LETTER L-4 Stephen 0. E1115 Page 2 December 14, 1982 FOREST 5. New 1I”eSfOCk wate* Sources such as wells, reServOIr-5, or catch- 6 Water “Sd for recreation, ment has1115 are approved, co”srructed, and mamtamed 5uLqect to be appropnated under Colorado water Stat”te*. 1 Forest standards and 4.Thedminlsh. quality(meOf watermanagemnt orlglnatlng pIa” lndlcatesonForest allservxethe altelnatlYe*land does not I qualxty standards wxll meetrln*oh,ectl”ve). Sedment threshold hm~ts 5. me mcreased sedment transport due to mcrea.ed water yzeld reseroo~rr should not 11 does not damage enstmg reselT01rS. The Forest Plan provides see ForeSf Plan, Chapter 6. k. storage reservoirs are csJns+rucred (Iye* IO fees high wdwut ecu office’s appra”al Of the plans. Lwestoek watering resel-vo~rs 9 nmst be axmoved b,’ our office IF their embankments are aver five fee 111h&n. 1 10. see response to number 7. The sorest ~ervxe tells pofentzal buyers and lessors of forest 10 land that they Will be s*,ect to appllcah~e water 5tat”tes. I 11 NO reSpOnse rtecessary 8. Road closures do not reduce access to ex~srzng diversm” stmc- 11 tures . kcess 1s needed for namtenz~e and mspeetron of Me 5tructme5. 1 12. NO response necessary 9. ~zlvacultural pracrrces and other management practxes do not reduce the hzstorx flow 111 late summer. 1 12 FORESTSERYICE RESPONSE Mr. Stephen 0. Ellis Principal Planner A-95 Cle*ir.ghD”se 523 state centm BUfidhP 1313 Shaman street Den”er,Colorado 80203 Re: sangre D-2 Ci-isto, Spanish Peaks, Greenhorn PIolmtaio sod B”ffalO Peaks Hildemess study Area Reporfs 1 We agree, sqnxf~cant “andalsm and/or dzsturbance of cultural ilear m. Ellis: PsOUrCeE may UJcreare Lwcaure Of increased “IsItor use followlog wilderness deslgnaflon “anagement requlremenrs m The designation oP land as a wilderness area on the one hand the Forest Plan provxde protectmn for these rebomrce values : re8tr‘ICEQ access fO the land by the use Of mrorired vehicles and restricfs In Wllderners areas the followrng mnagemeot req”lre,nent Will a land disturbing actlvicies, he on the other hand probably increases visitor 1 be Implemented, “DO not pro”lde mrerpret~ve facxlltles at . The PD8SihFli~Y exats that vandalism Of cultural reso”rces Could cultnral resoYrc0 SlWS, (Ior restore or enhance E”lr”ral g “,:.nsif, due t.a the meate= visitor use. I resources for recrearmn prporer * See Forest Direction and nanagement Area Prescrlptlons 8B and 8C, Chapter III, Forest There appear to be few !awm cultural resources wialin these .5tv*y areas. Plan This office suggests that the Forest Service identify the culrvral re8c.Yrces 2 Known edrural TeSo”rCeE LO vlldernesr and non-“lldeiness areas “ichin the areas of know0 visitor “se and p,“ide for a mmitor to periodically 2 will be moubxed under rnana~emenr requirements dls@yed I,, the cheek these CeSOluCes. 7” the e”e”t thae vandalism increases, a m1rig?sion plan Forerr Plan, Chapter I”, Honlrorlng and Evaluaclon would when be fomvlated in eonsul~a~m,, with this office LO address rhe impacrs to any eligible zeso”rces. 1 3 Cvltural res(IYrce surveys are conducted paor to ground dmturbance All areas “here there wdl be any land disrurhfo~ acti.,itie~ should be 3 for all Forest pro,ecr BEtlVltles men rlgnlflcant CUltural or surveyed to identify eligible cultural reso~rc-ces prior to the construction work. sclentlfrc value warrants develrpmert, cultural d~scc,“er~es are 1 developed When rlgnlflcanr cultural reEO”rEeS (ares) cannot If this office can be Of further assistance, phase ConCact the Compliance be avouled by a s~“en pro,ect, these sites are evnluated asd ex- Division at 866-3392. cavared If necessary cosr. are shared by the taxpayer and re- EO”rCe “Ser For 80EL ldenrlfled culrulal resource EILCJ, con- fldentrallty IS the most cost-effeEtl”e way to protect sztes FORESTSERVICE RESPONSE le. Stephen 0. Ell-iS Rsncf** m.eener A-95 Clearfngheeee 523 Center,niel hildfng 1313 Shemao sereet Denver, Cderedo 80203 RE: DEE Pfke and San lsabel National Yorests; Comanche and cherrm National Grasslends. 1 Intena~ve cultural resource surveys are made prror to amy resource Deer Hr. Eni*: develapment acr~v~ty ravelvm~ ground d~st~‘banee ThlS pPa”ldes the be.t opp.artunlry te ldenrlfy ..d protect Celtur.1 resources 2 This effim prekre l&at the Forest serivce choose one of the alternatives 1 listed fn the above document that will best preserve culrural resources. It 1 g hea bee,, determined that the recognition of cuItura1 resources does not necessarily 2 nanagement requirements m the Forest Plan. chapter III, naoagement preeerve them hue e1e”eces rhe chance for verdaliem. If the Perest service hrec.tmn pronde for ~de.t~fwat,ect. mteiqretatum. and pro- - fnereases the productivity of an area. the respmsSAlity for ~rotectiog cultural I tectu,n of cultvral reso)urces as well as a nomnatmg procedure for reeourcee aleo 1*mxaeee. Offlcfd determinations of eligibility would need to be mKhs1on In the Natlend Register Of “leterIC Places see nanage- completed for all cultural reeourcee idenrified to insure that the most imwrcanr 12 menr Actlvlty A.02 (cultural Resources klageme@L~, Chapter III, eitee are profecfed. The Forest Service would also need to be prepared to monitor Forest Plan. and @ice the locarions of the eligzble euleural resources to prevent vandalism. 3 Shouideffect. vandalism OCEU~, a ~1.n wmvld need to be prepared to mttfgate this adversa 1 3. see reepense to Cement 2, letter L-5 mie office is concerned that cukural reeourcee be adeqeately protected and, from all appearances, protection is not adeqvare a= the present the. The Fereee Service Iwet caneider protection meawres in light of their plans co 4 4 see response to comment 3, letter L-5 increase prodvceion as amazed in alteernatives A. C, b D. 1 We emend the PCX..C Sem’ice for %ts desire to f”cre.%se the o~~orC”“iW to Interpret end manage cultural reee”rcee for vieicore and ecienrlfic study. AB these plane eve formule.d rhis effice re*“eete the opportunity to review them. A8 a p.inc Of xnfa-tiun, the NaLional Register of Liistorie Places eligihilir The sra~ement ,n the Draft EIS “as m error and has been comected criteria end nwi*atien procedures are set forth in 36 CPR 60, while the procedures 5 5. for seeking a determlnarion of eligibility are described in 36 CER 63. The advisory council m ltistorie ~eserve.cien procedures (36 CFR 800, referenced on 1 LETTERL-6 contmued Efr. Stephen 0. FlliS septembx 28, 1982 Page Rm FORESTSERYICE RESPONSE page 223 of the ~~1s) enumerate the general scene to be followed to achieve adequate eons~derarion of cultural resourcee. If Chic office can be Of further aaefsfame, please ermtact the Compliance Di”is3ieon et 8664392. NO response necessary. LETTERL-7 STATEOF COLORADO DEPAnTMENTOFHIGHWAYS 1201MArx”lU, A”1) FORESTSERVICE RESPONSE ,m,Dnnr15%90,1cdor~.lo m2z November 10, 1982 73EST JfGi~ 16 i3Sz jJJ htr. stemen 0. EllZ state ciearlnghouse ~wm Of Grmernmnf 520 State Centennzal Bruldmg LW 1313 She-me” street Denver. Colorado 80203 Dear MT. E111.5. The Colorado ~eparment of H&ways has completed 1% review of the Draft Env~mmental Impact Statement and Land Management Plan for the Sangre de Cr~sto. Greenhorn Mountam. Buffalo Peak, and Spamrh Peaks #lldemess Study Areas and has no cements ‘Thank ,‘o” for the a~,mt”“lty to renew these docwnenrs. HO response necessary + very truly yours, l-l k Harvey R. *tchlso” 0 rnrecmr ” oI”~*lo” Of Tra”spmtetml Planning ,ye-FNu Barbara L.S. chocol Manager Prqeet De”elap!ne*t Branch II II LETTER L-7 contlnved DEPARTMENTOFH,G"WA"S STATEOFCOLORADO- 1201East*r*mwa MS FORESTSERVICE RXSPONSE Pw157.9011cm""DIcolondoBoa2 +?$@,;~p. November 10. 1982 / t$?;,;;q$$ a’%o4 i_ ‘9< .,* Mr. Stephen 0 Ellrs “‘%>,\ state Cleerlngho”Se OyBr 520 State Centenmal Bmldmg 2%t 1313 Sherman street Denver, Colorado 80205 mar Mr. ElllS’ ‘,I,= Colorado Department of Highways has completed its revmw of the Draft Envummental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Managelnent Plan for the Comanche end Clmarmn National GraSslands and has no cements. NO response oecessary 2 Thank you for the qportnnrty to review these documents. ’ br/ truly yours, E - Harvev R. Atehlson Dlrecior D1”ISlO” Of hansportatlo” Planning By~5dzv Barbara L.S CiwCcJl Manager FTo,ect De”elapme”r Br?.“Ch COLQkWM3Q FORESTSERVICE FZSPONSE RemIdD Llrnrn mvernor YeaH: Al= Pollvrfon conrroi Di”*s~oon BE: EIS a*-118. Pike and San Isabel Narional Forests; Comanche and Charm” Narional Grasslands DATE: November 30. 1982 -------_-__-___-_----- _-_________ “‘he Air P0ll”ti.m ConCml Divirion has reviewed the ab.,ve referenced deeument, and we w.,“,or find (1) any discussion of existing air quality, (2) an identifieafion e,f air quality implications Of severe1 ma,or 1 The Final EIS and the Forest Plan have been revued to rnclude Foreet Service activities being prqmsed. such ae th.,se from issuing dzscussmas of the role of the Forest Servxe and the State >n air ski area permits, increasing the e”t~“r of timher prod”cLim for meeting 1 quallry menagemeor, IdeOr~f~C.rlen of mqer seurces c.f elr firewood demand in Colorado’s Front Range. and increased mntmlled pollurlon from FereEr BCLIVItMS, and rastrng axr quality see burning; nor (3) an idenrificacion of the role of the ~areat service in the SeCtIon PROTECTION,Chapter III, m the EIS and the SectIon sir qeality managemenr, and ,,a~ that role relares to the State ~mplemen- FORESTPFmEcTI0N, chapter II, m the Forest Plsn eation Plan.