My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09652
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:55:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:47:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.765
Description
White River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
3/1/1994
Author
USFS
Title
Snowmass Ski Area - Final Environmental Impact Statement - White River National Forest - Aspen Ranger District - Volume I
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
435
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />" <br /> <br /> <br />"t'>e,(')OQ <br />!.) ,~ U ~) 0 '. <br /> <br />The western Burnt Mountain quad chair would be in the Same location described in <br />Alternative E, with access via skiways to the upper terminal from the Elk Camp <br />summit and to the lower terminal from the gondola mid-station. A two-stage <br />gondola would link Tiehack Mountain and the Burnt Mountain summit, with a mid- <br />station at the 10,000-foot elevation of the eastern permit boundary. A gondola <br />would not be developed from the ski area's base as in other action alternatives. <br />Summer recreational opportunities would be expanded only within the Baldy <br />Mountain portion of the permit area. On-mountain winter and summer activities <br />would be limited to daytime uses. <br /> <br />The ski area SAOT capacity would be increased from 9,940 to 13,640, an increase <br />of 37 percent. <br /> <br />5. ALTERNATIVE G <br /> <br />Alternative G represents ASC's proposal for a new MOP for the Snowrnass Ski Area. <br />It includes both upgrading of existing facilities and expansion onto the Burnt <br />Mountain portion of the permit area. Existing ski facilities within the Baldy <br />Mountain portion would be upgraded through the replacement of certain lifts, the <br />installation of :new lifts, and the development of new terrain and support <br />facilities. Expansion onto Burnt Mountain would include two high-speed quad <br />chairs to serve the eastern and western slopes of upper Burnt Mountain. A two- <br />stage gondola would carry passengers from the Base Village area to the summit of <br />Burnt Mountain. Summer recreational opportunities would be expanded on both <br />Baldy and Burnt Mountains. <br /> <br />The ski area SAOT capacity would be increased from 9,940 to 13,330, an increase <br />of 34 percent. The increased capacity would be achieved by installing new lifts, <br />replacing existing lifts with lifts of higher capacity, and developing new ski <br />terrain and support facilities. <br /> <br />6. ALTERNATIVE H <br /> <br />Alternative H proposes facility upgrading within the currently developed portion <br />of the permit area, as well as development of a second access portal at East <br />Village limited to transit. No auto parking would be provided at East Village <br />and no development would occur on mid and upper Burnt Mountain. A two-stage <br />gondola would run from Base Village to a Sheer Bliss summit station. Summer <br />recreational opportunities would be expanded within the Baldy Mountain portion <br />of the permit area. On-mountain winter and summer activities would be limited <br />to daytime uses. <br /> <br />The ski area SAOT capacity would be increased from 9,940,to 13,550, an increase <br />of 36 percent. The increased capacity would be accomplished through the <br />installation of n,ew lifts, the replacement of existing lifts with lifts of higher <br />capacity, and the development of new ski terrain and support facilities. <br /> <br />B. COMPARISON OF MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS <br /> <br />Table S-l provides a comparison of MOP components by alternative. <br /> <br />C. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING <br /> <br />The FEIS contains a comprehensive discussion of specified and recommended <br />mitigation, including the activity to which the measure is applied, the <br />responsible agency(s) for ensuring or administering implementation, and <br />timing/frequency of application. The Forest Service is responsible for ensuring <br />the mitigation of impacts that will occur on-site (on NFSL). For certain actions <br /> <br />Summary . 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.