My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06750
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06750
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:24:13 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:50:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.765
Description
White River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
9/1/1996
Author
USFS
Title
Aspen Highlands Ski Area - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
355
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />As~n HigJrlands S/cj Area - Draft En'rJironmenlal Impact Stalemenl <br />Table 2.6 Continued <br /> <br />Discipline Impacts Potential Mitigation <br /> Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C <br />SCENIC Since Maroon Bowl would not be <br />RESOURCES developed. it would noL be visible <br />(Continued) from any viewpoint and the Loge <br /> Bowl Catwalk also would oat be <br /> readilv visible, <br />LAND USE Since \he Forest Service SUP Since not all of the area covered by the Maroon Bowl would be excluded None proposed. <br /> designates Aspen Highlands as a SUP has been developed for \he from \he SUP area under <br /> recrca1ion area with skiing as a designated recreation land use, the Alternative C. and expansion of ski <br /> main activity, and there are no expansion proposed for undeveloped facilities into \he undeveloped areas <br /> mining. logging. or grazing segments is in compliance with the would be in compliance with the <br /> activiries, there would be no targeted land use. Expansion in these Ianduse designated uoder \he SUP. <br /> negative impacl on land use areas would not conflict with any other There would not be any conflicts <br /> activities under the No Action land uses since none exist with other land uses wilhin this <br /> Alternative, area. <br /> <br />2-32 <br /> <br />Comparison of Alternati'rJes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.