Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0J2098 <br /> <br />S"""""'Y <br /> <br />during the summer. The building would also include the new PHQ and possibly an interpretive center for summer <br />and winter use. The existing PHQ at the top of Cloud Nine would be removed or turned into an interpretive <br />center and/or wanning hut. Existing powder mixing and storage facilities used for avalanche control, would be <br />moved either to a bench along the Steeplechase Catwalk (southeast of the Merry-Go-RoWld restaurant) or to a <br />site south of the Loge Peak Lift's upper tenninal and west of the Loge Peak/Highlands ridge. <br /> <br />Relative the No Action Alternative, Alternative C would include a 48-acre increase in the snowrnaking capacity <br />(Le., total snowmaking area would be 124 acres), 172 acres less than under Alternative B. The additional <br />snowmaking would be limited to two commonly used egress routes between Midway and the Aspen Highlands <br />base area, and would require one control building and two pumphouses, each with one or more cooling towers. <br /> <br />Under Alternative C, reintroduction of the sky rides to Loge Peak would entail operating the Exhibition I and <br />Loge Peak Lifts to access Loge Peak from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and the Loge Peak restaurant would be open <br />for lunchtime dining. The skyrides would also facilitate hiking from either Merry-Go-Round or Loge Peak <br />restaurants to the base area. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM <br />DETAILED ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Since no specific time frame has been set for removing the Olympic Lift and upgrading the Exhibition II and <br />Ooud Nme lifts, existing Aspen Highlands facilities were considered as a separate alternative. Implementation <br />of the approved lift upgrades would neither eliminate nor add skiable terrain, and both terrain capacity and ski <br />pod capacity would be essentially Wlaffected. Reduced skier capacity due to elimination of the Olympic Lift <br />would be almost exactly off-set by increased skier capacity resulting from Exhibition IT and Cloud Nine lift <br />upgrades. This alternative was, therefore, not compared in detail with the No Action Alternative. <br /> <br />Because the ASC owns and manages all four mountains resorts in the Aspen-Snowmass area, intensified use of <br />existing terrain on Aspen Highlands, Aspen Mountain, BUllennilk, and Snowmass was considered as an <br />alternative to the proposed expansion. However, since all suitable terrain for advanced and expen gladed and <br />bowl skiing on these mountains is currently being used or is already approved for development, this alternative <br />is not consistent with the pW"pose of the Proposal Action to increase such skiing opportunities. Moreover, greater <br />use of existing facilities at Aspen Highlands would conflict with current management objectives of providing low <br />density skiing opportunities. Consequently, this alternative was also eliminated from detailed analysis. <br /> <br />A third alternative considered was a gondola connection from the City of Aspen or Aspen Mountain to Aspen <br />Highlands. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it is not consistent with the purpose and need for <br />the Proposed Action, and because it has nwnerous unknown ramifications. Should the community and the ASC <br />wish to have such an interlink considered, the Forest Service would be willing to study any proposal for mOWltain <br />community cable links. <br /> <br />Seclion 1/ <br />Allernalives C olUidered but Eliminaled from Detailed Analysis <br /> <br />13 <br />