ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT And the COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS Fremont, Saguache, Conejos, and Alamosa Counties, Colorado Number CO-500-08-0008-EA To support CONSOLIDATION OF LANDS within GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE and within THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE July 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTERAGENCY LAND EXCHANGE Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT And the COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS Fremont, Saguache, Conejos, and Alamosa Counties, Colorado Number CO-500-08-0008-EA To support CONSOLIDATION OF LANDS within GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE and within THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Prepared for Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office Branch of Lands and Realty 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, CO 80215 With Contributions by Colorado State Board of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Land Commissioners Interagency Land Exchange Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners (State Land Board [SLB]) is evaluated in this environmental assessment (EA) under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Involved in the proposed exchange are 28 parcels of Federal land in Fremont, Saguache, and Conejos counties in south-central Colorado, and 20 parcels of state land in Alamosa and Saguache counties in the San Luis Valley. This land exchange supports the provisions of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-530 or PPA-2000). Within the Act are provisions for the establishment of the approximately 150,000-acre Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve (expanded from the 38,659-acre Great Sand Dunes National Monument established in 1932) and the new 92,617­ acre Baca National Wildlife Refuge. Both the park and refuge units are within the San Luis Valley, a large intermontane basin north of the Colorado-New Mexico border. The underlying intent of the Act is to protect and preserve the spectacular and unique sand dunes, the surface water and groundwater systems that replenish the sand mass, and the remarkable biodiversity of the surrounding landscape for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans and visitors. Following appraisal to determine equalization of land values, the proposed Federal exchange parcels total 20,870.03 acres (18,190.03 surface acres and 2,680 acres of mineral estate only) and the proposed state exchange parcels total 57,056.11 acres (51,245.61 surface acres and 5,810.50 acres of mineral estate only). Following the exchange, as proposed herein, 25,765.69 acres of former Colorado SLB land would be managed by the National Park Service (NPS), 30,910.62 acres would be managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and a 380­ acre parcel would be managed by the BLM. A summary of the impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative is presented in Table ES-1. Each of the impacts is described in terms of duration (short- or long-term), significance (insignificant, low, moderate, or high), and type of impact (beneficial or adverse). Under the No Action Alternative, impacts are described for Federal and state lands. Under the Proposed Action, impacts are described for the land exchange from Federal to state and from state to Federal. Each of the analyzed topics is also described by project region in the affected environment section. i Interagency Land Exchange Environmental Assessment TABLE ES-1. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Topic Impact Summary Cultural Resources No Action: Federal and State: No effect – historic and prehistoric cultural resources would continue to be managed under applicable state and Federal laws and regulations. Proposed Action: Federal to State: Adverse affect – NRHP eligible and potentially eligible cultural resources would no longer be on Federal lands and would therefore not be managed under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Mitigation measures, documented in a treatment plan (Bevilacqua 2009) and agreed to in a Memorandum of Agreement to Treat Adverse Effects to the Historic Properties, consist of listing NRHP-eligible sites and districts in the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and inclusion of these state-listed resources in the SLB Stewardship Trust Program. State to Federal: No effect – due to enactment of Federal laws, inventory, and mitigation should any ground-disturbing activity take place, and will be managed under applicable Federal laws and regulations Floodplains No Action: Federal: Short and long-term, insignificant effects – adherence to Federal laws relating to floodplains would continue. State: Long-term, insignificant to low, beneficial effect – diversion of flows to irrigate hay crops in floodplains would continue to contribute to floodplain stability. Proposed Action: Federal to State: Long-term, insignificant effect – SLB would assume management of intermittent drainages at Table Mountain and Gribbles Park, which would not result in a change in land use. Long-term, insignificant, adverse effect – due to livestock grazing of narrow floodplains at Biedell Creek and La Jara Reservoir. State to Federal: Long-term, insignificant to low, beneficial effect – diversion of flows to irrigate hay crops in floodplains would continue to contribute to floodplain stability. Long-term, insignificant to low, adverse effect – continued livestock and American elk grazing would affect wildlife habitat structure and quality. Long-term, insignificant to low, beneficial effect – all management actions would be evaluated under NEPA and stipulated in approved CCPs and GMPs, resulting in preservation of floodplain values. Wetlands and No Action: Riparian Zones Federal: Short- and long-term, insignificant to low, beneficial effects – due to adherence to EOs 11988 and 11990; approved RMPs, GMP, and CCPs; and Colorado PLH Standard 2. State: Short- and long-term, insignificant to low, beneficial effects – due to adherence to EOs 11988 and 11990. ii Interagency Land Exchange Environmental Assessment TABLE ES-1. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Topic Impact Summary Long-term, negligible to low, adverse effect – due to continued diversion of San Luis Valley stream flows to irrigate hay crops. Proposed Action: Federal to State: Long-term, insignificant, adverse effect – the SLB would assume management of limited wetland and riparian resources, continue livestock grazing, and adhere to EOs 11988 and 11990, and the wetlands provisions of the CWA, as amended. State to Federal: Short- and long-term, insignificant to moderate, beneficial effects – due to evaluation of the continuation or elimination of livestock grazing and irrigation practices; baseline and monitoring research; and habitat management for quality and biodiversity under an approved BNWR CCP and GRSA GMP, EOs 11988 and 11990, and NPS-DO 77-1. Long-term, negligible to low, adverse effect –continued diversion of San Luis Valley stream flows to irrigate hay crops on USFWS parcels. Short- and long-term, low to moderate, adverse effects – due to American elk grazing in wetland and riparian habitats on BNWR lands. Migratory Birds No Action: Federal: Long-term, insignificant to low beneficial effect – no change in land management or leasing practices; Long-term, insignificant to low, adverse effect – continued quarry operations at the Table Mountain parcels would result in effects on migratory bird habitat due to noise, dust generation, and human presence. State: Long-term, insignificant to low, beneficial effect – due to no change in land management or leasing practices. Proposed Action: Federal to State: Long-term, insignificant to low, adverse effect – due to merging Table Mountain and Gribbles Park parcels into existing SLB grazing leases; management that generally includes leases for grazing; mineral extraction; and minor harvesting of forest products, and noise, dust, and human presence near Table Mountain quarry operations. State to Federal: Long-term, insignificant effect – due to BLM management of parcel 31 under the approved RMP. Long-term, insignificant to moderate, beneficial effect – due to USFWS habitat evaluation, improvement, monitoring, research, and public education under the BNWR CCP. Long-term, insignificant to moderate, beneficial effect – due to NPS management under EO 13186 providing quality habitat for migratory birds, scientific research, and public education. Long-term, insignificant to low, adverse effect – due to reduction in wet meadow habitat from irrigation system removal. iii Interagency Land Exchange Environmental Assessment TABLE ES-1. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Topic Impact Summary Federal Threatened, No Action: Endangered, Federal: Candidate, and Long-term, insignificant, beneficial effect – listed and sensitive species Colorado BLM habitat management would continue within the framework of the existing Sensitive Species RMPs. State: Long-term, insignificant to low, adverse effect – listed and sensitive species habitat management would continue under the ESA and the guidance of the CDOW. Habitat would experience ongoing grazing by American elk and would likely be irrigated for grass hay crops. Ongoing leasing for grazing and other activities would create economic benefits to the school trust under lease agreement