WSP06750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aspen Highlanth Ski Area - Draft Ellviro/U7U!lIlal/mptll:t Stmemelll Table 2,6 Co/lli...d Discipline Impacts Potential Mitigation Alterna1ive A Alternative B Altema1ive C Forest Service No additional water depletion Any additional impacts to T &E Colorado Impacts to T &E Colorado River Conservation measures for wale:r depletions from the Sensitive (FSS) and would occur unoo- the No Action River nsh species would be due to 96 fISh species would be substantia1ly upper Colorado River will be delennined through a Thrcalcned and Alternative. The Colorado River acre-feet additional water depletions less than under Alternative B Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS. Endangered (f &E) cunhroat (a Forest sensitive species from Maroon Creek primarily for because water depictions would be Species thal has been found in Maroon snowmaking. 80 acre-feet less than under Creek) could be marginally affected Al{cmative B and only 16 acre.feet by water depletions from Maroon The like1il100d of Colorado eunhroat more than under the No Action Creek, and scdimenlation of being negatively affected would increase Alternative. Maroon Creek during spring could due to the higher potential for effect spawning and foraging. sedimentation of Maroon Creek. The 1ikc1il100d of Colorado cutthroat being negatively affected would increase only slightly relative to the No Action Alternative since the increased probability of sedimentation of Maroon Creek would likely be low, RECREATION Total skiable terrain would be 577 Mountain capacity under the special use Permitted mountain capacity would To limit the number of skiers on Aspen Highlands to Alpine Skiing acres, and temlin capacity, practical permit for Aspen Highlands would not change under Alternative C. 3,480 skiers-at-one-time, an electronic ticketing mountain ~city, and initial remain 814,500 skicrs-at-one-time. system will be installed to monitor the number of access capacity would be 6,408, Total skiable area wou Id be 355 skiers accessing the mountain, a local radio station 3,230. and 3.064 skiers, Total skiable terrain would increase by acres morc than under the No will inform aniving visitors if Aspen Highlands respectively, which would be the 541 acres to 1,118 acres, terrain capacity Action Alternative but 186 acres parking is near capacity. and the delivery capacity of same as u~der existing conditions. would increase by 5.185 skiers. practical less than under Alternative 8, due initial access lifts and ground transportation servicing mountain capacity by 2,784 skiers, and to exclusion of Maroon BowL the base area could be reduced. The estimated base area access initial access capacity by 420 skiers to capacity would be 3,064 skiers 3.480 skiers, wbieh is the limit that the Total temlin capacity would be without the base area development ASC would impose on the managem~nt 3,4 I 7 skiers greater than under No and 3,59t with the base area capacity for Aspen Highlands. Action, practical mountain capacity developmenL would increase by 2,078 skiers, and The base area access and egress initial access capacity would be the Ski area egress capacity at the base capacities would depend on whether the same as under Alternative B. of Aspen Highlands was estimated base area is developed or not but would to be over 1 t ,000 skiers per hour not be affected by any on-mountBin Base area access and egress both with and without the base area developments. capaciries would be the same as deveIopmenL under No Action and Alternative B. Snowmaking capacity would increase hy Snowmaking capacity 227 acres to 303 acres extending up as Snowmaking capacity would would remain at the current 76 far as Loge Peak, increase by 48 acres acres up to Midway. to t24 acres (179 acres less than under Al1emative B) extending up only as far as Midway. 2-26 Comparison of AhemaJives