Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Environmental Service
October 2012 Assessment
Eagle Valley Land Exchange
Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest Eagle County, Colorado
For Information Contact: William S. Johnson Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District 125 W. 5th Street P.O. Box 720 Eagle, CO 81631 (970) 328-5869
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
- i -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... 1 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 3 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT ...... 3 1.21 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 3 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 4 1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE ...... 6 1.5 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ...... 5 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 5
2.0 ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .. 8 2.1 ISSUES ...... 8 2.1.1 KEY ISSUES ...... 8 2.1.2 NON-KEY ISSUES ...... 9 2.1.3 NON ISSUES……. ……………………………………………………………….11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ...... 11 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION ...... 11 ALTERNATIVE 2 - THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 11 2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 20
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 22 3.1 ISSUE-RELATED CONSEQUENCES ...... 22 3.1.1 ISSUE 1 ...... 22 3.1.2 ISSUE 2 ...... 25 3.1.3 ISSUE 3 ...... 35 3.2 EFFECTS RELATIVE TO CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY ………………...38 3.3 CONSEQUENCES RELATIVE TO SIGNIFICANCE ELEMENTS ………….45
4 LIST OF PREPARERS…………………………………………………………….. 49
REFERENCES ...... …50
APPENDIX A – RESPONSE TO SCOPING COMMENTS ...... 53 APPENDIX B – PARCEL MAPS ...... 55
- ii -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
SUMMARY
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The document describes the purpose of and need for action, the proposed action and alternatives, potential issues associated with the alternatives, and the environmental benefits and consequences of implementing the alternatives. . The document includes a description of public involvement, issues raised, and an interdisciplinary analysis in response to the issues.
The White River National Forest proposes to convey up to eleven (11) parcels of National Forest System land totaling 983.79 acres, more or less to the Colorado State Land Board (“SLB”), Eagle County, and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (the “Water Authority”) (collectively referred to as the “Non-Federal Parties”). The Non- Federal Parties are proposing to convey four parcels of non-Federal land totaling 1,468.125 acres more or less, together with associated mineral rights, to the United States. Certain parcels may not be conveyed in this exchange for any of several reasons, including 1) not needed to equalize values, concerns over appraised values, and 2) unavailability of certain entities to participate in the exchange at this time. All parcels are included in this analysis to evaluate their general suitability for acquisition or disposal by the United States. The final configuration will be identified in a decision document.
The non-Federal and Federal lands proposed for consideration in this land exchange analysis are summarized below.
Table 1: Non-Federal Parcel in the Eagle Valley Land Exchange
Parcel Parcel Name Acreage Location Proponent/Owner A North Edwards 640.0 Eagle River SLB Drainage B South Edwards 640.0 Eagle River SLB Drainage C Beard Creek 5.0 Eagle River Water Authority Drainage D Nottingham 183.125 Piney River Nottingham Drainage TOTAL 1468.125
Table 2: Federal Parcels in the Eagle Valley Land Exchange
Parcel Parcel Name Acreage Location Proposed Owner 1 West Avon 478.09 Eagle River Basin Town of Avon 2 Forest Service 85.99 Eagle River Basin Town of Avon Village 3 Highway 48.99 Eagle River Basin State Land Board 4 Cordillera 167.95 Eagle River Basin Eagle County 5 Homestead 162.07 Eagle River Basin Eagle County
- 1 - Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
6 CDOT Relocation 7.47 Eagle River Basin State Land Board 7 CVC Water Tank 5.00 Eagle River Basin Water Authority 8 Mtn. Star Water 5.00 Eagle River Basin Eagle River W&S Tank 9A Red Sandstone 3.00 Eagle River Basin Eagle River W&S Tank A 9B Red Sandstone 6.13 Eagle River Basin Eagle River W&S Tank B 10 Cross Creek 14.10 Eagle River Basin SLB or Minturn TOTAL 983.79
This action is proposed under the authority of the General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922, as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 21, 1976, and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988. This proposal is consistent with the Forest-wide standards and guidelines presented in Chapter 2 of the WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision (Forest Plan), as amended.
In summary, the proposed action would result in public acquisition and protection of recreation resources, consolidation of Federal ownership, protection of high quality wildlife habitat, and a net gain of floodplain and wetland acreage for the public. Access through the CVC Water Tank parcel, for the residences of the Cordillera Valley Club, will have to be obtained from the Water District and will have to be in line with the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan. Public access through the Homestead parcel will continue when legal access is acquired from the SLB Edwards South parcel and the existing mountain bike trail is added to the Forest Service trail system. Legal access for the existing road through the Edwards North parcel and trail access on an existing trail through the Edwards South parcel would be acquired by the public. In addition, the natural condition of 5 of the Federal Parcels, totaling approximately 943 acres, would remain largely unchanged through a donation of a conservation easement by the Non-Federal Parties to the Eagle Valley Land Trust.
In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated a No Action alternative, consistent with implementation regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Deciding Officer is the Forest Supervisor for the White River National Forest, USDA Forest Service. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether the resource values and the public objectives associated with acquisition of the non-Federal parcels are equal to or exceed the values and objectives served by the Federal lands to be conveyed into private ownership from the White River National Forest. The Forest Supervisor will decide if the land exchange should take place as proposed, with modifications, or not at all.
- 2 - Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Eagle Valley Land Exchange is a proposed assembled land exchange directly involving the Colorado State Land Board (“SLB”), Eagle County, the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (the “Water Authority”) (collectively referred to as the “Non-Federal Parties”) and the White River National Forest. Other parties who may ultimately acquire National Forest parcels following conveyance to the SLB include the Town of Avon and perhaps the Town of Minturn. Western Land Group, Inc. (“WLG”) has been retained by Eagle County with the agreement of the other parties to facilitate the land exchange and serve as the point of contact with the Forest Service in a manner consistent with the role of a third-party facilitator. This proposal is structured to facilitate compliance with the provisions of FSH 5409.13 – Land Acquisition, Chapter 30, Land Exchange, Section 32.4, Feasibility Analysis. The Non- Federal Parties and the Forest Service have worked collaboratively to assemble the proposed land exchange analyzed in this Environmental Assessment.
The Forest Service prepared a feasibility analysis of the proposed exchange in the fall of 2010 as a first level screen to: 1. Ensure compliance with the applicable forest land and resource management plan, 2. Identify public benefits, 3. Ensure the availability of resources to complete the proposed exchange, 4. Identify title and property description problems, and 5. Identify potential support and opposition. The analysis concluded that the proposal is technically feasible and the Forest could continue evaluating the proposed exchange and follow the NEPA process toward a decision.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The purpose of this exchange is to protect the dispersed backcountry recreation opportunities and natural resource values of the Eagle River valley by placing the SLB parcels along with the Beard Creek and Nottingham parcels under the administrative control of the Forest Service, reduce the amount of private inholdings within the National Forest boundaries, simplify current management boundaries, and reduce the overall administrative issues arising from the management of Federal lands adjacent to private lands in urban interface areas.
Action is needed to implement land conveyances that have been proposed for several years. Protection of the State Land Board parcel has been identified as a top priority by the Forest Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife since the State Land Board offered this section for sale for potential development.
Local governments have identified all the Federal parcels in the land exchange as desirable for conveyance to non-Federal ownership.
1.21 Management Direction
The Forest Service is authorized to complete land exchanges after a determination is made that the exchange would serve the public interest. This authority is codified in Public Laws including the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. It is guided by agency directives, such as Forest Service Manuals 5403 & 5430 and is further guided by the 2002 White River National Forest Land & - 3 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Resource Management Plan. When considering the public interest, the authorized officer shall give full consideration to 1) the opportunity to achieve better management of Federal lands; 2) the needs of the state and local residents and their economies; and 3) achieving important resource management objectives including protection of fish and wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, cultural resources, recreation opportunities and watersheds.
Specific description of how the exchange is consistent with this direction is provided in Chapter 3.
1.3 PROPOSED ACTION
Subsequent to the original proposal described in a Notice of Proposed Action published January 31, 2011 an additional non-Federal parcel (Nottingham) has been identified for conveyance to the United States, and has been included in this analysis.
The proposed action is to convey four parcels of non-Federal land totaling 1,485 acres more or less, together with associated mineral rights, to the United States in exchange for up to eleven (11) parcels of National Forest System land totaling 983.95 acres, more or less. Mineral rights for non-Federal Parcel D are outstanding and not included in this proposal. All of the parcels are located within the White River National Forest in Eagle County as described below and in Appendix B. This project is proposed to be treated as an assembled land exchange, in accordance with FSH 5409.13, Chapter 30, Section 32.41.
Table 1: Non-Federal Parcel in the Eagle Valley Land Exchange
Parcel Parcel Name Acreage Location Proponent/Owner A North Edwards 640.0 Eagle River SLB Drainage B South Edwards 640.0 Eagle River SLB Drainage C Beard Creek 5.0 Eagle River Water District Drainage D Nottingham 183.125 Piney River Nottingham Drainage TOTAL 1468.125
Table 2: Federal Parcels in the Eagle Valley Land Exchange
Parcel Parcel Name Acreage Location Proponent/Owner 1 West Avon 478.09 Eagle River Town of Avon Basin 2 Forest Service 85.99 Eagle River Town of Avon Village Basin 3 Highway 48.99 Eagle River State Land Board Basin 4 Cordillera 167.95 Eagle River Eagle County Basin 5 Homestead 162.07 Eagle River Eagle County Basin
- 4 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 6 CDOT Relocation 7.47 Eagle River State Land Board Basin 7 CVC Water Tank 5.00 Eagle River Water Authority Basin 8 Mtn. Star Water 5.00 Eagle River Eagle River W&S Tank Basin 9A Red Sandstone Tank 3.00 Eagle River Eagle River W&S A Basin 9B Red Sandstone Tank 6.13 Eagle River Eagle River W&S B Basin 10 Cross Creek 14.10 Eagle River SLB or Minturn Basin TOTAL 983.79
Detailed descriptions for each parcel listed in Table 1 and Table 2 are provided in Chapter 2. Map 1 displays all parcels proposed for exchange. Individual maps of the Federal and Non- Federal parcels are attached in Appendix B.
1.5 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
Legal guidelines for the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) state that any Federal action that has the potential to significantly affect the human environment must be analyzed in an environmental document. In pursuing the environmental analysis there are many Federal and state laws and executive orders (EO) that need to be addressed. These include, but are not limited to the following:
Archaeological Resources Protection Act Endangered Species Act Federal Noxious Weeds Act Historic Preservation Act National Forest Management Act National Historic Preservation Act EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands EO 11988 Protection of Floodplains EO 13007 Indian Sacred Sites EO 13175 Consultation & Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act
The exchange is being carried out under the provisions of the General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922, as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October 21, 1976, and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of August 20, 1988.
1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public notifications of land exchange proposal were placed in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, (published in Garfield Count) and The Vail Daily (published in Eagle County). These notifications were published once a week for four consecutive weeks from 1/31/2011
- 5 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment to 2/21/2011. An addition public notice was published, in these same publications, June 7, 14, 21 & 28, 2012. The Forest Service issued a press release on January 27, 2011, regarding the proposed land exchange, which resulted in several articles in local newspapers and electronic and broadcast media. Finally, notification letters were sent to the appropriate elected officials, Federal, State and local government agencies, Indian Tribes and other interested parties.
As a result of the above-described public scoping and comment activities, the Forest received twenty (20) written comments from interested agencies, and members of the public. Based on these comment letters, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address as discussed below.
In addition to the above, Eagle County Commissioners and the Town of Avon provided numerous opportunities for interested and affected persons to participate in the review and approval of the proposed exchange. Numerous public meetings, hearings, work sessions and field reviews were hosted by the County and the Town.
1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE
The Forest Supervisor, as the responsible official, will decide if the land exchange should take place as proposed, with modifications, or not at all.
- 6 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Map 1. Vicinity Map of Federal and Non-Federal Lands proposed for exchange
- 7 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 2.0 ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter identifies issues raised during public involvement and through the interdisciplinary analysis. It then describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Eagle Valley Land Exchange. It includes a description of each alternative considered and presents them in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker. The effects of each alternative in the context of the issues are described in Chapter 3.
2.1 ISSUES
The overriding purpose of public scoping is to identify key issues and how to address them, whether through modification of the Proposed Action, analysis of the effects or creation of a new alternative. An issue is a point of concern or disagreement with a Proposed Action, based on an effect that the Proposed Action would cause. The Forest Service received several comments during scoping, but not all are issues. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…..”
The Forest Service separated the issues into three groups: non-issues, non-key issues and key issues. Non-issues were comments that did not meet the definition of an issue provided above and in the scoping letter. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or, 5) a comment, opinion or position statement. Key issues were defined as all remaining issues. Issue statements were written for the key issues which will be addressed in Chapter 4 in the analysis of environmental effects. The response to scoping comments is in Appendix A.
2.1.1 KEY ISSUES
Based on comments received during scoping, the Forest Service identified three key issues. These effects could be caused by development of the parcels that would be conveyed not the exchange that causes the effects. These key issues are listed below:
#1 The proposed exchange could have a negative effect on Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive plant species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Colorado Field Office updated its list of threatened and endangered species by county in July 2011. The White River National Forest is home to several Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species. The pre-field review concluded that no federally listed plant species have occurrences or potential habitat within the area of influence of the proposed action. There are 91 plant species listed on the Region 2 sensitive plant species list. Thirty-four of those species are known to occur, likely to occur or suspected to occur on the WRNF. Of these 32 species 10 species are known to
- 8 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment occur, suspected to occur, or have potential, suitable habitat within the Proposed Project area.
#2 The proposed land exchange may have a detrimental effect on wetland and flood plain areas and aquatic species.
The Forest Service must ensure that the boreal toad habitat and the wetlands and riparian complex there would be protected under non-federal ownership
#3 The proposed land exchange could have negative effects on American elk and mule deer winter range, and to greater sage-grouse habitat.
The Eagle Valley Land Exchange action area supports habitat for greater sage- grouse and winter range for American elk and mule deer.
With the exception of Red Sandstone, every federal parcel proposed for exchange is located in Management Area 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range and some are used for mule deer seasonal migration. Releasing these parcels could cause a loss of winter range for mule deer and American elk. The loss of winter range could cause population declines of those species since winter range is a limiting factor for those species and is important for maintaining healthy populations.
The majority of the federal parcels proposed for exchange contain sagebrush, which could be habitat for greater sage-grouse. Historic greater sage-grouse habitat occurs in every federal parcel proposed for exchange. Release of federal parcels could cause a loss of greater sage-grouse habitat. Loss of habitat could cause population declines in greater sage-grouse.
2.1.2 NON-KEY ISSUES
Three (3) non-key issues were raised during the public involvement process
Non-Key Issue #1 involved maintaining future access across the Federal Parcels for the benefit of certain private property owners.
Singletree Property Owners -The Single Tree Property Owners would like continued trail access through the “West Avon” parcel to Avon on the Avon to Singletree Trail. This trail is a Forest Service System Trail.
Status: This trail was built in cooperation between Single Tree, Town of Avon and the Forest Service to connect the Single Tree property to the Town of Avon across National Forest lands (“West Avon” parcel). The trail starts on a public road in Avon goes through the “West Avon” parcel and through the Singletree subdivision and back onto National Forest lands on the June Creek road. Following conveyance of the West Avon parcel the Singletree Connector trail would be entirely on non-federal lands, consequently there is no reason for the United States to encumber that land with an easement. The parties involved are dedicated to ensuring continued recreation access to the parcels in question, and a management agreement is the cleanest and most appropriate tool to capture that. - 9 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Cordillera Valley Club -The Cordillera Valley Club would like to have trail access reserved through the “CVC Water Tank” parcel for continued access to the National Forest.
Status: The Cordillera Valley Club has historically had a private trail access on an old road across the “CVC Water Tank” site. The Forest Service has never identified the need for a public trail in this location. The road, currently being used as a private trail, was closed to motorized travel under the White River Travel Management Plan and is scheduled to be obliterated. Given that the Forest Service has no desire to develop the trail at this location, has no need for motorized travel across the parcel and does not promote or support private trail systems, no access would be reserved across the parcel.
Traer Creek - Traer Creek – RP, LLC would like to have road access reserved across the “Forest Service Village” parcel in order to access their proposed subdivision.
Status: The Forest Service previously evaluated and rejected a request to provide access across this parcel. It will not be considered again in this context. On November18, 2003 Traer Creek Metropolitan District (Traer Creek, LLC) made application for a road, utilities and recreation trail easement extending from The Village (at Avon) Planning Area RMF-1 to Tract M. The stated purpose was to serve an elementary school site and residential development. On June 28, 2004 the Forest Service returned Traer Creek’s application without favorable action, stating “Providing access to facilitate residential or commercial activities on the “Tract M” of private land would not be consistent with the regulations and policies guiding management of the National Forest system. This is primarily due to the fact that alternate access is available over the adjoining private lands that you manage.”
It is possible that the commenter may have subsequently secured future access to their property, mooting the issue. However, this does not change the Forest Service decision to treat this as a non-key issue, as a result of having previously rejected the proposal.
Non-Key Issue 2: Conveyance of the “Homestead parcel” if the Forest Service is to acquire the Edwards South parcel.
The Homestead parcel is an isolated Federal parcel, surrounded by non-Federal lands. The parcel was initially included in the exchange, in the event that addition Federal value was needed for an equal value exchange. However, retention, rather than disposal, would be more logical if the Edwards South parcel were acquired.
Status: The status of this parcel will remain variable depending on whether the South Edwards parcel is acquired. Based on its isolated location it will remain available for disposal in future exchange proposals, if the South Edwards parcel is not acquired.
Non-Key Issue 3: The relocation of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) facility from their existing location on SLB to the parcel near Minturn. CDOT’s use and occupancy of the SLB Property is authorized pursuant to a right-of-way grant by the State Board of Land commissioners. CDOT would require an equivalent or greater level of possessory rights in the event CDOT’s maintenance facility and employee housing are relocated to another site.
- 10 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment The SLB and CDOT have met and looked at the alternate site and have agreed on the location and a new right-of way grant from the State Land Board to CDOT for the existing maintenance facilities.
Status: Non-significant. This will be a separate agreement and is outside the scope of the decision to be made in connection with this land exchange.
2.1.3 NON ISSUES
Comments were made during the public scoping for this land exchange proposal regarding the relative values of the Federal and non-Federal parcels, the process to determine fair market value of the parcels, and having an equal value exchange.
Issues regarding the valuation of parcels in the land exchange proposal are beyond the scope of this Environmental Assessment. Federal regulations require appraisals of all the parcels which conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA), the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and specifications developed by the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Regional Appraiser. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) require that the values be equal. Either party may equalize values through a cash equalization payment which does not exceed 25 percent of the federal land value.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action alternative, the proposed land exchange would not take place. The Federal Parcels would remain under the control of the Forest Service, and the non-Federal parcels would not be conveyed to the Forest Service. The North and South Edwards parcels would remain vulnerable to future development. Non-Federal Parcel C, Beard Creek, would remain the property of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority and Parcel D- Nottingham would remain in private ownership.
Alternative 2 - the Proposed Action The United States would convey up to eleven parcels of National Forest System land totaling 983.79 acres, more or less to the SLB and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (the “Water Authority”) The Non-Federal Parties would convey up to four parcels of non-Federal land totaling 1468.125 acres more or less, together with associated mineral rights for most of these lands, to the United States. The parcels are described in detail below.
Non-Federal Parcels
Non-Federal Parcel A – North Edwards
Township 4 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 16: All
Totaling: 640 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
- 11 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment The “North Edwards” parcel is a SLB property located approximately 3 miles north of Edwards, Colorado along Berry Creek in the Eagle River Basin of Eagle County. The parcel is an inholding surrounded by the White River National Forest. The parcel is within the sub alpine ecosystem at approximately 9,400 to 10,000 feet. Berry Creek bisects the property. The parcel is accessible via Forest Service Road 778 and 780, which are Level 2 four-wheel- drive roads. The mineral rights would be conveyed along with the surface estate. Portions of Berry Creek and its tributaries flow through this parcel. Berry Creek is a perennially flowing stream that contains a conservation population of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Approximately 1300 meters or 0.8 miles of Berry Creek and 2325 meters or 1.4 miles of intermittent 1st and 2nd order tributaries to Berry Creek are located on this parcel. In addition, 300 meters or 0.2 miles (1st order and intermittent) of Beard Creek, are located on this parcel.
Following the exchange, the “North Edwards” parcel would be managed by the Forest Service in accordance with the management standards surrounding NFS lands. The North half of the parcel, which is adjacent to Management Area 5.4, would be in Management Area Direction 5.4 - Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats, which emphasizes providing a mix of ecological and human needs. These needs include wildlife and aquatic habitats, livestock forage, and forest products. This area could also provide for recreation opportunities, scenic quality, and a variety of other miscellaneous good and services. The South half of the parcel, which is adjacent to Management Area 5.41, would be in Management Area direction 5.41 – Deer and Elk Winter Range, which are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude for deer, elk and other species.
Non-Federal Parcel B – South Edwards
Township 5 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 16: Entire Section
Totaling: 640 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
The “South Edwards” parcel is a SLB property located approximately one 1) mile south of Edwards, Colorado adjacent to McCoy Creek in the Eagle River Basin of Eagle County. The parcel is an inholding in the White River National Forest. The parcel is within the montane ecosystem at approximately 8,000 to 8,800 feet. There are no roads that access the property. Mineral rights would be conveyed along with the surface estate.
Upon acquisition, the ”South Edwards” parcel would be managed by the Forest Service in accordance with surrounding NFS lands which are in Management Area Direction 5.43 - Elk Habitat, which emphasizes providing important elk habitat, including incidental winter range. It also provides opportunities for non-motorized recreation, while allowing timber harvesting and livestock grazing.
Non-Federal Parcel C – Beard Creek
Township 4 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado
Section 32, W1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 SE1/4, W1/2 NE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4 SE1/4, and NW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4 SE1/4
- 12 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Totaling 5.00 acres, more or less, together with mineral rights.
The “Beard Creek Parcel” was acquired by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority from the Forest Service in 2004 as part of the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange. Conveyance to the Water Authority was subject to a perpetual patent restriction that limited future use to construction of a water storage facility. Subsequent engineering and construction considerations determined that this site is not suitable for the planned water storage facility. Thus, reconveyance to the Forest Service is proposed.
The parcel is located at 7,530 – 7,650 foot elevation near the distal terminus of a south- trending spur ridge off Red and White Mountain between Beard and Berry Creeks. Vegetation consists primarily of juniper and mountain mahogany. Low density residential development occurs near the west and south sides of the parcel. There is no aquatic habitat associated with this parcel.
Upon acquisition, the ”Beard Creek” parcel would be managed by the Forest Service in accordance with surrounding NFS lands which are in Management Area Direction 5.41 - Deer and Elk Winter Range, which are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude for deer, elk and other species.
Non-Federal Parcel D – Nottingham Parcel
Township 4 South, Range 81 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 16, SE¼SW¼, N½SE¼, N½S½SE¼, N½N½S½SE¼SE¼, SW¼SW¼SE¼, W½SE¼SW¼SE¼, W½E½SE¼SW¼SE¼ and NE¼NE¼SE¼SW¼SE¼.
Containing 183.125 acres, more or less
The “Nottingham Parcel” was added into the exchange package in May 2012 when it was determined that additional land value was needed on the Non-Federal side of the exchange.
This parcel was not included in the original public notice but was included in the Public Notice that ran in the Vail Daily and Glenwood Post starting on 6/15/2012 and was posted for four consecutive weeks.
The parcel is located at 9,400 – 9,800 foot elevation with Dickson Creek, a tributary of the Piney River, flowing through the southern portion of the property. Vegetation consists primarily of aspen and subalpine forests. The north and eastern portion of this property is adjacent to the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness. There is aquatic habitat associated with this parcel.
Following the exchange, the “Nottingham” parcel would be managed by the Forest Service in accordance with the management standards surrounding NFS lands. The North half of the parcel, which is adjacent to Management Area 5.13, would be in Management Area Direction 5.13 – Resource Production-Forest Products, These lands are managed to provide commercial wood products. In addition, they provide for forage production, other commercial products, scenic quality, diversity of wildlife, and a variety of other goods and services. The South half of the parcel, which is adjacent to Management Area 1.31, would be in Management Area direction 1.31 – Backcountry Recreation – Non-motorized, which are managed to provide recreation opportunities in a natural-appearing landscape. - 13 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Exceptions:
The State of Colorado owns the minerals which will not be included in this exchange.
Federal Parcels
Federal Parcel 1 – “West Avon”
Township 4 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 34: SE1/4SE1/4
Township 5 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 2: Lots 3 and 4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4 Section 3: Lot 1, SE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4
Totaling: 478.09 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
Transfer of this parcel would promote a more logical property boundary for both the Non- Federal Party and the Forest Service. Elevation ranges from 7,400 feet to 8,000 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of oak brush and pinyon juniper forest. Two first order intermittent streams flow through the parcel and are tributaries to the Eagle River. The parcel is almost entirely surrounded by private land and development. Approximately 2800 meters of intermittent stream channel is located on the parcel and is considered inhabitable for native and non-native trout. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The parcel was previously analyzed as part of the Vasser Meadows Land exchange and found to be suitable for disposal. The land is proposed to be protected by a conservation easement following conveyance.
The parcel is encumbered by numerous easements. All existing uses would be protected if conveyed, by either conveying the parcel subject to the outstanding easement or requiring the recipient to convey a replacement easement at closing.
SUBJECT TO a road easement which crosses a portion of the SE1/4SE1/4 of sec. 34, T. 4 S., R. 82 W., 6th PM issued to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on 9-1-1961 for June Berry Creek, BLM Serial # C-069934.
SUBJECT TO an easement issued to Colorado Department of Highways on 10/29/1969, BLM Serial# C-1129, variable width, 0.4 mile in length across portions of the SW1/4SW1/4 of sec. 2, T. 5 S., R. 82 W., 6th PM and the NE1/4SE1/4 of sec. 3, T. 5 S., R. 82 W., 6th PM. BLM granted R/W for 1-70 Wolcott-Dowd Junction, Proof of Construction 7/11/1973, Fed Aid Project #I-70-2(9).
SUBJECT TO BLM plats depict railroad right-of-way across the SW1I4SW1I4 of sec. 2, T. 5 S., R. 82 W., 6th PM, BLM Serial # C-093762. Special Use Permits and/or rights of prior use:
Private powerline issued to Colorado-Ute Electrical Association, Inc. on 8/27/1964, BLM Serial # C0122598, 50 feet in width across portions of sec. 2, T. 5 S., R. 82 W., 6th PM and
- 14 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment portions of sec. 3, T. 5 S., R. 82 W., 6th PM. Transferred to Holy Cross Electric Association Inc. on 6/14/1968. Issued Special Use Permit, ASP2 on 9/16/1999, expires 12/31/2018 for 100 foot [50 feet either side of the centerline] for transmission lines. Non-Federal parties (Eagle County/Town of Avon) will obtain a permit relinquishment/ for any portion of the permit area affected by the exchange, at or prior to closing. The Non-Federal Parties will be required to grant an equivalent replacement easement to Holy Cross Electric Association at closing.
The likely recipient of these easements is Holy Cross Energy.
Federal Parcel 2 – “Forest Service Village”
Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 8: Lots 1 and 2
Totaling: 85.99 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
The parcel is located east of Avon. The transfer of this parcel would promote a more logical property boundary for both the Non-Federal Party and the Forest Service. Elevation ranges from 7,600 to 7,800 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of sage and brush. There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. All but approximately 5 acres of this parcel would be protected by a conservation easement. The parcel would be conveyed subject to an existing Colorado Department of Highways easement.
SUBJECT TO an easement issued to Colorado Department of Highways on 10/29/1969, BLM Serial # C-1129, variable width, 0.4 mile in length across portions of Lot 3 of sec. 8, T. 5 S., R. 81 W., 6th PM. BLM granted R/W for I-70 Wolcott-Dowd Junction, Proof of Construction 7/11/1973, Fed Aid Project #I-70-2(9).
SUBJECT TO a Special Use Permit issued to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. for maintenance access for the powerline that is immediately north of the parcel. The Non Federal Parties (Eagle County/Avon) will obtain a permit relinquishment for any portion of the permit area affected by the exchange, at or prior to closing. The Non-Federal Parties will be required to grant an equivalent replacement easement to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. at closing.
The Town of Avon is the likely recipient of this parcel. They have stated their intent to convey a conservation easement on a portion of this parcel to Eagle Land Valley Trust (ELVT). A portion of this parcel may be reserved for development of deed-restricted affordable housing and an access road for future development.
Federal Parcel 3 – “Highway”
Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 9: Lot 1
Totaling 48.99 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the center of downtown Avon. - 15 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
This parcel is in the residential area of Eagle-Vail, just north of I-70, the Eagle River, and the Denver and Rio Grande (D&RG) Railway. Traer creek runs north-south along the parcel’s west edge. The parcel is situated along moderately steep slopes covered in thick scrubland including Gamble oak, mountain mahogany, and various grasses and forbs. Elevation ranges between 7650 and 8600 feet. Approximately 600 meters of one first order intermittent stream flows through the parcel and does not flow into any other waterway. The parcel is completely surrounded by private lands. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The parcel is encumbered by an authorization to Holy Cross Electrical Association, Inc. The recipient would be required to grant a replacement easement at closing.
The parcel is proposed for conveyance to the SLB for future development consistent with land uses on the adjoining State Section immediately to the south.
Federal Parcel 4 – “Cordillera”
Township 5 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 7: Lots 1 - 3, NE1/4SW1/4.
Totaling 167.95 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located approximately 1.0 mile west of Edwards, Colorado adjacent to the Cordillera subdivision. Eagle County is the likely recipient of this parcel. Elevation ranges from 7540 to 8,520 feet. Topographically, this parcel contains steep-sided slopes, narrow ridge tops, and several small valleys and parks. There are large stands of aspen and Douglas fir at higher elevations, and grasses and scrubland in the valley. The headwaters of three first order intermittent streams drain this parcel of land and are tributaries to Lake Creek (private). The tributary streams originate on the parcel and flow directly through private land before reaching Lake Creek. The intermittent streams are expected to dry completely after spring runoff and are not considered fish habitat. The three streams total approximately 1100 meters of stream channel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The land is proposed to be managed as open space with a conservation easement. The parcel would be conveyed subject to an existing easement for the Moses Ditch.
Eagle County has stated their intention to convey a conservation easement ELVT when the parcel is acquired from SLB following the exchange.
Federal Parcel 5 – “Homestead”
Township 5 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 9: Lot 1, S1/2SW1/4, SW1/4SE1/4.
Totaling 162.07 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located approximately 1.0 mile south of Edwards, Colorado adjacent to the Homestead subdivision. There are no encumbrances on the parcel. Elevation ranges from 7,800 to 8,650 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of sage and brush with small patches of aspen. Approximately 1100 meters of one first order intermittent stream flows through this parcel and is a tributary to the Eagle River. The tributary is intercepted by a ditch before it - 16 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment reaches the Eagle River. The intermittent streams are expected to dry completely after spring runoff and are not considered fish habitat. The Parcel is entirely surrounded by private land. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. A well-used hiking trail provides access to the parcel from a small parking lot.
This parcel is included in the proposed land exchange for equalization purposes, if necessary. If acquired by SLB the parcel would be managed as open space under conservation easement held by the EVLT.
Federal Parcel 6 – “CDOT Relocation”
Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 22, a portion of the E1/2 Section 23, a portion of the W1/2
Totaling 7.47 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
The parcel is on the east side of the U.S. Highway 24, the Eagle River, and the D&RG Railway. Elevations in this parcel range from 7760 to 8000 feet. Vegetation includes sagebrush, thistle, bunch grasses, scrub oak, and mountain mahogany. There is no stream habitat associated with this parcel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The recipient would be required to provide replacement easements to Public Service Company of Colorado and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for existing uses.
The proposed future use is for relocation of the CDOT maintenance facility, currently located on SLB property in T5S, R81W, Section 16.
SUBJECT TO outstanding royalty rights for uranium, thorium, and fissionables to be mined and removed, gold and/or silver, lead, zinc, and other metallic and non-metallic minerals, 6.25% oil, gas, and other minerals and related hydrocarbons mined and removed (Book 216, Page 311).
Special Use Permits and/or rights of prior use: Gas pipeline [50 foot r-o-w] and meter station special use permit (HOL553) issued to Public Service Company of Colorado on 10/03/2009, expires 12/31/2038. The Non Federal Party (State Land Board) will obtain a permit relinquishment for any portion of the permit area affected by the exchange, at or prior to closing. The Non-Federal Party (will be required to grant an equivalent replacement easement to Public Service Company of Colorado at closing.
Sewer line Special Use Permit issued to Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (HOL369) on 10/22/2007 for operation and maintenance of a standby generator lift station at Dowds Junction and buried sewer lines. The Non Federal Party (State Land Board) will obtain a permit relinquishment for any portion of the permit area affected by the exchange, at or prior to closing. The Non-Federal Party will be required to grant an equivalent replacement easement to Public Service Company of Colorado at closing.
Other: SLB is in the process of obtaining a Location certificate from Eagle County for this parcel.
- 17 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Federal Parcel 7 – “CVC Water Tank”
Township 4 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 31: NE1/4NW1/4, NW1/4NW1/4.
Totaling 5.0 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located approximately 1.0 mile northwest of Edwards, Colorado adjacent to the Cordillera Valley Club subdivision. There are no encumbrances on the parcel. Elevation is at approximately7600 feet. Vegetation within the parcel consists primarily of pinon-juniper and sage. There is no stream habitat associated with this parcel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel.
The parcel is already under Special Use Permit (HOL419) to the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority for construction of an underground water storage facility. Conveyance of this parcel to the permittee would relieve the Forest Service of further permit administration responsibilities.
Special Use Permit, HOL419, issued to Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority for a water tank: issued on 2/17/2010 expires 12/31/2029. Forest will provide written notification of termination to UERWA prior to issuance of the patent.
Federal Parcel 8 – “Mountain Star Water Tank”
Township 4 South, Range 82 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 25: SW1/4SE1/4
Totaling 5.0 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located approximately 2.0 miles north of Avon, Colorado adjacent to the Mountain Star subdivision. There are no encumbrances on the parcel. Elevation is at 9,200 feet. Vegetation consists of aspen and various forbs and grasses. There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. There is one small (0.35 acre) intermittent lake approximately 0.9 miles from the parcel. This pond is not a historic boreal toad or northern leopard frog breeding site.
This parcel is included in the proposed land exchange to provide Eagle River Water and Sanitation District/Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority a location to install a 300,000 gallon water tank that would serve as gravity flow source of water for the Mountain Star and surrounding area.
Federal Parcel 9A – “Red Sandstone/Vail Water Tank A”
Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 1, a portion of the E1/2 E1/2
Totaling 3.00 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located on the lower portions of Red Sandstone Road in Vail near the Potato Patch subdivision. The water tank proposed to be constructed on this parcel would serve a - 18 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment pressure zone serving the core of the Town of Vail as opposed to the existing permitted tanks on Federal Parcel 9B (see below) which serve a higher pressure zone. The water tank proposed for Federal Parcel A is needed to meet current and future firefighting water storage shortages in the core zone of Vail. The proposed water tank would be underground. There are no encumbrances on the parcel. There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. The boundary of this parcel comes within approximately 135 feet of Red Sandstone Creek.
The United States shall reserve a 40’ width right-of-way for the Red Sandstone Road, FSR #700, as depicted in the plat attached as Figure 1. Red Sandstone B Parcel
Access road to Vail Substation under Special Use Permit to Public Service Company of Colorado and Holy Cross Electrical Association Inc. The Non Federal Party (ERWSD) will obtain a permit relinquishment for any portion of the permit area affected by the exchange, at or prior to closing. The Non-Federal Party will be required to grant an equivalent replacement easement to Public Service Company of Colorado at closing. Forest will obtain a waiver/relinquishment/permit amendment for any portion of the permit affected by the exchange at or prior to closing. ERWSD will be required to issue a substitute easement to Public Service Company of Colorado and Holy Cross Electrical Association Inc. at closing.
Federal Parcel 9B – “Red Sandstone/Vail Water Tank B”
Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 6, portion of the unsurveyed portion the S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4
Totaling 6.13 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
This parcel is located on the lower portions of Red Sandstone Road in Vail near the Potato Patch subdivision. This parcel is covered in grasses and shrub land at elevations ranging from 8600 to 8800 feet. Two existing water storage tanks (Eagle River Water and Sanitation District 6 and 7) are located on this parcel and are authorized under a master special use permit issued to the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District in 1987. These water tanks are part of a higher pressure zone that feed homes located above the zone serving the core of the Town of Vail. There is no stream habitat associated with this parcel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The authorization between the Forest Service and the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District would be terminated if the parcel is conveyed.
Federal Parcel 10 – “Cross Creek”
Township 5 South, Range 81West, 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado Section 36, a portion of the SW1/4
Totaling 14.10 acres, more or less, together with all mineral rights
Vegetation includes stands of aspen and pine, small brush, and various grasses and forbs. There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. There is one small (0.2 acre) intermittent lake approximately 0.9 miles from the parcel. The parcel is encumbered by a special use permit (HOL367) to the Town of Minturn for the Towns water system. The - 19 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment permit would be terminated if the parcel is conveyed to the Town or protected by a replacement easement, if conveyed to a different party. This parcel is located on the southern end of the Town of Minturn. This parcel could be conveyed to either Minturn or SLB as part of this exchange depending on the availability of funding.
2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.
Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives, Objectives, and Issues
Alternative 2 – Proposed Land Alternative 1 – No Action Exchange OBJECTIVES Social & Economic Impedes Avon’s plans for attainable housing on Facilitates Avon’s attainable housing and FS Village parcel and additions to Avon open open space goals. Increased recreation space properties. SLB would not be able to opportunities and backcountry character in the relocate the CDOT facilites. SLB and Eagle River Valley. Provide Water District 1. Local community needs Nottingham parcels would remain subject to with locations to install needed water facilities private development with pursuant loss of recreation opportunities. Water Authority would not be able to install needed water facilities. Would meet Town of Avon’s goals/needs and Does not meet community goals for attainable 2. Public Interest compliment Eagle County’s open space housing, efforts in the Eagel River Valley. Administrative 1. Impacts to contiguous Forest No change on NFS lands No change on NFS lands Service administered lands USFS would need to acquire easements for the Beard Creek, Tames Creek roads, and the A10 Reduced administration burden. 2. Affects to Special Uses and Trail across SLB parcels. USFS would need to All existing special uses and easements are Easements continue to administer Special Uses and replaced with new easements granted by the easements on Cordillera, CVC North, West SLB. Avon, Highway and Red Sandstone parcels. Natural Resources Forest Service would acquire up to 1485 acres 1. Acquire lands with resource No change on NFS lands with high quality natural resource values. values
Forest Service would dispose of 760.31 acres 2. Dispose of lands with urban No Change on NFS lands next to development that have lost National character Forest character. Issues There would be a loss of Harringotn 1. Threatened, Endangered and No Change penstemon habitat in the planning area with Sensitive Plant Species the exchange of the “Cordillera” parcel. Forest Service would exchange 3.5 miles of intermittent non-trout bearing stream habitat for 2.7 miles of intermittent non-trout bearing stream habitat, 0.4 miles of perennial stream, 2. Wetlands/Aquatic Resources No Change 0.8 miles of occupied Colroado River cutthroat trout habitat. The Forest Service would exchange 0.07 acres of wetland for 2.48 acres with a gain of 2.41 acres. No measurable impacts to deer and elk No Change on NFS lands populations at the Forest level and minimal 3. Wildlife SLB parcels and Nottingham would remain impacts at the project level. SLB and
subject to private development. Nottingham parcels no longer subject to private development. 3a. Threatened, Endangered and No Change on NFS lands No impact to listed species, Not likely to - 20 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Candidate Species SLB and Nottingham parcels would remain adversely impact lynx subject to private development “Beneficial impact” to Colorado River cutthroat trout and their habitat. May affect individuals of some species but will not cause a loss of viability on the planning area or No Change on NFS lands 3b. R2 Sensitive Species move species toward federal listing for
terrestrail species. May affect individuals and will cause a loss of viability on the planning area for Penstemon harringtonii but will not move species toward federal listing.
- 21 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1 Issue-Related Consequences
This section summarizes the environmental consequences related to the key issues that can be expected from implementing the various alternatives. Following each issue statement is a discussion of the resource and effects on that resource under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and with implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). (The complete Specialist Report for each issue resource area can be found in the project file located at the Eagle Ranger District, White River National Forest and is available upon request.) Other resource related analyses are in the project record.
3.1.1 ISSUE 1 The proposed exchange could have a negative effect on Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive plant species.
Affected Environment
The pre-field review concluded that no federally listed (Threatened, Endangered or Proposed) plant species have occurrences or potential habitat within the area of influence of the proposed action (CNHP 2010); therefore, these plant species will not be carried forward into the analysis section of this document.
There are 91 plant species listed on the June 9, 2009 USFS Region 2 sensitive plant species list (Forest Service 2009a). Thirty-four of those species are known to occur, likely to occur (biologically or geographically), or suspected to occur on the WRNF (Table 2). Of these 10 species are known to occur, suspected to occur, or have potential, suitable habitat within the Proposed Project area and are carried forth in the analysis: 1) Astragalus leptaleus, 2) Botrychium ascendens, 3) Botrychium lineare, 4) Botrychium paradoxum, 5) Cypripedium parviflorum, 6) Eriophorum altaicum var. heogaem, 7) Festuca hallii, 8) Machaeanthera coloradoensis, 9) Machaeranthera coloradoensis, 10) Penstemon harringtonii,
This list includes three disturbance related species, four upland species and three riparian or wetland species:
Riparian Generalist or Transitional Species
The following four species are known to occur in riparian habitat or riparian areas that transition to forested areas: Astragalus leptaleus, Cypripedium parviflorum and Rubus arcticus ssp. acaulis.
SURVEY RESULTS
Approximately 500 individuals of the Region 2 Sensitive plant species Penstemon harringtonii (Harrington Beardtongue) was found in the Cordillera Parcel as a result of the field reconnaissance specific to this project.
- 22 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment No other occurrences of threatened, endangered or R2 sensitive plant species were previously known to occur within proposed treatment units (CNHP 2010) and none were found as a result of the field reconnaissance specific to this project. With the exception of small moonworts (Botrychium spp.) we searched at the time of year and at an intensity level that would have allowed us to detect populations of all the other target plant species, had they been present within the survey area The following Region 2 sensitive species will be carried forward in the analysis portion of this biological evaluation:
1. Botrychium ascendens, 2. Botrychium lineare, 3. Botrychium paradoxum, 4. Penstemon harringtonii (500 individuals found in the Cordillera Parcel).
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative the ongoing ecosystems processes would continue to maintain the current condition that would then be modified by climate change and human uses; - however, the understanding of the ecological amplitude of these rare species is incomplete. Under the no-action alternative habitat changes would be slow and likely subtle, and impacts to any of the species analyzed in this document would be minor and take place over a long period of time.
Alternative 2 –Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
The direct and indirect effects of a land exchange are difficult to evaluate due to the uncertainty of the final disposition of the land. Four of the parcels are proposed to become, at least in part, open space with conservation easements: West Avon, Forest Service Village, Highway and Cordillera. The CDOT Relocation parcel would be developed as either housing or urban infrastructure. The West Avon, Forest Service Village (in part), Highway and Cordillera parcels that are proposed for open space and should have conservation easements, so any R2 sensitive species present would be protected from development. Special consideration can be given to the known and unknown Penstemon harringtonii in the conservation easements. For the lands acquired, the Beard Creek parcel may have potential Penstemon harringtonii habitat, but no individuals have been found in several searches of the parcel (Western Ecosystems 2000, Doerr 2001a).
Cumulative Effects Under NEPA, cumulative effects are the incremental effects of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future federal, state, and private activities (40 CFR 1508.7). Past and current activities have altered sensitive plant species occurrences and their habitats within the proposed project area. Assuming presence, past actions including livestock grazing, timber harvesting and thinning, residential development - 23 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment and use, road/trail construction and maintenance, insect and disease outbreaks, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and noxious weed infestation have likely had the greatest past negative impacts on R2 sensitive plant species and their habitats.
The following is a list of reasonably foreseeable future projects that are planned on USFS lands within the immediate area of the Eagle Land Exchange. These projects would add cumulatively to the effects of the proposed project. Ongoing projects include:
Cordillera Valley Club Water tank relocation Hazard Tree clearing Powerline right of way maintenance
Reasonably foreseeable future projects include: Eagle/Holy Cross Sagebrush Enhancement Project I-70 right of way widening and maintenance Urban development and infrastructure maintenance
The direct and indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be expected to be of a magnitude sufficient to negatively affect viability of Penstemon harringtonii on the planning unit or across its range. This determination is because of a potential loss of viability on the planning area, not because of any likely trend to federal listing or range wide loss of viability.
Biological Determinations
Four Region 2 sensitive species were carried forward into analysis in this document. Determinations and the rationale for the determination are given below and summarized again in Table 4.
Alternative 1 – No Action
A determination of “No impact” is made for all species analyzed in this document, including Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lineare, Botrychium paradoxum and Penstemon harringtonii. This determination is based on the following rationale: No new management activities are planned under the no-action alternative.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
A determination of May Impact Individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing was made for Alternative 2 for the following species; Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lineare and Botrychium paradoxum. This determination is based on the following rationale: Populations of this genus could have gone un-detected during survey efforts. Because the absence of Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium lineare and Botrychium paradoxum cannot be reasonably determined in surveys we assumed their presence.
- 24 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment A determination of “Likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area” is made for Penstemon harringtonii.
Compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Two pertinent standards and guidelines include: Real Estate In land adjustment activities (including land exchange, purchase, sale, donation), consider the following: Evaluate the effect of land adjustments on sensitive species habitat. Avoiding land adjustments which could result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of population viability for any sensitive species. Sensitive species habitat can be conveyed if conveyance would not result in a trend toward federal listing or adversely affect the population viability of the species, or if effects could be mitigated.
Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Sensitive Species Activities will be managed to avoid disturbance to sensitive species that would result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. The protection will vary depending on the species, potential for disturbance, topography, location important habitat components, and other pertinent factors.
Mitigation in the form of conservation easements are proposed for parcels with Penstemon harringtonii habitat where those habitats would be released out of federal jurisdiction, and because the conservation easement would promote the protection of this habitat, this proposed land exchange would be in compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for sensitive species habitat.
Recommendations for minimizing disturbance to Penstemon harringtonii during times critical to survival are listed below.
Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate Adverse Effects
Once lands are exchanged, those no longer under Federal jurisdiction are subject to federal direction, however the following mitigating actions are noted here as for land owners to consider to minimize impacts to Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Sensitive Species, especially Penstemon harringtonii.
1. Prior to developing a conservation easement for the Cordillera parcel conduct an in depth survey and identity all Penstemon harringtonii plants and habitat. 2. Restrict activities to avoid disturbing sensitive, proposed, threatened, or endangered species during time critical to survival.
3.1.2 ISSUE 2 The proposed land exchange may have a detrimental effect on wetland and floodplain areas and aquatic species.
Project Area Existing Conditions
Federal Parcels
- 25 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Parcel 1 – Two first order intermittent streams flow through the parcel and are tributaries to the Eagle River. The parcel is almost entirely surrounded by private land and development. Approximately 2800 meters of intermittent stream channel is located on the parcel and is considered inhabitable for native and non-native trout. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The land is proposed to be managed as a conservation easement.
Parcel 2 – There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. There is one small (1.35 acre) intermittent lake approximately 0.7 miles from the parcel. This pond is not a historic boreal toad or northern leopard frog breeding site. All but approximately 5 acres of this parcel are anticipated to be protected by a conservation easement.
Parcel 3 – Approximately 600 meters of one first order intermittent stream flows through the parcel and does not flow into any other waterway. The closest receiving streams are Traer Creek and the Eagle River. Extensive map and aerial photograph examinations indicate that this first order intermittent stream dries up or becomes sub-surface before reaching either Traer Creek or the Eagle River. Fish are not expected to occur in this first order tributary. In addition to the intermittent tributary, 50 meters of Traer Creek flows through the northwest corner of this parcel. The parcel is completely surrounded by private lands. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel.
Parcel 4 – The headwaters of three first order intermittent streams drain this parcel of land and are tributaries to Lake Creek (private). The tributary streams originate on the parcel and flow directly through private land before reaching Lake Creek. The intermittent streams are expected to dry completely after spring runoff and are not considered fish habitat. The three streams total approximately 1100 meters of stream channel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The land is proposed to be managed as open space.
Parcel 5 – Approximately 1100 meters of one first order intermittent stream flows through this parcel and is a tributary to the Eagle River. The tributary is intercepted by a ditch before it reaches the Eagle River. The intermittent streams are expected to dry completely after spring runoff and are not considered fish habitat. The Parcel is entirely surrounded by private land. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel. The land is proposed to be managed as open space.
Parcel 6 – There is no stream habitat associated with this parcel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel.
Parcel 7 - There is no stream habitat associated with this parcel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel.
Parcel 8 - There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. There is one small (0.35 acre) intermittent lake approximately 0.9 miles from the parcel. This pond is not a historic boreal toad or northern leopard frog breeding site.
Parcel 9a - There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. There is one small (0.2 acre) intermittent lake approximately 1.2 miles from the parcel. This pond is not a historic boreal toad or northern leopard frog breeding site. The boundary of this parcel - 26 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment comes within approximately 135 feet of Red Sandstone Creek. This distance is considered out of the Water Influence Zone (WIZ).
Parcel 9b - There is no stream habitat associated with this parcel. There is no amphibian habitat found on or within 1.5 miles of this parcel.
Parcel 10 - There is no stream or amphibian habitat located on this parcel. There is one small (0.2 acre) intermittent lake approximately 0.9 miles from the parcel. This pond is not a historic boreal toad or northern leopard frog breeding site.
Federal Parcel Stream Habitat Total A total of approximately 5,600 meters or 3.5 intermittent stream miles are located on the Federal Parcels.
Non-Federal Parcels Parcel A – Portions of Berry Creek and its tributaries flow through this parcel. Berry Creek is a perennially flowing stream that contains a population conservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Approximately 1300 meters or 0.8 miles of Berry Creek and 2325 meters or 1.4 miles of intermittent 1st and 2nd order tributaries to Berry Creek are located on this parcel. In addition, 300 meters or 0.2 miles (1st order and intermittent) of Beard Creek, are located on this parcel. A total of 1300 meters or 0.8 miles of perennial stream and 2625 meters or 1.6 miles of intermittent stream are located on this parcel.
Parcel B – Four intermittent streams flow through this parcel. One is the intermittent 1st order headwaters to Creamery Gulch (200 meters or 0.1 miles) and the other three are 1st order intermittent tributaries to McCoy Creek (1500 meters or 0.9 miles). A total of 1700 meters or 1.0 miles of intermittent stream are located on this parcel.
Parcel C – There is no aquatic habitat associated with this parcel.
Parcel D – There is approximately 0.12 acres of wetland and 0.4 miles of perennial stream habitat.
Non-Federal Stream Habitat Total A total of approximately 1300 meters or 0.8 perennial and 4235 meters or 2.7 miles of intermittent stream are found on the Non-Federal Parcels.
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout
Existing Conditions Federal Parcels No Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat is found on any of the federal parcels to be exchanged. Only Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 contain stream habitat. However, the stream habitat located on these parcels is intermittent and would not support a trout population.
Non-Federal Parcels There is quality habitat for Colorado River cutthroat trout in non-federal parcel A. This parcel contains a 0.8 mile segment of Berry Creek which currently holds a conservation
- 27 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment population of Colorado River cutthroat trout. In addition, Parcel B contains 0.9 miles if intermittent stream habitat, all tributaries to McCoy Creek. The last known documented occurrence of cutthroat trout in McCoy Creek was in 1996. No other data is available at this time to confirm or deny presence of cutthroat trout in McCoy creek.
Direct and Indirect Effects of No-action No-Action A “no action” alternative would result in no land parcels exchanged and a portion of Berry Creek which holds a conservation population of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout would remain private with no protection status as a Forest Service sensitive species. None of the other parcels included in the proposed land exchange contain Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat.
Proposed Action - Alternative 2 Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Fish Species The greenback cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias, is the only federally threatened, endangered, or proposed aquatic species found on the White River National Forest. Based on current genetic analysis, there are three known greenback cutthroat populations on the Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District. However, these populations are located in Three Licks Creek, Big Hole Creek and East Meadow Creek which are all isolated drainages and disconnected from the project area. Furthermore, this species is considered to occur outside of its natural range. The greenback cutthroat trout is considered native to the front range of the Rocky Mountains and has been translocated to the western slope. Greenback cutthroat trout do not occur in the project area and it is unlikely that restoration efforts would take place for this species in this watershed because of the lack of perennial water and a conservation population of Colorado River Cutthroat trout that is located in Berry Creek. Therefore “No Effects” are expected to greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias).
While Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker do not occur on the WRNF, they do occur downstream of the Forest. The USFWS believes that the major causes for the decline of the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) are impoundments and water depletions from the Colorado River and its tributaries. If a project will result in the depletion of water or degradation of water quality to tributaries of the Colorado River, the Forest will request formal consultation with the USFWS. No water depletions or water rights are associated with this activity, therefore “No Effects” are expected to bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Potential effects to all threatened, endangered and proposed fish species were considered and listed in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Fish Species listed under the Endangered Species Act considered in the Eagle Valley Land Exchange
Known/ Suitable Common Scientific suspected Rationale if not carried forward for Status habitat Name Name to be analysis present? present? No water depletions associated with Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered No No project Colorado Ptychocheilus Endangered No No No water depletions associated with - 28 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment pikeminnow lucius project Humpback No water depletions associated with Gila cypha Endangered No No chub project Razorback Xyrauchen No water depletions associated with Endangered No No sucker texanus project
Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species The following list includes all sensitive aquatic species, or their habitats, that are located on the White River National Forest (Table 5). A review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information may include Forest Service records and files, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency information, and published research.
Table 5. Occurrence and general habitat description for Forest Service sensitive aquatic species listed on the White River National Forest
Common Name Scientific Name White River NF Occurrence Habitat Colorado River Oncorhynchus Widespread localized reaches Isolated, headwater streams and lakes Cutthroat Trout clarki pleuriticus Colorado River to Granby, Milk, Catostomus Larger rivers of western slope of Bluehead sucker Piceance, Rifle, Alkali, and discobolus Colorado Divide Creeks Flannelmouth Catostomus Colorado River to Granby, Milk, Larger rivers of western slope of sucker latipinnis Piceance, and Divide Creeks Colorado Numerous small to medium Throughout west on both sides of streams to 9200’ elevation in the Catostomus Continental Divide-prefer clear cold Mountain sucker Green River drainage and in the platyrhynchus creeks and small to medium rivers headwaters of the Colorado, with rubble, gravel, or sand substrate Yampa and White Rivers Colorado River through Glenwood Canyon, downstream Roundtail chub Gila robusta Larger rivers of Colorado River basin on White River, Milk and Divide Creeks Disjunct, small populations Subalpine habitats with marshes and Bufo boreas scattered across WRNF wet meadows; ponds, margins of Boreal toad boreas streams. Most common between 8500 and 11,000 feet in elevation. June Creek, Clear Creek – Rifle Banks and shallow portions of lakes, Northern leopard District; Sterry and Ballon Lakes pond, wetlands, especially those with Rana pipiens frog – Blanco District rooted aquatic vegetation to 11,000 feet in elevation.
No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 6 summarizes the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable, but unoccupied habitat is present, then potential effects to habitat are evaluated. Suitable habitat is present for boreal toad and northern leopard frog within the proposed land exchange parcels. Potential effects to these species are analyzed in detail below.
Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive species listed as occurring on the White River National Forest
Known/ Suitable suspected Rationale if not carried forward for Common Name Scientific Name Status habitat to be analysis present? present? Colorado River Oncorhynchus Sensitive No No See comments below* Cutthroat Trout clarki
- 29 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment pleuriticus Catostomus Bluehead sucker Sensitive No No Outside range discobolus Flannelmouth Catostomus Sensitive No No Outside range sucker latipinnis Mountain Catostomus Sensitive No No Outside range sucker platyrhynchus Roundtail chub Gila robusta Sensitive No No Outside range Bufo boreas Boreal toad Sensitive Yes Yes Analyzed in detail boreas Leopard frog Rana pipiens Sensitive Yes Yes Analyzed in detail
No suitable habitat is found within the project area for bluehead, flannelmouth, and mountain suckers, or roundtail chub. Therefore it is expected that there would be “no impact” to bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), and roundtail chub (Gila robusta).
The boreal toad and northern leopard frog have not been documented in the project area. The closest known boreal toad population is over four miles away from parcels 9A&B, and only one record of northern leopard frog found in the Colorado Herpetofaunal Atlas database form 1958 exists for Eagle County. In addition there is no quality amphibian habitat (marsh, wet meadow, pond, or lake) located on any of the parcels in the proposed land exchange. Therefore it is expected that there would be “no impact” to boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas), and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) as a result of the proposed Eagle Valley Land Exchange. Suitable habitat is present for Colorado River cutthroat trout within the proposed land exchange parcels, so potential effects to these species are analyzed in detail.
Proposed Action The proposed action alternative would exchange the parcels described above. The Forest Service would exchange 3.5 miles of intermittent non-trout bearing stream habitat for 2.7 miles of intermittent non-trout bearing stream habitat and 0.8 miles of occupied Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat.
If the Forest Service acquires Parcel A than the 0.8 segment of Berry Creek would be protected by Region 2 Sensitive Species, Forest Plan and WCP Handbook standards and guidelines. In addition, the acquisition Parcel A would allow continuous Forest Service management of all but a 350 meter section of occupied Colorado cutthroat trout habitat in Berry Creek.
The proposed action would aid in Colorado River cutthroat trout conservation strategies for the protection and recovery of this species. None of the other parcels included in the proposed land exchange contain Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat. Parcels 1 and 5 contain first order tributary habitat to the Eagle River and would be protected by conservation easements and open space designation respectfully. No measurable effects to these tributaries are expected.
- 30 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Determination of Effect and Rationale
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout No measurable effects are expected as a result of the proposed alternatives for the Eagle Valley Land Exchange. Under the No Action alternative 0.8 miles of Berry Creek would remain in State Land Board ownership. It is uncertain what the State Land Board would do with the parcel if it were not transferred to Federal ownership. This section of Berry Creek would not receive the same standards and guidelines that apply with Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species status, Forest Plan or WCP Handbook standards and guidelines. Therefore, the No Action alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing” to Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) and their habitat.
Because there would be no net loss of stream habitat and 0.8 miles of occupied Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat would be acquired and no measurable adverse effects would occur along intermittent tributary streams, it is my determination that the Proposed Action would have a “beneficial impact” to Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) and their habitat.
AQUATIC MIS – Affected Environment Management Indicator Species – The Code of Federal Regulations {36 CFR 219.19 (a)(6)} states “population trends of management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined.” The WRNF’s Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (Forest Plan) was revised in 2002. The Forest Plan’s Ecosystem Health Goals and Objectives for MIS include “(w)ithin 15 years, demonstrate positive trends in habitat availability, habitat quality, or other factors affecting sensitive species and Management Indicator Species.” MIS trends are to be evaluated at the Forest-wide scale.
This document discloses the potential effects of the proposed Alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action (described in effects analysis), on aquatic MIS (all trout and aquatic macroinvertebrates).
All Trout Fish communities are used to describe the existing condition of the project area and potential effects of various project components. Total trout density, or the number of all trout individuals per 100 meters of stream, is used as a measure for this MIS, and a useful measure of habitat quality. Trout are usually sampled in a relatively short, representative stream reach to assess populations, but it is questionable whether data from a single reach is truly representative of the population in an entire stream. Nevertheless, the number of fish age classes as well as population densities can be useful to assess habitat in a given reach.
Distribution and Abundance – Trout occur in most of the perennial water bodies on the WRNF, including streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Trout may be excluded from some areas by natural or human-caused barriers or due to chemical contamination below mines. At high elevations, trout may be absent due to low water temperatures that inhibit growth and recruitment of young-of-year (Coleman and Fausch 2006).
Habitat Associations – The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. - 31 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Geology, elevation, temperature, stream gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased fine sediment (particles < 6mm), or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor age- class distribution.
Existing Condition – All Trout Parcel A is the only parcel that contains perennial stream habitat suitable for trout occupation. Berry Creek (0.8 miles) flows through this parcel and is occupied by Colorado River cutthroat trout. Refer to the discussion above for a detailed habitat description. Currently, population data has not been collected in Berry Creek.
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates are those invertebrates that spend at least part of their life cycles in water. These include worms, mollusks, mites, and insects, the latter of which are by far are the most common. Most insect species spend just the immature phase (larval or nymph) in water. Although sensitive species occur in most insect families, three families are comprised primarily of species that are most sensitive to disturbance, including Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies).
Distribution and Abundance – Macroinvertebrate communities occur in all water bodies on the WRNF, including ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, rivers, and perennial and intermittent streams. Even degraded systems usually contain aquatic macroinvertebrates; however these communities are composed of very different assemblages of species than those in minimally-impaired aquatic habitats. On the WRNF, macroinvertebrates were selected to address trend and condition of flowing waters only and therefore macroinvertebrate communities in sill waters (e.g., lakes and ponds) and intermittent streams are not discussed further in this document. Due to their sensitivity to habitat degradation, aquatic insect communities can be used to assess the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of aquatic ecosystems (Barbour et al. 1999).
Habitat Associations – Macroinvertebrates are influenced by the timing of flow and water quality in the streams in which they live. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are factors that commonly influence macroinvertebrate community structure. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased fine sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), the response of the macroinvertebrate community is typically a reduction in the number of species that occur there and especially the number of sensitive species. Metrics, or measures, derived from macroinvertebrate community sample data that reflect diversity, species richness, composition, as well as sensitivity to stressors, representative of a balanced ecological community, are compared between reference streams and streams present within the project area. One impact that can occur from riparian function disturbing activities is sedimentation of stream substrate and spawning gravels. This can occur through loss of riparian vegetation and input from adjacent hill slopes. In this case, to describe the condition of aquatic habitats in Berry Creek, metrics that indicates impacts due to sedimentation were chosen and includes: number of sediment intolerant taxa, number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, number of Ephemeroptera taxa, Benthic Condition Index (BCI), percent scrapers, and percent clingers (Table 7).
- 32 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Table 7. Macroinvertebrate community metrics selected for monitoring the health of Berry Creek Response to Metric Impacts Description Number of intolerant EPT taxa selected using White River WRNF Intolerant Taxa Decrease National Forest substrate and aquatic insect data. Number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa; taxa No. EPT Taxa Decrease considered to be generally sensitive to pollutants. No. Ephemeroptera Decrease Number of mayfly species in a sample. Taxa Benthic Condition Index used for evaluating stream sediment impacts Increase Index (BCI) (Winget and Magnum 1979). % Scrapers Decrease Percent of all individuals that scrape or graze periphyton. Percentage of a sample consisting of species that are % Clingers Decrease adapted to attach themselves to hard surfaces in areas with current.
Existing Condition – Macroinvertebrates
On the WRNF, macroinvertebrates were selected to address trend and condition of flowing waters only. The Federal parcels to be exchanged contain only intermittent streams and one 50 meter segment of Traer Creek that is too steep to sample based on WRNF macroinvertebrate sampling protocols. Non-Federal Parcel A includes 0.8 miles of Berry Creek which would provide habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrate communities To date, there has been no aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling on any of the Federal Parcels due to the lack of perennial stream habitat. One sample has been collected in Berry Creek on USFS lands downstream from Non-Federal Parcel A and the data is displayed below (Table 8). Since only one data point is available, trends in macroinvertebrate communities cannot be calculated. A minimum of three data points is typically needed to establish trends in aquatic communities. Available data for Berry Creek on Forest Service lands shows that the stream is robust in four of six selected metrics. It is possible that the existing road system in this watershed contributes sediment to the stream channel limiting sensitive Ephemeroptera and scraper taxa.
Table 8. Macroinvertebrate community metrics comparing reference streams and Berry Creek
WRNF No. No. Benthic Sediment % % EPT Ephemeroptera Condition Intolerant Scrapers Clingers Taxa (Mayflies) Index Taxa Reference Data Robust Stream Health > 5.2 > 14.1 > 5.9 < 5.2 > 33.1 > 58.9 Diminished Stream Health < 4.1 < 11 < 4.6 > 5.9 < 26 < 46.2 Berry Creek 2006 6 21 4.9 4 16.2 62.2
Forest Wide Analysis - 33 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Forest-wide Trends in Aquatic Management Indicator Species Following the 2002 revision of the WRNF Forest Plan, a quantitative population trend monitoring program was implemented for aquatic MIS. A random list of approximately 50 stream segments distributed throughout combinations of different Management Areas representing various aspects of forest management were selected for Forest-wide trend monitoring. Streams were to be repeatedly surveyed on a 5-year rotation beginning in 2003. Trends in aquatic MIS are meant to be addressed at the Forest-wide scale. To quantify trends at aquatic MIS monitoring stations, at least three or more data points are needed. To date, fish have only been sampled twice for all MIS sites. Comparisons between sampling events could be made but more data sets are needed to complete a trend analysis. Since the MIS monitoring program was initiated in 2003, only five MIS sampling sites have been sampled for macroinvertebrates at least three times. The Benthic Condition Index data is presented for repeat sampling Forest-wide and include sites with more than two data points (Figure 1). However, in general, an analysis of these data indicated that inter-annual variability in macroinvertebrate metrics did not exceed the modeled error and intra-site variability for most metrics. Therefore, no strong increasing or decreasing trends could be identified with available data. No trend sampling has been completed specifically within the project area.
Effects of No Action
A “no action” alternative would result in no land parcels exchanged and a 0.8 mile portion of Berry Creek would remain private. None of the other parcels included in the proposed land exchange contain trout or aquatic macroinvertebrate MIS habitat. Trout and macroinvertebrate communities in Berry Creek would be expected to maintain current community levels.
Effects of Proposed Action
Aquatic MIS habitat is found only in Non-Federal Parcel A. See Colorado River cutthroat trout effects analysis and existing condition sections for detailed habitat information. There are no detectable effects expected to aquatic MIS habitat as a result of the proposed land exchange. No perennial stream habitat (other than 50 meters of Traer Creek) is present on the Federal Parcels. As a result, it is likely that no measurable effects and therefore no change in macroinvertebrate communities or trout populations would occur. The acquisition of Parcel A which contains 0.8 miles of Berry Creek would contribute toward meeting Objective 1b and Strategy 1b.4 in Goal 1 Ecosystem Health of the WRNF Forest Plan.
Cumulative Effects – Cumulative effects were considered for aquatic habitats in the Minturn Administrative Parcel watershed. Since no measurable effects of proposed activities to aquatic MIS would be expected as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives, no additional cumulative effects would be expected.
Summary of Effects to Aquatic MIS – The implementation of the proposed action would neither contribute towards nor negatively affect meeting aquatic MIS objectives at the Forest- wide scale. Physical habitat quality would be maintained in its current condition under the Proposed Action. Under the No Action alternative, it is unknown at this time if the habitat in Parcel A would be affected either positively or negatively. Long-term effects to trout or aquatic macroinvertebrate populations as a result of the proposed alternatives would not result in any measurable population trends at the project or forest-wide scale.
- 34 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Wetlands & Floodplains Forest Service land exchanges must meet the requirements of Executive Orders (EO) 11988 and Executive Order 11990. Classifications of wetlands and floodplains followed EO 11988 and 11990 and FSM 2500 direction.
The Federal parcels contain approximately 0.07 acres of floodplain, compared to 0.76 acres of floodplain on the non-Federal parcels. Completion of this exchange would result in a net gain of 0.69 acres of floodplain to Federal management, consistent with Executive Order 11988. The Federal parcels contain approximately 0.07 acres of wetland, compared to 2.48 acres of high quality sedge/willow wetlands on the non-Federal parcels. Completion of this exchange would result in a net gain of 2.41 acres of wetlands to Federal management, consistent with the intent of Executive Order 11990.
3.1.3 ISSUE 3 The proposed exchange could have negative effects on American elk and mule deer winter range, and to greater sage-grouse habitat.
This analysis for terrestrial greater sage-grouse, mule deer and American elk is only relevant to these parcels: West Avon, Forest Service Village, Cordillera, CDOT Relocation, CVC Water Tank, Mountain Star Water Tank, Red Sandstone A/B Water Tank, North Edwards, Beard Creek and Nottingham.
Affected Environment for Greater Sage-Grouse In 2010 greater sage-grouse was identified as a Candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but is precluded by other species. Currently this species is considered a Species of Viability Concern (2002 Forest Plan), and a Region 2 Sensitive Species.
Many of the parcels in the Eagle Valley Land Exchange action area contain sagebrush, which is a necessary component of habitat for this species. Table 9 below shows the number of acres of sagebrush habitat that occurs in the federal parcels proposed for release compared to the non-federal parcels proposed for acquisition. The federal parcels proposed for release provide more potential habitat for greater sage-grouse than the non-federal parcels proposed for acquisition.
Table 9. Comparison of the Quantity and Quality of Existing Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse in Proposed Parcels R2 Sensitive Federal Parcels Proposed for Released Non-federal Parcels Proposed for Acquired Species # Acres of # Acres of
Habitat Comments About Habitat Habitat Comments About Habitat parcels provide some greater sage- greater parcels provide a lot of greater sage-grouse grouse habitat below 9000 feet, the sage- habitat below 9000 feet, the quality of habitat quality of habitat is fair, most is in grouse 212 is fair to poor, most is in FRCC3 9 FRCC2
Historically, greater sage-grouse habitat occurred in every federal parcel proposed for release, with the exception of Red Sandstone. The most current occurrence and population data for greater sage-grouse mapped by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, however, shows greater sage-grouse winter range and overall range occurs in very close proximity to only three of
- 35 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment the most western federal parcels proposed for release and one non-federal parcel proposed for acquisition.
Greater sage-grouse in Eagle County belong to the Northern Eagle-Southern Route (NESR) population. The majority of birds in this population occur north to northwest of the Eagle Valley Land Exchange action area. An observation of greater sage-grouse female with chicks was documented in 2012 in this area by US Forest Service, and winter observations of a female were also documented by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in 2009. These birds may be a subpopulation of the NESR population. The western federal parcels proposed for release are within daily and seasonal migration of greater sage-grouse NESR population.
Effects to Greater Sage-Grouse and Determination
No Action-Alternative 1
This alternative would not cause a change to the status of federal parcels. The non-federal parcels may still be available for development. Since no federal parcels would be released, this alternative would have NO EFFECT to greater sage-grouse or its habitat.
Proposed Action-Alternative 2
The proposed Eagle Valley Land Exchange MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LOSS OF VIABILITY IN THE PLANNING AREA, NOR CAUSE A TREND TOWARD FEDERAL LISTING, for greater sage-grouse for the following reasons: 1. In 2012 and 2009 occupancy was documented near the federal parcels proposed for release; these birds may be a subpopulation of the NESR population 2. The quality of sagebrush in parcels proposed for release is fair to poor 3. Parcels proposed for release overlap with historic greater sage-grouse habitat 4. Winter range and overall range for greater sage-grouse occur in close proximity to the western parcels 5. Some western parcels are within daily and seasonal migration capabilities for local greater sage-grouse populations; The majority of greater sage-grouse individuals from the local NESR population do not winter within the action area 6. No currently known occupied lek sites, or brood-rearing for greater sage-grouse would be affected; Greater sage-grouse reproduction is not likely to be affected 7. No currently known occupied severe winter range for greater sage-grouse would be affected; The net loss of 203 acres of sagebrush would affect historic habitat and intermittently occupied winter range; The net loss of 203 acres of sagebrush would have a minor negative effect on a few wintering greater sage-grouse individuals 8. Cumulative effects on some greater sage-grouse individuals, in or near parcels proposed for release, would be minor to moderate spatial scales and magnitudes 9. Cumulative effects at the deme level for greater sage-grouse is very unlikely since only a few wintering individuals would be affected, and it is not clear if all individuals in the action area are from one or more demes; cumulative effects are not expected to affect greater sage-grouse populations at WRNF level 10. Conservation easements could conserve a portion of sagebrush, and could minimize impact to greater sage-grouse and its winter and historic habitat.
- 36 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Affected Environment for Mule Deer and American Elk
The parcels proposed for exchange support all of these American elk and mule deer habitats: all types of winter ranges (severe, critical, concentration, winter), calving/fawning, all types of migration habitats (corridors, routes, patterns, and highway crossings), and all types of summer ranges (summer, concentration, limited use, and resident). Only winter range for mule deer and American elk are concerns with regards to the effects from this proposed land exchange, and discussed in detail.
Winter range for elk and mule deer are critical for maintaining populations. Severe, critical, concentration winter ranges for mule deer and elk are subcategories of winter range, so only winter range will be discussed in detail. There are 425,298 acres of elk winter range, and 87,610 acres of mule deer winter range on the White River National Forest.
The affected elk Data Analysis Units (DAU) are: E-12 and E-16. The affected mule deer DAU’s are: D-8 and D-14. Table x below shows the most current population sizes of mule deer and American elk for these DAUs. Populations of elk in E-12 and mule deer in D-14 are under CPW objectives.
Table 10. Estimated Population Sizes for Mule Deer and American Elk
Estimated DAU Population Size Population Objective DAU Plan Species DAU Post-Hunt (2008) Year 5,100 1988 (under American elk E-16 7,100 revision now) 2,950 1988 (under American elk E-12 3,800 revision now) mule deer D-8 14,800 13,500 to 16,500 2009 mule deer D-14 2,130 7,000 (unrealistically high) 1995
Effects to Mule Deer and American Elk
No Action – Alternative 1
This alternative would not cause a change to the status of federal parcels. The non-federal parcels may still be available for development. The elk winter range in the North Edwards parcel could be lost to future development of this non-federal parcel under this alternative; this parcel lies on the edge of elk winter range so the effects to the DAU or WRNF population would be minimal. No effects would occur to mule deer or its winter range.
Proposed Action-Alternative 2
Upon the proposed acquisition of non-federal parcels, those lands would be folded into mainly Management Areas 5.4 Forested Flora and Fauna, 5.13 Resource Production- Forest Products, and Management Area Direction 5.43 - Elk Habitat with small portions in 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range and 1.31 Backcountry Recreation Non-Motorized. Only 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter range and in part lands in Management Area Direction 5.43 - Elk Habitat would provide an emphasis on the conservation of winter range upon acquisition of non-federal parcels.
- 37 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Project-Level Effects to Mule Deer and American Elk Table 2 compares the amount of American elk and mule deer winter range that would be affected in federal and non-federal parcels, and the net loss/gain.
Table 2. Net Loss or Gain of Habitat from the Exchange of Federal and Non-federal Parcels Net Loss % of (-) or Percent Acres of Parcels Acres of % of Retention of WRNF Type of Species Habitat Released Habitat Action of Habitat Habitat Habitat Lost in (out of % of Retained Area (out % of from from Net Parcels 1285 % of WRNF in Parcels of 823.4 % of WRNF Exchange Loss or Released1 acres) DAU* Habitat Acquired2 acres) DAU* Habitat (acres) Retention American winter elk range 653 51 0.03 0.154 655 80 0.03 0.002 2 0.00 winter mule deer range 315 25 0.27 0.359 242 29 0.02 0.276 -73 -0.33
*Number of acres in DAU E-12 + E-16 = 2,466,476 for American elk; DAU d-8 + D-14 = 1,171,441 for mule deer
At the project level, there would be equal amounts of elk winter range that would be lost as there would be gained from the exchange (Table 2). In terms of overall elk habitat management, this could ultimately result in a loss of winter range for elk since the current status of both federal and non-federal parcels are undeveloped and biologically functioning for elk as winter range, but the exchange could cause development of the federal parcels. In the short term, there would be no effect to individual elk at the project scale from the exchange. The development of federal parcels after the exchange could cause a minor effect to individual elk at the project scale.
At the project level, there would be a net loss of mule deer winter range from the exchange (Table 2). Most of the land in the proposed parcels occurs in D-8 (which exceeds CPW objectives), thus the project-level effects to individual mule deer would be minor at both short and long-term scales.
DAU and Forest-Scale Effects to Mule Deer and American Elk Because the proposed exchange of federal and non-federal parcels would have a minimal effect on the quantity of mule deer winter range lost, the effects on these would be discountable, less than 1% of habitat at the DAU and Forest scales (Table 2). Discountable effects on habitat for mule deer at DAU and Forest scales would have discountable effects on their populations at those same scales.
Although at the project-scale there would be an increase of elk winter range in federal jurisdiction from the proposed land exchange, this would affect less than 1% of these elk winter range at the DAU or Forest scales. These effects to elk winter range would have a discountable effect on elk populations at the DAU and Forest scales.
Cumulative Effects to Mule Deer and American Elk Cumulative effects at the project-level occur at small spatial scales. Therefore, cumulative effects on a few individuals of American elk and mule deer would be to a minor degree in magnitude. Cumulative effects on American elk and mule deer would not be expected at DAU or Forest scales because the direct and indirect effects at the DAU and Forest scales would be discountable.
- 38 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines This proposed land exchange would be in compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for American elk and mule deer winter range because conservation easements are proposed for the larger parcels containing winter range.
Recommendations for minimizing disturbance to mule deer during winter and for conserving their winter range are recommended below.
Recommendations for Inventorying & Monitoring Once lands are exchanged, those no longer under Federal jurisdiction are subject to federal direction, however the following mitigating actions are noted here as for land owners to consider for minimizing impacts to greater sage-grouse, and other Region 2 Sensitive Species:
1. Prior to development in parcels proposed for release, conduct a breeding survey for Brewer’s sparrow, greater sage-grouse, northern goshawk, flammulated owl, boreal owl, and purple martin. These should be done in locations where breeding habitat occurs and the type of development would result in breeding habitat loss (e.g. cut down trees).
2. Prior to development in parcels proposed for release, conduct a winter and spring breeding survey for the presence of greater sage-grouse, in the federal parcels proposed for release. These should be done in locations where winter habitat occurs and the type of development would result in breeding habitat loss (e.g. remove sagebrush).
Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate Adverse Effects Once lands are exchanged, those no longer under Federal jurisdiction are subject to federal direction, however the following mitigating actions are noted here as for land owners to consider for minimizing impacts to greater sage-grouse:
1. Develop conservation easements that promote ecological characteristics for the conservation of greater sage-grouse and their habitats as described in the 2002 Forest Plan Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines.
2. Encourage third-party entities of Parcels #1 West Avon, #2 FS Village, #3 Highway, #4 Cordillera, #6 CVC Water Tank to: a. Become signers to the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Northern Eagle County and Southern Routt County b. Become active participants in the Northern Eagle County and Southern Routt County Greater Sage-Grouse Working Group c. Follow the greater sage-grouse habitat conservation practices described in that document
And the following mitigating actions are recommended to minimize impacts to mule deer during winter.
1. Develop conservation easements that provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude for deer and elk to effectively use winter range habitat in average winters
2. Restrict disturbance to mule deer on winter range from December 1st to April 14th
- 39 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 3.2 Effects Relative to Consistency with Policy Requirements
As described in Chapter 1.3.1, land exchanges must meet certain requirements to ensure public benefits. The effects of the proposed exchange in this context are described below.
Forest Service Manual Direction FSM 5430.2 – Objective. To implement land management and resource planning directions to attain an optimum National Forest System landownership pattern that provides for resource uses that best meet the present and future needs of the people.
FSM 5430.3 – Policies. Complete land-for-land exchanges to consolidate National Forest system and non-Federal land patterns, to permit needed urban or industrial expansion, or to make other adjustments in landownership clearly in the public interest and consistent with land management planning objectives.
As decribed in greater detail below, the proposed action is consistent with Forest Service Manual Direction. The proposed land exchange is consistent with the planning goals and objectives set forth in the 2002 White River National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan, (Forest Plan). The primary goals of the Forest Plan related to the proposed land exchange are: to consolidate National Forest ownership patterns, and classify lands for conveyance to states, counties, cities or other Federal agencies when conveyance would serve a greater public interest. The Forest Plan does not include specific direction toward acquisition or conveyance of lands within all the Management Areas, (see Exhibit 3). However, the Federal and Non-Federal lands included in the proposed exchange must be evaluated with regard to the theme and desired condition of respective Management Areas (MA’s). The Forest Plan also includes Forest-wide standards and guidelines pertaining to real estate transactions, including land exchanges. Conveyance of Federal parcels 1-10 would be consistent with the following considerations, as described below:
Lands in developed areas that have lost or are losing their national forest character;
Lands within, and immediately adjacent to, expanding communities to assist public and private projects that have the mutual concurrence of federal, state, and local governments;
Lands that will contribute to community growth, development and economic prosperity; and
Lands isolated from other National Forest System lands.
Federal Parcel 1 (“West Avon”); Federal Parcel 2 (“Forest Service Village”); Federal Parcel 3 (“Highway”); Federal Parcel 4 (“Cordillera”); Federal Parcel 5 (“Homestead”); Federal Parcel 6 (“CDOT Relocation”); Federal Parcel 7 (“CVC Water Tank”); Federal Parcel 8 (“Mtn. Star Water Tank”); and Federal Parcel 10 (“Homestead”):
- 40 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment These parcels are currently managed under the 5.41 Management Area Direction “Deer and Elk Winter Range”, which are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude for deer, elk and other species. Federal Parcels 1-5 and 10 are primarily surrounded by private lands and given the isolation of these parcels from other National Forest System lands, and the increase in adjacent or nearby residential development, these parcels are quickly losing their national forest characteristics and are becoming increasingly difficult and inefficient to manage. Federal Parcels 6, 7 and 8 also adjoin existing private development but are needed for specific facilities (i.e. CDOT highway maintenance yard relocation and several municipal water tanks). These could be authorized under special use permits (Note: CVC Water Tank is already authorized under a special use permit), but such authorizations would require continuing permit administration and monitoring.
Federal Parcels 9A and 9B (“Red Sandstone Vail Water Tanks A and B”): These parcels are located in the 8.32 Management Area which emphasizes management for existing and potential designated utility corridors. The new facility proposed for 9A and the existing facility located within 9B are consistent how this parcel is currently being managed.
Acquisition of the non-Federal parcels meet planning goals and objectives in the Forest Plan as follows:
Non-Federal Parcel A (“North Edwards”): This parcel is bordered on three sides by National Forest System lands managed under the 5.4 Management Area direction which are managed to provide a mix of ecological and human needs. On the southwest corner the parcel is bordered by 5.41 Management Area which is managed for deer and elk winter range. Acquisition of Non-Federal Parcel A would enhance future Forest Service management of the area and would allow for additional dispersed recreational opportunities including viewing scenery and wildlife, dispersed camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, and mountain biking.
Non-Federal Parcel B, (“South Edwards”): This parcel is bordered on the north by 5.41 Management Area which emphasizes Big Game Winter Range and on the south by 5.43 Management Area which is managed for elk. The land status of the 160 acres federal parcel to the north (“Homestead”) will change to private ownership with this exchange. The east and west sides are bordered by private lands. Acquisition of Non- Federal Parcel B would enhance future Forest Service management of the area and allow for additional dispersed recreational opportunities including viewing scenery and wildlife, dispersed camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, and mountain biking.
Non-Federal Parcel C, (“Beard Creek”): The parcel is bordered by 5.41 Management Area which is managed for deer and elk winter range. Acquisition of Non-Federal Parcel C would enhance future Forest Service management of the area and would allow for additional dispersed recreational opportunities including: viewing scenery and wildlife, picnicking, and mountain biking.
Non-Federal Parcel D, (“Nottingham”): The parcel is bordered on the west by 5.13 Management Area which is managed to provide commercial wood products, on the east by 1.31 which is managed for backcountry, non-motorized recreation and on the north and northeast by Management Area 1.12 which is designated as primitive
- 41 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment wilderness. Acquisition of Non-Federal Parcel D would enhance future Forest Service management of the area and would allow for additional dispersed recreational opportunities including: viewing scenery and wildlife, picnicking, and dispersed recreation. The parcel is bordered on the south by a 160 acre private inholding that has a potential for development into 35 acre parcels. The “Willie N. Ditch” is located on the parcel but has not been used by the land owners for a number of years.
The following table summarizes the future management of the lands to be acquired by the Forest Service, as well as the intended management by non-Federal entities of the lands to be conveyed.
Parcel Parcel Name Acreage Current Future Management Management A North Edwards 640.0 SLB MA-5.4 -320acres MA -5.41-320acres B South Edwards 640.0 SLB MA -5.43-640acres C Beard Creek 5.0 Eagle River W&S- MA -5.41 -5 acres Water Tank Site D Nottingham 183.125 Private - Nottingham MA – 5.13-100 acres MA-1.31- 83.125acres Proposed to be managed as 1 West Avon 478.09 MA-5.41-478.09 acres Town of Avon-Open Space 2 Forest Service 85.99 MA -5.41- 85.99 acres Town of Avon – Village Open Space-80acres Housing – 5.99acres 3 Highway 48.99 MA-5.41 -48.99 acres State Land Board 4 Cordillera 167.95 MA-5.41–167.95 Eagle County – Open acres Space 5 Homestead 162.07 MA-5.41-162.07 acres Eagle County – Open Space 6 CDOT Relocation 7.47 MA -5.41 – 7.63 acres State Land Board – CDOT Facility -7.63 acres 7 CVC Water Tank 5.00 MA -5.41 – 5.0 acres Water Authority – Water Tank 8 Mtn. Star Water 5.00 MA -5.41 – 5.0 acres Eagle River W&S- Tank Water Tank 9A Red Sandstone 3.00 MA 5.4 – 3.0 acres Eagle River W&S- Tank A Water Tank 9B Red Sandstone 6.13 MA 5.4 – 6.13 acres Eagle River W&S- Tank B Water Tank 10 Cross Creek 14.10 MA-5.4-14.10 acres SLB or Minturn- Development -14.1 acres
- 42 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
Consistency with Forest Plan standards and guidelines The Forest Plan includes the following direction for land adjustment activities, including land exchanges:
Standards: In land adjustment activities (including land exchange, purchase, disposal, donation), consider the following:
Evaluate and balance the overall combination of all resource values and factors including wildlife habitat, fisheries habitat, riparian areas, wetlands, cultural resources, recreation opportunities, scenic value, watershed protection, timber resources, rangelands, public access, better Federal land management, and other factors. Evaluate the effect of land adjustments on sensitive species habitat. Avoid land adjustments which could result in a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for any sensitive species. Sensitive species habitat can be conveyed if conveyance would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or adversely affect the population viability of the species, or if effects could be mitigated. Acquisition of lands that contain resource values identified during scoping as important in contributing toward National Forest System resource management goals and objectives as stated in the forest plan. Examples include wetlands, riparian areas, essential wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat, sensitive species habitat, significant cultural resources, timberlands, rangelands or other areas.
Guidelines: In land adjustment activities (including land exchange, purchase, sale, donation), consider the following:
Reduction of Forest Service administrative costs and improvement of management efficiency. Included are reducing miles of landline boundaries and number of corners; special uses; title claims; rights-of-way grants and easements; numbers of allotments and intermingled ownership livestock pastures; and other factors that decrease administrative costs and improve management efficiency. The conveyance or acquisition would reduce conflicts between Forest Service and private landowner objectives, especially when conflicts are adversely affecting National Forest System management.
Evaluate the following when considering opportunities to acquire non-Federal lands:
Lands with historical or important heritage resources, outstanding scenic values, or critical ecosystems when these resources are threatened by change of use, or when management may be enhanced by public ownership; Lands with water frontage, such as lakes, streams, flood plains, wetlands and associated riparian ecosystems; Key wildlife habitat, fishery management areas and habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species;
- 43 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Lands with important value for outdoor recreation purposes and lands needed for scenic condition protection; and Lands needed to bring existing National Forest System lands into consolidated geographical units, or to reduce the miles of interior boundaries and number of interior corners.
Consistency with the above direction: The non-Federal SLB properties appear to be an appropriate selection for such the above considerations. The location of the parcel in an open park-like setting offers panoramic views of the Eagle River drainage and Sawatch Mountain Range.
The North Edwards parcel contains portions of Berry Creek and its tributaries that flow through this parcel. Berry Creek is a perennially flowing stream that contains a population conservation of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Approximately 0.8 miles of Berry Creek and 1.4 miles of intermittent 1st and 2nd order tributaries to Berry Creek are located on this parcel. This parcel provides habitat for Elk calving, northern goshawk, and flammulated owls.
The North Edwards parcel offers dispersed recreation opportunities for camping, hunting, hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and provides continued access to National Forest System lands.
The South Edwards parcel is immediately adjacent to the Federal Parcel 5 and Eagle County Open Space and provides elk calving habitat. This parcel is also provides habitat for northern goshawks. Four intermittent streams flow through this parcel. One is the intermittent 1st order headwaters to Creamery Gulch (200 meters or 0.1 miles) and the other three are 1st order intermittent tributaries to McCoy Creek ( 1500 meters or 0.9 miles)
The South Edwards parcel offers non-motorized dispersed recreation opportunities for camping, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and hunting recreation. A very popular trail passes through this parcel. The trailhead for this trail is located on Homestead Subdivision property.
The Beard Creek parcel may have potential Penstemon harringtonii habitat, but no individuals have been found in several searches of the parcel (Western Ecosystems 2000, Doerr 2001a). This parcel would also bring Big Game Winter Range back into Federal ownership.
The Nottingham parcel is immediately adjacent to the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness and provides valuable wildlife and fisheries habitat. This parcel is also provides valuable habitat for northern goshawks. One stream (Dickson Creek) flows through this parcel. There are approximately 0.4 miles of perennial stream habitat.
Consolidation of landownership patterns in the area would allow the Forest Service to manage what are now non-federal parcels. Acquisition of the non-federal parcels would eliminate 20 survey corners and about 14.0 miles of boundary requiring periodic maintenance. Additionally, the Forest Service would acquire the following existing roads and trails: Tames Creek Road (FDR778) approximately 1.0 mile, Beard Creek Road (FDR778) approximately 1,000 feet, and a segment of the A10 Trail through Eagle County and Homestead Open Space, approximately 6,600 feet.
- 44 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
An additional Forest Plan guideline requires the Forest Service to evaluate the following when considering opportunities to convey lands: Important or unique resources (such as wetlands, flood plains, essential big-game winter range, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat, and important historical or heritage resources) may be disposed of, but mitigation and compensation values gained in acquired lands are to be considered; Lands in developed areas that have lost or are losing their national forest character; Lands within, and immediately adjacent to, expanding communities to assist public and private projects that have the mutual concurrence of Federal, state, and local governments; Land conveyance to states, counties, cities, or other Federal agencies when it serves a greater public interest; Lands that will contribute to community growth, development, and economic prosperity; Lands suitable for development by the private sector, if development (such as residential, agricultural, industrial or recreational) does not adversely affect management of adjoining NFS lands; Lands isolated from other NFS lands; and Parcels intermingled with mineral or homestead patents.
Consistency with the above direction: The eleven (11) Federal parcels appear to be appropriate parcels for such considerations. The West Avon, FS Village, and Highway properties are adjacent to existing residential developments in an area that is losing its national forest character. The FS Village parcel will provide land for additional affordable housing development in the Avon area. This parcel West Avon and the Cordillera property provide open space values of high importance to the Town of Avon and Cordillera, and Lake Creek.
Cordillera, FS Village, and Highway parcels are isolated from other NFS lands.
Cordillera Valley Club (CVC), Mountain Star, and Red Sandstone parcels are lands within, and immediately adjacent to, expanding communities to assist public and private projects that have the mutual concurrence of Federal, state, and local governments.
Effect on Forest Service Administration
Forest Service policies for land exchanges are designed to consolidate National Forest, local governmental or private land patterns, to consider needed urban expansion, and to provide for other adjustments in land ownership. The non-Federal SLB parcels and the Nottingham parcel meet the Forest Service’s acquisition criteria. These criteria address the needs for the Forest Service to acquire lands that have special values. Private lands surrounded by NFS lands that have critical ecosystems that are threatened by change in use can best be protected as part of the National Forest System.
The Forest Service is also interested in promoting efficient management and utilization of the National Forest. Isolated private parcels pose an administrative burden upon the Forest Service. It also creates vulnerability, as future uses on private in-holdings can and do conflict with National Forest management goals. Acquisition of the SLB parcels and the
- 45 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Nottingham parcel and conveyance of the West Avon, Cordillera, FS Village, and Highway parcels would reduce needs to survey and monument corners and would reduce miles of boundary requiring maintenance.
The eleven Federal parcels meet the Forest Service’s conveyance criteria. These criteria include those lands that have already been classified for conveyance as land adjacent to permanent communities and lands in developed areas that have lost or are losing their National Forest character. It is proposed that the important natural resource values of the West Avon, Cordillera, Highway, and FS Village parcels could be protected with conservation easements to Eagle Valley Land Trust following acquisitions of the parcels from the SLB.
Effect on Community Objectives
Portions of the FS Village parcel (5 acres) are proposed to be developed for affordable housing units for the Town of Avon. The local community views affordable housing as one of the biggest challenges facing the Eagle Valley as a whole. Land to develop attainable housing projects is limited by the availability of private lands and topography.
The remainder of the FS Village parcel and the entire West Avon parcel are proposed to be managed by the Town of Avon as public open space with a conservation easement. These lands would complement existing open space properties the town has acquired through purchases and dedications.
The Cordillera parcel could add public open space to Eagle County’s open space properties in the Edwards area.
Conveyance of the Federal parcels; CVC, Mountain Star, and Red Sandstone A & B to the Water Authority and the Water District would mean that water storage tanks that are vital to the water distribution system would no longer have uncertainties associated with being located on leased land. Ownership of these parcels secures an increase in water storage capacity which is essential to meet current and future growth in the community.
Overall Public Benefits
The Eagle River drainage along the I-70 corridor which includes the non-federal properties is a very popular dispersed backcountry recreation area on the Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest. Several popular recreation activities are enjoyed by hikers, bicyclists, motorcyclists, ATV enthusiasts, jeepers, skiers, snowshoers, and snowmobilers in the Edwards area.
In addition to its dispersed recreational opportunities, the Eagle River valley is valued by the public for its scenic resources, backcountry character, and wildlife habitat. Conveying the SLB parcels to the Forest Service would prevent any development from occurring on the parcel that would impact these resources.
The Beard Creek parcel was acquired by the Water Authority from the National Forest in an earlier exchange and due to not being able to acquire adequate access to the site could not use it for a water facility and is trading it back into National Forest System lands.
- 46 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Acquisition of the Nottingham parcel would provide high quality wildlife and fisheries habitat as well as prevent development adjacent to the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness.
Protection of the backcountry character of the Eagle River drainage, and its associated values of popular dispersed recreation opportunities, high scenic values, and habitat values, has long been a priority for the Forest Service and Eagle County Government. Protection of these parcels from development would preclude improvements and construction of new roads to provide access for development, protects the character of NFS lands within and adjacent to the parcel, and maintains the overall undeveloped character of the valley.
3.3 Consequences Relative to Significance Elements
In 1978, the Council of Environmental Quality promulgated regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) include a definition of “significantly” as used in NEPA. The eleven elements of this definition are critical to reducing paperwork through use of a finding of no significant impact when an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and is therefore exempt from requirements to prepare an environmental impact statement.
(a) Context -- The local context of this proposal is the Eagle River Valley watersheds of the Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District. Even in this local context, this proposal would not pose significant short or long-term effects. In this relatively small, local context, this action proposes to affect the ownership of 2452 acres of land. In the next larger context of the area of Eagle County, NFS lands represent approximately 90% (approximately 595,474 acres) of the land area. The proposed action would affect less than .005% of that land area.
(b) Intensity
(1) Beneficial and adverse effects -- Both beneficial and adverse effects are expected as the result of the exchange of federal for non-federal parcels, but at relative minor scales. For example, at project and Forest-wide scales, the proposed exchange of federal and non-federal parcels would have a minimal effect (less than 1% change) on the quantity of American elk winter range, mule deer winter range, and Virginia’s warbler breeding habitat. This would have a discountable effect on the populations of these three species at those same scales.
(2) Public health and safety -- The proposed action would have no effect or benefit to public health and safety. Hazardous materials or substances are not present on any of the other NFS or non-Federal parcels to be exchanged.
This proposal is consistent with the Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2160, Hazardous Materials Management), and Section 120 (h) of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). It is also compliant with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA). It satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 312, Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquires. No structures are present on either of the parcels. The Land Transaction Screening Process Summaries have been completed. No hazardous substances, petroleum products, or other contaminants have been identified.
- 47 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area (such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas) – None of the Federal parcels being exchanged have any unique characteristics such as historic sites or special designations. The Federal parcels contain approximately 0.07 acres of floodplain, compared to 0.76 acres of floodplain on the non- Federal parcels. Completion of this exchange would result in a net gain of 0.69 acres of floddplain to Federal management, cosistent with Executive Order 11988. The Federal parcels contain approximately 0.07 acres of wetland, compared to 2.48 acers of high quality sedge/willow wetlands on the non-Federal parcels. Completion of this exchange would result in a net gain of 2.41 acres of wetlands to Federal management, consistent with the intent of Executive Order 11990. While Penstemon harringtonii was found it is not unique to this parcel.
There would be no effect to prime farmland, rangeland or forest land (Dept. Regulation 9500-3), to cave resources (Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988), or to grazing use (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Section 402 (g)). There would be no disproportionate impact to consumers, civil rights, minority groups or women (E.O. 12898), and steep slopes or highly erosive soils.
(4) Controversy -- In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act, controversy refers to a substantial dispute in the scientific community regarding the effects of an action, not social opposition. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, and State Historic Preservation Office did not identify any scientific controversy regarding the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of this project. The interdisciplinary team for this project considered extensive scientific research (see project record), including any submitted by the public, to determine its applicability to the project and found no controversy related to the predicted effects.
(5) Uncertainty, unique or unknown risks – Land exchanges of Federal and non-Federal land a well-established method for making land adjustments, to benefit public and private land patterns. Other similar land exchange projects in recent times include the West Lake Creek Land Exchange, South Game Creek Land Exchange and Vassar Meadow Land Exchange. The environmental analyses conducted for determinations of public benefits and the impacts to the resources are supportable with the use of detailed field studies, reliable data and professional judgment. During the land exchange process the intended use of both Federal and non-Federal parcels is disclosed to eliminate the uncertainty or risk that would be entailed by future potential development on either land
(6) Precedence – The proposed land exchange is specific to a selected group of lands. The agency may propose additional land adjustments outside those proposed in this project, but such future efforts would be analyzed separately and on their own merits. Regarding other actions that might be reasonably foreseeable in the future: additional land adjustments would occur only if proven to be in the public interest and consistent with Forest Plan and other federal regulations. There are no additional parcels, Federal nor non-Federal included as part of this Proposed Action. Any change in the configuration of the parcels of the land exchange and would be analyzed separately and on its own merits if proposed in the future, and no decision to pursue such activity would be made without NEPA processing. For these reasons, this proposal would not establish a precedent for any future actions that might pose significant effects or represent a decision in principle about future management
- 48 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment considerations. This project is based on the overall consistency of the proposed activity with the Forest Plan standards, guidelines and management practices on the land.
(7) Cumulative impacts – This combination of past, present and foreseeable future actions when combined with the proposed land exchange, and the proposed adoption of land conservation easements and/or conservation efforts by the municipalities, may have effects on some individuals of wildlife species at a minor spatial scale and magnitude. These cumulative effects would not be significant in terms of context or intensity. The proposed action would not contribute any significant cumulative effects for other resources.
(8) Cultural and historical resources -- Cultural resource inventories have been completed for all Federal parcels. No significant cultural resources are located within the parcels that would encumber exchange of the parcels. Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with the findings of “no historic properties affected” for the land exchange based on negative results from previous cultural resource inventories.
(9) Endangered or threatened species or its habitat - As determined in the Biological Assessment “the proposed federal action would have no reasonably foreseeable, direct, indirect or cumulative effects (therefore “no effect”) on any federally listed or proposed plant or animal species or designated critical habitat, with the exception of Canada lynx. Overall, the exchange would likely benefit the lynx because of a net increase in the long-term quality and quantity of potential habitat acquired and more conservatively managed by the Forest Service. However, a limited acreage of marginal, but potential lynx habitat would be adversely affected by subsequent development. As a result, the proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx.
(10) Federal, State, or local law or requirements
Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. This decision complies with this order. Public involvement occurred for this project, the results of which I have considered in this decision- making. Public involvement did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low- income populations. This decision is not expected to adversely impact minority or low- income populations.
Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to avoid impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands. Under the Proposed Action the Federal parcels contain approximately 0.07 acres of wetlands, compared to 2.48 acres of high quality wetlands on the non-federal parcels with a gain of 2.48 acres and a net gain of 2.41 acres to the Federal lands system. Executive Order 11988 requires that Federal agencies provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. The Federal parcels contain approximately 0.07 acres of floodplain, compared to 0.76 acres of floodplain on the non-Federal parcels. Completion of this exchange would result in a net gain of 0.69 acres of floddplain to Federal management, cosistent with Executive Order 11988.
- 49 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment The Proposed Action is consistent with the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as required by the National Forest Management Act and all other laws, regulations and policies that govern Forest Service actions.
- 50 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 4 LIST OF PREPARERS
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:
FOREST SERVICE INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS: ID Team leader Bill Johnson District Ranger David Neely Fisheries Biologist Matt Grove Wildlife Biologist Lara Duran Hydrologist Mark Weinhold Botanist John Proctor Recreation Forester Paula Peterson NEPA Coordinator Peech Keller Archaeologist Andrea Brogan Range Technician Stephen Elzinga
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: Colorado State Historic Preservation Office Colorado Division of Wildlife United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Army Corp of Engineers United States Bureau of Land Management Town of Avon Eagle County Government
TRIBES: Ute Indian Tribe Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
OTHERS: Rusty Dersch Geologist Western Land Group Adam Poe Colorado Division of Wildlife Bill Andree, Area Manager
- 51 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment REFERENCES
Dersch, John S. “Rusty”. 2011, Eagle Valley Land Exchange Mineral Report, Consulting Geologist, July 26, 2011, Lakewood, CO, 10pp
Duran, Lara. Wildlife Biologist, 2012. Biological Threatened and Endangered Species Biological Assessment for Eagle Valley Land Exchange, Eagle County, CO. Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Eagle, CO. 24 pages
Duran, Lara. Wildlife Biologist, 2012. Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species Eagle Valley Land Exchange, Eagle County, CO. Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Eagle CO. 32 pages
Grove, M. 2011. Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator species Specialist report for the Eagle Land Exchange. Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Eagle` County, Colorado.
Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Western Land Group: A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Nine Parcels for the Proposed Eagle Valley Land Exchange, Eagle County, Colorado. Report prepared for Melissa Elkins, Project Director, August 2011. 28 pages.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002b. Land and Resource Management Plan-2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs. CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002c. Final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, for the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002d. Final environmental impact statement, Volume 4, for the White River National Forest land and resource management plan 2002 revision (Biological Evaluation). White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002e. Record of decision for the White River National Forest land and resource management plan-2002 revision. Glenwood Springs. CO. 47 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2002f. Final Environmental Impact Statement, appendix N: Biological evaluation of the land and resource management plan 2002 revision for the White River National Forest. Prepared by Crites, M.J., B.C. Johnston, and C. Hirsch. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO. 253 pp. plus appendices.
U.S. Forest Service. 2003. WRNF sensitive species based on 11/03/2003 Region 2 sensitive species list, Tab 1-3. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs. CO.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Revised Sensitive Species List. Regional Forester’s 2670 memo to Forest Supervisors. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, CO. April 28, 2005.
- 52 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
APPENDIX A – RESPONSE TO SCOPING COMMENTS
DETERMINATION OF ISSUES FROM PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS
An issue is a point of dispute or disagreement with a Proposed Action, based on an effect that the Proposed Action would cause. The Forest Service received several comments during scoping, but not all comments are issues. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…..”
The Forest Service separated the issues into three groups: non-issues, non-key issues and key issues. Non-issues were comments that did not meet the definition of an issue provided above and in the scoping letter. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; or, 5) a comment, opinion or position statement. These are noted below in the table as “Non-Key Issue - #”, with “#” corresponding to the qualifying statement mentioned above. “Key Issues” in the table are addressed in detail in the Environmental Assessment or are incorporated in the design of the Proposed Action.
Table 1. Determination of Issues from Public Response to Scoping NO. ISSUES-CONCERNS-COMMENTS Non-Issue, Non-Key or Key Issue Conveyance of Federal Parcels 7,8, 9A and 9B as well as Non-Federal Parcel C, each of 1 which are critical to the current and future water supply system that serves the eastern Non-Key Issue half of Eagle County. Conveyance of Federal Parcels 7,8, 9A and 9B to the Water Authority and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District would mean that water storage tanks that are vital to the water distribution system would not be located on leased land. In summary, we strongly support the proposed Eagle Valley Land Exchange. The ownership of the property for existing or proposed water storage tanks
is critical to providing adequate potable water to citizens and businesses in the service area.
Acknowledge support in the acquisition of the land labeled Federal Parcel 4 – Non- Issue, “Cordillera” containing 167.95 acres to the Eagle Valley Land Trust in which EVLT agreement will place a conservation easement on this parcel
Owns property south of Minturn along the Eagle River and as part of this exchange Non- Issue would like the Forest Service to consider taking care of several small in-holdings in this area. 2 Conditionally supports the Eagle Valley Land Exchange; if the Town of Avon acquires both the “West Avon” and “Forest Service Village” parcels. Non-Key Issue Supports the exchange of the “Highway” parcel with the State Land Board and relocation of the relocation of the CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) - 53 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment maintenance facility to the “CDOT Relocation” parcel.
2 (cont) Support the exchange of the “Cordillera” parcel into County ownership but the “Homestead” parcel should remain in National Forest ownership.
Supports the conveyance of both the State Land Board parcels to the Forest Service.
Supports all of the proposed transactions for water tank sites specially the Mountain Star site.
3 Conditional supports the Eagle Valley Land Exchange; If the Town of Avon acquires both the “West Avon” and “Forest Service Village” parcels. Non-Key Issue
4 Generally, support the intent behind the proposed land exchange. There would be an administrative benefit to trading away isolated parcels (Cordillera, FS Village, and Non-Key Issue Highway), and a potentially sizable public benefit in acquiring the Edwards North parcel.
With the exception Red Sandstone, every parcel proposed for exchange to private Key Issue ownership is in management area 5.41, deer and elk winter range. The Forest Service should make obtaining a conservation easement a condition of the exchange for the “West Avon” parcel.
Mineral values, if any, must be considered part of the value of the parcels proposed for Non-Key Issue exchange.
With the Forest Service acquisition of the ‘South Edwards” parcel the “Homestead’ should be removed from the exchange and remain in the National Forest system. The Non-Key Issue Forest Service needs to determine how the South Edwards parcel will be used for public
recreation if it becomes national forest lands. Do not wish to see motorized access created to the parcel if it does not already exist.
The Forest Service needs to determine which parts of the “Edwards North” parcel would be assigned to MA 5.4 and 5.41and what roads across the parcel should be open Non-Key Issue to what type of public use.
It would be helpful for commenting on this project if the Forest Service could more Non- Issue fully indicate intended uses of all parcel proposed to be exchanged to private ownership. The values of all lands to be exchanged must be fully described in the NEPA document so the public can evaluate the public interest value of the proposed exchange.
5 The Federal and non-Federal lands must be appraised properly. Non-Key Issue
In explaining the purpose and need, the Forest Service must do so in terms of its own interests, not those of the proponent. The purpose and need should include benefits to water quality or wildlife, the Forest Service must identify what harms to wildlife and Non- Issue water quality have occurred because the offered lands were in non-federal hands. The purpose and Need section must specifically identify the rational for acquiring non Federal Parcel C- Beard Creek.
6 CDOT must be consulted and concur to the proposed relocation of the CDOT Non-Key Issue maintenance facility and employee housing presently located on State School Trust land ( SLB Property). CDOT’s use and occupancy of the SLB Property is authorized pursuant to a right-of-way grant given by the State Board of Land Commissioners on July 9, 1968.
CDOT is willing to evaluate one or more specific proposals that would provide CDOT minimum elements designed and constructed in a manner consistent with CDOT’s adopted design criteria for a turnkey operation.
- 54 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment 7 The Board of County Commissioners has taken a leadership role in EVLEX activities from the very beginning and believes this land exchange represents the very best in Non-Key Issue collaborative planning, and that it is consistent with land use, development and conservation goals of tall involved jurisdictions and land management agencies.
8 Traer Creek owns all the developable land – The Village (at Avon)- around Federal Parcel 2- “FS Village” and would like access across this parcel to develop Planning Non-Key Issue , Area M of their PUD. Their concern is that if this land is traded and ownership goes to agreement the Town of Avon they will not be able to acquire access and would like the Forest Service to reserve an easement prior completion of the trade.
As an alternative to the requested easement, Traer Creek also is prepared to acquire the FS Village parcel directly from the Forest Service. Traer Creek also would be interest din acquiring Federal Parcel 3 – “Highway”, which is locate on the east side of Planning Area M.
9 Comments are restricted to the “West Avon Parcel”. Their concern centers on the possibility that Avon may not be able to raise the funds necessary to compensate the Non- Issue, State Land Board for the parcel, if this occurs, what guarantees the dedication of the agreement land to open space.
Supports the goals of the Land Trade, but see to request a process that ensures the future dedication of this parcel to open space while maintain easements for public access trails across and thorough this parcel.
10 Requests the Forest Service reserve trail easements though the “West Avon” parcel for the existing trail system for the Singletree-Avon connection. Non-Key Issue agreement
11 Holy Cross Energy has facilities on at least two parcels, the “West Avon: and “Highway” parcels and possible facilities on the Red Sandstone parcels and would Non- Issue , request the existing easements are transferred to the new property owner as part of the agreement exchange.
12 In general are supportive of the exchange of the “CVC water tank” would like to ensure that continued access through this site is to the National Forest is permissible after the exchange. Non-Issue, This access is from the CVC property to a closed two track on National Forest, which agreement CVC property owners have been using as a trail.
13 Overall this trade should provide a positive benefit for wildlife in the Eagle Vail. There are some parcels that may impact wildlife but the extent is unknown and in all cases could be mitigated. Key Issue
The West Avon Parcel, Highway, Cordillera and the Homestead parcels contain deer and elk winter range and are part of the mule deer and elk migration corridors. The parcels will have conservation easements would maintain the current wildlife values.
The Forest Service Village, CDOT Relocation, CVC Water Tank, Mountain Star Water Tank, Red Sandstone, and Cross Creek Parcels that will have some development could
- 55 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment have negative impacts to wildlife.
By placing Non-Federal Parcels A- North Edwards, B- South Edwards and C- Beard Creek, into USFS ownership to prevent future development would benefit wildlife and continue to provide recreation for the public.
- 56 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment APPENDIX B – PARCEL MAPS
- 57 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 58 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 59 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 60 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 61 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 62 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 63 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 64 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 65 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 66 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 67 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 68 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 69 -
Eagle Valley Land Exchange Environmental Assessment
- 70 -