DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SAN LUIS VALLEY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN July 2012 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 764 Horizon Drive, Building B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 Prepared by: ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Hill & Robbins, P.C. 100 Blake Street Building 1441 18th Street Denver, Colorado 80202-5932 1 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action ......................................................5 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................5 1.2 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................7 1.3 Legal and Policy Guidance ................................................................................8 1.4 HCP Scope .........................................................................................................8 1.5 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................11 1.6 Public Participation ..........................................................................................11 2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Alternative.................................................13 2.1 Overview of Alternatives Considered ..............................................................13 2.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................13 2.3 Public Land Mitigation HCP Alternative ........................................................14 2.4 San Luis Valley Regional HCP – Proposed Alternative ..................................15 2.5 Alternatives and Concepts Considered and Eliminated from Analysis............................................................................................................17 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................19 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................19 3.2 Water Resources ..............................................................................................19 3.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................................22 3.4 HCP Covered Species ......................................................................................26 3.5 Other Wildlife ..................................................................................................29 3.6 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................34 3.7 Socioeconomic Setting.....................................................................................36 3.8 Land Use and Infrastructure.............................................................................38 3.9 Land Ownership and Management ..................................................................40 3.10 Habitat Conservation Efforts ...........................................................................44 3.11 Cumulative Effects...........................................................................................49 4.0 List of Preparers .....................................................................................................55 5.0 Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................56 3 Figures Figure 1. HCP Location ......................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Water Resources ................................................................................................20 Figure 3. Riparian Habitat and Covered Species ..............................................................23 Figure 4. Land Management Designations .......................................................................41 Figure 5. Existing Conservation Easements .....................................................................46 Tables Table 1. Comparative Summary of the Alternatives Evaluated. ......................................16 Table 2. Riparian Habitat Mapping Elements...................................................................22 Table 3. Wildlife Species of Concern in the San Luis Valley Plan Area. ........................30 Table 4. Socioeconomic and Demographic Statistics in the San Luis Valley. .................37 Table 5. CNHP-Designated Potential Conservation Areas. This table only includes PCAs that are located within the HCP plan area and contain riparian shrub habitat. ............................................................................................42 Table 6. Summary of Effects. ...........................................................................................47 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction The San Luis Valley (Valley) is a large intermountain basin in southern Colorado (Figure 1). The riparian communities1 along the Rio Grande, Conejos River, and smaller tributaries in the Valley provide habitat for two bird species addressed in the draft San Luis Valley Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher), listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), and the western U.S. distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (cuckoo), a candidate for listing under the ESA. These species are referred to as the covered species. Flycatchers and cuckoos generally occur in various types of woody riparian vegetation containing dense willow thickets adjacent to wet meadow habitat. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District (District), working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other partners, has developed a draft regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the San Luis Valley. The District proposes to administer the HCP on behalf of the six counties2 that comprise the San Luis Valley floor (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache (Counties)) and municipalities of Alamosa, Monte Vista, Del Norte, and South Fork in cooperation with the State of Colorado (State). The HCP provides for the long-term protection and conservation of the covered species while allowing for the continuation of ongoing and routine agriculture, community infrastructure, and riparian conservation and restoration activities (covered activities). The District and the State applied for and received grants from the Service’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund in 2004, 2005, and 2009 to complete the HCP and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is a companion document to the HCP to fulfill the Service’s obligations under NEPA. The proposed federal action is the issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) for the covered activities described in the HCP. The HCP is part of the application package supporting issuance of an ITP under Section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1539), while the EA evaluates the impacts of the ITP issuance in accordance with NEPA. 1 Riparian habitat is generally defined as the plant communities found near streams and other bodies of water. In the Valley, riparian habitat is characterized by clusters of cottonwood and willow trees and shrubs surrounded by open water, wet meadows, and wetland areas (see Section 3.3). 2 While there are nine counties within the watershed basin, only the six on the Valley floor are parties to this HCP. 5 C O L O R a d o Denver 70 70 285 24 24 ColoRaDO Springs 285 Salida Canon City 50 HCP Area Pueblo 50 285 WestCLIffe 17 25 San Luis Valley MontE Walsenburg Vista Alamosa Fort GarLand 160 159 Trinidad 285 San Luis Valley HCP Figure 1 HCP Location 0 10 20 File: FIG1_Location.pdf Miles ± April 2011 1.2 Purpose and Need Purpose The purpose of the proposed HCP/ITP is to provide incidental take coverage for ongoing, typical, and routine agricultural, infrastructure, and conservation activities that are critical to the social and economic well-being of the Valley. To achieve this purpose, the HCP must satisfy the issuance criteria for incidental take coverage that are outlined in Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA. The purposes of the draft HCP/ITP also include the following: • Provide ESA coverage and regulatory assurances for a variety of agricultural, infrastructure, and restoration activities that are critical to the Valley’s economy • Provide ESA coverage for Counties, State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agencies3, quasi-municipal corporations (A public entity created by law to deliver limited public services; includes water conservation districts and other special districts), municipalities, and all private landowners in the Valley when they conduct the covered activities • Provide ESA coverage and regulatory assurances for activities related to the delivery and administration of water resources in the Valley • Provide for a long-term, holistic conservation strategy for the covered species and their habitat that emphasizes the protection and enhancement of high-quality habitat • Provide a cost-effective approach to integrating listed species protection, ESA compliance, and habitat conservation in a rural setting Need The flycatcher and cuckoo inhabit riparian areas that occur throughout the Valley. A variety of routine agricultural, infrastructure, and conservation