ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT for the SOUTH PERIMETER (EAST and WEST) of SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO December 2015

Prepared For:

Schriever Air Force Base 50th Space Wing 210 Falcon Parkway Colorado Springs, Colorado 80912-2102

Prepared by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Environmental Resources and Missouri River Recovery Program Plan Formulation Section Planning Branch, CENWO-PM-AC 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

Project Order No. F3R3D04349G001

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT for the SOUTH PERIMETER (EAST and WEST) of SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO November 2015

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations, an Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed modifications and structural improvements of two drainage channels on the southern perimeter of Schriever Air Force Base (AFB) in El Paso County, Colorado. The need for the proposed project stems from frequent flash flooding that has overtopped the southern perimeter road and damaged the integrity of the security fencing surrounding Schriever AFB.

In the beginning of the plan formulation process, a series of potential measures were evaluated to serve the Purpose and Need of flood risk management reduction on the two ephemeral drainage channels. Eight separate measures were discussed, which could stand alone or be used in conjunction with other measures analyzed. Five total alternatives were compiled; three alternatives were selected for detailed analysis. Alternatives carried through analysis include; Alternative 1) Partially Demolish and Modify Existing Culvert Structures; Alternative 2) Completely Demolish and Replace Existing Culverts (Preferred Alternative); and 3) No Action. The No Action Alternative is carried through analysis in order to establish a baseline of present conditions and the future of the proposed project area without action. The two alternatives not selected for detailed analysis were eliminated due to impracticality, inefficiency, and cost or labor intensive operation and maintenance.

The EA and comments received from the resource agencies were used to determine whether the Proposed Action would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). All environmental, social, and economic factors relevant to the proposal were considered in this EA. No significant adverse impacts to these resources are expected to occur. The proposed action will be in compliance with applicable environmental statutes.

Based upon my review of the facts and analyses contained in the attached EA, conducted in accordance with the provisions of NEPA, the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations and 32 CFR Part 989, I conclude that the Proposed Action will not have a significant environmental impact, either by itself or cumulatively with other ongoing projects at Schriever AFB, will not involve an element of high risk or uncertainty to the human environment and its effects on the quality of the human environment are not highly controversial. Accordingly, an EIS is not required. The signing of this FONSI completes the environmental impact analysis process.

Date: ______DEANNA M. BURT Colonel, USAF Commander, 50th Space Wing

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Project Authority ...... 2 1.3 Project Location ...... 2 2. PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 2 3. FLOOD RISK REDUCTION MEASURES ...... 3 3.1 Measures Screened Out ...... 4 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 4 4.1 Alternative 1: Partially Demolish and Modify Existing Culvert Structures ...... 5 4.2 Alternative 2: Completely Demolish and Replace Existing Culverts (Preferred Alternative) ...... 5 4.3 Alternative 3: Retention of Existing Culverts, Additional Weir, Concrete Apron and Low Water Crossing ...... 6 4.4 Alternative 4: Demolish Existing Culverts and Install a Low Water Crossing ...... 6 4.5 Alternative 5: No Action ...... 6 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED BUT NOT BROUGHT FORWARD FOR DETAILED CONSIDERATION ...... 6 5.1 Alternative 3: Retention of Existing Culverts, Additional Weir and Low Water Crossing ...... 6 5.2 Alternative 4: Demolish Existing Culverts and Install a Low Water Crossing ...... 7 6. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 7 6.1 Enoch Road Option ...... 7 7. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 8 7.1 Physiography and Topography ...... 9 7.2 Climate...... 9 7.3 Soils ...... 10 7.4 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S...... 12 7.5 Water Quality ...... 13 7.6 Air Quality ...... 14 7.7 Noise ...... 15 7.8 Fish and Wildlife ...... 15 7.9 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 17 7.10 Migratory Birds ...... 21 7.11 Vegetation and Terrestrial Habitat ...... 22 7.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 24 7.13 Cultural Resources ...... 25 7.14 Recreation ...... 25 8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 26 9. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ...... 26 10. LITERATURE CITED ...... 31 11. PREPARER ...... 33

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

List of Figures Figure 1. Schriever AFB ...... 2 Figure 2. Culvert locations on the East and West Channels of Schriever AFB...... 5 Figure 3. Soils associated with Schriever AFB...... 11 Figure 4. Farmland classification of soils associated with Schriever AFB...... 12 Figure 5. Common vegetation of Schriever AFB ...... 23

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Agency Coordination Appendix B: Jurisdictional Determination Appendix C: IPaC Trust Resources Report Appendix D: Site Pictures Appendix E: Design Maps

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT for the SOUTH PERIMETER (EAST and WEST) of SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE November 2015

1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1500-1508), and to comply with other applicable environmental laws and executive orders, this EA was prepared for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) for proposed modifications and structural improvements of two drainage channels and accompanying culvert structures on the southern perimeter of Schriever Air Force Base (AFB).

This EA has been completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for Schriever AFB, Colorado, at their request, in accordance with 40 CFR § 1506.5(a) and 1506.5(b). The USAF, as the lead agency, has independently evaluated, verified and adopted the analysis contained herein.

1.1 Background Schriever AFB, previously known as Falcon Air Force Station, was activated in July 1985 in El Paso County, Colorado. It was constructed for the primary purpose of acting as a backup to Onizuka Air Station in California where all Department of Defense (DoD) satellites were being controlled. In 1987, due to expansion, the USAF re-designated Falcon Air Force Station as Falcon AFB and in June 1988 it was renamed to Schriever AFB.

Schriever AFB is assigned to the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) along with seven other major installations. This network of installations is dedicated to missile warning sensors and space surveillance sensors. It serves an imperative function to the security of our nation and U.S. allies. In addition, DoD satellites are controlled and operated through the Satellite Operations Complexes at Schriever AFB.

Two ephemeral stormwater drainage channels are located within Schriever AFB and flow out through the southern perimeter. The southern perimeter of Schriever AFB has experienced frequent flash flooding which overtops the south perimeter road and damages the perimeter security fence. In 2011, culverts were installed where these two drainage channels cross the south perimeter road in an attempt to prevent damage to the security fence and keep the road from overtopping. These existing culverts can pass little more than a two- to five-year frequency event before the road overtops. The culverts are undersized and their capacity is further reduced by security grates and sediment that settles out of the water and into the culvert. Since installation of these culverts in 2011, the south perimeter road has overtopped and the security fence has been damaged every year (see Appendix D for pictures).

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 1 December 2015

1.2 Project Authority The proposed project would be constructed with USAF funding. This NEPA document was done at the request of Schriever AFB under Title 32 CFR Part 989- Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP).

1.3 Project Location The proposed project is located within Schriever AFB which is just east of Colorado Springs in El Paso County, Colorado, in Section 26, Township 14 South, Range 64 West. The project footprint is centric to two channels, the “East Channel” and the “West Channel” (see Figure 1) and accompanying culvert structures on the southern perimeter of Schriever AFB.

Figure 1. Schriever AFB; Note the two channels of the proposed project location are on the southern perimeter

2. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed project is to control stormwater flows on Schriever AFB through improvements of two drainage channels on the southern perimeter of the Base, and their

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 2 December 2015 associated culvert structures. The need for the proposed project stems from frequent flash flooding that has overtopped the perimeter road and damaged the integrity of the security fencing surrounding Schriever AFB (see Appendix D).

3. FLOOD RISK REDUCTION MEASURES During the plan formulation process in evaluating potential flood risk management alternatives for Schriever AFB, separate measures that may stand alone, or be used in conjunction with other measures were analyzed. Several measures were discussed by members of the planning and design team:

- (Measure 1) Demolish and Replace Existing Culvert Structures: This measure would include the complete removal and redesign of the existing culverts on the East and West Channels. By implementing this measure, the channels would be maintained in their existing footprints. The culverts would be designed to pass a 50-year flow without overtopping.

- (Measure 2) Partially Modify Existing Culvert Structures: This measure would include the demolition of one side of the wing walls on the existing culverts on both the upstream and downstream side. New concrete bays would be added to appropriately pass increased flows. Enough bays would be added to pass a 50-year flow without overtopping.

- (Measure 3) Weir and Concrete Apron Placed Upstream of Existing Culvert Structures: This measure would include maintaining the existing culvert structures, however, placing an additional weir and concrete apron upstream with a trash collecting fence spanning the length of the weir. This measure would reduce trash and debris from flowing downstream to the existing culvert structures on the southern perimeter, thus alleviating the hydraulic energy forced onto the security fence. It is also anticipated that by removing the amount of debris flowing downstream, less would get caught in the necessary security grates, thus reducing backflows and overtopping on the perimeter road.

- (Measure 4) Texas Crossing: A low-water crossing would be constructed along the southern perimeter road to pass high flows. The existing culverts would be maintained as they currently are. Security fencing on the southern perimeter would require additional upgrades and reinforcement to withstand the flows and potential of debris build-up. The Texas crossing would be designed to pass a 50-year flow without overtopping.

- (Measure 5) Storage and Retention Ponds: Add off-channel storage along the East and West Channels so the existing culverts can pass a 50-year flow event without overtopping the south perimeter road.

- (Measure 6) Check Dams: This measure would involve the construction of a check dam across the drainage channels. This would counteract bank erosion, slow down Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 3 December 2015

flow velocity and block debris before it flows downstream to the existing culvert structures.

- (Measure 7) Reinforce Perimeter Fencing: This measure would involve the strengthening of the perimeter fencing. By installing heavier gauged posts and fencing, as well as continuous post footing, chances of fence failure from debris build-up from large storm events would be greatly reduced.

- (Measure 8) No Action: No improvements to drainage channels would occur.

3.1 Measures Screened Out As part of the plan formulation process, potential flood risk reduction measures were screened out for addressing flood issues at Schriever AFB using the following criteria as defined in the Corps’ Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. Completeness is the extent to which a given measure provides and accounts for all necessary investments to ensure the realization of the planned effects. Effectiveness is defined as the extent to which a measure alleviates the specified problem. Efficiency is the extent to which means of alleviating the specified problems while realizing opportunities that are consistent with protecting the environment. Acceptability is the viability with respect to acceptance (ER 1105-2-100; para 1.6.2(c)). The following measures were removed from further consideration:

- (Measure 5)Storage and Retention Ponds: This measure was screened out due to lack of effectiveness. No storage locations could be identified between the restricted area and the southern perimeter. Possible storage would require extensive excavation and additional measures would still need to be implemented at the southern perimeter culverts.

- (Measure 6) Check Dams: This measure was screened out due to the sandy substrate of the channels. Erosion would continue to occur, thus creating a persistent operation and maintenance (O&M) requirement after every flash-flood event. This measure did not meet the effectiveness or efficiency criteria.

4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED During the plan formulation process in evaluating potential flood risk management alternatives for Schriever AFB, measures were combined into three action alternatives. Additionally, the No Action Alternative is also considered as it provides a baseline for comparison of alternatives and alternative impacts on existing conditions (refer to Section 7 for Environmental Impacts). Of these alternatives, three alternatives (Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 5) were brought forward for detailed consideration. The remaining two alternatives (Alternative 3 and Alternative 4) were analyzed but not brought forward for detailed consideration (see Section 5). Figure 2 below shows the culverts associated with the East and West Channels that were under consideration during the alternative formulation process.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 4 December 2015

Figure 2. Culvert locations on the East and West Channels of Schriever AFB.

4.1 Alternative 1: Partially Demolish and Modify Existing Culvert Structures Alternative 1 utilizes Measures 2 and 7. This alternative would consist of demolishing the existing culvert on the West Channel and installing an adequately sized culvert to handle the hydrologic flow demands with the necessary security grate restrictions. The wing wall on one side of the East Channel culvert would be demolished on both the upstream and downstream side of the stream and modified. New concrete bays would be added so that the crossing can pass a 50-year flood event without overtopping the southern perimeter road. Additionally, the perimeter fence on both the ephemeral streams at the locations of the culvert would be strengthened.

4.2 Alternative 2: Completely Demolish and Replace Existing Culverts (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 would include Measures 1 and 7. This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 with the exception of complete replacement of the existing culverts on the East and West channels.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 5 December 2015

Both existing culverts would be demolished and new culverts would be installed to handle the 50-year flood event. Additionally, the perimeter fence on both the ephemeral streams at the locations of the culverts would be strengthened.

4.3 Alternative 3: Retention of Existing Culverts, Additional Weir, Concrete Apron and Low Water Crossing For this alternative, Measures 3 and 4 would be combined. Alternative 3 includes retaining the existing culverts on the East and West Channels and adding a weir and concrete apron upstream of the culvert structures with a trash collector fence running across the entire weir. With this alternative, an additional low water crossing would be needed to handle additional flows that the existing culverts could not handle.

This alternative would allow the culverts to remain as-is but would retrofit an upstream weir. The constructed weir and concrete apron would increase water velocity enough to ensure that the culverts downstream remain free of sediment. The trash collector fence would also assist in keeping debris from clogging the culvert. Rock rip-rap would be needed downstream of the culvert, outside the perimeter fencing due to the increased flow velocity.

4.4 Alternative 4: Demolish Existing Culverts and Install a Low Water Crossing Measures 1 and 4 were discussed as a potential alternative to reduce flood risk damages on the ephemeral streams at Schriever AFB. This alternative would include the complete demolition and removal of culvert structures on both the East and West Channels and subsequent installation of a low-water crossing. Additionally, the perimeter fence on both the ephemeral streams at low water crossing locations would be strengthened.

4.5 Alternative 5: No Action Alternative 5 utilizes Measure 8. Under the No Action Alternative, no improvements to the drainage channels would occur. The southern perimeter of the base would continue to experience flooding events due to inadequately sized culvert structures. Conveyance of flood water would continue to impact the perimeter road and security fencing as debris and sediment lodge in the security grates and floodwaters overtop the culverts.

5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED BUT NOT BROUGHT FORWARD FOR DETAILED CONSIDERATION The following alternatives were analyzed but not brought forward for detailed consideration due to impracticality, inefficiency, cost and/or labor intensive operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements.

5.1 Alternative 3: Retention of Existing Culverts, Additional Weir and Low Water Crossing Alternative 3 was not brought forward for detailed consideration as it was determined that while effective, the labor intensive O&M requirements would be impractical. The trash collector fence would require regular maintenance and likely frequent repairs. The efficiency of the weir would be difficult to estimate without a more detailed study. A low water crossing was screened out initially as this approach has been previously utilized on these two ephemeral drainage channels and proven to be ineffective. Debris would still lodge in the perimeter fencing and sediment Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 6 December 2015 would continue to accumulate along the fence and on the low water crossing during intense rainfall events. Because a low water crossing was not effective previously, Alternative 3 is not being brought forward for detailed consideration.

5.2 Alternative 4: Demolish Existing Culverts and Install a Low Water Crossing A low water crossing, as described for reasons above in Alternative 3, was screened out initially as this approach has previously been utilized on these two ephemeral streams and proven to be ineffective. For these reasons, Alternative 4 is not being brought forward for detailed consideration.

6. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative, as it would efficiently and effectively meet the project purpose and need. Both existing culverts would be demolished and re-designed to handle a 50-year flood event.

A configuration of four (4) cells would be constructed at both culverts on the East and West Channels. Each cell would be 8’ x 8’ (see Appendix E for Drawings). The cell size would be designed in order to allow for heavy equipment, such as a skid loader, to fit inside a cell for debris removal. The proposed constructed cells would be larger than existing culverts and therefore, the access road on the southern perimeter would be elevated to accommodate the increased size. The access road would remain the same width, approximately 20 feet. The total disturbed area to construct the culvert on the East Channel would be approximately 2.6 acres. The disturbed area to construct the culvert on the West Channel would be approximately 2.5 acres.

Both culverts would be designed to allow for proper maintenance equipment to enter. The security grates would have a 9-inch vertical cross-bar spacing of galvanized steel and designed in accordance with the DoD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-022-03, Security Fences and Grates (2013). Perimeter fencing would be reinforced using a 6-gauge wire chain link fabric and 4-inch posts spaced no more than 10 feet apart. There would be continuous fence post footing installed to prevent undermining the integrity of the security fencing in the event of water overtopping the road and the potential of debris being pushed up against the fence. Approximately 800 feet of fencing would be reinforced on the East Channel culvert and approximately 880 feet of fencing would be reinforced on the West Channel culvert.

6.1 Enoch Road Option An option to improve the culvert at Enoch Road could be added to the preferred alternative to further address erosion problems along the West Channel. This culvert is located upstream of the south perimeter culvert on the West Channel. Erosion from flash flood events has caused severe undercutting of the concrete apron. A preformed scour hole could be installed immediately downstream of the concrete apron on the culvert located at Enoch Road. A preformed scour hole, which is commonly a riprap-lined basin formed at the outlet of a point discharge, provides a stable impact point for peak flows by dissipating energy and diffusing flow. This prevents downgrade erosion and promotes infiltration. The scour hole would be reinforced with riprap to prevent the erosion.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 7 December 2015

7. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The current environmental conditions and the resources listed below provide information where it exists and references important information from previous documentation regarding current conditions. The affected environment in the proposed project area was assessed through aerial photographs and literature searches. Much of the information on existing conditions was derived from the 2010 Final Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado (SAFB, 2010), the 2015 Final Revised INRMP for Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado (SAFB, 2015), the Natural Resources Habitat Management Plan for Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado (SAFB, 2012a) and the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Base General Plan Development (SAFB, 2012b). A site visit was also conducted on April 15, 2015, to assess baseline existing conditions of the proposed project footprint and adjacent landscape.

Environmental consequences have been integrated with the affected environment to show the degree of potential impacts to individual resources; these impacts may either be positive or negative in nature. The probable consequences (i.e., adverse and beneficial effects) of the proposed action and its alternatives on selected resource categories are described below for each resource category. An assessment of the environmental consequences provides the scientific and analytic basis for alternative comparison. Impacts are described in terms of duration and intensity:

Impact Duration: 1) Short-term: Temporary impacts caused by the construction and/or implementation of an alternative. 2) Long-term: Impact persists after the action has been completed and/or after the action is in full and complete operation.

Impact Intensity and Context: 1) Negligible: Impacts may occur, but the change would be localized and so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence. 2) Minor: Impact could result in a change to a population or individuals of a species or to a portion of a habitat or resource. The change would be measurable but small, localized, and of little consequence to the resource. 3) Moderate: Impact could result in some change to a population or individuals of a species or habitat. The change would be measurable and of consequence, but would be of moderate scale and would occur over a limited area. 4) Major: Impact could result in a considerable change to a population or individuals of a species or resource or habitat. The change would be measurable, extensive, and would occur over a wide geographic area.

It was determined that Alternative 1 would also meet the project purpose and need; however, Schriever AFB indicated a preference for Alternative 2. It is assumed that environmental impacts from either alternative would be comparable as both alternatives generally have the same footprint. Therefore, in Section 7, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are collectively analyzed as “Build Alternatives”. Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 8 December 2015

7.1 Physiography and Topography Schriever AFB is located approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level on the western edge of the Denver Basin geologic formation. Localized topographic properties of the proposed project footprint are primarily situated on natural areas of more than 10 percent slope, though overall topographic features of the adjacent general landscape are composed of sandy foothills, plains of low relief and rolling grasslands that terminate at the eastern base of the central Rocky Mountains.

7.1.1 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, no impacts to physiography and topography would occur. It is anticipated that erosion would likely continue to occur along the East and West channels. The resultant impacts of this continued erosion to physiography and topography would be localized and is therefore considered long-term and negligible.

7.1.2 Build Alternatives Under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, no impacts would occur to regional physiography and topography. Short-term and minor impacts are expected to occur to the immediate topographic profile of the proposed project area. Demolition of the existing culverts or partial demolition and modification of existing culverts would temporarily disturb localized features, natural and man-made. Additionally, long-term and minor impacts would occur post- construction. Improved flash-floodwater conveyance would reduce the existing erosion occurring within the ephemeral streams. Reduction of debris build-up would allow the bed load in the water flow to continue to pass downstream instead of accreting behind the culvert structures. No impacts are anticipated to occur to the localized physiography of the area with either build alternative.

7.2 Climate The climate of El Paso County is influenced by the high elevations and air masses moving over the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Summers are typically warm and sunny while winters are cold and dry. Table 1 below presents monthly temperature and precipitation averages taken at the weather station located near the Colorado Springs Municipal Airport from 1981 to 2010.

Table 1. Average minimum and maximum temperatures and precipitation for Colorado Spring, from 1981 to 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg. Max. 30.5 32.1 39.1 46.5 55.9 65.1 70.9 68.7 60.9 49.4 38.1 29.8 48.9 Temperature (°F)* Avg. Min. 17.7 19.5 26.0 33.3 42.7 51.3 56.9 55.7 47.3 35.8 25.2 17.5 35.74 Temperature (°F)* Avg. Total 0.32 0.34 1.0 1.42 2.03 2.50 2.84 3.34 1.19 0.82 0.40 0.34 16.54 Precipitation (inches)*

* Values are from the Colorado Springs Municipal Airport weather station, approximately 10 miles west of Schriever AFB. Source: National Climatic Data Center, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 9 December 2015

According to the National Climate Assessment, the Southwest region, which includes the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, is the hottest and driest region within the United States. It is estimated that this region will experience a significant population increase of 68 percent by 2050. Assessment of the Southwest region has shown markedly warmer temperatures since 1950 than any comparable long period in at least 600 years. The 2001 through 2010 decade was the warmest in the 110-year instrumental record. Temperatures are projected to continue to climb upwards (an estimated increase of 5.5°F to 9.5°F by 2070- 2099) (Garfin et al., 2014).

In addition to estimated increased temperatures, it is anticipated that streamflow and snowpack amounts will decline, decreasing surface water supply. Increased drought will occur due to the lack of precipitation (Garfin et al., 2014).

7.2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no impacts on climatic conditions of the proposed project area.

7.2.2 Build Alternatives Overall climatic conditions of the region are not anticipated to be impacted by either proposed project alternatives.

7.3 Soils A desktop review of soils within Schriever AFB was conducted utilizing the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) WebSoil Survey tool. Figure 3 below depicts the area of interest (AOI) selected for which the report was generated based off the boundary of Schriever AFB. This AOI encompassed 3,802.3 acres. The most dominant soil type found was Ascalon Sandy Loam, approximately 59 percent of the AOI. The majority of parent material is mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits (NRCS, 2015).

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 10 December 2015

Figure 3. Soils associated with Schriever AFB. Derived from NRCS-Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers prime farmland to be land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics that is readily available for producing crops. Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period, nor do they flood frequently, or are protected from flooding. Currently, prime farmland only exists within this AOI if these soils are irrigated (see Figure 4).

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 11 December 2015

Figure 4. Farmland classification of soils associated with Schriever AFB. Derived from NRCS-Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm).

7.3.1 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, erosion would likely continue to occur along the length of both the East and West Channels. The substrate is primarily sandy, and with continued force of heavy water flow events, this material will continue to shift, erode and accrete. Therefore, impacts to soils are considered long-term and moderate.

7.3.2 Build Alternatives Positive, long-term benefits are anticipated to occur if either build alternative is implemented. Improved flash-floodwater conveyance would reduce the existing erosion occurring within the ephemeral streams. Additionally, the reduction of debris build-up would allow the bed load in the water flow to continue to pass downstream instead of accreting behind the culvert structures.

No prime farmland exists within Schriever AFB, without the condition of irrigation. Therefore, no disturbance or conversion of prime farmland would take place as a result of the proposed activities from either build alternative.

7.4 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have defined wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions”(Federal Register [FR] 1982 and Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 12 December 2015

Federal Register 1980). The Corps’ Regulatory Program regulates Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for permitting deposition or fill of waters of the United States and wetlands with a “significant nexus” to waters of the United States. On June 29, 2015, the EPA and Corps jointly published a final rule on defining Waters of the US (FR Vol. 80/ No. 124). This rule became law on August 28, 2015. It further clarifies the scope of Waters of the US, consistent with the CWA, Supreme Court and current science. The scope of jurisdiction is narrower than the existing regulation and fewer waters will be classified as Waters of the US due to important qualifiers on existing categories.

A Jurisdictional Determination was conducted on Schriever AFB (reference Appendix B) and a Memorandum of Record was sent to the AFB on 27 June 2013 stating that no jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. are present on Schriever AFB (SAFB, 2015). This Jurisdictional Determination remains valid for a period of five years from the dated letter and therefore will not expire or require a new Jurisdictional Determination until 27 June 2018. Of note, several small, isolated depressional areas were identified; however, they were not included in the determination due to their limited size and signs of upland succession, as well as current hydrology and historical drought trends (Appendix B). As a result of this Jurisdictional Determination, no permit is required under Section 404 for the proposed project if the proposed activities are completed prior to the expiration of the Jurisdictional Determination.

7.4.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts are expected to occur to jurisdictional wetlands or waters classified as Waters of the U.S. as none are known to exist on Schriever AFB.

7.4.2 Build Alternatives Under this Alternative, no impacts to wetlands or waters classified as Waters of the U.S. are anticipated to occur as neither exists within the proposed project footprint. Reference Appendix B for the Jurisdictional Determination issued by the Corps on 27 June 2013. Should construction activities take place after 27 June 2018, the Corps’ Albuquerque District Regulatory Office would be contacted and a new Jurisdictional Determination may be conducted.

7.5 Water Quality Hydrologic features associated with Schriever AFB include shallow aquifers with unconsolidated sediments and generally good water quality. Schriever AFB’s water supply is provided by the Upper Black Squirrel Designated Groundwater Basin and is classified for all uses. A deeper aquifer, the Dawson aquifer, has good water quality and has not yet been extensively developed. Schriever AFB falls within the Arkansas River watershed which is characterized by many intermittent streams. The AFB itself contains no perennial streams. Stormwater drainage channels on Schriever AFB, such as the East and West Channels support little vegetation, have sandy bottoms and are highly susceptible to water erosion (SAFB, 2010;2015)(see Appendix D for pictures).

In accordance with the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1251), states, Tribes, or the EPA must develop standards for their jurisdiction. Pursuant to the CWA, water quality consists of three components: 1) designated and existing uses, 2) water quality criteria necessary to protect these

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 13 December 2015 uses, and 3) an anti-degradation policy (40 CFR Part 131.6). Surface and groundwater water quality standards have been set forth by the CWA to include parameters such as pollutants, temperature and dissolved oxygen levels. In accordance with Section 303(d) of the CWA, states must identify surface waters that do not meet EPA-approved water quality standards. These affected waters must be placed on a 303(d) list which requires these waters to have total maximum daily load (TMDL) developed. A TMDL is based on the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive and still meet water quality standards set forth and on an allocation of that pollutant amount among various sources.

7.5.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts are anticipated to occur to water quality. The water within the stormwater drainage channels is ephemeral in nature, and following precipitation events or snowmelt, quickly moves through the ephemeral drainage channels and exits the base at the south perimeter.

7.5.2 Build Alternatives The water within the stormwater drainage channels is ephemeral in nature and normally would not be present during construction of either build alternatives; therefore, no long-term impacts to water quality would occur.

7.6 Air Quality Air quality in the region is influenced by a combination of factors, which include climate, meteorology, and density and geographic distribution of local and regional air pollution sources. The dispersion of pollutants is influenced by the properties of the pollutants as well as the way air masses interact with the regional topography. The EPA, as a part of its requirement to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), uses six “criteria pollutants”, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide, as indicators of air quality and establishes a maximum concentration above which would adversely affect human health. These thresholds are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A designation of non-attainment indicates that an area does not meet these standards.

The CAA was enacted in 1970 and tasked the EPA with establishing NAAQS to protect public health and welfare and regulating emissions of hazardous pollutants. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) monitors air quality throughout the state. Sources of suspended particulate matter and air pollutants in the proposed project area include agriculture, urban and industrial activities.

El Paso County falls within the Pikes Peak monitoring area in Colorado. The most recent Annual Monitoring Network Plan (CDHPE, 2015) notes this area as being in attainment. For this region, there are four gaseous pollutants monitored at three sites and one particulate monitoring site. One station monitors for carbon monoxide, one for sulfur dioxide, two for ozone, one for PM10 and two for PM2.5. In addition, according to the Revised Carbon Monoxide Attainment/ Maintenance Plan: Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area (CDHPE, 2009), a “limited maintenance plan” revises the attainment year from 1990 to 2007, updates the base year emission inventory using the latest EPA-approved tools, and extends the maintenance

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 14 December 2015 year through 2020. Therefore, this attainment/maintenance plan confirms that the carbon monoxide standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period after the original re- designation (CDHPE, 2009).

7.6.1 No Action Alternative No effects to air quality would occur under the No Action Alternative. Ambient conditions would continue to occur within the proposed project area.

7.6.2 Build Alternatives If either of the build alternatives is implemented, it is anticipated localized emissions from construction equipment may temporarily and minimally affect air quality. However, best management practices, such as powering off equipment while not in use, would be implemented to reduce impacts to air quality.

Additionally, impacts to air quality during demolition activities would cause a short-term and moderate impact to localized air quality. It is anticipated that after demolition of all, or part, of the culverts occurs, dust particles would dissipate and settle and air quality would return to ambient conditions.

7.7 Noise Under the Noise Control Act of 1972 and its amendments (Quiet Communities Act of 1978; U.S.C. Title 42, Parts 4901-4918), states have the authority to regulate environmental noise by which governmental agencies must comply with in addition to community noise policies and regulations.

Ambient noise levels at Schriever AFB are generally low. Primary sources of noise include vehicle traffic on Schriever AFB and from Highway 94, as well as agricultural operations, small aircraft, aircraft at Peterson AFB, weather and natural sources (SAFB, 2012b).

7.7.1 No Action Alternative No impacts to noise conditions would occur under this alternative.

7.7.2 Build Alternatives Temporary noise disturbances during construction periods would occur as a result of engine noise, structure demolition and other construction activities. Noise levels would return to ambient conditions upon completion of demolition and construction activities.

7.8 Fish and Wildlife Fish and wildlife native to the area are consistent with the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. During the site visit on April 15, 2015, black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) were visually noted, and western meadowlark (Sturnella magna) were heard.

7.8.1 Fish No permanent waterbodies that would support fisheries exist on Schriever AFB, or more specifically, in the immediate proposed project location along the southern perimeter. Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 15 December 2015

7.8.1.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts would occur.

7.8.1.2 Build Alternatives No impacts to fisheries would occur under either build alternative as no fish populations exist within the proposed project location.

7.8.2 Mammals As noted above, fauna within Schriever AFB and the adjacent surrounding area is consistent with a shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Mammals noted include rodent species such as the pocket gopher (Thomomys sp.), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) black-tailed prairie dog and Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii). Lagamorphs such as the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) are present as well as coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) and pronghorn (SAFB, 2010; 2015).

7.8.2.1 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, short-term and negligible impacts would likely continue to occur to mammals from clean-up and fence maintenance efforts following high water events. Impacts, such as temporary displacement would be localized.

7.8.2.2 Build Alternatives Under either action alternative, short-term and negligible impacts such as disturbance and temporary displacement may occur to mammals during construction and demolition activities. It is possible for burrow-dwellers, such as pocket gopher, vole or mice species to be in the vicinity of the proposed project and potential for fatalities of such species during construction activities compared to non-burrowing mammals. However, it is likely that wildlife will disperse prior to construction activities based on disturbance. O&M activities in the future may also temporarily disturb mammals in the localized area.

7.8.3 Birds Birds known to exist on or near the proposed project area include raptor species such as western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), great horned owl (Bibo virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Passerine species such as the American robin (Turdus migratorius), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) are found on Schriever AFB. Additonally, game species include the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) are known to occur (SAFB, 2010; 2015). See Section 7.10 for more information regarding migratory bird species.

7.8.3.1 No Action Alternative Negligible and short-term impacts could occur under the implementation of the No Action Alternative should the south perimeter road continue to overtop during high water events.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 16 December 2015

Schriever AFB would continue to perform clean-up activities as necessary, which may temporarily disturb birds located within the proposed project footprint.

7.8.3.2 Build Alternatives Under the implementation of either action alternative, short-term and negligible impacts such as disturbance and temporary displacement may occur to birds during construction and demolition activities. It is likely that they will return to the area upon completion of these activities.

7.8.4 Reptiles and Amphibians According to the 2015 INRMP, three reptiles are known to exist within the area, the lesser earless lizard (Holbrookia maculate), the western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) and the bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) (SAFB, 2015). According to a study published in 1981, El Paso County has 23 total species of herpetofauna (Lambert & Reid, 1981). The Colorado Herpetological Society lists 18 species of frogs and toads, 5 turtle species, 19 lizard species and 25 species of snake as occurring within the county of El Paso (CHS, 2000).

7.8.4.1 No Action Alternative As is true with other fauna listed above, negligible and short-term impacts could occur under the implementation of the No Action Alterative should the south perimeter road continue to overtop during high water events. Schriever AFB would continue to perform clean-up activities as necessary, which may temporarily disturb herpetofauna located within the proposed project footprint.

7.8.4.2 Build Alternatives If either build alternative is implemented, localized short-term and negligible impacts could occur to herpetofauna in the proposed project area due to construction activities. Disturbance or temporary displacement may occur. It is anticipated resident reptiles and amphibians would return to the area upon completion of the proposed project.

7.9 Threatened and Endangered Species In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was consulted to obtain information on federally listed threatened and endangered species that have the potential to occur within the proposed project area. Additional resources used to identify species of special concern include desktop searches, and coordination with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). A letter soliciting comments on the proposed project was sent to USFWS and CPW on June 1, 2015. No response was received from either agency. A second letter was sent to USFWS, dated August 19, 2015 and a response was received on October 6, 2015 (see Appendix A).

Utilizing the USFWS’ on-line tool, the Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website (see Appendix C for the complete generated report), 10 threatened, endangered or candidate species were identified as potentially occurring within the area. Four birds, the endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus Americana), and the threatened piping plover (Charadruius melodus) and Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) were identified. However, the least tern, whooping crane and piping plover were listed as conditional and only need to be considered if water-related activities in the North Platte, South Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 17 December 2015

Platte or Laramie River Basins would affect listed species in Nebraska. Because the proposed project does not fall under this condition, they were eliminated from further analysis. The three fish identified, the candidate Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini), the threatened greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) and the endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) were also eliminated from further analysis as there are no water bodies within Schriever AFB that support fisheries or aquatic life. Two flowering plants were identified, the threatened Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) and western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara). The western prairie fringed orchid was also listed as a conditional species, based on the same condition assigned to the three birds above, and therefore was also eliminated from further analysis. The only mammal, the threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), was also identified (see Appendix C).

7.9.1 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse was listed as federally threatened in May of 1998. This small rodent is a subspecies of meadow jumping mice, and like all meadow jumping mice, has the characteristic long tail, enlarged hind feet and shortened forelimbs. Adults typically reach a length of 7 to 10 inches, with the tail comprising of 4 to 6 inches of total length (USFWS, 2003).

There is little information regarding past distribution or abundance of the Preble’s. Since listing, numerous surveys have been conducted within historic range, however many surveys were conducted in presently suitable habitat, therefore, trend data are unreliable. Despite increased trapping, this mouse has been absent in several counties where it historically occurred. Their absence is suspected to be a result of intense urbanization, in areas such as Denver, and elimination of riparian habitat which has caused dispersement disruptions. Additionally, the limitation of riparian habitat in a semi-arid climate further exacerbates favorable habitat conditions. The current range includes both the North and South Platte River Basins, from the eastern flank of the Laramie Mountains and the Laramie Plains in southeastern Wyoming, south along the eastern flank of the Front Range in Colorado and into the headwaters of the Arkansas River Basin near Colorado Springs, Colorado (USFWS, 2003). The Draft Recovery Plan for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse describes their habitat as riparian areas within grassland, shrub land, forest, and mixed vegetation where dense herbaceous or woody vegetation occurs near the ground level, where available open water exists during their active season, and where there are ample upland habitats of sufficient width and quality for foraging, hibernation, and refuge from catastrophic flooding events (USFWS, 2003).

Though little research has been conducted in number, size or frequency of reproduction, it is assumed they are similar to other subspecies of meadow jumping mice, which typically have two litters per year with an average of five pups per litter. After four weeks of age, a Preble’s is completely independent, first reproduction can occur as young as two months of age. Survival rate is low among litters, and like most rodents, longevity is short (USFWS, 2003). Hibernation typically begins in September or October and lasts for a period of 7 to 8 months, they survive solely on fat storage and emerge the following May. During their active summer period, Preble’s construct day nests composed of grasses, forbs, sedges and other available plant material. Based on fecal analysis their diet is composed of a variety of arthropods, fungi, moss

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 18 December 2015 and vegetation such as lamb’s quarter (Chenopodium sp.), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), sedges and grasses (USFWS, 2003).

7.9.1.1 No Action Alternative If the No Action Alternative is implemented, no impacts are expected to occur to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

7.9.1.2 Build Alternatives It is not anticipated that the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse would be within the vicinity of Schriever AFB as this species is riparian-habitat dependent. Additionally, they prefer dense herbaceous vegetation, which is not present at the proposed project location. The ephemeral stormwater channels do not possess the necessary characteristics of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse life requisites. Therefore, construction and O&M activities associated with the build alternative would have no impact on this species as it is likely not within the proposed project area. A “no effect” determination has been made for this species with the implementation of either Alternative 1 or 2.

7.9.2 Ute Ladies’-tresses The Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial orchid that was designated as threatened throughout its entire range on January 18, 1992. Habitat loss through urbanization, water development and conversion of wetlands has attributed to population declines. This species has 8- to 20-inch stems that arise from tuberous roots, with long narrow leaves that start at the base of the plant and reduce in size as they go up the stem. According to Sheviak (1984) (as cited in 57 FR 2048 205) three to 15 ivory colored flowers cluster into a spike arrangement and it typically blooms from late July through August.

This species is primarily found in moist soils, meadows associated with perennial streams terraces, floodplains, oxbows, seasonally flooded terraces, lakeshores, and spring-fed abandoned channels and valleys. Increased knowledge of habitat requirements and population locations have shown its ability to survive in higher elevations and more altered habitats than previously thought (USFWS, 2015). It is commonly associated with horsetail (Equisetum spp.), milkweed (Asclepias spp.), verbena (Verbena spp.), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium montanum), reedgrass (Calamagrostis spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and arrowgrass (Triglochin spp.).

Orchids, in general, are not common plants (BLM, 2007). Most are rare in their distribution. This makes it difficult to assess the stability of any given population. Furthermore, the naturally occurring low population numbers make the species susceptible to localized extinction caused by natural or man-made disasters. Changes in large ungulate populations have probably affected the distribution of the orchid. This species likely evolved according to the seasonal presence of large herbivores such as American bison, elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. Changes in these species’ distribution could have negatively influenced the orchid populations by removing them during late winter and early spring, possibly leading to a buildup of live and dead vegetation. Additionally, cattle grazing may alter both plant communities and stream ecology. Depending on when a site is grazed, there is the possibility of removing flowering or fruiting stalks. With

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 19 December 2015 cattle introduction there runs the risk of noxious weed invasion. Canada thistle, reed canarygrass, and leafy spurge pose threats as they can compete vigorously.

Ute ladies’-tresses are thought to reproduce exclusively by seed, and, as with many orchid species, seeds are microscopic, dust-like and disperse by water and wind. It is likely that because of their minute size, seeds store little energy to sustain embryos for an extended period of time, therefore, must quickly establish a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal soil fungi in order to survive.

Herbicides applied to control noxious weeds and fertilizers from agricultural fields possibly affect the orchid (BLM, 2007). Both direct applications to nearby agricultural fields and runoff from sites upstream have potentially harmful effects on orchids. Pesticides applied to nearby sites could affect bumblebee (Bombus sp.) populations, which are the orchid’s primary pollinators.

Development in or near wetlands certainly has had an effect on the distribution of this orchid (BLM, 2007). Water diversion, channelization, and irrigation have all influenced the species. All of these factors decrease the development in or near wetlands certainly has had an effect on the distribution of Ute ladies’-tresses. Water diversion, channelization, and irrigation have all influenced the species. All of these factors decrease the input of water into riparian systems or completely destroy habitat, thus eliminating potential habitat for this species.

7.9.2.1 No Action Alternative Under implementation of the No Action Alternative, no impacts to this species would occur.

7.9.2.2 Build Alternatives It is not anticipated that the Ute ladies’-tresses would be within the vicinity of Schriever AFB as this species is typically found in moist soils or near wetlands. The ephemeral stormwater channels do not possess the necessary characteristics of Ute ladies’-tresses’ life requisites. Therefore, construction and O&M activities associated with the build alternative would have no impact on this species as it is likely not within the proposed project area. A “no effect” determination has been made for this species with the implementation of either Alternative 1 or 2.

7.9.3 Mexican Spotted Owl Mexican spotted owls were listed as threatened under the ESA on 15 April 1993. It was thought that two primary reasons caused species decline; historical alteration of habitat as a result of timber management and continued deforestation as well as associated practices with stand- replacing wildland fires (USFWS, 2012).

This owl species is medium-size, approximately 16 to 17 inches in height. They are mottled with white spots, which are generally larger and more numerous than the two other spotted owl subspecies (Strix occidentalis caurina and S.o.occidentalis). Females are typically slightly larger than males, juveniles (hatchling to five months), subadults (juvenile to two-years) and adults may be distinguished by plumage. Most juveniles will disperse from natal territory in early fall,

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 20 December 2015 while adults typically occupy the same territory year after year, once established. Mated pairs will defend the same territory during nesting season, typically March through August. Clutch size is usually 1 to 3 eggs, with eggs hatching in early May. Owlets fledge in early June and will leave the nest, moving to tree branches or dwelling on the ground under parental care until dispersal in September (USFWS, 2005).

Mexican spotted owls feed on small mammals such as mice, voles and woodrats as well as small birds, bats, macroinvertebrates and herpetofauna. Foraging strategy includes perching on elevated perches and using sight and sound to locate prey. Hunting is typically done at night (USFWS, 2005).

The owls favor secluded canyon bottoms and mixed coniferous forests, especially ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with an understory of smaller pines or shrubs, more typical of mountainous terrain. Typical forest composition of favored habitat includes white fir (Abies concolor), limber pine (Pinu flexillis), blue spruce (Picea pungens) and Gambel oak (Quercus gambellii) (USFWS, 1995). Because this species, like other spotted owls, is associated with dense stands of old-growth or mature forests and coniferous vegetation is not present within or near the project area, Mexican spotted owls are not known to be present.

7.9.3.1 No Action Alternative The proposed project footprint borders the Southern Rocky Mountain ecological management unit (USFWS, 2012). However, Schriever AFB does not contain old-growth, dense mature forests or coniferous vegetation necessary to meet the Mexican spotted owl’s life requirements. Therefore, it is expected that the No Action Alternative would have no impacts to this species.

7.9.3.2 Build Alternatives As stated above, Mexican spotted owls require mixed coniferous forests and prefer dense stands of old-growth forests. There are no such areas within or near Schriever AFB and the proposed project area, therefore a “no effect” determination was made for the Mexican spotted owl should either build alternative be implemented.

7.10 Migratory Birds All federal agencies are subject to the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which regulates the take of any migratory bird species. If a Corps project is expected to impact any migratory bird species, coordination with the USFWS is typically initiated in order to minimize impacts to these species. Schriever AFB falls within the Central Flyway Route which comprises more than half the landmass of the continental United States, before extending to Central and South America.

The following table (Table 2) summarizes migratory birds of conservation concern identified in the USFWS’ IPaC Trust Resources Report (Appendix C).

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 21 December 2015

Table 2. Migratory birds of special conservation concern potentially existing within or near Schriever AFB. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SEASON PRESENT* American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Breeding Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Breeding Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Breeding Dickcissel Spiza americana Breeding Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Year-round Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Year-round Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Breeding Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Breeding Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Breeding Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Breeding Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Breeding Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Year-round Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeding Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Wintering Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Breeding Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Breeding *Generally speaking, breeding season (nesting) for raptors in this region is from January 15th through July 31st and most other neo-tropical migrants from March 15th through August 20th (Nelson & Leukering, 2006).

7.10.1 No Action Alternative Negligible and short-term impacts could occur under the implementation of the No Action Alternative should the south perimeter road continue to overtop during high water events. Schriever AFB would continue to perform clean-up activities and O&M as necessary, which may temporarily disturb migratory birds located within the proposed project footprint.

7.10.2 Build Alternatives As stated above for other fauna existing in the area, if either build alternative were to be implemented, negligible and short term impacts may occur to migratory birds in the form of displacement or disturbance. No clearing and grubbing activities are proposed to occur. It is anticipated that after the demolition and construction activities have concluded, migratory bird species would return to the area. O&M activities in the future may also temporarily disturb migratory birds.

7.11 Vegetation and Terrestrial Habitat Potential vegetation within the proposed project location and adjacent AFB was determined through the site visit that occurred on April 15, 2015 and Schriever AFB Natural Resource Habitat Management Plan (SAFB, 2012a).

The historical climax plant community is primarily classified as Sandy Plains, which includes species such as blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia) and sand bluestem (Andropogon hallii) plant communities. The potential vegetation of the Sandy Plains plant community consists of grasses and grass-like plants dominated by warm season grasses. Cool season grasses such as western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and sun sedge (Carex inops) are also included, as well as forbs and shrub species such as American vetch Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 22 December 2015

(Vicia americana), purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea), western sand cherry (Prunus pumila besseyi) and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) (NRCS, 2012 as cited in SAFB, 2012a).

Current vegetation within Schriever AFB is consistent with a shortgrass prairie ecosystem. The landscape is dominated by blue grama, buffalo grass (Bochloe dactyloides), three-awned grass (Aristida purpuria), dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) and needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata). Upland areas of Schriever AFB have been noted as being in fair condition, despite the evidence of heavy grazing in the past which has resulted in reduced biodiversity and productivity. Trees are sparse on Schriever AFB, adjacent to the proposed project footprint are mature cottonwoods (Populus deltoides), box elder (Acer negundo) and hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) (SAFB, 2010; 2015).

Plants noted during the site visit were more indicative of a highly disturbed ecosystem, due to the urbanization of the area as a result of the construction and utilization of Schriever AFB. These species included sage (Salvia officinalis), plains pricklypear (Opuntia polyacantha), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and yucca (Yucca sp.) (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Common vegetation of Schriever AFB, picture taken upstream of the culvert located on Enoch Road

7.11.1 Invasive/ Non-native Vegetation According to a field survey conducted by North Wind, Inc. in 2004, seven state and federally- listed noxious weeds exist on Schriever AFB. These species include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). At that time six other species were also Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 23 December 2015 identified; cheatgrass, Russian thistle (Salsola kali), kochia (Kochia scoparia), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) and goatsbeard (Tragopogon dubius) (SAFB, 2010; 2015).

7.11.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, existing vegetative communities would remain consistent with the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Negligible and long-term impacts could occur to vegetation immediately adjacent the ephemeral streams should sloughing and erosion continue.

7.11.3 Build Alternatives Under implementation of either build alternative, negligible and short-term impacts could occur to the vegetative communities immediately within the proposed project footprint. Demolition and construction activities would temporarily disturb localized vegetation. However, after all construction activities, the area would be re-seeded with an approved native seed mix, consistent with short-grass prairie community species. Best management practices (BMPs) such as using wildlife-friendly jute cord would be utilized over plastic erosion control blankets during seed establishment.

Eradication of invasive plant species would occur early on in the disturbed area to prevent establishment in the proposed project location through a combination of adequate and reasonable means. Mechanical control, such as hoeing, cutting, mowing, chopping or hand-pulling may occur. Should mechanical control not be sufficient to prevent establishment of undesirable or invasive species, chemical control such as the use of approved herbicides may be implemented. All herbicides would be used in strict accordance to product labels and accompanying Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). BMPs such as applying herbicides only when winds are below five (5) miles per hour, employing proper spill and containment procedures, and not applying herbicide when precipitation is within the 24-hour forecast. These BMPs would be implemented to ensure that no damage to desirable vegetation, soils and waterbodies would occur.

7.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (1994) requires that measures be taken to avoid disproportionately high adverse impacts on minority or low-income communities by pursuing fair treatment and meaningful involvement of minority and low-income populations. Environmental Justice concerns also relate to hazards that may affect the health of individuals or communities, especially those with low incomes. No identified low-income, minority or otherwise disadvantaged populations exists within or near the proposed project location.

7.12.1 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, no adverse impacts would occur regarding social and environmental justice.

7.12.2 Build Alternatives The proposed project is not expected to have measurable impacts on demographic distributions. No environmental or health impacts are expected for local human residents, since the population of the area is low. Any minor effects to the local population would not be expected to disproportionately affect low income or minority components of the population. Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 24 December 2015

7.13 Cultural Resources According to the 2015 INRMP, the entire AFB has been surveyed for cultural resources, no resources listed, or eligible for listing, for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are known to exist (SAFB, 2015). Therefore, the need for an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan has been waived (see Appendix A). Archaeological surveys conducted previously had produced eight sites and 18 isolated artifacts. Native American groups were contacted in regards to these resources (SAFB, 2010).

7.13.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts on cultural resources.

7.13.2 Build Alternatives No impacts are expected to occur with the implementation of the preferred alternative. It is not anticipated that any cultural resources would be found during construction activities, as the area has been previously surveyed and cleared. Additionally, a Corps’ archeologist conducted a desktop analysis in July 2015 and determined that proposed work would likely have “no potential to affect historic properties” (see Appendix A).

Should an inadvertent discovery of archaeological object or Native American human remains and cultural items occur, specific procedures contained in Section 3.9 of AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management Program, would be followed (see Appendix A). This would include, at a minimum, 1) all ground disturbing activity would cease; 2) the installation Cultural Resource Manager (CRM) would be notified; 3) The CRM or a professional archeologist would make a field evaluation of the context of the deposit, it’s probable age and significance as well as notify appropriate local, state and federal agencies; and 4) resumption of ground disturbing activities would take place only upon notification from the CRM after all local, state and federal requirements are met.

7.14 Recreation Recreation on Schriever AFB is fairly limited, given the constraints of the Base’s mission. A paved jogging trail exists near the athletic facility, additionally some personnel jog the perimeter of Schriever AFB. Within the secure portion of Schriever AFB is a small urban forest which provides opportunities for birdwatching; however, no wildlife watching is permitted because of security measures. No hunting or fishing is permitted at Schriever AFB (SAFB, 2010; 2015).

7.14.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to existing recreation would occur.

7.14.2 Build Alternatives Short-term and negligible impacts may occur to recreation on the base in the form of individuals who utilize Enoch Road and the Southern Perimeter Road for jogging. These areas would be closed within the construction footprint and would temporarily restrict joggers from using these roads. These impacts would be temporary, as upon completion of either build alternative, the roads would be re-opened.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 25 December 2015

8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The combined incremental effects of human activity are referred to as cumulative impacts (40 CFR 1508.7). While these incremental effects may be insignificant on their own, accumulated over time and from various sources, they can result in serious degradation to the environment. The cumulative impact analysis must consider past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. The analysis also must include consideration of actions outside of the Corps, to include other state and federal agencies. As required by NEPA, the Corps has prepared the following assessment of cumulative impacts related to the alternatives being considered in this EA.

Prior to construction of Schriever AFB in 1983, the landscape of the area was consistent with a short-grass prairie ecosystem. Land immediately surrounding Schriever AFB was used as rangeland for cattle grazing but also supported wildlife such as pronghorn, black-tailed prairie dog, desert cottontail, coyote, burrowing owls, hawk species and western meadowlark. The condition of the AFB is primarily the same today in the undeveloped portions. However, since activation in 1985, more development has occurred.

In 2012, Schriever AFB released a Programmatic EA for General Plan Development to further develop the AFB. Within this document, several development projects were proposed for Schriever AFB. The Preferred Alternative included developing areas within a structured timeframe. Structures projected to be constructed include development within the Community Center to include a car wash, a roller hockey field, an addition to the fitness center, a youth center, a Security Forces Squadron Operation Facility and a family readiness center/chapel. Additional improvements to Schriever AFB include improvements to the Enoch/Irwin Road intersection, a military gas station, an electrical substation, a security forces training center and maintenance center. Future development within the Restricted Area includes a weather station, and two administration buildings.

Cumulative impacts associated with previously proposed development plans for Schriever AFB would include an increase in soil and vegetative disturbances, emissions as a result of increased development and a likely increase in population as a result of proposed developments, as well as impacts on water resources such as groundwater aquifers. The proposed culvert improvements may incrementally add temporary impacts to soil and vegetative disturbances and air quality. However, after the proposed project has completed construction, it is not anticipated these impacts would continue in a cumulative manner. Therefore, it has been determined that as a result of the proposed alternatives, it would have insignificant cumulative impacts when considered with other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities at Schriever AFB.

9. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996. In compliance. AIRFA protects the rights of Native Americans to exercise their traditional religions by ensuring access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. The proposed project would not adversely affect the protections offered by this act as no sacred sites exist within the proposed project area.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 26 December 2015

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668, 668 note, 669a-668d. In compliance. This act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions for the scientific or exhibition purposes, for religious purposes of Indian Tribes, or for the protection of wildlife, agriculture or preservation of the species. The proposed project would have no adverse effects on the bald eagle.

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 185711-7., et seq. In compliance. The purpose of this act is to protect public health and welfare by the control of air pollution at its source and to set forth primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards to establish criteria for states to attain, or maintain. Some temporary emissions may occur during construction activities; however, air quality is not expected to be significantly impacted to any measurable degree by the proposed action.

Clean Water Act, as amended, (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 33 U.S.C. 1251., et seq. In compliance. The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters (33 U.S.C. 1251). The Corps regulates discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. This permitting authority applies to all waters of the United States including navigable waters and wetlands. A Jurisdictional Determination was issued to Schriever AFB on 27 June 2013, noting no jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the US occur within the proposed project location (see Appendix B). A Section 404 permit is not necessary should construction activities conclude before the expiration of the Jurisdictional Determination on 27 June 2018. Should construction activities occur after the expiration, the Corps’ Albuquerque District Regulatory Office shall be contacted.

As described in the environmental consequences section, the proposed project would have no adverse impacts to water quality as the water is ephemeral in nature and construction activities would take place when water is not present.

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In compliance. Typically CERCLA is triggered by (1) the release or substantial threat of a release of a hazardous substance into the environment; or (2) the release or substantial threat of a release of any pollutant or contaminant into the environment which presents an imminent threat to the public health and welfare. To the extent such knowledge is available, 40 CFR Part 373 requires notification of CERCLA hazardous substances in a land transfer. This project will not involve any real estate transactions.

Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. In compliance. Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536) of the ESA states that all federal departments and agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior, ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be critical.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 27 December 2015

A letter dated June 1, 2015 was sent to the USFWS stating that the Corps is proposing to control stormwater flows on Schriever AFB through channel improvements of two drainage channels on the southern perimeter of the AFB, and their associated culvert structures. No response was provided. However, utilizing the USFWS’ on-line tool, the IPaC website (see Appendix C for the complete generated report), 10 threatened, endangered or candidate species were identified as potentially occurring with the area. Analysis of noted species can be found in Section 7.9. The least tern, whooping crane and piping plover were listed as conditional and only needed to be considered if water-related activities in the North Platte, South Platte or Laramie River Basins would affect listed species in Nebraska. Because the proposed project does not fall under this condition, they were eliminated from further analysis. The three fish identified, the candidate Arkansas darter, the threatened greenback cutthroat trout and the endangered pallid sturgeon, were also eliminated from further analysis as there are no water bodies within Schriever AFB that support fisheries or aquatic life. It has been determined, through this document that it is likely “no effect” would occur to the Ute-ladies’ tresses, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and the Mexican spotted owl.

A second letter was sent from the Corps to USFWS, dated August 19, 2015. A response was received on October 6, 2015 (see Appendix A). The USFWS suggested to utilize the IPaC website and noted that depletions to the Platte River system may impact the whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon and western prairie fringed orchid. However, the proposed project will not contribute to depletions of the Platte River system (see Section 7.9).

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898). In compliance. Federal agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The project does not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations.

Farmland Protection Policy Act (Subtitle I of Title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981), effective August 6, 1984. In compliance. This act instructs the Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, independent commissions, and other units of the federal government, to develop criteria for identifying the effects of federal programs on the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. A letter dated June 1, 2015 was sent to the NRCS, Colorado Springs Field Office; no response was received. However, this project would have no effect on any prime farmland soils as the prime farmlands only exist with the condition of irrigation.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460-1(12), et seq. In compliance. The act establishes the policy that consideration be given to the opportunities for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in the investigating and planning of any Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydroelectric or multi-purpose water resource project, whenever any such project can reasonably serve either or both purposes consistently. This project would not have adverse impacts on recreation as the area is not utilized for recreation purposes.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 28 December 2015

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq. In compliance. A letter dated June 1, 2015 was prepared by the Corps and sent to the USFWS and the CPW to solicit comment on the proposed project. No response was received from either agency. A secondary letter soliciting input on the proposed project was sent to USFWS, dated August 19, 2015. A response letter was received on October 6, 2015 (see Appendix A). This letter suggested the Corps utilize the IPaC online web tool to generate a threatened and endangered species list within the proposed project location (see Appendix C for the IPaC Trust Resources Report). The USFWS also stated that actions resulting in new or existing water depletions to the Platte River system may affect the whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon and western prairie fringed orchid. However, this project will not impact the Platte River system, nor will it contribute to depletions of this system. For additional information, see Section 7.9.

Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988). In compliance. E.O. 11988 requires federal agencies provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. These requirements apply in carrying out its responsibilities for 1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities; 2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and 3) conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. This project would not adversely affect the flood holding capacity or flood surface profiles of any stream; as such the project is in compliance with the requirements of E.O. 11988. See Appendix A for the floodplain compliance memo.

Invasive Species (E.O. 13112). In compliance. E.O. 13112 requires federal agencies to identify actions, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, that affect the status of invasive species. This includes utilization of relevant programs and authorities to 1) prevent the introduction of invasive species, 2) detect and respond rapidly to control populations of such species in a cost- effective and environmentally sound manner, 3) monitor invasive species populations, 4) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded, 5) conduct research and develop technologies to prevent introduction and 6) promote public education on invasive species and a means to address them.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 4601-4601-11, et seq. Not applicable. Planning for recreation development of federal projects is coordinated with the appropriate states so that the plans are consistent with public needs as identified in the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Federal agencies must coordinate with the National Parks Service (NPS) to ensure that no property acquired or developed with the assistance from this Act will be converted to other than outdoor recreation uses. If conversion is necessary, approval of NPS is required, and plans are developed to relocate or re-create affected recreational opportunities. No lands involved in the proposed project were acquired or developed with LWCFA funds.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-711, et seq. In compliance. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, the United Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 29 December 2015

States’ commitment to four international conventions with Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts and nests. The take of all migratory birds is governed by the MBTA's regulation of taking migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes and requiring harvest to be limited to levels that prevent over utilization. E.O. 13186 (2001) directs executive agencies to take certain actions to implement the Act. No negative impacts to migratory birds would likely occur as no clearing or grubbing activities are proposed to take place.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. In compliance. This EA has been prepared for the proposed action and to satisfy the NEPA requirement. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, et seq. In compliance. No records of cultural resources or historic properties were found in the proposed project area. There is always potential for an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction activities. In the event that historic resources are uncovered, work would be halted immediately and the installation CRM or a qualified archeologist would be notified (see Appendix A). The work would not continue until the area is inspected by a staff archeologist. If he or she determines that the resources require further consultation, he or she will notify the appropriate local, state and federal agencies.

Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4901, et seq. In compliance. While there will be minor noise disturbance during construction activities, there will be no long-term noise disturbances associated with this project.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 4401 et seq. Not applicable. This act establishes the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (16 U.S.C. 4403) (NAWCC) to recommend wetlands conservation projects to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C.4408) addresses the restoration, management, and protection of wetlands and habitat for migratory birds on federal lands. Federal agencies acquiring, managing, or disposing of federal lands and waters are to cooperate with USFWS to restore, protect, and enhance wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds, fish and wildlife on their lands, to the extent consistent with their mission and statutory authorities.

Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990). In compliance. Federal agencies shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agencies’ responsibilities. No wetlands will be impacted by this proposed project as none exist within the proposed project construction footprint. Refer to the Jurisdictional Determination in Appendix B.

Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, et seq. Not applicable. This act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. This section provides that the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, or the accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 30 December 2015 physical capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army. The proposed project would not alter navigable waters in any way as none exist within the project area.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. 1101, et seq. Not applicable. This Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with states and other public agencies in works for flood prevention and soil conservation, as well as the conservation, development, utilization and disposal of water.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq. Not applicable. This act establishes that certain rivers of the Nation, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The area in which the proposed activity would occur is not designated as a wild or scenic river, nor is it on the National Inventory of Rivers potentially eligible for inclusion.

10. LITERATURE CITED BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Final Report- Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis).

CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment). 2009. Revised Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan: Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP_PO_Colo-Spgs-Carbon-Monoxide- Attainment-Maintenance-Plan-Revised-2009.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2015.

CDPHE. 2015. Colorado Annual Monitoring Network Plan: May 2015. http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=open&file=2015AnnualNe tworkPlan.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2015.

CHS (Colorado Herpetological Society). 2000. Documented Amphibians and Reptiles of El Paso County. http://www.dlblanc.com/coloherp/geo/counties/couelpa.php. Accessed October 5, 2015.

ER (Engineering Regulation) 1105-2-100: Planning Guidance Notebook. 2000. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington D.C.

Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzales, T. Piechota, R. Smyth and R. Waskom. 2014. Chapter 20: Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese Richmond, and G.W. Yohe. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southwest. Accessed July 15, 2015.

Lambert S. and W.H. Reid. 1981. Biogeography of the Colorado Herpetofauna. The American Midland Naturalist. 106(1):145-156.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 31 December 2015

Mitchell, W. A. 1998. Species profile: Least tern (Sterna antillarum), interior population, on military installations in the southeastern United States. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. Technical Report SERDP-98-1.

Nelson D. and T. Leukering. 2006. Atlas II: The Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Manual on Use of Breeding Codes, Version 1.0. March 2007. http://www.cobreedingbirdatlasii.org/manuals%20and%20forms/downloads%20from%20RMB O/Jan08_edit_Manual%20of%20Breeding%20Codes.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2015.

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2015. Custom Soil Resource Report for El Paso County Area, Colorado. Derived from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm on May 5, 2015.

Knorr, O.A. 1959. The Birds of El Paso County, Colorado. Series in Biology. Paper 17. http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=sbio. Accessed June 1, 2015.

SAFB (Schriever Air Force Base). 2010. Final Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. Prepared by HydroGeoLogic, Inc., Herndon, Virginia.

SAFB. 2012a. Natural Resources Habitat Management Plan. Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. Prepared for Air Force Space Command (HQ AFSPC/CEVP). Prepared by North Wind, Idaho Falls, Idaho. October 2012.

SAFB. 2012b. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Base General Plan Development for Schriever Air Force Base. Prepared by North Wind, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina. June 2011.

SAFB. 2015. Final Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. May 2015.

USFWS. 1998. Greenback Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1998/980301.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015.

USFWS. 2003. Draft Recovery Plan for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/preble/Nov2003DraftRecoveryPlan.pdf . Accessed August 19, 2015.

USFWS. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/RecoveryPlans/MexicanSpottedOwl.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 32 December 2015

USFWS. 2012. Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/MSO/2012MSO_Recovery_ Plan_First_Revision_Final.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015.

USFWS. 2015. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Environmental Conservation Online System. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q2WA. Accessed January 9, 2015.

11. PREPARER This EA and the associated FONSI was prepared by Ms. Rebecca Podkowka, Environmental Resource Specialist. The address of the preparer is: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District; PM-AC, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Prepared By: ______Date: ______Rebecca Podkowka Environmental Resources Specialist

Reviewed By: ______Date: ______Dave Crane Environmental Resources Specialist

Approved By: ______Date: ______Eric Laux Chief, Environmental Resources and Missouri River Recovery Program Plan Formulation Section

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement 33 December 2015

Appendix A

Agency Coordination

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

~ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Colorado Field Office P.O. Box 25486, DFC (65412) Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 IN REPLY REFER TO: ES/CO: T &E I IPaC TAILS: 06E24000-2015-TA-0956 SEP 2 9 2015

\ Mr. Eric Laux U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District 1616 Capitol A venue Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4901

Dear Mr. Laux:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your August 19, 2015, letter regarding the proposed Schriever Air Force Base Channel Improvements Project (Project), located in El Paso County, Colorado. These initial comments have been prepared under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4327).

In your August 19, 2015, letter you requested the Service's comments for your use in preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. We suggest that you complete a Threatened and Endangered (T &E) species assessment to determine if your project would affect federally listed species, including species potentially affected locally in Colorado as well as those associated downstream with the Platte River system in Nebraska. To begin your assessment of potential impacts from the Project, you can immediately generate a species list by going to the Service's Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipacL). This link will take you to the home page, which has general information about IPaC. Click on the Initial Project Scoping link and use the step-by-step process to identify your project location and type, and to obtain a species list. We encourage you to use the new IPaC system to obtain a species list; please contact this office us if you have any questions or encounter any problems.

Federal agency actions resulting in existing or new water depletions to the Platte River system may affect the endangered whooping crane (Grus americana), endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus), endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus a/bus), threatened western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), and designated critical habitat for the whooping crane in the central Platte River in Nebraska. Project elements that could be associated with depletions to the Platte River system include, but are not limited to, ditches, ponds and associated evaporative losses (detention/recreation/irrigation storage), lakes (recreation/irrigation storage/municipal Page2 storage/power generation), reservoirs (recreation/ irrigation storage/municipal storage/power generation), pipelines, wells, diversion structures, water supply and water/wastewater treatment facilities, water use for wind energy and for oil and gas development.

If you determine that there are depletions associated with the project, you should request initiation of formal section 7 consultation in a letter to this office. A request for initiation of formal section 7 consultation on water-related projects associated with depletions to the central Platte River should include a complete project description including water-related project elements, origin of water associated with the proposed project, and the nature and estimated amount of water use under build-out conditions.

When you have completed your T &E species assessment for the Project, we will be happy to provide our further assistance. If a formal section 7 consultation is required, we will make every effort to accommodate the applicant's schedules to prevent project delays. If your office or the applicant would like to discuss the proposed project in relation to depletions to the Platte River system, please contact Sandy Vana-Miller in this office at (303) 236-4748.

Sincerely, 6ltc~ Drue L. DeBerry Acting Colorado Field Supervisor cc: FWSR6/ES/LK, S. Vana-Miller From: Barnum, Sandra V NWO To: Bozarth, Rebecca L NWO Subject: RE: Schriever AFB Cultural Resources (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:22:36 AM

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Hi Becca, I have reviewed the information provided for the proposed box culvert/security gate replacements and perimeter fence/road upgrades near said culverts at Shriever AFB in El Paso County, Montana. A series of cultural resource surveys of the base was completed in 1992. No eligible properties were discovered. A Cold War Era survey was completed in 1997. The proposed work involves the replacement/upgrade of inadequate recent structures (less than 10 years old). As the work consists of direct replacement of existing construction in previously cleared APEs, I believe that the project as described will have No Potential to Affect Historic Properties. Recommend project approval.

Should the scope of this work change in any way, please contact this office for further review.

Thanks, Sandy

Sandra V. Barnum, RPA District Archeologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CENWO-PM-AB 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102 (402) 995-2674

-----Original Message----- From: Bozarth, Rebecca L NWO Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 8:04 AM To: Barnum, Sandra V NWO Subject: Schriever AFB Cultural Resources (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Sandy,

For Schriever AFB Cultural Resources check, there is proposed improvements on two ephemeral stormwater retention channels and associated water control structures. It seems the base is leaning towards complete removal of existing culverts (2) and replacement, that would be the major extent of the potential action. If you require more information or shapefiles I can get those to you.

Section 6.12 is the Cultural Resource Protection Section of the Base Management Plan (which appears to be reviewed last in 2013). This section is on page 65 of 109. This is the existing information I have about potential past clearance of cultural resources. Is this sufficient or do you think we need to do something a bit more in depth, our own file search?

Thank you for your help!

Rebecca Bozarth Environmental Resource Specialist 402-995-2677 CENWO-PM-AC 1616 Capital Avenue Omaha, NE 68102

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE CENWO-ED-HB 10 November 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR CENWO-PM-AC (PODKOWKA)

SUBJECT: Executive Order 11988 Compliance Memo for Schriever Air Force Base drainage channel improvements

1. The Omaha District Flood Risk and Floodplain Management Section (FRFM) is responsible for coordinating the compliance with the requirements of Executive Order 11988 (Flood Plain Management). FRFM has reviewed the proposed construction and has found it to be in compliance with E011988. Additional documentation supporting the EO 11988 compliance is provided in the comments below.

2. Executive Order 11988 is applicable to all planning, design, construction civil works projects, activities under the operation and maintenance program, and to real estate program (ER 1165-2-26).

3. Corps of Engineers Engineer Regulation (ER) 1165-2-26, Implementation of Executive Order 11988 on Flood Plain Management provides guidance on compliance with E011988. The following comments are provided in reference to ER 1165-2-26 Section 8 General Procedures:

a. Determine if the proposed action is in the base flood plain. The project is located in El Paso County, Colorado which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The project is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 08041C0800 located within a Zone X area, outside of the base floodplain area.

b. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to the action or to location of the action. The project's purpose is to eliminate future flood damages to the security fencing surrounding the Schriever Air Force Base. Proposed project preferred alternative includes demolition of the existing culverts to the West and East channels and installing new culverts designed to handle the 50-year flood event conditions. As such the project is functionally dependent on its location.

c. Advise the general public in the affected area and obtain their views and comments. Due to the project being located outside of the base floodplain area, public notice is not required.

d. Identify beneficial and adverse impacts due to the action. No hydraulic analysis is provided with the documentation; therefore, the hydraulic impacts of the proposed actions cannot be fully determined. However, the project's location outside of the base floodplain indicates the project would have minimal flood risk impacts.

Printed on® Recyded Paper CENWO-ED-HB SUBJECT: Executive Order 11988 Compliance Memo for Schriever Air Force Base drainage channel improvements

e. Identify the potential for the project to induce development in the base floodplain. The proposed project is not expected to alter local zoning. As such, the project would not likely induce development in the base floodplain.

f. Determine viable methods to minimize any adverse impacts. The project location outside of the base floodplain area indicated impacts are negligible and no mitigation is necessary.

4. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact Ms. Traci Tylski at (402) 995-2325.

TONY D. KRAUSE, P.E., CFM Acting Chief, Flood Risk and Floodplain Management Section Hydrologic Engineering Branch Engineering Division DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND

13 Jun 12

MEMORANDUM FOR 50 CES/CC

FROM: HQ AFSPC/A7AQ 150 Vandenberg Street, Suite 1105 Peterson AFB, CO 80914-4230

SUBJECT: Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) Waiver for Schriever AFB (SAFB) CO

1. DoDI4715.16 and AFI 32-7065 require ICRMPs to be prepared for all military installations having cultural resources. SAFB has had numerous studies done to identify cultural resources (historic properties and archaeological resources) and all have demonstrated that SAFB has no cultural resources. Therefore, SAFB is exempt from having to prepare and implement an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan at this time.

2. Even though SAFB is not required to develop or implement an ICRMP, certain activities will still need to be completed to ensure compliance with Federal Law. Following is a list of these requirements.

a. Complete Native American consultation(s). If there are interested tribes, develop and implement a Comprehensive Agreement with them regarding Tribal access, privacy and information sharing, and inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains and cultural items.

b. Ensure that any inadvertent discoveries follow the procedures outlined in Section 3.9 of AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management Program.

c. Evaluate your facilities for eligibility in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR Part 60.

3. In order to comply with AFI 32-7065 you are required to appoint, in writing, a Cultural Resources Manager.

4. This memo supersedes MEMORANDUM for 50 CES/CC SUBJECT: ICRMP Waiver for SAFB CO dated 27 Jan 10.

5. If you have any questions contact me at DSN 692-9812, E-mail [email protected].

a --/~ -RONAL~ES~ER , GS-14, DAFC Chief, Environmental Quality Branch

GUARDIANS OF THE HIGH FRONTIER DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 50TH SPACE WING (AFSPC)

JUL 1 6 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

FROM: 50 CES/CE-2

SUBJECT: Inadvertent Discoveries of Archaeological Objects or Nati ve American Human Remains and Cultural Items

I. SAFB has had numerous studies done to identify cultural resources (historic properties and archaeological resources) and al l have demonstrated that SAFB has no cultural resources. Therefo re, SAFB is exempt from having to prepare and implement an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan at this time. But, all undertakings that disturb the ground surface have the potential to discover buri ed and previously unknown archaeological deposits or human remains.

2. Specific procedures to follow in the event of an inadvertent discovery are contained in Section 3.9 of AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources Management Program. At a minimum, when cultural resources are discovered during construction or ground-disturbing activities, the fo llowing steps will be taken:

a. Step I: Work shall cease immediately in the area of the discovery;

b. Step 2: Immediately fo llowing the discovery, notify the installation Cultural Resource Manager (CRM);

c. Step 3: The CR..i\1 or a professional archaeologist shall make a fi eld evaluation of the context of the deposit and its probable age and significance and notify approptiate Base leadership. The CRM will also notify the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies;

d. Step 4: Resumption of the activity may only occur upon noti fication from the CRM after all local, state, and federal requirements are met.

3. Appropriate verbiage shall be included in all contracts and/or CE operations that have ground disturbing actions associated with them. The CR..i\11 shall be notified when such activity commences so oversight responsibilities can be accomplished.

MASTER OF SPACE 4. Please ensure widest dissemination to your action officers. Should you have any questions regarding these instructions, please contact the CRM, Mr. Andrew Jensen, 50 CES/CEAN, at DSN 560-3360 or email [email protected].

DISTRIBUTION LIST:

50 SW/CC 50 SW/CP 50 SWIDS 50 SW/XP 50MSG/CC 50NOG/CC 50 00/CC 50 CONS/CC MDAIIC SIDC/CC 310 SW/CC Appendix B Jurisdictional Determination

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTHERN COLORADO REGULATORY OFFICE 200 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE, SUITE 301 PUEBLO, COLORADO 81003-4270 REPLY TO \TIENTION OF

CESPA-RD-SC {l200A) 27 June 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander USAF (50 SW/CC/Colonel James P. Ross), 210 Falcon Parkway, Suite 2101, Schriever AFB, Colorado 80912-2101

SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Determination - Action No. SPA-20 13-00271-SCO, Geographic Jurisdictional Determination, Waters and Wetlands on Schriever Air Force Base, El Paso County, Colorado

I. lam writing this memorandum in response to your request for a jurisdictional determination for Schriever Air Force Base located in El Paso County, Colorado. We have assigned Action No. SPA-20 13- 00271-SCO to this request. Please reference this number in all future correspondence concerning the project.

2. Based on the information provided, we have determined that Schriever Air Force Base contains no jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States. The Corps based this decision on an approved jurisdictional determination (JD). The .I D form is available at http://www .spa.usace.army.m i 1/M issions/Regu latoryProgramandPerm its/ J D.aspx. This approved J D is val id for a period of no more than five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision ofthe detennination before the expiration date.

3. You may accept or appeal this attached approved JD or provide new information in accordance with the attached Notification of Administration Appeal Options and Process and Request for Appeal (NAAOP-RFA). If you elect to appeal this approved JD, you must complete Section II of the form and return it to the Army Engineer Division, South Pacific, CESPD-PDS-0, Attn: Tom Cavanaugh, Administrative Appeal Review Officer, 1455 Market Street, Room 1760, San Francisco, CA 94 .I 03-1 399 within 60 days of the date of this notice. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date ofthis notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.

4. Copy furnished via email to Andrew Jensen, Schriever Air Force Base, [email protected]. If you have any questions, please contact Christopher Grosso at 719-543-8102 or by e-mail at [email protected]. At your convenience, pie se complete a Customer Service Survey on-line available at htt :// er2.nw .usace.arm .mil/surve tml.

En cis Van A. Truan Chief, Southern Colorado Regulatory Branch t\I'PRO\'ED JllRISDI CTIOi\AL OETERMI NATION FORM ti.S. Army Corp of Engineers rhis form should be completed by following the instructiMS pro.,Jdcd in Section IV of the Jl) Form Instructional Guidebool-.

SECTIO I: BACKGROliNI) INFORM ATION A. REPORT COMPLETION OATF. FOR APPROVEO .JURI SDI CTIONA L DETERMINATION (JD): June 13,2013

B. OISTRICT OFFICE. FILE NA M£, AND NU MB ER: Albuq uerque District, Schriever Air Force Base (,\f'B), SPA-20 13-00271- SlO

C. PROJECT LOCATION AN D llACKGROtJ '0 INFOR 1ATION: State. Colorado Count)fparishlborough: El J>cc o County Cit). Colorado Springs Center coordinates of 1tc (latllong m degree decimal format). l.al. 38 80239° N. Long. -104.5 1615° ~ - Uni.,ersal Transverse Mercator· Name of nearest waterbody: Unn amed ephemeral drainages. playas, and depressional wetlands. Name of nearest Traditional Na.,igable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource nows: Aquatic resource does not llow into a TNW. Name of watershed or llyd ro logJC Unit Code (HUC): Three lll JC 12 occur within the AFB including II 0200040302 (U nnamed). II 0200040205 (Unnamed). and II 0200040203 (Falcon). 181 Check if map/diagram of reviC\\ area and/or poh:ntJal jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. 0 Check if other s ite~ (e.g .. onsite nntigation sites. dtsposal SJtes. etc ... ) are associated \\ ith thi s action :md are recorded on a dJITerem JD form.

D. RE\"lE\V PERFORMED FOR ITE EVA LUATIO (CII ECK ALL T HAT APPL' ): 1:81 Office (Desk) Determination. Date: June 13, 201 3. 0 Field DetemlinatJOJL Datc(s):

SF:CTIO II: SUI\tMARV OF FI NDI GS >\. RIIA SECTION 10 O ETE I ~M I NATION OF JtiRISOICTION.

There Are no '·navigable waters oj the U.S ., within Rivers and Harbors Act (Ril l\) jurisdiction (us d<·fi ncd by 33 CFR part 329) in the review :1 rca. [Required] D Waters subject to the ebb and 00\\ or the tide. 0 \\ aters arc present I)' used. or have been used in the p&l. or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or fore1gn commerce. Explaon:

B. C\\ \ SECT I O~ ~0~ DET ERI\1 1 ATIO OF JlRISDICTIO .

I here Are. D<1 "waters oj the U.S.•. 1\ ithin Ck·an Water Act (CWA) juri~dirt ton (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. rReqwred)

I. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presenre ofwlltcrs of U.S. in review area (chcrk nil that RJlllly): 1 D TNW~. includmg tc.rritorial seas 0 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs 0 Relat1vel)' permanent wate rs~ (RPWs) that llow directly or indirectly into TNWs D Non-RPWs that now directly or indirectly into TNWs 0 Wetlands d1rectl)' abut1ing RPWs that now d1rec tl) or mdircetly into TNWs 0 Wetlands adjacent to but not directl} abu lting RPW-; that l1o11 d1rectly or indirectI) mto TN W.; 0 Wetlands adJacent to non-RPWs that no'" directl} or md1rectly into TNWs 0 Impoundments ufjuri~dJctional \Vdtcr<; ·0 Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters. includ mg ISolated wetlands

b. Identify (c~ timate ) ~ i zc ofl' aters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: linea r feet: width (f\) and/or acres. Wetl:mds: acres.

c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdi ction based on: ~.i$ k Lil!t Elevation of established OHINM (if known):

2. on-reg ulated" aters/" etl:wds (check if applil.'able):J

' Bu:-.e~ checked belo'' ~hall be supponcd h) complettng the appropnate scctmns 111 Sectton Ill below. For purposes of th•s torm , an RPW 1s defined ns a tnbutary thm is not a TNW and that iypJcall)' flows year-round or ha ~ ~;ont inuous tlo" at le~t '·seasonally" (c g typtcally 3 months} ' Supponing documentat ton ~ ~ prt>~e ntrd 111 Sel'tton Ill F 181 PoterHia lly jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not Jurisdictional. Explain: Two ephemeral rhannels, three lllayas, and two wetland areas within Srhrie,·er Afll were re,•iewed a nd determined to be isolated, SECTION Ill: C \VA A NALYSIS

A. T Ws AND W ETLANDS ADJAC ENT TO TNWs

T he agencies \\ ill assert jurisdiction over T NWs and \\etlnnds adjacent to T NWs. If the aquatic rcsourre is a T~W . complete Sertion III.A. I and Section Ill. D. I. on I~ ; if the aquatic resource is a \Hiland adjacent to a T NW , complete Sections III.A.I a nd 2 and Sertion III.D. I.; othernise, set rction III.B belo\\ .

I. T 'W ldent1fy TNW:

Surnmari.t.e rationale supporting determination.

2. \\ etla nd a djacent to T NW Summarin rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is ··adjacent"":

B. C H ARACTERIST ICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS AOJ.\CENT WETLAN DS (IF ANY):

T his section s ummarizes information regarding r ha rJctcri~ties of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any. and it helps d etermine whether or not the st:mdards for jurisdiction es tabli~hed under R:~pnno.' hne been met.

The ageo c i e~ ''ill assert juris diction O\er non-navigable tributa ries ofT!'\W s "hert the tributaries art" relath ely per maornt "ate~" ( RP\Vs). i.e. tributaries thultypirally flow year-round or hal'e contin uous flow at least seasonal!) (e.g., typical!) J months). A ""tland that directly a huts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a T N\\-. hut has year- round (perennial) flow, skip to Section 111.0.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, s kip to Scrtion 111.0.4.

1-\ nelland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus cva lu :~t i on. Corps dis trict ~ and EPA regt ons " ill include in the record any available in formation that documcnb the existence oh significant nexus betwcrn a relativ·ely perma nent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent \\etlands if any) and a traditional na' igable water, CH' n though a ~ ignifi ca nt nexus finding is not required as a matter of lau.

If the n :llcrhodl is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JO will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexub '~ilh n TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the signifirant nexus el':t luation mu ~ t consider the tributat·y in rombination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines. for analytical rurpo ~ cb, the tribut:try :tnt.l all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the re\'iew a rea itJ entiiied in the JO r equest is the tributa ry, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JO co\Crs a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section 111.8.1 for t ht tributar), ection 111.8.2 for an) onsitc wetlands, and Section 111.8.3 for a ll \\Ctlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsitt' and ofTsitc. The determination" hether a significant ne~u s u ists is dettrmined in St'ction III.C below.

I. C haracteristics of non-TN\Vs that flo" directly or indirectly into T NW

(i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: P ick List Drainage area: J'ie ~LI,I Average annual rainfall: inche~ Average annual snowf.'lll inches

(ii ) Physical C haracieristics: (a) Relatio nship wi th TNW: 0 Tributary flows directly into 1NW. 0 Tributary flows through 'P~lJ$1 u 1butaries beibre ent ering TNW

Project waters arc rick l.is river miles frorn I W. Project waters are Pick List nver rmlc~ from RPW. ProJect waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project \\atcrs arc Pick List aerial (straight) miles fro m RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boun dan cs. Explain:

Identify now route to TNW~: Tributary stream order, if known:

• NOte that the Instructional GUJdeboot.. coot.ams addiuonal mfonnation regardmg S\\..plain:

Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average wtdth: leet Avernge depth: feet Average side slopes: P~!.

Primary tributary substrate composition (ched. all that apply): 0 Silts 0 Sands 0 Concrete 0 Cobbles 0 Gravel 0Muck 0 Bedrock 0 Vegetation. TypcJO/o cover: 0 Other. Explain.

Tributary condition/stability Le.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Exp lain: Presence or run/ri file/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: PFllr'~ Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %

(c) Flow: Tributary provides for· Pkk ii Estimate average number of flow events in revtew area/year: l'lck LiS! Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume:

Surface llow is: f l c~.iiJ. . Characteristics:

Subsurface flow: lliliJ Exp lain fi ndings: 0 Dye (or other) test performed:

Tributary has (check all that apply): 0 Bed and banks 0 OIIWM 6 (check all indicators that apply): 0 clear. natural line impressed on the bank 0 the presence ofliner and debris 0 changes in the character of soil 0 destruction of terrestrial \Cgctation 0 shelving 0 the presence of wrack line 0 vegetation maned down, bent, or absent 0 sediment sorting 0 leaf litter disturbed or washed away 0 scour 0 sediment deposition 0 mu lt iple observed or predicted llow events 0 water staining 0 abrupt change in plant community 0 olher (list): 0 Discontinuous OI IWM.1 Explain:

If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent ofCWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): D High Tide I inc indicated by: 0 Mean High Water Mark indicated by: 0 oil or scum line along shore objects - 0 surve} to a\ a.ilable datum; 0 fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) 0 physical markings; 0 phystcal markings/characteristics 0 vegetation lines/changes in vegetation I} pes. 0 tidal gauges 0 other (list):

(iii) Chemi cal Chnracterislks: Characterize tributary (e.g .• water color is clear, discolored, oily 111m; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.) Explain: Identi tY ~pecific pollutants. if known:

'·A natuml or man-made disconununy m the OHWM does not necessanly sever Jun:.dlct ton (c g , where the stream tcmporanly tlows und~rground . or where th<' OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices) Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody\ tluw reg1me tr g , flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies wtl l look tor mdicators of flow above and below the break ' tbtd (h) Biological C haractcri~tic s. C hannel supports (check all that apply): 0 Riparian corridor Characteristics (type. average ''1dth) · 0 Wetland fringe. Characteristics: 0 Habitat for: 0 rcdcrally L.1stcd species. Explain findings: 0 Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: 0 Other environmentally-sensiti ve spct'ics. Explai n findings: 0 Aq uaticlwildli ll! diverslt). Exp lain findings:

2. Characteristics or wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that no\\ directly or indirectly into TNW

(i) Physical Characteristic!>: (a) General Wetland Characteristics· Properties: Wetland site: acres Wetland t)'pC. Explain: Wet land quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundancs. Exp lain:

(b) General Flow Relationship wi th Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick Liilt. Explom:

Surface no\\ IS: fick Li't Characten t1cs·

Subsurface now rick Lis . Explain find ings: 0 Dye (or other) test performed:

(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-1NW: D Directly abutting D Not directly abutting 0 Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. ExplM in· 0 Ecolugical connection. Explain: D Separated b) berm/barrier. Explain:

(d) Proximit\' (Relationship) to TN\\ Project \\Ctt:mds Uri! ,J>ick Li$t river mile~ from TNW ProJect watel'> are Piek List aerial (stra1ght ) miles from rN\V Flow is from· :Pick List. Estimate appro-cimate location of "'etland as within the Pick U${ floodplain.

(ii) Chemical C haractHistics: Characterize wei land systen1 (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surtace; water quality; general '~atcrshed characteristics; etc.) Explain: Identify specilic pnllutllnts. 1fknown:

(iii) Biological Chaructcristics. Wetland s upports (check all that apply): 0 Riparian buffer. Ch.tractcristics (type. a"erage "idth): 0 Vegetation t) pclpcrccnt cover. Explain: D l-lab1tat for. 0 Federall) Ltsted specie~. Explain findmgs: 0 Fish/spawn areas. E\plain findings: 0 Other environmentally-sensiti ve specie:.. F.\pl:un findmgs: 0 Aquaticlwildlilc diversity. Explain findings

3. CharactE'ristks of a ll wcllands adjacent to the tributnry (if:lnl:) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulati\c analysis: .rj~klJ!~~ Approximately ( ) acres in total are being wnsidercd in the cumulative analysis For each wetland, specify the following:

Directly abuts? !YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (YIN) Si7c (in acres)

Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:

C. SIG 'IF ICA '"I NEXUS DETERMINATION

A signifirant nnus analysis will assess the now cha raclt ristics and functions of the tributaf) itst lfand tht functions performed by any wctlunds a djacent to the tributary to determint if they significantly affect the chemical, physiral, and biologiral integrity of a T NW. For each of the following situations, a significa nt ne:J us exists ifthe tributary, in combin11tion with all ofib udjacent Wl."tland s. h:1s more than a SflCculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, 11hysieal and/ or biologicul integrity of a 'I NW. Considerations when !."valuating significant nuus inrlude. but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the now of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adja~~ cnt wetlands. II i) not a ppropriatr to determine signifirant nu us based solely on a ny specific threshold of d istance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjarent wetland or between a tributary and the T "'W). Similarly. the fact an adjacent \tctland lies'' ithin or outs ide of a n oodplain is not solely determinatil'e of significant nexus.

Ora\\ ronnt'<'tions between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapa11os Guida nrc and discussed in the Instructional G uidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in c,ombination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry poll utMts or llood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or llood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary. in combination with its adjaet:nt wetlands (if any). provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for tish and other specaes. such as feeding. nesting. spawning. or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tnbutllr)', in combination wnh its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacil) to transfer nutnents and orgamc carbon that support downstream food,,ebs? • Does the tributary. in combination with its adjacent '~et l ands (if any), have other relationships to the physical. chemical, or biological integrity of the TN W?

ott': the abo,·e list of considerations is not inclusive a nd other functions obscn •cd or known to occur s hould be documented below:

I. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands a nd no"s directly or indircclly into T 'W s. Ell.plain iindangs of presence or absence of significant nexus helow, based on the tribut:u; itself, then go to Section Ill 0 :

2. Signifirant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjarenl "ellands, where the non-RPW nows directly or indi•·ectl)' into T NW s. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant n~xu s below, based on the tr ibutary iu combination with all c,r 11:; adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:

3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but thai do not directly abut the RI' W . Explain findings of presenc.: or absence of significant nexus belov., based on the tributary in combination with all of its adJaCent \\ctlands. then go to Sect1on III.D:

D. DETERMINATIONS OF JLIRIS J>I CTIONAL FINlUNCS. TilE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CII ECK ALl. THAT AI' PL Y):

I. TNWs li nd Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size e~limale) in review area: 0 f'NWs. linear feet width (ft), Or. acres. 0 \Vetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.

2. RJ>W s thnt flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. 0 Tributaries ofTNWs where tributaries typicall y llow year-round are j uri sdictional. Provide dot::t ami r:ationale indicating th at trib utary is perennial: 0 Tributaries o fTNW where tributaries have continuous llow •·seasonally'' (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section 111.13. Provide rationale mdicating that tributary flows seasonally: Prov1de e ·tmldles for junsd1ctional waters in the review area (check all that apply): 0 Tributary '~ate~ . linear feet width (fl) 0 Other non·\\etland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters:

3. Non-RPWs8 th11t nuw dirc,·tly or indirectly into TNWs. Cl Waterbody that is not a 'JNW or an RP W. but nows direetl) or ind irectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nex us wi th a TN W is j urisdictional. Data supporting this co nclusion i~ provided at Section Ill. C.

Provide estimates lor jurisdictional waters within the rev iew area (check all that apply)· 0 Trihutary waters linear feet width (tt). 0 Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify typc(s) of waters:

4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW thai flow directly or indirectly in to TNWs. 0 Wetlands d 1rectly nhut RPW and thus are jurisdictional os adjacent wetlands. 0 Wetlands di rl!ctly ahuHi ng an RPW where tribu taries typ1ca ll y now year-round. Prov ide dllta and rationale indicat ing that tributary ig perennial in Sectio n 11 1.11.2. above. Provide rationale indicatmg thnt wetland is dir.:ctly abutting an RP W:

0 Wetlands directly ahu ning an RPW where tributurie~ typtcall y flow •·seasonally." Provide data indicati ng that tributar) i · seasonal in ection Ill Rand rationale in Sect1on lii.D 2, above Provide rationale mdicaung that we tland is directly abuning an RP\\

Pro' ide acreage cst1matcs lor turisdictional "etlands m the review area. acres

S. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutling an RI'W that now directly or indirectly into TN W~ . 0 Wetlands th at do not directly abut an RPW. but when co nsidered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated acljace nt wetl ands. have a s•gntfkant nex us with a 1NW are j urisid ictiona l. Data supportin g this conclusion is proviucd nt S\:ction II I.C.

Provide acreage estimates for junsdict1onal wetlands in the rev1cw area: acres.

6. \\ etlands adjacent to non-RrWs that flow directly or indircclly into T \Vs. 0 Wetlands adjacent to such "aters, and have when considered in combmation w1th the tributary 10 which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adJaCent wetlands, have a signilicantncxus wi th a TNW are jurisd ictional. Data supponing th1s conclusion is provided at Srction lii.C.

Provide estimates for j urisdictio nal wetl ands in the rcv1ew area: acres.

7. Impoundments or j urisdicti onnl waters.9 As :.1 general ru le, the impoundment of a jurisdiction :.JI triburary remain s j uri sdictional. 0 Demonstrate thlll1mpoundment was created from ''waters of the U.S.. " or 0 Demonstrat.- that water meets the criteria lor one of rhc categories presented above t 1-6). or 0 Demonstrate that water rs isolated with a nexus to commerce (sec E below).

E. ISOLATED I I ~TERSTAT E O R 1:-.ITRA-ST -HEJ \VAT Ell , INCL DING ISOLATED W ETLANDS. TilE US E, DEGRADATIO ' OR DES IIW CTION OF WHIC H COUL D AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, I NCL UDING ' SUCII WATERS (CIIECK ALL TI-IAT APPL.Y):10 bJ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign tra~e lers for r.:creational or other rurposes. 0 from which lish or shellfish are or coul d be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. 0 wh ich are or could be used lor industrial purposes by i n d u ~ tr ics in inrcrstate commerce. 0 lnlcrstatc isolated wu tc r~ . r.xp laill' 0 Other factors. Explain:

I denti f) water body and summarize rationale supporting determinntion:

' CC ~ OOillOIC # 3. • To cumplrtc the analysis retcr to the l..cy m cctton Ill 0 .6 of the- lnwucll~lnal GUJdehook 10 Prior to •~srrt i ng or dtrlining CWA jurisdiction bas~d so l ~ ly on this caregory, Corps Districts will elevate lh t artion ro Corps and EPA HQ fo r rtvit" co nsistent with the process dtsr ribtd in lhr Corps/E PA M l'mOrtllllfllm Regarding CWA A ct Jurisdictio11 Following Raptmos. Provide .:stimates tor jurisdictiOnal waters in the review area (check all that apply): rributary waters: linear feet width (tl). 8 Other non-wetland wnters: acres. ldentil)' rype(s) of waters: 0 · Wetlands: acres.

F. NO'I-J l'RI SDIC rtONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLAN DS (CI-f ECK ALL T HAT APPLY): 0 If potential 1vctlands \\ere assessed ~~tithin the revie" area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineer<; Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. 181 Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce 0 Prior to the Jan 2001 upreme Court decision in ..SWA NCC;' the review area would have been regulated based solelv on the "Migratory Hird Ru le" (MBR) . .0 Waters do nor meet the .. Signilicant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction Explain: 0 Other: (explain, if nor coven.:d above):

Pro vide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review <:~rea. where the sole potential b:l))is ofjurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence ofendangered species. use of water for irrigated ngricuhurc), using best profcss1onal ~gment (check all that apply): U Non-wetland waters (i.e .• nvcrs, streams): linear feet \l~dth (ft). 0 Lakes/ponds: acres. 0 Other non-wetland wate rs· acres. List type of aquatic resource: 0 Wetlands: acres.

Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the r.:view area that do not meet the ..Significru11 Nexus'' standard. where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): IJ Non-wetland waters (i.e .. rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft) . .0 Lakes/ponds: acres. 0 Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aq uatic resource: 0 Wetlands: acres.

SEC rtO ' IV: DATA SOURCES.

A. SUPPORTING DATA. Dllta reviewed for J O (check a ll that apply- checked items shall be included in case file and, where checJ...cd ru1d requested. appropriately reference sources below): ~ Maps, plans. plots or plat submitted by or on behalf oft he npplicantlconsultant: Schriever AFB personnel provided hi storical Jata concerning assessment of wetlands on the property including a Corps document titled Wet lands Re-examination Schriever 1\ FB completed in 200 I and a Jurisdictional Determination completed by URS Corporation (not submitted to Corps) tor Schrie' er AFB completed in 2006. 0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the 3pplicant/consultant. 0 omc.: concurs with data sheets/delineation report. 0 Oflice does not concur with data sheets/delineation repon . .0 Data sheets prepared by the Corps: 0 Corps navigable waters' study: ~ U.S. Geological Survey llydrologic Atlas: 110200040302 (Unnamed). II 0200040205 (Unnamed), and II 0200040203 (falcon) 0 USGS Nl-10 data [81 USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. 181 U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: I :24k. CO-CORRAL BLUFFS 0 USDA Natur:tl Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: 181 National wet lands inventory map(s). Cite name: US Fish and Wi ldlife Service, Nat ional Wetlands Inventory. National Wetlands Mapper, Schriever AFB, 2011. .0 Statc/Local wetland inventory map(s): 0 FEMNFIRM maps: Q I 00-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodeetic Vertical Datum of 1929) l8l Photographs: [81 Aerial (Name & Date): Google Eanh Pro 2012. Bing Maps Hybrid 2012, US Fish and Wildlife Service 20 II or 181 Other (Name & Date): ESRJ StreetMap US/\ 2005, Common Installation Picture Schriever AFB 2013. 0 Previous detenninat1on(s). File no. and date of response letter. 0 App!icablelsupporting case Ia~' : 0 Applicable/supporting SCientific literature: 0 Other information (please specify): B. AOOITIOi'iAL COMMI<.Nl S TO SUPPORT JO:

A complo.:te \\atershcd review nfthe reg1on centered on Schriever A1r ~orcc !lase (AFB) was completed as pan of this Jurisdictional Determination. TI1e followmg comments arc the result of that review:

Several small depressional wetl ands wen: identified on the AF B th at were not included in this analysis dut: to their limited si..:e and s1gns of up land succession and drying ovcr time due to current hyd rology and historical drought trends.

Pers1~tent water features that occur on the site and were analyzed further~~~ pa rt of this determination include two ephemeral drainages. three playas. and two \\etlands. All of these features are identifitld as part of the broader drainage system that makcs up Hydrologic Unit Code 12. 110200040302 (Unnamed) The playa~ and wetlands arc isolated and do not connect to the two ephemeral channels. These two channels run in a southerly d1rection ofTofthc AfO property for approximate!) 2.5 miles. Although still within the same llyd rological Un it Code. these drainages lose their defined bed and bank and phase into indefinite O\.'Crland sheet now with no downstream connection to drainage~ or water li:aturcs considered Traditional Navigable Waterways. Map location Latitude 38 7437 N. Longitude -I 04 5087 C shows the location of the d1scontinous channel (overland sheet nnw/upland vegetated swale) that sepcrates the channels on the AFU from the n

ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pennit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the DISTRICT ENGINEER for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP). you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Pennit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal rhe permit, including its terms and condittons, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.

OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Stnndard or LOP) because of certain terms and cond itions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received b) the DISTRICT ENGINEER within 60 days ofthe date of this notice, or you \\ill forteit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your lener, the DISTRICT ENGINEER will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modifY the permit to address all of your concems, (b) modify the permit to address some of)'our objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the DISTRICT ENG INEER will send you a proffered permit for yo ur reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.

B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the pennit

ACCEPT: If you recei\ed a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the DISTRICT ENGINEER for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Perm ission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Pcn11it or acceptance of the LOP means thilt you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.

APPEAL: If you choose to dec Iine the profTered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein. )'OU may appeal the declined pem1it under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the DIVISION (not district) ENGINEER (address on reverse). This fon11 must be received by the DIVISION ENGINEER within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this fom1 and sending the torm to the DIVISION (not district) ENG INEER. This form must be received by the DIVISION (not district) ENGINEER within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or pro\'ide new information.

ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety. and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.

APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the DIVISION (not district) ENGINEER (address on reverse). This form must be received by the DI VISION ENGINEER within 60 days of the date of this notice. Exception: JD appeals based on new information must be submitted to the DISTRICT ENGINEER within 60 days of the date of this notice.

EXCEPTION: Appeals of Approved Jurisdictional Determinations based on new information must be submitted to the District engineer within 60 of the date of this notice. E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUESTPOR APPEAL ~or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERNUT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your object1ons to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional in formation to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFOR MATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review oflicer has determined is needed to clarity the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT f@._QUESTlONSDR INFQRJVJ.A:f!Q.N: ..... ~- ' f yo u have questions regarding th is decision and/or the If you only have quest ions regarding the appeal process you may also appeal process you may contact: contact: DISTRICT ENGINEER DIVISION ENG INEER Albuquerque District. Corps of Engineers Army Engineer Division, South Pacific, CESPD-PDS-0, 20428 Attn: CESPA-RD, Regulatory Division Attn: Tom Cavanaugh, Administrative Appeal Review Ofticer 4 I 0 I Jefferson Plaza N E 1455 Market Street, Room 1760 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 109-3435 San Francisco. CA 94 I03-1399 505-342-3282 Phone: 4 15-503-6574, Fax : 415-503-6646 Thomas.i .cavanau [email protected] v. m if RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations ofthe project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

Date: Telephone number:

Signature of appellant or agent. Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information, Planning and Conservation System Resources Report

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 134 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 670 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 PHONE: (303)236-4773 FAX: (303)236-4005 URL: www.fws.gov/coloradoES; www.fws.gov/platteriver

Consultation Code: 06E24000-2015-SLI-0938 August 19, 2015 Event Code: 06E24000-2015-E-01438 Project Name: Schriever Air Force Base

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Schriever Air Force Base

Official Species List

Provided by: Colorado Ecological Services Field Office DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25486 DENVER, CO 80225 (303) 236-4773 http://www.fws.gov/coloradoES http://www.fws.gov/platteriver

Consultation Code: 06E24000-2015-SLI-0938 Event Code: 06E24000-2015-E-01438

Project Type: LAND - DRAINAGE

Project Name: Schriever Air Force Base Project Description: The Corps is in the process of preparing an Environmental Assessment on behalf of the U.S. Air Force, Schriever Air Force Base (AFB) for proposed channel improvements on stormwater retention channels on Schriever AFB in El Paso County, Colorado.The proposed project is located on the two ephemeral stormwater retention channels, the âEast Channelâ and âWest Channelâ, and accompanying water control structures on the southern perimeter of the AFB. which serves to control stormwater flows on the AFB.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/19/2015 06:23 AM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Schriever Air Force Base

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-104.54435348510742 38.815636166608215, - 104.50907707214355 38.81570304301121, -104.5089054107666 38.7876763314208, - 104.54452514648436 38.787877039179456, -104.54435348510742 38.815636166608215)))

Project Counties: El Paso, CO

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/19/2015 06:23 AM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Schriever Air Force Base

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 10 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 5 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Endangered Water-related Population: interior pop. activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska.

Mexican Spotted owl (Strix Threatened Final designated occidentalis lucida) Population: Entire

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened Final designated Water-related Population: except Great Lakes watershed activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska.

Whooping crane (Grus americana) Endangered Final designated Water-related Population: except where EXPN activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/19/2015 06:23 AM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Schriever Air Force Base

species in Nebraska.

Fishes

Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragini) Candidate

Greenback Cutthroat trout Threatened (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) Population: Entire

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus Endangered Water-related albus) activities/use in the N. Population: Entire Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska.

Flowering Plants

Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes Threatened diluvialis)

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Threatened Water-related (Platanthera praeclara) activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska.

Mammals

Preble's meadow jumping mouse Threatened Final designated (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Population: U.S.A. (CO, WY)

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/19/2015 06:23 AM 4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Schriever Air Force Base

Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/19/2015 06:23 AM 5 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service My project IPaC Trust Resource Report Generated June 22, 2015 09:49 AM MDT IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM

US Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resource Report

Project Description

NAME My project

PROJECT CODE KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM

LOCATION El Paso County, Colorado

DESCRIPTION No description provided

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information Species in this report are managed by:

Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Denver Federal Center P.O. BOX 25486 Denver, CO 80225-486 (303) 236-4773

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 2 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the Endangered Species Program and should be considered as part of an effect analysis for this project. Birds Least Tern Sterna antillarum Endangered THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07N

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B074

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079

Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 3 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM

Fishes Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini Candidate CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06H

Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E00F

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06X Flowering Plants Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2WA

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara Threatened THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIES Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2YD Mammals Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species.

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0C2

Critical Habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) within the project area must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There is no critical habitat within this project area

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 4 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM Migratory Birds Birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Any activity which results in the take of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1). There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.

You are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations for the protection of birds as part of this project. This involves analyzing potential impacts and implementing appropriate conservation measures for all project activities.

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F3

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird of conservation concern Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HA

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0NC

Dickcissel Spiza americana Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0IX

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Bird of conservation concern Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06X

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Bird of conservation concern Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DV

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0IV

Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HQ

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Bird of conservation concern Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FY

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 5 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06S

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B078

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FU

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Bird of conservation concern Year-round https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0ER

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HR

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B070

Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0FX

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 6 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM Refuges Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. If your project overlaps or otherwise impacts a Refuge, please contact that Refuge to discuss the authorization process.

Refuge data is unavailable at this time.

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 7 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM Wetlands Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats from your project may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes.

Project proponents should discuss the relationship of these requirements to their project with the Regulatory Program of the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

DATA LIMITATIONS The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

DATA EXCLUSIONS Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

DATA PRECAUTIONS Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 8 Version 2.0.19 IPaC Trust Resource Report KJXSL-WUFEF-FBNDZ-GQIVS-QPXLMM

Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEMA 38 acres

Freshwater Pond PUSA 2.5 acres PUSC 0.265 acre

06/22/2015 09:49 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 9 Version 2.0.19 Appendix D Site Pictures

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

East Channel, looking north. Picture taken August 2015.

East Channel, looking south at the culvert. Picture taken August 2015.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

West Channel, looking north. Picture taken August 2015.

West Channel, looking south at culvert. Picture taken August 2015

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

Enoch Road culvert, looking south. Picture taken August 2015.

Flooding on the East Channel, note the southern perimeter road is overtopped and the security fencing been compromised. Picture taken July 2014.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

Outflow at the culvert on Enoch Road during a flood event. Picture taken July 2014.

Outflow at the culvert on the East Channel during a flood event. Picture taken July 2014.

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

Appendix E Design Maps

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015

Scaled Bobcat and 8 x 8 precast concrete culvert

Scaled drawing of Preferred Alternative

Environmental Assessment Schriever AFB Channel Improvement December 2015