27 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................... 3-1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 A. WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Scope of the Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Forest Plan Direction ....................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 3-28 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................................