Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OfJ:?iH3 <br /> <br />at the base of Triangle Peak and 10-4 Peak (west side). yisual impact from <br />relocation of U.S. Highway 160 is not expected to be significant. <br /> <br />5. Cultural Resources <br /> <br />Impacts resulting from development of Alternatives Two or Three are the <br />same. A proposed lift could affect one archeological site on National Forest <br />System land, but it appears not to be a significi3nt site f€r 36 CPR 60 <br />criteria. All 17 of the archaeological sites located on private land will be <br />impacted. Of these, only one site is recon:n~flcJecl for research prior to <br />developnent. Also, a family cemetery may need to be relocated. The highway <br />relocation will not affect any known cultural resource sites. <br /> <br />6. Water Resources <br /> <br />Water quantities resulting from inplementation of Alternative Two or <br />Three are anticipated to increase over current levels due to tree cutting for <br />ski trails and to the nature of snowfall as affected by wind circulation <br />patterns. This will result in earlier snowmelt runoff. Water quality will <br />be affected by increases in stream sedimentation, but the allowable <br />sedimentation maximums should not be exceeded and stream channel integrity <br />should be maintained. Urban runoff (from base area developnent) will not <br />exceed any water quality standards. <br /> <br />A Section 404 permit under the Clean Water jI,ct lloay be required if <br />wetlands are affected by mountain developnent. The U.S. Army corps of <br />Engineers will make this determination. The proponent proposes to stabilize <br />the eroding banks of the West Fork of the San Juan River (located on private <br />land in the South l1eadow), and a 404 permit application for this activity has <br />been submitted. A 404 permit will be required for the U.s. Highway 160 <br />realignment due to some encroachment on identified wetlands. <br /> <br />Water uses will change from primarily agricultural to domestic but will <br />not result in any net depletion of instream flows. <br /> <br />7. Climate ana Air Duality <br /> <br />pollutant emission from Alternative Two or Three will increase in the <br />valley as a result of the proposed development but will not exceed current <br />Colorado air quality minimum acceptable standards. Particulates and carbon <br />monoxide (CO) emissions will increase as a result of increased woodburning <br />and vehicle exhaust. Air quality from these emissions will be at their <br />highest levels in the winter. Concentrations of these pollutants will not <br />significantly deteriorate current air quality in pagosa Springs c1l;€ to the> <br />distance [rem the source, dispersion and the broader valley width downvalley. <br /> <br />Evaluation of visual air quality according to EPA standards does not <br />indicate that visual deterioration will be significant. This situation could <br />change, however r if people's perception of what constitutes accepti3ble and <br />unacceptable visual air quality changes. Alternative Three will generate <br />slightly less pollutants since construction of the back bowl would not take <br />place. Temporary air quality impacts will result from the relocation of <br /> <br />vii <br />