National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Nature Conservancy Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, and Medano- Zapata Ranch Colorado Greater Sand Dunes Interagency Fire Management Plan Environmental Assessment /Assessment of Effect April 25, 2005 Environmental Assessment Assessment of Effect Greater Sand Dunes Interagency Fire Management Plan Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Baca National Wildlife Refuge Medano- Zapata Ranch Colorado EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Greater Sand Dunes landscape, which is located in Alamosa and Saguache Counties in the San Luis Valley of Colorado, is a complex mixture of federal, state, and private lands. This landscape contains globally significant natural and cultural resources, a variety of vegetation types that harbor an abundance of natural resources, numerous recreational opportunities, and areas of wildland- urban interface. The goal of this project is to develop an integrated fire management plan for an approximately 275,000- acre site that includes the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, and The Nature Conservancy’s Medano- Zapata Ranch. The integrated fire management plan will provide guidance for fire management in a variety of ecological systems, meet specific management goals, protect human life, property, and other resources at risk, and conserve an irreplaceable landscape along the western flank of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. To the extent practicable, the fire management plan will be compatible and integrated with existing land, resource, and fire management plans for neighboring properties. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed in summer 2003 by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and The Nature Conservancy, which will provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among all entities in the achievement of mutual goals related to wildland fire management. While many of the ecological systems within the project site are within their natural range of variability for fire, fire and fire management are still essential for the protection of human life and resources and properties at risk and for the long- term survival and maintenance of the plant communities and the plant and animal species that live within them. Three fire management alternatives are analyzed in this environmental assessment / assessment of effect. These include a no action/fire suppression alternative (Alternative 1), a fire suppression and fuels management alternative (Alternative 2), and a fire suppression, fuels management, and wildland fire use alternative (Alternative 3), i which is the preferred alternative. Mitigation actions proposed in this document would reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to cultural, natural, and human resources. Impact topics that were retained for analysis include: • Air Quality • Water Resources • Soils • Wetlands and Floodplains • Vegetation Health and Ecological Integrity • Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Non- native Invasive Species • Wilderness • Cultural Resources • Socioeconomics • Public Health and Safety • Wildland- Urban Interface • Recreational Opportunities and Visitation It was found in this environmental assessment/assessment of effect that none of the three alternatives if implemented would have major adverse environmental consequences. Under Alternative 1, all wildland fires would be suppressed and no fuels treatment activities would be allowed. Because Alternative 1 would not permit fuel treatments to be implemented within the planning area, cultural, natural, and human resources would be at greater risks of impacts caused by widespread and intense wildfires. Without fuel treatments, heavy fuel loads would remain and/or accumulate over time within some areas, thereby increasing the potential for damages to a variety of resources. If an uncontrollable wildfire were to occur, there would potentially be greater harm done to the resources present than would occur under Alternatives 2 or 3. Therefore, Alternative 1 was not chosen as the preferred alternative. Fuel treatments, including mechanical and manual treatments and prescribed fire, as well as fire suppression would be permitted under Alternative 2. Fuels treatment projects would be implemented to reduce heavy fuel loads, especially around sensitive resources and structures, and within the wildland- urban interface, thereby reducing or eliminating potential damages to specific cultural, natural, and human resources caused by widespread and intense wildland fires. In addition, the fuels treatment projects would be utilized to meet specific resource management goals. Under Alternative 2, however, all unplanned wildfires would be suppressed. This would remove fire, a natural disturbance process, from the landscape, which may have a negative effect on many natural resources in the long- term. Therefore, Alternative 2 was not chosen as the preferred alternative. ii The preferred alternative in this environmental assessment/assessment of effect is Alternative 3. Under this alternative, which is also identified in this document as the environmentally preferred alternative, the planning area would be divided into three fire management units (FMU), Mosca, Herard, and Baca- Dunes FMU’s. Fire suppression and proposed fuels treatment activities would be authorized within all three FMU’s. In addition, wildland fire use would be allowed under predetermined parameters within the Mosca and Herard FMU’s, which each include portions of the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve. Before implementation of any fuels management project or wildland fire use, required implementation plans would be developed and approved by appropriate staff, including the Park superintendent or Refuge manager, as well as the appropriate regulatory agencies. Alternative 3 would provide the most benefits to the resources found within the planning area and would allow the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Nature Conservancy to fulfill their missions most efficiently and effectively, while still providing the necessary protection to cultural, natural, and human resources from widespread and intense wildland fires. Fuel treatment activities in each of the FMU’s would provide protection to human health and safety, cultural resources, developments, and the wildland- urban interface. Wildland fire use would provide long- term benefits for many of the natural resources found within the Mosca and Herard FMU’s by allowing fire to assume its natural role on the landscape. Because Alternative 3 meets the majority of fire management goals and would have the most beneficial effects, Alternative 3 was chosen as the preferred alternative, as well as the environmentally preferred alternative for fire management within the planning area. iii PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD We welcome your comments on this environmental assessment/assessment of effect. The public comment period on this environmental assessment / assessment of effect will be thirty (30) days. Your comments must be received in writing by close of business on May 24, 2005. You can submit your comments by one of the following methods: By mail: Jim Bowman, Chief Ranger Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve National Park Service 11500 Highway 150 Mosca, CO 81146-9798 By fax: (719) 378- 6310 By e- mail: [email protected] Hand deliver: Jim Bowman, Chief Ranger Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Park Headquarters Mosca, Colorado You must include your name and mailing address with any comments you provide. We will make comments including names and addresses of respondents available for public review during regular business hours. Also, we may be required to release your name and/or address if we receive a request for information that is covered by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended). Individual respondents may request that we withhold their address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent’s identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD .................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 NEED FOR FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................. 1 PURPOSE OF FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................... 4 PLANNING AREA BACKGROUND INFORMATION.......................................................... 6 FIRE HISTORIES ...................................................................................................................... 9 FIRE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................... 18 Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................................................