Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lJ!'J?<q <br /> <br />c. Alternative Three <br /> <br />Eliminating the back bowl developnent would not significantly <br />affect the visual quality of National Forest land at this area. <br />The total cumulative visual inpact at the developnent would be <br />reduced sanewhat. There would be no visual inpact on the proposed <br />East Fork Ski Area nor the valley floor at East Fork and the <br />Continental Divide Trail. The visual impacts on the front side of <br />the mountain would be the same as those described above under <br />Alternative Two. <br /> <br />5. Cultural Re,;ources <br /> <br />a. Alternative One <br /> <br />The inplementation of this alternative would present no adverse <br />consequences to any cultural resources found on National Forest <br />System land. Cultural resources found on private lands would be <br />affected. All seventeen of the archeological sites found on <br />private land proposed for developnent have the potential to be <br />impacted. A recarnnendation of no e(fect is proposed, hCMever, for <br />the sixteen sites recommended as ineligible for inclusion on the <br />National Register of Historic Places. The seventeenth site <br />(SMLll8) has been recommended as eligible for inclusion on the <br />National Register. A small subsurface excavation is suggested to <br />ascertain whether or not buried cultural material is present. A <br />family cemetery may also need to be relocated. This circumstance <br />applies to Alternatives Two and Three as well. <br /> <br />b. Alternative TWo <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />On National Forest System land proposed for developnent, one <br />archeological site was found. Construction could affect this <br />site. HCMever, this site has been determined insignificant <br />relative to National Register of Historic Places eligibility <br />criteria (36 CPR 60). <br /> <br />The proposed realignment of U.S. Highway 160 will not affect any <br />known cultural resources. <br /> <br />c. ~lternative Three <br /> <br />NO cultural resource sites were found in the back bowls area <br />proposed for developnent. The impacts of this alternative on <br />cultural resources would be the same as those described for <br />Alternative Two, above. <br /> <br />165 <br />