WSP06750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As~n Highlands Ski Area - Draft En.iroMlenJaJ Impact S'''''''''''nJ 'rabiel.S; ...,'.......'..'......~~:~~~1cl~~,t::2~~~~~::~~~:~t~r~~~~~ttri':~m.,....................,..'., PlI1llITIeta I Tow I Difference I % increase Terrain capacity (skiers) AlIemative A:. No Actinn 6,408 - - AlIemative B 11.593 5,t85 81% Abcma1ive C 9.825 3,4t7 53% Effective 11ft pod capacity (skiers) Allm1alive A:. No Action 3,905 - - Alternative B 6.505 2,600 52% Abcma1ive C 5,806 t,90t 46% Practical mountaln capacity (skiers) AlIemative A:. No Action 3.230 - - Ahcmative B 6.014 2,784 86% Abcma1ive C 5,308 2,078 64% Initial2-bour access capacity (skiers) Ahcmative A:. No Action 3,060 - - Abcma1ive B 3,480 420 t4% Allm1alive C 3,480 420 14% Base area delivery capacity (skiers) - AU Alternatives Wuhout Hines base area development 3,064 - - With Hines base area dcveloomcnt 3591 527 17% therefore, calculated from the lower value of the terrain and lift pod capacity for each pod. Nevertheless. with the exception of the No Action Alternative, the practical mountain capacity exceeds the 4,500 SAOT permitted mountain capacity (by 1,514 skiers under Alternative B and by 808 skiers under Alternative C). The delivery capacity of the initial access lifts and the base area delivery capacity would, however, restrict the number of skiers on Aspen Highlands to below 4.500 SAOT. Asswning that the initial access lifts can be operated at 100 efficiency (which is unlikely), the maximum possible initial access capacity during the main access period from 9:00-11:00 a.m. (when over 80 percent of skiers access Aspen Highlands) would be 3.060 skiers under the No Action Alternative and 3,480 skiers under Alternative B and Alternative C. The ASC has, accordingly, announced its intention to manage Aspen Highlands for no more than 3,480 SAOT. Table 2.6 provides a summary of potential impacts to resources or disciplines identified as issues of concern during the scoping process. Potential impacts identified in Chapter 4 of this Draft E1S are summarized by alternative. Mitigation measures (both planned and potential) designed to ameliorate the identified impacts of all alternatives are provided in the last column of the table. The intention of this table is to provide a brief yet holistic summary of the potential impacts and mitigation identified in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIS, and does not serve as a replacement for detail discussed in the alternative section of Chapter 4. 2-18 Comparison of A11~r1UJli"es