Floodplain & Wetland Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The ±502-acre...

Floodplain & Wetland Assessment Village at Wolf Creek Access Project

Mineral County, Colorado

Prepared by:

Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Approved by:

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Rio Grande National Forest, Divide Ranger District 13308 West Highway 160, Del Norte, CO 81132 ___________________________________ _____________________________________ Adam Mendonca Date David Johnson Date Deputy Forest Supervisor President Rio Grande National Forest Western Ecological Resource, Inc.

September 2013

Table of Contents Section / Title Page

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Description of Analysis Area................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Definition of Analysis Area ................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................... 1 2.3 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ........................................................................................ 2

2.3.1 Delineation .................................................................................................................. 2 2.3.2 Wetland Locations ....................................................................................................... 2 2.3.3 Wetland Types ............................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Alternative 2. Land Exchange – Proposed Action .................................................................... 7

3.1 Description ............................................................................................................................ 8 3.1.1 Non-Federal Lands Proposed for Conveyance to the United States ................................ 8 3.1.2 Federal Lands Proposed for Conveyance to the Non-Federal Party ................................ 8

3.2 Development Concepts ...................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Low Density Development Concept ............................................................................. 8

3.3 Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Direct Effects of Land Exchange .................................................................................. 10 3.3.2 Indirect Effects of Land Exchange ................................................................................ 10

3.4 Floodplain Impacts ........................................................................................................... 13 3.4.1 Direct Effects of Land Exchange .................................................................................. 13 3.4.2 Indirect Effects of Land Exchange ................................................................................ 13

4.0 Alternative 1. No Action ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Description ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Floodplain Impacts ........................................................................................................... 14

5.0 Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement ................................................................................. 14 5.1 Description ....................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Development Concepts .................................................................................................... 15

5.2.1 Low Density Development Concept ........................................................................... 15 5.2.2 Moderate Density Development Concept ................................................................... 15 5.2.3 Maximum Density Development Concept .................................................................. 15

5.3 Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................... 16 5.3.1 Indirect Effects of Development Concepts ................................................................... 16

5.4 Floodplain Impacts ........................................................................................................... 17 5.4.1 Indirect Effects of Development Concepts ................................................................... 17

6.0 Figures ................................................................................................................................. 18

7.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 31

8.0 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix A. Details of Development Concepts ..................................................................... 33

List of Figures Number / Title Page

Figure 1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2. Alternative 2. Land Exchange ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 3. Alternative 1. No Action ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 4. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement ........................................................................ 22 Figure 5. Wetland Map .............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 6. Alternative 2. Land Exchange Low Density Development Concept .............................. 24 Figure 7. Alternative 2. Land Exchange Moderate Density Development Concept ...................... 25 Figure 8. Alternative 2. Land Exchange Maximum Density Development Concept ..................... 26 Figure 9. Entry and Ski Area Access Roads ................................................................................. 27 Figure 10. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement Low Density Development Concept .............. 28 Figure 11. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement Moderate Density Development Concept ...... 29 Figure 12. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement Maximum Density Development Concept ..... 30

List of Tables

Number / Title Page

Table 1. Wetlands in the Analysis Area ........................................................................................ 2 Table 2. Stream Length per Parcel (feet) ....................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Wetland Vegetation Types within the Analysis Area ....................................................... 4 Table 4. Distribution of Wetlands in the Analysis Area (acres) ....................................................... 4 Table 5. Change in Ownership of Wetlands & Waters of the U.S. Resources – Land Exchange .. 10 Table 6. Effects of Development Concepts - Land Exchange Estimated Impacts to Wetlands, Ponds

and Fens (acres) .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 7. Comparison of Development Concepts for Alternative 2 - Land Exchange & Alternative 3

- ANILCA Road Easement# ................................................................................................... 12 Table 8. Alternative 2. Land Exchange Floodplain Impacts of Development Concepts ................ 13 Table 9. Effects of Development Concepts - ANILCA Road Easement Estimated Impacts to

Wetlands and Fens (acres) ................................................................................................... 16 Table 10. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement Floodplain Impacts of Development Concepts 17 Table A-1 Development Assumptions – Alternative 2. Land Exchange ........................................ 33 Table A-2 Development Assumptions – Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Access .............................. 35 Table A-3 General Details Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 – Moderate and Maximum Density

Development Concepts ....................................................................................................... 36

List of Photos

Number / Title Page

Photo 1. Forested Riparian/Wetland Habitat ................................................................................ 5 Photo 2. Scrub-Shrub Riparian/Wetland Habitat .......................................................................... 5 Photo 3. Herbaceous Wetland - Graminoid ................................................................................. 6 Photo 4. Herbaceous Wetland - Forb ........................................................................................... 6

1

1.0 Introduction The USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Rio Grande National Forest, Divide Ranger District is preparing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed land exchange in Mineral County, Colorado. Figure 1 illustrates a Vicinity Map for the project site. The Purpose and Need for Action is for year-round vehicular access to a private land inholding. Specifically, the Purpose and Need for Action is to allow the non-Federal party to access its property as legally entitled, while minimizing environmental effects to natural resources within the project area. The legal entitlement is defined by ANILCA and Forest Service regulations as a right of access to non-Federal land within the boundaries of the National Forest Service (NFS) to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof. The land exchange, the Proposed Action, would result in the conveyance of the ±205-acre Federal exchange parcel to the Proponent (Leavell McCombs Joint Venture) for ±177 acres of the non-Federal exchange parcel (Figure 2). An indirect effect of the Alternative 2 land exchange would be the development of the private property. Alternatives to the land exchange evaluated include Alternative 1, No Action (Figure 3) and Alternative 3, ANILCA Road Easement (Figure 4). This Floodplain and Wetland Assessment has been prepared in accordance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1022, Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements which were promulgated to implement the requirements of the DOE’s responsibilities under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, Wetlands Protection. Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” directs Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any actions that may be taken in a floodplain. When conducting activities in a floodplain, Federal agencies are required to take actions to reduce the risk of flood damage; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” directs Federal agencies to ensure consideration of wetlands protection in decision making and to evaluate the potential impacts of any new construction proposed in a wetland. Federal agencies shall avoid the destruction or modification of wetlands, and avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands if a practicable alternative exists. These regulations and Executive Orders encourage measures to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains and wetlands and also require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and the occupancy and modification of floodplains. 2.0 Description of Analysis Area

2.1 Definition of Analysis Area The Analysis Area is defined as the ±205-acre Federal exchange parcel, the ±177-acre non-Federal exchange parcel, plus ±120 acres of the ±288-acre private land parcel which will not be exchanged. Figure 2 illustrates Alternative 2, the land exchange and Proposed Action. 2.2 Environmental Setting The ±502-acre Analysis Area is located east of the Continental Divide near Wolf Creek Ski Area (WCSA) in Sections 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of Township 37 North and Range 2 East, N.M.P.M., Mineral County, Colorado (Figure 1). Specifically, it is located south of U.S. Highway 160 (Hwy 160) approximately 18 miles southwest of South Fork and 24 miles northeast of Pagosa Springs. Elevations of the Analysis Area range from a high of 10,850 feet on the southwest corner to a low of 10,300 feet on the north boundary to create a vertical relief of 550 feet. The topography of the site generally slopes and drains to the northeast. North Pass Creek bisects the northern portion of the Analysis Area and South Pass Creek bisects the southern portion. There are numerous on-site tributaries to these two perennial streams, which converge just east of the Analysis Area to form Pass

2

Creek, which flows east to the South Fork of the Rio Grande River. The Analysis Area is characterized by a spruce-fir forest and there are smaller areas of wetlands, riparian habitats, meadows, barren lands and disturbed sites. Forest Service Road (FSR) 391 extends south from Hwy 160, traverses the Analysis Area, and extends to Alberta Park Reservoir, located southeast of the Analysis Area. 2.3 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 2.3.1 Delineation Per 10 CFR 1022.4, a wetland is defined as an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The wetlands and waters of the U.S. were delineated by Western Ecological Resource, Inc. between 2005 and 2010 (WER, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2012) using the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Region Supplement ( 2010). Waters of the U.S. boundaries were surveyed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Fen wetlands were identified and mapped as a part of the wetland delineations conducted in 2005-2010. The areas of fen wetlands correspond to the limits of the histosol soils and mineral soils with a histic epipedon. Histosols and histic epipedons are referred to as the organic-rich soils in the discussion below 2.3.2 Wetland Locations Wetlands in the Analysis Area occur along the perennial and intermittent streams, in seep areas, around two small ponds, in roadside ditches, and in North, South and Central Alberta Park. See Figure 5. Table 1 identifies the vegetation types and acreages for the wetland locations.

Table 1. Wetlands in the Analysis Area

Location Wetland Vegetation Types Acres

Stream Wetlands Forested and Scrub-Shrub 10.8 North Alberta Park Scrub-Shrub and Herbaceous 13.3 Central Alberta Park Herbaceous 31.8 South Alberta Park Forested, Scrub-Shrub, Herbaceous 11.5 Wetland Seeps Forested and Herbaceous 9.8 Pond Wetlands Herbaceous 1.0 Ditch Wetlands Herbaceous 0.1 TOTAL IN ANALYSIS AREA 78.4 Aquatic Habitats Open water of two ponds 1.4

2.3.2.1 Stream Wetlands Approximately 10.8 acres of wetlands within the Analysis Area are located along streams. These include the perennial streams North and South Pass Creek, as well as their perennial and intermittent tributaries. The major vegetation types of the stream wetlands include Forested and Scrub-Shrub wetlands, with the majority being Forested Wetlands. Table 2 identifies the length of perennial and intermittent stream segments on the Analysis Area per parcel and alternative.

3

Table 2. Stream Length per Parcel (feet)

1. No Action 2. Land Exchange 3. ANILCA Access

Stream Type Private Parcel

Federal Exchange

Parcel

Non-Federal Exchange

Parcel Private Land Parcel

Perennial Streams 12,861 2,924 11,565 12,861 Intermittent 7,338 1,246 7,338 7,338 Total Length 20,199 4,170 18,903 20,199

The Stream Wetlands associated with North and South Pass Creek and their perennial tributaries are supported by stream flows that create saturated soil conditions along the banks and on the adjacent floodplains, where present. Groundwater discharge is an important water source along these stream channels and is the source of the summertime base flow in the perennial streams. The intermittent tributaries contain saturated soil and/or flowing water where the streambed intercepts the groundwater, and flowing water is generally present during the spring snowmelt and after precipitation events. Fens occur within the Stream Wetlands where nearly continuous groundwater discharge occurs. 2.3.2.2 North Alberta Park Wetland Complex The North Alberta Park Wetland Complex encompasses approximately 13.3 acres of Scrub-Shrub and Herbaceous wetlands, with the majority of the area being of the Scrub-Shrub Wetland vegetation type. These wetlands are located in the northern portion of Alberta Park, where the terrain is more gentle than the surrounding landscape and the groundwater is shallow. A portion of North Pass Creek is included in the North Alberta Park Wetland Complex, which slopes and drains toward the creek. The North Alberta Park Wetland Complex is supported by a shallow groundwater table that is at or near the surface for most of the growing season. The nearly continuous groundwater discharge in portions of this wetland has resulted in the development of fens. Additionally, precipitation runoff provides a water source to the North Alberta Park Wetland Complex, however this source is less important than groundwater. 2.3.2.3 Central Alberta Park Wetland Complex The Central Alberta Park Wetland Complex, the largest wetland in the Analysis Area, encompasses approximately 31.8 acres. This wetland dominates Central Alberta Park and the southern portion is bisected by FSR 391 near the base of the Alberta Park chairlift. This wetland complex is included in the Herbaceous Wetland vegetation type described below. Minor drainages within the wetland complex convey water north to the North Alberta Park Wetlands and into North Pass Creek. The Central Alberta Park Wetland Complex is supported by a shallow groundwater table that is at or near the surface for most of the growing season. The extensive areas of fens within this complex are indicative of the nearly continuous groundwater discharge. One spring is located within this wetland complex. 2.3.2.4 South Alberta Park Wetland Complex The South Alberta Park Wetland Complex, measuring approximately 11.5 acres, is located on the north-facing slope above South Pass Creek. It includes Herbaceous, Scrub-Shrub and Forested Wetland vegetation types. The South Alberta Park Wetlands are supported by a shallow groundwater table, as well as groundwater discharge from numerous seeps and six springs that drain northeast into the wetland complex. Due to the nearly continuous groundwater discharge, fens have developed in several areas. In addition, one perennial and several intermittent streams flow down slope into the South

4

Alberta Park Wetland Complex. A portion of this water is conveyed through the wetlands to South Pass Creek. 2.3.2.5 Wetland Seeps Numerous Seep Wetlands occur throughout the Analysis Area, with a combined area of approximately 9.8 acres. The Seep Wetlands occur where groundwater is at or near the surface, and it creates saturated soil conditions that support wetlands. In addition, some of the seep wetlands contain springs, and ten of them contain fens due to nearly continuous groundwater discharge that has facilitated the development of organic-rich soils. A few of these seeps are in slight depressions or swales that also pool snowmelt runoff, which contributes to their wetland hydrology. The Seep Wetlands have both Forested and Herbaceous vegetation types. 2.3.2.6 Pond Wetlands Two pond wetlands totaling 1.0 acre are present within the Analysis Area. The open water habitat of these two ponds measures about 1.4 acres. The first pond is a basin fen located in a glacial kettle on the Federal Exchange parcel. It has a permanent pool with a surface area of about 1.1 acres, which is surrounded by a 0.7 acre herbaceous fen wetland. The second pond is a semi-permanent pool located on the portion of the private land parcel which will not be exchanged. The surface area is variable but it reaches a maximum of about 0.2 acre, and is surrounded by a 0.3 acre herbaceous wetland. Water for this pond is provided by seeps located along the eastern margin of the wetland and by snowmelt runoff. 2.3.2.7 Ditch Wetlands Four small wetlands occur in roadside ditches and these encompass approximately 0.1 acre. The ditches are located along FSR 391 on the private land parcel and along old logging roads on the Federal and non-Federal exchange parcels. All four of these wetlands are of the Herbaceous Wetland vegetation type. Water is provided by small seeps along the road cuts that discharge into the roadside ditches, as well as surface flows that are conveyed into the ditches via small channels and/or culverts. 2.3.3 Wetland Types The wetlands within the Analysis Area are characterized by three major vegetation types: Forested, Scrub-Shrub, and Herbaceous, as summarized in Table 3. The acreage of the wetland vegetation types on the various parcels within the Analysis Area is summarized in Table 4. Each vegetation type is described below with respect to the common plant associations and dominant species.

Table 3. Wetland Vegetation Types within the Analysis Area

Wetland Type Area (acres) Percent

Forested 10.9 14.0% Scrub-Shrub 16.2 20.7% Herbaceous 51.1 65.3% Total Acres 78.2 100.0%

Table 4. Distribution of Wetlands in the Analysis Area (acres)

Alternative

1 No Action Alternative 2

Land Exchange

Alternative 2 Development Parcel after Land Exchange

Alternative 3 ANILCA Road

Easement Wetland Vegetation Types

Private Land Parcel

Federal Exchange

Parcel


Parcel

Private Land Not

Exchanged

Federal Exchange

Parcel

Private Land Parcel

Forested 7.5 3.2 6.3 1.5 3.2 7.5 Scrub-Shrub 10.0 5.5 8.7 2.0 5.5 10.0

5

Table 4. Distribution of Wetlands in the Analysis Area (acres)

Alternative

1 No Action Alternative 2

Land Exchange

Alternative 2 Development Parcel after Land Exchange

Alternative 3 ANILCA Road

Easement Wetland Vegetation Types

Private Land Parcel

Federal Exchange

Parcel


Parcel

Private Land Not

Exchanged

Federal Exchange

Parcel

Private Land Parcel

Herbaceous 47.0 3.0 37.1 10.9 3.0 47.0 Total Acres 64.5 11.7 52.1 14.4 11.7 64.5

2.3.3.1 Forested Wetlands Forested Wetlands occur along numerous small tributaries to North and South Pass Creeks, and 31

of the wetland seeps are forested. The Forested Wetlands have an overstory of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir trees and are characterized by a dense understory that is dominated by forbs. Some of the most abundant understory species include chiming bells (Mertensia ciliata), arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis), heartleaf bittercress (Cardamine cordifolia), Fendler cowbane (Oxypolis fendleri), brook saxifrage (Micranthes odontoloma), bishop’s cap (Mitella pentandra), marsh marigold (Caltha leptosepala), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) green bog orchid (Limnorchis hyperborea), willowherb (Epilobium spp.), Parry’s primrose (Primula parryi), and Brandegee fumewort (Corydalis caseana), as well as alpine

speedwell (Veronica nutans), hairy arnica (Arnica mollis), Coulter fleabane, subalpine fleabane (Erigeron peregrinus), millet woodrush (Luzula parviflora), hemlock parsley (Conioselinum scopulorum), and waterplantain buttercup (Ranunculus alismifolius). The scattered upland plants which often occur in the outer edges of the wetland and in adjacent riparian areas include strawberry, lovage, Richardson’s geranium (Geranium richardsonii), Whipple penstemon (Penstemon whippleanus), fringed brome, splitleaf Indian paintbrush (Castilleja rhexifolia), and whortleberry. The overstory of the forested wetlands located along the upper reaches of the tributaries to South Pass Creek has been thinned and there are numerous regenerating spruce and fir. This association is appropriately described by the Abies lasiocarpa–Picea engelmannii/Mertensia ciliata Forest (NatureServe, 2012). Overall, herbaceous plant cover likely approaches 95%. There are 10.9 acres of Forested Wetland habitat within the Analysis Area. 2.3.3.2 Scrub-Shrub Wetlands Scrub-Shrub wetlands are most common in the North Alberta Park Wetland Complex, however smaller stands are also present in the South Alberta Park Wetland complex and in the riparian habitats of South Pass Creek and its tributaries. This community generally occurs along small streams, wetland swales, and in areas of groundwater discharge that are saturated for most of the growing season. It is dominated by a dense overstory of planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia) with an understory of water sedge (Carex aquatilis), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), arrowleaf groundsel, monkshood (Aconitum

Photo 1. Forested Riparian/Wetland Habitat

Photo 2. Scrub-Shrub Riparian/Wetland Habitat

6

columbianum), marsh marigold, hemlock parsley, and largeleaf avens (Geum macrophyllum). Wolf willow (Salix wolfii) and barrenground willow (Salix brachycarpa) are occasionally present. This community is best described by the Salix planifolia–Carex utriculata or the Salix planifolia–Carex aquatilis plant association (NatureServe, 2012). Plant cover is dense in these areas, which overall have an absolute vegetative cover of 95-100%. There are 16.2 acres of Scrub-Shrub Wetlands within the Analysis Area. 2.3.3.3 Herbaceous Wetlands There are 51.1 acres of Herbaceous Wetlands within the Analysis Area, and they are most extensive in the Central Alberta Park Wetland Complex. In addition, the herbaceous wetland vegetation type also occurs in the North and South Alberta Park Wetlands, in many of the wetland seeps, and in the four Ditch Wetlands. The herbaceous wetlands are the most diverse wetland vegetation type in the Analysis Area due to the number of plant associations. The Carex aquatilis Herbaceous Association is one of the most abundant herbaceous wetland communities in the analysis area. This Association is dominated by water sedge, however beaked sedge is often present. When beaked sedge occurs in equal density to the water sedge, this association is better classified as the Carex aquatilis–Carex utriculata Herbaceous Association. Common associates in both of these communities include prickly sedge (Carex angustior), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), alpine timothy, saffron butterweed (Packera crocata), American bistort (Bistorta bistortoides), elephant’s head (Pedicularis groenlandica), marsh marigold (Psychrophila leptosepala), hemlock parsley, and Rocky Mountain fringed gentian (Gentianopsis thermalis). In the wettest areas, creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) grows with the water sedge and beaked sedge, and these areas are best classified in the Eleocharis quinqueflora Herbaceous Association.

The Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous Association is also very common, and occurs in slightly drier areas. This community is characterized by a dense growth of tufted hairgrass along with wetland plants such as Drummond’s rush (Juncus drummondii), alpine timothy, bluejoint reedgrass, saffron butterweed, flattop pussytoes (Antennaria corymbosa), Coulter’s fleabane (Erigeron coulteri), and American alpine speedwell (Veronica nutans). Along the outer edge of this wetland type several upland species intergrade, including slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), manyray goldenrod, beautiful cinquefoil (Potentilla pulcherrima), yarrow, sulphur Indian

paintbrush (Castilleja sulphurea), creeping sibbaldia, Eastwood’s podistera (Podistera eastwoodiae) and strawberry. Other herbaceous wetlands on the project site are dominated by forbs. For example, the numerous small drainage channels support a dense growth of heartleaf bittercress (Cardamine cordifolia) in the shallow water with masses of chiming bells and arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis) in the adjacent saturated soil habitat. This community is best described as the Cardamine cordifolia–

Photo 3. Herbaceous Wetland - Graminoid

Photo 4. Herbaceous Wetland - Forb

7

Mertensia ciliata–Senecio triangularis Herbaceous Association. Some of the other common associates in these wetlands include graminoids such as beaked sedge, water sedge, small-headed sedge (Carex illota), pale sedge (Carex canescens), bluejoint reedgrass, millet woodrush, alpine timothy, and Drummond’s rush, and numerous other forbs including marsh marigold, common monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), brook saxifrage, bishop’s cap, hairy arnica, globeflower, and Fendler cowbane. Upland plants occurring along the margin of this wetland association type include nodding ragwort, a few young Engelmann spruce, and gooseberry currants. Some of the other common herbaceous wetland plant associations within the Analysis Area include the Calamagrostis canadensis Herbaceous Association, in which the bluejoint reedgrass forms dense, often monotypic stands, and the Senecio triangularis–Veratrum californicum Herbaceous Association, another forb-dominated community which is characterized by dense stands of false hellebore mixed with arrowleaf groundsel and monkshood (Aconitum columbianum). Finally, the disturbed herbaceous wetlands such as those in roadside ditches may contain species such as meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), a non-native wetland grass, and early successional native wetland plants such as smallwing sedge, Tracy’s rush (Juncus tracyi) and willowherb. 2.4 Floodplains According to 10 CFR 1022, a floodplain is defined as the lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and flood prone areas of offshore islands, including the base floodplain that is the area inundated by a 1% or greater chance flood in any given year. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Mineral County, Colorado (Unincorporated Areas), Community Number 080284 A of April 16, 1991 illustrates that floodplains have not been mapped for North and South Pass Creeks. North and South Pass Creeks are small, relatively young perennial water courses within the headwaters of Pass Creek. These two small streams have not yet developed extensive floodplains. North and South Pass Creeks are not generally incised, although some reaches of both streams are locally incised with high banks. Flows much greater than bankfull are required for floodplain flows to occur in these incised reaches. The Tetra Tech Stream Assessment (2004) documented that the ratio of the floodplain width to the bankfull width (entrenchment ratio) of reference reaches of North Pass Creek ranged from 4.4 to 5.9, and that of South Pass Creek ranged from 1.9 to 3.9. Entrenchment ratios greater than 2.2 indicate well developed floodplains with only slight entrenchment at those sites (Rosgen, 1996). In general, the upper reaches of both streams are more entrenched with narrow floodplain corridors, while the lower reaches contain well-developed floodplains up to 55 feet in width. Some of the upper reaches of both streams have floodplains that range from only a few feet wide on either side of the channel to floodplains that have a width of 10-20 feet on either side of the channel. 3.0 Alternative 2. Land Exchange – Proposed Action The Proposed Action, as illustrated by Figure 2, is a land exchange between the Rio Grande National Forest (NF) and the Proponent, Leavell McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). This alternative assumes that LMJV would convey approximately 177 acres of non-Federal lands to the Forest Service in exchange for approximately 205 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the Rio Grande NF. The ±177-acre non-Federal exchange parcel to be conveyed to the United States encompasses the southern and western portions of the private land inholding, and the ±205-acre Federal exchange parcel is located to the north, east and south of the private land inholding. This exchange would create a private land parcel of ±325 acres extending to Hwy 160, and would accommodate year-round vehicular access.

8

Under Alternative 2, the existing Tranquility Road which extends from Hwy 160 to a WCSA parking lot, would be extended east across NFS lands to provide access between the private land parcel and WCSA. This road would provide limited, restricted and seasonal access between Hwy 160 and the private land parcel, and would also provide a route for emergency access. Should Alternative 2 be approved by the Forest Service, and the Proponent opts to pursue a low density development, it is unlikely that the Tranquility Road extension would be completed. For the land exchange, there are two fundamental terms that are used throughout this analysis: non-Federal exchange parcel and Federal exchange parcel. These terms are explored below. 3.1 Description 3.1.1 Non-Federal Lands Proposed for Conveyance to the United States

Township 37 North, Range 2 East, N.M.P.M., Mineral County, Colorado Sections 4, 5, 8 & 9: A portion of Tract 37

The non-Federal exchange parcel (i.e., a portion of the private inholding) is located in Mineral County east of the Continental Divide, immediately east of the WCSA and south of Hwy 160. Specifically, this parcel is approximately 18 miles southwest of South Fork and 24 miles northeast of Pagosa Springs (Figure 1). The exchange parcel is the southwestern portion of the ±288-acre private land inholding and is surrounded by NFS lands on the south, west and a portion of the east side, and is located entirely within (i.e., surrounded by) the WCSA SUP boundary (Figure 2). In total, the non-Federal exchange parcel encompasses ±177 acres of the ±288-acre private land inholding. WCSA owns two parcels totaling 9.84 acres (the 9.01 acre Waterfall parcel and the 0.83 acre Tranquility parcel), which are bounded by the non-Federal parcel. Wolf Creek Ski Corporation has agreed to make these two small parcels available to LMJV for inclusion in the land exchange, and the acreage of these parcels is included in the acreage of the exchange parcel. Please note: the 2.66 acres of ski area land encompassed by the A-Way trail parcel is not included in the land exchange. 3.1.2 Federal Lands Proposed for Conveyance to the Non-Federal Party

Township 37 North, Range 2 East, N.M.P.M., Mineral County, Colorado Sections 3, 5, and 9: A portion thereof

The ±205-acre irregularly-shaped Federal exchange parcel is located north, east and south of that portion (119.5 acres) of the private land inholding which is not proposed to be exchanged, and the northwestern portion is contiguous to Hwy 160. See Figure 2. 3.2 Development Concepts 3.2.1 Low Density Development Concept By design, the Low Density Development Concept would accommodate a development of nine lots of 35 acres or greater in size on the 323.9-acre private land parcel. Figure 6 illustrates the development area for the Low Density Development Concept. Please note, the ±325-acre development area includes ±120 acres of the private land not to be exchanged, plus the ±205 acres of the Federal parcel to be acquired by the exchange. The nine lots would be accessed by a two-lane plowed road within a 60-foot right-of-way (ROW) from Hwy 160 (per Mineral County Subdivision Regulations as amended June 10, 2002). For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the alignment for this road would be identical to the road alignment of the Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts (Figures 7 and 8). The 26-foot wide road would have an at-grade intersection with Hwy 160, and there would be no Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) requirement for acceleration/deceleration lanes. It is assumed that culverts would be used for the four stream crossings. Should Alternative 2 be approved by the Forest Service, and the Proponent opts to pursue a low density development, it is unlikely that the ski area access road would be completed.

9

Under the Low Density Development Concept, it is assumed that water for the residences would be provided by wells. Each lot owner would be required to get a domestic well permit from the State, and a court approved augmentation plan would be required if homeowners plan to use well water for outdoor purposes. It is also assumed that each home would have a septic system and that electricity would be provided from adjacent power lines owned by the San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative that provides electricity to WCSA. Furthermore, telephone, cable TV and fiber optics would likely be included in the road system. 3.2.2 Moderate Density Development Concept Figure 7 illustrates the Moderate Density Development Concept which, should the proposed land exchange be approved, could potentially be constructed (contingent upon approval by Mineral County) on the ±325 acres of land following the land exchange. This development concept could have 497 units. These include one hotel with 71 units, four condominiums with 251 units, ten townhomes with 120 units, 55 single family lots, and 49,500 ft² of commercial space. On-site infrastructure would include water storage and treatment facilities, a waste water treatment plant (WWTP), and a natural gas distribution facility. Space could also be provided for a school. The access road would extend south in a 100-foot ROW from Hwy 160 to connect with circulation roads within the development, and there would be an at-grade intersection with Hwy 160 with acceleration/deceleration lanes (Figure 9). Five stream crossings would be bridged and a tributary to North Pass Creek in the ROW of Hwy 160 would be culverted. A ski area access road would extend west from the circulation road on the private land parcel for 1,689 linear feet in a 60-foot wide easement to connect with Tranquility Road (Figure 9). This road would provide limited, restricted and seasonal vehicular access between any future development and Hwy 160, and would also function as an emergency access for any potential future development. Tranquility Road currently extends 1,778 linear feet to connect with Hwy 160. Any future upgrade to Tranquility Road would be at the discretion of the Forest Service. Please note, 1,593 feet of the ski area access road would be on NFS lands, including 1,064 linear feet across the non-Federal property to be acquired by the Forest Service, and 529 linear feet across existing NFS lands west of the existing non-Federal property boundary. All of the landscape of the proposed road alignment across the non-Federal exchange parcel and the existing Forest Service property is undeveloped except for the last 279 linear feet, which has been disturbed by grading for the ski area parking lot. Table A-1 in Appendix A summarizes details of this development concept, and Table A-3 provides details on power supply; water sources, storage and treatment; waste water treatment; bridges, roads and the Hwy 160 interchange; stormwater management; snow storage and removal; fire protection plan; emergency access; communications utilities; and other general details common to both the Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts. 3.2.3 Maximum Density Development Concept Figure 8 illustrates the Maximum Density Development Concept which, should the proposed land exchange be approved, could potentially be constructed following approval by Mineral County on the ±325 acres of land following the land exchange. The development could be built in phases according to market, economic and logistical considerations, and full build-out of the development might occur over a period of 30 years or longer. This development concept could have 1,711 units, which may include two hotels with 200 units, 16 condominiums with 821 units, 46 townhomes with 522 units, 138 single family lots, and 221,000 ft² of commercial space. On-site infrastructure would include a water storage and treatment facility, a WWTP, and a natural gas distribution facility. Space would also be provided for a school. The access road would extend south from Hwy 160 in a 100-foot ROW to connect with internal circulation roads associated with the development. The initial phase of the development would

10

proceed with an at-grade intersection (Figure 9). There would be acceleration/deceleration lanes on Hwy 160, five streams would be bridged, and a tributary to North Pass Creek located in the ROW of Hwy 160 would be culverted. At some time in the future of the maximum density build-out, and based on traffic counts, CDOT may require that a grade-separated interchange be constructed with Hwy 160. However, that is beyond the scope of this analysis and an analysis of the effects of constructing a grade-separated interchange would be completed in the future, when and if necessary. A ski area access road and the scenic easement for the Maximum Density Development Concept are the same as those described above for the Moderate Density Development Concept. 3.3 Wetland Impacts 3.3.1 Direct Effects of Land Exchange The direct effect of the proposed land exchange would be a change in ownership of the wetlands and waters of the U.S. resources on the Federal and non-Federal exchange parcels. The Rio Grande NF would acquire the ±177-acre non-Federal exchange parcel, which contains 52.1 acres of wetlands, including 23.72 acres of fens (as defined by the limits of the organic-rich soils) and eight springs. The Proponent would acquire the 11.7 acres of wetlands on the Federal exchange parcel, which include 1.02 acres of fens, and one pond with a 1.1-acre aquatic habitat. The wetlands on the private land not exchanged would continue to be owned by the Proponent. Thus, there would be a net loss of 26.6 acres of land for the Rio Grande NF; however the Forest would gain 40.4 acres of wetlands, including 22.7 acres of fens, eight springs, and 14,733 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams. Table 5 summarizes the direct effects to wetlands and waters of the U.S. resources under Alternative 2.

Table 5. Change in Ownership of Wetlands & Waters of the U.S. Resources – Land Exchange

Federal

Exchange Parcel Non-Federal

Exchange Parcel Net Gain/Loss to Rio Grande NF

Wetlands (acres) 11.7 52.1 + 40.4 Fens* (acres) 1.02 23.72 + 22.70 Ponds (acres) 1.1 0.0 - 1.1 Springs 8.0 0.0 + 8.0 Perennial Streams (linear feet) 2,924 11,565 + 8,641 Intermittent Streams (linear feet) 1,246 7,338 + 6,092 * Fens are defined by the limits of the organic-rich soils. Fens are a subset of the wetlands in the Analysis Area and are included in the totals reported in the first line of this table.

3.3.2 Indirect Effects of Land Exchange Following the proposed land exchange, the Proponent could pursue development of the resulting ±325-acre parcel. The indirect effects of the Low, Moderate, and Maximum Density Development Concepts are described below with respect to the impacts to wetlands and fens. The impacts to wetlands, fens, and ponds are summarized per development concept in Table 6.

Table 6. Effects of Development Concepts - Land Exchange Estimated Impacts to Wetlands, Ponds and Fens (acres)

Estimated Vegetation Impacts Low Density Moderate Density Maximum Density

Wetlands 0.64 0.77 1.60 Fens* 0.06

11

Table 6. Effects of Development Concepts - Land Exchange Estimated Impacts to Wetlands, Ponds and Fens (acres)

* Fens are defined by the limits of the organic-rich soils. Impacts to fens are included in the total wetland impacts reported on the first line of this table.

** The road would likely be shifted to avoid this impact which is at the margin of the ROW.

3.3.2.1 Low Density Development Concept As summarized in Table 7 on the following page, future development under the Alternative 2 Low Density Development Concept (Figure 6) would consist of nine single-family residences, with an estimated landscape disturbance of approximately 31 acres. This disturbance includes 8,382 linear feet of roads with four culverted stream crossings and assumes 2-acre building envelopes for the nine homes. The access road illustrated in Figure 9 would impact an estimated 0.64 acre of wetlands in ten locations. It is assumed the nine building envelopes would be located outside of wetlands because each lot contains uplands more suitable for construction. The roadways illustrated for the Low Density Development Concept would impact approximately 0.06 acre of fens. 3.3.2.2 Moderate Density Development Concept The Moderate Density Development Concept (Figure 7) would include an estimated 78 acres of landscape disturbance. This plan includes an entry road in a 100-foot-wide ROW and circulation roads within a 60-foot-wide ROW, for a total of 16,791 linear feet of roads. An intersection with acceleration and deceleration lanes would be constructed on Hwy 160 to provide access to the development. Five bridges and one culvert would be used for the road crossing of streams. The disturbance to wetlands under the Alternative 2 Moderate Density Development Concept is estimated at 0.77 acre. As illustrated by Figure 9, the proposed entry road crosses wetlands in four locations. Three of these crossings would be bridged, therefore wetland impacts would only occur at the first crossing, where a culvert is proposed. Two other bridges are proposed for the ski area access road within the 60-foot-wide ROW. In addition, there would be a small impact from the WWTP and the school site. Due to the use of bridges, the Moderate Density Development Concept reduces the impacts to fens to less than 150 square feet when compared to the Low Density Development Concept. It is likely the road could be aligned to avoid this impact, which is at the edge of the ROW. 3.3.2.3 Maximum Density Development Concept Under the Maximum Density Development Concept (Figure 8) the estimated landscape disturbance is 160 acres. This includes the disturbances described above for the Moderate Density Development Concept, as well as 82 additional acres of disturbance for the additional lodging, residential units, commercial space, and utilities associated with this larger development. It would include the same entry road with a 100-foot ROW illustrated in Figure 9. The total length of roads is 29,828 linear feet, to include seven bridges and one culvert. An intersection with acceleration and deceleration lanes would be constructed on Hwy 160 to provide access to the development. The estimated disturbance to wetlands under the Maximum Density Development Concept is 1.60 acres. This includes the impacts associated with the roads, WWTP, and school site described above for the Moderate Density Development Concept, and 0.83 acre of additional impacts from the increased number of units and commercial space. Two single family lots overlap fens, which are assumed to be impacts since no building envelopes are given. These two lots cover approximately 0.04 acre of fens, and almost all of this impact would be to the Pond Wetland on the Federal parcel. A single family lot also covers 0.09 acre of the aquatic habitat of the pond.

12

Table 7. Comparison of Development Concepts for Alternative 2 - Land Exchange & Alternative 3 - ANILCA Road Easement#

Alternative 2. Land Exchange Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement Low Moderate Maximum Low Moderate Maximum

Parcel Size (acres) ±325 ±325 ±325 ±288 ±288 ±288 Number of Units 9 497 1,711 8 523 1,981

Hotel 71 200 71 403 Condo 251 821 244 998 Townhome 120 522 168 504 Single Family 9 55 138 8 40 76

Commercial Space 49,500 ft² 221,000 ft² 49,500 ft² 221,100 ft² Scenic Easement: Applicable only to the ±120 acres of the private property not

included in the land exchange. The Scenic Easement prohibits 19 different land uses; prohibits mobile homes, mining and states conditions for advertising signs; specifies that architectural style of all structures shall be compatible with the location, that building materials be harmoniously colored, and that building heights shall be no greater than 48 feet. Mineral County Zoning Regulations as amended on April 10, 1996 would limit buildings and structures on the ±205-acre Federal exchange parcel to be acquired by the Proponent to a height of 50 feet, unless authorized by the County.

Applicable to all concepts. Maximum height of buildings and structures limited to 48 feet.

Access to U.S. Highway 160:

Road in 60’ ROW across Federal exchange parcel with at-grade intersection. No accel/decel lanes.

Road in 100’ ROW across Federal exchange parcel with at-grade intersection* and accel/ decel lanes.

1,612 linear foot road in 60’ ROW across Federal land with at-grade intersection. No accel/decel lanes. 2.22-acre impact.

1,612 linear foot road in 100’ ROW across Federal land with at-grade intersection* and accel/decel lanes. 3.70-acre impact.

Access to Ski Area: No access road planned.

1,593 linear foot road in 60’ ROW across Federal land (non-Federal exchange parcel and existing Federal land) to connect with Tranquility Road, and then 1,778 linear feet to U.S. Highway 160. 2.19-acre impact.

No access road planned.

529 linear foot road in 60’ ROW across Federal land to connect with Tranquility Road, and then 1,778 linear feet to U.S. Highway 160. 0.73-acre impact.

Water Storage Volumes in Million Gallons

None; wells only. 7.04 MG 26 MG None; wells only. 7.4 MG 30 MG

Stream/Wetland Crossings & Method

4 culverts 7 bridges 1 culvert

7 bridges 1 culvert

5 culverts 8 bridges 1 culvert

11 bridges 1 culvert

Length of Roads in LF ±8,382 ±16,791 ±29,828 ±7,976 ±15,332 ±25,369 Estimated Landscape Disturbance (acres)

±31 ±78 ±160 ±28 ±52 ±97

*At some time in the future of the build-out of Maximum Density Development Concept, and based on traffic counts, CDOT may require a grade-separated interchange for the access road connection to Hwy 160. #See Appendix A for additional details on infrastructure for development concepts of the Action Alternatives.

13

3.4 Floodplain Impacts 3.4.1 Direct Effects of Land Exchange With the land exchange, the Forest Service would acquire 18,903 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams in exchange for 4,170 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams. Some of the stream reaches in the Analysis Area have developed floodplains. As a result of the exchange, there would be a net gain of 14,733 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams to the Rio Grande NF. A larger portion of the stream segments acquired by the Forest Service with the Non-Federal parcel are tributary to South Pass Creek, and a smaller portion are tributary to North Pass Creek. Another direct effect of the proposed land exchange includes the Forest Service granting a SUP for the ski area access road. The alignment of this road crosses one perennial and one intermittent stream, both of which would be bridged. The Forest Plan (1996) provides desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines for the management and protection of streams and floodplains. The desired Forest condition is that “floodplains are healthy, fully functioning ecosystems.” The Forest Plan Watershed Standards include the design and construction of all stream crossings and other instream structures to pass normal flows, withstand expected flood flows and allow free movement of resident aquatic life. The streams and floodplains acquired by the land exchange would be managed by the Rio Grande NF in accordance with the Forest Plan in order to protect the functions of floodplains. The Proponent would be responsible for managing the floodplain resources of their private land in accordance with local, state and Federal regulations. 3.4.2 Indirect Effects of Land Exchange The impact of the Alternative 2 development concepts on floodplains is summarized in Table 8. The Low, Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts would all have roads that cross perennial and intermittent streams, some of which may have developed floodplains. In general, the bridges have been designed to span floodplains and it is assumed that the culverts would be appropriately sized to adequately pass large flow events without causing erosion or backup water which would allow sediment deposition. It is possible that some roads of the Low Density Development Concept leading to culverted stream crossings on floodplains would be elevated, and hence obstruct the stormwater flow across the floodplains.

Table 8. Alternative 2. Land Exchange Floodplain Impacts of Development Concepts

Development Concept Bridges Culverts

Low 0 4

Moderate 5 1

Maximum 5 1

The Low Density Development Concept would have four road crossings of streams using culverts. The Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts would each have six road crossings of streams, and five of the crossings would use bridges to span the streams and any floodplains present. The stream crossing located on a tributary to North Pass Creek along Hwy 160 would be crossed using a culvert. This small stream does not appear to have developed a floodplain. None of the development concepts of Alternative 2 would have structures within the floodplains of streams.

14

4.0 Alternative 1. No Action

4.1 Description

Per the requirement of 40 CFR part 1502.14, a No Action Alternative has been included in the analysis to provide a baseline for comparing the effects of the Action Alternatives. By definition, the No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing Federal and non-Federal land ownership patterns and existing management practices on these lands. Under the No Action Alternative, as illustrated by Figure 3, the Proponent has vehicular access via FSR 391 during those periods when this road is snow-free, generally mid-June through September. Under this alternative there would be no additional road access provided to the ±288-acre private land inholding. 4.2 Wetland Impacts

Under this alternative, there would be no change to existing land ownership patterns or land management responsibilities. The Forest Service would continue to own and manage the wetlands and waters of the U.S. on the Rio Grande NF property that surrounds the private land inholding, and the owner of the private land parcel would continue to own the wetlands and waters of the U.S. resources on his property. All jurisdictional wetlands on Federal and private lands will continue to be protected by the Clean Water Act and would require a permit from the Corps for any wetland impacts. In addition, the wetlands and waters of the U.S. features on Rio Grande NF lands would have the additional protection of the Forest Plan, which includes special direction for the protection of fens. 4.3 Floodplain Impacts

Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would continue to manage the streams and any floodplains associated with these streams on the Rio Grande NF in accordance with the Forest Plan. The private land owner would be responsible for management of the streams and floodplains on their private land, and any potential development within floodplains must comply with Mineral County’s Floodplain Ordinance established on September 24, 1991. This ordinance provides development regulations for structures in the 100-year floodplain. No impacts to floodplains on Federal and private lands are anticipated under this alternative. 5.0 Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement

5.1 Description

Alternative 3 is an access road easement across NFS lands between Hwy 160 on the north and the private land inholding on the south (Figure 4). The road would be 1,612 feet in length, and be within a 60-foot right-of-way (ROW) with a total area of 2.22 acres for the Low Density Development Concept, and have a 100-foot ROW with a total area of 3.70 acres for the Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts (the different development concepts are discussed in Section 2.4). Alternative 3 meets the Purpose and Need for Action and fulfills the Forest Service’s obligations under ANILCA (refer to Section 1.11 for more information), which is to provide adequate access to non-Federally owned land to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof. The area of the private land inholding included in this alternative is approximately 288.3 acres. Please note, 9.01 acres of the ski area Waterfall parcel within the boundary of the non-Federal parcel would remain in ski area ownership and would not be available for future development by LMJV under this alternative, and the 2.66-acre WCSA A-Way trail parcel is not included in any of the development concepts. As with Alternative 2, the existing Tranquility Road would be extended east across NFS lands to provide access between the inholding and WCSA, and would provide limited, restricted and seasonal access between Hwy 160 and the private land inholding for the Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts. Tranquility Road would also provide a route for emergency access. Should Alternative 3 be approved by the Forest Service,

15

and the Proponent opts to pursue a Low Density Development, it is unlikely that the Tranquility Road extension would be completed. 5.2 Development Concepts

Low, Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts have been developed for the ANILCA Road Easement alternative. 5.2.1 Low Density Development Concept This concept assumes that the ±288-acre private land parcel would be partitioned into eight lots of 35 acres or greater in size, should Alternative 3 be approved. Figure 10 illustrates the private land that could potentially be developed under this alternative. The lots would be accessed by a two-lane plowed road within a 60-foot right-of-way extending south to the parcel in an alignment identical to that of the moderate and maximum density concepts for this alternative. Five streams would be crossed using culverts. The 26-foot wide access road would have an at-grade intersection with Hwy 160 and there would be no requirement for acceleration/deceleration lanes. Should Alternative 3 be approved by the Forest Service, and the Proponent opts to pursue a low density development, it is unlikely that the ski area access road would be completed. It is assumed that water for the residences would be provided by wells. Each lot owner would be required to get a domestic well permit from the State, and a court approved augmentation plan would be required if homeowners plan to use well water for outdoor purposes. It should be noted that the existing water rights of the inholding are likely more than adequate to compensate for the water depletion for outdoor watering. It is also assumed that each home would have a septic system and that electricity would be provided by the San Luis Valley Rural Electric Corporation from adjacent power lines that provide electricity to the ski area. Furthermore, telephone, cable TV and fiber optics would likely be included in the road system. 5.2.2 Moderate Density Development Concept Figure 11 illustrates the concept for the Moderate Density Development which, should the proposed easement be approved by Mineral County, could potentially be constructed on the existing ±288-acre private inholding. This development concept could have approximately 523 units, which may include one hotel with 71 units, four condominiums with 244 units, 13 townhomes with 168 units, 40 single family lots, and 49,500 ft² of commercial space. On-site infrastructure would include a water storage and treatment facility, a WWTP, and a natural gas distribution facility. A 1,612-foot long access road would extend south from Hwy 160 across Forest Service property in a 100-foot ROW. This road would have an at-grade intersection with Hwy 160 and there would be acceleration/deceleration lanes (Figure 11). Six streams would be bridged and a tributary to North Pass Creek located in the ROW of Hwy 160 would be culverted. The development would be connected to the ski area by a 529 foot long road across Forest Service property extending west to Tranquility Road. Tables A-2 and A-3 in Appendix A provide additional development details. 5.2.3 Maximum Density Development Concept Figure 12 illustrates the concept for the maximum density development which, should Alternative 3 be approved by Mineral County, could potentially be constructed on the existing 288.3-acre private inholding. This development concept could have 1,981 units. These may include three hotels with 403 units, 15 condominiums with 998 units, 42 townhomes with 504 units, 76 single family lots, and 221,000 ft² of commercial space. On-site infrastructure would include water storage and treatment facilities, a WWTP, and a natural gas distribution facility. Plans for the access road to Hwy 160 and the ski area access road are identical to those described for the Moderate Density Development Concept. Tables A-2 and A-3 in Appendix A provide additional development details.

16

The Maximum Density Development Concept would likely be built in phases, according to market, economic and logistical considerations. The initial phase of development would have an at-grade intersection. At some time in the future of the maximum build-out, and based on traffic counts, CDOT may require a grade-separated interchange with Hwy 160. However, this is beyond the scope of this analysis, as analyzing the effects of a grade-separated interchange would be completed in the future, when and if it becomes necessary. 5.3 Wetland Impacts

5.3.1 Indirect Effects of Development Concepts The impacts to wetlands and fens are summarized per development concept in Table 9 and are discussed below.

5.3.1.1 Low Density Development Concept As summarized in Table 7, the future development under the Alternative 3 Low Density Development Concept would consist of eight single-family residences, with an estimated landscape disturbance of approximately 28 acres on Federal and private land. This disturbance area assumes 2-acre building envelopes for the eight homes, and that 7,976 linear feet of roads would be constructed with five culverted stream crossings. The Low Density Development Concept would impact an estimated 1.45 acres of wetlands. All of these impacts are associated with the construction of 7,976 linear feet of roads, and culverts would be used for five stream crossings. It is assumed that the homes would be located in the upland areas which are present on all of the lots. The roadways would impact approximately 0.04 acre of fens. 5.3.1.2 Moderate Density Development Concept The Alternative 3 Moderate Density Development Concept (Figure 11) would have a total of 523 units, including 168 single family homes, hotels, condominiums, and townhomes (Table 6). A total of 15,332 linear feet of roads would be constructed, with six bridges and one culverted stream crossing. The 1,612 foot-long access road to Hwy 160 would be constructed in a 100’ ROW. The road would connect with Hwy 160 at a new intersection to include acceleration and deceleration lanes. The total landscape disturbance on Federal and private land is estimated at 52 acres. Under the Moderate Density Development Concept, wetland impacts would be decreased to 0.96 acre compared to the Low Density Development Concept, because four of the culverts would be replaced with bridges. Additional wetland impacts would occur at the school site, the water tank farm, the water treatment facility, and near the hotel/condominium complex. Due to the use of bridges, no vegetation impacts to fens are anticipated. However, the North and Central Alberta Park Wetland Complexes contain a large area of fens and disruptions to the groundwater flow to these fens could result in impacts. 5.3.1.3 Maximum Density Development Concept Under the Alternative 3 Maximum Density Development Concept, the size of the potential development is increased to 1,981 units, with 25,369 linear feet of roads and an estimated 97 acres

Table 9. Effects of Development Concepts - ANILCA Road Easement Estimated Impacts to Wetlands and Fens (acres)

Estimated Vegetation Impacts Low Density Moderate Density Maximum Density

Wetlands 1.45 0.96 5.56 Fens* 0.05 0.00 1.81 * Fens are defined by the limits of the organic-rich soils. Impacts to fens are included in the total wetland

impacts reported on the first line of this table.

17

of landscape disturbance on Federal and private lands (Table 6). This plan would have nine bridges and one culverted stream crossing and would have the same intersection with Hwy 160 described above for the Moderate Density Development Concept. This plan adds two more hotel buildings, ten additional condominium buildings, 36 more single-family lots, increases the amount of commercial space by 171,500 square feet, and has more infrastructure to support this increased size. As a result, wetland impacts are increased over the Moderate Density Development Concept because many of the single family lots overlap wetlands, a courtyard area would eliminate the Pond Wetland on the private parcel, many of the townhomes are tightly clustered around the margins of wetlands, and there are more than 10,000 linear feet of additional roadways. This concept development plan would have an estimated 5.56 acres of impact to wetlands on Federal and private lands. Thus, this development concept has the largest estimated wetland impact. This development concept could impact approximately 0.01 acre of fens located within one of the single family lots. 5.4 Floodplain Impacts

5.4.1 Indirect Effects of Development Concepts The impact of the Alternative 3 development concepts on floodplains is summarized in Table 10. The Low, Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts would all have roads that cross perennial and intermittent streams, some of which may have developed floodplains. In general, the bridges have been designed to span floodplains and it is assumed that the culverts would be appropriately sized to adequately pass large flow events without causing erosion or backup water which would allow sediment deposition. It is possible that some of the roads of the Low Density Development Concept leading to culverted stream crossings on floodplains would be elevated and obstruct stormwater flows across floodplains.

Table 10. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement Floodplain Impacts of Development Concepts

Development Concept Bridges Culverts

Low 0 5

Moderate 6 1

Maximum 9 1

The Low Density Development Concept would have five road crossings of streams using culverts. The Moderate and Maximum Density Development Concepts would each have seven road crossings of streams, and six of the crossings would use bridges to span the streams and any floodplains present. One stream crossing located on a tributary to North Pass Creek along Hwy 160 would be crossed using a culvert. The small perennial stream does not appear to have developed a floodplain. None of the development concepts of Alternative 3 would have structures within the floodplains of streams.

18

6.0 Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity MapLegend

Project Site

0 0.8 1.60.4 Miles

Ü

Ü0 100 20050 Miles

Colorado

[�

!

!

!

!

!

Denver

Colorado Springs

Pueblo

Durango

Grand Junction!

!Durango

Grand Junction

[�

MINERALCOUNTY

ALAMOSA

SALIDAGUNNISON

PAGOSA SPRINGS

BLANCA

LAKE CITY

DEL NORTE

SILVERTON CREEDE

ANTONITO

SAGUACHE

CRESTONE

Rio Grande National Forest

Ü0 30 6015 Miles

[�

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

SOUTH FORK

Rio GrandeNational Forest

Project Site

T3

8N

T3

7N

R1E R2E

19

Wolf CreekSki Area


Figure 2. Alternative 2.Land Exchange (Proposed Action)

U.S. Hwy 160

Wolf Creek SkiArea Special UsePermit Boundary

Existing Alberta Ski Lift

Legend

Non-Federal Exchange Parcel

Federal Exchange Parcel

Private Parcel Not Exchanged

Ski Area Property (Not Included in the Exchange)

Forest Service Road 391

Ski Area Special Use Permit Boundary


Ski Area Property

0 1,800 3,600900 ft


Non-FederalExchange

Parcel (177.8 Acres)

Private LandNot Exchanged(119.5 Acres)

Federal ExchangeParcel (204.4 Acres)

Ü


20

Wolf CreekSki Area


Figure 3. Alternative 1. No Action Alternative

Private Land Parcel(287.5 Acres)

U.S. Hwy 160



Legend

Private Land Parcel

Ski Area Property

Tranquility Road




Tranquility Road


0 1,800 3,600900 ft

Ü


21

Wolf CreekSki Area


Figure 4. Alternative 3.ANILCA Road Easement

Private Land Parcel(288.3 Acres)

U.S. Hwy 160



Legend

Private Land Parcel

Ski Area Property

Tranquility Road


Ski Area Access Road

Entry Access Road



Tranquility Road


Entry AccessRoad

0 1,750 3,500875 ft



Ü

22

h

h

h

h

h

h hh

h

Legend

Analysis Area


Wetlands

Aquatic Habitats

Organic-Rich Soils*

North and South Pass Creek

Perennial Tributaries

Intermittent Tributaries

h Springs

Figure 5. Wetland Map


0 575 1,150287.5 ft

Ü


Non-FederalExchange

Parcel

Private LandNot Exchanged

Alberta Park Reservoir

US Highway 160 Rio Grande National Forest

Rio Grande National Forest

Federal PondWetland

Private PondWetland

North Alberta ParkWetland Complex

South Alberta ParkWetland Complex

Central Alberta ParkWetland Complex

* Organic-rich soils include Histosols and mineral soils with a Histic Epipedon. Fens are defined by the limits of the organic-rich soil.

Exi

stin

g A

lberta S

ki L

ift

Wolf CreekSki Area

North

Pas

s C

reek

Sout

h Pa

ss C

reek


23

Wolf CreekSki Area


Figure 6. Alternative 2. Land ExchangeLow Density Development Concept

2

U.S. Hwy 160



Legend

Non-Federal Exchange ParcelDevelopment Area Boundary

35 Acre (Minimum) Lots

Wetlands

Histosols and Histic Epipedons

Forest Service Road 391Proposed Development Roadway

U.S. Highway 160



Proposed At-Grade

Intersection

0 970 1,940485 ft

Forest ServiceRoad 391


Ü

5

3 41

9

7

6

8

24

NorthPass Creek

Legend

Development Plan Boundary


Hotels (71 Units)

Condominiums (251 Units)

Townhomes (120 Units)

Single Family Lots (55 Units)

Total Units = 497*

Commercial (49,500 sf)

School Site

Utilities

Parking

Common Areas

Ice Rink

Proposed Roads

U.S. Highway 160 ROW

Tranquility Road



Roadway Underpass / Skier Overpass

Infiltration Galleries

Proposed Ski Lifts


Wetlands

Aquatic Habitat

Histosols & Histic Epipedons

Perennial Streams

Ephemeral & Intermittent Streams

PLEASE NOTE: *All Units shown are individual units. For example, a 3-bedroom condominiumis counted as 1 unit, a single hotel room is counted as 1 unit and a single family home is counted as 1 unit. The development concept is a preliminary plan which has not been reviewed andapproved by Mineral County. The data represented by this map may not be accruate becausethe Development Plan boundaries have not been surveyed.

South P

ass Cre

ekAlberta Park

Reservoir


Ski AreaParking Lot

Wolf CreekSki Area

U.S. Hi

ghway 1

60

Tranquility RoadLength: 1,778'

North Pass Creek

SchoolSite

Exi

stin

g A

lbert

a L

ift

Village DitchInfiltration Gallery

South Pass CreekInfiltration Gallery



Bridges

Waste WaterTreatment

Facility

North Pass CreekInfiltration Gallery

Water Tank Farm

Water Treatment Facility

Natural GasDistribution Facility

Bridges

Ski Area Access Road (60' ROW)(Total Length: 1,689')

(Length Across Non-Federal Exchange Parcel: 1,064')(Length West of Non-Federal Exchange Parcel to Tranquility Rd: 529')

(Length Across Development Plan Boundary: 96')

300' Wide ROW

Roadway Underpass

Bridges

Figure 6. Alternative 2. Land ExchangeModerate Development Concept


0 500 1,000250 ft

Culvert

Ü

Pro

posed

Vill

ag

e L

ift 2

Prop

osed

Villa

ge L

ift 1

25

Front DeskText Box7.

Legend


Existing Pond


Hotels (200 Units)




Total Units = 1,711*


Ice Rink

School Site

Common Areas

Utilities

Parking

Proposed Roads


Tranquility Road





Proposed Ski Lifts


ExistingPond

Wetlands

Aquatic Habitat


Perennial Streams


PLEASE NOTE: *All Units shown are individual units. For example, a 3-bedroom condominium is counted as 1 unit, a single hotel roomis counted as 1 unit and a single family home is counted as 1 unit. The development concept is a preliminary plan which has not beenreviewed and approved by Mineral County. The data represented by this map may not be accruate because the DevelopmentPlan boundaries have not been surveyed. This site will generally accomodate two of the five MG tanks required. The approximatethree acre area for the additional three tanks will be designed at future stages of planning.

Figure 7. Alternative 2. Land ExchangeMaximum Density Development Concept


0 500 1,000250 ft

Ü

Exi

stin

g A

lbert

a L

ift

NorthPass Creek

South Pass CreekAlberta ParkReservoir


Ski AreaParking Lot

Wolf CreekSki Area

U.S. Hi

ghway 1

60


North Pass Creek

SchoolSite





Bridges

Waste WaterTreatment

Facility


Water Tank Farm

Water Treatment Facility


Bridges

Ski Area Access Road (60' ROW)(Total Length: 1,689')

(Length Across Non-Federal Exchange Parcel: 1,064')(Length West of Federal Exchange Parcel to Tranquility Rd: 529')

300' Wide ROW

Roadway Underpass

Bridges

Culvert

Pro

pose

d Vi

llage

Lift

1

Pro

posed V

illag

e L

ift 2

*

*

26


Wolf CreekSki Area

Legend



Private Parcel (Not to be Exchanged)

Entry Access Road

Ski Area Parking Lot

Bridges

Detention Ponds

Proposed Roads


Tranquility Road

Highway 160 ROW

Retaining Wall

Wetlands

Aquatic Habitat


Perennial Streams

Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams

North Pass Creek

Figure 8. Entry and Ski Area Access RoadsLand Exchange Alternative

Moderate & Maximum Density Development Concepts



0 350 700175 ft

Ski AreaParking Lot

Bridge 1

Bridge 4

Retaining Wall 1

Detention Pond

Detention Pond

TranquilityRoad

Culvert

Width=46'Span=300'

Width=20'Span=75'

Max. Height = 55'


ROW Width = 60 ftLength = 1,689 ft

ROW Area = 2.33 ac

Entry Road

ROW Width = 100 ftLength = 1,612 ft

ROW Area = 3.70 ac

Ü

Bridge 3

Width=46'Span=77'

Bridge 2

Width=46'Span=184'

Bridge 1

Width=46'Span=126'

Bridge 2

Width=20'Span=125'

Retaining Wall 2

Max. Height=35'

US Hwy 160 - 300 ft ROW

27


7

5

4

18

2

6

3

Wolf CreekSki Area


Figure Alternative 3

ANILCA Road EasementLow Density Development Concept

U.S. Hwy 160



Legend

Private Land Parcel

35 Acre (Minimum) Lots

Ski Area Property

Wetlands


Proposed Development Roadway

Forest Service Road 391U.S. Highway 160



Proposed At-Grade

Intersection

0 750 1,500375 ft



Ü

28

South Pass CreekAlberta Park

Reservoir


NorthPass Creek

Ski AreaParking Lot

Wolf CreekSki Area

U.S. Hi

ghway 1

60

Legend


Ski Area Property

Hotels (71 Units)




Total Units = 523*


School Site

Utilities

Common Areas

Ice Rink

Proposed Roads


Tranquility Road





Proposed Ski Lifts


Wetlands

Aquatic Habitat



Perennial Streams



North Pass Creek

Exi

stin

g A

lberta L

ift



PLEASE NOTE: *All Units shown are individual units. For example, a 3-bedroom condominium is counted as 1 unit,a single hotel room is counted as 1 unit and a single family home is counted as 1 unit. The development concept isa preliminary plan which has not been reviewed and approved by Mineral County. The data represented by this map may not be accurate because the Development Plan boundaries have not been surveyed.



Bridges

WaterTreatmentFacility

School Site

Water TankFarm Bridges

300' Wide ROW

Bridge

Ski Area Access Road(60' ROW, 529' Length)

Bridge

Bridge



Waste WaterTreatment Facility

Figure 10. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement

Moderate Development Concept

0 500 1,000250 ft


Culvert

Ü

29


South Pass Creek Alberta ParkReservoir


NorthPass Creek

Ski AreaParking Lot

Wolf CreekSki Area

U.S. Hi

ghway 1

60

Legend


Ski Area Property

Hotels (403 Units)




Total Units = 1,981*


School Site

Utilities

Common Areas

Ice Rink

Proposed Roads


Tranquility Road





Proposed Ski Lifts


Wetlands

Aquatic Habitat


Existing Pond


Perennial Streams



North Pass Creek

Exi

stin

g A

lbert

a L

ift



PLEASE NOTE: *All Units shown are individual units. For example, a 3-bedroom condominium is counted as 1 unit, a single hotelroom is counted as 1 unit and a single family home is counted as 1 unit. The development concept is a preliminary plan which hasnot been reviewed and approved by Mineral County. The data represented by this map may not be accurate because the Development Plan boundaries have not been surveyed. This site will generally accomodate two of the 5 MG tanks required. Theapproximate four acre area required for the additional four tanks will be designed at future stages of planning.



Bridges

WaterTreatmentFacility

School Site

Water TankFarm

Bridges

300' WideROW

Bridge

Ski Area Access Road(60' ROW, 529' Length)

Bridge

BridgeBridges

North Pass CreekInfiltration Gallery Natural Gas

Distribution Facility

Waste WaterTreatment Facility

Figure 11. Alternative 3. ANILCA Road Easement

Maximum Density Development Concept

0 500 1,000250 ft


Culvert

Ü

Pro

posed

Vill

age

Lift 2

Pro

pose

d Villag

e Li

ft 1

*

*

Bridge

30


31

7.0 References Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1991. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Mineral

County, Colorado (Unincorporated Areas), Community Number 080284 A, April 16, 1991 Rosgen, David. 1996. “Applied River Morphology.” Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs,

Colorado. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2004 Draft Stream Assessment. South and North Unnamed Tributaries of Pass

Creek. Breckenridge, Colorado. November 2004. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.

Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. (page 30).

USDA Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, Divide Ranger District. 2012 (August). Draft

Environmental Impact Statement, Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. Mineral County, Colorado.

Western Ecological Resource (WER). 2005. Wetland Delineation Report, Village at Wolf Creek,

Mineral County, Colorado. Prepared for: The Village at Wolf Creek Development Corporation. Prepared by: Western Ecological Resource, Inc. Boulder, CO, November 2005.

Western Ecological Resource (WER). 2006. Wetland Delineation Report, Alternative 4 Access Road

for Village at Wolf Creek, Rio Grande National Forest, Mineral County, Colorado. Prepared for The Village at Wolf Creek Development Corporation, Austin, TX. Boulder, CO.

Western Ecological Resource (WER). 2009. Wetland Delineation Report. U.S. Highway 160

Environmental Impact Study Area. Mineral County, Colorado. Prepared for the Village at Wolf Creek Development Corporation.

Western Ecological Resource (WER). 2010a. Wetland Delineation Report. U.S. Forest Service

Study Area. Mineral County, Colorado. Prepared for Hal Jones Development. Western Ecological Resource (WER). 2010b. Updated Wetland Delineation Report, Village at Wolf

Creek, Mineral County, Colorado. Prepared for the Village at Wolf Creek Development Corporation.

Western Ecological Resource (WER). 2012. Wetland Delineation Report. US Forest Service Study

Area II, Mineral County, Colorado. Prepared for the Village at Wolf Creek Development Corporation.

32

8.0 Appendices

33

Appendix A. Details of Development Concepts

Table A-1 Development Assumptions – Alternative 2. Land Exchange

Alternative 2: Land Exchange (Proposed Action) – Low Density Development Concept See Figure 6 Development Parcel – ±325 acres 9 Lots – 35 acres or more in size Entry road in alignment similar to the road alignment of the maximum density

development concept Culverts to be u

Floodplain & Wetland Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The ±502-acre...

Documents

Transcript of Floodplain & Wetland Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The ±502-acre...