WSP09652

• 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

Table S-7: Impacts on Elk Seasonal Habilats Within the LA by Alternative - Partial Mitigation
Scenario and Fun Mitigation Scenario! where applicable
Seasonal Alternative (acres of habitat remaininll)
Hi!li!!! Pre-dev. Current A B E F 0 H
PRODUCTION 5,590 2,850 835 (1,675) 790 (1,675) 135 420 (1,400) 385 (1,390) 605 (1,575)
% Pre-dev. 51 15 (30) 15 (29) 2 8 (25) 7 (25) II (28)
% Current 196 29 (59) 28 (57) 5 15 (49) 14(49) 21 (55)
% Post Alt-A 669 (334) 341 (170) -(-) 95 (98) 17 50 (84) 46 (83) 72 (94)
SUMMERlTRANSmON 6,560 2,535 1,040 (1,210) 1,040 (1,210) 70 170 (835) 260 (765) 1,040 (1,210)
% Pre-dev. 39 16(19) 16(19) I 3 (13) 4 (12) 16 (19)
% Current 259 41 (48) 41 (48) 3 7 (33) 10 (30) 41 (48)
% Post Alt-A 631 (542) 244 (210) - (100) 100 7 16 (69) 25 (63) 100
WINTER 15,075 11,575 6,975 6,975 6,975 6,975 6.975 6,975
% Pre-dev. 77 46 46 46 46 46 46
% Current 130 60 60 60 60 46 46
% Post Alt-A 216 166 100 100 100 100 100

1 Parentheses show full mitigation acreages and pereenlages where they vary from those for the partial mitigation scenario. Alternative E is
not included in the Full Mitigation scenario because its objective of maximization of recreation opportunities is inconsistent with the full
mitigation concept

Under the Partial Mitigation scenario (Table S-8), the elk population would be
reduced by 3S to SS percent in the long term in Alternatives A and B. Reductions
would be the greatest in Alternative E (70 to 90%) due to increased summer
recreation uses on upper Burnt Mountain. In Alternative F, a 40 to 60 percent
reduction would be anticipated; in Alternative G, 50 to 6S percent; and in
Alternative H, 40 to 55 percent. Significant impacts to many of the important
seasonal ranges would be expected in Alternative E and it is possible that a
wild, free-ranging elk population may not remain in the long term. If a
Tiehack/Snowmass gondola is constructed in Alternative F, the short-term impacts
during and immediately after construction would be expected to be similar to the
short-term impacts in Alternative E,

Table S-8: Potential Reductions to MB-5W Elk Held by Alternative, Partial Mitigation Scenario'

Alternative

"
Reduction

" of Current
PODulation Remainin.

% Reduction Due'
To NFSL DeveloDments

Current Situation
A
B
E
F
o
H

100
4S,-65
4S-65
10..30
40-60
3S-S0
45-60

>0'
>0'
3S-55
S-25
10-30
0..20

3S-SS
3S-SS
7Q..90
4Q..6()
SQ..6S
40-55

Expected reductions in the size of tho elk herd which spends at least a portion of tho year within tho pennit area, due to cumulative impact!
associated with full implementation of each alternative and partial mitigation applied.
Recreational activities on NFSL are expected to increase under all alternatives. These impacts do not affect habitat directly but will result In
disturbances and potential displacement from suitable habitat. The level of lheso impacts cannot be quantified at this time.

Summary . 18