WIXLIB

DRAFT FINAL Environmental AssessmentTrueNorth Commons Enhanced Use Lease AreaUnited States Air Force AcademyColorado Springs, ColoradoU.S. Air ForceUnited States Air Force AcademyEl Paso CountyColorado Springs, ColoradoMay 31, 2019

This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT FINAL Environmental AssessmentTrueNorth Commons Enhanced Use Lease AreaUnited States Air Force AcademyEl Paso CountyColorado Springs, ColoradoPrepared for:U.S. Department of the Air ForceU.S. Air Force AcademyColorado Springs, ColoradoPrepared by:Matrix Environmental Services, LLC2435 Research Parkway, Suite 300Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920May 2019

This page intentionally left blank

Privacy AdvisoryThis Draft EA is provided for public comment in accordance with the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA), the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40CFR Parts 1500-1508), and 32 CFR Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). TheEIAP provides an opportunity for public input on Air Force decision-making, allows the public tooffer inputs on alternative ways for the Air Force to accomplish what it is proposing, and solicitscomments on the Air Force’s analysis of environmental effects.Public commenting allows the Air Force to make better, informed decisions. Letters or otherwritten or oral comments provided may be published in the Final EA. Providing personalinformation is voluntary. Any personal information provided will be used only to identify yourdesire to make a statement during the public comment portion of any public meetings orhearings or to fulfill requests for copies of the EA or associated documents. Private addresseswill be compiled to develop a mailing list for those requesting copies of the EA. However, onlythe names of the individuals making comments and specific comments will be disclosed.Personal home addresses and phone numbers will not be published in the Final EA.

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental AssessmentUSAFA EUL AreaFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT /FINDING OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVEU.S. Air Force AcademyDRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTTRUENORTH COMMONS ENHANCED USE LEASE AREAPursuant to provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Title 42 United StatesCode (USC) Sections 4321 to 4347, implemented by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)Regulations, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, and 32 CFR Part 989,Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), the United States Air Force (Air Force) assessedthe potential environmental consequences associated with the United States Air Force Academy(USAFA) entering into an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) agreement with Blue & Silver DevelopmentPartners, LLC (Blue & Silver) to construct the TrueNorth Commons that would include the newGateway Visitor Center and supporting commercial development on 52 acres of undevelopedopen space, non-excess real property at USAFA in Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Colorado.The Environmental Assessment (EA), incorporated by reference into this finding, analyzes thepotential environmental consequences of activities associated with design, construction, andoperation of the TrueNorth Commons, a mixed-use commercial complex, in the proposed EULArea, and provides environmental protection measures to avoid or reduce adverseenvironmental impacts.The EA considers all potential impacts of the action and no action alternatives and considerscumulative environmental impacts within the Region of Influence (ROI).Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)USAFA would enter into an EUL agreement for the completion of the TrueNorthCommons commercial development project, an area of commercial developmentlocated within USAFA property, but outside the USAFA secured perimeter, near theNorth Gate entrance to USAFA that would be highlighted by a 32,000 square foot VisitorCenter, a luxury destination hotel and conference center, a business hotel, office space,open space, and supporting retail/recreational development.Alternative 1, Eliminated from ConsiderationUSAFA would renovate and update the existing 31,984 square foot Barry GoldwaterVisitor Center (BGVC), located at Building 2346, within the USAFA secured perimeter.The renovation of the existing facility was removed from further consideration becausethere was no opportunity to change the existing footprint, which limits the options forthe renovation to address long-term sustainment of visitor programs; and was not thebest choice for safe and reliable access due to the location within the controlledperimeter of the base because of varying levels of security that change as needed.Following evaluation in the February 2014 Business Care Analysis (BCA), this alternativeFONSI/FONPA-1-

Environmental AssessmentUSAFA EUL AreaFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT /FINDING OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVEU.S. Air Force Academywas not selected as the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) in the subsequent AFForm 813.Alternative 2, Eliminated from ConsiderationUSAFA would construct a new 25,000 square foot Visitor Center at the current locationof Falcon Stadium, located at 2196 Field House Drive, within the USAFA securedperimeter. A new Visitor Center at Falcon Stadium was eliminated from furtherconsideration because the construction would require extensive site work that wouldconflict with ongoing events and activities at the stadium, and the options fordevelopment would be limited due to the presence of existing facilities and limitedavailability of land area. Operation of the Visitor Center at the stadium would increasethe potential for user conflicts based on a substantially increased number of visitors atthe stadium for multiple uses and purposes, and substantially increased levels of trafficon Stadium Boulevard entering stadium access roads. In addition, the site was not aviable choice for safe and reliable access due to the location within the controlledperimeter of the base, which may be subject to varying levels of security that change asneeded. Following evaluation in the February 2014 BCA, this alternative was notselected as the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) in the subsequent AF Form 813.No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) would notoccur and the BGVC would continue to operate within the USAFA secured perimeter.USAFA would not be able to optimize the value of existing real property assets toincrease tourism at USAFA and the Pikes Peak Region.SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe analyses of the affected environment and environmental consequences of implementingthe Preferred Alternative presented in the EA concluded that by implementing standingenvironmental protection measures and operational planning, the Air Force would be incompliance with all terms and conditions and reporting requirements for implementation of thereasonable and prudent measures stipulated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) in the Biological Opinion issued February 19, 2019, and with the conditions stipulatedin the Programmatic Agreement with Colorado SHPO signed and the ApprovedJurisdictional Determination (AJD) issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on May 3,2019.The Air Force has concluded that no significant adverse effects would result to the followingresources as a result of the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) : land use, aesthetics, noise,air quality, water, safety and occupational health, hazardous materials, biological, earth,FONSI/FONPA-2-

Environmental AssessmentUSAFA EUL AreaFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT /FINDING OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVEU.S. Air Force Academyutilities/infrastructure, socioeconomic, transportation and traffic. The Air Force has alsoresolved the potential adverse effect of the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) through theestablishment of a Programmatic Agreement for the project, which will ensure continuedcompliance with NHPA. As a stipulation of the EUL agreement and the project ProgrammaticAgreement, each building associated with the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) wouldundergo review and approval with SHPO and the Design Review Board prior to construction;therefore, for the purposes of this EA, the evaluation of potential adverse effects to culturalresources only considers the lease associated with the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action)and does not attempt to evaluate any potential adverse impacts from the proposeddevelopment. Therefore, when considering only the lease associated with the Proposed Action,no significant adverse effects would result to cultural resources as a result of the Air Forceleasing the proposed EUL Area to Blue & Silver. Additionally, no significant adverse cumulativeimpacts would result from activities associated with the Proposed Action when considered withpast, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects.Cultural Resources: In compliance with NHPA, the Air Force has completed the Section 106review process for the action of leasing the proposed EUL Area’s 52 acres to Blue & Silver withthe Colorado SHPO and all stakeholders. As a result of the Section 106 consultation, variousagencies and tribes were engaged, and a project Programmatic Agreement was establishedbetween USAFA, Colorado SHPO and Blue & Silver to resolve any adverse effects that couldresult from the lease and associated unknowns, ensuring NHPA continues to be upheld. Whilethe impact to cultural resources from the physical development of the TrueNorth Commons isnot addressed within this EA, each building associated with the Proposed Action would undergoreview with SHPO and the Design Review Board prior to construction; therefore, any potentialadverse effects associated with construction of the TrueNorth Commons facilities would bemanaged through the Design Review Board approval process and mitigated by the appropriateparties following review of detailed design plans, as stipulated in the EUL agreement and theproject Programmatic Agreement.Biological (Natural) Resources: A Biological Assessment (BA) dated January 2019 concluded thatthe Proposed Action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, Preble’s Meadow JumpingMouse (PMJM) and its habitat with long-term impacts to PMJM being negligible since themajority of proposed habitat disturbance would be temporary. A Section 7 consultation withUSFWS concluded with a Biological Opinion dated February 19, 2019 which agrees with the BAdeterminations and stipulates the mitigation measures that must be implemented in theidentified low quality PMJM habitat during implementation of the Proposed Action.Wetlands: A wetland delineation completed in October 2018 identified approximately 0.873acres of wetlands that would be impacted or eliminated by development activities associatedFONSI/FONPA-3-