Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chapter 2 - TM AllernaZives <br /> <br />Table 2.6 COflliruud <br /> <br />o <br />c.:.... <br />i ,. <br />l~ <br />t..). <br />c.;o <br /> <br />Discipline Impacts Potential Mitigation <br /> Alternative A Alternative B Allemative C <br />Summer Recreation No Connal summer recreation No additional summer recreation Loge Peak restaurant would be Summer activities proposed under Alternative C <br /> activities would occur under the No activities have been proposed under permined under this alternative, and would not impact current summer activities, and no <br /> Action Alternative. Such activities Alternative B and the number of summer skyrides to the restaurant mitigation measures are therefore proposed. <br /> are currently limited to informal informal summer activities is not would be instituted, The number of <br /> hiking and.very limited mountain anticipated to exceed that under the No hikers per day in the Loge Peak <br /> biking by an average of 13 people Action Alternative. area and down the Aspen <br /> per day. Highlands ridgeline is expecled 10 <br /> increase by a factor of 6 to 7 Crom <br /> the current number of about 13. It <br /> is also anticipated that up 10 285 <br /> lunch-time dinen would use the <br /> restaurant each day. <br />HUMAN HEALTH Avalanche hazards would remain Some of the new leIT8in in the The avalanche risk under this Measures to mitigate the avalanche hazards in lite <br />AND SAFETY - the same as at presenL Steeplechase area, could be affected by alternative would be similar to thaI expansion areas under alternatives B and C include: <br />AVALANCHE avalanches, and avalanches originating under Alternative B except that <br />CONTROL in Kessler's Bowl, South Castle Bowl Maroon Bowl wouk! be excluded. An avalanche control plan will be developed prior to <br /> and Sodbuster GuUy c.ould affect several development of the proposed new terrain, <br /> Steeplechase Lift lowers, The NciLher the proposed Highland nor <br /> Steeplechase Catwalk would cross the Ridge surface lifts would be To prevent an mcrcase in avalanche potential, the <br /> IowCllnlck and ronout of several starting affecled by significant avalanche foUowing tree thinning guidelines will be adopt.ed: <br /> zones which could cause its closure paths and wou ld facilitate access lO slopes <50%, unlimited thinning; 50-58%, <20% <br /> during high avalanche risk periods. the avalanche starting zones thinning; 58-62%. <10% thinning: and >62%, no <br /> belween Loge Peak and Highland thinning. In the vicinity of avalanche starting zones <br /> Avalanche activity in the Temerity area Peak that affecl both Highland and tree thinning should be perpendicular to the fall lines. <br /> occurs infrequently bot gtarling th81 Maroon bowls. <br /> would join small starting zones would A surface lift from Loge Peak 10 Highlands Peak <br /> increase the avalanche risk.. Under this alternative, the should be installed \0 atuact more skiers to the <br /> Steeplechase catwalk would be ridgeline, increase skiex compaction in the avalanche <br /> The Highland and Maroon bowls excluded and would nol be subject swring zones along the ridgeline, and facilita1e access <br /> represent significant avalanche halJu'ds, to avalanche hazards but the for avalanche conttol teams. <br /> and thus significant safety risks for Temerity Catwalk. would be an <br /> avalanche controlle8JT1s crossing Lhe additional element thai might be To reduce the avalanche hazard.. the foUowing <br /> bowls to reach their midpoints and lower affected by seveml small avalanche combination of teChniques should be used: l) pre- <br /> lift tenninals at the opposite ends of the paths. season boot compaction in avalanche starting wnes. <br /> bowls. The lower Highlands Bowl lift 2) air blasl detonations 10 the upper portions of the <br /> tennina! and associated calWaIk could be bowls 10 prevenllarge overhead releases. 3) military <br /> affected by major avalanche activily artillery. an Avalauneher or L.O.CA T, device 10 tesl <br /> originating in the upper ponions of the snowpack s\llhility in the upper bowl from a safe <br /> bowL Most of the Maroon Bowl Lift dislance, and 4) hand charges in the cerncr portion of <br /> lowers could be heavily affected by the bowl only after the preceding measures have been <br /> avalanche hazards especially where the completed. <br /> lift line crosses the lower narrow section <br /> of the bowl. The Loge Bowl Catwalk <br /> <br />Comparison of Al,ernalives <br /> <br />2-27 <br />