Wilson Peak Land Exchange

Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture Wilson Peak Land Exchange

Forest

Service Norwood and Gunnison Ranger Districts

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests April 2015 and

Dolores Ranger District San Juan National Forest

San Miguel, Dolores, Gunnison and Saguache Counties

Wilson Peak Summit (summitpost.org)

For Information Contact:

Dee A. Closson, Lands/Minerals Staff Officer Norwood Ranger District PO Box 388 Norwood, CO 81423 (970) 327-4261 [email protected]

(Intentionally left blank)

Summary The following Environmental Assessment (EA) examines the environmental consequences of the proposed Wilson Peak Land Exchange. Non-Federal Parties propose to convey five separate parcels of non-federal land containing a total of approximately 681 acres to the United States in exchange for four federal properties containing a total of approximately 301 acres of equal value. Land from two additional non-federal equalization parcels may be included if necessary. This EA was prepared by the United States Forest Service and includes recommendations from third-party consultants as well as extensive public input.

(Intentionally left blank)

Contents Summary ...... 3 1.0 Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Document Organization ...... 9 1.2 Project Location ...... 9 1.3 Background ...... 10 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 11 1.5 Proposed Action ...... 12 1.6 Consistency with Approved Plans and Key Laws ...... 12 Forest Plan ...... 13 Land Ownership Adjustment Strategy ...... 14 Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan ...... 14 Key Federal Laws and Executive Orders ...... 14 1.7 Decision Framework ...... 15 1.8 Public Involvement ...... 15 1.9 Issues ...... 16 Key Issues Identified Through the Scoping Process ...... 16 Additional Effects to Consider ...... 17 2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ...... 19 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 19 Activities Common to all Alternatives (Mineral Withdrawal) ...... 19 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 19 Activities Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 (Appraisal) ...... 19 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 19 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action with Mountain Bike Trails ...... 21 2.2 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...... 21 Purchase Option ...... 21 Deed Restrictions on the Federal Parcels ...... 21 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 22 3.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 25 3.1 Hazardous Materials ...... 25 Exis ting Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 25 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 26

Cumulative Effects ...... 26 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 26 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 26 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 27 Cumulative Effects ...... 28 3.3 Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 28 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 28 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 30 Cumulative Effects ...... 32 3.4 Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 32 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 32 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 33 Cumulative Effects ...... 33 3.5 Wetlands and Floodplains ...... 34 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 34 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 34 Cumulative Effects ...... 34 3.6 Water Rights and Water Resources ...... 34 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 34 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 36 Cumulative Effects ...... 37 3.7 Cultural Resources ...... 37 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 37 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 38 Cumulative Effects ...... 38 3.8 Minerals ...... 38 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 38 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 39 Cumulative Effects ...... 39 3.9 Recreation ...... 39 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 39 Environmental Consequences Proposed Action ...... 40 Environmental Consequences Alternative 3 ...... 41

Cumulative Effects ...... 42 3.10 Grazing ...... 42 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 42 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 44 Cumulative Effects ...... 44 3.11 Socio-economics ...... 45 Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) ...... 45 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 46 Cumulative Effects ...... 48 3.12 Roadless Areas and Wilderness ...... 48 Existing Conditions (No Action Alternative) ...... 48 Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) ...... 49 Cumulative Effects ...... 49 4.0 Consultation and Coordination ...... 51 Document Preparers ...... 51 Federal, State and Local Agencies ...... 51 Tribes ...... 51 Others ...... 51 5.0 References ...... 53 Appendix A. Maps of the Federal and Non-Federal Parcels ...... 55 Appendix B. Maps of the Proposed Alternative 3 Alta Trails System ...... 63 Appendix C. Response to Scoping Comments ...... 65 Appendix D. Response to Comments on Preliminary EA ...... 93 Appendix F. Questions and Answers Regarding Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews ...... 113

(Intentionally left blank)

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Document Organization In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action or its alternatives. The information contained in this EA will allow the Forest Supervisor to make an informed decision about how best to meet the stated purpose and need for action. The decision will be documented in a Decision Notice when the environmental review process is completed. Chapter 1: This chapter provides an overview of the legal and administrative parameters including the purpose and need for action. It also documents the public involvement process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with the Proposed Action. The comments from public scoping were used in the formulation of alternatives. Chapter 2: This chapter describes the alternatives considered for meeting the project purpose and need. It includes comparison of alternatives to aid in decision-making. Chapter 3: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Chapter 4: This chapter provides a list of persons and agencies contacted during the development of this Environmental Assessment. Resources are also included in this chapter. Chapter 5: References Appendix A: Maps of Federal and Non-Federal Parcels Appendix B: Maps of the Proposed Alternative 3 Alta Trails System Appendix C: Response to Scoping Comments Appendix D: Response to Comments on Preliminary EA Appendix E: Water Rights Report Appendix D Appendix F. Questions and Answers Regarding Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Norwood Ranger District, Norwood, Colorado. 1.2 Project Location All federal and non-federal parcels involved in this proposed exchange are located in Colorado. The four Federal Parcels, 1-4, proposed to be exchanged are located in San Miguel County, within the Uncompahgre National Forest. Three of the Non-Federal Parcels, B, E (1-5) and D, proposed to be exchanged are located in San Miguel County, within the Uncompahgre National Forest. A fourth parcel, A, is located in both San Miguel and Dolores Counties, within the Uncompahgre and San Juan National Forests. A fifth parcel, C, is located in Saguache County, within Gunnison National Forest. There are two additional Non-Federal Parcels, E6 and F, which are included for the purpose of value equalization, if needed. Parcel E6 is located in San Miguel County, within the Uncompahgre National Forest. Parcel F is located in Gunnison County, within the Gunnison National Forest. Table 1 provides additional information about the federal and non-federal parcels. Maps with the parcel locations are located in Appendix A. These maps are for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for,

9 or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Table 1. Names, legal descriptions and sizes of federal and non-federal parcels considered for the Wilson Peak Land Exchange. All areas and distances referenced in this document are approximate. Name Legal Description (N.M.P.M.) Size (acres) Federal Parcel 1: Skyline Ranch East T. 42 N., R 9 W. 35.7 Federal Parcel 2: Skyline Ranch South T. 42 N., R 9 W. 138.1 Federal Parcel 3: Alta T. 42 N., R 9 W. 87.1 Federal Parcel 4: Wilson Mesa T. 42 N., R 10 W. 40.3 Non-Federal Parcel A: Wilson Peak Mining T. 42 N., R 10 W. & T. 41 N., R 180.2 Claims 10 W. Non-Federal Parcel B: Weaver Mining Claims T. 42 N., R 10 W. 20.7 Non-Federal Parcel C: Eddiesville T. 43 N., R 1 E. 39.2 Non-Federal Parcel D: Miles Mining Claims T. 41 N., R 9 W. 162.6 Non-Federal Parcel E (1-5): Alta Lakes T. 42 N., R 9 W. 278.0 Non-Federal Parcel E6: Alta Lakes T. 42 N., R 9 W. 14.1 Non-Federal Parcel F: Fossil Ridge T. 50 N., R 2 E. 613.6 1.3 Background This land exchange proposal came about primarily because of the Forest Service’s goal of acquiring the Wilson Peak Mining Claims, which are held in private ownership by the Trust for Public Land. The following describes the events that transpired leading to the final proposal: • 2004 – The landowner in Silverpick Basin closed access on the Silverpick Trail where it crossed through his private land. Because this was the traditional route to access the summit of 14,203 foot Wilson Peak, much public concern was raised. Peaks above 14,000 feet are popular with hikers and climbers and are known as “fourteeners.” • 2005 – The landowner in Silverpick Basin proposed mining operations on his private land (Wilson Peak Mining Claims). This would require reconstruction of old mining roads that had been covered by talus and permits from the Forest Service and San Miguel County. Public concern was raised over this proposal also. • 2007 – The Trust for Public Land, after inquiring of the Forest Service their interest in acquisition of the Wilson Peak Mining Claims, purchased the Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A) in Silverpick Basin. The Trust for Public Land often acquires private land to allow for a public land management agency to acquire them at a later date. • 2011 – As a result of the Trust for Public Land’s acquisition, the Forest Service was able to construct the new Rock of Ages Trail, restoring public access to the summit of Wilson Peak. • 2011 – Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC and Alta Lakes, LLC began discussions with the Trust for Public Land (collectively referred to throughout the remainder of this document as the “Non- Federal Parties”) on a potential land exchange that would allow the Forest Service to acquire the Wilson Peak Mining Claims and other lands of interest to the agency. The Forest Service participated in some discussions and field evaluations of proposals.

• 2011 – The Non-Federal Parties submitted the land exchange proposal being considered in this document to the Forest Service. • 2013 - A Feasibility Analysis was prepared by the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) and approved by the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office. The purpose of the Feasibility Analysis is to examine the merits of a proposed exchange, evaluate compliance with land and resource management plans and ensure title and property interests are clear or resolvable. • 2013 - The Forest Service and the Non-Federal Parties signed an Agreement to Initiate (ATI) for a land-for-land exchange. This non-binding agreement identifies the properties being considered for exchange, the steps required to complete an exchange, and the respective party’s responsibilities. 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for action is to acquire land to: • Restore access to the popular fourteener, Wilson Peak. The Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A) are owned by the Trust for Public Land (TPL). Approximately one mile of the newly constructed Rock of Ages Trail (NFST 429) crosses the Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A), which is the primary access route to the summit of Wilson Peak. This trail was built with the expectation of the United States acquiring the Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A), so no easements for the trail were obtained from TPL. Acquisition of the Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A) would provide the public legal access to the entire length of the Rock of Ages Trail and restore access to the popular fourteener, Wilson Peak. • Remove non-federal inholdings within or adjacent to upper-tier Colorado Roadless Areas, Congressionally-designated wilderness areas, or areas that are proposed to be designated wilderness. Removal of these inholdings would enhance wilderness character and wildlife habitat and remove the potential for minerals development (as the lands would either be withdrawn from mineral entry in the case of wilderness or the newly acquired federal land would have acquired status meaning mining claims cannot be staked). • Acquire non-federal lands within designated wilderness areas and roadless areas designated by the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule. . Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A) where 13 of the 22 mining claims in this group are partially or wholly within the Lizard Head Wilderness Area. This area is also part of an addition to the Lizard Head Wilderness in the proposed San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2013 (S. 341) and adjacent to the Wilson Roadless Area; . Weaver Mining Claims (Parcel B) which are located within one half mile of the Lizard Head Wilderness Area and lie mostly within the proposed San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2013; . Eddiesville (Parcel C) which is abutted on three sides by the La Garita Wilderness. • Eliminate non-federal inholdings that are surrounded by National Forest System (NFS) lands: . Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A); . Weaver Mining Claims (Parcel B); . Miles Mining Claims (Parcel D). • Enhance recreational access along and near the Boomerang Road (NFSR 627) north of the Alta Lakes area, which is a popular area for hikers, bicyclists, cross country skiers and other high- country enthusiasts. • Reduce risk of future development to sub-alpine and alpine environments on the Alta Lakes property (Parcel E) to preserve current and potential habitat for federally listed and forest sensitive species.

• Acquire the following properties to enhance habitat for the Canada lynx, which is a federally listed species: . Wilson Peak Mining Claims (Parcel A); . Weaver Mining Claims (Parcel B); . Miles Mining Claims (Parcel D); . Alta Lakes property (Parcel E). • To convey lands that: . Are adjacent to privately-owned lands and are desirable by the Non-Federal Parties. . Appear to have few or less important natural resources or other values important to the Forest Service or the public so that this exchange can occur. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan. These goals are listed in Chapter III, pages 71-73 which states “acquire lands that are valuable for National Forest Service purposes such as lands in designated wilderness areas, rights-of-ways needed to meet resource management goals, lands that provide habitat for threatened and endangered species, lands which include floodplain or wetlands, or lands having historical or cultural resources, outstanding scenic values or critical ecosystem when these resource are threatened by change of use." The Forest Plan describes objectives in classifying lands for disposal and specifies that “When critical or unique resource (wetlands, floodplains, essential big game winter range, threatened or endangered species habitat, etc.) effects are mitigated by reserving interests to protect the resource, or by exchange where other critical resources to be acquired are considered to be of equal or greater value” (1991 Forest Plan Amendment, Forest Direction, page III-72). 1.5 Proposed Action The Forest Service is proposing to exchange lands with the Non-Federal Parties. In exchange for four parcels that contain approximately 301.2 acres of reserved public domain status NFS lands, the United States of America would acquire five parcels of non-federal land that contain 680.7 acres from the Non- Federal Parties. Further, there are two additional non-federal parcels that could be included, if needed, to equalize values, one with 14.1 acres and the other contains 613.6 available acres. The Non-Federal Parties have proposed an equal-value land exchange, where the values of the NFS parcels match the values of the private parcels. The full details of the Proposed Action are disclosed under the description of Alternative 2 (Section. 2.1). 1.6 Consistency with Approved Plans and Key Laws This action is in accordance with the General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 465; 16 U.S.C. 485) as amended by the Act of February 28, 1925 (43 Stat. 1090); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1716) (FLPMA); and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988 (102 Stat. 1086; 43 U.S.C. 1716). FLPMA requires that the value of exchanged lands be equal, but the exchange can be adjusted for any difference in value by cash equalization payments of up to 25 percent of the value of the federal lands. A qualified, licensed appraiser will appraise the federal and non-federal lands. The appraisal will be conducted in compliance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices. Forest Service regulations require that values for exchange purposes be determined by appraisal. Forest Service appraisal guidelines and policy are provided in FSH 5409.12.

Land transactions are identified and pursued by the Forest Service to provide benefits to the public as a whole and to meet agency policy, direction, and land management objectives. There are no criteria, direction, or agency policies identified to pursue or complete land transactions with the objective to keep the federal estate at a static level in counties in which it has a presence. Many of the considerations associated with a project of this type, most specifically long term benefits realized with landownership consolidation on both the federal and non-federal side are difficult to quantify economically.

Forest Plan The Land and Resource Management Plan for Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (Forest Plan) was issued in 1983 and amended in 1991. A review of the GMUG Forest Plan, as amended, has been made to determine compliance with this exchange proposal. The following specifics are applicable. Federal Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are all located within Management Area 2A of the Forest Plan. This management area emphasizes semi-primitive motorized recreation. There are no NFS motorized roads or trails, however, within Federal Parcels 1 and 2. The Boomerang Road is the only NF system non- motorized road or trail within Federal Parcel 3. Federal Parcel 4 is located within Management Area 4B, which emphasizes management of habitat for elk, as a management indicator species. The Wilson Peak claims, Non-Federal Parcel A, are located within or adjacent to the Lizard Head Wilderness to the south (Management Area 8) and Management Area 2A (semi-primitive motorized recreation) to the north. There are no NF system motorized roads or trails, however, that provide access to the Wilson Peak claims. The Weaver claims (Non-Federal Parcel B) are located within Management Area 2A (semi-primitive motorized recreation). There are no motorized roads or trails, however, on NFS lands that provide access to the Weaver claims. The Eddiesville parcel (Non-Federal Parcel C) is abutted on one side by private land and three sides by the La Garita Wilderness (Management Area 8). The Miles claims (Non-Federal Parcel D) lie within Management Area 2A (semi-primitive motorized recreation). There are no motorized roads or trails, however, on NFS lands that provide access to the Miles claims. The Alta Lakes parcel (Non-Federal Parcel E) lies within Management Area 2A (semi-primitive motorized recreation). The Boomerang Road is the only non-motorized trail on NFS lands that provides access to the general area. The Alta Lakes road (NFSR632) is the only motorized road on NFS lands in the area. The Forest Plan includes the following Forest-wide management goals for the acquisition and disposal of lands: • Acquire rights-of-way on existing Forest System roads and trails that cross private land (Rights- of-way and Land Adjustments 01). • Insure floodplain and wetland values are approximately equal on both offered and selected tracts in proposed land exchanges or that values are in favor of the United States (Rights-of-way and Land Adjustments 02). Classify lands or interest in lands for acquisition where lands are valuable for NFS purposes, according to the following priorities: • In designated wilderness areas and other congressionally classified areas. • Where lands or rights-of-way are needed to meet resource management goals and objectives. • Lands which provide habitat for threatened and endangered species of animals and plants.

• Lands which include floodplain or wetlands. • On lands having historical or cultural resources, outstanding scenic values or critical ecosystem, when these resources are threatened by change of use or when management may be enhanced by public ownership (Rights-of-way and Land Adjustments 03). Classify lands for disposal according to the following priorities: • To states, counties, cities, or other federal agencies when disposal would serve a greater public interest. • In small parcels intermingled with mineral or homestead patents. • When suitable for development by the private sector, if development (residential, agricultural, industrial, recreational, etc.) is in the public interest. When critical or unique resource (wetlands, floodplains, essential big game winter range, threatened or endangered species habitat, historical or cultural resources, critical ecosystems, etc.) effects are mitigated by reserving interests to protect the resource, or by exchange where other critical resources to be acquired are considered to be of equal or greater value (Rights-of-way and Land Adjustments 04). Acquire private lands needed for big-game winter range (Rights-of-way and Land Adjustments 06). Under the Forest Plan general direction, the following goals identified in the Purpose and Need section above would be met by acquiring the non-federal parcels and disposing of the federal parcels. This proposal is consistent with the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for land ownership adjustments presented on pages III-72 of the Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest (Forest Plan, USFS 1991).

Land Ownership Adjustment Strategy All alternatives were reviewed for consistency with the Landownership Adjustment Strategy (LOAS) for the Upper San Miguel River Basin, approved on August 24, 1995. The acquisition of parcels A, B, D and E is supported in the LOAS based upon an identified need to consolidate ownership and acquire inholdings. Federal Parcel 1 is identified for conveyance to reduce property lines and corner maintenance. The primary objective of landownership adjustment is to achieve the optimum land ownership pattern in the NFS that provides for resource use and protection to meet public needs.

Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan The Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan (Uncompahgre TP) was completed in 2002. This plan identifies which roads and trails on the Forest are open to motorized use and the type of uses allowed on these routes. The Proposed Action was developed to be consistent with Uncompahgre TP objectives. Routes necessary to meet travel objectives for administration and public use through the federal parcel were identified for rights-of-way easement reservation. Management of routes on acquired lands will be consistent with current use and resource protection requirements.

Key Federal Laws and Executive Orders The following federal laws have specific application to this proposed action and have been addressed to insure compliance. Further information can be found in the sections indicated. • Clean Water Act (Sec. 3.1) • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Sec 3.1) • The Endangered Species Act (Sec. 3.2) • Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management (Sec. 3.5) • Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (Sec. 3.5) • The General Mining Act of 1872 (Sec. 3.8)

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Sec. 3.7) • The Wilderness Act (Sec. 3.10) 1.7 Decision Framework This EA will need to be of sufficient scope to ensure all appropriate legal and regulatory requirements are met and to provide the deciding official with sufficient information to determine whether or not the proposed action is in the public interest. This is not a decision document. Land exchanges convey land, interest in land, and resources associated with them. However, the act of conveyance has no environmental effects. Therefore, the environmental analysis will focus primarily on future use and management of lands acquired and conveyed and the effect of the exchange on lands that adjoin them (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 5409.13). This action is being processed in accordance with the General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (42 Stat. 465; 16 U.S.C. 485) as amended by the Act of February 28, 1925 (43 Stat. 1090); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1716); and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988 (102 Stat. 1086; 43 U.S.C. 1716). This proposal is consistent with the forest-wide standards and guidelines for land ownership adjustments presented on page III-72 of the Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, for the GMUG National Forests (Forest Plan, USFS 1991). The Forest Supervisor of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests is the responsible official for determining if the proposed exchange is in the public interest (36 CFR 254.3 (b)(2)), supports the direction and guidance in the GMUG land management plan, and based upon that deciding whether or not to proceed with the proposed action as described. In order to be in the public interest, the resource values and public benefits of the non-federal lands must exceed those of the federal lands. Full consideration is given to better federal land management and the needs of State and local people. 1.8 Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the period of July 1, 2013 to the present. The proposal was provided to Colorado Congressional Delegates, the Governor’s Office, the Board of County Commissioners for San Miguel, Dolores, Gunnison and Saguache Counties, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray, special interest groups, other federal and state agencies, and interested individuals. The GMUG National Forest began scoping on the proposed land exchange on November 22, 2013 and accepted comments through January 24, 2014. These comments have been summarized and are included in Appendix C. A legal notice of the proposed exchange was published in the Dove Creek Press (November 21, 2013 through December 12, 2013); the Saguache Crescent (November 28, 2013 through December 19, 2013); the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (November 22, 2013 through December 13, 2013); the Gunnison Country Times (November 21, 2013 through December 12, 2013); and the Telluride Daily Planet (November 22, 2013 through December 13, 2013). The legal notice was published for four consecutive weeks due to the requirements for a land exchange. Public open houses were held in Telluride, Colorado on December 17, 2013 and January 13, 2014. A presentation was made to the San Miguel County Commissioners on January 22, 2014. The newspaper of record for the purposes of NEPA is the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. A complete listing of contacts made and the scoping letters can be found in the project file at the Norwood Ranger District, Norwood, Colorado. The Forest Service received 110 comment letters regarding this project. The issues associated with the letters are summarized below. In response to issues concerning mountain bike trails in the Alta Lakes area, an additional open house was held in Telluride on August 11, 2014. Following that meeting, Forest Service representatives from the Norwood Ranger

District, met with representatives from the local trail advocacy organizations multiple times in the Alta Lakes area to discuss current and future trail configurations. A comment period was held on a Preliminary EA from October 18 through November 17, 2014. Legal Notice of Opportunity to Comment was published in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel on October 18, 2014. A press release was issued on October 20, 2014 asking for public input to the Telluride Daily Planet. Links to documents were sent to all who had commented during the scoping period. Seven additional comments were received. These have been summarized and responded to in Appendix D. 1.9 Issues An integral step in the development of this analysis was a thorough review of the public and agency comments by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists to identify important issues related to the proposed action. Additional effects to consider were also identified by the specialists through internal meetings held to discuss the proposed exchange. These issues were classified into comment themes based on recurring concerns that were expressed through the scoping process. Analysis issues are typically divided into two groups: key issues and non-key issues. Key issues are defined as those relating to outcomes that would result either directly or indirectly through the implementation of the proposed action. A key issue is also one that results in the generation of an alternative, part of an alternative, or in design criteria that are specifically developed to address that issue.

Key Issues Identified Through the Scoping Process The Forest Service received responses from 110 commenters during the public scoping process. The comments and Forest Service responses to them are found in Appendix C of this document. The following key issues were identified. 1. If the land exchange proceeds, sections of the trails currently on NFS lands would transfer to private land and would no longer be available to the recreating public: Numerous trails that are used predominately by mountain bicyclists exist on National Forest and private lands in the Alta Lakes and Turkey Mesa areas. These trails connect trails within the Telluride Ski Area to the Galloping Goose trail and thereby create a loop that begins and ends in Telluride/Mountain Village. Many have expressed concern for loss of these trails (not authorized on either NFS lands or private lands) and encourage the FS to establish one or more trails as part of the FS trails system via this land exchange effort. This issue is addressed through the addition and inclusion of Alternative 3. 2. Mai Access to NFS Lands: The Mais live adjacent to Skyline Ranch and NFS lands. The land exchange proposal would prevent the Mais from walking directly onto NFS lands if the Skyline Ranch owners do not provide access across Federal Parcel 2. The Mais use trails that connect to their property and cross NFS lands. These trails are not part of the NF trails system and could be eliminated if the exchange occurs. This issue is considered in the analysis of the Action Alternatives, Section 3.11. 3. Mais’ Property Value: The Mais believe that loss of NFS lands adjacent to their property would adversely affect the value of their property. This issue is considered in the analysis of the Action Alternatives, Section 3.11. 4. Mai Property Access Rights: The Mais are concerned about preserving the vehicular access rights to their property across Federal Parcel 2. In 2006 the Forest Service issued a private road easement to Vincent A. Mai (NOR184) for their driveway off Highway 145 to their residence. This issue is addressed in Section 3.11 Socio-Economics. 5. Mai Water Resources (Beaver Springs Pond): The Mais have expressed concern regarding maintaining the status quo of their water rights in and access to Beaver Springs Pond (Federal Parcel 2). This issue is addressed in Sections 2.1 (No Action Alternative) and 3.6, Appendices C, D and E.

Additional Effects to Consider Those issues that will not determine alternatives, but based on public comment are addressed in the document. These include: . Adverse effects could occur to the historic Alta Townsite through conveyance of that part of the Townsite on NFS lands to Alta Lakes, LLC. This issue is addressed in section 3.7. . Demonstrate compliance with Forest Service law, regulation and policy with regard to the Forest Plan and environmental analysis. This issue is addressed in section 1.6. . Grazing could be affected as a result of the land exchange. This issue is addressed in section 3.10.

(Intentionally left blank)

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Activities Common to all Alternatives (Mineral Withdrawal) A northwest portion of Federal Parcel 2 is subject to Public Land Order (PLO) 1378, a withdrawal that reserves lands within the Uncompahgre National Forest for use by the Forest Service as a recreation area, specifically Sunshine Campground. To reserve this area for this particular public purpose, this withdrawal removes the area from settlement, location or entry under some or all of the general land laws. The withdrawal area is located on both the west and east sides of Highway 145, with Sunshine Campground being on the west side of the highway. This withdrawal reserves a total of 50 acres of National Forest System lands. The portion of the withdrawal located on the east side of Highway 145 encompasses approximately 22 of the 50 acres and is no longer needed for the protection of the Sunshine Campground. The Forest Service is modifying the withdrawal to remove the 22 acres on the east side of Highway 145. The Application to Modify or Revoke a Mineral Withdrawal is currently on file with the Bureau of Land Management.

Alternative 1 – No Action Analysis of this alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the Proposed Action, providing the responsible official with a clearer basis for a reasoned choice among the alternatives studied in detail. Under this alternative, the current landownership pattern within the analysis area would remain the same. The proposed exchange between the Forest Service and the Non-Federal Parties would not occur at this time. There would be no public access to Wilson Peak through Silver Pick Basin. Selection of this alternative would not preclude consideration of a future land adjustment proposal (i.e. exchange, donation or purchase) for either the federal or the non-federal parcels. During analysis of water rights, it was discovered that authorizations for water improvements and access were lacking. The Forest Service would require special use authorizations for water facility improvements on NFS lands that are not authorized. These are detailed in Section 3.6.

Activities Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 (Appraisal) This proposed exchange is value-for-value. The lands are currently in the process of being appraised and those appraisals must adhere to 36 CFR 254.9 as well as current editions of both the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Once technical appraisal review is complete, final values will be released in the decision document if an action alternative is selected. Federal lands to be appraised will be subjected to the hypothetical condition that they are available to the open market and are zoned as if already in private ownership. The appraisals will include historic, wildlife, recreation, wilderness, scenic, cultural, or other resource values or amenities only as reflected in prices paid for similar properties in the competitive market. There will be no analysis of the monetary values of the individual parcels in this EA.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action In exchange for four parcels that contain approximately 301.2 acres of reserved public domain status NFS lands, the United States of America would acquire five parcels of non-federal land that contain approximately 680.7 acres from the Non-Federal Parties. Further, there are two additional non-federal parcels that could be included if needed to equalize values, one 14.1 acres in size and the other up to 613.6 acres in size. The Non-Federal Parties have proposed an equal value land exchange, where the values of the NFS parcels match the values of the private parcels. Property that the Non-Federal Party would consider exchanging: Non-Federal Parcels A, B, C, D, E and F (Table 1).

Property, including minerals, that the United States would consider exchanging: Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Table 1). Under the proposed action the lands proposed for acquisition by the United States would include the following uses and recognized interests for the foreseeable future: • Public access easements would be granted to the United States for the portions of the Alta Lakes Road (NFSR 632) and the Boomerang Road (NFSR 627) where they cross property that would be retained by Alta Lakes, LLC. • An easement would be reserved by Alta Lakes, LLC for the Gold King Pipeline as it crosses Non- Federal Parcel E4. • A special use permit (SUP) would be issued to Alta Lakes, LLC for its continued use of the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline, Alta Pipeline, and Alta Reservoirs No. 1, 2 and 3. • All mineral estate associated with the non-federal parcels would be conveyed to the United States. The federal lands proposed for exchange into private ownership would include the following uses and recognized interests for the foreseeable future: • A trail reservation for the Elk Creek Trail (NFST 421.1A) would be retained by the United States for public foot and horse access across the Wilson Mesa parcel (Parcel 4), which is currently managed to allow these uses. • A road reservation for the Alta Lakes Road (NFSR 632) would be retained by the United States for public access across the Alta parcel (Parcel 3C). • A road reservation for the Boomerang Road (NFSR 627) would be retained by the United States for public access across the Alta parcel (Parcel 3D). • A trail reservation for the Alta Lakes Trail (NFST 511) would be retained by the United States for public access across the Alta parcel (Parcel 3D). • A trail reservation for NFST 514 (un-named trail) would be retained by the United States for public access across the Alta parcel (Parcel 3D). • A trail reservation for NFST 515 (un-named trail) would be retained by the United States for public access across Federal Parcel 2. • The Non-Federal Parties would offer an easement to Vincent Mai to replace the Private Road Easement, New Mexico Principal Meridian, T42N, R9W, Section 20: SE ¼ NW ¼, issued to Vincent A Mai dated June 2, 2006 for Federal Parcel 2. Said easement would authorize those rights, privileges and obligations currently authorized by the Forest Service Private Road Easement. • The Non-Federal Parties would offer an easement to Qwest Corporation to replace the Special Use Permit issued to Qwest Corporation dated May 6, 2009 for Federal Parcel 2. Said easement would authorize those rights, privileges and obligations currently authorized by Forest Service Special Use Permit. • The Non-Federal Parties would offer an easement to San Miguel Power Association to replace the Special Use Permit issued to San Miguel Power Association dated June 6, 1988 for the portion of power line that crosses Federal Parcels 3C and 3D. Said easement would authorize those rights, privileges and obligations currently authorized by Forest Service Special Use Permit. • The patent that would be issued for Federal Parcel 2 would be subject to the existing Federal Highway Easement deed dated May 26, 1995 for State Highway 145. • The patent that would be issued for Federal Parcel 3 would be subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act for the existing power withdrawal. • The Non-Federal Parties would execute a suitable easement to replace the Special Use Permit (SUP) issued to the Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District dated June 24, 2005 for

Federal Parcel 4. Said easement would, as a minimum, authorize those rights, privileges and obligations currently authorized by Forest Service special use permit. • A reservation by the United States rights-of-way for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945) would be included in the patents to the Non-Federal Parties. • All mineral estate associated with federal parcels would be conveyed to the Non-Federal Parties. Alternative 3 – Proposed Action with Mountain Bike Trails In response to public comments, concerns and input regarding maintaining access to and use of trails, this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2 while providing for a NFS trail or trails (NFST) that would connect existing trails within the Telluride Ski Area to trails near Sunshine Campground. The proposed modifications to the Alta Lakes trail system is the result of collaboration between the Forest Service and trail advocacy organizations. Maps can be found in Appendix B. The additional aspects of Alternative 3 include: • The Non-Federal Parties would grant temporary trail easements to the United States for certain mountain bike trails located on Federal Parcels 2 and 3A with the understanding that this easement would terminate once those trails are established on NFS lands. These trails would be established on NFS lands within two years after the closing of this land exchange transaction. • 2.9 miles of existing non-system trails would be added to the NFS as an extension to NFST 515. • 2.7 miles of new NFST would be constructed to connect existing trail segments of NFST 515 to the 2.9 miles of existing non-system segments that would be added to the system. • 4.0 miles of non-system trails would be closed and/or reclaimed on NFS lands. 2.2 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail

Purchase Option Under this alternative, 680.7 acres of non-federal land would be purchased from the Non-Federal Parties by the United States of America. The Trust for Public Land facilitates federal agency acquisitions of important parcels by negotiating and temporarily holding non-federal parcels. Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC and Alta Lakes, LLC wish to acquire federal land adjacent to the Skyline Ranch and Alta Lakes properties. Alta Lakes, LLC also wishes to dispose of some of its Alta Lakes property to the United States. Alta Lakes, LLC and TPL are unwilling to sell their land to the United States because they have entered the exchange with the desire to obtain the federal parcels. The GMUG National Forest has been working for the last ten years to acquire a trail right-of-way to Wilson Peak and has worked for numerous years to acquire key inholdings to allow for more efficient management of NFS lands. While purchase of the private lands would provide for better management of the GMUG NF, the purchase option would not meet any of the landowners’ goals and, therefore, the option to purchase the private parcels is not viable. Additionally, funds for acquisition of the non-federal parcels are currently not available. Efforts to secure the necessary appropriation would have to compete against other regional and national requests. Given higher priority requests, it is unlikely that the necessary funds would be appropriated by Congress due to the competitive Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) process.

Deed Restrictions on the Federal Parcels Under this alternative approximately 301.2 acres of federal lands would be conveyed subject to restrictions on future development and use. Unless there is a specific resource concern which would require future protection, it is not the practice of the Forest Service to convey parcels with deed restrictions. Such restrictions place an encumbrance on the property and the full market value of the property is not realized, reducing the value of the federal lands. Thus this alternative was not considered.

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects to the NFS lands of implementing each alternative. The resource effects in Table 2 are brief summaries of some resource areas analyzed in Chapter 3 and demonstrate consideration of law, executive orders, regulation, policy or issues. Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives

Resource Area Alternative 1-No Alternative 2- Alternative 3- Action Proposed Action Proposed Action with Mountain Bike Trails Hazardous Materials Not Present Not present Not Present Threatened and No change Net gain of 14 acres of Same as Proposed endangered species – lynx habitat Action Future development of Canada lynx, Gunnison private property may Possible gain of suitable sage-grouse, result in water habitat for Gunnison Uncompahgre fritillary depletions to sage-grouse if Non- butterfly downstream Colorado Federal Parcel F is River fishes. needed for value equalization. Gain approximately 362 acres of Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat. Future development of private property may result in water depletions to downstream Colorado River fishes. FS sensitive species – No change Boreal toad, Northern Same as Proposed Colorado River leopard frog, and altai Action cutthroat trout cottongrass: net gain in wetland habitat acquired. American three-toed woodpecker: net gain of deadfall/windfall and beetle damaged areas acquired. Northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, and American marten: quality and quantity of habitat for these species remain about the same

Resource Area Alternative 1-No Alternative 2- Alternative 3- Action Proposed Action Proposed Action with Mountain Bike Trails in the exchange. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Arctic braya, stonecrop gilia, Colorado tansy aster and tundra buttercup: high alpine habitat would be acquired. White-tailed ptarmigan: about 363 acres of suitable ptarmigan habitat would be acquired. Chamisso’s cottongrass: wet meadow habitat would be acquired. Valuable aquatic habitat from a fisheries perspective: Cochetopa Creek would be acquired. Management Indicator No change Common trout: habitat Same as Proposed Species (MIS) gained in Cochetopa Action Creek Elk: sensitive elk activity area gained Water rights and water Several Forest Service Reservations for access Same as Proposed resources authorizations for water have been identified and Action facilities/access have included. been identified that are Forest Service lacking. authorizations for water facilities/access have been identified that are lacking; there are fewer of these than under the No Action Alternative. Wetlands and No change Net gain of 14.9 acres of Same as Proposed Floodplains wetlands and 13.7 acres Action of floodplains. No loss of wetlands with unique ecological features or services would occur.

Resource Area Alternative 1-No Alternative 2- Alternative 3- Action Proposed Action Proposed Action with Mountain Bike Trails Cultural Resources No change Loss of two eligible Same as Proposed properties. Loss of Action properties has been mitigated per agreement with State Historic Preservation Office. Recreation – mountain No public access to Public access to Wilson Public access to Wilson bike trails Wilson Peak through Peak through Silver Peak through Silver Silver Pick Basin. Pick Basin secured. Pick Basin secured. A network of non- Loss of 9.6 miles of Addition of 5.6 miles of system trails would non-NFS trails. NFS trails, closure of persist on the landscape 4.0 miles of non-NFS which could lead to trails additional resource damage. Elimination of isolated No change Removes 345.5 acres of Same as Proposed inholdings non-federal inholdings Action Grazing No change Loss of 63 acres of Same as Proposed suitable and capable Action grazing acres Wilderness and roadless No change Gain land in wilderness, Same as Proposed areas proposed wilderness and Action roadless areas

3.0 Environmental Consequences This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above. In determining potential environmental consequences of each alternative, the project interdisciplinary team considered the following: • The probable consequences of each alternative on social, physical, and biological resources. • Achievement of the stated purpose of and need for the project. • Adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines. • Compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. • Future use and management of the lands acquired and conveyed and the effect of the exchange on the lands that adjoin them. The area of analysis for direct and indirect effects includes the federal and non-federal lands identified in the proposed action and the surrounding areas which vary by resource. Analysis is based on the assumption that Federal Parcels (1, 2, 3, and 4) would become private land. This land after exchange could be subject to development although the parcels would be reconfigured with surrounding private lands to conform to San Miguel County zoning requirements. Given the County’s estimation (San Miguel County, 2014), there would be a reduction in development rights after the exchange compared to the current condition. While the Non-Federal Party has indicated his intent to establish conservation easements on Federal Parcel 2 which would further and permanently reduce development potential, these conservation easements are not in place as of the time of analysis. While not required by NEPA, a worst case and entirely speculative scenario has been analyzed in this EA which includes the assumption that private lands in San Miguel County may be developed to the degree allowed by zoning; however this represents a reduction of two development rights in San Miguel County compared to the existing condition. 3.1 Hazardous Materials The Land Transaction Screening Process has been completed for all federal parcels which identify any recognized environmental conditions associated with the property. The associated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports will be updated by the Environmental Professionals, as prescribed under ASTM E 1527-13 standards, who signed these reports prior to the completion of the land exchange. The All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Screening Process has been completed for all non-federal parcels which identify any recognized environmental conditions associated with the property. The AAI rule prescribes federal standards and practices for conducting environmental site assessments of real property prior to acquisition. The associated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reports will be updated by the Environmental Professionals, as prescribed under ASTM E 1527-13 standards, who signed these reports prior to the completion of the land exchange.

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: Numerous areas of mine waste rock and mine tailings exist on the Federal Parcels 3A.1 and 3A.2. According to the Alta Lakes Reclamation Project, Annual Report – 2000 (Ecosystems 2001), all physical reclamation activities associated with the former Socorro Mining Company cyanide heap leaching operations on the Turkey Creek Mesa parcel were completed in 1996 and 1999. The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (CDMG) confirmed that reclamation was complete on the property and released the site from mined land reclamation requirements in 1999. Based on this information and interviews with the property owner representative, the historic heap leaching operations on the federal parcels do not constitute a recognized environmental condition associated with the property.

Non-federal Parcels: The non-federal parcels show no evidence of recognized environmental conditions.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): Since the federal parcels show no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, there would be no change to the existing conditions. Non-federal Parcels (acquired): Since the non-federal parcels show no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, there would be no change to the existing conditions.

Cumulative Effects Due to all parcels showing no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, there would be no cumulative effects. 3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species A Final Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment/MIS Assessment (prepared by ERO 2015) was approved by Forest Service Wildlife Biologist Curtis Keetch on February 4, 2015. The threatened Canada lynx is known have suitable habitat in the exchange parcels. The Gunnison Sage Grouse was listed as threatened and critical habitat designated on November 20, 2014 with an effective date of December 22, 2014. Unlike the Proposed Rule designating critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse, as described in the Preliminary EA for this proposed exchange, the Final Rule no longer designates Critical Habitat on the Fossil Ridge Parcel (Non-Federal Parcel F) or any of the exchange parcels. The endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly has potential habitat in the non-federal parcels. The threatened and endangered Colorado River fish species are not located within any of the exchange parcels however are mentioned because water depletions may affect these species. The findings of the report are briefly summarized below and in the next sections.

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: Federal Parcels 1 (35.7 acres), 2 (138.1 acres), 3 (87.1 acres), and 4 (40.3 acres) together contain approximately 301.2 acres of suitable lynx habitat, the majority of which is located in the Matterhorn Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) (Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and part of 4). A small amount (< 20 acres) is located within the Little Cone LAU (Portion of Federal Parcel 4). Federal Parcels do not contain Gunnison sage-grouse, Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat or Colorado River fish habitat. Non-Federal Parcels: Non-Federal Parcels A (180.2 acres), B (20.7 acres), C (39.2 acres), D (162.6 acres), and E (278 acres) together contain approximately 318 acres of suitable lynx habitat, the majority of which is in the Matterhorn LAU (Non-Federal Parcels A, B, D, and E) and a small amount in the Stewart Creek LAU (Non-Federal Parcel C). The Fossil Ridge parcel (Non-Federal Parcel F) contains an additional 550 acres of suitable lynx habitat that could be acquired within the Fossil Ridge LAU, if needed, for value equalization. While the USFWS had originally proposed to designate critical habitat on Non-Federal Parcel F (Fossil Ridge), the final rule did not designate critical habitat there. There is no occupied suitable Gunnison sage- grouse habitat on any of the exchange parcels or in the Fossil Ridge Parcel. The nearest active Gunnison sage-grouse lek (breeding site) is within four miles of the Fossil Ridge parcel. Non-Federal Parcel F is currently under a private livestock grazing lease. Livestock grazing is one of the threats to the species. Potential Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat may exist in Non-Federal Parcels A (180.2 acres), B (20.7 acres) and D (162.6 acres) due to elevation levels. Surveys have found no indication that butterflies occupy this potential habitat.

The threatened and endangered Colorado River fish species are not located on any of the Non-Federal Parcels. However, if development of these private lands were to occur, it may result in downstream water depletions that may affect these species; because development is not proposed under the No Action Alternative there would be no change in development potential.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): Approximately 301.2 acres of suitable lynx habitat would be transferred from federal to private ownership. Future changes in land use as a private parcel could adversely affect lynx; however, there are no new roads, or other facilities proposed for private or federal parcels that would impact the lynx on these parcels. The quality and quantity of suitable habitat transferred from federal management to private, and from private to federal, is approximately equal. There are no linkage areas in the exchange so Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment objective LINK 01 is not applicable. As it relates to lynx habitat under the Proposed Action there would be no change in physical conditions. Under Proposed Action, system and non-system and system trails would persist on the landscape as they are which would have no new effects on the habitat. Under Alternative 3 there would be 2.7 miles of new trails constructed primarily on existing NFS lands not involved in the exchange and over 3.0 of the 4.0 miles of non-system trails that would be closed and/or reclaimed on existing NFS land not involved in the exchange and Non-Federal Parcels--or a net loss of trails of 1.3 miles of trails on the NFS landscape. The possibility exists with trail reservations on Federal Parcels 2, 3C, and 3D that the changes made to the trail system under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in use because of the formalization of routes on a map and public awareness which cannot be predicted at this time. However, even if use increases as the result of a formalized trail system, it would occur on a smaller footprint within the lynx habitat which improves habitat connectivity. Neither the Proposed Action nor Alternative 3 are anticipated to lead to measureable impacts to lynx habitat above current conditions (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). It is unknown as lands become private (Federal Parcels 2 and 3A) if other non-system routes will be reclaimed. There are no proposals from the Non-Federal Parties to develop the exchanged parcels (Closson, pers. comm. 2013; Rozycki, pers. comm. 2013). While entirely speculative, development could occur on the federal parcels after the exchange as with any private property that is not protected by conservation easements. No developments are planned at this time or in the foreseeable future in the vicinity of the parcels which would affect habitat. According to a letter from San Miguel County the exchange would actually result in a net loss of two private development rights in the area (San Miguel County, 2014). Therefore, it was determined that there would be no effect on lynx as a result of the land exchange. The threatened and endangered Colorado River fish species are not located on any of the Federal Parcels. However, development of private lands may result in downstream water depletions that may affect these species. Since no development is proposed, or is reasonably foreseeable, there would be no effect to the species with the land exchange. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): The Non-Federal Parcels (A, B, C, D and E) contain 318 acres of primary suitable lynx habitat the majority of which is in the Matterhorn LAU and a smaller portion of suitable lynx habitat in the Stewart Creek LAU that would be transferred to federal ownership. The Fossil Ridge parcel (Non-Federal Parcel F) contains approximately 550 acres of additional suitable lynx habitat that might be acquired within the Fossil Ridge LAU, if needed for value equalization. The proposed exchange would result in a 14 acre net gain of suitable lynx habitat and would have no direct or indirect effect on this species. The quality and quantity of suitable habitat transferred from federal management to private, and from private to federal, is approximately equal. There are no linkage areas in the exchange so Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment objective LINK 01 is not applicable.

As it relates to lynx habitat under the Proposed Action there would be no change in physical conditions and non-system and system trails would persist on the landscape as they are which would have no new effects on the habitat. Under Alternative 3 there would be 2.7 miles of new trails constructed primarily on existing NFS lands not involved in the exchange and 4.0 miles of non-system trails that would be closed and/or reclaimed on existing NFS land not involved in the exchange (over 3 miles) and Non-Federal Parcels E1 and E2 (<1 mile) --or a net loss of trails of 1.3 miles of trails on the NFS landscape. The possibility exists with trail reservations on Federal Parcels that the changes made to the trail system under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in use because of the formalization of routes on a map and public awareness which cannot be predicted at this time. However, even if use increases as the result of a formalized trail system, it would occur on a smaller footprint within the lynx habitat which improves habitat connectivity. Neither the Proposed Action nor Alternative 3 are anticipated to lead to measureable impacts to lynx habitat above current conditions (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). Though there is a small net gain of managed lynx habitat associated with this proposed land exchange, it is not expected to have any direct or indirect effect on this species. Approximately 363.2 acres of potential Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly habitat would be obtained in the land exchange. Because this habitat is unoccupied and further would not be developed when in federal ownership, there would be no effect to this species as a result of the land exchange. If the Fossil Ridge parcel is not received in this exchange, it would remain protected from development (a threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse) by its current owner, TPL; however, grazing would continue (also a threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse). If received in the exchange, this parcel would be within the federal Taylor Park Grazing Allotment. The same private grazing lessee is also a federal permittee on the Taylor Park Allotment and the same livestock is rotated between land ownerships. There is not expected to be any change to federally permitted livestock numbers, no change to the grazing scheme and no change to the existing condition of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat as a result of the exchange. In addition, this parcel is currently unoccupied. Therefore there will be no effect to this species or its critical habitat as a result of the land exchange. Because there would be no development of Non-Federal Parcels when they became federally managed, there would be no effect to the Colorado River Fishes from depletions as a result of the land exchange.

Cumulative Effects The proposed exchange would have no direct or indirect effects on Gunnison sage-grouse or Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly and no measurable effects on Canada lynx and therefore no cumulative effects would be expected. While endangered fish habitat is not present in the affected parcels, future development on the exchanged parcels and nearby private could result in water depletions that would have a cumulative effect on downstream threatened and endangered Colorado River fish species. Though development could occur on the federal parcels after the exchange, no developments are planned at this time or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it was determined that there would be no effect to these fish species downstream of the project area as a result of the exchange. 3.3 Forest Service Sensitive Species

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: Several Region 2 (R2) Forest Service sensitive species that potentially occur in the federal parcels: boreal toad (Federal Parcels 2 and 3), Northern leopard frog (Federal Parcels 2 and 3), Northern goshawk (Federal Parcels 1,2 ,3 and 4), American three-toed woodpecker (Federal Parcels 2 and

3), Boreal owl (Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4), olive-sided flycatcher (Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4), American marten (Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4), altai cottongrass (Federal Parcels 2 and 3). Non-Federal Parcels: Several Region 2 (R2) Forest Service sensitive species potentially occur in the non-federal parcels: boreal toad (Non-Federal Parcels C and E) , northern leopard frog (Non-Federal Parcels C and E), northern goshawk (Non-Federal Parcel E), American three-toed woodpecker (Non- Federal Parcel E), white-tailed ptarmigan (Non-Federal Parcels A,B, and D), boreal owl (Non-Federal Parcel E), olive-sided flycatcher (Non-Federal Parcel E), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Non-Federal Parcels A, B, and D), American marten (Non-Federal Parcel E), arctic braya , (Non-Federal Parcels A, B and D), altai cottongrass (Non-Federal Parcels C and E), Chamisso’s cottongrass (Non-Federal Parcel A, B, D), stonecrop gilia (Non-Federal Parcels A, B, and D), Colorado tansy aster (Non-Federal Parcel A, B, D), and tundra butter cup (Non-Federal Parcels A, B, D) and Colorado River cutthroat trout has been documented in the upper reaches of Cochetopa Creek (Non-Federal Parcel C). Forest Service Sensitive Species are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Forest Service Sensitive Species

Sensitive Species Habitat in Federal Habitat in Non-Federal Summary of Exchange Parcels Parcels Effects

Boreal toad Federal Parcels 2 and 3 Non-Federal Parcels C and Net gain of wetlands and E aquatic habitat, including habitat for these species into federal ownership

Northern leopard frog Federal Parcels 2 and 3 Non-Federal Parcels C and Net gain of wetlands and E aquatic habitat, including habitat for these species into federal ownership

Northern goshawk Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Non-Federal Parcel E Quantity and quantity of 4 habitat in federal ownership would remain about the same

American three-toed Federal Parcels 2 and 3 Non-Federal Parcel E Net gain of potential woodpecker habitat into federal ownership

White-tailed ptarmigan N/A Non-Federal Parcels A, B, Gain about 363 acres and D habitat into federal ownership

Boreal owl Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Non-Federal Parcel E Quantity of habitat in 4 federal ownership would remain about the same

Olive-sided flycatcher Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Non-Federal Parcel E Quantity of habitat in 4 federal ownership would remain about the same

Rocky Mountain bighorn N/A Non-Federal Parcels A, B, Gain suitable habitat in

Sensitive Species Habitat in Federal Habitat in Non-Federal Summary of Exchange Parcels Parcels Effects sheep and D federal ownership

American marten Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Non-Federal Parcel E Quantity of habitat in 4 federal ownership would remain about the same

Arctic braya N/A Non-Federal Parcels A, B Gain high alpine habitat and D in federal ownership, no individuals observed

Altai cottongrass Federal Parcels 2 and 3 Non-Federal Parcel C & E Net gain of wetlands and aquatic habitat in federal ownership.

Chamisso’s cottongrass N/A Non-Federal Parcel A, B, Gain subalpine wet and D meadow habitat in federal ownership

Stonecrop gilia N/A Non-Federal Parcels A, B, Gain high alpine habitat D in federal ownership

Colorado tansy aster N/A Non-Federal Parcel A, B, Gain high alpine habitat D in in federal ownership

Tundra buttercup N/A Non-Federal Parcels A, B, Gain high alpine habitat D in in federal ownership

Colorado River cutthroat N/A Non-Federal Parcel C Gain suitable habitat in trout federal ownership

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): As it relates to species found in Federal Parcels 2 and 3, under the Proposed Action, NFS system and user-created trails would persist on the landscape as they are which would have no new effects on the habitat. This would not lead to additional impacts to wildlife (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). Under Alternative 3 there would be 2.7 miles of new trails constructed primarily on existing NFS lands not involved in the exchange and 4.0 miles of non-system trails that would be closed and/or reclaimed on existing NFS land not involved in the exchange (over 3 miles) and Non- Federal Parcels (<1 mile)--or a net loss of trails of 1.3 miles of trails on the NFS landscape. The possibility exists with trail reservations on Federal Parcels 2, 3C, and 3D that the changes made to the trail system under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in use because of the formalization of routes on a map and public awareness which cannot be predicted at this time. However, even if use increases as the result of a formalized trail system, it would occur on a smaller footprint within the species’’ habitat which improves habitat connectivity. Neither the Proposed Action nor Alternative 3 are anticipated to lead to measureable impacts to species’ habitat above current conditions (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). It is unknown as lands become private (Federal Parcels 2 and 3A) if other non-system routes will be reclaimed. Overall, development potential is less than under the No Action Alternative.

Federal monitoring would no longer occur for these species on the Federal Parcels; while there is no impact to the species, there is a potential loss of information. Northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, and American marten: No direct or indirect effects are anticipated on these species. No change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. Quality and quantity of habitat for these species under federal management would remain about the same in the land exchange. For the land exchange, a no effect determination for these species has been made and land exchange is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for any of these species Boreal toad, Northern leopard frog and altai cottongrass: No direct or indirect effects are anticipated and no change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. Less wetland habitat would be exchanged than acquired. For the land exchange, a no effect determination for these species has been made and land exchange is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for any of these species. American three-toed woodpecker: Less deadfall/windfall and beetle damaged areas would be exchanged than acquired. No direct or indirect effects are anticipated and no change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. For the land exchange, a no effect determination for this species has been made and land exchange is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for this species. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): Changes in habitat for Forest service sensitive species are summarized in Table 3 above. Federal monitoring would occur for these species on the Non-Federal Parcels; while there is no impact to the species there is a potential for additional information. As it pertains to Non-Federal Parcel E, sensitive species habitat under the Proposed Action would have no change in physical conditions. Under Proposed Action, system and non-system and system trails would persist on the landscape as they are which would have no new effects on the habitat. Under Alternative 3 there would be 2.7 miles of new trails constructed primarily on existing NFS lands not involved in the exchange and 4.0 miles of non-system trails that would be closed and/or reclaimed on existing NFS land not involved in the exchange (over 3 miles) and Non-Federal Parcels E1 and E2 (<1 mile)--or a net loss of trails of 1.3 miles of trails on the NFS landscape. The possibility exists with trail reservations on Federal Parcels that the changes made to the trail system under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in use because of the formalization of routes on a map and public awareness which cannot be predicted at this time. However, even if use increases as the result of a formalized trail system, it would occur on a smaller footprint within the habitat which improves habitat connectivity. Neither the Proposed Action nor Alternative 3 are anticipated to lead to measurable impacts to sensitive species habitat above current conditions (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). Overall, development potential is less than under the No Action Alternative. Boreal toad, Northern leopard frog, and altai cottongrass: No direct or indirect effects are anticipated and no change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. More wetland habitat would be acquired than exchanged. A no effect determination for these species has been made and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for any of these species. American three-toed woodpecker: More acres of deadfall/windfall and beetle damaged areas would be acquired than exchanged. No direct or indirect effects are anticipated and no change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. A no effect determination for this species has been made and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for any of these species.

Northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, and American marten: No direct or indirect effects are anticipated on these species. No change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. Quality and quantity of habitat for these species under federal management would remain about the same in the land exchange. A no effect determination for these species has been made and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for any of these species Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, Arctic braya, Stonecrop gilia, Colorado Tansy Aster and Tundra Buttercup: No direct or indirect effects are anticipated. High alpine habitat would be acquired in in the land exchange; no suitable habitat transferred from federal ownership. The proposed land exchange will have no effect on these species, and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. White-tailed Ptarmigan: No direct or indirect effects are anticipated. The white-tailed ptarmigan could benefit from federal management and monitoring of potential habitat in the project area. About 363 acres of suitable ptarmigan habitat would be gained by the USFS in the land exchange. The proposed land exchange will have no effect on the white-tailed ptarmigan, and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Chamisso’s cottongrass: No change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. Wet meadow habitat would be gained under federal ownership. There would be a gain in subalpine wet meadow habitat in the land exchange. The plant species could benefit from federal management and monitoring. The proposed exchange will have no effect on these plants, and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The most valuable aquatic habitat from a fisheries perspective, Cochetopa Creek (bisecting Non-Federal Parcel C), would be transferred into federal management. The upper and lower reaches of the creek are already in the La Garita Wilderness and/or under NFS management and receive protection from development. The Colorado River cutthroat trout could benefit from USFS monitoring and management and could lead to improved habitat and increased population. The proposed land exchange will have no effect on Colorado River cutthroat trout and is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Cumulative Effects Due to the finding of “No Effect” for all Forest Service sensitive species, there would be no measurable cumulative effects as a result of the land exchange. In general, more sensitive species habitats would be managed under federal authority with the land exchange. 3.4 Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Northern goshawk, American marten, Rocky Mountain elk, common trout (cutthroat, brook, brown and rainbow), and Merriam’s turkey are MIS for the project area. Northern goshawk and American marten habitat and impacts are addressed in the previous section (Biological Evaluation). No suitable habitat for the Merriam’s turkey occurs in the federal or non-federal parcels and therefore turkeys will not be addressed.

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: Common Trout: Federal parcels support drainages or water bodies large enough to support common trout but do not have documented trout populations (Adams et al 2008a, 2008b, and 2008c; Dare et al 2011). Elk: Most of the area is within Game Management Unit (GMU) 70, for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and hunting is permitted. Within GMU 70, part of Federal Parcel 1is mapped as an Elk

Migration Corridor. All other land exchange parcels are within overall elk range, but do not have any special designation as concentration areas or migration corridors. Non-Federal Parcels: Common Trout: Non-Federal Parcel C (Cochetopa Creek) is documented as supporting trout populations. Brook and Brown trout have been documented in Lower Cochetopa Creek, north of Non-Federal Parcel C. Rainbow trout are not documented on the project parcels (Adams et al 2008a, 2008b, and 2008c; Dare et al 2011). Elk: Elk migration corridors are located on Non-Federal Parcel E1 and winter concentration areas are located on and near Federal Parcel C. Elk use the Fossil Ridge parcel for foraging and as hiding and thermal cover during the summer and fall. Elk also use the parcel during transition in spring and fall, and as winter range. An elk production (calving) area overlaps the east half of the parcel. The non-federal lands comprise 0.16% of GMU 55 and 0.034% of elk habitat on the GMUG National Forests.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): Common Trout: Not present. No effect. Elk: No direct or indirect effects to elk are anticipated. Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, NFS system and user-created trails would persist on the landscape as they are which would have no new effects on the habitat. This would not lead to additional impacts to wildlife (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). The possibility exists that the changes made to the trail system on NFS would result in an increase in use on NFS trails crossing private lands which cannot be predicted at this time. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): Common Trout: No direct or indirect effects to common trout are anticipated. No change in activity is anticipated as a result of the land exchange. The most valuable aquatic habitat from a fisheries perspective, Cochetopa Creek, would be transferred into federal management. The trout could benefit from USFS monitoring and management. The proposed land exchange is consistent with Forest Plan direction as it relates to common trout because the project will improve the ability of the USFS to manage and monitor Cochetopa Creek, which is known habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout. There are no new roads, trails, or other facilities proposed that would impact aquatic habitat. Elk: No direct or indirect effects to elk are anticipated. The most sensitive elk activity areas, Non- Federal Parcels E1 and C, would be transferred into federal management. The elk could benefit from USFS monitoring and management. Under the Proposed Action, system and non-system and system trails would persist on the landscape as they are which would have no new effects on the habitat. Under Alternative 3 there would be 2.7 miles of new trails constructed and 4.0 miles of non-system trails that would be closed and/or reclaimed --or a net loss of trails of 1.3 miles of trails on the landscape. The possibility exists that the changes made to the trail system under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in use because of the formalization of routes on a map and public awareness which cannot be predicted at this time. However, even if use increases, it would occur on a smaller footprint within the habitat which improves habitat connectivity. This would not lead to additional impacts to wildlife (Pers. Comm. Keetch, 2014). The possibility exists that the changes made to the trail system would result in an increase in use which cannot be predicted at this time.

Cumulative Effects Due to the finding of “No Effect” for all management indicator species, there would be no cumulative effects as a result of the land exchange.

3.5 Wetlands and Floodplains A detailed evaluation of wetlands and floodplains involved in the exchange is documented in the Wetland and Floodplain Review, Wilson Peak Land Exchange (ERO, 2014) which is located in the project file. Below is a summary of that evaluation.

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: There are 5.2 acres of wetlands, 9,749 linear feet of perennial drainages, and 1,655 feet of pond shoreline (2.0 acres of surface area) on the federal parcels. There are no floodplain areas on the federal parcels. Non-Federal Parcels: There are 20.1 acres of wetlands, 5,128 linear feet of perennial drainages, and 585 feet of pond shoreline (0.33 acre of surface area) on the non-federal parcels. There are 13.7 acres of floodplain on the non-federal parcels.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): The proposed exchange results in no net loss of wetlands or floodplains. The exchange of Federal Parcel 2 would result in the loss to public access and of management by the Forest Service of approximately 3.0 acres of wetlands and 0.4 acres of open water associated with Beaver Springs Pond and its tributaries (Figure 1). Approximately 1.5 acres of open water from Hiker Lake would be lost to public access or of management by the Forest Service as well. Small lakes and wetlands are common in forested areas with low topographic relief. Loss of public access to or management by the Forest Service of 3.0 acres of wetlands, which are not rare wetland types and contain no unique ecological features or services, will be compensated by a net gain of 14.9 acres of wetlands. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): There is a net gain to the United States of 14.9 acres of wetlands and 13.7 acres of floodplain from the proposed exchange. All 13.7 acres of floodplain and 12.8 acres of wetlands are located on Non-Federal Parcel C and are associated with Cochetopa Creek. Cochetopa Creek is the most valuable aquatic habitat involved in the exchange from a fisheries perspective (ERO, 2013). The transfer into public ownership of this broad wetland floodplain would mitigate the loss in this exchange of wetlands, which have less or equal value with respect to ecology and wildlife habitat.

Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects are expected due to the net gain of wetlands and floodplains by the United States because development is not proposed which would affect either wetlands or floodplains on public or private lands. 3.6 Water Rights and Water Resources The following information and recommendations concerning water rights involved in the proposed exchange are based on the following documents: • Summary of Findings for Special Use Authorizations for Water Facilities Involved in Wilson Peak Land Exchange – Prepared by Linda Bledsoe, Realty Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District – September 29, 2014, revised October 14, 2014, and December 19, 2014 and January 14, 2015. This Report is Located in its entirety in Appendix E. • Water Rights Report – Supplemental Report – Wilson Peak Land Exchange – Prepared by Gary Shellhorn, Hydrologist, GMUG Supervisor’s Office – August 6, 2014

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: All or portions of the following reservoirs, structures and/or diversions and their associated water rights are located on federal land:

• Alta Reservoir No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Alta Pipeline – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Gold King Pipeline – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Chatauqua, Enterprise and Skyline Main Service Ditch System – Owned by Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, Alta Investments, LLC and Vincent Mai • Other facilities (detailed list and discussion in Appendix E) associated with the above ditch system – Owned by Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, Alta Investments, LLC and Vincent Mai. Some of these facilities, including Beaver Springs Pond, have disputed water rights. This is also discussed in Appendix E. • Kittler Spring No. 1-- Owned by The Kittler Living Trust, in immediate vicinity, but not believed to be affected by proposed land exchange • Elk Creek Pipeline-– Owned by Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District • Jackie Spring– Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC Non-Federal Parcels: All or portions of the following reservoirs, structures and/or diversions and their associated water rights are currently located on non-federal land: • Boulder Placer Ditch – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Gold King Pipeline – Owned by Alta Lakes, LLC • Chatauqua, Enterprise and Skyline Main Service Ditch System – Owned by Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC and Alta Investments, LLC On some of the private parcels, there are minimum stream flows decreed for the benefit of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) that will be retained by private parties subject to valid existing water rights and not affected by the exchange. These include: • Big Bear Creek – Non-Federal Parcel A • Bilk Creek – Non-Federal Parcel A • Elk Creek – Non-Federal Parcels A and B Because there are no diversion structures for these private water rights, no protections need to be included in the warranty deeds for the land exchange. Any future diversions in the creeks would be junior to these rights under Colorado water law. No physical change to water resources or water rights would occur under the No Action Alternative. However, if the land exchange does not occur, then there are several Forest Service authorizations that have been identified that would be required as follows: • All three Alta Reservoirs, the Alta Pipeline and the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline should be included as a system in a new FLPMA special use permit. • The water rights holders for the Chatauqua, Enterprise and Skyline Main Service Ditch System would be required to obtain FLPMA permits. • Jackie Spring (Alta Lakes, LLC), would require a FLPMA permit. • All, or part, of the Alta Pipeline, owned by Alta Lakes, LLC, might qualify for an administrative acknowledgment of an easement under the Act of July 26, 1866 (1866 Act easement); however, additional research would be needed to make that acknowledgment. If an 1866 Act easement could not be acknowledged, the pipeline’s owners would be required to obtain a FLPMA special use permit and could be included in the system permit for the Alta Reservoirs and Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline. The water rights holder could forego the 1866 Act easement research and just include the pipeline in a FLPMA special use permit.

• Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline would require a FLPMA special use permit to be issued. This pipeline could be included in a system permit, along with the Alta Reservoirs and, the Alta Pipeline. • The legal description in the water rights information indicates Kittler Spring No. 1 could be located on Federal Parcel 3C; however, the field GIS coordinates shows it to be just outside of the east boundary of the Kittler Living Trust property line which is also NFS lands, but would not be involved in the land exchange. As the spring is located on NFS lands, an authorization would be required to be obtained by Kitler Living Trust.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Valid existing State water rights would not be impacted by the land exchange. Our research has indicated some deficiencies on both federal and non-federal parcels requiring permits or water rights clarification. No Change from Existing Condition: • The Alta Reservoirs would still occupy NFS lands after the exchange is completed. It is recommended that all three reservoirs, the Alta Pipeline and the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline be included as a system in a new FLPMA special use permit. • Because the Boulder Placer Ditch is on private land, no permit would be needed from the Forest Service. • Because Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC is also the water rights holder for the Chatauqua, Enterprise and Skyline Main Service Ditch System, no permit would need to be issued or easement prepared. • Other facilities (a list of specific facilities is included in Appendix E under Skyline Main Service Ditch “Other Facilities” discussion) associated with the Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, property that are located on NFS lands (including Beaver Springs Pond) should have been authorized by the Forest Service. However, upon completion of the exchange, they would all be located on property owned Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, which also holds water rights for the facilities. Water rights are also held by Alta Investments, LLC and Vincent Mai. As with the Enterprise, Chatauqua and Skyline Main Service Ditches, there is a decreed agreement in place between Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, and Alta Investments, LLC, for use of the facilities. Because of that agreement, there does not appear to be a need for Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC to execute easements to Alta Investments, LLC, once the land is conveyed to private ownership. There is no such agreement between Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, and Vincent Mai. Because both the point of diversion for the Mais’ water right and the PVC pipe through which water flows from the west side of Beaver Springs Pond are located on Mais’ property, the Forest Service is unable to identify any access needs the Mais would need to any part of Beaver Springs Pond not on their property. Future protection of the water rights holders due to speculative upstream diversions also was expressed as a concern; however appropriation of the water or a change in diversion points would be administered by the State. Nothing in this land exchange proposal would impact State water rights or the State’s processes. Also expressed as a concern was future protection of Beaver Springs Pond should the upper end of the pond become privately owned and subject to potential modification. Even if there were a Forest Service authorization in place for the portion of the pond on NFS lands and that authorization were to be replaced by an easement from the Proponent, the Forest Service could only require that an easement issued by the Proponent authorize the current improvements. Should that land be conveyed from federal to private ownership, while the Forest Service no longer would have authority over the pond, the State Engineer’s Office, Army Corps of Engineers, and San Miguel County have rules and regulations that could protect the water rights holders’ interests should modification of the pond or other facilities be proposed.

• Jackie Spring is located on NFS lands (Federal Parcel 3D) and has no Forest Service authorization. Because the parcel would be conveyed to Alta Lakes, LLC, no permit would be necessary upon completion of the exchange. Federal Parcels (exchanged): • Part of the Alta Pipeline, which is owned by Alta Lakes, LLC, would still occupy NFS lands after completion of the land exchange and thus would need to be authorized by a special use permit. It would likely be included in the permit for the water system that includes the Alta Reservoirs and the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline. • Some of the NFS lands crossed by the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline (Federal Parcel 3D) would be conveyed into private ownership; however, it appears that a portion of the pipeline would still cross NFS lands after the exchange. Because of that, a FLPMA special use permit should be issued for the portion still located on NFS lands. This pipeline could be included in a system permit with the Alta Reservoirs and, the Alta Pipeline. • The legal description in the water rights information indicates Kittler Spring No. 1 could be located on Federal Parcel 3C; however, the field GIS coordinates shows it to be just outside of the east boundary of the Kittler Living Trust property line which is also NFS lands, but not involved in the land exchange. As the spring would still be located on NFS lands outside of the exchange area, an authorization would be required to be obtained by Kittler Living Trust, but not as part of the exchange. • The Trust for Public Land would need to provide an easement to the Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District for the portion of the Elk Creek Pipeline (and access road) now crossing Federal Parcel 4. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): • A portion of the Gold King Pipeline is located on private lands, which are proposed to be conveyed into federal ownership (Non-Federal Parcels E4 and E6). Alta Lakes, LLC may consider reserving an easement for that portion of the pipeline in the warranty deed. The remainder of the pipeline would still be located on NFS lands, and a new FLPMA permit should be issued for that portion. An operation and maintenance (O&M) plan would be required for the pipeline, even with the reservation.

Cumulative Effects No cumulative effects with respect to water rights are expected from this exchange. 3.7 Cultural Resources

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: The federal parcels were inventoried for cultural resources. Two sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places exist. One of these is Boomerang Road (NFSR 627), which is eligible because it contributes to understanding broad patterns of our history, provided access to the Gold King Mine and linked Alta with Telluride- both of which were early mining settlements. The other site is a small portion of the historic Alta Townsite. Alta Townsite is eligible because it has the ability to convey its significance to a visitor and is related to important events in state history. The federal parcel containing a small portion of the Alta Townsite has no standing structures but a number of important archaeological features and artifacts. Non-Federal Parcels: A portion of the Boomerang Road occurs on Non-Federal Parcel E1. This segment, like the segment on Federal Parcel 3D, may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Non-Federal parcels are not required to be inventoried as part of the exchange parcels.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): Approximately six to seven hundred feet of the historic Boomerang Road (NFSR 627) corridor would be conveyed with Federal Parcel 3D, and the public use of this road would be preserved with a road reservation on the Patent, reserved to the United States, therefore there would be no impact to that resource from the conveyance. Cultural properties associated with the Alta Townsite would be transferred out of the federal management to private ownership. In consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office, the national Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, San Miguel County and Alta Lakes, LLC, as invited parties, a mitigation plan was developed that would address recovery of archaeological data values and avenues for the public to learn about and enjoy the historical Alta Townsite. Public access to this interpretive site would be preserved. This plan, which was finalized on January 5, 2015 in a Memorandum of Agreement signed by all the parties, would mitigate the adverse effects of loss of the portions of the site, in compliance with the process outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations found in 36 CFR 800 by excavating the site, meeting reporting requirements and providing interpretive signing. With this agreement in place, the land exchange would not have a significant impact on cultural resources. Non Federal Parcels (acquired): Approximately four thousand feet of the Boomerang Road (NFSR 627) which may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be acquired in the exchange. It is unknown what other cultural sites would be acquired.

Cumulative Effects The addition of informative signage to the historic Alta Townsite may result in increased visitation to the area which may increase the potential for vandalism. Due to the well-known nature of the site today the signage emphasizing protection of the site, it is not expected that this increase would be significant. 3.8 Minerals A Mineral Potential Report for the proposed Wilson Peak Land Exchange for the Uncompahgre National Forest, Saguache, San Miguel, and Dolores Counties, Colorado was prepared by Ryan Taylor, a former GMUG Forest Geologist, on September 11, 2013. The Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management has concurred on the Forest Service Minerals Report.

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: There is no evidence of known locatable mineral deposits, obvious mineral exploration or development, or active mining claims on any of the parcels. Federal Parcels 1, 2, and 3 have low potential for locatable mineral (lode) deposits and a low potential for locatable placer deposits. Federal Parcel 4 has no indicated potential for locatable mineral lode deposits and has no indicated potential for locatable placer deposits. There is no indicated potential for foreseeable development of mineral material resources or the accumulation of critical and strategic material resources. Although several of the parcels contain geologic units that may support oil and gas resources, these units are not currently developed either because of lack of mineral resources or because exploration has not occurred. The indicated potential for oil and gas is low. The potential for geothermal resources is low, with a moderate level of uncertainty. The potential for leasable minerals other than oil, gas or geothermal is considered to be no indicated potential. A northwest portion of Federal Parcel 2 is subject to Public Land Order (PLO) 1378, a withdrawal that reserves lands within the Uncompahgre National Forest for use by the Forest Service as a recreation area, specifically Sunshine Campground. To reserve this area for this particular public purpose, this withdrawal removes the area from settlement, location or entry under some or all of the general land laws. The withdrawal area is located on both the west and east sides of Highway 145, with Sunshine Campground

being on the west side of the highway. This withdrawal reserves a total of 50 acres of National Forest System lands. The portion of the withdrawal located on the east side of Highway 145 encompasses approximately 22 of the 50 acres and is no longer needed for the protection of the Sunshine Campground. The Forest Service is modifying the withdrawal to remove the 22 acres on the east side of Highway 145. The Application to Modify or Revoke a Mineral Withdrawal is currently on file with the Bureau of Land Management Non-Federal Parcels: Any existing mineral estates associated with the non-federal parcels would remain unchanged.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): The mineral estates on the federal parcels would be conveyed to the Non- Federal Parties with the surface estate as part of the land exchange. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): The mineral estates underlying Non-Federal Parcels A, B, D, and E would be donated to the United States by the Non-Federal Parties. These lands would then take on acquired status and be closed to future mineral entry under the 1872 Mining Law. The mineral estate underlying Non-Federal Parcel C would be conveyed to the United States. The United States already owns the mineral estate underlying Non-Federal Parcel F. Lands acquired within designated wilderness would be withdrawn from mineral entry in accordance with the Wilderness Act.

Cumulative Effects Based on the evaluation of the parcels, future mineral development is not expected. Remnants of past mining activities still persist on the landscape, but have been removed or reclaimed to the extent that they do not pose a hazard to the public. 3.9 Recreation

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: Telluride Snowmobile Adventures is authorized by the Forest Service for activities on Federal Parcel 2 through the 2016/17 season. Base facilities were initially thought to exist by all parties on private lands, but surveys have indicated this is actually on Federal Parcel 2. Federal Parcels 2 and 3A contain portions of the non-system Alta Trails. The Alta Trails are used by mountain bikes as part of a larger loop which would be referred to here as the Telluride Loop. Many of the existing trails are considered advanced trails and require greater skill to navigate because of their steep grades and poor overall condition. There is currently a lack of loop and advanced opportunities for mountain bikes in Telluride. As a result, the trails have become very popular and important to the mountain bike community, especially cross country riders, looking for a longer distance trail experience. The Alta trails generally serve as a connector between the Prospect and Sunshine trails. Typically, mountain bikers take the gondola from Telluride or Mountain Village to Station St. Sophia where they exit the gondola. The Prospect Trail (NFST 413) is then used to connect to the Alta trails and then west to Highway 145. At Highway 145, mountain bikers take the Sunshine Trail (NFST 498) down to the Ilium Valley and then ride the Galloping Goose Trail (NFST 625) to Society Turn. The last leg of the loop is across the valley floor back to Telluride or Mountain Village. The trails are also used by horses and hikers. Although it is not common, some mountain bikers ride up the Alta road (FDR 632) to the town site where they connect to the Alta Trails and loop back to Highway 145. The trails are primarily used by local mountain bikers and are not managed, maintained or signed by the Forest Service. Trail users clear the trails of blowdown, but there is not any tread maintenance being conducted. There are not any surface water drainage features such as rolling dips or water bars on any of

the trails. Most of the trail alignments follow the fall line, which allows water to flow down the trail causing erosion and incising the tread. Without adequate drainage and regular maintenance, fall-line trails would continue to deteriorate and eventually become unusable. The International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) uses a design element called the “Half Rule.” The rule states that trail grades should be no more than half of the side slope grade. If it is more than half it becomes a fall-line trail. Typically the goal is to have a trail grade of less than 10% and if it is steeper than that the surface needs to be hardened. Some of the trails inventoried have fall line grades in excess of 30%. Because of the steep grades, many sections of trails are eroded and braided. The trails were never professionally designed and have the typical problems of trails that are not built to be sustainable or with the necessary technical reviews. The trails are located on a mixed ownership of public and private land. The trails were never authorized and easements across private property were never secured. Trespass on private land remains a problem as many of the trails cross private land without permission. The proliferation of the trail system is continuing without regard for public or private land. Since the trails are not part of the designated travel system, basic infrastructure such as trail signs and markers are nonexistent. Unsuspecting mountain bikers who leave the ski area often become lost in the maze of trails. Local mountain bike shops and bikers recommend the trails to visitors who end up lost or on private property. Trail maps produced locally encourage use of the non-system routes. The lack of signage makes the trails difficult to safely navigate and takes away from the overall experience. The current trail experience is unmanaged with trails that are in poor condition, do not have signage and encourage trespass. Non-Federal Parcels: Sections of the Rock of Ages Trail to Wilson Peak are located within Parcel A, currently owned by TPL. No written easements exist across TPL’s property.

Environmental Consequences Proposed Action Federal Parcels (exchanged): Telluride Snowmobile Adventures is authorized by the Forest Service for operations on snow in Federal Parcel 2 through the 2016/17 season. Telluride Snowmobile Adventures have indicated via letter to the Forest Service that they would be granted permission by the Non-Federal Parties to operate their base facilities on that parcel, in the same location, until at least the 2016/17 season should the land exchange be completed prior to then. Trail/road reservations for Elk Creek Trail (NFST 421.1A),Alta Lakes Road (NFSR 632), Boomerang Road (NFSR 627), Alta Lakes Trail (NFST 511), NFST 514, and NFST 515 would be retained by the United States to provide public access. Under the proposed action, the existing trails that are located on Parcels 2 and 3 would become private land and those trails would most likely be closed. Retaining easements by the United States for the user-created trails that cross Parcels 2 and 3 would not be necessary since the trails would not be added to the NFS trail system. The trails on NFS land would remain non-system routes and would be decommissioned in accordance with the 2002 Uncompahgre Travel Plan, but not necessarily in relation to decisions based on this land exchange. Decommissioning the trails would address erosion, water quality, wetland impacts and trespass on private property. The proposed action would not address the potential loss of mountain bike trails that would occur in the Alta Lakes area. The concern raised by the public about the loss of mountain bike trails would be analyzed and dismissed. This alternative would have a negative effect on existing mountain biking trails in the Telluride region. Mountain bike opportunities would not be enhanced and the Alta Trails would be closed. A single track trail connection between the Prospect Trail and the Sunshine Trail would not be available. Mountain bikes would still be able to connect the Prospect Trail and the Sunshine Trail by following the Boomerang Road and then taking the Alta Road to the Sunshine Trail. In addition, existing opportunities for hiking and horseback riding would be lost. The public would view this as a loss since the trails have been used for many years.

Although the Alta Trails are not system trails, they are very popular with the public and receive moderate use. Compared to other resort communities like Crested Butte and Breckenridge that offer extensive mountain bike trail systems, Telluride has a limited amount of trails. By not addressing the trails as part of this project, an opportunity to enhance mountain biking in Telluride would be overlooked. Public concern for protecting the Alta Trails in some manner would not be accomplished. Mountain biking in the Alta area would be diminished. In addition, the proposed action would not provide any direction on how to manage the popular non-system trails. The public’s request to retain all or a portion of these trails would not occur. While important to the public, from the larger scale of mountain bike opportunities in the greater Telluride area and the Uncompahgre National Forest, the loss of mountain bike trails in this relatively small area would not be significant. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): The acquisition of Parcel A would provide the public a perpetual legal access to the entire length of the Rock of Ages Trail and the summit of Wilson Peak.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 3 Federal Parcels (exchanged): Telluride Snowmobile Adventures is authorized by the Forest Service for operations on snow in Federal Parcel 2 through the 2016/17 season. Telluride Snowmobile Adventures have indicated via letter to the Forest Service that they would be granted permission by the Non-Federal Parties to operate their base facilities on that parcel, in the same location, until at least the 2016/17 season should the land exchange be completed prior to then. Trail/road reservations for Elk Creek Trail (NFST 421.1A),Alta Lakes Road (NFSR 632), Boomerang Road (NFSR 627), Alta Lakes Trail (NFST 511), NFST 514, and NFST 515 would be retained by the United States to provide public access. Under Alternative 3 there would be 2.7 miles of new trails constructed primarily on existing NFS lands not involved in the exchange and 4.0 miles of non-system trails that would be closed and/or reclaimed on existing NFS land not involved in the exchange (over 3 miles) and Non-Federal Parcels E1 and E2 (< 1 mile). The mountain bike trail alternative was developed with a working group that consisted of the Telluride Mountain Club (TMC), San Miguel Bike Alliance and San Miguel County. The process was a collaborative effort to develop a proposal that addressed the potential loss of mountain bike trails in the project area. The alternative was refined as new information became available. See Appendix B map. In the development of Alternative 3, trails that did not meet Forest Service trail standards or have sustainable alignments were analyzed, dismissed and recommended for closure. Trails that were inventoried and not recommended for inclusion had a number of resource concerns. Some of the resource concerns associated with the different trails were unsustainable alignments, poor drainage, erosion or they were located in or adjacent to wetlands. Many of the trails that were not considered were in poor condition due to steep grades and erosion. New sustainable trail alignments that meet current standards and specifications were considered instead. The Magic Meadows Trail (NFST 515 & 515.A) would be added to the NFS system. Issues raised by the public during the scoping period would be addressed by providing a designated mountain bike trail that connects the Prospect Trail and the Sunshine Trail. Recreation opportunities would be enhanced and mountain bike use would increase. The remainder of the trails inventoried would be decommissioned either by hand or with mechanized equipment. The trail would be numbered, signed and shown on maps helping to reduce the number of users getting lost. The trail would complete the larger Telluride Loop. The Magic Meadows Trail is the most sustainable of all the trails inventoried and could be brought to Forest Service standards with the least amount of time, money and effort. For the most part, the trail follows a contoured alignment and would need basic tread work such as installing drainage controls, improving stream crossings and armoring steeper sections. In addition to the tread work that would be

required, there are a number of sections that would need to be rerouted to relocate the trail off of land that would become private after the land exchange. The Non-Federal Parties would grant a trail easement to the United States for certain mountain bike trails located on Federal Parcels 2 and 3A with the agreement that this easement would terminate once new trails are constructed on NFS lands. These new trails would be constructed on NFS lands within two years after the closing of this land exchange transaction. The proposed reroutes are very feasible and the construction could be done by a contractor. There is a monetary cost of adopting any non-system trail and bringing it to Forest Service specifications. It is hard to project what the cost would be, but since the Magic Meadows Trail has not been maintained in many years, the deferred maintenance needs on the trail are high. The work could be completed with a combination of Congressionally-appropriated funds, grant funding, and volunteers. Bringing the trail to standard should be completed in a timely manner as use would increase once the trail is designated and signed. Trails would be managed for non-motorized uses only. Because the trail system proposed in Alternative 3 is a combination of adoption, construction and reclamation of existing routes, formalization of routes is would be expected to have few if any measurable effects to recreation opportunities available in the area. The formalization of a system would support more sustainable trail features and would minimize impacts to surrounding natural and physical resources from recreational use. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): The acquisition of Parcel A would provide a perpetual public access to the entire length of the Rock of Ages Trail and the summit of Wilson Peak.

Cumulative Effects The demand for mountain bike trails in Telluride is high and would only increase as the sport grows. Proposed Action does not address recreation demand and unsustainable, non-system trails would continue to be used which would continue to impact other resources such as soils and watershed conditions. Alternative 3 would address public demand by enhancing mountain biking opportunities. Public concern about the loss of mountain bike trails due to the exchange of NFS lands would no longer be an issue. The proposal that was developed in partnership with the TMC, SMBA and San Miguel County offers a comprehensive and well thought out plan for managing the Alta Trails. Resource concerns related to the trails were addressed and the overall mountain biking experience in Telluride would be improved. In addition to adopting the Magic Meadows Trail, developing new trail opportunities in the Turkey Creek/Alta Lakes area would help meet future demand for mountain bike trails. The rolling topography of the Turkey Creek Mesa is conducive to designing sustainable trails. Adding a new trail that connects from the ski area to the Magic Meadows Trail would add diversity and improve the overall trail system. The new trail could be designed in a manner that would allow bikes to be able to ride in both directions and loop back to the ski area. Developing a new trail would help to spread out the projected increase in use the area would receive if the Magic Meadows Trail is designated as an NFS trail. 3.10 Grazing

Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Grazing allotments and permits authorizing the use of NFS lands exist within the exchange area. Allotments are much larger than exchange parcels. Parcels or individual tracts of parcels may occur in multiple or different allotments. Allotments contain a mixture of lands that are considered suitable or non- suitable for grazing or capable and non-capable of supporting livestock. Just because an allotment is currently closed, it does not mean that it could not be reopened in a future decision. Also, just because a non-Federal parcel is in private ownership does not mean that it isn’t being grazed; just that it isn’t under a federal grazing permit.

Table 4. Overview of existing federal grazing allotments and parcels impacted by the land exchange.

Federal Allotment/ Parcel Allotment/Parcel Size Permitted Animal Unit Range Condition Status (acres) Months (AUMs ) East Fall C&H 2330 0 Allotment closed Federal 4 40.3 0 Suitable and capable Non-Federal B ~10 N/A Neither suitable nor capable Pick C&H 3701 113 1,536 acres are considered suitable for livestock grazing; remaining 2,165 acres are unsuitable for grazing because of steep slopes and low forage production Non-Federal A 10.3 N/A Neither suitable nor capable. Non-Federal B ~ 10 N/A Neither suitable nor capable. Alta C&H 9,396 0 Allotment closed Federal 1 35.7 0 Mix of lands suitable and capable for cows and suitable and capable for sheep. Federal 2 138.1 0 Mix of capable/not capable and mostly not suitable. Federal 3A.1, 3A.3 3.42 0 Mostly suitable and capable. Federal 3B 5.3 0 Neither suitable nor capable. Federal 3C 34 0 Suitable and capable. Federal 3D 90.6 0 Suitable and capable. Non-Federal E1, E2, E3, 292.1 N/A Neither suitable nor E4, E5, and E6 capable. Basin-Lake/ Prospect- 7,908/17,121 0 Allotment closed Ophir Non-Federal D 162.6 N/A Neither suitable nor capable. Taylor Park 220,674 7,163 Non-Federal F (Fossil Up to 613.5 Currently leased Mix of small meadows, Ridge) aspen, lodge pole and some spruce fir. Cattle currently use the land as it has been leased to one of the two existing permittees. Mix of suitable/non-suitable and capable/not capable. Cochetopa 19,005 3,854 Non-Federal C 39.2 N/A Grassland, riparian and (Eddiesville) some spruce/ fir. Mostly Suitable/capable.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Overall the land exchange would result in a loss of approximately 63 acres of land suitable and capable for livestock grazing in San Miguel County under federal management. Since these affected lands are mostly on closed allotments, there would be no impact to AUMs. Depending upon value determinations, allotments in Saguache County could see the addition of suitable/capable acres. This is summarized by allotment below. East Fall C&H - While the overall allotment size would decrease by approximately 30 acres, the land exchange would result in the loss of approximately 40 acres of lands suitable and capable for grazing within this allotment. This would have no effect on AUMs as the allotment is closed. Pick C&H – A land exchange involving Non-Federal Parcels A and B could result in the addition of approximately 20 acres of land that are neither suitable nor capable of supporting livestock. Addition of acres within the Pick Allotment would have no effect on permitted AUMs. Alta C&H – A land exchange involving Federal Parcels 1, 2, 3A.1, 3A.3, 3B, 3C, 3D and Non-Federal Parcels E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6 would result in net loss of approximately 23 acres of lands suitable and capable for grazing cattle or sheep. As this allotment is closed, there would be no effect on AUMs. Basin-Lake/Prospect-Ophir – A land exchange involving Non-Federal Parcel D would result in the addition of approximately 163 acres of land that are neither suitable nor capable of supporting livestock. As both allotments are closed, addition of acres within either the Basin-Lake/ Prospect-Ophir allotments would have no effect on AUMs. Taylor Park -If Non-Federal Parcel F is needed for equalization of values for the land exchange, some acres of suitable/capable and not suitable/not capable could become part of the federal grazing permit. As this land is already grazed by a federal permittee, there is unlikely to be a change to AUMs to any of the five permittees. Cochetopa -If Non-Federal Parcel C is needed for equalization of values for the land exchange, Parcel C which is mostly suitable/capable would become available for grazing. The Gunnison Ranger District would incorporate the parcel into the allotment and assess the land to determine whether or not to increase the permitted AUMs.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for this land exchange is the affected districts. Norwood Ranger District has 44,490 AUMs permitted on 277,714 acres of NFS lands. There are no vacant allotments on Norwood. The land exchange would not be expected to adversely affect any permitted AUMs on the Norwood Ranger District. Gunnison Ranger District has 54,599 permitted AUMs on 1,098,061 NFS acres (active allotments). Total area of active allotments is 1,155,695 acres (this includes private and other non-FS lands). Gunnison also has 75,164 vacant NFS acres, which means that these allotments could be active at some point in the future, but there are no AUMs attached to them now. Cumulatively, the land exchange would be expected to positively impact less than 0.01% of permitted AUMs on the Gunnison Ranger District if parcels were included for equalization of values. Grazing across these districts would continue to be affected by availability of forage as the result of weather/precipitation and other activities such as recreation, vegetation or other management and use. Construction of trail segments that removes additional vegetation that results from the land exchange (Alternative 3) or subsequent planning efforts could also remove suitable and capable lands from production in the long term on the Pick Allotment, but this would not be expected to result in a change from current conditions due to the existence of non-system trails already in the area some of which would be reclaimed.

3.11 Socio-economics Social and economic analyses are conducted by the Forest Service to determine the effects the agency has on local communities and people using natural resources. A social impact is a change in social and cultural conditions that directly or indirectly results from a Forest Service action. Social and economic impacts are closely linked and interdependent. However, social impacts focus on cultural and lifestyle changes that could occur, while economic impacts occur when Forest Service actions directly or indirectly change the employment and/or income in the area. Existing Condition (No Action Alternative) Property Value The median value of a housing unit in San Miguel County is $489,800, more than double the state average of $236,800 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Personal and resource values associated with open spaces, public land or desire for growth and development would continue. Neighboring Mai Property The Mais own property adjacent to Federal Parcel 2 and have expressed concern that their property value would be adversely affected by their neighboring land becoming privately owned versus National Forest. The current value of the Mais property is unknown. Presently the Mai family, like many private landowners who abut National Forest System lands, is able to walk directly onto NFS lands from their property. Pedestrian access by the Mais would continue under the No Action alternative. The Forest Service issued a Private Road Easement to Vincent A. Mai (NOR184) in 2006 which authorized vehicular access across Federal Parcel 2 from Highway 145 to the Mai residence. This easement would continue to be in effect. Development Potential Analysis has been conducted by San Miguel County Planning Department in compliance with County zoning laws (San Miguel County, 2014). The Forestry, Agriculture & Open Zone District and the High Country Area Zone District both require a 35 acre minimum lot size for each development right unless the parcel is a pre-existing, non-conforming parcel created before 1972 that is less than 35-acres. San Miguel County is unaware of any subject properties less than 35 acres in size involved in the land exchange. The San Miguel County Planner included the parcels that may not be conveyed to provide for equal values in his calculations. Pre-exchange the existing Skyline Ranch and Alta privately-owned properties have 16 total development rights or home sites. These are summarized below: • Skyline Ranch Trust: Skyline Ranch Trust has six development rights on two County lots property zoned Low Density. The first County lot has three development rights and an existing residence; the second lot has one development right and an existing residence. A conservation easement, held by The Nature Conservancy, has been established on the Skyline Ranch Trust parcel. Current and future development is further restricted by the terms of the Conservation Easement. • Alta Property (excludes lode claims owned by Alta Lakes, LLC): Alta Lakes LLC owns 400 acres zoned Forestry, Agriculture & Open that has six potential development sites and 140 acres zoned High Country Area with four potential development sites. • Wilson Mesa Parcel: Federal land is not subject to county zoning or development. Environmental Justice (EJ) The Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (February 1994) places attention on any adverse human health and environmental effects of agency actions that could disproportionately impact minority

45 and low-income populations. Low-income populations are households that live below the subsistence or poverty level as defined by local, state, or national government. The Order simultaneously directs federal agencies to avoid making decisions that discriminate against these communities. Environmental justice means that to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law 1) populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, and 2) are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment. For purposes of this section, minority and low income populations are defined as follows: • Minority populations are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin of any race, Blacks or African Americans, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders. • Low-income populations are persons living below the poverty level. In 2013, the poverty weighted average threshold for a family of four was $23,550 and $11,490 for an unrelated individual (U.S Health and Human Services, 2013). The area of influence for the social and economic elements of this EA includes San Miguel County in west central Colorado. San Miguel County is the sole area of influence because any changes in housing opportunities related to the land exchange would be concentrated here not in Gunnison County where parcels involved in the exchange are already owned by TPL and protected from development. San Miguel County comprises 1,287 square miles with 5.7 people per square mile and a total population of 7,359 people in 2010 (estimated at 7,678 in 2013). San Miguel County population grew by 4.3% between 2000 and 2013. The U.S. Census Bureau (2012) data indicates that there were 6,610 housing units in San Miguel County, 3,250 of which were vacant. This corresponds to a vacancy rate of 49.2%. San Miguel County had a home ownership rate of 64.1%, less than the state average of 65.9%. Approximately 41.9% of the housing units are multi-unit structures (i.e., apartments, townhouses, etc.). From 2008-2012, there was a rental vacancy of 25.7% (nearly four times higher than the state average). In 2013, approximately 12.6% of San Miguel County’s residents were minorities and approximately 7.3% of the population was living below the poverty level. Minority populations and low income populations in San Miguel County were significantly lower than for the state of Colorado.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Property Values The land exchange would have no impact on median house prices, which are considered high for Colorado. Personal and resource values associated with open spaces and public land or desire for growth and development would be maintained. Some lands involved within the land exchange would become public, available for multiple use management. Some of that would be managed as wilderness or as a roadless area which would preclude future development. Exchanged lands would become private and available for development; however development is not reasonably foreseeable and conservation easements are being considered. These changes in land ownership would not be expected to change property or resource values for the residents of San Miguel County. Neighboring Mai Property The Mais believe that the loss of NFS lands adjacent to their property through the land exchange would adversely affect the value of their property. The effect on home values as a result of proximity to NFS lands has been studied by Ham et al. (2012) and other studies referenced by her. Studies have found positive and negative effects on sale prices of homes located near NFS lands depending on the land management activities occurring relative to the houses. Ham et al. found the following for houses within

two miles of Pike National Forest, Colorado which represents a similar scenario to that proposed in this land exchange: • All things being equal, owning property near or adjacent to public land where noise-intensive activities are not taking place has a positive effect on home sales values. • Treatment of the national forest as a homogenous land type overstates the benefits for houses located within two miles of noisy land uses. Currently, the NFS lands adjacent to the Mais’ property are managed with an emphasis on rural and roaded-natural recreation activities. The potential exists for an introduction or increase in noise-intensive activities, which have been shown to negatively affect home prices. An example of this would be an increase in vehicular traffic due to the relocation of the Alta Lakes Road closer to the Mai property, which was proposed in 2008 for improved access to the Alta Lakes area to support Silver Mountain Industry’s development plans. (The development proposal was withdrawn with the purchase of the Alta Lakes property by the Non-Federal Party). Another example would be formalization of mountain bike trails on NFS land below the Mais’ house assuming the use is greater than that which could occur now resulting in an increase of noise. It is possible that the exchange of Federal Parcel 2 to private ownership would reduce the Mais’ property value by an amount similar to the figures (6.5%) cited in the Ham study. In addition, the Mais would lose perceived protection from development scenarios that come with their land being adjacent to NFS land. However, NFS lands are managed in this area with an emphasis on rural and roaded-natural recreation activities that might result in activities that would also impact what is perceived as the status quo for example adding trails, increasing users, etc. However, under these two alternatives the lands adjacent to the Mais would become owned by their neighbor who has stated his intent to establish conservation easements. Such easements would typically provide more and longer-term protection than that provided by a Forest Plan. The changes to property values as a result changes in ownership of adjacent lands is dependent on numerous factors, such as the real estate market at the time the property values were to be considered. As such, it would be speculative to determine specifically how the Mais’ property values would be affected by an Action Alternative. Under these alternatives, the land exchange would be completed resulting in the Mai property no longer abutting NFS lands. Since the Forest Service does not provide or guarantee access to NFS lands from adjoining non-federal lands, except where valid easements exist, the Mais would not have direct access to NFS lands adjacent to their property. Consequently, the Mais would be unable to walk onto NFS lands from their property without permission from Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC. Without that, to reach NFS lands from their property the Mais would need to either walk to the closest NFS land access point (Sunshine Campground), a distance of about 2/3 mile from their house or drive there or to the Alta Lakes road, a distance of about a mile. The Forest Service would require Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC to offer to Vincent Mai a replacement easement with the same rights, privileges and obligations currently authorized to Vincent Mai by the Forest Service 2006 Private Road Easement. The Mais would be expected to agree to relinquish the Forest Service easement upon issuance of the replacement easement from the Proponent. After relinquishment, the Forest Service easement would be terminated by the Forest Supervisor. If the Mais did not relinquish the easement and an in-kind easement was in place, the Regional Forester could revoke the Mais’ 2006 Private Road Easement. The Mais’ authorized right to access their private property would not change under these alternatives. Development Potential Several commenters were concerned that with the land exchange this area would be subject to additional development which could impact wildlife habitat and user-experiences. According to San Miguel County

(San Miguel County, 2014), the reality of the exchange is a reduction in development potential. Also, no post-exchange development is proposed. Post-exchange, zoning lots would be reconfigured and would have a total of 14 development rights; a net loss of two development rights. The following is a summary of zoning and development rights post-exchange: • Skyline Ranch Trust: Zoning for both lots post-exchange would be zoned Forestry, Agriculture & Open. One lot would have one development right; the other lot would have three development rights. These four development rights include development rights associated with existing residences (one residence on each of the lots). This is a reduction of two development rights from the existing condition. The Nature Conservancy Conservation Easement would continue to be in place which further restricts development of these lots. This Conservation Easement may be extended to additional lands acquired in the exchange. • Alta Property (excludes lode claims owned by Alta Lakes, LLC): Zoning post-exchange Forestry, Agriculture & Open and High Country Area). Alta Parcels, 338 acres, would have nine development rights. This is a reduction of one development right from the existing condition. • Wilson Mesa Parcel: While the County has indicated that this Parcel would be zoned Forestry, Agriculture & Open with the forty-acre parcel having one development right, it is unknown whether this parcel would be developed at some time in the future. This is an increase of one development right compared to the existing condition. Environmental Justice (EJ) No impact analysis of EJ populations is required because the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requirements for identification of an EJ population have not been met and no EJ populations exist within the area of influence. The land exchange would not impact minority and low income populations nor would it affect housing for these populations.

Cumulative Effects Property values would continue to be a combination of market factors and individual factors. Development is likely to continue within San Miguel County regardless of forest management activities. Low-income populations, while not an EJ population, would continue to struggle to purchase homes in San Miguel County due to the high cost of housing. They may be able to find housing in the rental market. 3.12 Roadless Areas and Wilderness The Lizard Head and La Garita Wildernesses are located within the project area. In addition, the Wilson and Hope Lake Colorado Roadless Areas (CRA) identified in the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule are located within the project area. The previously introduced San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2013 (S.341) identifies lands in the project area as additions to the Lizard Head Wilderness and within the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. Portions of Non-Federal Parcel A are contiguous to the Wilson CRA. This roadless area is designated as an “upper tier” area (meaning it has a limited number of exceptions to provide a high level of conservation) by the Colorado Roadless Rule.

Existing Conditions (No Action Alternative) Federal Parcels: None of the federal parcels are within or adjacent to areas defined as roadless by the 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule or designated Wilderness Areas, nor are they within any areas identified in the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2013. Non-Federal Parcels: The southern portions of Non-Federal Parcel A are within the designated boundary of the Lizard Head Wilderness. Non-Federal Parcel C is surrounded by the La Garita Wilderness on three sides. Development and/or uses on these parcels that are incompatible with the designated wilderness lands they abut could occur.

The northern portion of Non-Federal Parcel A abuts the Wilson CRA. The eastern boundary of Non- Federal Parcel D is approximately 200 feet from the Hope Lake CRA.

Environmental Consequences (Proposed Action and Alternative 3) Federal Parcels (exchanged): Conveyance of the federal parcels would not impact any Wilderness areas or CRAs. Non-Federal Parcels (acquired): Thirteen of the 22 mining claims that constitute Non-Federal Parcel A are partially or wholly within the designated boundary of the Lizard Head Wilderness and would become wilderness if within the designated boundary thereby eliminating several wilderness in-holdings. Acquisition of Non-Federal Parcels A and C would preclude future development and uses incompatible with the wilderness and roadless areas near them. The Forest Service, in consultation with the State of Colorado, would have the opportunity to modify the boundary of the Wilson CRA to include those portions of Non-Federal Parcel A that are not within the designated boundary of the Lizard Head Wilderness as well as modify the Hope Lake CRA boundary to include a portion of Non-Federal Parcel D.

Cumulative Effects Acquired Parcels A and B could possibly be protected by Congress in the future as an addition to the Lizard Head Wilderness or a Special Management Area. Parcel C could possibly be protected by Congress in the future as an addition to the La Garita Wilderness. Lands acquired within congressionally designated wilderness are automatically withdrawn from mineral entry (although previous evidence of mining may remain visible). Future development would be precluded as would motorized entry and mechanized use.

(Intentionally left blank)

4.0 Consultation and Coordination Document Preparers The following Forest Service personnel were involved in the development of this EA: Dee A. Closson Norwood Ranger District Realty Specialist Judy Schutza Norwood Ranger District District Ranger Curtis Keetch Norwood Ranger District Wildlife Biologist Scott Spielman Norwood Ranger District Snow Ranger Kathy Peckham Norwood Ranger District Recreation Program Manager Brian Hoefling Norwood Ranger District Range Conservationist Linda Bledsoe Grand Valley Ranger District Realty Specialist Gene Dollarhide GMUG NF Forest Surveyor Leigh-Ann Hunt GMUG NF (retired) Forest Archeologist Ryan Taylor GMUG NF (formerly) Geologist Linda Lanham GMUG NF Environmental Engineer - HAZMAT Gary Shellhorn GMUG NF (retired) Hydrologist Doug Marah GMUG NF CE Technician (Trails) Niccole Mortenson GMUG NF NEPA Specialist Tim Stroope GMUG NF NEPA Coordinator Tate Curtis USFS, Rocky Mtn. Region 2 Regional Review Appraiser

Federal, State and Local Agencies The Forest Service consulted the following federal, state, and local agencies, individuals and tribes during the development of this EA: U.S. Senator Michael Bennett Colorado Division of Water Resources U.S. Senator Mark Udall Colorado State Land Board U.S. Representative Scott Tipton Colorado Department of Transportation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado State Forest Service Environmental Protection Agency San Miguel County Board of Commissioners Governor John Hickenlooper Gunnison County Board of Commissioners Bureau of Land Management Uncompahgre Saguache County Board of Commissioners Field Office Dolores County Board of Commissioners Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Town of Mountain Village Office Town of Telluride Colorado State Representative Don Coram Town of Ophir Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife San Miguel County Attorney Colorado Department of Natural Resources Tribes Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation Others 8200 Preserve, LLC Armstrong, CM and Sarah ALA, LLC Blue Mesa 4 Wheelers Alta Investments, LLC Bowling, Matthew Anderson, Matthew and Joshua Campbell, Lynn

Casale Trust Nichols, William R. Childs, Delmar Qwest Corporation Childs, Louise Pauls Family Trust Cohn, John M. Richards, Thomas and Nancy Collins, Warren Wade Robison, Chase and Elizabeth Colorado Environmental Coalition Rocky Mountain Biological Lab Colorado Mountainview Acq. Corp. San Miguel Bicycle Alliance Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association San Miguel Power Association, Inc. Den, Jacquelyne Schmid Family Ranch, LLC Diane Lucas Estate Schwartz and Egger Family LP Doughtery, Michel Scott, Winslow H. Duquette, Arthur and Elizabeth Sharon E. Shuteran Trust ECCC8031, LLC Sheep Mountain Alliance Elk Creek Reserve, LLC Sonnenfeld, Barry ER Homeowners Corp. Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC Fanos Law Taylor, Brad Grundy, Sharon Telluride Mountain Club Glisson Family Trust Telluride Snowmobile Adventures Gunnison County Stockgrowers Assn. The Jerry Seinfeld Living Trust Gunnison Sportsman Association The Wilderness Society Hazard, Eddie Joe Trout Lake Land Company Hazard, Rebie Sue Trout Unlimited Hidden Lake Estates Homeowners Association Trust for Public Land Homestake Mining Company of CA Tueller & Associates, P.C Kittler Living Trust Vlasic, Richard LGC Properties, LLC WC Estes Trustee Lizard Head Land Company Wenger, William Mai, Vincent Western Colorado Congress Major, Francis C. Western Land Group Mayo, Richard Western Land Exchange Project MLK Family Trust Agreement Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District Nelson, Rona Neujahr, Bernice D.

5.0 References Adams, Pauline, Christopher James, and Clay Speas. 2008a. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Species and Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. March. Adams, Pauline, Christopher James, and Clay Speas. 2008b. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) Species and Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. March. Adams, Pauline, Christopher James, and Clay Speas. 2008c. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. March. Bledsoe, Linda. 2015. Summary of Findings for Special Use Authorizations for Water Facilities Involved in Wilson Peak Land Exchange. February. Dare, Matthew, Michael Carrillo, and Clay Speas. 2011. Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) Species and Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. March Ecosystems Research Institute (Ecosystems). 2001. Alta Reclamation Project Annual Report – 2000. ERO. 2015. Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, Biological Report Wilson Peak Land Exchange. ERO. 2014. Wetland and Floodplain Review, Wilson Peak Land Exchange. GMUG. 1991. Amended Land and Resource Management Plan Ham, Charlotte, Patricia A. Champ, John B. Loomis, and Robin M. Reich. 2012. Accounting for Heterogeneity of Public Lands in Hedonic Property Models. Land Economics. 88(3). p. 444-456. San Miguel County. 2014. Correspondence. Shellhorn, Gary. 2014. Water Rights Report – Supplemental Report – Wilson Peak Land Exchange – August . U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2008-2012 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. State and County QuickFacts. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. 2013. Computations for the 2013 Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia.

(Intentionally left blank)

Appendix A. Maps of the Federal and Non-Federal Parcels

(Intentionally left blank)

Appendix B. Maps of the Proposed Alternative 3 Alta Trails System

The Non-Federal Parties would grant a trail easement to the United States for those trails shown as “Trail on Pvt Land” on the map. This easement will terminate once those trails shown as “Reroute Trail Construction” on the map are built. The “Reroute Trail Construction” trails will be built within two (2) years after the closing of the land exchange and will allow for all of NFST 515 (except for the short segment immediately east of Highway 145) to be on federal land. Once the built trails are opened, those trails shown as “Reclaim Route” on the map will be closed and reclaimed.

Trail reservations on federal lands that would become private land post-land exchange would be retained by the United States for public access on Existing NFS Trails 511, 514, and 515. .

Appendix C. Response to Scoping Comments

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence #

Economics

1 Tueller and Associates, Page 2 Private property (Mais) values may The potential effects of disposal on Behalf of the Mais be affected by Parcel 2 in the land of Federal Parcel 2 on the Mais exchange. who live adjacent to the parcel are described in Section 3.6 and 3.12 and in Appendix E.

Land Issues/Private Property Concerns

1 Tueller and Associates, 2 Includes Summary of comments Valid state water rights would not on Behalf of the Mais incorporated by reference: Including be impacted by the land Parcel 2 in in the exchange will exchange. No loss of wetlands require preserving “current water with unique ecological features or resources located on public lands services would occur with the abutting and impacting the Mai exchange of Beaver Springs property and its vested water rights Pond. generally and Beaver Lake specifically.” Because both the diversion point for Mr. Mai’s water right and Easements should be considered that PVC pipe through which water maintain access. flows from the pond are on the Mais’ property, the Forest Service is unable to identify any access the Mais would need to any part of Beaver Springs Pond not on their property. Because there is no authorized motorized access to the part of Beaver Springs Pond on NFS land, there is no motorized access to be maintained.

1b Tueller and Associates, 2 Mais private property values may be The potential effects of disposal on Behalf of the Mais affected by Parcel 2 in the land of Federal Parcel 2 on the Mais exchange. who live adjacent to the parcel are described in Section 3.12. For reference, a map in Appendix E identifies the Mai property in relation to Federal Parcel 2.

2 Casale Trust Page 1, #2 Private property values may be While development of Alta affected by Parcel 3 in the land Townsite is not proposed or exchange. reasonably foreseeable, the development potential is less Development of the Townsite may under the proposed land exchange affect the preservation of a heritage than the current condition per San resource site. Suggest that Miguel County zoning development of the Townsite would regulations. Forest Service has no not deteriorate the integrity of the control over development public or private lands. potential of private lands. The Forest Service does not

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # provide or guarantee private access to public lands, except where easements exist. Likewise the Forest Service does not guarantee access to private lands. However, in an effort to maintain access to the Alta Townsite, Non- Federal Parties have agreed to interpretive signing and other excavation and reporting requirements to mitigate impacts to site. This issue is addressed in the cultural resources section and in a Memorandum of Agreement among the Non-Federal Party, San Miguel County, Forest Service and State Historic Preservation Office.

3 Telluride Mountain Club Page 1 The land exchange, as proposed, An alternative has been may result in a reduction of developed, with community recreation opportunities with the loss input, to design a trail system and of the bike trail system on the Alta incorporate it into the NFS trail Lakes property. system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental Suggest that easements be acquired protection and sustainability. to maintain this trail network and that a trail inventory occur. A trail inventory was completed by the Forest Service with the assistance of local mountain bikers. Trail easements would be maintained on certain Federal Parcels and acquired on Non- Federal Parcels to establish a trail network as identified in Alternative 3.

4 & 5 Gary Jones, Wilson Mesa Page 2, #1, Parcel 4 contains a water intake (Elk This scenario is described in Ranch Homeowner #2 Creek) whose access may be Exhibit A of this appendix. All affected by the land exchange. An easements are disclosed in this easement should be retained analysis and would be conveyed allowing vehicle access from Woods at closing of the land exchange Road to the intake for maintenance. transaction as outlined in the Refer to: Public Easement Exchange Agreement. Agreement between San Miguel County Board of Commissioners and the Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District dated July 23, 2003.

4b Tueller and Associates, Page 2 Regarding parcel 2, include the (i)The Proponent would be Mais Comments need to preserve current (i) required to provide an easement permanent and indefeasible to the Mais for access to their vehicular and related access rights to home that is equivalent to the the home on the Mai Property; (ii) easement provided to the Mais

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # permanent and unimpeded access from the Forest Service. This is and usage of public lands abutting included in the Proposed Action. the Mai Property on three sides;… (iv) rights to protect against (ii) The Forest Service requested development on the abutting public the Proponent to address the lands (which rights will cease, once Mais’ request for access through these lands are transferred to private Federal Parcel 2 to NFS land. The ownership, without enforceable Forest Service’s consideration of protective covenants); and (v) the this access issue is addressed in current value of the Mai Property, the No Action Alternative. based on its above unique (iv) The Forest Service requested rights/attributes the Proponent to address the issue of development adjacent to the Mai property with the Mais. The Forest Service’s consideration of the development issue adjacent to the Mai property is addressed in the No Action Alternative and in the two action alternatives by way of assuming that development to County zoning allowances would occur. The Proponent nonetheless has stated his intent to establish a conservation easement which could afford the Mais greater protection than would be provided on NFS lands managed for motorized and non- motorized recreation. No development has been proposed for this parcel. (v) Issues affecting values of the Mais’ property are addressed in sections 3.6 and 3.12.

6 Western Lands Project Page 2 Land exchange is likely to lead to No future development is greater development of lands within proposed. Future development is NFS boundaries rather than less. addressed in the socio-economics section (3.12). San Miguel County has determined that there would be a reduction in the number of housing development rights with the exchange.

7 Fillebeen, Wilson Mesa Page 2 Access to water developments and All easements are disclosed in the Ranch Homeowner Elk Creek Trail may be impacted by environmental analysis and would Parcel 4. Suggest easements be be conveyed at closing of the land maintained to these features. exchange transaction as outlined in the Exchange Agreement.

8 Rusty Nichols Page 1 Clarify that the Rock of Ages trail The correction requested for the access is restricted through Nichols’ easement has been updated. property to the following: 1) public has a pedestrian easement only 2) FS has an easement that allows for

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # maintenance and egress for official FS duties.

9 Rusty Nichols Page 1 Clarify how the exchange would For areas outside the wilderness remove the potential for minerals boundary, the mineral estate development. would be donated to the United States Forest Service thereby having acquired status and closed to mineral entry under the General Mining Act of 1872. For parcels within the wilderness, the land would be withdrawn from mineral entry according to the Wilderness Act.

10 John Stow Page 1 “Although it is important to try to Nichol’s former inholdings insulate the Nichols inholdings from involved in the land exchange are potential exploitation/development, held by the Trust for Public Land. the reality is that the cost to Nichols Appraisal is based on market of development, combined with value for highest and best potential financial gains are nowhere economic use. No direct near the monetary, environmental, purchase would occur. This and recreational value of the analysis considers other land proposed Alta/145 parcels.” values. The Authorized Officer would use this analysis, the supporting record, and the Our summary of comment: The land appraisal to make a determination exchange analysis must consider if the land exchange is in the land use values related to recreation public interest. potential and wildlife habitat in addition to monetary values.

General Comments

1 Casale Trust Page 1-2, Future development of the Alta No future development is #2 Townsite could impact heritage proposed. Two fewer housing resources, wildlife habitat, development rights would be recreational access and private available in the Alta area in property interests, and access into Alternatives 2 and 3 per San the Alta Lakes area. Miguel County.

2 Tueller and Associates, Page 2 In the event a third party agreement The effects of Parcel 2 not being on behalf of the Mais cannot be reached between a part of the land exchange is Proponents and Mais, we request disclosed as the No Action that Parcel 2 be removed from the alternative. Otherwise, we note proposed action. your request.

3 Hillary Cooper, on behalf Appraisal should be available to the The U.S. Forest Service has a of Sheep Mountain public as part of the EA or analysis. regulated process for conducting Alliance land appraisals. The final appraisal documents can be requested under a formal Freedom of Information Act request made in writing to the

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # Director of Recreation, Lands, and Minerals in the Regional Office, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 740 Simms Street, Golden, CO 80401.

4 Hillary Cooper, on behalf We would like the opportunity to Anyone is welcome to submit of Sheep Mountain submit additional comments after the comments and information Alliance appraisal is made available to the pertinent to valuation to the public. agency staff review appraiser. However, these comments should be submitted with an understanding that competent professionals have conducted the appraisals and the corresponding appraisal reviews: 1) who are familiar with the markets in which they are working; 2) whose compensation does not depend upon any specific value estimate; and 3) are subject to professional censure (including license suspension or withdrawal) if they render anything less than unbiased opinions of value or unbiased reviews of appraisal reports. Therefore, your comments, in order to have any effect should be of the same nature. That is, they should be substantive, knowledgeable, based on fact, and unbiased.

5 Linda Miller I would like the opportunity to Anyone is welcome to submit submit additional comments after the comments and information appraisal is made available to the pertinent to valuation to the public. agency staff review appraiser. However, these comments should be submitted with an understanding that competent professionals have conducted the appraisals and the corresponding appraisal reviews: 1) who are familiar with the markets in which they are working; 2) whose compensation does not depend upon any specific value estimate; and

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # 3) are subject to professional censure (including license suspension or withdrawal) if they render anything less than unbiased opinions of value or unbiased reviews of appraisal reports. Therefore, your comments, in order to have any effect should be of the same nature. That is, they should be substantive, knowledgeable, based on fact, and unbiased.

6 Linda Miller Ensure that a fair market analysis is An appraisal has been conducted considered. by the U.S. Forest Service to ensure a fair exchange. Appraisal Canada lynx and ability to fight fire is based on market value for may be impacted by increased highest and best economic use. development. No future development is Maintain access to Boomerang Road proposed at this time. Future and Alta Lakes roads via easement. development is addressed in the The usage is scattered and not socio-economics section which contained on specific trails. There indicates that there would be a is the “promise” of a Conservation reduction of housing units Easement being placed on the available for development with parcels if they become private. I the exchange therefore negative believe the exchange should be impacts are not expected on lynx contingent on the Conservation habitat or firefighting compared Easement being in place.” to existing condition. Easements would be considered to protect the government’s and public’s access to National Forest System Lands and the rights of third parties. The Forest Service identifies any critical resources that may need protection and if there are any then the agency adopts mitigation measures for their protection. In this exchange, no critical resources have been identified thus there are no needs for mitigation measures such as conservation easements, whether established by the Forest Service or by the Proponent.

8 Cindy Farny Page 1 Land exchange must benefit the The Authorized Officer will public. I would like to see the determine if the land exchange is appraisals. in the public interest after reviewing analysis, appraisal and supporting record. It is the Forest Service’s

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # responsibility to make sure the land The U.S. Forest Service has a being traded goes under a regulated process for conducting conservation easement (such as with land appraisals. The final the Nature Conservancy). appraisal documents can be requested under a formal Adjacent landowners (Mais) may be Freedom of Information Act impacted by the land exchange of request made in writing to the Parcel 2. In the event a third party Director of Recreation, Lands, agreement cannot be reached and Minerals in the Regional between Proponents and Mais, Office ([email protected] with Parcel 2 may need to be adjusted. cc to [email protected]). Until estate issues surrounding trail easements are solved, final appraisal documents would not be produced. The Forest Service identifies any critical resources that may need protection and if there are any then the agency adopts mitigation measures for their protection. In this exchange, no critical resources have been identified thus there are no needs for mitigation measures such as conservation easements, whether established by the Forest Service or by the Proponent. It is unclear how Ms. Farny believes Federal Parcel 2 should be adjusted; nonetheless, the No Action alternative displays the effects of Federal Parcel 2 not being exchanged.

9 Town of Telluride Page 1 Land exchange is in the public The Authorized Officer will also interest, is consistent with Telluride determine if the land exchange is goals and would have the potential in the public interest after to deliver significant public benefits. reviewing analysis, appraisal and supporting record.

10 San Miguel County Land exchange is consistent with The Authorized Officer will also San Miguel County goals and would determine if the land exchange is have significant public benefits. in the public interest after reviewing analysis, appraisal and supporting record.

11 Tom Fitzgerald While the land exchange secures The Wilson Peak LEX would re- public access (via the Rock of Ages establish permanent access from Trail) to Wilson Peak, there is Silver Pick Basin which is the already public access to Wilson Peak shorter of the two approaches and via Kilpacker Trailhead. is the more commonly used historic route to the peak. There is no language in the proposal to ensure lands cannot be exchanged This land exchange does not again. prohibit future proposals from

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # Public benefit is only realized if being considered consistent with there is improved access or law, regulation or policy. qualitative experience associated with enjoying public lands Analysis considers maintaining surrounding inholdings easements to protect access and also to formalize bike trails. Ensure that a fair market analysis is Wilderness or roadless areas have considered. resource values in addition to recreation or enjoyment that are considered in the Public benefit such as habitat, water supply, clean air. The analysis and appraisal would address the monetary, acreage and other values associated with the exchange. Appraisal would be based on market value for highest and best economic use.

12 Tom Fitzgerald Page 2 Include deed restrictions to prevent Federal agencies avoid development of private land near establishing deed restrictions Alta Lakes and to maintain because they can significantly recreational opportunities. Require reduce the values of the federal Alta Lakes, LLC to develop a parcel, which would result in less bonded Recreational and land acquired for the public. Also, Environmental Conservation Plan to there is no evidence of need to monitor, improve, and offset any protect any resources to warrant a adverse impacts to both the Public's deed restriction. enjoyment and environmental concerns. Similarly, through public involvement and environmental analysis, there is no need to establish a bonded conservation plan as described.

13 Dick E. Neujahr Page 1 What is the value of the land The U.S. Forest Service has a exchange? regulated process for conducting land appraisals. The final appraisal documents can be requested under a formal Freedom of Information Act request made in writing to the Director of Recreation, Lands, and Minerals in the Regional Office ([email protected] with cc to [email protected]). Until estate issues surrounding trail easements are solved, final appraisal documents would not be produced.

14 Mark Davis Page 1 “Please stop given into these people. This is a general comment, This is our property and I do not opinion, or position statement. think we should give it away. The Alta Lakes road area is great recreation area close to T- ride.

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # Please do not give any more to these people IE. Richard Mayo. These land trades are not in the public interest. Did we not just build another trail head around Nickols Land up silver pick basin. This is not ok please stop this type of crap.”

15 Rusty Nichols Page 1 Map needs to be corrected to Mapping errors have been correctly show Silver Pick Mill site corrected. See map in Appendix and Rock of Ages Trail. A of EA.

16 Bryan Miller 1 Commenter is against the land An appraisal would be conducted exchange because he feels that a by the U.S. Forest Service to wealthy person would be enriched at ensure there is a fair trade. the expense of U.S. citizenry and Appraisal would be based on that the Forest Service is preparing market value for highest and best to trade prime Telluride real estate economic use. for mostly undevelopable ridge top land. The Authorized Officer will make a decision based on analysis, appraisal and project file whether or not this land exchange is in the public interest.

17 Bridgitt Evans Page 1-2 Commenters support the land This is a general comment, exchange proposal for the following opinion, or position statement reasons: 1). exchange provides requiring no response. substantial public benefits, including significant public acquisitions in the Alta Lakes area and access for hikers to Wilson Peak; 2) Meg and Griff have been wonderful neighbors and excellent stewards of the land; believe that they would be better stewards and protectors of the two parcels than any public agency; 3) Grateful to the Proponents (Meg & Griff) for stepping up and purchasing the Alta Lakes property to prevent the development that was on track for approval by San Miguel County; 4) overall exchange appears to generously benefit the public sector; 5) consolidation of the private property around Skyline is logical and reasonable and the exchange of public and private lands near Alta Lakes results in an improvement of public ownership that provides significant public access and recreational gains and benefits. We encourage the Forest Service to approve the exchange in whole and particularly with regards to the two

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # parcels to be acquired by Skyline and the parcels to be acquired by the public near Alta Lakes and Wilson Peak.

18 James Gallagher 1 Commenter supports Land Exchange The issue is a general comment, for the following reasons: 1) Griff opinion, or position statement Harsh and Meg Whitman have been requiring no response superb stewards of the Skyline Ranch property and I look forward to their acquiring the ability to manage the two adjacent properties; 2) acquisition of the Alta Lakes property protects Elk Run and Telluride from possible development that would have forever altered the property and surrounding area; and 3) public benefits greatly from the proposed exchange. The Forest Service is getting a large parcel of property in a prime location and the consolidation of the private property around Skyline is logical and reasonable. This exchange of public and private lands near Alta Lakes would result in significant public recreational and access benefits.

19 Scott Goodman 1 Commenter offers support for the The issue is a general comment, proposal because 1) the proposal is opinion, or position statement a logical continuation of the current requiring no response. owners’ prevention of Leucadia’s planned subdivision and development at Alta Lakes; 2) the proposed land exchange would finally and permanently put in the Public domain of the United States Forest Service the land that provides the safest access to the many folks who enjoy hiking and summiting Wilson Peak; 3) the current proposal is to exchange five non-federal owned parcels, which contain mining rights for four federal parcels of which Federal Parcels 1 and 2 abut Skyline Ranch. These two federal parcels do not appear to have significant recreational or access benefits and their conveyance to private ownership would not result in the loss of any significant public benefit….There are also Federal Parcels 3A-3D and 4 at Alta Lakes that do not seem to have value to the Forest Service that would be exchanged for part of the privately

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # owned land of Alta Lakes nearer to Magic Meadows. 4) Significant public benefit gained by the Forest Service’s acquisition of the Non- federal properties and the resulting elimination of mining rights in the aforementioned areas; 5) USFS would finally secure permanent access to Wilson Peak.”

20 Steven “Mac” Heller 1 Commenter supports land exchange The issue is a general comment, because: 1) creates a substantial opinion, or position statement benefit, and I think the costs from a requiring no response. public use point of view are trivial. 2) The Wilson Peak trail situation over the last few years has been very unfortunate, and I am grateful to the Trust for Public Lands for playing its role in solving the problem for thousands of hikers, myself included. It is crucial that the trail (Rock of Ages) be open to the public. The best home for that land is the Forest Service

21 Paul and Janet Hobby Page 1-2 Commenters support the exchange The issue is a general comment, proposal for the following reasons: opinion, or position statement 1) provides substantial public requiring no response. benefits, including very significant public acquisitions in the Alta Lakes area; 2) clears up access to Wilson Peak; 3) private participants in the exchange have been wonderful neighbors and excellent stewards of the land. And they would be better stewards and protectors of the two parcels they would acquire adjacent to Skyline than any public agency; 4) grateful to the Skyline owners for stepping up and purchasing the Alta Lakes property to prevent the development that was on track for approval by San Miguel County; 5) The overall exchange appears to benefit the public given the location and amount of private property being acquired by the Forest Service when compared to the location and acreage that would go into private ownership; and 6) consolidation of the private property around Skyline is logical and reasonable and the exchange of public and private lands near Alta Lakes results in an improvement of public ownership that provides significant public

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # access and recreational gains and benefits.

22 Fred and Gail Kittler 1-2 Commenters support the exchange The issue is a general comment, proposal for the following reasons: opinion, or position statement 1) it resolves a number of requiring no response. contentious issues that have been overhanging the area for a number of years (i.e., access to Wilson Peak , ambiguous land-use issues on Turkey Creek Mesa and enables recreational access to areas previously caught in a hodgepodge of ownership issues) 2) it should improve land stewardship (i.e, thwarted Turkey Creek Mesa large- scale development); 3) the exchange creates a plan for future recreational use of the area--the transfer can provide clear corridors for these public uses; and 4) the exchange significantly benefits the public interest (i.e, . proportion of land received by the public is substantially greater than that traded by the government to the Proponents, . larger natural habitat, for recreation and for wildlife, to enhance the character of the region.)

23 KC Murphy 1 Commenter supports land exchange The issue is a general comment, for the following reasons: 1) opinion, or position statement exchange overall appears to requiring no response. generously benefit the public given the location and amount of private property being acquired by the Forest Service when compared to the public acreage that would go into private ownership. 2) consolidation of the private property around Skyline is logical and reasonable and the exchange of public and private lands near Alta Lakes result in a more manageable and logical ownership pattern and results in significant public recreational and access benefits.

24 Simon and Kimberly 1-2 Commenters support land exchange The issue is a general comment, Perutz for the following reasons: 1) it opinion, or position statement provides huge benefits to the requiring no response. residents and guests of San Miguel County (i.e., summit of Wilson Peak and the upper portion of the Rock of Ages Trail; 2). significant portions of Turkey Creek Mesa would be

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # conveyed to the Forest Service in the exchange; 3) the Forest Service has been very thoughtful in choosing the federal parcels in the exchange (i.e., Federal Parcels 1 and 4 limited public use and virtually surrounded by private land and straightening the boundary at Alta); 3) inclusion of Federal Parcel 2 to equalize values (i.e., parcel is more akin to “front- country” areas of the County-- believe the proposed 2007 Forest Plan identifies the area around Parcels 1 and 2 as an intermix area as their National Forest character has been impacted by nearby private lands)

25 Rt Hon John Pryor 1 “I am writing in favor of the The issue is a general comment, exchange proposal….I find this to be opinion, or position statement a good deal for all. The lands requiring no response. received by the group mentioned above, along with the anticipated application of conservation easements on the lands, appear to both limit intensive development and provide reasonable public access. Likewise, the parcels that the forest service would be getting seem to satisfy their objectives regarding public access, habitat protection and reduction of “in holdings” e”

26 John H. Steel, on behalf 1 Comment offers support of the land The issue is a general comment, of the Raspberry Patch exchange for the following reasons: opinion, or position statement Homeowners public acquisition in the Alta Lakes requiring no response. Association area, clearing up access to Wilson Peak, consolidation of the private property around Skyline is logical and reasonable, and the exchange of public and private lands near Alta Lakes results in a more manageable and logical ownership pattern resulting in public recreational and access benefits.

27 Robert Stein, Regency 1 Comment expresses support for land The issue is a general comment, Group, Inc. exchange for the following reasons: opinion, or position statement benefits to the residents and guests requiring no response. of San Miguel County and access/use of Federal Parcels 1 & 4 is limited because of being virtually surrounded by private land.

28 Lief D. Rosenblatt 1 Comment expresses support for land The issue is a general comment, exchange for the following reasons: opinion, or position statement

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # benefits to the residents and guests requiring no response. of San Miguel County in the form of improved public access to, and greater recreational use of, some of the most beautiful and unique areas in the Telluride Region. Comment expresses support for land 29 John and Carol Siedhoff 1 exchange for the following reasons: The issue is a general comment, 1) more accessible route to Mt. opinion, or position statement Wilson via Rock of Ages Trail, requiring no response. while ensuring a better experience for climbers of Mt. Wilson.; 2) The land swap in the Alta Lakes area would ensure limited access to Mountain Village, and finally stop the continued overhang of an unwanted road above Sundance trail into Mountain Village. Limiting additional access to Mountain Village would help preserve the privacy and uniqueness of our very special area; 3) By purchasing the Alta Lakes property from Leucadia and offering a larger piece of property in the proposed land swap, the owners have proven their stated intent: to make the entire area better for both local property owners and visitors to the Alta Lakes area...” 30 Gene T. Sykes 1 Commenter expressed support for The issue is a general comment, the Land Exchange Proposal for the opinion, or position statement following reasons: 1) it provides requiring no response. huge benefits to the residents and guests of San Miguel County; 2) it appears the Forest Service has been very thoughtful in choosing the federal parcels in this exchange (Federal Parcels 1 and 4 have limited public use and are virtually surrounded by private land)

31 Rick Vlasic 1 “I enthusiastically support the The issue is a general comment, exchange proposal that has been opinion, or position statement submitted by Skyline Ranch and requiring no response. Alta Lakes, LLC. We believe the exchange provides substantial public benefits….We encourage the Forest Service to approve the exchange in whole and particularly with regards to the two parcels to be acquired by Skyline and the parcels to be acquired by the public near Alta Lakes and Wilson Peak.”

Heritage Resources

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence #

1 Casale Trust Page 1 and “As a result, Casale Trust is See cultural resources and socio- 2, #2 concerned that, as a part of the economics sections section. A Proposed Land Trade reviews, the Memorandum of Agreement has Forest Service thoroughly vet been developed among the potential impacts that allowed future Proponent, FS, County and SHPO development could have on (i) on the mitigation measures heritage resources;” regarding the proposal to dispose of part of the historic Alta townsite.

2 Town of Telluride Page 2 Maintaining public access to and the See cultural resources section. A preservation of the Alta Townsite Memorandum of Agreement has should be addressed with Proponent. been developed among the Proponent, FS, County and SHPO on the mitigation measures regarding the proposal to dispose of part of the historic Alta townsite, which includes public access to certain viewpoints and to interpretive signage.

3 San Miguel County Page 2 Maintaining long-term preservation See cultural resources section. A of and access to the Alta Townsite Memorandum of Agreement is should be addressed between the being developed among the Proponent and San Miguel BOCC Proponent, FS, County and SHPO after the land exchange. on the mitigation measures regarding the proposal to dispose of part of the historic Alta townsite which includes public access to certain viewpoints and to interpretive signage.

Infrastructure

1 Casale Trust Page 2, #4 “Impacts of Utilities Extensions. No proposal is before the USFS Casale Trust also is concerned that, for utilities. Speculative future to the extent any development might developments on land that is be contemplated on the post-trade proposed for conveyance is privately-retained portions of the outside the scope of this decision. Parcel 3 lands (specifically, Proponents have not indicated including any of the “few small any development plans to us for cabins” in and around the lands they might acquire. Any Townsite), careful consideration is proposed development would be given to the impact of any proposed governed by San Miguel County. utilities extensions — especially Future proposals for utilities between the Town of Mountain across NFS lands would be Village and any such proposed analyzed per NEPA based on site- development on the Proponents’ specific information and data. post-trade private lands.”

NEPA Process

1 Casale Trust Page 1-3 The scope and broad nature of the Land exchanges convey land, impacts associated with the interest in land, and the resources Proposed Land Trade should be associated with them. However,

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # analyzed in an Environmental the act of conveyance has no Impact Statement (EIS) not in an environmental effects. Therefore Environmental Assessment (EA). the environmental analysis would focus primarily on the future use Casale Trust believes the Proposed and management of the lands Land Trade significantly could acquired and conveyed and the impact “the quality of the human effect of the exchange on the environment,” in addition to other lands that adjoin them (FSH natural environmental impacts; 5409.13). therefore analysis should be considered in an EIS not an EA. We concur with the point that the development of the federal …“Absent some form of protection parcels should be considered in ensured by the Forest Service as part the environmental analysis of the of the Proposed Land Trade, it must proposed land exchange. We used be assumed that all post-trade Parcel information provided from San 3 lands may be developed by the Miguel County on the maximum Proponents, to the maximum extent pre- and post-land exchange allowed by San Miguel County land development potential to analyze use regulations. Accordingly, Casale environmental effects. Trust is concerned that adequate consideration is given by the Forest Service, as part of the Proposed Land Trade to ensure that post-trade development of the Townsite would not cause deterioration of the surrounding private and/or public lands (including those retained and/or acquired by the Forest Service as part of its Proposed Land Trade).”

2 Casale Trust Page 2, #6 Make current ownership of lands See Maps Appendix A. more clear in maps to help understanding of proposed Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and E

4 Western Lands Project Page 1 Land exchange proposal appears to A proposal has been brought be pre-decisional. forward by Proponents and has been analyzed. Analysis in this EA is not a decision document.

4 Western Lands Projects Page 2 The environmental assessment The option of whether or not to should consider the reasonable purchase land outright is alternative of purchasing Parcels A, disclosed in the EA. The Land B, and D. and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has limited funding and the Proponents are unwilling to sell their land.

Range - Grazing

1 Gary Jones, Wilson Mesa Page 2, #3 Cattle grazing on private parcels Grazing may or may not be Ranch Homeowner may affect Wilson Mesa’s private authorized on private lands after water supply. Fencing water system the exchange. We have seen no is an expense land owners should not indication that this activity is planned. Fence line

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # occur. changes/additions for a condition that may not occur in the future is outside the scope of the proposed action. Access to Wilson Mesa’s water rights is formalized as part of the Proposed Action. Grazing issues are addressed in the EA at Section 3.11. Water rights are addressed in Section 3.6.

Recreation

1 Brian Flaherty, Gold Page 3, #7 NFS trails exist and have been The trails have been GPSed, Creek Ranch, on behalf unofficially mapped. Need to mapped, and analyzed and in of Casale Trust address these trails in the analysis reference to adjoining private and depict the landownership. lands. See Section 3.10 for the trails analysis and see Map in Appendix B.

2 Garfield and Hecht, on Page 1, Maintain easement for the Elk Creek The FS would be reserving public behalf of the Wilson Paragraph Trail (NFST 421.1A) in Parcel 4. access for non-motorized uses on Mesa Ranch 3 this trail if an exchange occurs. Homeowners Association

2 Nathan Frerichs 1 The land exchange, as proposed, Trail systems have been may result in a reduction of addressed in the analysis as an recreation opportunities which also alternative. support local business with the loss of the bike trail network on the Alta Lakes property. Suggest that public access be maintained to this trail network and that trail(s) be formally added to the NFS system.

3 Hilary Cooper, on Behalf Page 2 Retain a system of trails in the Alta An alternative has been of the Sheep Mountain Lakes area in the exchange and developed, with community Alliance manage as part of the USFS system. input, to design a trail system and incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability.

4 Hilary Cooper, on behalf Page 2 Consider Travel Management An alternative has been of the Sheep Mountain process for Alta Lakes trails before developed, with community Alliance decision is made on exchange input, to design a trail system and incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Additional trails in the Telluride area will be considered as part of an analysis anticipated to begin in

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # 2015.

5 Telluride Mountain Club Page 1 Retain public easements on trails An alternative has been conveyed in exchange which developed, with community comprise a larger trails system that input, to design a trail system and provides a crucial link between other incorporate it into the NFS trail USFS-recognized trails in the area.” system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability.

6 Cindy Farny Page 1 Retain public easements on trails An alternative has been conveyed in exchange, survey and developed (Alternative 3, map reroute trails as necessary, and Appendix B), with community consider appropriate mix or uses on input, to design a trail system and trails. Consider the land between the incorporate it into the NFS trail mines and Skyline Ranch non- system to maintain public access motorized with the exception of while ensuring environmental some designated trails. protection and sustainability. Easements would be retained on appropriate routes.

7 Town of Telluride Page 1-2 Retain public easements on trails An alternative has been conveyed in the exchange and retain developed, with community a system of trails in the Alta Lakes input, to design a trail system and area which would be managed as incorporate it into the NFS trail part of the USFS system. system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Easements would be retained on appropriate routes.

8 San Miguel County Page 1-2 Amend the Uncompahgre Travel An alternative has been Plan or initiate a simultaneous developed, with community process to identify a NFS trail input, to design a trail system and system in the Alta Lakes area as part incorporate it into the NFS trail of the exchange. system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability.

9 Tom Fitzgerald Page 1 Retain public easements on trails Easements would be retained on conveyed in exchange. appropriate routes under Alternative 3.

10 Michel Doughtery, Page 1 “We would like to continue to The issue is already decided by Telluride Snowmobile operate without interruption well law, regulation, Forest Plan, or Adventures LLC into the future regardless of what other higher-level decision. changes may occur due to the Land Swap. We would like assurance The issue has been dealt with from the permit holder; the USDA, through correspondence with the the US Forest Service, Norwood commenter. Ranger Station. As well as any beneficiaries of this transaction that our operations will not be adversely impacted in any way.”

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence #

11, 13, 14, Penelope Gleason- Page 1 of Preserve trail opportunities Alta An alternative has been 16, 17, 18, Owner Bootdoctors, each Lakes and Upper Turkey Creek developed, with community input 20, 21, 23, Jonathan Augello, Mike comment areas of the Telluride region in the including San Miguel Bicycle 25, 27, 28, Balser, Brian Beckham, exchange. Commenters encourage Alliance and the Telluride 29, 30, Sue Berger, Trey Brown, working with San Miguel Bicycle Mountain Club, to design a trail 31,32, 33, Aurelie Slegers Cannella, Alliance and the Telluride Mountain system and incorporate it into the 34, 35, 36, Jen Charrette, Niko Club to facilitate the protection of NFS trail system to maintain 37, 38, 40, Cordalis, Adam de Alva, these trails to secure permanent public access while ensuring 43, 46, 48, Ben Eng, Nathan public access. environmental protection and 49, 50, 51, Deniakos, Joe sustainability. 52, 55, Dillsworth, Sam Fox, 59, 60, 61, Eric Frazer, Kurt 62, 63, 64, Friederich, Robin 66, 68, 69, Fritsch, Cindy Fusting, 70, 71, 57 DeAnne Gabriel, Kelli Gleason, Nicole Greene, Chris Grove, Dave Hallowell, Sue Hill, Conor Intemann, Michael Johnson, Shane R. Jordan, E. Katie Klingsporn, Axel Koch, Jody Lambert, Sienna Martin, Brittany Miller, Chris Norton, Tiffany Osborne, Aron Smith, Steven Steinberg, Qadir Stern, Robert Trimble, Elena Withers, Jonathan Yaseen, David Ziegler, Eric Wolff, Aston McNeice

12 Tauqir and Jean-Pierre 1 Parcel 4 provides access to the The FS would be reserving public Fillebeen National Forest to hikers, access for non-motorized uses on snowshoers, and horse riders. For all the trail through Federal Parcel 4 the above, we hope that it will be if an exchange occurs. Also, the possible to keep the parcel 4 as part No Action alternative has been of the National Forest” addressed in the environmental analysis.

15 Barry Sonnenfeld 1 Requests information related to land The request for information exchange as it is adjacent to his request has been fulfilled. property.

19 Paul Byrne 1 Preserve trail opportunities in the An alternative has been exchange” between alta lakes and t- developed, with community 35”. San Miguel County and input, to design a trail system and Telluride have a lot of potential as a incorporate it into the NFS trail mountain biking destination. system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability.

22 Erica Cicero 1 Preserve trail opportunities in the An alternative has been exchange.” developed, with community

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # input, to design a trail system and incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability.

24 Danny Craft 1 Commenter is in favor of land An alternative has been exchange and feels if a reasonable developed, with community number of designated mountain bike input, to design a trail system and trails exist on Forest Service there incorporate it into the NFS trail would be fewer user-created routes system to maintain public access appearing and that a trails system while ensuring environmental would help with the economic protection and sustainability. stability of the region.

25 Adam de Alva 1 Telluride is an active mountain An alternative has been biking community. Keep trails open developed, with community to mountain bikers. input, to design a trail system and incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability.

26 Bill de Alva 1 “I am particularly concerned that An alternative has been trail access for mountain biking from developed, with community Prospect Basin to the top of the “T- input, to design a trail system and 25” trail be preserved. As stated in incorporate it into the NFS trail the Planet article there currently system to maintain public access exists a network of mt. bike trails while ensuring environmental through Parcel-2 (Skyline Ranch protection and sustainability. South) as well as Parcels 3 and E (Alta Lakes) and the existing trails are unauthorized by the USFS. I have attached a kml file shown the location of one of the more commonly used trails through these parcels. As can be seen from the attached GPS file, the connection between Prospect Basin and the T-35 trail makes possible one the premiere mt. bike loop rides in the region. This route is one of the most scenic I’ve ridden anywhere and the 2,800 elevation drop on the downhill leg from Prospect Basin to Ilium Valley is as good or better than any trail in Fruita, Moab, Grand Junction or Durango. In the almost four decades I have lived in Telluride, I have seen countless trails lost as a result of real estate development. I do not believe it is critical that all of the trails from Prospect down to Highway 145 be

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # preserved. It should be noted however that one advantage to the network of trails is that no single route has ever become so overused as to cause serious erosion or other environmental issues. I am confident that regional mt. biking interests will step up to the task of maintaining a mt. bike trail from Prospect Basin to Ilium Valley if that is what it takes to preserve this route!”

29 Ben Eng 1 Preserve trail opportunities to Alta An alternative has been Lakes trail system from the ski area developed, with community in the land exchange because it’s one input, to design a trail system and of the only trails that isn’t terribly incorporate it into the NFS trail steep which is an important system to maintain public access consideration for the vacationing while ensuring environmental recreational riders using the Gondola protection and sustainability. for bike access.

39 Dan Gudal 1 “For years I’ve been an avid An alternative has been mountain biker living in the developed, with community Telluride region. My favorite trail input, to design a trail system and has been the Prospect/Alta incorporate it into the NFS trail Lakes/T35 trail. Although not well system to maintain public access marked, once you figure out the trail while ensuring environmental system it’s without a doubt one of protection and sustainability. the best in the region. Being a Yeti bike owner, which the company is based out of Golden, CO I’ve gone to many of their annual summer tribe gatherings, which change locations every year. This past summer, I convinced them to come hold their event in Telluride which drew close to 250 riders. This was the trail that they worked with the Forrest Service to get approval for the large group ride on Saturday. I’ll use the word “trail” somewhat loosely since we know it’s a maze of trails. That evening everyone raved about how great that ride was. We know there can be improvements made to signage, the trail, etc., the important thing in any land exchange would be to make sure access is maintained for this loop ride on the single track that is currently in place. It’s definitely the most popular (unknown trail) in the Telluride region. However events like the Yeti Tribe this past summer are putting it more in the spotlight

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # and bringing valuable tourism dollars to the region.”

41 Scott Harris 1 “I live in Telluride, and would like An alternative (Alternative 3, to add my comment, that I believe map in Appendix B) has been the Forest Service should do as developed, with community much as possible to protect access input, to design a trail system and and land use, for all citizens in this incorporate it into the NFS trail area. While the land exchange may system to maintain public access benefit the public, and most certainly while ensuring environmental will give private owners better land protection and sustainability. for personal development(s), I feel that it is imperative that the public at large is protected in their ability to access and enjoy these areas. Many cyclists, hikers, hunters and other citizens use this area for recreation, and their right to access must be kept available. I am writing you to show my support of the efforts brought forth by the San Miguel Bicycle Alliance and the Telluride Mountain Club in securing public access easements for the existing and popular trails near the Alta Lakes and Upper Turkey Creek areas of the Telluride region. I firmly agree that losing access to these trails would be a major loss to the community. Please work with the above organizations to facilitate the protection of these trails, in a mindful manor, that respects all parties involved securing permanent public access moving forward.”

42 Hill Hastings II 1 “While I agree with the philosophy An alternative has been of getting rid of private in-holdings developed, with community within national forest, it should not input, to design a trail system and compromise trail access through incorporate it into the NFS trail previous federal land that by the system to maintain public access swap has suddenly become while ensuring environmental private. It also affects long time protection and sustainability. neighboring land owners who have enjoyed access to adjacent federal land that by the swap suddenly becomes private, leaving them surrounded by private land and at risk of trespass violation when hiking or riding out of their land.

While many of the trails have been user created, others are Historic and have been used by ranchers and local

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # population for over 100 years.

I strongly believe that any land swap that converts federal land to private must insure a route(s) for trail access across such land. This is vital for our community and ongoing recreation interests.”

44 John Humphries 1 “#1: Trail Access and use in the An alternative has been Alta Lakes area would be lost. The developed, with community trails in this area need to input, to design a trail system and be cataloged before this land incorporate it into the NFS trail exchange should proceed. Although system to maintain public access a couple trails would be gained, while ensuring environmental easement and use of others would be protection and sustainability. lost. This is the best trail area to hike/ride your bike in the close Should the level of “access Telluride/Ophir/MV vicinity. protection” as identified in Alternative 3 not be deemed #2: A Bad Trade: I do not believe sufficient by the Commenter, the this public/private land trade is in the No Action alternative has been public's best interest in terms of land addressed in the environmental value or trail access. I feel the analysis. public will come out on the short end on this deal. Greater public benefit must be gained (access protection) before this deal should proceed.”

45 Rick Hurwitz 1 Not only are the Alta trails uniquely An alternative has been special, they are also abundant and developed, with community longer than other trails in the region. input, to design a trail system and They represent a bigger ride, a ride incorporate it into the NFS trail providing more technical challenges. system to maintain public access Maintain trails in the land exchange while ensuring environmental for homeowners and visitors protection and sustainability.

47 Brandy Johnson 1 With the minimal amount of trails in An alternative has been the Telluride area Alta lakes and T35 developed, with community is where the best riding is. Closing input, to design a trail system and these trails to mountain bikers would incorporate it into the NFS trail be horrible for the community. As system to maintain public access the TSG Marketing Manager I while ensuring environmental advertise these trails to all of our protection and sustainability. guests who visit Telluride for mountain biking and tourists return year after year to use trails. Consider how much these trails mean to more than just our local community but to tourism.

48 Michael Johnson 1 I feel that a multi-use trail network is An alternative has been necessary to promote tourism which developed, with community is vital to the region and to the active input, to design a trail system and outdoor population of the area. incorporate it into the NFS trail

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Additional trails in the Telluride area would be considered as part of a future analysis anticipated to begin in 2015.

50 E. Katie Klingsporn 1 Mountain biking is a quickly An alternative has been growing sport, and I would hate for developed, with community Telluride to lose one of the best local input, to design a trail system and loops it has. Instead, I hope this can incorporate it into the NFS trail be an opportunity to work with system to maintain public access bikers and landowners to improve while ensuring environmental the existing network, install proper protection and sustainability. signage and create a properly Additional trails in the Telluride maintained trail that won't result area would be considered as part in tourists getting lost back there. of a future analysis anticipated to begin in 2015.

53 Chris Lawson 1 “Please put the easements in the An alternative has been agreement to keep the existing single developed, with community track trails open on private property. input, to design a trail system and I love mountain biking in the area.” incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Trail easements are being retained where appropriate.

54 Renato Maero 1 I support efforts to keep a trail The issue is a general comment, system. opinion, or position statement which requires no response.

56 Trevor Martin 1 We have been concerned as An alternative has been development proposals and developed, with community ownership changes have threatened input, to design a trail system and the access to this historic and incorporate it into the NFS trail beautiful place. system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental Through conversations with the protection and sustainability. landowner's Attorney, It is pleasing to hear that they are willing to grant Additional trails in the Telluride access easements for trails that are area would be considered as part developed in conjunction with a of a future analysis anticipated to USFS as a recognized trail system in begin in 2015. the area. We have spent significant time in this area mapping and exploring the system of popular trails that amount to more than 10 miles of well developed routes through the area. A large percentage of the routes fall on USFS land with portions entering and exiting the private land involved with this exchange, specifically the

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # parcel 2 and parcel 3 lands. We have highlighted these areas of concern in red on the maps - found on page one and three of the attached pdf document. Coincidentally, according to our maps, these areas contain all of the ingress and egress to and from private lands after the trade commences. We strongly urge the USFS to thoroughly review all of the areas of concern and secure access easements prior to any such exchange of public land take place. We simply can not support any land trade that does not require careful inventory of existing trails, and then the execution of access easements within all Areas of Concern prior to closing and conveyance to private ownership. Moving forward, with the cooperation of the Telluride Mountain Club, we would like to work with the USFS to determine the locations of easements as well as developing a management plan that maintains or improves the trail quality so that they may become a recognized system by the USFS and added into the national trail inventory.”

57 Ashton McNeice 1 In 5 years we have not gained a foot An alternative has been of new trail here in Telluride. USFS developed, with community should be building and maintaining input, to design a trail system and mountain bike trails in Telluride incorporate it into the NFS trail area. This could create economic system to maintain public access stability for the community through while ensuring environmental the addition of recreational protection and sustainability. opportunities. We have the Additional trails in the Telluride opportunity to become a recreational area would be considered as part hub for more than fishing, scenery of a future analysis anticipated to and concerts here in Telluride It’s begin in 2015. time to move forward and create a full spectrum of recreation tourism opportunities in Telluride. Recreationists will travel to recreate in their chosen activity and will support local businesses.

58 Jary Metcalf 1 Commenter supports this land An alternative has been exchange. The more open access the developed, with community better. However, this exchange may input, to design a trail system and have the effect of restricting access incorporate it into the NFS trail to some trails. Make every effort to system to maintain public access

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # include easement language in the while ensuring environmental Exchange Agreement for these trails protection and sustainability. in the Alta lakes and turkey creek Easements are being retained for areas. Please do what you can to some sustainable trails. make this exchange a win for Additional trails in the Telluride everyone.” area would be considered as part of a future analysis anticipated to begin in 2015.

65 David Taft 1 Preserve trail opportunities in the An alternative has been exchange. Consider trail easements. developed, with community input, to design a trail system and incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Easements are being retained for some sustainable trails

67 Trevor Walchenbach 1 Preserve trail opportunities in the An alternative has been exchange. Please consider all the developed, with community “angles” input, to design a trail system and incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Easements are being retained for some sustainable trails.

69 Eric Wolff 1 Preserve trail opportunities in the An alternative has been exchange. The trail network is a developed, with community major draw to outdoor enthusiasts, input, to design a trail system and locals and tourists. incorporate it into the NFS trail system to maintain public access while ensuring environmental protection and sustainability. Easements are being retained for some sustainable trails.

Roads

1 Casale Trust Page 2 “Casale Trust also is concerned with There is no proposal in front of ensuring that the Forest Service the FS that includes adequately considers the impacts of reconstruction/relocation of Alta any possible future alternative Access or State Highway 145. reconstruction/relocation of the The Proponent has not indicated current Alta Access Road/Highway plans for any development of the 145 Intersection and/or any possible Alta Lakes area that would proposed realignment and/or require reconstruction or upgrade of the Alta Lakes roadway relocation of the Alta Road. San (if any) that might follow the Miguel County zoning proposed trade of Parcel 3 lands. regulations would result in a This concern obviously is reduction of development rights heightened by the most recent compared to the existing revelations of possible post-trade condition. development of “a few small

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # cabins” on the Parcel 3 lands Should the Forest Service receive especially in light of the current a proposal in the future to County regulations. Thus, since the reconstruct or relocate the Alta Proponents’ predecessor had Road, then appropriate public expended such time, input and involvement and environmental expense to propose various iterations analysis would be undertaken to of possible realignment and/or address issues raised by the roadway improvements for Alta public. Lakes Road — all in a controversial environmental manner — Casale Trust continues to be concerned that any new proposed road improvements will not (i) be allowed to harm current pristine forest lands; (ii) result in visual pollution related to impacts from cut-and-fill and retaining walls for reconstructed/relocated roadway areas; and/or (iii) cause adverse impacts inflicted on neighboring private and public lands, as well as wildlife (including possible year- around access, increased road speeds, etc.).”

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

1 Tom Fitzgerald Address impacts including on TES Impacts to Threatened, species and other species of concern Endangered, and Sensitive from the land exchange and future Species are included in the development of the Town of Alta environmental analysis in Chapter Lakes. 3. The BA/BE addresses all issues the proposed land exchange poses to TES, Sensitive and Management Indicator species.

Water Rights

1 Casale Trust Page 2, #5 Consider impacts to private water Valid State water rights would be rights (Casale Trust has senior water unaffected by this proposal. rights in Gold Creek Basin), Water rights are addressed in structures and other resources as section 3.6. There would be no result of the exchange on federal and effects on water right structures private lands (specifically Parcel 3). or other water rights resources as a result of any of the alternatives.

2 Garfield and Hecht Page 1 Protect Metro District’s access Access easements would be easements and water rights in the ensured in the Exchange land exchange. Agreement. Valid State water rights would be unaffected by this proposal.

3 Garfield and Hecht, Comment Metro District’s motorized access The easement and motorized easements and water rights must be access to the pipeline and water

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # 2, Page 1 protected in the land exchange. intake location would be ensured Request that source water is fenced in the Exchange Agreement as in the exchange. identified in the Proposed Action. Valid State water rights would be unaffected by this proposal. This issue of possible future livestock grazing and fencing on lands that would become private is outside the scope of the proposed action, but we encourage Metro to work with new owner of this parcel to address this concern.

4 Tueller and Associates, Page 2 … (iii) water resources located on (iii) Beaver Springs Pond (aka Mais Comments public lands abutting and impacting “Beaver Springs Lake” or the Mai Property and its vested “Beaver Pond” or “Beaver Lake”) water rights generally, and Beaver on Federal Parcel 2 is considered Lake specifically; in this analysis. A fractionated water right appears to exist in the form of a Quit Claim Deed issued to the Mais. There are no federal easements authorizations with this water right that would be impacted by the land exchange. Valid State water rights would be unaffected by this proposal.

Wildlife

1 Casale Trust Page 1-2, Consider effects from potential Impacts to wildlife habitat are #2 development near Alta Townsite included in the environmental (Parcel 3) to heritage resources, analysis in Chapter 3. human environment and wildlife Additionally, the BA/BE habitat in the environmental addressed all issues the proposed analysis. exchange poses to TES, Sensitive and Management Indicator species.

Appendix D. Response to Comments on Preliminary EA

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence #

Land Issues/Private Property Concerns

1 Tueller and Associates, Page 1, #3 The Draft EA does not recognize the The Forest Service acknowledged on Behalf of the Mais Mais’ interests in Beaver Lake that the Mais hold water rights in [Beaver Springs Pond] or the USFS Beaver Springs Pond and could interest in Beaver and Hiker Lakes. have water rights in Hiker Lake, as well as other facilities, on The EA incorrectly states that none pages 26 and 91 of the of Beaver Lake is located on the preliminary EA. Water rights Mais’ property. have been further clarified in The need for Joint Ownership Section 3.6 and Appendix E of Agreements. this EA. The information concerning water rights in the EA came from research of water rights decrees, deeds, and other documentation found by the Forest Service concerning those facilities. Additional information was provided by water rights attorneys representing both the Mais and the Proponent. Usage of water is determined by the water rights decrees. The water storage ownership in Beaver Springs Pond is disputed between the Proponents and Mais who have each provided their rationale as documented in the project case record. The State holds the jurisdiction for this matter. The Forest Service holds no ownership interest of water in either Beaver Springs Pond or Hiker Lake. Based on consultation with water attorneys and Assistant State Division Engineer (pers. Com. Corey Wong and Linda Bledsoe on January 16, 2015), the Forest Service believes 1)the Mais’ water rights in Beaver Springs Pond will protect their interests. Should Skyline Ranch construct a ditch to bypass Beaver Springs Pond, a change in point of diversion would need to be adjudicated through the State water court and the State Engineer would not allow water to be placed in that ditch until a decree was issued. 2) Should Federal Parcel 2 become private and the Mais establish they have

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # a storage right in Beaver Spring Pond, an easement may possibly be established by the Mais through condemnation thus protecting the upper part of Beaver Springs Pond. 3) Should Federal Parcel 2 become private, Mai may have a private cause of action to seek condemnation for a right-of-way for access, which is not an option on federal land. With these options and because there is no authorization for that portion of Beaver Springs Pond On NFS lands to any of the water rights holders, the Forest Service believes that the Mais’ water interests are better protected if Federal Parcel 2 goes into private ownership than if it remains managed as NFS lands. The Forest Service acknowledges that Beaver Springs Pond is located on the Mais’ property, as well as NFS lands. We are unsure what, if any, additional access to Beaver Springs Pond would be necessary as the facilities that could require maintenance or repair are located on the Mai property. There is no need for the Forest Service to provide protection of or access to Beaver Springs Pond for the Mais. While the agency might require an authorization for Beaver Springs Pond under the No Action Alternative (because there are water rights associated with the pond, the pond is part of a larger water delivery system and the pond has been improved), even if the Forest Service required the Proponent to issu an equivalent easement to the Mais, the agency could only require an easement to authorize what now exists, which would not prevent the Proponent from making alterations to the pond. A joint ownership agreement is a document established by the water rights holders and is not an agreement required or enforced by the Forest Service.

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence #

7 Fillebeen, Wilson Mesa Page 2 We are pleased to note that we will All easements are disclosed in the Ranch Homeowner "Retain access on National Forest environmental analysis and will System Trail (NFST) 421.1A, as it be conveyed at closing of the land crosses Wilson Mesa Parcel 4, which exchange transaction as outlined is currently managed as foot and in the Exchange Agreement. horse Trail."

Water Rights

1 Tueller and Associates, 2 The EA incorrectly states that Many facilities with privately- on Behalf of the Mais Skyline owns the water right for held water rights are located upon Beaver Lake, despite its current both NFS lands and private location on lands owned solely by lands. Owning a piece of the USFS and Mais. property with a water facility on it does not necessarily mean that the landowner has any “right” to use of the facility. The water rights documentation researched by the Forest Service, including water court decrees, states that Skyline Ranch and Alta Investments both hold water rights in Beaver Springs Pond and other facilities associated with the “system” and that .5 cfs of the water rights previously held by the Farnys was quitclaimed to Vincent Mai in 1996. The Preliminary EA acknowledged that the Mais held water rights in Beaver Springs Pond and, to the extent the Forest Service could determine, the “system” associated with it and other water facilities. Beaver Springs Pond has some disputed storage water rights which are addressed in Appendix E with both the Proponent’s and Mais’ water attorneys providing information.

7 Fillebeen, Wilson Mesa Page 2 In our previous letter of Jan 15, we Both Alternatives 2 and 3 include Ranch Homeowner pointed out the utmost importance of the language: our water intake from the Elk Creek and our current water passage. As The Non-Federal Parties would this issue is not clarified in your execute a suitable easement to letter, we would appreciate receiving replace the Special Use Permit confirmation that our water access (SUP) issued to the Wilson Mesa will not be effected. at Telluride Metropolitan District dated June 24, 2005 for Federal Parcel 4. Said easement would, as a minimum, authorize those rights, privileges and obligations currently authorized by Forest Service special use permit.

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence #

Recreation

1 Max Cooper, on behalf Page 1 SMBA is in support of the Wilson Thank you for your support of of San Miguel Bike Peak Land Exchange. We are Alternative 3, Proposed Action Alliance particularly excited that the USFS and Mountain Bike Trails. and the land owners are working together toward a legal trail system in the Alta Lakes region. SMBA is looking forward to the chance to work with the USFS on trail maintenance of the new system. Thanks again for working for the work on this.

2 David LeFevre Page 1 As a board member of the San Thank you for your support of Miguel Bike Alliance, and Telluride Alternative 3, Proposed Action community, I am in favor of the and Mountain Bike Trails. proposed land swap and trails proposals put forth by the forest service, private land owners, and the SMBA in the Alta lakes region. I sincerely look forward to continued commitment from the above parties toward a trail system enjoyable by all user groups and personally commit my efforts and energies toward proper establishment and maintenance of these and future trails in the Telluride region.

3 Jenny Russell Page 1 Thank you for including Alternative Thank you for your support of 3, which I strongly support, provided Alternative 3, Proposed Action that the trails to be built will and Mountain Bike Trails. adequately compensate (in terms of the user experience) for the 4 miles of non-system trails to be closed on NSF lands.

4 San Miguel County Page 1 San Miguel County supports this Thank you for your support of proposed land exchange to include Alternative 3, Proposed Action Alternative 3 as it applies to the and Mountain Bike Trails. parcels within our county. San Miguel County continues to support the provision of the EA that one or more of the “social” mountain bike trails in the Alta lakes/Turkey Creek mesa area, in addition to Boomerang Road, become formally established and legally recognized by both the relevant private landowner(s) in this area as well as by the Forest Service. The County appreciates that in response to our previous request to

Resource Name of Commenter Area and Page/ and Date of Summary of Comment Response to Comment Comment Paragraph Correspondence # revise the scope of work for the exchange, the USFS has identified a public hiking/biking trail system in the Alta Lakes Area, and that you have added an additional alternative that incorporates these trails into the USFS trails system. We especially want to thank the Forest Service for working with the local trails groups to identify appropriate trails and to plan for maintenance of these trails

Ecological Issues

1 Tueller and Associates, Page 2, #2 Draft EA does not contain any Section 3.5, Wetlands and on Behalf of the Mais notable discussion of the ecological Floodplains, has been amended to and wildlife habitat values of the be clearer on the ecological and portions of Hiker Lake and Beaver wildlife habitat values of the two Springs Pond involved in the lakes and the potential effects of Exchange, including the values the alternatives on them. The attending their associated wetlands. section has also been amended to Draft EA concludes more wetland consider riparian areas associated and pond areas will come into USFS with Hiker Lake and Beaver ownership as a result of the Springs Pond. Exchange, despite the fact that it simply is unclear in light of the apparent failure of the USFS to have considered riparian areas associated with Hiker Lake or Beaver Springs Pond.

(Intentionally left blank)

Appendix E. Water Rights Report

Summary of Findings for Special Use Authorizations for Water Facilities Involved in the Wilson Peak Land Exchange

Prepared by Linda Bledsoe, Realty Specialist, Grand Valley Ranger District September 29, 2014 Revised October 14, 2014; December 19, 2014; January 15, 2015, February 13, 2015; April 23, 2015

INTRODUCTION The following water facilities are located on both National Forest System (NFS) lands and private lands in the vicinity of the Wilson Peak Land Exchange Properties. As part of the analysis being done for the Wilson Peak Land Exchange, their water rights and authorization status is needed. Many of these facilities were constructed in the early 1900s and, therefore, it can be unclear as to whether an authorization exists. Water facilities built around that time could have been authorized as easements under the Acts of July 26, 1866 (1866 Act), and the Act of March 3, 1891 (1891 Act). Some of the confusion about authorizations for these water developments might also arise from uncertainty about whether mining claims (on which some of the facilities were constructed) were patented. ACT OF JULY 26, 1866 In order for the Forest Service to administratively recognize the existence of an 1866 Act easement, several criteria must be met; and each of these is discussed for each facility. Following are the criteria. 1. Evidence of a Right to the Diversion and Use of Water Much of the evidence as to whether an Act of July 26, 1866, easement (RS 2339) right to the use and occupancy of National Forest System (NFS) lands exists is dependent upon whether you can show that there was a locally recognized/acknowledged right to the use of water. That often is best demonstrated with evidence of a vested or certificated water right from the State, having an identified “priority date” for the use, diversion, transport, and/or storage of the water for which the subject facility was constructed. The reservation date for the Uncompahgre National Forest in the area of the water facilities is March 2, 1907. 2. Evidence of when the Facility was Constructed and Made Operational RS 2339 rights are limited to the facilities that actually existed as of the date of reservation of the subject land (when the land was reserved from the public domain for forest reserve/national forest purposes (March 2, 1907). 3. Evidence of Continuous Operation and Use In addition to the two tests above (land was still public, and water right was secured), for an RS 2339 outstanding right to be valid today, the subject facility must have been in relatively continuous use since construction without “abandonment”. Evidence to demonstrate relatively continuous use may be needed in certain cases where on-the-ground conditions (vegetation, condition of the facilities, etc.) suggest the possibility of prolonged periods of nonuse. The Forest Service has no statutory authority to recognize 1866 Act easements. The only way to perfect an 1866 Act easement is for the owner of the facility to file a Quiet Title Act suit with a federal court of competent jurisdiction. Although the Forest Service has recently started issuing administrative

99 acknowledgements of a “potentially valid prior right,” this acknowledgement is only for the administrative purposes. A court action still remains the only way to establish the easement. Those who receive those administrative acknowledgements are advised of that requirement. Should that court action not occur and new guidance or interpretation (usually through court action) be issued, those administrative acknowledgements can be overturned. ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, as amended [43 U.S.C.§951] Easements under this act (also known as the Creative Act) were granted by the General Land Office (GLO) after the reservation dates of the national forests where the facilities exist. There is no actual document entitled “Act of March 3, 1891, Easement;” however, there are usually records available showing that an easement was granted. The Act of 1891, as amended, granted a right of way through the public lands and reservations of the United States for canals, ditches, and reservoirs employed “for the purpose of irrigation, but not for any other purpose. In 1898 Congress amended the Act to permit canals, ditches, and reservoirs on 1891 Act rights of way “may be used for other purposes of a public nature; and said rights-of way may be used for purposes of water transportation, for domestic purposes, or for the development of power as subsidiary to the main purpose of irrigation.” 1898 Amendment 43 U.S.C. § 951. See Kern River Co v United States, 257 U.S. 147 (1921) (all purposes including purposes of a public nature were to be subsidiary to irrigation; private purposes limited to articulated purposes). • Application for easement: The application for an 1891 easement consisted of a plat showing the water facility to be constructed that was submitted to the local General Land Office. If the facility was to be located on surveyed NFS lands, the GLO would forward the plat to the Forest Service asking if the proposed facility would interfere with other uses already existing on the NFS lands. Some of these uses could be withdrawals. At this time, the GLO assigned a serial number to the application. The area where the subject water facilities are located has been surveyed.

• Stipulations executed with the Forest Service: Because the facilities would be located on NFS lands, the applicant was required to enter into stipulations with the Forest Service. Many of the stipulations were similar to the terms and conditions contained in special use permits. There are instances, in the case of facilities to be constructed on unsurveyed, reserved lands, where special use permits were issued instead. In any case, an agreement between the Forest Service and the applicant had to be executed.

• Proof of construction decision: Once the application was approved after execution of the stipulations, the applicant then had five years in which to complete construction. If that was not possible, the applicant could request an extension of time. Very few of those facilities were completed within that time frame, and there are instances where it took 35 to 40 years to complete. Once construction was completed, the GLO required the Forest Service to submit a construction report. If everything was satisfactory, the GLO then issued a decision letter documenting that construction was complete. It was at that time, the easement vested; and whatever was constructed at that time constituted the easement. If the facility was smaller than was planned, the GLO required the applicant to relinquish the rest of the area. There has been some discussion in files that, if the facility was built substantially as planned, no proof of construction decision was needed. Any enlargement after the easement vests required additional authorization.

100

Documentation as to the existence of 1891 easements can be found in several places. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as caretaker of all federal land status records, maintains databases (especially LR2000) that can show information pertaining to 1891 Act easements. That database is generally the most reliable source of information pertaining to those easements. Additionally, the 1986 Ditch Bill Act (P.L. 99-545) transferred jurisdiction and authority for administration of 1891 Act easements on NFS lands to the Forest Service. The Rocky Mountain Regional Office has most, if not all, of the original case files for those 1891 Act easements in their records. If documentation cannot be found in either of those two places, it generally means that an easement either never existed or it was relinquished at some point. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, as amended (FLPMA), revoked the prior laws; however, those easements already in effect under either the 1866 or 1891 Acts remained valid. For information purposes, an 1891 Act easement could be granted by the Bureau of Land Management, even on NFS lands, until the passage of FLPMA.

ALTA RESERVOIR NO. 1, NO. 2 AND NO. 3 – Owner: Alta Lakes, LLC

Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

No. 1

07/02/1916 02/26/1929 32.6 acre-feet Commercial, industrial, fire, domestic (AF)

No. 2

07/02/1916 02/26/1929 30.9 AF Fire

07/02/1916 02/26/1929 48.4 AF Commercial, industrial, fire, domestic

No. 3

07/02/1916 02/26/1929 44.8 acre-feet Commercial, industrial, fire, domestic

07/02/1916 02/26/1929 14.3 acre-feet Commercial, industrial, fire, domestic

On November 15, 1907, the Alta Mines Company filed a petition with the District Court in Montrose for adjudication of beneficial uses other than irrigation. The petition states that the only general adjudication done in the district was in 1897 but only for irrigation. In what appears to be support for the petition a statements of claim was filed in 1908 by George R. Dolf; and, in 1911, Charles E. Wild applied for adjudication of the water rights. However, after hearing various testimonies, the referee for the case wrote that “the acts taken by the claimant were insufficient to constitute an appropriation or to warrant the referee in finding that any appropriation of water in said reservoirs was thereby made.” It appears that there might have been competing interests in these three reservoirs, which some called Nunn Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3. The location of the Nunn Reservoirs was identical to that of the Alta Reservoirs. There is some discussion in the records of a court case going all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court before it was decided in favor of the Alta Mines Company.

101

On November 9, 1926, John M. Wagner filed another statement of claim for water rights, in the Montrose District Court. According to sworn testimony by George G. Wagner (brother of John Wagner) in support of this claim, the Alta Mines Company subsequently “became bankrupt;” and the property was sold to Thomas E. Wild, then to Wagner Development and Mining Company, and then to claimant John M. Wagner. In John Wagner’s claim, he stated that the water had been used for power, mining, milling, manufacturing and domestic purposes. The decrees for the three reservoirs and the Alta Pipeline were issued to John M. Wagner on February 26, 1929, with an appropriation date established as July 2, 1916. All of the decrees state the beneficial use is “milling” purposes, even though Mr. Wagner’s statement of claim mentioned other uses. It could be that “commercial, industrial, fire and domestic” are included in milling purposes. Because the purpose of this research is to determine whether or not an 1866 Act easement might exist for the reservoirs, the appropriation and adjudication (when the right vested) are more important than the decreed beneficial use. Although the testimony and decrees all state that work began in 1882, the court did not recognize it as the appropriation date. In 1911, the water court referee did not recognize that enough work had been done on the reservoirs to award an appropriation date. Only in 1929 did the court finally recognize the 1916 appropriation date and the absolute water right was awarded. Despite that information, it appears that the Forest Service believed an 1866 Act easement was in place for the reservoirs, likely based on the statements that work began in 1882 and construction was might have been completed prior to the reservation date of the Forest. In 1964, the Forest Service filed a plat with the State Engineer’s Office that appears to document “Enlargement Number Two” of the reservoir, which would have increased the amount of water stored by 24.68 AF. There is nothing in the file or the CDSS water rights tabulation to indicate that this enlargement was ever done. Starting in the mid-1960s, the Forest Service expressed concern about the integrity of the three dams to both the State Engineer’s Office and the owner of the reservoirs at that time, Silver Mountain Industries. Despite the State Engineer’s Office having sent directives to the reservoir owners, it appears that no repairs were done. The Forest Service attempted to require “stipulations” to be entered into in order to get the reservoirs fixed. The Forest Service requested guidance from the BLM about the possibility of requiring execution of stipulations for repair done on the dams authorized by an 1866 Act easement; however, the BLM responded that the Forest Service could not require stipulations. It does not appear that any remedial work was done on the dams; and, in the early 1970s, the dam on Alta Reservoir No. 2 failed, causing substantial damage to the surrounding NFS lands. The State Engineer’s Office threatened to file suit in order to get the owners to release the water from the reservoirs to prevent further damage. And, the Forest Service filed a civil suit to recover money to repair damage. The Forest Service and the reservoir owners settled and worked together to effect repairs. Authorizations: 1866 Act: It appears that the Forest Service previously assumed that an 1866 Act easement was in place for the three reservoirs. The reservoirs appear to meet two of the three criteria for establishment of an 1866 Act easement. According to documents filed with the State and the Forest Service, work might have started in 1882 and might have been completed in 1904, which is prior to the March 2, 1907, reservation date for the Uncompahgre National Forest. The water rights also appear to have been in substantially continuous use since the reservoirs’ construction. However, further research into the water rights documents shows that there was enough doubt about the status of the facilities that no appropriation date was even awarded until 1916, well after the reservation date of the forest. Therefore, with current direction and guidance being used, I do not believe an 1866 Act easement has ever existed for the three reservoirs.

102

1891 Act: There are no records for the reservoirs in either the files at the Regional Office or in LR2000. Some pf the water rights are not of the type authorized by the Act pf 1891 as amended. Therefore, I do not believe that an 1891 Act easement exists. Special Use Permit: Because the Forest Service appears to have administered the reservoirs as if they had 1866 Act easements, there is no special use permit issued for them. Recommendation: Because of the findings in this document and the fact that the reservoirs will still occupy NFS lands after the exchange is completed, it appears that new FLPMA special use permits should be issued. My recommendation would be to include all three reservoirs, the Alta Pipeline and the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline as a “system” in one permit. ALTA PIPELINE – Owner: Alta Lakes, LLC Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed (Absolute) Beneficial Use(s) Date Date

07/17/1898 10/31/1911 .36 cubic feet/second (cfs) Commercial, municipal, fire, domestic

On January 13, 1908, Albert C. Koch, Vice-President of the Alta Mines Company, submitted a statement of claim for the water right for the “Alta Pipeline and Water Right.” Later, the same Charles E. Wild that filed for water rights on the reservoirs also filed for the pipeline. The decree indicates that the Alta Mill, which was served by the Alta Pipeline, was formerly known as the Bessie Mill. The water for that mill was furnished through a ditch known as the Georgiana Ditch, which diverted its supply of water from Turkey Creek a short distance below the head gate of the Alta Pipeline and Water Right. Further, the decree states that construction of the Georgiana ditch started on July 17, 1898, and was completed within a “reasonable time thereafter.” The ditch carried 0.3573 cfs of water, which was used at the Bessie Mill until about the fall of 1904. Because of seepage (“waste water”) that can occur from an open ditch, the length of the ditch, and the effect of winter weather on the flow in the ditch, a pipeline was installed and known as the Alta Pipeline and Water Right. Once the pipeline was installed, the ditch was abandoned. Documentation states that the pipeline is 1,900 feet long and is 3 inches in diameter, and the water is used for mining, milling and domestic purposes. Authorizations: 1866 Act: As in the case of the Alta Reservoirs, it appears that the Forest Service believed the Alta Pipeline also had an 1866 Act easement. There is no indication in LR2000 of an 1866 Act easement being recognized in any other manner. However, based on the early appropriation date, the Alta Pipeline might be eligible for administrative acknowledgment of an 1866 Act easement. Such eligibility will be considered should Alta Lakes, LLC, submit documentation to support an 1866 assertion. Any section of Alta Pipeline that occupies NFS lands after completion of the land exchange will need authorization; if not under 1866 then under FLPMA. 1891 Act: There are no records for the Alta Pipeline in either the files at the Regional Office or in LR2000. The water uses are not of the type authorized by the Act of 1891 as amended. Therefore, I do not believe that an 1891 Act easement exists. Special Use Permit: Because the Forest Service appears to have administered the pipeline as if it had an 1866 Act easement, there is no indication a special use permit was ever issued.

103

Recommendation: Following the land exchange, some of the Alta Pipeline will be located on private land owned by the Proponent after completion of the land exchange (Federal Parcel 3D). For the portion of the pipeline that would remain on NFS lands, if an 1866 easement is not asserted or if asserted and not acknowledged, it should be authorized by a special use permit and could be included in the “system” permit for the Alta Reservoirs and Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline. TURKEY CREEK LAKE PIPELINE -- Owner: Alta Lakes, LLC Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

10/22/1926 11/01/1939 3 cfs Commercial, industrial, domestic

It appears that Turkey Creek Lake Ditch and Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline have both been used as names for this facility. To show that, the decree issued in 1939 starts with, “That said ditch, or pipeline, is entitled to Priority No. 263.” The decree states that the headgate for the ditch is at southwest end of Turkey Creek Lake, which appears to be Alta Reservoir No. 3 from maps in the land exchange project file. The water rights decree was issued to the Alta Mines, Incorporated, and found that the water rights had never been presented for decree in any of the previous adjudication proceedings in the water district. The court found that construction started on or about June 1, 1908, and that, when completed, the pipeline had a carrying capacity of 3 cfs. The pipeline was about 3,500 feet long, with a diameter of 4 inches. About one-third of the pipeline’s water was used for domestic purpose for 100 to 175 people employed at the Alta Mill, and two-thirds was used for milling purposes for the reduction of ore. The Statement of Claim for the water rights stated that the water was used for milling, domestic and fire protection purposes. Authorizations: 1866 Act: Because no special use permit appears to have ever been issued for this facility, it could be that the Forest Service believed an 1866 Act easement was in place. Because the appropriation date for this facility is well after the reservation date of the forest in the area, I do not believe it would qualify for administrative acknowledgment of an 1866 Act easement. 1891 Act: The water uses are not of the type authorized by the Act of 1891 as amended. Therefore, I do not believe that an 1891 Act easement exists Special Use Permit: Because the Forest Service appears to have administered the pipeline as if it was authorized by an 1866 Act easement, there is no special use permit issued for it. Recommendation: Some of the NFS lands crossed by the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline (Federal Parcel 3D) will be conveyed into private ownership; however, it appears that a portion of the pipeline will still cross NFS lands after the exchange. A FLPMA special use permit should be issued for the portion still located on NFS lands. This pipeline could be included in a “system” permit, along with the Alta Reservoirs and the Alta Pipeline.

104

BOULDER PLACER DITCH – Owner: Alta Lakes, LLC Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

07/29/1901 10/31/1911 0.65 cfs Fishery

The decree for the “Boulder Placer Ditch and Water Right” was issued on October 31, 1911, to Gus Cushman and states that the ditch diverts water out of Ames Creek, also known as Lion Creek, and conveys that water to Chatauqua Lake (aka Cushman Lake) and certain other lakes and points for fish culture and for raising fish for market. Construction on the ditch appears to have started on July 29, 1901, which is the appropriation date described above. The ditch is described as being 2 feet wide at the bottom, 3½ feet wide at the top and 1 foot deep, with a carrying capacity of 1 cfs. The claimant said that the water was used for irrigation, in addition to fish culture; however, the referee for the case could not find sufficient evidence to determine the amount of water used for irrigation purposes or the amount of water necessary for irrigation purposes and declined to award a decree for that use. It appears that the diversion point is near Hiker Lake and both the diversion point and the ditch are on private land. Recommendation: Because the facility is on private land, no action is necessary on the part of the Forest Service. GOLD KING PIPELINE – Owner: Alta Lakes, LLC Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

10/22/1926 11/01/1939 3.5 cfs Municipal, commercial, domestic

The water rights decree for the Gold King Pipeline was issued on November 1, 1939, to Alta Mines, Incorporated, and stated that the pipeline’s water was taken from a small lake at the head of Gold King Basin on the Komo and Bessie Lodes. The pipeline was described as being 4,000 feet long, with a diameter of 4 inches. The decree adds that the Gold King Pipeline was used in conjunction with the Turkey Creek Lake Pipeline and that both lines were needed for the milling and domestic purposes of the claimant. The decree says that construction of the pipeline started on or about June 1, 1908 (after the reservation date of the Uncompahgre National Forest), and was completed to a carrying capacity of 3.5 cfs for domestic and milling purposes. The statement of claim filed by the Alta Mines, Incorporated, listed the beneficial uses as milling, domestic and fire protection purposes. Authorizations: 1866 Act: Because no special use permit appears to have ever been issued for this facility, it could be that the Forest Service believed an 1866 Act easement was in place. The priority date for the ditch is after the reservation date of the Uncompahgre National Forest, as is the date construction supposedly commenced. Therefore, an administrative acknowledgment of an 1866 Act easement is not appropriate for this facility. 1891 Act: There are no records for the Gold King Pipeline in either the files at the Regional Office or in LR2000. The water uses are not of the type authorized by the Act of 1891 as amended. Therefore, I do not believe that an 1891 Act easement exists. Special Use Permit: Because the Forest Service appears to have administered the pipeline as if it was authorized by an 1866 Act easement, there is no special use permit issued for it.

105

Recommendation: A portion of the Gold King Pipeline is located on private lands, which are proposed to be conveyed into federal ownership (Federal Parcel 3D). The Proponent (and holder of the water rights for the pipeline) might want to consider reserving an easement for that portion of the pipeline in the warranty deed conveying the property to the United States. The remainder of the pipeline will still be located on NFS lands, and a new FLPMA permit should be issued for that portion. An operation and maintenance (O&M) plan will be required for the pipeline, even with the reservation. CHATAUQUA, ENTERPRISE AND SKYLINE MAIN SERVICE DITCH SYSTEM These three ditches will be discussed together because it appears that the ditches could be segments of the same ditch. ENTERPRISE DITCH Water Rights

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

07/10/1902 06/03/1911 0.5 cfs Irrigation

The 1911 decree was issued to Hannah Bonner and states that the water is taken out of Turkey Creek for the irrigation of Mrs. Bonner’s private land. The decree describes the ditch as being 1 foot wide on the bottom, 2 feet wide on the top, and 18 inches deep. In the 1971 referee’s ruling, the 0.5 cfs was split evenly among the Farnys and Goldsworthys. The Farnys were awarded 0.08 cfs (absolute) and 0.17 cfs (conditional until proof of actual use of the water for the stated purpose was shown). The Goldsworthys were awarded 0.02 cfs absolute and 0.23 cfs conditional. CHATAUQUA DITCH Water Rights

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

03/28/1900 10/31/1911 0.47 cfs Fishery

The water rights decree for the Chatauqua Ditch was issued to Gus Cushman on October 31, 1911. It appears that Mr. Cushman also used the water for irrigation purposes; however, the referee noted that he was not allowed to grant a priority date for irrigation use in the adjudication. No additional uses are shown in the CDSS water rights tabulation. The ditch is described as being 1½ feet wide on the bottom, 2½ feet wide on the top and 1½ feet deep; and its carrying capacity is described as being “50 statute inches.” The water is conveyed from the headgate to “certain lakes and ponds being 6 in number, and the largest lake being known as Chatauqua Lake (aka Cushman Lake), and the waters of said ditch are used in said lakes for fish culture and raising fish for market.” In the referee’s recommendation, he notes that there is a parallel ditch, known as Chatauqua Ditch No. 2, but recommends that water rights be granted only to Chatauqua Ditch.

106

SKYLINE MAIN SERVICE DITCH Water Rights

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Date Date (Absolute) Beneficial Use(s)

07/10/1902 12/31/1971 4.75 cfs Irrigation, fishery (absolute flood water decree)

It appears that there was disagreement in the early 1970s between two landowners (Farnys and Goldsworthys) over whose water flowed through the three ditches. The Chatauqua and Enterprise Ditches had already been decreed, and it appears that a water rights application for the Skyline Main Service Ditch caused the issues between the landowners. In his 1972 ruling, the water referee states, in part, “that, although springs, creeks, and ditches have been renamed and uses somewhat altered, the Chatauqua Ditch, The Enterprise Ditch, and now the Skyline Creek Main Service Ditch are all or in part, the same and derive their source of water supply from the same springs.” It further states that the total water decreed to the original Chatauqua and Enterprise Ditches, being .97 cfs, represents essentially all of the normal flow of the source springs. The ruling in the case granted 4.75 cfs of water rights from runoff to be “applied to the beneficial use by all parties.” Ownership On August 6, 1984, Sharon S. Farny, conveyed a parcel of land totaling 35.16 acres, more or less, in the W½NE¼ Section 20, T. 42 N., R. 9 W., NMPM, to John David Crow by warranty deed. The deed also conveyed “water rights, as follows: one-half (0.5) cubic feet per second, with point of diversion being the western part of Beaver Springs Pond which pond is divided by the eastern boundary of said lot or parcel near its southern extremity” to John David Crow. On July 24, 1996, a “clarification of prior deed” was executed by Sharon Farny that stated the intent of Mrs. Farny was that the 0.5 cfs water right “be a portion of the water rights decreed by the District Court in and for Water Division No. 4 in Case Nos. W- 248, W-249, and W-285.” The case numbers refer to decrees for the Skyline Main Service Ditch, the Chatauqua Ditch, Fisherman Lake, Hiker Lake, and other facilities included in the “system” associated with the three ditches. The deed also confirmed, ratified and accepted the conveyance by John David Crow to Margaret Crow. On July 25, 1996, Margaret Crow conveyed property and those water rights to Vincent A. Mai. On October 15, 2004, the Farnys conveyed the remainder of their property and water rights to Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC. Alta Investments, LLC, acquired the Goldsworthy property and associated water rights on April 3, 2009. In 2010, Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC, the Proponent in the land exchange, submitted a water rights application for surface water rights, surface water storage rights and approval of a plan of augmentation. In that application, it was acknowledged that the diversion point for the three ditches was on land owned by the Mais. In the 2013 decree issued in response to the application, the judge cites the decree and an operating agreement Skyline Ranch Trust, LLC (Skyline Ranch), entered into with Alta Investments, LLC (Alta), and made the following determination: • Any flows up to 0.47 cfs would be booked as diversion of the Chatauqua Ditch water right;

• Any flow in excess of 0.47 cfs and up to 0.97 cfs (up to a total of 0.50 cfs) would be booked and accounted for as diversion of the Enterprise Ditch water right;

107

• Any flows in excess of 0.97 cfs would be booked and accounted for as diversion of the Main Service Ditch water rights (owned 50% by Alta and 50% by Skyline), with all such waters to be delivered through the Skyline Ranch water system for use by Skyline and subsequent use by Alta pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement.

Although the common diversion point for the ditches is located on private property owned by the Mais, there does not appear to be an operating or access agreement between the Proponent and the Mais. Recommendation: Because the diversion point and ditches are all located on private land, no Forest Service authorizations are required. Other Facilities: These ditches, along with several springs and lakes/ponds, form a “system.” Following are those other facilities included in that system with a brief explanation of where they are located and whether or not any authorization was issued in the past. Although water rights documentation exists for all of the facilities associated with the ditch “system,” there is a dispute between the Proponent and Mr. Mai about those water rights. Sorting out that dispute is more appropriately the role of a water court and not the Forest Service. However, from all of the information reviewed, the Forest Service believes the exchange Proponent to be a holder of water rights in the following facilities: • Skyline (aka Cushman) Spring No. 1 – located on NFS lands with no Forest Service authorization in place. The affected NFS lands will be conveyed to the Proponent;

• Skyline Spring No. 2 – located on NFS lands with no Forest Service authorization in place. The affected NFS lands will be conveyed to the Proponent;

• Skyline Spring No. 3 – located on NFS lands with no Forest Service authorization in place. The affected NFS lands will be conveyed to the Proponent;

• Beaver Spring – located on NFS lands with no Forest Service authorization in place. The affected NFS lands will be conveyed to the Proponent;

• Beaver Springs Pond (a.k.a. Beaver Pond, Beaver Lake) – located on Mai private property and NFS lands with no Forest Service authorization in place. The storage right ownership in this pond is disputed between the Proponent and the Mais (as documented in the project case record). The affected NFS lands will be conveyed to the Proponent. Even though the appropriation date for the Beaver Springs Pond water right predates the forest, it is unclear as to when the pond was actually constructed so additional research would be needed in order to determine whether or not an 1866 Act easement might exist. While we believe it is likely that the Mais have a right to water in Beaver Springs Pond, we do not believe that the Mais require an access agreement to this pond from the Proponent as the Mais’ facilities could be accessed from their own property;

• Hiker Lake – The dam is located on private land owned by the Proponent and Vincent Mai. The inundated area is on both private and NFS lands. There is also a feeder ditch from Skyline Creek to Hiker Lake, a small portion of which might cross NFS lands. No Forest Service authorization was issued for either the reservoir or the ditch; however, the affected NFS lands will be conveyed to the Proponent;

108

• Fisherman Lake and Skyline Lake/Pond – appear to be located on private property owned by the Proponent and Vincent Mai;

• Cushman Lake – located on private property owned by Alta Investments, LLC.

Recommendation: While the facilities located on NFS lands should have been authorized by the Forest Service, upon completion of the land exchange, they will all be located on private property owned by the exchange Proponent, except for those that are currently located also upon the Mai property. As with the Enterprise, Chatauqua and Skyline Main Service Ditches, there is a decreed agreement in place between the Proponent and Alta Investments, LLC, for use of the facilities. Because of that, there does not appear to be a need for the Proponent to execute easements to Alta Investments, LLC, once the land is conveyed into private ownership. The exchange will have no effect on the water rights in the system held by Vincent Mai. JACKIE SPRING – Owner: Alta Lakes, LLC Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

07/31/1979 12/31/1984 .05 cfs Domestic

.20 cfs (conditional) Industrial

The 2009 decree for due diligence on the conditional water right states that this spring is part of an “integrated water supply system” for Alta Lakes, LLC. It is located in Section 22, T. 42 N., R. 9 W., NMPM, on Federal Parcel 3D. No Forest Service authorization was issued for the spring. Authorizations: Because the parcel on which the spring is located will be conveyed to the Proponent and the Proponent is the water rights holder for the spring, no easement to the new landowner is necessary. Recommendation: Because the land occupied by the Jackie Spring will be conveyed from private to federal ownership, the Proponent might consider a reservation of that spring in the warranty deed that will convey the property to the United States. An operation and maintenance (O&M) will be required, even with the deed reservation. KITTLER SPRING NO. 1 – Owner: The Kittler Living Trust Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

07/01/2006 12/31/2006 .5 cfs Storage (fills augmentation pond)

The CDSS water rights tabulation website did not contain the actual water rights decree for the Kittler Spring; however, the application for the spring submitted by the Kittler Living Trust states that the spring is located in NW¼SE¼NE¼ Section 28, T. 42 N., R. 9 W., N.M.P.M. The application also states that

109

“The Kittler Spring Diversion, with a claimed water right of 0.50 cfs conditional, will divert and convey discharge from a spring located on adjacent National Forest Service land, at the point the water flows onto Applicant’s property, into the East Branch of Kittler Creek by way of a ditch, a channel, and pipe or other structure, then to Kittler Diversion No. 3 in order to fill and refill the Kittler Augmentation Pond through Kittler Creek.” The CDSS tabulation does show that a conditional decree was issued on December 31, 2006. After reviewing the water rights report prepared by Gary Shellhorn, Forest Hydrologist, and using GIS data from the CDSS website, I have come to the conclusion that the Kittler Spring is located on NFS lands just outside the eastern boundary of the Kittler Living Trust. While the spring is located on NFS lands, it could be that no structures are used to convey the water until it flows onto the private property. Recommendation: The spring is located on NFS lands not associated with the proposed land exchange and, therefore, no recommendations insofar as reservations, agreements, or other documents are needed concerning the land exchange. However, because the spring is located on NFS land and, even if there is no constructed diversion facility in place at the spring, a special use authorization should be issued. ELK CREEK PIPELINE – Owner: Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District Water Rights:

Appropriation Adjudication Amount Decreed Beneficial Use(s) Date Date (Absolute)

09/01/1989 12/31/1990 .02 cfs Domestic

What is described as the “decree” in CDSS for the Elk Creek Pipeline is actually the application for the water right. I did not find the actual decree for the pipeline; however, the application states that there are two points of diversion for the pipeline, which is owned by the Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District. The first diversion point is on land belonging to the Elk Creek Land Company, LLC. The alternate point of diversion is located on NFS lands, some of which are identified as “Federal Parcel 4” in the Wilson Peak Land Exchange Proposal. That parcel will be conveyed to the Proponent at the conclusion of the exchange. Authorizations: The pipeline is under special use permit to the Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District and crosses approximately 1,520 feet of NFS lands. Recommendations: As stated in the exchange files, the Non-Federal Parties will need to execute an easement to the Wilson Mesa at Telluride Metropolitan District for the portion of pipeline (and access road) now crossing NFS lands and that will be private property after the exchange is completed. COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD WATER RIGHTS On some of the private parcels, there are minimum stream flows decreed for the benefit of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). These include: • Big Bear Creek – Non Federal Parcel A

• Bilk Creek – Non Federal Parcel A

• Elk Creek – Non Federal Parcels A and B

110

Because there are no diversion structures for these water rights, no protections need to be included in the warranty deeds. Any future diversions in the creeks would be junior to these rights under Colorado water law.

/s/ Linda K. Bledsoe

111

(Intentionally left blank)

112

Appendix F. Questions and Answers Regarding Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews Questions and Answers Regarding Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews Developed to Support Proposed Land Exchanges Involving the USDA Forest Service

The purpose of this document is to provide interested parties with the overall framework, policies, and procedures regarding appraisals and appraisal reviews developed to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service. Q#1 What are the various regulations and standards with which appraisals developed to support a proposed land exchange involving the USDA Forest Service must comply? Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA – amended by the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988) is titled Exchanges and speaks to the need for the public interest to be well served when considering exchanging federal land for non-federal lands of equal value. It goes on to state that lands acquired by the USA that are within the boundaries of any unit of National Forest System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Trails System, National Wilderness Preservation System, or any other system established by an Act of Congress would become part of that unit. It also mandates that the value of land is to be established by appraisal and that those appraisals “shall reflect nationally recognized appraisal standards, including, to the extent appropriate, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.” Implementing regulations for FLPMA are found in 36 CFR 254, Subpart A. Section 254.9 – Appraisals, states in part “The Federal and Non-Federal Parties to an exchange would comply with the appraisal standards as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section and, to the extent appropriate, with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions: Interagency Land Acquisition Conference 1992 (Washington, DC, 1992) ISBN 0-16-038050-2 when appraising the values of the federal and non- federal lands involved in an exchange.” Paragraphs (a) through (d) are titled appraiser qualifications, market value, appraisal report standards, and appraisal review and provide detailed direction on each topic. The Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA) have been prepared with the purpose of promoting uniformity in the appraisal of real property among the various agencies acquiring property on behalf of the United States. It should make no difference to the landowner, whose property is being acquired, which agency is acquiring the land, or what method of acquisition it uses. Since uniformity and fairness in the treatment of property owners are also goals of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, the UASFLA presume full compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Act which is codified in 49 CFR 24. In addition to UASFLA, many States and professional appraisal organizations require compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). USPAP was created with the expressed purpose of promoting and preserving public trust in the professional appraisal practice. Congress has contributed to public acceptance of USPAP by identifying it as “the generally recognized standards of practice in the appraisal profession.” Furthermore, this set of standards is incorporated in 49 CFR 24.103(a), which reads, in part: Appraisal requirements. This section sets forth the requirements for real property acquisition appraisals for federal and federally-assisted programs. Appraisals are to be prepared according to these requirements, which are intended to be consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal

113

Practice. The Agency may have appraisal requirements that supplement these requirements, including, to the extent appropriate, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Conflicts between UASFLA and USPAP are minimal. Typically there is only one difference – that the definition of market value used makes no linkage between the estimated market value and exposure time. This difference is handled with the use of a Jurisdictional Exception to USPAP that reads: The Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions provide that the appraiser would not link an estimate of market value to a specific exposure time. This is contrary to Standards Rule 1-2(c) of the current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and is considered a Jurisdictional Exception. Therefore, appraisals that are developed to support a proposed land exchange involving the USDA Forest Service must comply with 36 CFR 254, 49 CFR 24, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Additionally, the agency may further supplement these regulations and standards through the use of a statement of work developed on a case specific basis. Q#2 What are the definitions of appraisal, appraisal review, market value, and highest and best use as they relate to appraisals prepared to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service? Appraisal or appraisal report, as defined by 36 CFR 254, means “a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion as to the market value of the lands or interests in lands as of a specific date(s), supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information.” Appraisal review, as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, means “the act or process of developing and communicating an opinion about the quality of another appraiser’s work that was performed as part of an appraisal or appraisal review assignment.” Market Value, as defined by 36 CFR 254, means “the most probable price in cash, or terms equivalent to cash, which lands or interests in lands should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, where the buyer and seller each acts prudently and knowledgeably, and the price is not affected by undue influence.” Highest and Best Use, as defined by 36 CFR 254, means “an appraiser’s supported opinion of the most probable and legal use of a property, based on market evidence, as of the date of valuation.” Q#3 What is involved in the appraisal and appraisal review process and what purposes are served specific to proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service? Commonly held misconceptions of appraisal are that each property has a value, that it is the appraiser’s job to “find” the value and produce a report, and that the report must be understandable by anyone. In reality, the appraiser consults with a client to identify the client’s need, enters into an agreement with the client to meet that need, identifies the appropriate scope of work to develop credible opinions and conclusions, and reports the findings in a manner that is clear and understandable to the client and other intended users. Similarly, misconceptions of appraisal review are that a more experienced appraiser reviews another appraiser’s appraisal report, scrutinized that report, and writes a detailed critique. Actually, the review appraiser consults with a client to identify the client’s need, enters into an agreement with the client to answer the question about the other appraiser’s work, identifies the appropriate scope of work to develop credible opinions and conclusion, and reports the findings in a manner that is clear and understandable to the client and other intended users.

114

For appraisals developed to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service, the appraiser’s client is the USDA Forest Service whose intended use of the appraisal is to establish the basis for negotiating a potential, voluntary land exchange between a Non-Federal Party or parties and the USA, as represented by the USDA Forest Service. Intended users include representatives of the agency and of the owner. The purpose of the appraisal is to conclude opinions of market value developed to comply with various regulations and standards including the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA), and 36 CFR 254. For the review of appraisals developed to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service, the review appraiser’s client is, again, the USDA Forest Service whose intended use of the review is 1) to document the results of the review, 2) to document the value opinions in the approved appraisal reports, and 3) to document the validity period during which the approved reports can be used by the agency for the proposed land exchange. The purpose of the review is to judge the appraisal reports’ compliance with USPAP, UASFLA, and 36 CFR 254, to develop credible opinions of the adequacy of the data and appropriateness of the analysis of the data relative to the final conclusions given the scope of work applicable to the assignment, and to develop the reasons for any disagreement. Intended users again include representatives of the agency and the owner. The review report must be developed to comply with various regulations and standards including USPAP, UASFLA, and 49 CFR 24.104. The primary steps in the appraisal process are summarized below: A. Define the appraisal problem (purpose/function, identify real property rights, determine date of value, identify limiting conditions, explain critical assumptions, etc.) B. Develop the appraisal plan (determine what data are needed, identify data sources, collect and analyze data, including general and specific data pertaining to soil, topography, improvements, vegetation, grazing, access, mineral estate, recreation potential, occupancy and use, analyze the market, determine highest and best use, etc.) C. Apply the typical appraisal approaches. Consider all three approaches to value – 1) the sales comparison approach, the cost approach, and the income approach – and utilize those that are applicable given the scope of work necessary to produce credible results in light of the appraisal’s intended use. D. Reconcile the results of the appraisal approaches and determine the final opinion of market value. Q#4 Can the appraiser use the development approach in appraisals developed to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service? Why or why not? The three standard approaches to value are the sales comparison approach, cost approach, and income approach. The development approach, or subdivision approach as it is sometimes called, draws on elements of all three approaches. Section A-15 of the 2000 edition of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions states: When the highest and best use of a property is for subdivision purposes and comparable sales do not exist, the appraiser may resort to the development approach to land value, but only if adequate market and/or technical data are available with which to reliably estimate the property value by this approach. This method of estimating land value can also be used to test the appraiser’s highest and best use conclusion and to check against the indicated value of the land developed by the use of comparable sales when the sales data is limited. However, this approach to value is complex, often requiring the assistance of other experts and always requiring substantial amounts of research, analysis, and supporting documentation.

115

Therefore, the answer to the question is yes, but only if applicable and only if employed correctly. When comparable sales are available with which to accurately estimate value, this approach should not be relied upon as the primary indicator of value as it is considerably more prone to error and manipulation. Q#5 Who prepares appraisals and appraisal reviews used to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service? An agency staff appraiser or a private contract appraiser may prepare appraisals used in federal transactions. If private contract appraisers are used, they may work under contract from the agency or under contract from the Non-Federal Party as long as the USDA Forest Service is recognized as the client. In all cases, the appraiser(s) must demonstrate through education and work experience that they are qualified for the assignment. Many appraisers develop specialties for a few types of property. It is important that appraisers' experience and expertise be matched with the current assignment. The term “review appraiser” is used rather than “reviewing appraiser” to emphasize that “review appraiser” is a separate specialty and not just an appraiser who happens to be reviewing an appraisal. Federal Agencies have long held the perspective that appraisal review is a unique skill that, while it certainly builds on appraisal skill, requires more. The review appraiser should possess both appraisal technical abilities and the ability to be the two-way bridge between the agency’s real property valuation needs and the appraiser. The agency must review the experience, education, training, certification/licensing, designation(s) and other qualifications of appraisers, and review appraisers, and use only those determined by the acquiring agency to be qualified. If the agency uses a private contract appraiser to perform the appraisal, such appraiser would be a State certified general real estate appraiser in accordance with title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. 36 CFR 254.9(a)(1) states, in part, “At a minimum, a qualified appraiser would be an individual agreeable to all parties and approved by the authorized officer, who is competent, reputable, impartial, and has training and experience in appraising property similar to the property involved in the appraisal assignment. Q#6 How do review appraisers assure that the values they approved for agency use are fair and equitable in proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service? First, a field office (working on behalf of the Authorized Officer) and the Non-Federal Party agree to the estate to be conveyed. The field office prepares a "Request for Valuation Services" that identifies the purpose, intended use, and intended users of the appraisal, the legal description of the property to be appraised, the estate to be appraised, current information concerning title of the property, and any other pertinent information. Based upon that request, an agency review appraiser is assigned to the project. The agency review appraiser prepares written statement of work that include requirements that the appraisal report be prepared as a self-contained appraisal report and in conformance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, 36 CFR 254, and within the specifications of the project. A pre-work meeting is then held with the agency review appraiser, appraiser, and representatives from both the acquiring agency and owner of the subject property to discuss the written instructions and clarify any questions that may arise. All appraisers preparing reports for agency acquisitions must be State certified general real estate appraisers and have successful experience with providing approved narrative appraisal reports for Federal or State land management agencies. Additionally, they may be required to hold a current professional designation from a sponsor organization of the Appraisal Foundation (which requires education, experience, examination, and code of ethics). The agency review appraiser assigned to the case (that must be knowledgeable in the subject market area) then reviews the report. An appraiser not meeting the minimum qualifications would not be considered for the assignment. This process helps assure that a

116

professional job is completed pursuant to Federal and State rules and regulations for all properties, irrespective of their ownership. Second appraisals are never, under any circumstances, undertaken lightly. They are easily viewed by skeptics as akin to shopping for a specific number (either higher or lower than the conclusion from the first appraisal). Therefore, it is critical that the original appraisal be developed in a manner that produces credible results. Throughout the appraisal process the owner of the non-federal property identified for exchange and Forest representatives are given the opportunity to provide relevant, market-based information to the agency and review appraiser – 1) early on in the negotiation of the estate proposed for conveyance, 2) at the pre-work meeting, 3) at the site inspection, 4) during the appraisal development, and 5) after the review is completed. This open, cooperative atmosphere of data sharing leads to reliable opinions of value developed in the original appraisal. Q#7 What is meant by “updating” an appraisal developed to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service? The appraisal review report should state the period of time the appraised values can be utilized before they expire. In some markets the appraised values are valid for one year from the date of the value estimate; however, changing market conditions may indicate a shorter time period. Once the validity period has lapsed, the appraisals must be updated unless there has been an exchange agreement signed by the property owner fixing values. It should be noted that the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (Advisory Opinion 3 (AO-3)) recognizes that when a more current value or analysis of a property that was the subject of a prior assignment is sought, the “update” is considered a new assignment and not merely an extension of the prior assignments that was already completed. This new assignment is defined as a valuation service provided as a consequence of an agreement between an appraiser and a client. The same requirements apply when appraising or analyzing a property that was the subject of a prior assignment. Q#8 If I do not agree with the value conclusion of an appraisal developed to support a proposed land exchange involving the USDA Forest Service, what can I do about it? Anyone is welcome to submit comments and information pertinent to valuation. However, these comments should be submitted with an understanding that competent professionals have conducted the appraisals and the corresponding appraisal reviews: 1. who are familiar with the markets in which they are working; 2. whose compensation does not depend upon any specific value estimate; and 3. are subject to professional censure (including license suspension or withdrawal) if they render anything less than unbiased opinions of value or unbiased reviews of appraisal reports. Therefore, your comments – in order to have any effect – should be of the same nature. That is, they should be substantive, knowledgeable, based on fact, and unbiased. Q#9 Will the Forest Service consider my comments if I choose to submit them concerning an appraisal developed to support a proposed land exchange? All comments on appraisals received prior to issuance of a decision to approve a transaction will be considered by the Regional Appraiser or assigned staff review appraiser within the parameters outlined in the answer to Question #8. Q#10 If I conducted my own appraisal of the subject property involved in a proposed land exchange involving the USDA Forest Service how would the agency consider that appraisal? If the Non-Federal Party would like to obtain another appraisal as part of their internal decision making to evaluate the conclusions of the agency, then that would be entirely within their discretion. It must be

117

made clear, however, that such appraisals – in gross – are considered unsolicited appraisal reports and are not reviewed by the assigned staff review appraiser except in rare occasions and then only by the written direction of the Regional Office Director of Lands, or equivalent official. However, if such an appraisal were to reveal market-based data that weren’t included in the federally contracted appraisal, the data could be presented by the owner to the assigned staff review appraiser. If the assigned staff review appraiser determines that the data may influence the analysis conducted in the federally contracted appraisal, then it would be forwarded to the original appraiser for re-consideration. Q#11 Are appraisal reports developed to support proposed land exchanges involving the USDA Forest Service subject to the Freedom of Information Act? The Freedom of Information Act directs agencies to make records available to the public. Unless the responsible official documents a sound legal basis for denial of access, the final approved appraisal report(s) and appraisal review report(s) for federal and non-federal lands in land exchange transactions would be made available, upon written request, to all interested parties when: 1. An environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement is released for public comment identifying a preferred alternative, and the appraisal report(s) have been reviewed and approved for agency use, or; 2. The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321) decision to approve an exchange is made, and public notice given. Requests should be made in writing and addressed to the Regional Office Director of Lands, or equivalent official. References The web address to retrieve 36 CFR 254 and 49 CFR 24 is: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table- search.html The web address to retrieve the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions is: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/land-ack/ The web address to retrieve the Uniform Standards for Professional Appraisal Practice is: http://www.uspap.org/

118