Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. <br /> <br />I <br />I . <br /> <br />As seen in Table IV-1 about 520 acres will bel disturbed for <br />developnent'. This would mean that 15 percent ~ess area than <br />Alternative Two, or an average of just over 17 acres a year, would <br />be impacted. Because all activities would be conc~ntrated on the <br />west side of Windy Pass, no soil disturbance arid related soil <br />erosion and sedimentation in the Fast Fork drainage would occur. <br />This could mean that sane phases would be develoPed on the west <br />side sooner than with Alternative Two. A possiblel irrpact of this <br />would mean there would be less time for stabibzation of a <br />drainage area and the proposed reduction of er9sion over time <br />would not exactly meet the assumptions used in T~le IV-S and for <br />the residual impact factor for introduced sediment 1 <br /> <br />From the amount of soil which would be eroded, I a small amount <br />would be delivered as sediment (see Tables IV-2 c\nd IV-6). Only <br />16 fewer tons of sediment would be antici~ted for this <br />alternative than for Alternative Two. A total lof 228 tons of <br />sediment per year would be delivered to the West [Fork of the San <br />Juan River and its tributaries. (See Water sectjion for further <br />discussion on sedimentation.) I <br /> <br />Because most of the soils with low revegetation ~tential or high <br />windthrow hazard are on the west side of Windy Pass there is not a <br />large difference in impacts from this alternat~ve compared to <br />Altemative Two. As discussed for Alternative Il'wo, soils with <br />these ratings for revegetation or windthrow will be avoided <br />wherever possible. I <br />I <br />Minerals and Ener9Y Resources I <br /> <br />a. Alternative One I <br /> <br />b. <br /> <br />, <br />I <br />Implementing Alternative One would not affec~ or alter the <br />potential for mineral or energy resource develowent on National <br />Forest System land. I <br />I <br />Alternatives Two and Three I <br /> <br />Exploration and developnent activity on the eXi~ting oil and gas <br />lease will require cooperation between the lessee and the ski area <br />proponent. <br />I <br />Because of the north/south orientation of tpe private 1anc1 <br />proposed for developnent, construction could take useful advantage <br />of a southerly exposure. for energy conservation ~urposes. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />i <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />vi~ual Resources <br /> <br />a. <br /> <br />Alternative One <br /> <br />Implementation of this alternative would not ~ffect the visual <br />quality of National Forest System land. ' <br /> <br />158 <br />