WSP07644 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t: '~., ., I<L "", ' ~'4l.~.. -. MEMORANDUM To: Files Subject: Response to May 30, 1974, National Park Service Comment Letter on the Fryingpan-Arkapsas Project, Colorado Draft Environmental Statement 1. Comment - The proposal does not appear to adversely affect any site registered as a National Historic or Environemntal Education Landmark. We cannot be sure that the same applies with reference to Garden Park Fossil Area which is in the near vicinity of a section of the project area. The final environmental impact state- ment should recognize the existence of this natural landmark and clearly establish whether the project will have an impact upon it. We also note that Russell Lakes are near the area of project de- development. Since these are wetlands with potential for natural landmark designation, all such land requires protection from any developments that could have an adverse impact. I,. Response: The Garden Park Fossil area is located approximately 7 miles north of Canon City, Colorado. The fountain Valley Conduit, the feature of the fryingpan-Arkansas Project closest to the fossil area, is located about 7 miles to the south and east and will have no effect on it. Russell Lakes are located about 10 miles south of Saguache in the San Luis Valley of Colorado in the Upper Rio Grande River Basin. These lakes are many miles from any Project feature and are sep- arated from the Project area by the Sangre De Cristo mountain range. No part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is located in the Rio Grande River Basin. Therefore, the development of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project will have no effect on Russell Lakes nor on its potential for being designated a natural landmark. . 2. Comment - The statement indicates (p. VIII-3) consultation of the National Register of Historic Places. However, the final state- ment should establish that the Federal Register for February 19, 1974, which lists all National Register entries up to that date, and the supplements, which are published on the first Tuesday of each month, were consulted. The statement identifies a number of historic buildings and conveys the impression that there may be others, none of which are on the National Register. In accordance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, and Executive Order 11593, all such historic resources require inventory, identification, and evaluation in advance of project developments that may affect them. Contrary to the presumption indicated by the draft statement, just because they are not on the National Register does not assure one that they lack eligibility for such listing. XI-25l