Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i <br />I <br />the .Imountain. This <br />shori periods of time <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />8. ~ J <br />In Alternative One noise levels would be increased du to developnent <br />of the private land in the valley. Noise levels w 11 increase in <br />Alternatives Two and Three as a result of; a) increased t~affiC associated <br />with the ski area and the developnent on the private lands, and b) operation <br />of the ski area (lifts, slope maintenance vehicles, snowmaki g, etc.). Noise <br />levels have been quantified, and snowmaking and slope v hicles (groaning <br />vehicles, snowmobiles) are the major noise sources; however, snowmobiles and <br />slope groaning vehicles are mobile, therefore, the noipe is transitory <br />lasting only for short periods of time at one location. I <br />I <br />Biological Environment I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />U.S. Highway 160, arrl developnent both on and off <br />deterioration of the air quality will occur only over <br />during summer construction seasons. <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Vegetation <br /> <br />No impacts would result on vegetation on National F rest Systan lands <br />from developnent of Alternative One; the natural success 'on process would <br />continue. Under Alternative Two an estimated twenty-e ght percent (639 <br />acres) of the total timber/vegetation types on publi land would be <br />impacted. About 356 acres of aspen, 256 acres of spruce-fi, , and 27 acres of <br />Douglas fir vegetation types would be cut from develo];me t of runs, lifts, <br />roads, etc. Included in this alternative are differen partial cutting <br />practices for trail clearing. Only a total of about 9 acres would be <br />totally cleared of the 99 acres affected in the back bowl area. Sane <br />vegetation impacts would also occur as a result of the r alignment of U.S. <br />Highway 160. The forest clearings would stimulate the est lishment of aspen <br />along ski trail edges. Otherwise, cleared areas will gen rally resemble the <br />existing mesic meadows and mountain grasslands except whe e permanent roads <br />or other construction takes place. Increased runoff and tential for runoff <br />due to less transpiration exists with this alternative, an the strip cutting <br />of trails will increase snow catchment in the cleared open ngs. <br /> <br />The effects of implementation of Alternative Three re essentially the <br />same as those described for Alternative Two. Developnent and disturbance to <br />vegetation and wildlife habitats in the back bowls wou d not be al1ooecJ. <br />Only 249 acres of aspen, 244 acres of spruce-fir and 27 a res of Douglas fir <br />would be i~cted. The total amount of high value wild ife cover (lffected <br />would be reduced by about half that of Alternative Two. <br /> <br />2. Wildlife <br /> <br />No direct impacts from ski trail developnent wou d result with the <br />implementation of Alternative One. Localized negative ' pacts to wildlife <br />(particularly big game) would result from developnent f adjacent private <br />land. These moderate to high negative impacts would occ r in a) the narrow <br />elk migration corridor route located between U.S. Highwa 160 and the major <br />escarpnent to the east, and b) lower calving and fawning areas. <br /> <br />viii <br />