Landscape Berm

Overview of the Document

The document retrieved is a "Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Application" submitted by Aspen One (updated September 1, 2026) for the construction of a large landscape berm at the EJ Crossing development site.

22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

The application requests that Eagle County allow the developer to build massive earthen berms along the southern (Highway 82) and western (Blue Lake neighborhood) edges of the 20-acre property without triggering a full, rigorous environmental review. The berm is designed to feature 31-foot high points to screen the planned buildings, reduce traffic noise, and integrate native landscaping and water conservation techniques. The document also acknowledges that the berm's construction will fill in a historic irrigation culvert and permanently impact a 0.02-acre Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetland on the site.

22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

How the Document COMPLIES with the Opposition’s Positions

While the opposition groups (Keep Missouri Heights Rural and Save Mid-Valley) are fundamentally against the development, this specific berm application is Aspen One's attempt to directly mitigate several of their core grievances:

• Addressing Visual Incompatibility: The opposition strongly argues that dropping 3-story, high-density apartment blocks next to single-family homes violates the community's visual character. The berm application attempts to comply with demands for "transitional buffers" by erecting a 31-foot-tall landscaped earthwork to physically block the view of these massive buildings from the adjacent Blue Lake residents and Highway 82 motorists.
  22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

• Noise Mitigation: The opposition highlights the severe traffic impacts of the project. The berm is explicitly designed to act as a sound buffer to protect future and existing residents from the extreme traffic noise generated along the congested Highway 82 corridor.
  22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

• Water Conservation: The opposition is highly protective of Mid-Valley water and natural resources. The application aligns with these environmental priorities by proposing extensive water conservation methods, such as salvaging native topsoil, loosening compacted soils for water infiltration, and using drought-tolerant native seed mixes.
  22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

How the Document DOES NOT COMPLY (Conflicts) with the Opposition’s Positions

Despite the mitigation attempts, the underlying mechanics of this application directly conflict with the opposition's legal and strategic arguments:

• The Use of a "FONSI" (Finding of No Significant Impact): The opposition’s entire legal strategy hinges on proving that EJ Crossing is a massive urbanization project that will have devastating, highly significant impacts on local infrastructure and community character. Aspen One applying for a "FONSI" for a massive earthwork project flies in the face of the opposition's stance. It reinforces the community's narrative that the developer is trying to bypass strict 1041 regulations through administrative loopholes.
  22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

• Scale and "Self-Imposed Hardship": The opposition argues that the project's scale is fundamentally too big for the land. Creating a 31-foot-tall dirt wall to hide 3-story buildings does not solve the density issue; it replaces an oversized building with an oversized, unnatural earthwork. To the opposition, this proves their point: the developer is forced to undertake extreme, unnatural terraforming simply to force 111-163 units onto a site that cannot naturally support them.
  22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf

• Environmental Destruction (Wetlands): The opposition claims the developer is pushing the physical limits of the land. The FONSI application admits that building this berm requires filling in a historic drainage culvert and destroying a 0.02-acre Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetland. This admission arms the opposition with proof that the project causes direct environmental damage to aquatic resources.
  22026.9.1_Referral EJ Crossing Berm FONSI.pdf