U.S. Air Force Academy
Adventure-Based
United States Department of Experiential Learning Agriculture
Forest Service Final Environmental Assessment December 2019 Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest El Paso County, Colorado
Prepared by: HDR Inc. 5555 Tech Center Drive, Suite 310 Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2371
For More Information Contact: Oscar Martinez District Ranger 601 South Weber Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 477-4202 Email: [email protected]
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Table of Contents Common Abbreviations...... iii 1.0 Background ...... 1 1.1 Location of the Project Area ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 3 1.3 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3 1.4 Decision to be Made ...... 5 1.5 Public Involvement ...... 5 1.6 Issues ...... 6 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 8 2.1 Proposed Action ...... 8 2.1.1 ABEL Program Overview ...... 8 2.1.2 Proposed Action Description ...... 8 2.2 No Action Alternative ...... 14 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 14 2.3.1 Saylor Park ...... 15 2.3.2 Fort Carson...... 15 2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis ...... 17 3.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 18 3.1 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis ...... 18 3.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 18 3.3 Vegetation and Soils ...... 20 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 20 3.3.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...... 24 3.3.3 Alternative 2: No Action ...... 25 3.4 Wildlife ...... 25 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 25 3.4.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...... 29 3.4.3 Alternative 2: No Action ...... 31 3.5 Special Status Species ...... 31 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 31 3.5.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...... 40 3.5.3 Alternative 2: No Action ...... 43 3.6 Heritage Resources ...... 43 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 43 3.6.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...... 43 3.6.3 Alternative 2: No Action ...... 43 3.7 Recreation ...... 44 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 44
i U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
3.7.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action ...... 50 3.7.3 Alternative 2: No Action ...... 51 4.0 Effects Relative to the Finding of No Significance Elements ...... 52 4.1 Context ...... 52 4.2 Intensity ...... 52 5.0 References ...... 56 Appendix A. Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 63 Preparers and Contributors ...... 63 USDA Forest Service ...... 63 U.S. Air Force ...... 63 HDR – Contractor Support ...... 63 Federal State and Local Agencies ...... 64 Others ...... 64
List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed ABEL Project Area and Vicinity ...... 2 Figure 2. Pike National Forest Management Areas ...... 4 Figure 3. Project Area Trails and Waypoints ...... 9 Figure 4. ABEL Example Support Camp Location ...... 11 Figure 5. ABEL Program Alternative Locations ...... 16 Figure 6. Upper Monument Creek Vegetative Treatment Project Planning Areas ...... 20 Figure 7. Project Area Vegetation ...... 23 Figure 8. Mexican Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat in the Project Area .... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 9. National Forest System Roads and Trails in the Project Area Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 10. ROS Classes within the Project Area ...... 49
List of Tables Table 1. Vegetation Types in the Project Area ...... 22 Table 2. BCC Species that May Occur in the Project Area ...... 27 Table 3. Federally Listed Species Excluded from Further Evaluation ...... 32 Table 4. Federally Listed Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area ...... 33 Table 5. Mapped MSO Habitat Types within the Project Area ...... 35 Table 6. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species that Could Occur in the Project Area ...... 38 Table 7. ROS Classes in the Project Area...... 48
ii U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Common Abbreviations ABEL Adventure-Based Experiential Learning BCC bird of conservation concern BMP best management practice CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CSU Colorado Springs Utilities EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act ºF degrees Fahrenheit FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan GPS Global Positioning System IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation MA Management Area MIS management indicator species MSO Mexican spotted owl NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System PAC protected activity center PMJM Preble’s meadow jumping mouse RFSS Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum USAFA U.S. Air Force Academy USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
iii U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
1.0 Background The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service has received a proposal from the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) to conduct cadet leadership and risk management training, known as the Adventure-Based Experiential Learning (ABEL) program, on National Forest System (NFS) lands. This proposal would be approved by issuance of a special use permit for the actions described in the Proposed Action. The ABEL program is the project, and the location within Pike National Forest is the proposed ABEL project area (project area). The project area is adjacent to the USAFA property boundary and within the Pikes Peak Ranger District in Pike National Forest. This environmental assessment (EA) documents the anticipated environmental effects of the Proposed Action to determine if an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. This process will fulfill Forest Service policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Forest Service is the lead agency for this EA. The U.S. Air Force, as a federal agency and the applicant for the special use permit, is a cooperating agency on this EA and also has an obligation to comply with NEPA for its proposed activities on NFS lands. Therefore, this EA has also been developed in accordance with the U.S. Air Force NEPA implementing regulations, 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 989. This EA incorporates by reference the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (USDA Forest Service 1984) to avoid repetition and to allow this EA to focus on the site-specific effects that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action. This EA also summarizes other reports and references that contain additional detailed information.
1.1 Location of the Project Area The project area is defined as the area proposed for USAFA activities, located on the Pikes Peak Ranger District of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands in El Paso County, Colorado. The project area is adjacent to the USAFA property boundary and consists of approximately 10,438 acres (see Figure 1).
1 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 1. Proposed ABEL Project Area and Vicinity
2 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is for the Forest Service to analyze USAFA’s request for a special use permit to conduct the ABEL outdoor education on NFS lands. There is a need for the Forest Service to determine the effects of the activities described in the ABEL outdoor education proposal by USAFA. In addition to disclosing effects as required under NEPA, the analysis identifies the permit terms and conditions needed to minimize resource damage and provide for public safety. The purpose of the ABEL program is to provide military leadership, strategic thinking, and risk management training to cadets through classroom and outdoor education as directed by the approved USAFA curriculum. The U.S. Air Force needs to conduct this program for USAFA cadets to learn skills relative to survival conditions in unfamiliar field locations or situations. Topographic variety and unique terrain provide cadets with survival challenges and force them to use skill sets that are not required or evoked in familiar terrain.
1.3 Forest Plan Direction This EA is a project-level analysis that considers all applicable management direction provided in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan divides the NFS lands into areas that have different emphases or objectives for management, known as Management Areas (MAs). The project area is within three MAs: 2A, 2B, and 4B (USDA Forest Service 1984; see Figure 2). Guidelines in the Forest Plan for these MAs are described below: • 2A – Semiprimitive Motorized Recreation Opportunities. Emphasis is for semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities such as snowmobiling, four- wheel driving, and motorcycling. Motorized travel may be prohibited or restricted to designated routes to protect physical and biological resources. Approximately 4,497 acres of the project area occur in MA 2A. • 2B – Rural and Roaded-Natural Recreation Opportunities. Emphasis is for rural and roaded natural recreation opportunities. Motorized and non-motorized recreation activities such as driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, picnicking, fishing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing are possible. Motorized travel may be prohibited or restricted to designated routes to protect physical and biological resources. Approximately 2,754 acres of the project area occur in MA 2B.
3 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 2. Pike National Forest Management Areas
4 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
• 4B – Wildlife Habitat for Management Indicator Species. Emphasis is on the habitat needs of one or more management indicator species. Species with compatible habitat needs are selected for an area. The goal is to optimize habitat capability and the number of species. Approximately 3,186 acres of the project area occur in MA 4B.
The proposed project is aligned with MA goals and objectives, and would not prevent the project area from meeting the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan.
1.4 Decision to be Made The Responsible Official (the Pikes Peak District Ranger) will decide whether the Proposed Action will have significant effects and therefore, require the preparation of an EIS; whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), accept the proposal, and issue a 5-year special use permit; or whether to issue a FONSI and issue a temporary special use permit for a modified activity. This decision will be based on: • whether the Proposed Action meets the purpose of and need for action, is responsive to national policy/guidance and directions in the Forest Plan, and addresses issues identified during scoping (see Section 1.6); • whether the information in this analysis is sufficient to select the Proposed Action; • whether the Proposed Action would have significant effects and therefore, require the preparation of an EIS.
Should the Pikes Peak District Ranger issue a FONSI, sign a Decision Notice selecting the Proposed Action, and issue a special use permit for the ABEL program, the U.S. Air Force Installation Commander, 10th Air Base Wing, USAFA, shall also make a decision. The Installation Commander will decide whether to conduct the proposed project, ABEL outdoor education, under the conditions in the Forest Service special use permit.
1.5 Public Involvement The NEPA process and the associated Forest Service and U.S. Air Force implementing regulations provide for an open public involvement process. The NEPA phase of a Proposed Action begins with scoping. Scoping is the process used for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action. Issues are identified, alternatives are developed, and the environmental analysis is conducted and documented. To begin the formal scoping comment period, a legal notice was published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Pikes Peak Ranger District newspaper of record, on February 6, 2019. In addition, a scoping letter was mailed to adjacent landowners, interested individuals, Tribal governments, and state and federal agencies. Public scoping
5 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
comments were accepted until March 7, 2019, 30 days after the legal notice was published. The Proposed Action was also posted on Pike National Forest’s website and listed in Pike National Forest’s schedule of proposed actions. No scoping comments were received.
1.6 Issues Because no scoping comments were received, no issues or unresolved conflicts were identified through scoping that would indicate a need for additional action alternatives. The EA was developed to analyze resource areas identified by the interdisciplinary team with the potential to be affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives. Resources that would not be affected are not addressed in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA. Resources that have been eliminated from further detailed study in this document, and the rationale for eliminating them, are presented below. Air Quality. The Proposed Action does not include any activity that would have the potential to noticeably alter air quality, such as construction, demolition, or prescribed burn; however, negligible air emissions are anticipated from vehicle use. Air emissions from vehicle use are anticipated to be less than significant, in accordance with the U.S. Air Force’s Air Conformity Applicability Model (U.S. Air Force 2018). Noise. The Proposed Action does not include any noise-generating activity in the project area, with the exception of vehicle use. Vehicle use would be restricted to existing NFS roads, per the Pikes Peak Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map, and would be consistent with noise from existing vehicle use. Land Use. The Proposed Action does not include any activities that would be incompatible with existing land uses and land use designations. As described in Section 1.3, the Proposed Action is aligned with MA goals and objectives, and would not prevent the project area from meeting the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. Hydrology. The Proposed Action does not include construction, demolition, or any other ground-disturbing activity that could affect water quality, flood hazard conditions, unique hydrologic characteristics, or wetlands. Cadets would use existing trails to the extent possible and would practice “Leave No Trace” principles to minimize the potential for impacts on water quality. Fire and Fuels. As part of the Proposed Action, faculty would use portable fire pits, such as a Solo Stove. However, impacts related to fire and fuels management are not anticipated because faculty would use packed-in fuel sources, and all portable fire pits would be self-contained and would not leave residue. Visual. The Proposed Action does not include any activity that would alter existing viewsheds. Furthermore, the Proposed Action does not include construction or demolition of any natural or human-made structures within the project area.
6 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Utilities and Infrastructure. The Proposed Action would not include the use of any utilities or infrastructure, with the exception of existing trails and roadways. Proposed trail and roadway use would be consistent with current use. Social and Economic. The Proposed Action would occur entirely within the confines of NFS lands by existing USAFA cadets, and does not include any increases in local population or any construction. Therefore, impacts on the local economy and on population demographics and employment are not anticipated.
7 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, and the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. In addition, this section identifies the alternatives carried forward for analysis in this EA.
2.1 Proposed Action
2.1.1 ABEL Program Overview The purpose of the USAFA ABEL program is to train cadets in peer and team leadership, risk management, and strategic thinking. The ABEL program would occur annually from June through August, and would consist of up to nine separate 10-day periods. During each of these training periods, 200 cadets would be trained for 7 days within USAFA classrooms and for 36 hours in outdoor environments. The project objectives include the following: • Develop guidelines for USAFA use of Pike National Forest that are consistent with the Forest Plan. • Allow for continued and non-interrupted public use of Pike National Forest. • Reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds and nonnative plants. • Eliminate potential for interference with water quality of Pike National Forest watersheds. • Ensure protection of federally listed and Forest Service Region 2 sensitive fauna and flora species and their habitat.
2.1.2 Proposed Action Description The Forest Service proposes to issue to USAFA a temporary special use permit for USAFA to conduct outdoor education for its ABEL program on NFS lands. This permit would authorize USAFA to conduct up to nine 36-hour training events from June through August. The proposed project consists of the following main elements that would be conducted within the project area (see Figure 3): • Cadet and faculty navigation by foot on trails within MA 4B, and on and off trails to waypoints within MAs 2A and 2B • Use of NFS roads for training support and pre-disturbed upland roadside areas for two cadet support camps Additional details on activities and best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented as part of the proposed project are described in the following sections.
8 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 3. Project Area Trails and Waypoints
9 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
2.1.2.1 Land Navigation For each ABEL 36-hour outdoor training event, cadets would navigate to predetermined waypoints on NFS lands using a compass, map, and Global Positioning System (GPS). Up to 200 cadets overseen by approximately 40 faculty would participate in each outdoor training event. To begin the training period on NFS lands, approximately 20 teams of 10 cadets each would walk into the project area from USAFA property using one system and two non-system trails at the USAFA/Forest Service boundary, shown in green in Figure 3: Stanley Canyon (system trail), Eagle Peak (non-system trail), and an unnamed trail (non-system trail). Once on NFS lands, cadets would remain on existing trails within Forest Service MA 4B until reaching MAs 2A and 2B.. Upon reaching MAs 2A and 2B, cadets would travel on existing trails and cross-country toward predetermined waypoints. All potential waypoints are identified in Figure 3. Waypoints would be classified by tiers in accordance with their priority for use in the training, with Tier 1 being used the most frequently and Tier 3 being used the least frequently. At each waypoint, the cadets would be required to complete a challenge before moving on to the next waypoint. Potential types of challenges could include quizzes, puzzles, physical training (e.g., pushups, sit-ups), numerical puzzles, listening to recordings or other speakers, simulating first aid, practicing meditation, or writing in a notebook. During land navigation, the ABEL faculty could accompany groups of cadets, be dispersed within the project area to provide assistance in an emergency, be located at waypoints, or be located at the support camps. Faculty would use portable fire pits, such as a Solo Stove, using packed-in fuel sources; all portable fire pits would be self- contained and would not leave residue. Additionally, ABEL activities would be subject to Forest Service-issued special orders, including fire restrictions, during summer months. While on NFS lands, all cadets and faculty would practice “Leave No Trace” principles and would not construct any permanent or semi-permanent shelters. The proposed project does not include any harvesting or alteration of natural resources. 2.1.2.2 Training Support To provide safety and support to the cadets, USAFA would use two centrally located support camps off NFS Road 307 (Schubarth Trail) in the project area during each 36-hour training event (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). The two support camps would be located within pull-off areas in uplands directly adjacent to, but not blocking, existing roadways. Proposed camp locations could change depending on their availability during the ABEL program. USAFA would provide notification to the Pikes Peak Ranger District should camp locations change.
10 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 4. ABEL Example Support Camp Location
11 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Approximately six to eight temporary tents (15 feet by 30 feet each) would be used at each camp for staging medical and administrative personnel. Portable toilets and water containers would be located on the roadside adjacent to the camps and removed at the end of each training session. Support staff would travel in vehicles along existing routes within Pike National Forest to access the support camps. Vehicles would also be used to access cadets in case of an emergency. Vehicle use would include two standard-size pickup trucks and four all- terrain vehicles. 2.1.2.3 Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures The BMPs and mitigation measures discussed in this section are incorporated into the Proposed Action and would minimize impacts of training-related activities on environmental resources. These measures are not intended to replace or substitute Forest Plan standards and guidelines but to support compliance with the Forest Plan to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, and/or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed project. Resource specialists considered these measures in determining the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on resources during their analysis. BMPs and mitigation measures to be implemented and monitored during each ABEL training event would be briefed to all cadets and faculty prior to each event in an environmental awareness training developed and conducted by USAFA. BMPs to be followed during outdoor training activities are outlined below: • Vehicle use would be restricted to existing NFS roads, per the Pikes Peak Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map • No modification or alteration of above- or below-ground flora would be allowed. • No modification, alternation, or harvesting (e.g., hunting) of fauna or flora would be allowed. • Maps and GPS devices would identify sensitive areas that must be avoided (e.g., surface waters, historic properties), and such avoidance would be monitored and enforced by USAFA faculty. • Awareness training developed and conducted by USAFA would include the necessary skills and resources to aid identification of federally listed and/or Forest Service sensitive species that could occur in the project area and to guide reporting procedures should a species be detected or impacted during training activities. Awareness training would emphasize Mexican spotted owl (MSO) identification and reporting procedures for potential detections during training activities.
12 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
• If a MSO is detected within the action area during project activities, the Forest Service would be contacted and training activities might be modified to avoid the area of the sighting(s). • USAFA would coordinate with Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) to obtain access to waypoints 13, 91, and 42, which are located on CSU property. Forest Service decision to issue the special use permit will not cover navigation across non-NFS lands. • Pyrotechnic devices would not be used. • Fixed shelters, permanent or semi-permanent, would not be constructed; only temporary tents would be used by faculty. • “Leave No Trace” principles would be implemented and mandatory. • All trash from campsites would be removed. • No new trails or pathways would be built. • “Wag bags” would be used for human waste, and catholes would be created only in an emergency. • USAFA would coordinate with the Forest Service on the time frame and waypoint use for each training event. • Signs would be posted in accordance with Forest Service instructions to alert the public in advance of training periods; however, no restrictions to public use of Pike National Forest would occur as a result of this training.
• Waypoints would be located to avoid sensitive resources such as wetlands and culturally or naturally sensitive areas.
• If an active bird nest is detected within the action area during training activities, the following measures would be implemented:
o Training activities would be moved from the nest’s immediate vicinity as soon as possible to minimize continued encroachment disturbance.
o A GPS location and other nest details (type, size, location) would be recorded.
o USAFA biologists and/or the Forest Service would be contacted to validate species and to provide other regulatory and technical assistance as necessary.
13 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
o Areas surrounding active nests would be avoided by training activities based on agency coordination and direction until the young are no longer dependent on the nest for survival.
• Any sighting of raptors should be reported to USAFA biologists and/or Forest Service.
• Any large nests or potential raptor nesting activity should be reported to USAFA biologists and the Forest Service.
• Confirmed raptor nesting activity should be reported to the Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife for guidance, recording, and the implementation of impact minimization measures, which could include a modification of training schedules and approach.
2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not issue a special use permit to USAFA to conduct ABEL outdoor education on NFS lands, and this training would be unavailable to USAFA cadets on NFS lands. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the relative changes and effects that would occur with implementation of any action alternative. It considers what may result if the Proposed Action is not implemented. The No Action Alternative is defined as a continuation of existing practices. Current management plans would continue to guide management activities in the project area.
2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis The Forest Service has not considered but eliminated by study any other alternatives. The agency has considered only the Proposed Action as an action alternative because it alone was proposed by USAFA. USAFA’s need to conduct the ABEL outdoor education on NFS lands adjacent to and accessible by trail from USAFA eliminates any other potential alternatives from Forest Service consideration. Prior to its request for the special use permit, USAFA considered but eliminated two potential alternatives to conducting ABEL outdoor education on adjacent NFS lands. These alternatives were eliminated because they did not meet the purpose of and need for the project, or were not considered reasonable because they would not meet the USAFA- identified selection standards. To be considered reasonable, the USAFA potential alternatives must: • be cost-effective and an appropriate use of available land;
14 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
• be compatible with the mission and training of USAFA and/or its host; • be consistent with applicable land management plans; • meet topographic requirements; • be unfamiliar to cadets and provide a dynamic environment; • not result in adverse impacts on adjacent areas; • protect environmental resources and, therefore, not be encumbered by wetlands, protected fauna or flora species habitat, or known cultural resources.
Alternatives considered against these selection standards but eliminated by USAFA prior to its request for a Forest Service special use permit are shown in Figure 5 and described in the following sections.
2.3.1 Saylor Park For several decades, USAFA has conducted Survival, Evasion, and Rescue training on approximately 28,000 acres of NFS lands in the Saylor Park area in El Paso, Teller, and Douglas counties, Colorado. USAFA has conducted these trainings under provisions stipulated in a Forest Service-issued special use permit (PPK11), signed May 3, 2000. Permit PPK11 expires on December 31, 2019. The ABEL program could use the special use permit for Saylor Park to conduct its training. However, operating in Saylor Park is not a cost-effective use of available land for USAFA due to transportation-related costs and is no longer a feasible option for future cadet training programs. Therefore, USAFA has determined that the use of the Saylor Park special use permit is not a viable alternative for the ABEL program.
2.3.2 Fort Carson The U.S. Army Installation Fort Carson is south of Colorado Springs in El Paso, Pueblo, and Fremont counties, Colorado. Fort Carson could be used for the ABEL program due to its proximity to USAFA and availability of multiple training areas. However, areas on Fort Carson available for land navigation lack topographical uniqueness required for the ABEL program. Furthermore, due to the year-round active army training schedule at Fort Carson, USAFA would have difficulty scheduling ABEL training events around the existing training. Additionally, cadets would have to be driven to Fort Carson for training, requiring additional time and expense for the ABEL program. Therefore, implementing the ABEL program at Fort Carson is not a reasonable alternative because it lacks variance in topography, would not be compatible with the host mission, and would not be cost- effective.
15 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 5. ABEL Program Alternative Locations
16 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis As described under Section 2.3, the Forest Service has not identified any alternatives to the Proposed Action other than the No Action Alternative, and USAFA previously dismissed other potential alternatives for analysis because they did not meet the purpose of and need for the project, or were not considered reasonable because they would not meet the USAFA-identified selection standards. Therefore, environmental resource analysis will be conducted for only the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.
17 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
3.0 Environmental Consequences This section defines the spatial and temporal context for analyzing effects in this EA and identifies other projects that are considered in the cumulative effects analysis. In addition, this section describes the current condition of resources in the project area, and the potential effects that the alternatives (Proposed Action and No Action) may have on these resources. Impacts on the environment are considered in terms of their direct, indirect, and cumulative effects as defined in 40 CFR 1508.8 and 1508.7. This section provides the necessary information to determine whether or not to prepare an EIS. The associated FONSI in Section 4 discusses whether this project has significant effects.
3.1 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis For this analysis, effects are characterized within the project area for the length of the ABEL program special use permit, which is 5 years. This length of time was used because it is reasonable, thereby avoiding unnecessary speculation, and allows for a critical description of current and future conditions.
3.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Projects that recently occurred, are occurring presently, or could potentially occur within or near the project area include the following: • Aspen enhancement/vegetative treatment. Rocky Mountain Field Institute conducted tree removal in the vicinity of NFS Road 307 (Schubarth Trail) and the Stanley Canyon area from April through August 2019. • Communications tower replacement. Pikes Peak Regional Communications Network and Colorado Springs Utilities replaced the former communications tower with a new tower at the Stanley Canyon Expansion of the Northfield Communications Site in fall 2018. The site is located in portions of Sections 19 and 20, Township 12 South, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in El Paso County. • Military training. The Colorado Army National Guard has submitted requests to the Forest Service to conduct winter and summer land navigation and mountaineering within the project area. The proposal could include dismounted infantry training for up to 120 personnel per day in groups of 12 individuals primarily using the existing Goat Camp Creek and Stanley Trails, and mountaineering training using North Peak (also known as Eagle Peak) with access from Goat Camp Creek Trail. Trainings generally would be 2 to 3 days in duration (day use only) approximately four times per year.
18 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
• Rampart Reservoir Trail. This popular reservoir loop trail is heavily used for hiking and biking, and there are numerous other recreation opportunities in the project area, including dispersed camping, off-highway vehicle use, target shooting (in the eastern portion of the project area), hunting, and equestrian use. • Recreation outfitter and guide, The Navigators. The Navigators have a priority outfitter and guide permit to conduct limited backpacking trips in the project area. These permits allow trips to occur at any time within the parameters of the permit requirements. • Temporary outfitter and guide special use permits (6 months or less) and recreation event special use permits. These permits are occasionally issued to conduct guided or organized recreation activities in the project area. These temporary permits may occur at any time. • Upper Monument Creek vegetative treatment. The Pikes Peak Ranger District is currently implementing, and will continue to implement, vegetation projects within the project area. The associated activities may include, but are not limited to, logging, thinning, chainsaw felling, chainsaw girdling, mastication or grinding, active hauling of timber off NFS lands, road maintenance, heavy equipment operation, pile burning, and broadcast burning. These activities will typically be confined to areas near existing roads and adjacent ridges. Vegetation projects planned within the project area would occur from fall 2020 until fall 2023 and are divided into the West Shubarth, East Shubarth, Brachi, and Falcon planning areas, as shown in Figure 6. Vegetation projects in each planning area would occur over approximately 18 months. • West Monument Creek bighorn sheep habitat management. This project is located 0.5 mile west of USAFA, in Sections 20, 29, and 30, Township 12 South, Range 67 West, in El Paso County. This project entails hand thinning and limbing of conifers on up to 125 acres in order to disrupt the continuity of vegetation in the West Monument Creek area. The objective of these treatments is to increase and enhance bighorn sheep habitat, escape terrain, and movement corridors for the Rampart herd by altering stand structure and reducing tree density. This project will occur from early 2019 through late 2022.
19 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 6. Upper Monument Creek Vegetative Treatment Project Planning Areas
3.3 Vegetation and Soils
3.3.1 Affected Environment Topography, Soils, and Climate. The majority of the project area is comprised of mountainous terrain that consists of valley bottoms with stream channels, and a mix of gradual and steep hillsides broken by a relatively continuous network of ridgelines. The project occurs within Rampart Range, a geological uplift of montane foothills extending between Pikes Peak to the south and Platte Canyon to the north (Moore 1992). The range is bounded by a fault to the east and the South Platte River to the west (Moore 1992). It is a moderately dissected, sloping and rolling landform with elevations ranging from 7,000 to 10,000 feet above mean sea level. The terrain transitions from rolling foothills along the eastern slope to steep mountainous hillsides incised by deep gulches of the transition zone between foothill and montane landforms (Moore 1992). Granite and associated igneous rocks of the Pikes Peak batholith are dominant through the landscape (Moore 1992). There are 17 different soil types within the project area. The most prevalent is the Sphinx-Rock Outcrop complex, which accounts for approximately 71 percent of the project area (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019).
20 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Sphinx soils are shallow, somewhat excessively drained, and typically found on mountainsides with 15 to 80 percent slopes (Moore 1992). The surface layer is a mixture of coarse gravel and sandy loam, below which is a very gravelly loamy sand. Rock outcrops are formed from Pikes Peak granite and are very susceptible to erosion if vegetation is disturbed (Moore 1992). The climate in the project area is heavily influenced by the mountainous terrain that defines the Colorado Front Range. Changes in elevation and topographical features have an impact on temperature, wind patterns, and storm tracks during all seasons of the year. Average summer maximum and minimum temperatures for the project area are around 81 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and 46ºF respectively. During the winter months, the average winter maximum and minimum temperatures are around 46ºF and 12ºF, respectively. Annually average maximum and minimum temperatures are around 62ºF and 29ºF, respectively (Doesken et al. 2003). The average annual precipitation is approximately 16 inches, with 42 percent of this rainfall coming in the summer months. Precipitation amounts increase with elevation in both winter and summer, but the elevation effect is greatest in mid-winter. High peaks and mountain ranges generally receive the majority of their precipitation during winter months in the form of snowfall (Doesken et al. 2003). The project area receives on average approximately 56 inches of snow per year from November to April, with the heaviest snowfall between March and April (Doesken et al. 2003). Vegetation. The project area falls within the Crystalline Mid-Elevation Forest ecoregion (Chapman et al. 2006). This ecoregion occurs along a narrow elevational band on the steep, forested slopes of the mountains, becoming more extensive on the north-facing slopes. This ecoregion occurs at elevational ranges from 8,500 to 12,000 feet (Chapman et al. 2006). Natural vegetation in this ecoregion includes quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and areas of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis). A diverse understory of shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers also occurs. There are 16 vegetation types mapped within the 10,438-acre project area, as listed in Table 1. The vegetation types were identified using ArcMap and existing Forest Service geographic information system data. Additionally, biologists conducted habitat verification surveys in August 2019 in support of the project. These surveys confirmed the presence of vegetation types presented in Table 1 and distribution of vegetation types in the project area presented in Figure 7.
21 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Table 1. Vegetation Types in the Project Area Vegetation Type Acres Percentage Ponderosa pine / Douglas-fir 3,769.6 36 Ponderosa pine / grass 2,265.2 22 Aspen dominated stands 1,613.7 15 Douglas-fir 1,170.0 11 Ponderosa pine / Gambel oak 556.2 5 Mixed conifer – warm and/or dry 367.9 4 Shrub – Gambel oak dominated 186.2 2 Mixed conifer – cool and/or moist 134.7 1 Unknown 86.9 <1 Riparian – tree dominated 74.8 <1 Grass/forb/subshrub dominated 53.0 <1 Less than 25% vegetation 52.7 <1 Water 43.0 <1 Spruce-fir 28.0 <1 Riparian – shrub dominated 22.5 <1 Bristlecone / limber pines 13.6 <1
Vegetation types representing greater than 10 percent of the project area are described in detail in the following paragraphs; vegetation types that account for less than 10 percent are not likely to be substantially affected by the Proposed Action due to the infrequent distribution. Furthermore, smaller non-contiguous vegetation types lack the requirements needed for most species’ suitable habitat. Ponderosa pine / Douglas-fir. This vegetation type is often dominated by ponderosa pine with intermixed Douglas-fir on north-facing slopes. The ponderosa pine cover type occurs both as relatively pure stands and mixed with Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir is prominent on north-facing slopes, whereas ponderosa pine tends to dominate south- facing slopes. Limber pine grows at higher elevations in spotty distributional occurrences. Understory species can include Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), and soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca) (USDA Forest Service 2017). Ponderosa pine / grass. Low-elevation ponderosa pine communities commonly have an herbaceous undergrowth, with Arizona fescue, mountain muhly, blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), sun sedge (Carex inops), and fringed sage (Artemisia frigida) present in varying proportions. Wax currant (Ribes cereum), cliff jamesia (Jamesia americana), true mountain-mahogany, mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), and Parry rabbitbrush (Ericameria parryi) are common undergrowth shrubs. Shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa) is occasionally plentiful on lower-montane sites when they have been overgrazed or have experienced significant soil erosion (USDA Forest Service 2017.)
22 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 7. Project Area Vegetation
23 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Aspen dominated stands. Aspen dominated stands generally contain pure stands of quaking aspen. Other tree species that may be present in low density include lodgepole pine, limber pine, and Englemann spruce (Picea englemannii). The understory usually is void of large-profile shrubs. Common juniper (Juniperus communis), kinnikinnick, and various grass species are often present (Alexander 1988). Douglas-fir. The Douglas-fir vegetation type is dominated by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, limber pine, and quaking aspen tree species. Understory species usually present include common juniper, rose species (Rosa spp.), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), various sedges (Carex sp.), and purple reedgrass (Calamagrostis purpurascens) (Alexander 1988).
3.3.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 3.3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Topography, Soils, and Climate. Under the Proposed Action, no effects to negligible adverse effects on topography, soils, and climate would be expected from the ABEL program. While the ABEL program would not include any construction or ground disturbance, increased human activity by USAFA staff and cadets on NFS lands could cause negligible short-term soil erosion from foot traffic on and off trails. However, the Forest Service MAs proposed for the ABEL program are used for recreation (USDA Forest Service 1984), and the cadets hiking would not differ from the typical use by public recreationists on NFS lands. During off-trail activities, cadets would avoid developing non-designated trails or footpaths to waypoints by accessing the waypoints from varying directions. Furthermore, cadets would navigate to only a selection of waypoints during each training event, and waypoint selection would change annually. The rotation of waypoints would prevent permanent soil erosion and development of footpaths. Long-term use of the area is not anticipated to result in any effects on local topography or climate. Vegetation. Under the Proposed Action, short-term, discontinuous, adverse effects on vegetation would be expected from the ABEL program from increased human activity by USAFA staff and cadets on NFS lands. The increased human activity could result in the trampling and crushing of vegetation off trails in MAs 2A and 2B. However, MAs 2A and 2B are managed for recreation both on and off trails (USDA Forest Service 1984); the cadets hiking would not differ from the typical use experienced on NFS lands from public recreationists. To minimize the potential for effects on vegetation, the staff and cadets would implement “Leave No Trace” principles, would use designated trails to the maximum extent possible, and would go off trail only when needed. During off-trail activities, cadets would avoid developing non-designated trails or footpaths to waypoints by accessing the waypoints from varying directions. Furthermore, cadets would navigate to only a section of waypoints during each training event, and waypoint selection would
24 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
change annually. The rotation of waypoints would allow vegetation to recover, further preventing the development of footpaths. In addition, use of support camps could also cause incidental trampling or crushing of vegetation. USAFA intends to use six to eight temporary tents for each training event; these tents would disturb approximately 450 square feet. To minimize effects on vegetation, USAFA would use pre-disturbed areas with minimal vegetation for campsites, and would rotate the campsites for each training event. Rotating the campsites would allow any existing vegetation to recover between rotations. As a result, there would be no long-term changes to vegetation in the project area. 3.3.2.2 Cumulative Effects The ABEL program, combined with concurrent use of the project area by the Colorado Army National Guard and recreationists (including outfitters and guides), could have short-term, intermittent, adverse cumulative effects on soils and vegetation. Types of effects on soils and vegetation during concurrent use of the area would be similar to, but greater than, those described in Section 3.3.2.1, including increased erosion and trampling of understory vegetation, and higher potential for long-term effects from development of non-designated footpaths. The West and Upper Monument Creek management projects and the aspen enhancement/vegetative treatment project are focused on vegetation management and could also result in removal of understory vegetation, but are intended to maintain a healthy overall vegetation community in the project area. Additionally, training periods for the Colorado Army National Guard and the ABEL program would be scheduled to avoid concurrent use of the area to the extent possible. Furthermore, it is not expected that non-designated trail use would increase because all parties would be required to operate within the confines of their permit.
3.3.3 Alternative 2: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the ABEL program would not be conducted on NFS lands, and there would be no change to existing use of the project area. No effects on vegetation or soils would be anticipated from the No Action Alternative.
3.4 Wildlife
3.4.1 Affected Environment The project area contains habitat for various wildlife species, including the mammals and common bird species listed in the paragraphs below. In addition, birds of conservation concern (BCC), big game species, and Forest Service management indicator species are discussed in subsections below. The mammals of Pike National Forest include black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), mule deer
25 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
(Odocoileus hemionus), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), and others. The montane habitats of the project area also provide potentially suitable habitat for bat species. These species could include the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), western long-eared myotis (M. evotis), long-legged myotis (M. volans), and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) (USDA Forest Service 2017). Common bird species include the mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli), pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), brown creeper (Certhia americana), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), hairy woodpecker (Leuconotopicus villosus), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), American robin (Turdus migratorius), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), common raven (Corvus corax), pine siskin (Spinus pinus), mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black-billed magpie (Pica hudsonia), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) (USDA Forest Service 2017). Birds of Conservation Concern. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973.” (16 United States Code [USC] 2912(a)(3)). The goal of USFWS in developing its BCC report “is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities” (USFWS 2015a). The USFWS BCC 2008 report is the most recent effort to carry out this mandate. A few species not protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are considered BCC. Generally, the following bird species (relevant to the project) are identified as BCC: • Nongame birds • Gamebirds without hunting seasons • ESA candidate, proposed, and recently delisted species Seven BCC have the potential to occur in the project area, as shown in Table 2 (USFWS 2019a).
26 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Table 2. BCC Species that May Occur in the Project Area Species Species General Habitat Requirements Bald eagle Bald eagles occur near large lakes, reservoirs, or rivers with a (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) sufficient fish population (USFWS 2019b). This species typically chooses a large, super-canopy nest tree providing good flight access to the nest and visibility of the surrounding area (USFWS 2019b). Brewer’s sparrow Brewer’s sparrows are common in shrublands on mesas and foothills (Spizella breweri) throughout western Colorado, and are locally common at lower montane elevations in suitable habitat. Breeding pairs are generally uncommon or rare on the eastern plains and foothills. In Colorado, Brewer’s sparrows nest most commonly between 5,000 and 7,500 feet (Colorado Parks and Wildlife [CPW] 2005). Golden eagle Golden eagles occur primarily in mountainous canyon land, rimrock (Aquila chrysaetos) terrain of open deserts, and grassland areas (Kochert et al. 2002). In mountainous areas, cliffs are the most common nesting substrate; trees or human-made structures are also used. Foraging habitat is typically open areas such as grasslands or shrub-steppe (Kochert et al. 2002). Lesser yellowlegs Lesser yellowlegs nest in open and edge boreal forest habitats, usually (Tringa flavipes) near wetlands. This species nests in Canada and Alaska, and migrates through Colorado. They are found in open deciduous or coniferous forest mosaics with wet or sedge meadows, marshes, bogs, or muskegs. This species mainly forages along the shores of lakes, sloughs, estuaries, and marshes (Tibbitts and Moskoff 2014). Rufous hummingbird The rufous hummingbird prefers second-growth forest communities (Selasphorus rufus) and openings, but will also use mature forests, parks, and residential areas. They occur from sea level to 6,000 feet in elevation (USDA Forest Service n.d.). This species nests in the northwestern states, Canada, and Alaska, and migrates through Colorado. Virginia’s warbler Virginia’s warblers nest in dense shrublands and on scrub-heavy (Vermivora virginiae) slopes of mesas, foothills, open ravines, and mountain valleys in semiarid country. They use scrubby brush, pinyon-juniper woodland with a well-developed shrubby understory, ravines covered with scrub oak, and dense shrublands, especially Gambel oak. They also breed in open ponderosa pine savannahs that have a dense understory of tall shrubs. In Colorado, these warblers nest primarily between 5,000 and 9,000 feet in elevation (Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Willow flycatcher Willow flycatchers are found in moist environments where flying (Empidonax traillii) insects are abundant. They may also be found in semi-arid landscapes; the borders of forests; dry, upland areas; mountain meadows; and riparian forests (Brazil and Martina 2014).
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) have been documented in or near the project area. Bald eagles typically occur along the southern and western boundary of the project area near large bodies of water, such as Rampart Reservoir and Carroll Lakes, respectively. A golden eagle nest was previously observed by the Forest Service within 0.1 mile of waypoint 52 along the southeastern boundary of the project area. During habitat verification surveys conducted in 2019 in support of the ABEL program, biologists determined the nest was inactive.
27 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) is not likely to occur in the project area because its range does not occur at the project area elevations. Furthermore, Brewer’s sparrow primarily occurs across southern and western Colorado and the northern extents of the Colorado Plateau (Colorado Parks and Wildlife [CPW] 2005). The rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) occurs in Colorado only as a post-breeding migrant between June 21 and October 19 during its southerly migration to wintering habitat and, therefore, would not nest in the project area. The lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) is a fall migrant in Colorado and does not nest in this state. The Virginia’s warbler (Vermivora virginiae) and willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) may occur and nest within the project area in suitable habitat. However, suitable habitat was very limited in the project area for both the Virginia’s warbler and willow flycatcher; therefore, these species are not expected to nest within the project area. Furthermore, survey biologists did not detect the Virginia’s warbler or willow flycatcher during the 2019 habitat verification surveys. Big Game Species. The Forest Service manages NFS lands for a variety of uses, including the management of habitat for big game species. The project area contains suitable habitat for three big game species: bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk, and mule deer. Big game population numbers fluctuate from year to year based on weather, habitat, disease, predation, hunting, and other conditions. Season, forage quality, and weather patterns typically determine the level of use and movement of big game species through the area. Bighorn sheep typically occur in steep, high mountain terrain. In Colorado, they prefer habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, rock cover, and areas near open escape. Many bands now spend all year near timberline on what used to be their traditional summer range (CPW 2019). This species has the potential to occur in the project area during the summer months. A bighorn sheep production/calving area occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area. Elk use a variety of habitat types, including wet meadows, grasslands, and shrub- dominated habitats (CPW 2019). Elk populations in the project area usually peak during spring and summer months, but they do occur year-round, especially along the northwest boundary of the project area. Elk calving occurs in the project area northwest of Rampart Reservoir as well as in the northeast corner of the project area. Mule deer typically use edge habitat of riparian areas and agricultural fields (CPW 2019). Mule deer winter range occurs in the project area along the eastern boundary near USAFA. Mule deer could occur in the project area year-round but are more likely to concentrate in the area during the summer months. Forest Service Management Indicator Species. The National Forest Management Act regulations require that “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area” (36 CFR 219.19). Management indicator species (MIS) are identified in the Forest
28 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Plan and the 2005 amendment to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984). MIS are addressed to implement National Forest Management Act regulations. MIS are selected for analysis because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities, providing insight into the effects of forest management on plant and animal communities. The MIS selected by the Forest Service for the section of Pike National Forest encompassing the project area are greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), Abert’s squirrel (Sciurus aberti), and Rocky Mountain elk. The greenback cutthroat trout does not occur in or near the project area. The only viable wild population of greenback cutthroat trout in El Paso County is in Bear Creek near Colorado Springs, south of the project area (Western Native Trout 2016). Brook trout do occur in the project area in West Monument Creek and have the potential to occur in other streams. The Abert’s squirrel population in the project area is likely to be limited by available suitable forested habitat, which is patchy in the project area. Abert’s squirrels prefer forests dominated by mature ponderosa pine trees with open understory (Keith 2003). Much of the forested habitat in the project area contains mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir vegetation. Rocky Mountain elk do occur in the project area year-round. In addition, two identified elk calving areas are northwest of Rampart Reservoir and along the northeast corner of the project area. During habitat verification surveys conducted in 2019 in support of the ABEL program, biologists detected scat sign of Rocky Mountain elk. No other MIS was detected during the survey of the project area.
3.4.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 3.4.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, short-term, intermittent, insignificant effects on wildlife species would be expected from the ABEL program from increased human activity by USAFA staff and cadets on NFS lands. Cadet hiking patterns through the project area would be consistent with off-trail travel permitted in the MAs by public recreationists, and cadets would travel on designated trails as much as possible. Wildlife species could be temporarily disturbed and displaced by cadets traversing the area on or off trails or from support camps, but it is anticipated that wildlife would return once cadets vacate the area. Because footpaths and waypoint use would vary annually, continual disturbance and permanent displacement of wildlife from waypoint locations in the project area is not anticipated. No long-term effects on wildlife species, or their habitat, in the project area are expected. Birds of Conversation Concern. Under the Proposed Action, short-term, intermittent, insignificant effects on BCC would be expected from the ABEL program, and would be similar to those described for wildlife. These species could be temporarily displaced from foraging or nesting habitat in the project area during the ABEL program. As described in
29 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Section 2.1.2.3, maps and GPS devices would identify sensitive areas that must be avoided, such as active nests, and such avoidance would be monitored and enforced by USAFA faculty. Big Game Species. Under the Proposed Action, short-term, intermittent, insignificant effects on big game species would be expected from the ABEL program, and would be similar to those described for wildlife. These species could be temporarily displaced from summer or foraging habitat in the project area. Calving for most big game species usually occurs during the spring; therefore, the ABEL training events during the summer months should not affect calving big game species. The ABEL program will be subject to special orders during the summer months, including those related to areas closed for big game migration, calving, or foraging. ABEL training maps and GPS devices would identify sensitive areas that must be avoided, such as big game habitat, and such avoidance would be monitored and enforced by USAFA faculty. Management Indicator Species. Under the Proposed Action, short-term, intermittent, insignificant effects on MIS would be expected from the ABEL program. The Abert’s squirrel and Rocky Mountain elk could be temporarily displaced from foraging or nesting habitat in the project area. Because the Proposed Action is short-term and intermittent, these species would likely return to their normal behavior after each ABEL training event. Additionally, because footpaths and waypoint use would vary annually, continual disturbance and permanent displacement of MIS from waypoint locations in the project area are not anticipated. Effects on the brook trout would not occur because no water training activities would occur. To avoid possible increased erosion, which could decrease water quality in occupied streams, the cadets would use established trails when possible. MIS Population Trend and Species Viability. The greenback cutthroat trout does not occur in the project area; therefore, the Proposed Action would not affect this species. The Proposed Action is also not expected to affect the habitat or population trends of brook trout, Abert’s squirrel, or Rocky Mountain elk. These species’ range extends far beyond the project area, which represents a small portion of the Pike and San Isabel National forests. Due to the relatively small scale of the project area and the potential variability of population numbers in this area, the population-level trends and viability of these species would not be affected. 3.4.2.2 Cumulative Effects The ABEL program, combined with concurrent use of the project area by the Colorado Army National Guard and recreationists (including outfitters and guides), the West and Upper Monument Creek management projects, and the aspen enhancement/vegetative treatment project, could have short-term, intermittent, adverse cumulative effects on wildlife from the ABEL program from increased human activity in the project area. Types of effects on wildlife during concurrent use of the area would be similar to, but
30 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
greater than, those described in Section 3.4.2.1, including increased temporary displacement of wildlife. However, the vegetation management and enhancement projects could have long-term beneficial cumulative effects on wildlife by maintaining and revitalizing habitat. Additionally, training periods for the Colorado Army National Guard and the ABEL program would be scheduled to avoid concurrent use of the area to the extent possible. Because use of the area for the ABEL program would vary annually, long-term displacement and cumulative effects on wildlife are not anticipated.
3.4.3 Alternative 2: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the ABEL program would not be conducted on NFS lands, and there would be no change to existing use of the project area. No effects on wildlife species, BCC, big game species, or MIS would be anticipated from the No Action Alternative.
3.5 Special Status Species
3.5.1 Affected Environment Federally Listed Species. The ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) establishes a federal program “to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend” (USFWS 2013). The ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS, “to ensure that effects of actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species” or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (USFWS 2013). Under the ESA, “jeopardy occurs when an action is reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish a species’ numbers, reproduction, or distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is appreciably reduced” (USFWS 2019c). An endangered species is defined by the ESA as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined by the ESA as any species likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future (16 USC 1532). The ESA also prohibits any action that results in a “take” of any listed animal. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 USC 1532). Listed plants are not protected from take, although it is illegal to collect or maliciously harm them on federal land. Critical habitat is designated for a threatened or endangered species if USFWS determines that the habitat is essential to the conservation of the species. Federal agencies must ensure that their activities do not adversely modify designated critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery.
31 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Nine federally listed species and one proposed species, identified by the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) System (USFWS 2019a), have the potential to be affected by the ABEL training conducted under the Proposed Action. Table 3 identifies 8 of the 10 federally listed and proposed species that occur in Pike National Forest but are not likely to occur in the project area. These species would not be affected by the Proposed Action and thus will not be analyzed for effects. Table 3 includes the justification for exclusion from further consideration. The IPaC report indicated that no designated or proposed critical habitat occurs within the project area. Table 3. Federally Listed Species Excluded from Further Evaluation Federal Species General Habitat Requirements Species Status and Justification for Exclusion Fish Greenback T Greenback cutthroat trout historically inhabited the South Platte cutthroat trout River basin. The only genetically pure population exists in Bear (Oncorhynchus Creek, west of Colorado Springs (USFWS and CPW 2012). This clarkia stomias) species does not occur in the project area, and no water-use or watershed disturbance activities would occur as a result of the project. Pallid sturgeon E Pallid sturgeon are found in large, free-flowing, warm-water, turbid (Scaphirhynchus habitat with a diverse assemblage of physical habitats in a constant albus) state of change (USFWS 2014a). This species occurs in the Missouri and Mississippi River systems east of Colorado. It does not occur in the project area, and no water-use or watershed disturbance activities would occur as a result of the project. Birds Least tern E The least tern inhabits sparsely vegetated to barren sandbars of (Sterna antillarum) rivers, lakes, and reservoir shorelines (USFWS 2014b). No suitable habitat is present in the project area for this species, and no water- use or watershed disturbance activities would occur as a result of the project. Piping plover T The piping plover uses sandy lakeshore and reservoir beaches, river (Charadrius sandbars, or alkali gravelly wetlands. This species nests in shallow melodus) and pebbled scrapes (USFWS 2001). No suitable habitat is present in the project area for this species. Whooping crane E Whooping cranes are found in coastal/inland marshes and estuaries, (Grus americana) lakes, ponds, wet meadows, rivers, and agricultural fields. The last remaining wild bird in the reintroduced Rocky Mountain population died in spring 2002 (Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS 2007), and no other occurrences have been documented since that time. Mammals North American PT North American wolverines occur primarily in boreal forests, wolverine tundra, and western mountains throughout the northern United (Gulo gulo luscus) States, including Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Wolverines typically inhabit areas of sparse human habitation, such as wilderness areas, and require heavy snow cover through spring (Kelsall 1981). Due to increased human activity in the vicinity of the project area, and a lack of suitable habitat, this species is not likely to occur or be affected by the proposed project. Plants
32 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Federal Species General Habitat Requirements Species Status and Justification for Exclusion Ute ladies’-tresses T Ute ladies’-tresses are found in moist soils near wet meadows, (Spiranthes springs, lakes, and perennial streams on early successional sandy diluvialis) bars or edges up to 7,000 feet (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009). This species generally occurs in eastern Colorado at elevations below the project area. Western prairie T Western prairie fringed orchids occur in moist to wet calcareous fringed orchid tall-grass prairies and sedge meadows. This species prefers (Platanthera relatively undisturbed grasslands, but can also be found in praeclara) moderately disturbed sites (USFWS 2015b, 1996). This species is not known to occur in Colorado, and no water-use or watershed disturbance activities would occur as a result of the project. Note: T = Threatened, E = Endangered, PT = Proposed Threatened
Based on their range and habitat, 2 of the 10 federally listed species have the potential to occur in the project area, as shown in Table 4: the Mexican spotted owl (MSO; Strix occidentalis lucida) and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM; Zapus hudsonius preblei). No designated critical habitat for either species occurs in the project area. Table 4. Federally Listed Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area Federal Species Species General Habitat Requirements Status Birds Mexican spotted owl T MSO are found in old-growth forests of southern Utah, (Strix occidentalis Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas, and into lucida) the mountains of northern and central Mexico (Rocky Mountain Wild 2014). The forests are characterized by mature trees (18-inch-diameter or greater), mainly Douglas-fir (Seamans and Gutierrez 1995). Mammals Preble’s meadow T Typical habitat is comprised of well-developed and multi- jumping mouse storied riparian vegetation (often Salix spp.) with adjacent, (Zapus hudsonius relatively undisturbed grassland communities and nearby preblei) water. The species’ upland habitat extends 330 feet (100 meters) beyond the 100-year floodplain (USFWS 2018). Note: T = Threatened
Mexican spotted owl. There are approximately 3,607 acres of suitable MSO habitat within the project area (Figure 8). The MSO is listed as threatened (USFWS 1993) with designated critical habitat in Colorado (USFWS 2004). Critical habitat was designated for the MSO on August 31, 2004 (69 Federal Register 53182–53230).
33 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 8. Mexican Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat in the Project Area
34 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
According to Wrigley et al. (2012), MSO habitat in Colorado includes a combination of dense, mixed conifer forests (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and white fir [Abies concolor]); steep slopes (greater than 40 percent slope), often with canyons or rocky outcroppings; and elevations between 6,500 to 9,500 feet (averaging 7,500 feet). Forests used for roosting and nesting contain mature or old-growth stands of trees with complex structure (that is, unevenly aged and multi-storied) and a canopy cover greater than 70 percent. Tree species used for nesting vary among areas and cover types, but Douglas- fir is often the most common. Breeding season is estimated to be March 1 through August 31, with eggs hatching in May. Owlets often fledge in June, and the young are reliant on parental care through August or September. Mated pairs generally nest in areas of older mixed conifer forest, and nests are located in live trees, snags, or rock crevices and ledges (USFWS 1995). Research in Colorado indicates that winter movements of MSO occur typically between November and April (Ganey and Block 2005). MSO are known to return to breeding habitat in Colorado as early as January (Ganey and Block 2005). MSO winter movements generally entail a change in elevation, with most individuals moving downslope, ranging from approximately 10 to 30 miles and a vertical displacement often greater than 3,000 feet (Ganey and Block 2005). A Forest Service habitat geospatial model for Pike National Forest identifies MSO suitable habitat occurring on Forest Service land, both within and outside of MSO critical habitat, and was used to model suitable habitat in the project area. This model was developed in accordance with the requirements of the 2012 MSO Recovery Plan. According to the modeled habitat data, there are 3,607 total acres of suitable MSO habitat within the project area (see Figure 8). The model indicated that suitable MSO habitat within the project area consisted primarily of foraging/non-breeding habitat with some riparian recovery, nest/roost, and rocky-canyon habitat (see Table 5). The majority of rocky-canyon and nest/roost habitat occurs within MA 4B, which will experience a limited and restricted level of training activities. However, about 60 acres of nest/roost habitat occurs within the northern section of MA 2A. Table 5. Mapped MSO Habitat Types within the Project Area
Project Area MSO Habitat Type (acres) Rocky-canyon habitat 143 Riparian recovery habitat 172 Forested nest/roost habitat 502 Forested foraging/non-breeding habitat 2,790 Total 3,607
35 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Protected activity centers (PACs) are intended to sustain and enhance areas that are presently, recently, or historically occupied by breeding MSOs. There are four PACs in Pike National Forest: Thunder Butte, Devil’s Head, Rock Creek, and Little Fountain Creek. Thunder Butte PAC, located 14 miles northwest of the project area, incurred major habitat degradation during the 2002 Hayman Fire. The nearest PAC with intact habitat is Devil’s Head, located 16 miles north of the project area. Rock Creek and Little Fountain Creek occur about 20 miles south of the project area. Two and three detections of MSO have occurred between 1993 and 1995 at Little Fountain Creek and Rock Creek, respectively (USDA Forest Service 2014a). Three detections also occurred at Devil’s Head between 1993 and 1996 (USDA Forest Service 2014a). Most detections are of single individuals in Pike National Forest, with only two total detections of pairs since 1990 at Devil’s Head and Thunder Butte (USDA Forest Service 2014a). In addition to the historical detection data from the Pike National Forest PACs, the Forest Service has recorded one detection in 2014 and one detection in 2016 of individual MSO within the project area in MA 4B and 2A, respectively (USDA Forest Service 2019). However, MSO nesting has never been recorded within the project area. The August 2019 field surveys found the majority of the forested habitat within the surveyed project area to be of a moderate age and lacking the complex, multi-storied structure of an old-growth forest. The August 2019 field survey results correlate with the 2012 habitat model that the majority of forested habitat within the project area does not contain the necessary components that define MSO nesting habitat. However, foraging/non-breeding habitat does occur throughout the project area. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. The PMJM was listed as threatened in May 1998 (63 Federal Register 66777–66784), and critical habitat designation was completed in 2010, designating approximately 411 miles of rivers and streams and 34,935 acres in Colorado (68 Federal Register 37276–37332). In general, the PMJM is found at elevations from 4,650 to 7,600 feet (USFWS 2018). Habitat for the PMJM includes a variety of riparian areas such as large perennial rivers, small ephemeral drainages only 3 to 10 feet in width, montane habitats, low moist areas, dry gulches, agricultural ditches, and wet meadows and seeps near streams (USFWS 2018). Suitable habitat for the PMJM is composed of well-developed riparian vegetation adjacent to relatively undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source. Riparian vegetation includes a dense combination of grasses, forbs, and shrubs with some taller tree and shrub canopy. The shrub canopy is often willow (Salix sp.), but could also include snowberry (Symphoricarpus sp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), Gambel oak, alder (Alnus incana), river birch (Betula fontinalis), skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata), wild plum (Prunus americana), lead plant (Amorpha fruticosa), and dogwood (Cornus sericea) (USFWS 2018). Montane riparian woodlands
36 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
where PMJM have been found are characterized by spruce (Picea pungens) and occasionally quaking aspen, with diverse understories of shrubs and forbs. The PMJM is active from May through October, and typically enters hibernation between September and October. In Colorado, PMJM occur in a band along the Front Range from the Wyoming border southward to Colorado Springs, with the band extending to western Weld County, western Elbert County, and north-central El Paso County, Colorado. The western boundary of the PMJM range in Colorado appears related to elevation along the Front Range, with 7,600 feet as an approximate upper limit (USFWS 2018). Suitable habitat for the PMJM occurs on the eastern boundary of the project area along Goat Camp Creek, Deadman Creek, Stanley Creek, and Hay Creek; no PMJM critical habitat occurs in the project area. The eastern boundary of the project area marks the uppermost elevation extent of the PMJM range; the presence of suitable habitat within the eastern boundary of the project area was field-verified during surveys in August 2019. However, PMJM habitat does not extend westward into the project area beyond MA 4B due to the increasing elevation of the montane habitat along with limited riparian habitat suitability and extent within MAs 2A and 2B. Therefore, the likelihood of established PMJM populations is restricted to the riparian areas that occur along the eastern boundary within MA 4B where suitable PMJM habitat occurs. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species. Pursuant to the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service must evaluate project effects on Forest Service Region 2 sensitive species that are known to occur in El Paso County. The 2018 Forest Service Manual 2670, Region 2 Supplement 2670-2018-1, identifies 172 species (85 fauna and 87 flora) under the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) list (USDA Forest Service 2018a). As a result of the 2018 update and consideration by Forest Service biologists, 20 fauna and flora RFSS were identified with the potential to exist in Pike National Forest. Fourteen of these species have the potential to occur in the project area and to be affected by project activities. Due to a lack of suitable habitat or limited distribution, the remaining six species are not likely to occur or be affected by project activities, and thus will not be analyzed for effects. Table 6 identifies the 20 RFSS and notes whether their range overlaps with the project area and whether the potential for suitable habitat for that species occurs in the project area. As a result of habitat verification surveys conducted in 2019 in support of the ABEL program, biologists confirmed that suitable habitat for the 14 RFSS species identified in Table 6 occurs within the project area.
37 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Table 6. Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species that Could Occur in the Project Area Known Suitable Species Species General Habitat Requirements Range Habitat Invertebrates Western The western bumblebee forages on a wide variety of Yes Yes bumblebee flowering plant species, resulting in a large range of (Bombus potential habitat for this species (USDA Forest Service occidentalis) 2010). Amphibians Northern leopard The northern leopard frog is found in wetlands, ponds, Yes Yes frog and riparian areas up to 11,000 feet. Upland meadows (Lithobates and fields are used for adult foraging, and shallow pipens) ponded areas with no predacious fish are used for tadpole habitat (CPW 2019). Birds Flammulated The flammulated owl is found in mature (greater than Yes Yes owl 150 years) to old-growth (greater than 200 years) open (Psiloscops ponderosa pine and mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas- flammeolus) fir forests. Flammulated owls typically nest in existing cavities in live and dead trees in an open forest structure, having insect prey and dense foliage for roosting (Linkhart and McCallum 2003). Lewis’s The Lewis’s woodpecker is found in open pine forests, Yes Yes woodpecker burned areas with snags and stumps, riparian and rural (Melanerpes cottonwoods, and pinyon-juniper woodlands (Abele et al. lewis) 2004). Northern The northern goshawk is a mature forest generalist. This Yes Yes goshawk species commonly nests in the lower portions of mature (Accipiter Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, or aspen gentilis) canopies (Kennedy 2003). Olive-sided The olive-sided flycatcher occurs in coniferous or mixed Yes Yes flycatcher coniferous forests from 7,000 to 11,000 feet. Densities (Contopus are highest in spruce-fir forest types and strongly cooperi) associated with forest openings and edges caused by natural or anthropogenic disturbances such as fire, logging, and tree fall gaps (Kotliar 2007). Mammals Fringed myotis The fringed myotis is an uncommon associate of shrub, Yes Yes (Myotis pinyon-juniper, or ponderosa forests, often where caves thysanodes) or mines exist, usually below 8,000 feet (Hayes and Adams 2014). Hoary bat The hoary bat is found in cottonwood and Douglas-fir Yes Yes (Lasiurus between 6,560 and 7,550 feet, and up to 9,000 feet. This cinereus) species roosts in coniferous and deciduous trees, and migrates to Mexico in the early fall (Colorado Natural Heritage Program [CNHP] 2010). Rocky Mountain The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep uses open areas with Yes Yes bighorn sheep grass and low shrubs, near escape terrain and topographic (Ovis canadensis) relief (Beecham et al. 2007).
38 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Known Suitable Species Species General Habitat Requirements Range Habitat Townsend’s big- The Townsend’s big-eared bat forages in semi-desert Yes Yes eared bat shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open (Corynorhinus montane forests. It roosts and hibernates in caves, mines, townsendii) rocky ledges, and overhangs, and in summer, in basal hollows of old-growth trees. Vegetation community is a less important indicator of presence if suitable roosting habitat is available (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2015). Plants Golden Golden columbine are found growing in damp or moist Yes Yes columbine areas generally in canyons in El Paso County (CNHP (Aquilegia 2013a). chrysantha) Lesser yellow Lesser yellow lady’s slipper occurs in moist forests, Yes Yes lady’s slipper aspen groves, and subalpine wetlands from 7,400 to (Cypripedium 8,500 feet in Clear Creek, Custer, Douglas, El Paso, parviflorum) Garfield, Jefferson, La Plata, Larimer, and Park Counties, Colorado (Mergen 2006). Livid sedge Livid sedge occurs in fens and wetlands from 9,000 to No No (Carex livida) 10,000 feet in Jackson, Larimer, and Park Counties, Colorado. No suitable habitat occurs in the project area, and its range does not include El Paso County (CNHP 2016). Park milkvetch Park milkvetch is found in moist swales and meadows in No No (Astragalus South Park to the Wet Mountain Valley from 7,500 to leptaleus) 10,000 feet. It occurs in Park, Fremont, and Custer Counties, Colorado. No suitable habitat occurs in the project area, and its range does not include El Paso County (Ladyman 2006). Porter's false Porter’s false needlegrass occurs on hummocks in fens Yes Yes needlegrass and willow from 9,200 to 12,000 feet in El Paso, Lake, (Ptilagrostis Park, and Summit Counties, Colorado (Johnston 2006). porter) Rock cinquefoil Rock cinquefoil inhabits subalpine or montane granitic No No (Drymocallis outcrops amongst ponderosa or limber pine from 6,900 to rupestris) 10,500 feet in elevation. It is found in Boulder, Clear Creek, Larimer, and Park Counties, Colorado. Its range does not include El Paso County, where the project area is located (Anderson 2004). Rocky Mountain Rocky Mountain monkeyflower occurs in granitic seeps, No No monkeyflower slopes, and alluvium in open sites within spruce-fir and (Mimulus aspen forests from 8,500 to 10,500 feet. It is found in gemmiparus) Grand, Jefferson, Larimer, and Park Counties, Colorado. Its range does not include El Paso County, where the project area is located (Weber 2017). Selkirk’s violet Selkirk’s violet is found in aspen forests and generally Yes No (Viola selkirkii) moist woods and thickets from montane to subalpine. In Colorado, it ranges from 8,500 to 9,100 feet and is found in Douglas, El Paso, and Larimer Counties (CNHP 2013b).
39 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Known Suitable Species Species General Habitat Requirements Range Habitat Slender Slender cottongrass is found in montane and subalpine No No cottongrass wetlands, wet meadows, and pond edges from 8,100 to (Eriophorum 12,000 feet. It occurs in Jackson, Las Animas, and Park gracile) Counties, Colorado. Its range does not include El Paso County, where the project area is located (Decker at al. 2006). White adder’s- White adder’s-mouth orchid is found in riparian areas No Yes mouth orchid and amongst mosses from 7,200 to 8,000 feet. It occurs (Malaxis in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, Colorado (Anderson monophyllos) 2006).
3.5.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 3.5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Federally Listed Species. A biological assessment was prepared in conjunction with this EA to evaluate project effects on federally listed species and critical habitat under Section 7 of the ESA. The biological assessment was provided to the Forest Service on November 1, 2019, and the Forest Service approved the biological assessment on November 12, 2019. Effects determinations for the MSO and PMJM are summarized in the paragraphs below. Mexican spotted owl. The Proposed Action would have no effect on MSO. As mentioned in Section 3.5.1, there are approximately 3,607 acres of suitable MSO habitat in the project area, and the MSO has been documented in the project area. Due to the availability of suitable habitat and past detections of the species in the area, MSO could forage and occur as transient individuals in the project area. MSO individuals could be temporarily displaced from suitable foraging habitat by cadets traversing the area on and off trails. Cadet hiking patterns through the project area would be consistent with off-trail travel permitted in the MAs by public recreationists, and cadets would travel on designated trails as much as possible. Therefore, displacement of MSO from the area is expected to be temporary. Although highly unlikely, if nesting MSO were to occur in the project area, there is a chance that project activities could result in the flushing and abandonment of nesting MSO. Although no nesting has been recorded in the project area, if active nests are identified by the Forest Service prior to an ABEL training event, maps and GPS devices would identify these locations as sensitive areas that must be avoided, and such avoidance would be monitored and enforced by USAFA faculty. Training activities would not result in long-term changes to the behavior or continued use of suitable habitat by MSO in the project area. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. The Proposed Action would have no effect on the PMJM. As discussed in Section 3.5.1, PMJM could occur along the lower reaches of Goat Camp Creek, Upper Monument Creek, and other small tributaries in the project area. Although PMJM may occur along the very eastern boundary of the project area,
40 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
effects would be avoided because the cadets would be restricted to on-trail navigation in MA 4B. By restricting cross-country navigation in this MA, cadets would avoid disturbance to PMJM habitat and individuals in the area.
Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species. A biological evaluation was developed concurrently with this EA to determine whether actions contribute to loss of viability of native or desired non-native plant or animal species, or result in a trend toward federal listing. The biological evaluation also provides a standard for the Forest Service to fully consider endangered, threatened, proposed, and sensitive species and critical habitats in its decision-making. Effects on RFSS species evaluated in the biological evaluation are summarized in the paragraphs below. Under the Proposed Action, short-term, discontinuous, insignificant effects on 14 of the RFSS (Table 6) would be expected from the ABEL program. These 14 species have a low to moderate likelihood of occurring in the project area. RFSS Invertebrates. One RFSS insect, the western bumblebee, has potential to occur in the project area and to be affected by the Proposed Action; however, the western bumblebee was not detected during the 2019 habitat verification survey conducted in support of the ABEL program. The western bumblebee develops new colonies each season when overwintering queens emerge from hibernation and select a nest site for a new colony. The trampling of vegetation in the project area during ABEL training events would result in short-term, insignificant effects on habitat and individuals. Because the Proposed Action is intermittent and dispersed over a large area, the amount of trampling would be minimal and would not alter the overall habitat quality. The potential for effects on individuals is low even during the time of year when the species are most likely to occur in the project area because this species is highly mobile and could avoid the area during ABEL training events. Therefore, the potential for impacts on the western bumblebee would be short-term and insignificant. RFSS Amphibians. One RFSS amphibian, the northern leopard frog, has potential to occur in the project area and to be affected by the Proposed Action. However, the northern leopard frog was not detected in the project area during the 2019 habitat verification survey conducted in support of the ABEL program. Northern leopard frogs are on the decline state-wide, particularly in the mountains (CPW 2019). Because no ABEL training activities are proposed in wetlands or other aquatic habitats, limited potential to impact the northern leopard frog or its habitat is expected. If individuals were present in the project area, it is anticipated that they would be temporarily displaced during the ABEL training event, and potential effects would be short-term and insignificant. RFSS Birds. As shown in Table 6, four RFSS bird species have the potential to occur in the project area. One of the four RFSS birds, the olive-side flycatcher (Contopus
41 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
cooperi), was observed during the 2019 habitat verification survey conducted in support of the ABEL program. However, none of the four species are likely to occur or nest in the project area regularly. These species could occur as transient individuals in the project area and could be temporarily displaced by cadets traversing the area on and off trails. Cadet hiking patterns through the project area would be consistent with off-trail travel permitted in the MAs by public recreationists, and cadets would travel on designated trails as much as possible. Therefore, displacement of RFSS birds from the area is expected to be temporary. If active nests of RFSS birds are identified by the Forest Service prior to an ABEL training event, maps and GPS devices would identify these locations as sensitive areas that must be avoided, and such avoidance would be monitored and enforced by USAFA faculty. The Proposed Action would be expected to have short- term, discontinuous, and insignificant effects on RFSS birds. RFSS Mammals. As shown in Table 6, four RFSS mammal species have the potential to occur in the project area. The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep summer and calving range occurs in the southeastern portion of the project area. The three bat species have suitable habitat throughout the project area but could be restricted by elevation. None of the RFSS mammal species were identified during the 2019 habitat verification survey conducted in support of the ABEL program. All four RFSS mammal species could be temporarily disturbed and displaced by cadets traversing the area on or off trails, but it is anticipated that these species would return once cadets vacate the area. Because footpaths and waypoint use would vary annually, ongoing disturbance resulting in permanent displacement of RFSS mammals from waypoint locations in the project area are not anticipated. Additionally, impacts on the three bat species are also not expected because suitable caves, mines, or buildings used for roosting would not be affected. Overall, potential effects on the RFSS mammal species would be short-term, intermittent, and insignificant to negligible. RFSS Plants. The four RFSS plants with the potential to occur in the project area are obligate wetland species that were not detected during the 2019 habitat verification survey. Because no ABEL training activities are proposed in wetlands or other aquatic habitats, negligible to no effects on RFSS plant species would be expected. 3.5.2.2 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects on sensitive species would be similar to cumulative effects described for vegetation and wildlife in Sections 3.3.2.2 and 3.4.2.2. Concurrent use of the project area by the ABEL program, Colorado Army National Guard, and recreationists (including outfitters and guides) could have short-term, intermittent, adverse cumulative effects on sensitive species from increased human activity. Types of effects on sensitive species during concurrent use of the area would include increased trampling of sensitive vegetation and displacement of sensitive wildlife. However, the West and Upper Monument Creek management projects and aspen enhancement/vegetative treatment
42 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
project would maintain and revitalize healthy vegetation communities and wildlife habitat within the vicinity of these projects, potentially alleviating effects of any concurrent use of the area. Additionally, training periods for the Colorado Army National Guard and the ABEL program would be scheduled to avoid concurrent use of the area to the extent possible. Because use of the area for the ABEL program would vary annually, long-term displacement and cumulative effects on special status species are not anticipated.
3.5.3 Alternative 2: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the ABEL program would not be conducted on NFS lands, and there would be no change to existing use of the project area. No effects on special status species would be anticipated from the No Action Alternative.
3.6 Heritage Resources
3.6.1 Affected Environment A literature search was conducted by the Forest Service using the records of the State Historic Preservation Office, the cultural resource files of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, and all relevant cultural reports. The literature search indicates that 46 percent (5,533 acres) of the project area have been covered previously by adequate surveys. The project area was previously surveyed under the FY2013 Cultural Resource Survey and Documentation for Hazardous Fuels Reduction - Pike National Forest South Park, South Platte and Pikes Peak Ranger Districts in 2013. This survey indicated that the site density in the project area is moderate. The two proposed cadet support camps would be located off of a trail categorized as “needs data, non-supporting linear road/trail segment.”
3.6.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action A heritage resources investigation completed by Forest Service archaeologists determined that the Proposed Action does not have the potential to adversely affect historic properties as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act at 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), and there are no extraordinary circumstances presented by cultural resources in the project area. Therefore, potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on heritage resources are not discussed further in this EA, and the Forest Service has no further obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, provided that the project area or methods of implementation are not modified.
3.6.3 Alternative 2: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the ABEL program would not be conducted on NFS lands, and there would be no change to existing use of the project area. No effects on heritage resources would be anticipated from the No Action Alternative.
43 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
3.7 Recreation
3.7.1 Affected Environment Access to Project Area. Road access to or near the project area from the west is on Rampart Range Road (NFS Road 300), from the north on Mt. Herman Road (NFS Road 320), and from the southwest on Schubarth Trail (NFS Road 307). The project area is not accessible by road from the eastern boundary with USAFA. All project area access roads would be accessible during ABEL training events; potential closures could occur in case of wildfire. Developed Recreation. Developed recreation is defined as recreation that takes place in constructed recreation sites, such as campgrounds and picnic areas. There are no developed recreation areas within the project area. Rampart Reservoir Recreation Area is located south and outside of the project area. This recreation area contains two small overnight campgrounds, a picnic area, a boat ramp, and parking areas for fishing access. Rampart Reservoir Recreation Area is generally open from early May to mid-October. Springdale Campground is west and outside of the project area. This recreation area contains a small overnight campground on Rampart Range Road surrounded by private land, and is usually open from Memorial Day through Labor Day weekend (USDA Forest Service 2017). Dispersed Recreation. Dispersed recreation is all recreation on or off roads and trails that takes place outside of developed recreation sites, such as fee campgrounds and picnic areas where amenities are provided. Dispersed recreation includes hiking, mountain biking, backpacking, rock climbing, equestrian use, backcountry camping, fishing, hunting, off-highway vehicle use, target shooting, sightseeing, and other activities. Dispersed camping is considered camping along roads or trails with no amenities, such as picnic tables or toilets. Displacement of recreationists due to the 2012 Waldo Canyon fire south of the project area has increased use in other areas of the forest, including the project area. Increases in dispersed camping and off-road vehicle use contributes to resource damage, illegal roads and trails, and more trash (USDA Forest Service 1982). Dispersed camping is popular along roads off Rampart Range Road and Schubarth Trail. Trails. Existing non-motorized, recognized Forest Service trails in the project area include Stanley Canyon Trail (#707), West Monument Creek Trail (#713), Schubarth Trail (#721), Stanley Rim Trail (#722), Backdoor Trail (#723), and Hyster Trail (#755). All trails are east and north of the Rampart Reservoir Recreation Area. Public access to these trails to the east is limited depending on the security level at USAFA. Figure 9 shows Forest Service system trails in the project area.
44 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 9. National Forest System Roads and Trails in the Project Area
45 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Multi-use/Motorized Trails and Roads. Approximately two-thirds of the project area falls within MAs 2A and 2B, which both allow for motorized multi-use. Specifically, MA 2A is managed for semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities such as snowmobiling, four-wheel driving, and motorcycling. Roads identified within the project area may be prohibited or restricted to designated routes to protect physical and biological resources. MA 2B is managed for rural and roaded natural recreation opportunities. Motorized and non-motorized recreation activities in MA 2B could include driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, picnicking, fishing, snowmobiling, and cross- country skiing. Motorized travel in MA 2B may be prohibited or restricted to designated routes to protect physical and biological resources. No authorized motorized trails occur within the project area. The Pikes Peak Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map designates roads and trails open to highway-legal vehicles, roads open to all vehicles, trails open to vehicles 50 inches or less in width, and trails open to motorcycles only. Roads and trails identified within the project area, #307, #307.A, #311, #311.A, #312.A, #313, #314, and #314.A, are open to all vehicles, including off-highway vehicles (USDA Forest Service 2018b). Figure 9 shows Forest Service system roads in the project area. Non-system roads and trails (also called unauthorized, undesignated, or social roads and trails) also exist in the project area. Some of these non-system roads and trails lead from private land or USAFA land onto NFS lands. These roads and trails were historic routes or were user created, and were not designed or built to Forest Service standards. By policy, the Forest Service may not spend appropriated funds to maintain or improve non- system roads or trails; however, the Forest Service may spend appropriated funds to close non-system roads and trails (USDA Forest Service 2017). Target Shooting. The project area is open to target shooting; however, shooting restrictions are in place in areas north, west, and southwest of the project area. Due to shooting restrictions in nearby areas, the project area is prone to increased recreational use for target shooting. Areas open to shooting can experience degradation, including damage to trees, increased trash, increased non-system roads, and increased unsafe shooting incidents (USDA Forest Service 2014b). Recreation Special Uses. Areas in and adjacent to the project area are and could be used annually by permitted outfitters and guides, and for occasional recreation events. Outfitter and guide special use permits are issued for hiking, mountain biking, backpacking, rock climbing, hunting, and all-terrain vehicle and jeep tours. The project area is located in a portion of Colorado Big Game Management Unit 511 and Sheep Unit 34 (CPW n.d.). Recreation Experience. The sense of creativeness, refreshment, and pleasure that the recreationist has while recreating or having a good time can be viewed as the recreationist “realizing satisfactory experiences.” The recreationist attains these satisfactory
46 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
experiences by participating in preferred recreation activities in preferred surroundings or settings. Expectations of recreationists are influenced by many factors. The quality of a recreation opportunity is judged by how well it leads to the kind of experiences particular types of recreationists desire. Generally, roads and trails along creeks, rivers, or riparian areas; roads or trails that lead to a destination, such as a lake or summit of a mountain; viewing wildlife and scenery; changes in road or trail grade; challenging roads and trails; diversity in forest type; and loop roads and trails all add to a more desirable recreation experience (USDA Forest Service 1982). Within the project area, Stanley Canyon Trail (#707) offers a desirable recreation experience with a challenging ascent, proximity to a stream, and open views from the top of the trail; bighorn sheep are also seen infrequently on the trail. Areas recovering from the 2012 Waldo Canyon fire are visible from the West Monument Creek Trail (#713) in the project area, also offering a desirable recreation experience (AllTrails, LLC n.d.). Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a combination of activities, settings, and probable experiences, and provides a framework for recreation managers to define classes of outdoor recreation opportunity environments. The land and water areas of Pike National Forest are inventoried and mapped according to their ROS class to identify which areas are currently providing which types of recreation opportunities (USDA Forest Service 1982). Table 7 describes the ROS classes in terms of three principal components: the activities, the setting, and the experience. The established ROS classes in the project area are Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, and Rural, as shown in Figure 10.
47 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Table 7. ROS Classes in the Project Area Semi-primitive Motorized Roaded Natural Rural Activity Activities include hiking, Activities include hiking, Activities include hiking, horseback riding, horseback riding, horseback riding, motorcycling, mountain motorcycling, driving motorcycling, driving biking, viewing scenery, automobiles, train and bus automobiles, train and bus camping, hunting, cross- touring, bicycling, viewing touring, bicycling, viewing country skiing, snow scenery, camping, hunting, scenery, camping, hunting, shoeing. resort and commercial resort and commercial services, cross-country services, recreational skiing, snow shoeing. cabins, team sports, Access and travel is downhill skiing, cross- conventional motorized, country skiing, snow including sedans, trailers, shoeing. Access and travel RVs, and some motor is conventional motorized, homes. including sedans, trailers, RVs, and some motor homes. Setting The setting is a The setting is a mostly The setting can be a predominantly natural- natural-appearing substantially modified appearing environment. environment with moderate natural environment. Sights There is a low evidences of the sights and and sounds of humans are concentration of users, but sounds of man. Interactions readily evident, and often evidence of others on between users may be low interaction with other users trails. There are minimum to moderate, but with is often moderate to high. onsite controls, and evidence of other users Facilities are designed for restrictions are present but prevalent. Resource use by a large number of subtle. modification and utilization people. Moderate densities practices are evident, but are provided far away from harmonize with the natural developed sites. Facilities environment. Conventional for intensified motorized motorized use is provided use and parking are for in construction available. standards and design of facilities. Experience Probability for experiencing Probability for experiencing Probability for experiencing isolation from the sights affiliation with individuals affiliation with individuals and sounds of humans, and groups is prevalent, as and groups is prevalent, as independence, closeness to is the convenience of sites is the convenience of sites nature, and tranquility is and opportunities. The and opportunities. moderate. There is a high opportunity to affiliate with Opportunities for wildland degree of self-reliance, other users in developed challenges, risk taking, and challenge, and risk in using sites exists, but with some testing of outdoor skills are motorized equipment. There chance for privacy. Self- generally unimportant. is an opportunity to use reliance on outdoor skill is motorized equipment while of only moderate in the area. importance. There is little opportunity for challenge and risk. Source: USDA Forest Service 1982.
48 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Figure 10. ROS Classes within the Project Area
49 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
3.7.2 Alternative 1: Proposed Action 3.7.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, there would be no changes to developed or dispersed recreation, or to system and non-system trails and roads. Short-term, intermittent, adverse effects on recreation would be expected from the ABEL program from increased road, trail, and off-trail land use by USAFA staff and cadets. Recreationists could be displaced from dispersed camping areas by the ABEL support camps or by cadets traversing the area. Displacement of recreationists during ABEL training events may cause increased use in other dispersed camping areas, off-highway vehicle areas, and target shooting areas. Target shooting is not anticipated to interfere with cadet training because shooting is not allowed to cross roads or trails, and must be into a solid earthen backstop. However, the ABEL training, and especially cross country travel, could impact the August archery hunting season by pushing big game out of the project area. Recreationists encountering groups of cadets (approximately 10 per group) could have a reduced recreation experience due to group size or appearance. However, several trails in the project area are directly accessible from USAFA, and local recreationists are likely accustomed to the presence of military personnel in the region. USAFA cadet and staff activities would be consistent with the ROS classes in the project area and would be consistent with Forest Service management objectives; less than significant impacts would be expected. Non-system trails would be used for cadet access from USAFA to the project area. However, these trails are existing access trails from USAFA into Pike National Forest, and it is not anticipated that cadet use would greatly alter or increase permanence of these trails. Cadets would be required to remain on existing non-system trails in MA 4A to minimize the potential for additional user-created routes. Cross-country travel to waypoints in MAs 2A and 2B would differ during each training event, also minimizing the potential for user-created routes. 3.7.2.2 Cumulative Effects The ABEL program, combined with concurrent use of the project area by the Colorado Army National Guard and recreationists (including outfitters and guides) and by vegetation management projects, could have short-term, intermittent, adverse cumulative effects on recreation from increased road, trail, and off-trail land use, and from limiting access to areas of the project area during vegetation management projects. Types of effects on recreation during concurrent use of the area would be similar to, but greater than, those described in Section 3.7.2.1, including increased displacement of recreationists. However, training periods for the Colorado Army National Guard and the ABEL program would be scheduled to avoid concurrent use of the area to the extent
50 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest possible. Non-system trail use would not be expected to increase because all parties would be required to operate within the confines of their permits.
3.7.3 Alternative 2: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the ABEL program would not be conducted on NFS lands, and recreation opportunities and experiences would not change. Recreationists would not be potentially displaced from dispersed recreation areas, and there would be no change to non-system trail use.
51 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
4.0 Effects Relative to the Finding of No Significance Elements In 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality published regulations for implementing NEPA. These regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) include a definition of “significant” as used in NEPA. The 10 elements of this definition are critical to reducing paperwork through use of a FONSI when an action would not have a significant effect on the human environment, and is therefore, exempt from requirements to prepare an EIS. Significance as used in NEPA requires consideration of 10 intensity factors, discussed in Section 4.2, in the appropriate context for each factor. Mitigations and management requirements designed to reduce the potential for adverse effects were incorporated into the Proposed Action, as described in Section 2.0. These management requirements would minimize or eliminate the potential for adverse effects caused by the proposed project.
4.1 Context For the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this EA. All of the resource analyses identified the spatial and temporal bounds of their analysis based on the potential environmental effects. The potential environmental effects would be localized to the project area, and would not be measurable at a regional or larger scale.
4.2 Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis in this EA and the references in the project record. The Forest Service has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. A FONSI is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the 10 factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b), as discussed below. 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. Consideration of the intensity of environmental effects in this EA is not biased by beneficial effects of the Proposed Action. Beneficial effects were not used to offset adverse effects. In the absence of beneficial effects, no adverse effects would be significant even when considered by themselves, (Section 3.0 Environmental Consequences, p. 17). Mitigation measures and management requirements designed to reduce the potential for adverse effects were incorporated into the Proposed Action, including standards and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984), BMPs, and project-specific design criteria based on resource specialist
52 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
knowledge and experience. These mitigation measures and management requirements would minimize or eliminate the potential for adverse effects caused by the Proposed Action. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The Proposed Action would have no significant effects on public health and safety because the Proposed Action is consistent with the current use of Pike National Forest and the MAs, and is consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984). Cadets would carry knives for protection from wildlife, but no other weapons use is proposed. Faculty would use portable fire pits, such as a Solo Stove; however, USAFA would abide by Forest Service-issued special orders, including fire restrictions, and all portable fire pits would be self-contained and would not leave residue. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The Proposed Action would have no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area. The project area does not include parklands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas; therefore, none would be affected by the Proposed Action. Riparian areas and wetlands would be protected because cadets and staff would avoid these areas and would not be allowed to harvest fauna or flora. If prehistoric or historic materials were to be found during the course of this project, cadets and staff would be trained to avoid disturbance of these materials and report them immediately. USAFA use in the area of the cultural resource may not resume until a professional archaeologist has evaluated the cultural materials and potential effects. The discovery must be protected until written notification to proceed is provided by the authorized officer (36 CFR 800.110 & 112; 43 CFR 10.4). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects of the Proposed Action on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Controversy in this context refers to cases where there is substantial dispute as to the effects of an action, rather than opposition to its adoption. The Proposed Action would follow the management direction in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984). There is no known controversy over the impacts of the Proposed Action.
53 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis in this EA shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. 6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The Proposed Action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects because significant effects are not anticipated and the Proposed Action would be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984). 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. The cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and the projects identified in Section 3.2 would not be significant. The analysis completed for this EA demonstrates that there would be no significant cumulative effects on the environment, either when combined with the effects created by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, or the effects from natural changes taking place in the environment. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The Proposed Action would have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places because this action has no potential to affect historic properties. The Proposed Action would also not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Proposed Action would not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat as defined in the ESA. To comply with the ESA, a biological assessment was completed for endangered and threatened species and their
54 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
habitats within the project area. The biological assessment concluded that the Proposed Action would have no effect on species and habitat protected under the ESA. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The Proposed Action would not violate federal, state, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1984).
55 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
5.0 References Abele, Stephen C., Victoria A. Saab, and Edward O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. June 29. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182072.pdf.
Alexander, Robert R. 1988. Forest Vegetation on National Forests in the Rocky Mountain and Intermountain Regions: Habitat Types and Community Types. General Technical Report RM-162. USDA Forest Service. July. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_series/rm/gtr/rm_gtr162.pdf.
AllTrails, LLC. n.d. Best Trails in Pike National Forest. https://www.alltrails.com/parks/us/colorado/pike-national-forest?ref=header.
Anderson, David G. 2004. Potentilla rupincola Osterhout (rock cinquefoil): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. September 28. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206883.pdf.
Anderson, David G. 2006. Malaxis brachypoda (A. Gray) Fernald (white adder’s-mouth orchid): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. December 5. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206991.pdf.
Beecham, John J., Cameron P. Collins, and Timothy D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. February 12. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf.
Brazil, Emily, and Leila Siciliano Martina. 2014. Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher. Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Empidonax_traillii/.
Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS. 2007. International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane (Grus americana). Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) and USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico. March. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070604_v4.pdf.
56 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Chapman, Shannen S., Glenn E. Griffith, James M. Omernik, Alan B. Price, Jerry Freeouf, and Donald L. Schrupp. 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). https://www.epa.gov/eco- research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-8.
CNHP. 2010. “Bats of Colorado.” Colorado Bat Working Group. December 7. Accessed April 25, 2019. https://cnhp.colostate.edu/cbwg/batList.asp#hoarybat.
CNHP. 2013a. “Golden columbine (Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii).” Colorado Rare Plant Guide. July 17. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/projects/rareplants/guide.asp?id=17990.
CNHP. 2013b. “Selkirk violet (Viola selkirkii).” Colorado Rare Plant Guide. July 17. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/projects/rareplants/pdfs/18542.pdf.
CNHP. 2016. “Livid sedge (Carex livida).” Colorado Rare Plant Guide. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/projects/rareplants/pdfs/21314.pdf.
Colorado Partners in Flight. 2000. Virginia’s Warbler (Vermivora virginiae). Physiographic Region 62: Southern Rocky Mountains. Accessed February 8, 2019. http://www.rmbo.org/pif/bcp/phy62/mt-shrub/viwa.htm.
CPW. 2005. Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). Colorado Sagebrush: A Conservation Assessment and Strategy. September. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Sagebrush/BrewersSparrow.p df.
CPW. 2019. Species Profiles. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx.
CPW. n.d. Game Management Unit Maps. https://cpw.state.co.us/maps.
Decker, Karin, Denise R. Culver, and David G. Anderson. 2006. Eriophorum gracile W.D.J. Koch (slender cottongrass): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. February 6. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206985.pdf.
Doesken, Nolan J., Roger A. Pielke, and Odilia A.P. Bliss. 2003. Climate of Colorado. Climatography of the Unites States No. 60 (updated 1/2003). Colorado Climate Center, Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University, Fort
57 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Collins, CO. Accessed January 29, 2019. http://climate.colostate.edu/pdfs/climateofcoloradoNo.60.pdf.
Ganey, Joseph L., and William M. Block. 2005. Winter Movements and Range Use of Radio-marked Mexican Spotted Owls: An Evaluation of Current Management Recommendations. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-148-WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Hayes, Mark A., and Rick A. Adams. 2014. Geographic and Elevational Distribution of Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in Colorado. Western North American Naturalist 74(4): 446–455. doi:e 10.3398/064.074.0410.
Johnston, Barry C. 2006. Ptilagrostis porteri (Rydb.) W.A. Weber (Porter’s false needlegrass): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. May 3. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206992.pdf.
Keith, James O. 2003. The Abert’s Squirrel (Sciurus aberti): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. August 25. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181932.pdf.
Kelsall, J.P. 1981. COSEWIC Status Report on the Wolverine, Gulo gulo, in Canada. Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
Kennedy, Patricia L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. January 2. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182005.pdf.
Kochert, M.N., Karen Steenhof, C.L. Mcintyre, and E.H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In The Birds of North America Online, ed. A. Poole. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed February 8, 2019. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684.
Kotliar, Natasha B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. February 20. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/SierraNevadaWildlife/ OliveSidedFlycatcher/OSF-Kotliar07.pdf.
58 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Ladyman, Juanita A.R. 2006. Astragalus leptaleus Gray (park milkvetch): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. February 24. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206825.pdf.
Linkhart, Brian D., and D. Archibald McCallum. 2013. Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus). In The Birds of North America Online, ed. A. Poole. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/093/articles/breeding.
Mergen, Daryl E. 2006. Cypripedium parviflorum Salisb. (lesser yellow lady’s slipper): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. July 17. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/cypripediumparviflorum.pdf.
Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2015. “Townsend’s Big-eared Bat – Corynorhinus townsendii.” Montana Field Guide. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMACC08010.aspx.
Moore, Randy. 1992. Soil Survey of Pike National Forest, Eastern Part, Colorado, Parts of Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, and Teller Counties. USDA Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Colorado Agriculture Experiment Station. October. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/colorado/pikeNF_CO 1992/pike.pdf.
Rocky Mountain Wild. 2014. Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Accessed April 25, 2019. http://rockymountainwild.org/feature/mexican-spotted-owl.
Seamans, Mark E., and R.J. Gutierrez. 1995. Breeding Habitat of the Mexican Spotted Owl in the Tularosa Mountains, New Mexico. The Condor 97:944-952. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://gutierrezlab.cfans.umn.edu/files/2013/03/cfans_content_378181.pdf.
Tibbitts, T. Lee, and William Moskoff. 2014. Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes). In The Birds of North America Online, ed. A Poole. Accessed February 8, 2019. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/427.
U.S. Air Force. 2018. Air Conformity Applicability Model for Adventure-Based Expeditionary Skills [ABEL] Training.
USDA Forest Service. 1982. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Users Guide.
59 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
USDA Forest Service. 1984. Land and Resource Management Plan: Pike and San Isabel National Forests; Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Pueblo, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/psicc/landmanagement/planning.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) Species Fact Sheet. June 13. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1 &ved=0ahUKEwilwLXRhbnJAhUKwiYKHW5cB8EQFggcMAA&url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.fs.fed.us%2Fr6%2Fsfpnw%2Fissssp%2Fdocuments%2Fplanning- docs%2Fsfs-iihy-bombus-occidentalis-2010- 10.docx&usg=AFQjCNFEnGNZSu2Lyn70Ioa5OBuJwNX9Ug&sig2=alXzRjMt Kj5NLbNRb00myQ&bvm=bv.108194040,d.eWE.
USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) Recovery Habitat Mapping for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. Developed by Christopher Beal with Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District. Provided by the Forest Service-Pikes Peak Ranger District (Felix Quesada, Wildlife Biologist).
USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Recreational Target Shooting: Guidelines for the Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest. April. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd490253.pdf.
USDA Forest Service. 2017. Upper Monument Creek Landscape Restoration Final Environmental Impact Statement. May. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/98359_FSPLT3_3990362.pdf.
USDA Forest Service. 2018a. Forest Service Manual Rocky Mountain Region: FSM 2600- Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. December 18.
USDA Forest Service. 2018b. Motor Vehicle Use Map. Pike National Forest, Pikes Peak Ranger District. March. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd574083.pdf.
USDA Forest Service. 2019. Forest Service proprietary spatial data of MSO sightings within the action area. Provided by the Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District (Felix Quesada, Wildlife Biologist).
USDA Forest Service. n.d. Maintaining and Improving Habitat for Hummingbirds in Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota. A Land Manager’s Guide. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/HummingbirdBrochures /HummingbirdGuideCO-WY-SD.pdf.
60 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Plant Guide: Ute Ladies’ Tresses. Prepared by Loren St. John, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, ID. October. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcpg9318.pdf.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
USFWS. 1993. Final Rule to List the Mexican Spotted Owl as a Threatened Species. 58 Federal Register 14248–14271. Accessed February 8, 2019. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2244.pdf.
USFWS. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Vol. 1. December. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/RecoveryPlans/MexicanSp ottedOwl.pdf.
USFWS. 1996. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) Recovery Plan. Ft. Snelling, MN: USFWS. Accessed April 25, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/WPFO%20recovery%20plan.pdf.
USFWS. 2001. Piping Plover Fact Sheet. August. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/pipingplover/pipingpl.html.
USFWS. 2004. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. 69 Federal Register 53182–53298. August 31. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2004/04-19501.pdf.
USFWS. 2013. ESA Basics: 40 Years of Conserving Endangered Species. January. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf.
USFWS. 2014a. Revised Recovery Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). Prepared by the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator. January. Accessed February 8, 2019. http://www.pallidsturgeon.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/Pallid-Sturgeon-Recovery-Plan-First-Revision-signed- version-012914_3.pdf.
USFWS. 2014b. Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) Fact Sheet. March. Accessed March 19, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/birds/leasttern/pdf/InteriorLeastTernFa ctSheetMarch2014.pdf.
61 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
USFWS. 2015a. Birds of Conservation Concern. September 25. Accessed February 8, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of- conservation-concern.php.
USFWS. 2015b. Species Profile: Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara). April 8. Accessed April 25, 2019.
USFWS. 2018. Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Recovery Plan, Colorado. Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. Accessed February 19, 2019. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/Final_Draftpreblesrecoveryplan_100320 18_signed.pdf.
USFWS. 2019a. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Species. IPaC- Information for Planning and Consultation System. Consultation code: 06E24000- 2019-SLI-0323; event code: 06E24000-2019-E-01071. January 29. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
USFWS. 2019b. “Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus luecocephalus).” ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B008.
USFWS. 2019c. Section 7 Consultation: A Brief Explanation. February 6. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/section7.html.
USFWS and CPW. 2012. Study Reveals Secrets of Colorado’s Cutthroats. Greenback Cutthroat Recovery Team. September 24. Accessed February 27, 2019. http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/2012/09242012_GBCT.pdf.
Weber, W.A. 2017. “Rocky Mountain monkeyflower (Mimulus gemmiparus).” Colorado Rare Plant Guide. January 25. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/rareplants/guide.asp?id=18872.
Western Native Trout. 2016. Greenback Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias). Status Report. Accessed February 27, 2019. http://www.westernnativetrout.org/media/trout/wnti-greenback-cutthroat-trout- status-report-2016.pdf.
Wrigley, Mike, Monica White, Brian Elliott, Matthew Comer, Ron Torretta, Phillip Gaines, Steve Olson, Kristen Meyer, Mikele Painter, Jeni Windorski, Felix Quesada, and Mike Welker. 2012. Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive Species on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. June. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service. Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Salida, Colorado. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_032420.pdf.
62 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Appendix A. Agencies and Persons Consulted Preparers and Contributors The following personnel were directly involved with preparation of this EA:
USDA Forest Service Jennifer DeWoody, NEPA Planner Jeff Hovermale, Lands and Minerals Staff Officer Oscar Martinez, District Ranger Amanda Sanchez, Forest and Grassland Heritage Program Manager and Tribal Liaison Felix Quesada, Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Air Force Kristina Book, USAFA Center for Character & Leadership Development, USAFA HQ/CCLD Sylvette Goodwin, Environmental Element Chief, 10 CES/CEIE Jennifer McCorkle, Environmental Planner, 10 CES/CENPP Lt Col Robert Marshall, USAFA Center for Character & Leadership Development, USAFA HQ/CCLD Brian Mihlbachler, Natural Resources Manager, 10CES/CEIEA Elisabeth Welch, Environmental Planner, 10 CES/CENPP Richard Wood, USAFA Center for Character & Leadership Development, USAFA HQ/CCLD
HDR – Contractor Support Kelly Flickinger, Deputy Project Manager and Biologist Kimberly Gust, Technical Editor Chris Holdridge, Quality Control Manager Kathy Lemberg, Geographic Information System Specialist Dave Mechtly, U.S. Air Force Program Manager Cheryl Myers, Document Processing Emily Smith, NEPA Project Manager
63 U.S. Air Force Academy ABEL Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike National Forest
Federal State and Local Agencies The Forest Service consulted the following individuals; federal, state, and local agencies; and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this EA: • Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Colorado Springs Utilities • The Navigators • USAFA Farrish Recreation Area • Rocky Mountain Recreation Company
Others The project was posted on the Forest Service’s schedule of proposed actions website, and a scoping legal notice was published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Pikes Peak Ranger District newspaper of record, on February 6, 2019. In addition, a scoping letter was mailed to adjacent landowners, interested individuals, and state and federal agencies. Public scoping comments were accepted until March 7, 2019, 30 days after the legal notice was published. The Pikes Peak Ranger District did not receive any scoping comments.
64