finding of no significant impact for construction of ... · finding of no significant impact for...

F-1 Printed on Recycled Paper

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

MEDICAL – DENTAL CLINIC,SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE, COLORADO

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for a Proposed Action and two alterna-tives to construct a Medical-Dental Clinic (MDC) at Schriever Air Force Base (SAFB), Colo-rado. The EA for this proposed project is attached. Construction for the new facility isproposed for the year 2002.

The EA analyzed the environmental effects from the proposed action to construct the fa-cility on the west side of the Operational Support Facility (Alternative 1), the alternative ofconstructing the MDC on the west side of the existing Security Forces Building 101 (Alterna-tive 2), and the no action alternative (Alternative 3). The locations are presented on pages 2-3and 2-4 of the attached EA.

ALTERNATIVE 1 – PROPOSED ACTION – CONSTRUCT THE MEDICAL –DENTAL CLINIC ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE OPERATIONAL SUPPORTFACILITY

The MDC would be constructed on the west side of the newly constructed OperationalSupport Facility (OSF). The MDC would be located close to the secure area of the base aswell as the OSF, which would provide easy access by base personnel. There would be short-term air impacts during construction. There would be no detrimental long-term or cumulativeeffects due to the proposed action.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – CONSTRUCT THE MEDICAL – DENTAL CLINIC ON THEWEST SIDE OF THE SECURITY FORCES BUILDING 101

The MDC would be constructed on the west side of the security forces building 101. TheMDC would be located close to the secure area of the base as well as the OSF, which wouldprovide easy access by base personnel. There would be short-term air impacts during con-struction. There would be no detrimental long-term or cumulative effects due to the proposedaction.

ALTERNATIVE 3 – NO ACTION

The MDC would not be constructed. Only emergency treatment and evacuation wouldcontinue to be provided at Schriever AFB. Personnel would need to travel to Peterson AFB toseek medical treatment and for routine medical appointments.

Form SF298 Citation Data

Report Date("DD MON YYYY") 01012001

Report TypeN/A

Dates Covered (from... to)("DD MON YYYY")

Title and Subtitle Environmental Assessment for Medical - Dental Clinic SchrieverAir Force Base, Colorado

Contract or Grant Number

Program Element Number

Authors Project Number

Task Number

Work Unit Number

Performing Organization Name(s) and Address(es) Richard Parkinson 50 CES/CEV 300 O’Malley Ave., #19Schriever AFB, CO 80912-5019

Performing Organization Number(s)

Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) and Address(es) Monitoring Agency Acronym

Monitoring Agency Report Number(s)

Distribution/Availability Statement Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

Supplementary Notes

Abstract

Subject Terms

Document Classification unclassified

Classification of SF298 unclassified

Classification of Abstract unclassified

Limitation of Abstract unlimited

Number of Pages 80


TABLE 1SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION

EnvironmentalResource Environmental Impact

Air Quality Fugitive dust and CO emissions during construction are deminimus.

Biological Resources Conversion of semi-improved land would not effect wildlife,threatened or endangered species.

Cultural Resources No cultural resources are known to occur on SAFB.

Land Use Slight increase in developed land. No prime farmland or state-important farmland is present.

Noise Temporary local construction noise increases; no effect to noisesensitive receptors. Noise during construction would not exceedpermissible levels at property boundary.

Occupational Safetyand Health

No short-term or long-term adverse safety and health effects areexpected.

Pollution Prevention Negligible hazardous materials generated during construction.

SocioeconomicConditions

Short term benefit from construction jobs. No significant long-term change in SAFB work force, utilities service, or transporta-tion

Soils Water is expected to infiltrate into soils.

Water Resources No changes in current conditions.

Wetlands No risk or threat to wetlands.

Cumulative Effects Incremental increase in developed land, impervious surface andstormwater runoff.

Environmental Justice This project would not have an adverse impact upon minoritypopulations and/or low-income populations.

Irreversible andIrretrievableCommitment ofResources

Irretrievable commitment of materials, energy, fuel, and laborutilized during construction activities.


This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Printed on Recycled Paper

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORMEDICAL – DENTAL CLINIC

SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE, COLORADO

Prepared by50 CES/CEV

January 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-i- Printed on Recycled Paper

Acronymns and Abbreviations ________________________________________________ ivSection 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ______________________________________1-1

1.1 Proposed Action __________________________________________________________ 1-1

1.2 Need for the Proposed Action _______________________________________________ 1-1

1.3 Related Environmental Documents __________________________________________ 1-1

1.4 Decision to be Made _______________________________________________________ 1-1

1.5 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ______________________________________ 1-2

1.6 Applicable Regulatory Requirements_________________________________________ 1-21.6.1 Federal Statutes ________________________________________________________________1-21.6.2 State of Colorado Regulations _____________________________________________________1-21.6.3 El Paso County Regulations_______________________________________________________1-2

Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ____________________________2-12.1 Alternative Selection and Site Selection Criteria________________________________ 2-1

2.2 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action _____________________________________________ 2-1

2.3 Alternative 2 – Construct the MDC West of Building 101 ________________________ 2-1

2.4 Alternative 3 – No Action___________________________________________________ 2-2

Section 3 Affected Environment ______________________________________________3-13.1 Air Quality_______________________________________________________________ 3-1

3.1.1 Meteorology___________________________________________________________________3-33.1.2 Air Pollutants and Regulations ____________________________________________________3-33.1.3 Regional Air Quality ____________________________________________________________3-4

3.2 Biological Resources_______________________________________________________ 3-53.2.1 Vegetation ____________________________________________________________________3-53.2.2 Wildlife ______________________________________________________________________3-53.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ________________________________________________3-6

3.3 Cultural Resources ________________________________________________________ 3-8

3.4 Land Use ________________________________________________________________ 3-8

3.5 Noise____________________________________________________________________ 3-8

3.6 Occupational Safety and Health _____________________________________________ 3-9

3.7 Pollution Prevention_______________________________________________________ 3-9

3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions __________________________________________________ 3-9

3.9 Soils ___________________________________________________________________ 3-10

3.10 Water Resources________________________________________________________ 3-10

3.11 Wetlands ______________________________________________________________ 3-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-ii- Printed on Recycled Paper

Section 4 Environmental Consequences _______________________________________ 4-14.1 Proposed Action ___________________________________________________________4-1

4.1.1 Air Quality____________________________________________________________________ 4-14.1.2 Biological Resources ____________________________________________________________ 4-2

4.1.2.1 Vegetation ________________________________________________________________ 4-24.1.2.2 Wildlife __________________________________________________________________ 4-24.1.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ____________________________________________ 4-3

4.1.3 Cultural Resources______________________________________________________________ 4-34.1.4 Land Use _____________________________________________________________________ 4-34.1.5 Noise ________________________________________________________________________ 4-34.1.6 Occupational Safety and Health ___________________________________________________ 4-34.1.7 Pollution Prevention ____________________________________________________________ 4-44.1.8 Socioeconomic Conditions _______________________________________________________ 4-44.1.9 Soils _________________________________________________________________________ 4-44.1.10 Water Resources ______________________________________________________________ 4-54.1.11 Wetlands ____________________________________________________________________ 4-54.1.12 Cumulative Effects ____________________________________________________________ 4-64.1.13 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources _______________________________ 4-64.1.14 Environmental Justice __________________________________________________________ 4-6

4.2 Alternative 2 – Construct the MDC West of Building 101_________________________4-64.2.1 Air Quality____________________________________________________________________ 4-64.2.2 Biological Resources ____________________________________________________________ 4-7

4.2.2.1 Vegetation ________________________________________________________________ 4-84.2.2.2 Wildlife __________________________________________________________________ 4-84.2.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ____________________________________________ 4-8

4.2.3 Cultural Resources______________________________________________________________ 4-84.2.4 Land Use _____________________________________________________________________ 4-84.2.5 Noise ________________________________________________________________________ 4-84.2.6 Occupational Safety and Health ___________________________________________________ 4-94.2.7 Pollution Prevention ____________________________________________________________ 4-94.2.8 Socioeconomic Conditions _______________________________________________________ 4-94.2.9 Soils ________________________________________________________________________ 4-104.2.10 Water Resources _____________________________________________________________ 4-104.2.11 Wetlands ___________________________________________________________________ 4-104.2.12 Cumulative Effects ___________________________________________________________ 4-114.2.13 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ______________________________ 4-114.2.14 Environmental Justice _________________________________________________________ 4-11

4.3 No Action _______________________________________________________________4-114.3.1 Air Quality___________________________________________________________________ 4-114.3.2 Biological Resources ___________________________________________________________ 4-114.3.3 Cultural Resources_____________________________________________________________ 4-124.3.4 Land Use ____________________________________________________________________ 4-124.3.5 Noise _______________________________________________________________________ 4-124.3.6 Occupational Safety and Health __________________________________________________ 4-124.3.7 Pollution Prevention ___________________________________________________________ 4-124.3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions ______________________________________________________ 4-124.3.9 Soils ________________________________________________________________________ 4-124.3.10 Water Resources _____________________________________________________________ 4-12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-iii- Printed on Recycled Paper

4.3.11 Wetlands ___________________________________________________________________4-124.3.12 Cumulative Effects____________________________________________________________4-124.3.13 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ______________________________4-124.3.14 Environmental Justice _________________________________________________________4-12

4.4 Summary _______________________________________________________________ 4-12

Section 5 Regulatory Review and Permit Requirements ___________________________5-15.1 Relevant Federal, State, and Local Statutes, Regulations, and Guidelines___________ 5-1

5.1.1 Federal Regulations _____________________________________________________________5-15.1.1.1 Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. ___________________________________5-15.1.1.2 Clean Water Act of 1987, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. _________________________________5-15.1.1.3 Endangered Species Act of 1973, amended 1982 and 1987, 16 U.S.C. §1531-1542. _______5-25.1.1.4 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq. _______________________5-25.1.1.5 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §470-470t. _____________________5-25.1.1.6 Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq. ________________________________5-35.1.1.7 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 20 U.S.C. §333 ________________________5-35.1.1.8 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §13101(b)._____________________________5-35.1.1.9 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §1901 et seq. _____________5-3

5.1.2 Relevant State of Colorado and Local Regulations _____________________________________5-45.1.2.1 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ____________________________5-45.1.2.2 Colorado Division of Wildlife _________________________________________________5-45.1.2.3 Colorado Historical Society and State Historic Preservation Officer ___________________5-45.1.2.4 Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments ________________________________________5-45.1.2.5 El Paso County_____________________________________________________________5-5

5.2 Permit Requirements ______________________________________________________ 5-5

Section 6 Agencies and Persons Contacted _____________________________________6-16.1 Schriever Air Force Base ___________________________________________________ 6-1

6.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service _______________________________________________ 6-1

6.3 Colorado Natural Heritage Program _________________________________________ 6-1

6.4 Colorado Division of Wildlife _______________________________________________ 6-1

6.5 Colorado Historical Society _________________________________________________ 6-1

Section 7 List of Preparers __________________________________________________7-1Section 8 References _______________________________________________________8-1Appendix A Agency Consultation Correspondence ________________________________ AAppendix B Public Comments ________________________________________________ O

-iv- Printed on Recycled Paper

ACRONYMNS AND ABBREVIATIONS

50 CES/CEV Civil Engineer Squadron/Environmental Flight50 SW 50th Space WingAAFES Army Air Force Exchange ServiceACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservationac. acre(s)ADT Average daily traffic countsAFB Air Force BaseAFI Air Force InstructionAFSPC Air Force Space CommandAWDT Average weekday daily traffic volumesBHPO Base Historic Preservation OfficerCAA Clean Air ActCDOW Colorado Division of WildlifeCDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and EnvironmentCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCES Civil Engineer SquadronCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCO Carbon monoxideCSR Colorado State RegulationsdBA A-weighted decibel to human hearing levelDoD Department of DefenseEA Environmental AssessmentEBS Environmental Baseline SurveyEIAP Environmental Impact Analysis ProcessEO Executive OrderEPA Environmental Protection AgencyESA Endangered Species ActFWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control ActHAZMAT Hazardous MaterialHAZMART Hazardous Materials PharmacyIICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination Act for Environmental

PlanningLOS Level of ServiceMDC Medical – Dental ClinicNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNO2 Nitrogen dioxideNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

-v- Printed on Recycled Paper

NRHP National Register of Historic PlacesO3 OzoneOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationP2MAP Pollution Prevention Management Action PlanPb LeadPM1O Particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameterPPACG Pikes Peak Area Council of GovernmentRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActSAFB Schriever Air Force BaseSH State HighwaySHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSIP State Implementation PlanSO2 Sulfur dioxidetpy ton(s) per yearUSAF United States Air ForceU.S.C. United States CodeUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

-vi- Printed on Recycled Paper


1-1 Printed on Recycled Paper

SECTION 1PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

This section describes the proposed ac-tion, need for the proposed action, relatedenvironmental documents, the decision tobe made, scope of the environmentalanalysis process, and applicable regulatoryrequirements and required coordination.

1.1 Proposed Action

The 50th Space Wing (50 SW),Schriever Air Force Base (SAFB), CO,proposes to construct a Medical – DentalClinic MDC on base to provide a locationfor medical and dental care for militarymembers. The MDC would be locatedoutside the secure area, which is wherenon-mission essential facilities are to besited. The MDC is proposed to be con-structed to the west of the newly con-structed Operational Support Facility(OSF).

1.2 Need for the ProposedAction

Currently, there are a dental clinic andan ambulance located at SAFB. The dentalclinic is undersized for the amount of ac-tive duty military assigned to SAFB.There is no medical clinic at SAFB. Per-sonnel requiring routine medical care musttravel to Peterson AFB or the USAF Acad-emy hospital for appointments. The MDCwould fulfill a need to provide medicalcare to active duty military personnel as-signed to SAFB. The MDC would alsoreplace the current undersized dental clinicat SAFB.

1.3 Related EnvironmentalDocuments

The effects of base development andoperations on the existing environmenthave been evaluated in the following envi-ronmental assessments and natural re-source and cultural resource managementplans. These studies cover the developedportion of the base and its associatedbuffer and compatible-use zones. Analysisof the proposed action references these re-ports and they are available in the libraryof the Environmental Flight, 50 CES/CEV,Building 500.

• Environmental Assessment for theOperational Support Facility (Inter-national Technology Corp, 1993)

• Environmental Assessment for ChildDevelopment Center (USAF, 2000)

• Environmental Assessment for thePhysical Fitness Center (Parsons ES,1999)

• Environmental Assessment for FiscalYear 1998 Growth Plan (Parsons ES,1998)

• Integrated Natural Resources Man-agement Plan (Parsons ES, 1997a)

• Cultural Resources ManagementPlan (Parsons ES, 1997b)

1.4 Decision to be Made

The chairperson of the SAFB Environ-mental Protection Committee (EPC) mustdecide whether this Environmental As-sessment (EA) results in a Finding of No


Significant Impact (FONSI), or whetherfurther study is necessary.

1.5 Scope of theEnvironmental Assessment

This EA was prepared in accordancewith:

• The National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA);

• The Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ) regulations for im-plementing NEPA;

• 32 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 989, Environmental Im-pact Analysis Process (EIAP);

• AFI 32-7060, Interagency and Inter-governmental Coordination for En-vironmental Planning (IICEP); and

• AFI 32-7061, The EnvironmentalImpact Analysis Process.

1.6 Applicable RegulatoryRequirements

A list of statutory and regulatory re-quirements applicable to this EA is pro-vided here. Section 5 of this documentmore completely discusses the applicablelaws that pertain to the proposed and alter-native actions, and identifies potentialpermit requirements.

1.6.1 Federal Statutes• Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 United

States Code (U.S.C.) §7401 et seq.;• Clean Water Act of 1987, 33 U.S.C.

§1251 et seq.;• Emergency Planning and Commu-

nity Right-to-Know Act of 1986, 42U.S.C. §11001-11050;

• Endangered Species Act of 1973,amended 1982 and 1987, 16 U.S.C.§1531-1542;

• Executive Order 12856, FederalCompliance with Right-to-KnowLaws and Pollution Prevention Re-quirements, August 1993;

• Farmland Protection Policy Act of1981, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.;

• Greening the Government throughWaste Prevention, Recycling, andFederal Acquisition, Part 4 §401-Part5 §501, 502, 503, and Part 7 §701;

• National Environmental Policy Actof 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321-4347;

• National Historic Preservation Act of1966, 16 U.S.C. §470-470t;

• Noise Control Act of 1972, 42U.S.C. §4901 et seq.;

• Occupational Safety and Health Actof 1970, 20 U.S.C. §333

• Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42U.S.C. §13101(b);

• Resource Conservation and Recov-ery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §6901 etseq.

1.6.2 State of Colorado Regulations• Colorado dust-control regulations,

Colorado State Regulation (CSR)No. 1, Section 3.D(2a) and CSR No.3.

1.6.3 El Paso County Regulations• Fugitive dust control regulations, El

Paso County Regulation, FugitiveParticulates and Open Burning, Sec-tion 10.


SECTION 2ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This section names the three alterna-tives, describes the process used to formu-late the alternatives, identifies the siteselection criteria, and provides detaileddescriptions of the alternatives. The threealternatives evaluated in this EA are:

• Alternative 1: Proposed action toconstruct a medical – dental clinicwest of the Operational Support Fa-cility;

• Alternative 2: Construct a medical –dental clinic west of building 101;and,

• Alternative 3: No action alternative,personnel would be required to usethe Peterson AFB medical clinic forcare.

Throughout the remainder of thisdocument, Alternative 1 is referred to asthe “proposed action,” and Alternative 3 isreferred to as the "no action" alternative.

2.1 Alternative Selection andSite Selection Criteria

The Schriever Air Force Base GeneralPlan and Vision 2020 are the principaldocuments guiding assessment and plan-ning future installation growth and devel-opment at SAFB. Current SAFB policydictates that new mission facilities or mis-sion support facilities will be constructedwithin the restricted area, and all non-mission functions will be sited outside ofthe restricted area. The restricted area isthe central portion of the base enclosed bya security fence.

The following criteria were used to de-velop the alternatives.

• The location should be convenient topersonnel working in the secure areaand the non-secure area.

• The selected alternative must meetfederal, state, and local environ-mental regulations. Siting shouldconsider prevailing winds and avoidareas that would have environmentalsiting constraints.

2.2 Alternative 1 – ProposedAction

A medical – dental clinic (MDC) wouldbe constructed on the land west of the Op-erational Support Facility (OSF). This lo-cation is outside the secure area of thebase. This site would provide easy accessfor personnel working in both the secureand non-secure areas of the base. Thissiting would allow for convenient access tofor personnel in facilities that may beplanned in the area according to the 20year long range plan.

The facility would be a single storystructure with an 80-foot height restrictionbecause of the look angle of a nearby an-tenna. The “look angle” consists of therange of motion of the antenna, since it cannot see through objects, the height restric-tion will allow for full utilization of theantenna. The building would have a foot-print of approximately 11,726 square feet.The location would also be convenient foraccess by fire protection equipment.

2.3 Alternative 2 – Constructthe MDC West of Building 101

A medical – dental clinic (MDC) wouldbe constructed on the land west of the ex-isting security forces building (building


101). This site allows for adequate use ofland for this and other proposed facilities.

Currently, the location for alternative 2is a parking lot. This location is outsidethe secure area of the base. This sitewould provide easy access for personnelworking in both the secure and non-secureareas of the base. This siting would allowfor convenient access to for personnel infacilities that may be planned in the areaaccording to the 20 year long range plan.

The facility would be a single storystructure with an 80-foot height restrictionbecause of the look angle of a nearby an-

tenna. The “look angle” consists of therange of motion of the antenna, since it cannot see through objects, the height restric-tion will allow for full utilization of theantenna. The building would have a foot-print of approximately 11,726 square feet.The location would also be convenient foraccess by fire protection equipment.

2.4 Alternative 3 – No Action

The medical – dental clinic would notbe constructed at Schriever AFB. Person-nel would continue to have to travel to Pe-terson AFB for routine medical treatmentand examinations.


N

E

S

W

Environmental Assessment forMedical – Dental Clinic

Figure 2.4

Location of ActionAlternatives

Operational Support Facility

Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

Alternative 2

2-4

Figure 2.5

Proposed Actionand Alternative 2

N

E

S

W

Alternative 2

Future Expansion

FALCON PARKWAY

OSFProposed

Action(Alternative 1)

FutureExpansion

PARKING

New Parking




SECTION 3AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes existing condi-tions of the environmental resources thatmay be affected by the alternatives. Forthis analysis, the affected area is the areasurrounding the operational support fa-cility and building 101. The area in-cludes the proposed site location and thealternative site location.

During the field investigation con-ducted on April 20, 2000, it was deter-mined that most of the potentiallyaffected resources at the proposed siteswere addressed in four previous docu-ments.

• Environmental Assessment for theOperational Support Facility (In-ternational Technology Corp, 1993)

• Environmental Assessment forChild Development Center (USAF,2000)

• Environmental Assessment for thePhysical Fitness Center (ParsonsES, 1999)

• Integrated Natural ResourcesManagement Plan, Falcon AirForce Base (Parsons ES, 1997a)

This EA summarizes the previous de-scriptions and updates specific resourcesas required to evaluate environmental ef-fects. For a detailed description of theaffected resources, the reader is referredto these documents which are on file inthe library of the Environmental Flight,50 CES/CEV, Building 500, SchrieverAFB.

SAFB is located in El Paso Countyapproximately 10 miles east of PetersonAFB and 16 miles east of downtownColorado Springs (Figure 3.2). The base

covers approximately 6 square miles (3,840acres) in Sections 25 and 26 and portions ofSections 22, 23, 24, 27, 34, 35, and 36, all inTownship 14 South, Range 64 West; andportions of Sections 19, 30, and 31 in Town-ship 14 South, Range 63 West.

The developed areas of the base are lo-cated within 1 square mile. The developedportion of the base is surrounded by a 3,200-acre buffer zone, 0.5 miles wide on thenorth, west, and south sides, and 1.5 mileswide on the east side. The proposed MDC

would be located outside the secured area ofthe base, near the operational support facil-ity.

3.1 Air Quality

The air quality of the affected environ-ment is determined by the types andamounts of pollutants emitted into the at-mosphere, the size of the topography of theair basin, and the prevailing meteorologicalconditions. Activities with the potential toimpact air quality at Schriever AFB includeutilities or power generation (e.g., steam, hotwater, natural gas, emergency electrical

Figure 3.1 – OSF Construction

3-2

Figure 3.2

General Location Map




power), fuel handling, hazardous chemi-cal usage, vehicle emissions, and fugitivedust from ground disturbances resultingfrom construction (URS Radian, 2000).

3.1.1 MeteorologyThe climate of El Paso County is

semi-arid and is influenced by the highelevations of the Front Range of theRocky Mountains to the west, resulting inmoderate conditions, with cool, sunnysummers and dry, low-humidity winters.The average temperatures for winter andsummer are 31.0 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF)and 68.4ºF, respectively. The prevailingwind is from the north-northeast at anaverage annual speed of 10.4 miles perhour. Average annual precipitation is15.5 inches, with approximately 85 per-cent of the precipitation occurring be-tween April and September, during thegrowing season (Larsen, 1981).

The ambient air quality of El PasoCounty varies with local meteorologicalconditions. During the winter monthswhen temperature inversions and limited-dispersion conditions occur, county airquality can be poor because of the highcarbon monoxide (CO) concentrationsassociated with roadway traffic in theColorado Springs area. Particulate im-pacts also can be high in the winter, whensoil moisture and ground cover are at aminimum, and high wind speeds generatewindblown dust.

3.1.2 Air Pollutants andRegulations

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires airpollutant emission sources to complywith National Ambient Air Quality Stan-dards (NAAQS). Criteria pollutants arethose for which NAAQS have been de-veloped. Criteria pollutants of interest inthis EA are CO, volatile organic com-

pounds (VOCs), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitro-gen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter lessthan or equal to 10 microns in diameter(PM10).

The Air Pollution Control Division(APCD) of the Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment (CDPHE)has determined that Schriever AFB is not amajor source of hazardous air pollutants orcriteria pollutants, and that SAFB qualifiesas a synthetic minor source exempt fromTitles III and V of the federal CAAAmendments of 1990 (USAF, 1995). Thesources of air emissions covered under thesynthetic-source air emissions permit, all ofwhich are considered stationary sources, in-cludes the consumption of natural gas anddiesel fuel in on-base boilers, consumptionof diesel fuel in emergency generators,gasoline and diesel refueling of vehicles,and diesel fuel storage in tanks (URS Ra-dian, 2000). The 1999 basewide emissionssummary for criteria pollutants for SchrieverAFB is provided in Table 3.1.

As indicated in the table, stationarysource emissions are well below the limitsset for these sources at Schriever AFB. Theprimary sources of air pollutants near thebase are mobile exhaust sources (vehiculartraffic) and fugitive dust (from agriculturaland construction activities). There currentlyare no air permitting requirements for mo-bile sources at the base. The regulations ap-plicable to mobile sources are primarily stateregulations intended to reduce emissionsfrom roadway vehicles. Mobile-sourceemissions at the base include on-highwayvehicles (government-owned or personalvehicles) or off-highway vehicles (construc-tion and landscaping equipment). All per-sonal and government-owned vehicles mustcomply with El Paso County annual emis-sion testing requirements. There are no air-craft or other types of mobile sources at thebase (URS Radian, 2000).


TABLE 3.11999 BASEWIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

MEDICAL – DENTAL CLINIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE, COLORADO

Emissions a/

Emission SourceCO

(tpy)b/VOCs(tpy)

SOx(tpy)

NOx(tpy)

PM10(tpy)

Stationary Sources c/ 13.9 (30) 10.10 (20) 0.43 (30) 31.8 (90) 3.88 (5.5)Sources: URS Radian, 2000; USAF, 1995.a/ CO = carbon monoxide; VOCs = volatile organic compounds; SOx = sulfur oxides; NOx =

nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter.b/ tpy = tons per year.c/ Values in parentheses are the basewide stationary-source emissions limits established in the

draft air emissions permit

Air quality regulations apply to con-struction-related fugitive dust. Fugitivedust emissions from construction projectsare considered to be de minimus (i.e.,emissions that do not reach or exceed ma-jor-source thresholds) (Parsons ES, 1999).Contractors are required to obtain a dust-control permit from either El Paso Countyor the State of Colorado. El Paso County’s1987 air quality regulations require a per-mit for construction when earthwork dis-turbs more than 1 acre, but less than 25acres. A state permit is required if the areaof disturbance exceeds 25 acres.

3.1.3 Regional Air QualityColorado Springs is in Colorado Air

Quality Control Region 4, which includesEl Paso, Park, and Teller Counties. Colo-rado Springs has recently been designatedby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) as "attainment" for meeting federalNational Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS).

The state Air Quality Division has de-termined that Schriever AFB is not a majorsource of hazardous air pollutants or crite-

ria pollutants, and that the base qualifies asa synthetic minor source exempt from TitleIII and Title V of the federal Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990 (USAF, 1995). Fu-gitive dust emissions from constructionprojects are considered to be de minimusemission rates and would not trigger majorsource thresholds. The sources of airemissions covered under the synthetic airpermit include:

• the consumption of natural gas inthe four boilers;

• consumption of diesel fuel in thefour boilers;

• consumption of diesel fuel in gen-erators 1-7 in building 600 andgenerators 8-10 in building 700;

• gasoline refueling of vehicles; and

• diesel fuel storage in the two700,000 gallon and two 40,000gallon storage tanks.

Air quality regulations apply to con-struction-related fugitive dust. Contractors


are required to obtain a dust control permitfrom El Paso County if a project disturbsup to 25 acres, and from the state if thearea of disturbance exceeds 25 acres. ElPaso County's 1987 air quality regulations,Regulations for Fugitive Particulates andOpen Burning, Section 10, requires a per-mit for construction when earthwork dis-turbances exceed 1 acre but less than 25acres.

3.2 Biological Resources

Biological resources include vegetation,wildlife, fish, and threatened and endan-gered species. There are no aquatic liferesources on SAFB because permanentwater bodies are absent. The flora andfauna of the site are typical of the short-grass prairie ecosytem as modified by sub-urban or low-density developmentcommon in the eastern Colorado plains.

The land outside the technical and op-erations area is leased to local ranchers fordomestic livestock grazing. Grazing par-cels are fenced with three-strand barbed-wire fencing.

3.2.1 VegetationThe area around Schriever AFB is

sparsely vegetated. With a semi-arid cli-mate, sandy soils, and a high wind erosionpotential, vegetation is difficult to establishand slow to recover from disturbance. Thedominant vegetation community in the un-developed and semi-improved areas at andaround the base is short-grass prairie(grassland), which provides habitat for avariety of insects, reptiles, mammals, andbirds. The area being considered for theMDC alternatives consist of mowed grassand a parking lot.

Some of the plant species identifiedaround the proposed sites include bluegrama (Bouteloua gracilis), western

wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), slenderwheatgrass (Agropyron trachycaulum),three-awn (Aristida purpurea), buckwheat(Eriogonum sp.), pepper grass (Lepidiumvirginicum), leadplant (Amprpha canes-cens), beardtongue (Penstemon sp.),woolly plantain (Plantago patagonica),and western ragweed (Ambrosia psilo-stachya).

3.2.2 WildlifeA number of mammal species, a variety

of songbirds and raptors, and several am-phibian and reptile species are typical ofthis shortgrass prairie region of easternColorado (Parsons ES, 1997a). Numerouspronghorn antelope (Antilocapra ameri-cana), thirteen-lined ground squirrel(Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), and kill-deer (Charadrius vociferus) have been ob-served on SAFB, although none have beenobserved on the proposed site or the alter-native site.

The Integrated Natural Resource Man-agement Plan (Parsons ES, 1997a) identi-fies additional wildlife species that mayforage, hunt, or nest in the area at and nearthe base. These species include silkypocket mouse (Perognathus flavus),mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),horned lark (Ermophila alpestris), westernmeadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Ameri-can robin (Turdus migratorius), housesparrow (Passer domesticus), and bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus sayi).Other species that potentially hunt at thealternative sites include coyote (Canislatrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoar-genteus), great horned owl (Bubo virginis-nus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius),prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), northernharrier (Circus cyaneus), golden eagle(Aquila chrysaetos), and rough-leggedhawk (Buteo lagopus).


3.2.3 Threatened and EndangeredSpecies

Consultation with the United States Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS), ColoradoDivision of Wildlife (CDOW), and Colo-rado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)revealed that the base is within the poten-tial distribution range of several threatenedand endangered species (Table 3.2). How-ever, there are no records of threatened orendangered species using the proposed oralternative sites, and a site visit did not re-veal any evidence of threatened or endan-gered species using the proposed oralternative sites.

Previous studies and consultation withCDOW and USFWS identified the special-concern species listed in Table 3.2 as po-tentially occurring at or in the vicinity ofSchriever AFB. Appendix A providescopies of the agency consultation lettersregarding threatened, endangered, and spe-cial-concern species. No critical habitatfor species listed as threatened or endan-gered has been designated at the proposedMDC sites by CDOW or USFWS.

Although the study area is within thehistoric range of the federally listed endan-gered black-footed ferret, this species hasnot been observed within base boundaries.Prairie dogs are the primary prey for theblack-footed ferrets. There is no evidenceof prairie dogs colonies at the base or inthe area of the proposed action alterna-tives; therefore, ferrets are not expected toinhabit these areas.

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouserecently was added to the federal threat-ened species list (USFWS, 1998). Habitatfor the mouse usually is found in flood-plains of intermittent streams with densevegetation. It is unlikely the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse would use uplandareas such as the MDC alternative sites.

The swift fox is a secretive species thatoccurs in the general region. It may occa-sionally use the base and the action alter-native sites for foraging. It is unlikely thisspecies dens within 0.25-mile of the road-ways. No swift fox dens have been ob-served on base. It is likely the swift foxwould avoid developed areas such as theFalcon Parkway corridor, the area aroundthe OSF construction, or near building 101.

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)and other raptors do not reside in the area,but may be observed as rare, transient mi-grants. This area does not attract bald ea-gles permanently because of the lack ofprairie dog colonies and bodies of waterlarge enough to support water fowl or fish.

The Swainson’s hawk is a prominentnester in the region. The ferruginous hawkalso may nest, but is more often observedwintering in the region. Both of thesehawks have been observed at the base, butno nests have been reported. The hawkscould hunt at the site locations; however,suitable nest sites are not available due tothe lack of prairie dog towns. The nearestconcentration of a ferruginous hawkpopulation occurs southeast of Pueblo(CDOT, 1998).

The mountain plover was recently pro-posed for federal listing as a threatenedspecies (USFWS, 1999). This migratorybird prefers short-grass prairie that isheavily grazed by cattle or that supportsprairie dog colonies. Short vegetation,bare ground (30 percent), and level topog-raphy (less than 5-percent slope) are rec-ognized as habitat defining characteristicsfor the mountain plover at both breedingand wintering areas. Since the proposedsite and alternative are semi-improved and


mowed, or asphalt, it is highly unlikelymountain plovers would nest in these ar-eas. Mountain plovers are philopatric,tending to return each year to nest within

several hundred meters of the previousyear’s nest site; chicks return as adults thefollowing year to nest at their natal areas(USFWS, 1999).

TABLE 3.2THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL-CONCERN SPECIES THAT

MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF SAFB a/

Common Name Scientific NameFederal Status/State Status b/

Potential SAFBOccurrence

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes LE/E UnlikelyBald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus LT/T Rare migrantPreble's meadow jumpingmouse

Zapus hudsonius preblei LE/U Possible resident

Swift fox Vulpes velox C/U Possible residentFerruginous hawk Buteo regalis SC Possible nesting/

winteringSwainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni SC NestingBurrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia SC UnlikelyMountain plover Charadrius montanus C/SC Rare migrant/

possible nestingLong-billed curlew Numenius americanus SC Rare migrantCassin's sparrow Aimophila cassinii SC Suitable habitat not

present: presenceunlikely

McCowen's longspur Calcarius mccownii SC Suitable nestinghabitat not present:presence unlikely

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus SC Suitable nestinghabitat not present:presence unlikely

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys SC Suitable habitat ispresent, speciesprobably present

Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana ssp. colora-doensis

C/U Unlikely

a/ Sources: Parsons ES, 1997a; Essington, 1997; Gurzick, 1997; and US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999.b/ LE = Federal listed endangered: species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion

of their ranges.LT = Federal listed threatened: species that are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable

future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.P = Proposed for federal listing as endangeredC = Federal candidate species: candidates for formal listing; do not have protected status.E = State of Colorado listed endangered.T = State of Colorado listed threatened.U = Unknown - No state status.SC = State of Colorado special concern, do not have protected status.


3.3 Cultural Resources

A cultural resource inventory was com-pleted for the entire SAFB in 1992. Thereare no known archaeological or historicalproperties on the base eligible for listingon the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP) (Parsons ES, 1997b). All areassurveyed were recommended for culturalclearance (Roybal Corporation, 1992).

If subsurface cultural materials werefound during future excavation on SAFB,the Base Historic Preservation Officer(BHPO) would be notified. If the BHPOdetermined that the materials might be sig-nificant, work in the area would be halteduntil cleared to resume by the State His-toric Preservation Officer (SHPO).

3.4 Land Use

Land use on the base is designated asdeveloped, semi-improved and undevel-oped. The land within the restricted por-tion of the base is designated as semi-improved or improved (640 ac.). All of the3200 acres in the buffer zone is designatedas unimproved except for the 10 acres ofimproved land for warehouse buildingsaround the Community Activity Center(CAC) and Defense Reutilization andMarketing Office (DRMO). SAFB leasesthe undeveloped portion of the buffer zonefor livestock grazing while conducting itsprimary military mission.

3.5 Noise

SAFB is located in a rural, sparselypopulated setting in which there are fewnearby sensitive noise receptors. Normalbase operations involve communicationsand satellite tracking which are not noisegenerators. Sources of existing noise atSAFB include vehicle traffic, landscapingand lawn care equipment, and activities in

the maintenance shops and central powerplant. No aircraft operations or facilitiesare present on the base. All vehicle repairand maintenance is conducted at PetersonAFB.

Noise is most often defined as unwantedsound. The relative magnitude of soundcan be measured and quantified in terms ofa logarithmic scale in units of decibels(dB).

Human hearing is not equally sensitiveto sound at all frequencies. Therefore, afrequency-dependent adjustment called A-weighting has been devised so that soundmay be measured in a manner similar tothe way human hearing responds. The unitof the A-weighted sound level is abbrevi-ated "dBA." An increase in the noise levelby 10 dBA is judged by most people to beapproximately twice as loud as the formerlevel. Most people are unable to detect achange in level of three dBA or less, whichis equal to normal street traffic noise. Alevel of 70 dBA is equivalent to a gaslawnmower at 100 feet, and a level of 80dBA is equivalent to a diesel truck at 50feet. Levels above 105 are considered ex-tremely loud, and the threshold of sense isgenerally considered to be above 120 dBA.A military jet aircraft with afterburners at100 feet would be above 120 dBA. Noisefrom typical construction equipment variesfrom a maximum of 76 to 102 dBA at 25feet (CERL, 1978; USEPA, 1971; andBeranek, 1992). Estimated ambient noiselevel at SAFB is 40 dBA.

The State of Colorado has establishedmaximum permissible noise levels for con-struction activities (State of Colorado,1996). These levels are:

• Not more than 90 dBA 25 feet fromthe property boundary for more than


15 minutes in any one-hour period,and

Not more than 80 dBA 25 feet from theproperty boundary for the period 7:00 p.m.and the next 7:00 a.m.

No noise issues would be anticipatedfrom use of the MDC.

3.6 Occupational Safety andHealth

Safety hazards associated with the pro-posed action are defined as those risks as-sociated with construction. Constructionsafety practices are subject to requirementsestablished by Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA).

3.7 Pollution Prevention

SAFB is designated a small-quantitygenerator of hazardous waste. All toxicand hazardous wastes are stored at theCentral Hazardous Waste AccumulationFacility for 270 days or less. Wastes aretransported off base to licensed treatment,storage, and disposal facility. TheSchriever Air Force Base HAZMATemergency planning and response plan es-tablishes procedures and guidance forSAFB personnel to handle hazardous ma-terials, and petroleum products in the eventof an accidental discharge, spill, or leak.The plan provides both hazardous materi-als emergency response information aswell as spill prevention, control and coun-termeasures information (Parsons ES,1997c).

Hazardous materials (HAZMAT) arealso managed through the HAZMART"pharmacy" system which controls the or-dering and distribution of HAZMAT. Theoperation of the HAZMART is a key com-ponent to the base having an effective

pollution prevention program. Contractorsmust report HAZMAT usage on SAFB tothe HAZMART (AFI 32-7086).

The SAFB fire department comprisesthe core of the initial response team for anyHAZMAT release and they will isolate,evacuate, and deny entry to a hazardousmaterial release. The fire department isequipped to contain and mitigate a spillwhich does not require the mobilization ofmore than one entry team or decontamina-tion team and does not require the use ofgreater than Level B personal protection.In the event of a major accident, the firedepartment would seek the assistance ofthe Colorado Springs HAZMAT team.The SAFB fire department has a mutualaid agreement with the Colorado Springsfire department. SAFB personnel wouldaugment the Colorado Springs team toprovide fire fighting capabilities, primaryand secondary entry teams, decontamina-tion stations and emergency evacuation.

3.8 Socioeconomic Conditions

The work force at SAFB consists ofabout 4,000 military, US Department ofDefense (DoD) civilian and contractor per-sonnel. The population has increased byabout 42 percent since 1992 (SAFB, 2000).There is no housing on the base, so all per-sonnel commute. Most commute fromColorado Springs or Peterson AFB. Gen-eral growth trends for the county reflectcontinued growth associated with theColorado Springs area. Growth around theperimeter of the base has been limited andremains agriculture and rural housing. Thepotential future workforce expansion of thebase is considered strong because thebase's mission is considered strategicallyimportant.

The main access to the base is from thewest and north by State Highway (SH) 94


and Enoch Road respectively. Averagedaily traffic (ADT) counts and level ofservice (LOS) data from the Colorado De-partment of Transportation for 1996 onSH-94, and average weekly daily traffic(AWDT) counts from El Paso County De-partment of Transportation for 1997 onEnoch Road show a traffic volume of9,600 vehicles on SH 94 and 7,200 vehi-cles on Enoch Road. The ADT data wasconverted to AWDT values using a factorof 1.07 (Parsons Transportation GroupInc., 1998). The LOS was rated as E onSH 94 and D on Enoch Road. The LOScharacterize a motorists description of suchfactors as speed and travel time, freedomto maneuver, traffic interruptions, andcomfort and convenience. The LOS isgiven a letter designation from A (best ) toF (worst). The road segments evaluated inthe analysis were considered as rural two-lane highways, with rolling terrain and 10percent of daily traffic occurring during thepeak hour. Peak traffic volumes on bothroads typically occur during the earlymorning and early evening rush hours asbase personnel start and end their workdays. The maximum AWDT for each LOSwere 8,600 vehicles for level D, 15,800vehicles for level E, and greater than15,800 vehicles for level F.

3.9 Soils

The soil at the location of the proposedalternative site is classified as Ascalonsandy loam with slopes ranging from 1 to 3percent. This soil is well drained with apermeability of 0.6 to 6.0 inches per hour(in/hr) in the top 8 inches, and 0.6 to 2.0in/hr at a depth of 8 to 30 inches. The soilhas moderate engineering limitations dueto soil strength, but it is generally wellsuited for building construction (Larsen,1981). The erosion and soil blowing haz-ards are rated as moderate. These soilcharacteristics require regular monitoring

and maintenance to control erosion fromstormwater runoff and from high windsthat erode unvegetated areas.

3.10 Water Resources

There are no permanent surface waterbodies or perennial streams present onSAFB. Several man-made livestock wa-tering ponds and shallow depressions re-tain standing water on a seasonal ortemporary basis. None of the man-madeponds occur at or in the vicinity of the pro-posed development site.

Stream channels on the base are all un-named and support only intermittent orseasonal flow. Flow is generally fromnorthwest to southeast. The stream chan-nels convey water temporarily during peri-ods of wet weather or after heavy, intensethunderstorms. Stormwater runoff is typi-cally routed to these channels from build-ings, roads, and other impermeable areasof the developed portion of the base. A50-foot-wide buffer zone on each side ofthe drainage that would be protected fromlivestock use was identified in the naturalresource management plan (Parsons ES,1997a) as a soil conservation measure tohelp protect the stream channel and banksfrom water and wind erosion. This bufferzone would function as a constraint area todevelopment as shown on Figure 3.3.Some of the stream channels in the unde-veloped eastern portion of the base havebeen diked, dammed, or excavated tofunction as surface runoff collection pondsfor watering livestock. Wetlands that haveformed in these areas are discussed in Sec-tion 3.11.

The Upper Black Squirrel aquifer pro-vides domestic and potable water to SAFB.This aquifer is the primary water supplysource for agricultural and municipal usersin unincorporated portions of El Paso


County. The shallow aquifer occurs from25 to 100 feet below the ground surface.SAFB is currently using about 43 percentof its contracted annual amount (about 537acre-feet per year) of groundwater fromthis source (Radian Corporation 1996). Itwas estimated there is adequate water sup-ply available to the base from the Chero-kee Metropolitan Water District to supporta moderate growth rate. SAFB exceedscontracted daily flow rates approximatelyonce each week during summer months.These exceedances are caused by irrigatinglandscaping.

3.11 Wetlands

A jurisdictional wetland determinationwas performed by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (1991) for SAFB. Five juris-dictional wetlands (totaling about 14 acres)and four nonjurisdictional wetlands (total-ing about 5 acres) were identified by thesurvey (Figure 3.3). All the jurisdictionalwetlands are small and have standing waterpresent on a temporary or seasonal basis.Functions performed by these sites appearto include water quality improvementthrough sediment retention, groundwaterrecharge, and limited habitat for somewildlife species (Parsons ES, 1997a).None of the jurisdictional wetlands are ator near the proposed MDC site or the al-ternative site.

3-12 P

Figure 3.3

Natural ResourcesConstraint Map


rinted on Recycled Paper


SECTION 4ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Potential environmental consequencesof the three alternatives are described inthis section. Environmental consequencesare analyzed for each relevant resourcearea described in Section 3. Short-termand long-term effects are described duringand after construction, as well as cumula-tive effects of the proposed action and al-ternatives. For each resource, a definitionis provided under no action for the typeand magnitude of environmental changethat would be considered a major impact.All alternatives were evaluated with thesame evaluation criteria. Potential impactsare identified and mitigation measures arediscussed as appropriate.

4.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action would entail con-structing a medical – dental clinic (MDC)on semi-improved land west of the Opera-tional Support Facility (OSF). The MDCwould provide medical and dental care foractive duty military personnel.

4.1.1 Air QualityLocal air quality conformance with na-

tional standards is overseen by the PPACGthrough the State Implementation Plan(SIP). Effects to air quality would be con-sidered significant impacts if air emissions:

• Exceeded limitations established inthe SIP; or

• Caused or contributed to any newviolation of any standard.

Construction. Particulate matter, both inthe form of visible dust and PM10, wouldbecome entrained in the air during the con-struction phase of the project. In additionto particulates, other criteria pollutants

would be emitted during construction dueto construction vehicle operation and con-tractor work force commuting.

Fugitive dust would be expected for ashort term from construction disturbanceof the 5-acre site. The EPA estimated thatuncontrolled fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities would result in 55pounds of PM10 per acre per day. There-fore, construction of the MDC could pro-duce up to 275 pounds of PM10 fromuncontrolled fugitive dust per day. Dustemissions would vary substantially fromday to day, depending on the level of ac-tivity, the specific type of construction op-erations, and the prevailing weather.

An El Paso County dust-control permitwould be required for construction of theproposed action and alternatives becauseground disturbing activities would affectmore than one acre. The county permitrequires best management practices (e.g.,application of water on disturbed groundsurfaces, observation of restricted speedlimits in disturbed areas, restriction ofearthwork during high wind periods, andvarious other requirements) to mitigategeneration of fugitive dust. Implementingthe mitigating measures can reduce fugi-tive dust emission by 50 percent or more(United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1985). Fugitive dust emissionswould be de minimus for PM10 under stateair quality regulations.

Activities associated with the construc-tion of the MDC would not have a signifi-cant impact on the area’s air qualitybecause of the short timeframe and rela-tively small project size. Therefore, thereare no significant short or long-term air


quality impacts associated with the con-struction of the proposed action and an airconformity analysis would not be required.

Facility Operations. The users for theMDC will be active duty military assignedto SAFB. It is expected they will walkfrom their duty location to the MDC forappointments. There would be approxi-mately 16 medical – dental personnelworking at the facility. Currently, thereare 7 personnel assigned to SAFB, thereforthere will be 9 additional personnel re-quiring additional vehicle trips. Calcula-tions from the additional trips indicatedlevels of CO generated from the tripswould be well under de minimus thresh-olds. There would be fewer vehicle tripsrequired to Peterson AFB and the USAFAcademy hospital for routine medical ap-pointments. No significant adverse effectson regional air quality are anticipated fromthis usage.

The operation of a natural gas heatingsystem and an air conditioning unit at theMDC (a stationary emissions source)would not cause an exceedance ofNAAQS. The HVAC systems will be de-signed to meet all state and federal emis-sions regulations. Because emissions ofcriteria pollutants are expected to be low,and because current stationary sourceemissions are well below limits establishedfor the base (see Table 3.1), activities as-sociated with the completed MDC will nothave a significant impact on air quality.Therefore, there are no significant short- orlong-term air quality impacts associatedwith the proposed alternative, and opera-tion of the MDC would not require an airconformity analysis.

4.1.2 Biological ResourcesAn effect to biological resources would

be considered an impact if one or more ofthe following conditions occurred.

• The project "may affect" federally-listed or proposed for listing asthreatened or endangered plant oranimal species or their designatedcritical habitat.

• The project would degrade the habi-tat or result in the loss of rare or spe-cial-interest plant or animal species;or

• The project would cause the loss ofthe only example of a biologicalcommunity type present on base.

4.1.2.1 VegetationThe site for the proposed action is

sparsely vegetated. The dominant vegeta-tion community in the action alternativelocations is semi-improved land, which ismowed, and an asphalt parking lot. Con-struction of the proposed action would re-sult in the conversion of 5-acres of grass toimpervious surfaces and landscaped areas.The acres being converted are not consid-ered of special interest to federal, state, orpublic resource protection and manage-ment organizations. There would be nosignificant impacts associated with theproposed action on local vegetation com-munities.

4.1.2.2 WildlifeNo significant impacts on wildlife

would occur as a result of the proposedaction or alternatives. The remainingbuffer zone around the secure area of thebase has more suitable habitat than theproposed action site, therefore, impacts onwildlife attributes would be minimal.


4.1.2.3 Threatened and EndangeredSpecies

The project site does not occur in areasknown or likely to be used by the currentlyprotected threatened or endangered specieslisted in Table 3.2. There are no unique orspecial-interest biological communitiespresent that could be affected. Therefore,it would be unlikely the proposed actionwould significantly affect current SAFBbiodiversity conditions.

4.1.3 Cultural ResourcesAn effect to cultural resources would be

considered an impact if one or more of thefollowing conditions occurred:

• The project caused the loss of orsubstantial change in a cultural re-source or site listed on the NRHP; or

• The project caused the loss of orsubstantial change in a cultural re-source or site eligible for listing onthe NRHP.

The proposed action would not producedirect or indirect impacts to cultural re-sources listed or eligible for listing on theNRHP because such resources are not pre-sent on SAFB.

4.1.4 Land UseA change in land use would be consid-

ered an impact under any of the followingconditions of change:

• Nonconformance with SAFB landuse plans;

• Conversion of prime agriculture landor land of statewide importance toother uses; or

• Conflicts with environmental goalsand USAF regulations.

The proposed action would result in thedevelopment of approximately 5-acres

semi-improved land on SAFB. No primeagricultural land or land of statewide im-portance occurs on SAFB. Therefore,these resources would not be affected byconstruction of a MDC. There would beno significant impact on land use under theproposed action.

4.1.5 NoiseA noise effect would be considered an

impact if it:

• Caused physical damage to a humanear, or permanent hearing loss;

• Exceeded the State of Coloradomaximum permissible noise levels;or

• Substantially increased the ambientnoise levels for adjoining areas withnoise-sensitive receptors.

The proposed action would not increaselong-term ambient noise levels above ex-isting conditions, or effect noise sensitivereceptors during sensitive time periodsbetween 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the nextmorning.

Short-term effects during the construc-tion period may be caused by constructionequipment. Typical construction equip-ment such as cranes, cement trucks, grad-ers, and semi-trucks produce maximumnoise levels of 73 to 102 dBA at a distanceof 25 feet (CERL, 1978; USEPA, 1971;and Beranek, 1992). The proposed site islocated in the developed area of the base.No residential or commercial activities arelocated near the site. Noise would not ex-ceed state of Colorado maximum permis-sible levels beyond the property boundary.

4.1.6 Occupational Safety andHealth

An action would be considered to havea significant impact if it:


• Created an unsafe working environ-ment; or

• Violated NFPA Standard 1500.No short-term or long-term adverse

safety and health affects are expected fromconstruction and operation of the MDC.OSHA regulations pertaining to construc-tion and operations would be followed.

4.1.7 Pollution PreventionThe pollution-prevention effects of an

alternative would be considered an impactif it resulted in:

• Release of a regulated waste;• Noncompliance with applicable

Pollution Prevention ManagementAction Plan (P2MAP) and HAZMATplan; or

• Amounts of generated waste that ex-ceeded available waste managementcapacities.

Pollution generating activities associ-ated with the proposed action would occurduring facility construction and operation.These activities would not cause a releaseof a regulated waste, exceed availablewaste handling capacity or not conformwith the P2MAP. Construction debriswould be considered solid waste andwould be disposed in the county landfill.

Infectious waste may be generated dur-ing operation of the proposed facility. In-fectious waste would be stored, packaged,contained in a manner that prevents releaseof waste material and in a manner such thatnuisance conditions would not occur. In-fectious wastes generated at Peterson AFBand the Air Force Academy are disposedof through a contract with their waste dis-posal contractor. Infectious wastes gener-ated at Schriever AFB from the operationof the proposed action would, similarly, bedisposed of through the waste disposal

contractor. Any hazardous waste gener-ated from the operation of the proposedfacility would be managed through thehazardous waste program currently in ex-istence at Schriever AFB.

4.1.8 Socioeconomic ConditionsA socioeconomic change would be con-

sidered an impact if it resulted in:

• Substantial changes in the localpopulation or work force;

• The need for substantial increase inutilities or service; or

• An increase in transportation thatwould change the LOS or requireextensive construction of road im-provements.

The proposed action would have a verylimited effect on socioeconomic conditionsat SAFB. Constructing the proposed facil-ity would result in a positive benefit fromjobs and revenue generated during buildingconstruction. However the magnitude ofeffects would be localized and short-termbecause the complexity of the constructionproject is limited and would be completedin a year or less. Once constructed, theMDC would generate a nominal increasein the workforce and traffic because theMDC staffing requirements would requirenine additional medical – dental personnelto be assigned to SAFB. Military person-nel already assigned to the base would bepersonnel eligible to receive health care.

4.1.9 SoilsA change in soil conditions would be

considered an impact if it:

• Causes sedimentation in wetlandsand permanent surface waters;

• Results in loss of prime, unique, orstate-important farmlands; or


• Results in the loss of land use due tosoil erosion or steep slopes.

The proposed action would result inshallow soil alterations of approximately5-acres. It is possible that pockets of un-stable soil are present at the action alterna-tive sites. If such soils are encounteredduring construction, the affected soil vol-ume should be over-excavated and re-placed with structural fill. After therevegetated areas in the proposed actionbecame established, erosion and uncon-trolled precipitation runoff would beminimal over a majority of the site, result-ing in a beneficial long-term impact onsoils through stabilization and a reducedpotential for erosion.

Standard construction practices and ElPaso County dust-control permits requireimplementation of short-term mitigationmeasures, such as application of water todisturbed surface areas, observation of re-stricted speed limits in disturbed areas, re-stricting earthwork during high-windperiods, and various other measures tominimize wind erosion and control runoffduring construction. Implementation ofthese practices would ensure that soil ero-sion due to the proposed action is mini-mized.

4.1.10 Water ResourcesChanges in either surface water or

groundwater conditions would be consid-ered an impact on water resources if they:

• Result in degradation of surface wa-ter or groundwater quality such thatan existing use would be impaired, adesignated use could not beachieved, or new or additional viola-tions of water quality standards oc-curred; or

• Cause a shortage in the SAFB's oradjacent landowners water supplysystems under existing water rights.

This alternative would not cause or cre-ate changes in the existing groundwater orsurface water conditions or uses at SAFB.Currently, there are no surface bodies pre-sent that would be degraded by practicesassociated with this alternative. Stormwa-ter runoff generated by increased impervi-ous surfaces is expected to infiltrate intothe soil and would not be received by per-manent streams, ponds, or wetlands. Thus,there would be no impacts to existing wa-ter quality standards. Therefore, therewould be no direct or indirect impacts towater resources from this alternative.

A Construction Storm Water DischargePermit (NPDES permit) would be requiredfor the construction of this alternative. Apermit must be obtained from CDPHE,Water Quality Division, prior to the start ofconstruction activities, if more than 1 acresof land are disturbed. Since constructionof the MDC would result in the distur-bance of more than 1 acres, a NPDESpermit would be required. Standard con-struction practices, such as using siltfences, would be used to control the runofffrom the site.

4.1.11 WetlandsChanges in jurisdictional wetlands

would be considered an impact if they:

• Result in the permanent loss of wet-land areas because of filling or exca-vation activities or because ofsubstantial and permanent change insurface water or groundwater hy-drology; or

• Result in the loss or substantialchange in existing functions beingprovided by the existing wetlands.


The proposed action would not result inany direct or indirect physical or hydro-logical changes to existing jurisdictionalwetlands. This alternative would not pro-duce changes in current wetland functionsor hydrologic regimes. Thus, there wouldbe no direct or indirect wetland impactsassociated with this alternative.

4.1.12 Cumulative EffectsCumulative effects associated with the

proposed action include an incrementalincrease in impervious land and stormwa-ter runoff from the impervious surface.These cumulative effects would not have asignificant adverse impact on the environ-ment.

4.1.13 Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitment of Resources

There would be an irretrievable com-mitment of materials, energy, fuel, and la-bor utilized during construction activitiesassociated with this alternative. Buildingand construction equipment wear (i.e., de-preciation) also would be irreversible. Theirretrievable resources to be committed aretypical for the scale of the proposed proj-ect. Implementation of best constructionmanagement practices, standard equipmentmaintenance schedules, and use of energyconservation and recycling measures dur-ing building operation would minimize theuse of irretrievable resources. At the endof the useful life of the facility, it is ex-pected that some building materials (e.g.,asphalt and concrete, scrap metal, and fix-tures) could be retrieved for recycling andreuse.

4.1.14 Environmental JusticeExecutive Order (EO) 12898, Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justicein Minority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations, was issued on 11 Feb 94. TheEO requires federal agencies to identify

and address, as appropriate, disproportion-ately high and adverse human health orenvironmental effects of their programs,policies, and activities on minority andlow-income populations.

• An adverse impact would have adeleterious effect on human health orthe environment that is significant,unacceptable, or above generally ac-cepted norms.

No adverse impacts would be borne byhuman populations; therefore, this alterna-tive would not have an adverse impactupon minority populations and/or low-income populations.

4.2 Alternative 2 – Constructthe MDC West of Building 101

Alternative 2 would entail constructinga medical – dental clinic (MDC) on an ex-isting parking lot west of the building 101,which is occupied by SAFB SecurityForces. The MDC would provide medicaland dental care for active duty militarypersonnel.

4.2.1 Air QualityLocal air quality conformance with na-

tional standards is overseen by the PPACGthrough the State Implementation Plan(SIP). Effects to air quality would be con-sidered significant impacts if air emissions:

• Exceeded limitations established inthe SIP; or

• Caused or contributed to any newviolation of any standard.

Construction. Particulate matter, both inthe form of visible dust and PM10, wouldbecome entrained in the air during the con-struction phase of the project. In additionto particulates, other criteria pollutantswould be emitted during construction due


to construction vehicle operation and con-tractor work force commuting.

Fugitive dust would be expected for ashort term from construction disturbanceof the 5-acre site. The EPA estimated thatuncontrolled fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities would result in 55pounds of PM10 per acre per day. There-fore, construction of the MDC could pro-duce up to 275 pounds of PM10 fromuncontrolled fugitive dust per day. Dustemissions would vary substantially fromday to day, depending on the level of ac-tivity, the specific type of construction op-erations, and the prevailing weather.

An El Paso County dust-control permitwould be required for construction of theproposed action and alternatives becauseground disturbing activities would affectmore than one acre. The county permitrequires best management practices (e.g.,application of water on disturbed groundsurfaces, observation of restricted speedlimits in disturbed areas, restriction ofearthwork during high wind periods, andvarious other requirements) to mitigategeneration of fugitive dust. Implementingthe mitigating measures can reduce fugi-tive dust emission by 50 percent or more(USEPA, 1985). Fugitive dust emissionswould be de minimus for PM10 under stateair quality regulations.

Activities associated with the construc-tion of the MDC would not have a signifi-cant impact on the area’s air qualitybecause of the short timeframe and rela-tively small project size. Therefore, thereare no significant short- or long-term airquality impacts associated with the con-struction of the proposed action and an airconformity analysis would not be required.

Facility Operations. The users for theMDC will be active duty military assigned

to SAFB. It is expected they will walkfrom their duty location to the MDC forappointments. There would be approxi-mately 16 medical – dental personnelworking at the facility. Currently, thereare 7 personnel assigned to SAFB, thereforthere will be 9 additional personnel re-quiring additional vehicle trips. Calcula-tions from the additional trips indicatedlevels of CO generated from the tripswould be well under de minimus thresh-olds. There would be fewer vehicle tripsrequired to Peterson AFB and the USAFAcademy hospital for routine medical ap-pointments. No significant adverse effectson regional air quality are anticipated fromthis usage.

The operation of a natural gas heatingsystem and an air conditioning unit at theMDC (a stationary emissions source)would not cause an exceedance ofNAAQS. The HVAC systems will be de-signed to meet all state and federal emis-sions regulations. Because emissions ofcriteria pollutants are expected to be low,and because current stationary sourceemissions are well below limits establishedfor the base (see Table 3.1), activities as-sociated with the completed MDC will nothave a significant impact on air quality.Therefore, there are no significant short- orlong-term air quality impacts associatedwith the proposed alternative, and opera-tion of the MDC would not require an airconformity analysis.

4.2.2 Biological ResourcesAn effect to biological resources would

be considered an impact if one or more ofthe following conditions occurred.

• The project "may affect" federally-listed or proposed for listing asthreatened or endangered plant oranimal species or their designatedcritical habitat.


• The project would degrade the habi-tat or result in the loss of rare or spe-cial-interest plant or animal species;or

• The project would cause the loss ofthe only example of a biologicalcommunity type present on base.

4.2.2.1 VegetationThe site for alternative 2 is an asphalt

parking lot. There would be no significantimpacts associated with alternative 2 onlocal vegetation communities.

4.2.2.2 WildlifeNo significant impacts on wildlife

would occur as a result of the alternative.

4.2.2.3 Threatened and EndangeredSpecies

The project site does not occur in areasknown or likely to be used by the currentlyprotected threatened or endangered specieslisted in Table 3.2. There are no unique orspecial-interest biological communitiespresent that could be affected. Therefore,it would be unlikely the proposed actionwould significantly affect current SAFBbiodiversity conditions.

4.2.3 Cultural ResourcesAn effect to cultural resources would be

considered an impact if one or more of thefollowing conditions occurred:

• The project caused the loss of orsubstantial change in a cultural re-source or site listed on the NRHP; or

• The project caused the loss of orsubstantial change in a cultural re-source or site eligible for listing onthe NRHP.

Alternative 2 would not produce director indirect impacts to cultural resourceslisted or eligible for listing on the NRHP

because such resources are not present onSAFB.

4.2.4 Land UseA change in land use would be consid-

ered an impact under any of the followingconditions of change:

• Nonconformance with SAFB landuse plans;

• Conversion of prime agriculture landor land of statewide importance toother uses; or

• Conflicts with environmental goalsand USAF regulations.

Alternative 2 would result in the con-version of existing parking area to abuilding. No prime agricultural land orland of statewide importance occurs onSAFB. Therefore, these resources wouldnot be affected by construction of a MDC.There would be a loss of available parking,however, there would be no significantimpact on land use under this alternative.

4.2.5 NoiseA noise effect would be considered an

impact if it:

• Caused physical damage to a humanear, or permanent hearing loss;

• Exceeded the State of Coloradomaximum permissible noise levels;or

• Substantially increased the ambientnoise levels for adjoining areas withnoise-sensitive receptors.

Alternative 2 would not increase long-term ambient noise levels above existingconditions, or effect noise sensitive recep-tors during sensitive time periods between7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the next morning.


Short-term effects during the construc-tion period may be caused by constructionequipment. Typical construction equip-ment such as cranes, cement trucks, grad-ers, and semi-trucks produce maximumnoise levels of 73 to 102 dBA at a distanceof 25 feet (CERL, 1978; EPA, 1971; andBeranek, 1992). The alternative 2 site islocated outside the secure area of the basein an existing asphalt parking area. Noresidential or commercial activities are lo-cated near the site. Noise would not ex-ceed state of Colorado maximumpermissible levels beyond the propertyboundary.


An action would be considered to havea significant impact if it:

• Created an unsafe training environ-ment; or

• Violated NFPA Standard 1500.No short-term or long-term adverse

safety and health affects are expected fromconstruction and operation of the MDC.OSHA regulations pertaining to construc-tion and operations would be followed.

4.2.7 Pollution PreventionThe pollution-prevention effects of an

alternative would be considered an impactif it resulted in:

• Release of a regulated waste;• Noncompliance with applicable

Pollution Prevention ManagementAction Plan (P2MAP) and HAZMATplan; or

• Amounts of generated waste that ex-ceeded available waste managementcapacities.

Pollution generating activities associ-ated with alternative 2 would occur during

facility construction and operation. Theseactivities would not cause a release of aregulated waste, exceed available wastehandling capacity or not conform with theP2MAP. Construction debris would beconsidered solid waste and would be dis-posed in the county landfill.

Infectious waste may be generated dur-ing operation of alternative 2. Infectiouswaste would be stored, packaged, con-tained in a manner that prevents release ofwaste material and in a manner such thatnuisance conditions would not occur. In-fectious wastes generated at Peterson AFBand the Air Force Academy are disposedof through a contract with their waste dis-posal contractor. Infectious wastes gener-ated at Schriever AFB from the operationof alternative 2 would, similarly, be dis-posed of through the waste disposal con-tractor. Any hazardous waste generatedfrom the operation of alternative 2 wouldbe managed through the hazardous wasteprogram currently in existence at SchrieverAFB.

4.2.8 Socioeconomic ConditionsA socioeconomic change would be con-

sidered an impact if it resulted in:

• Substantial changes in the localpopulation or work force;

• The need for substantial increase inutilities or service; or

• An increase in transportation thatwould change the LOS or requireextensive construction of road im-provements.

The proposed action would have a verylimited effect on socioeconomic conditionsat SAFB. Constructing the proposed facil-ity would result in a positive benefit fromjobs and revenue generated during buildingconstruction. However the magnitude ofeffects would be localized and short-term


because the complexity of the constructionproject is limited and would be completedin a year or less. Once constructed, theMDC would generate a nominal increasein the workforce and traffic because theMDC staffing requirements would requirenine additional medical – dental personnelto be assigned to SAFB. Military person-nel already assigned to the base would bepersonnel eligible to receive health care.

4.2.9 SoilsA change in soil conditions would be

considered an impact if it:

• Causes sedimentation in wetlandsand permanent surface waters;

• Results in loss of prime, unique, orstate-important farmlands; or

• Results in the loss of land use due tosoil erosion or steep slopes.

Construction of this alternative wouldresult in shallow soil alterations of ap-proximately 5 acres. It is possible thatpockets of unstable soil are present at theaction alternative sites. If such soils areencountered during construction, the af-fected soil volume should be over-excavated and replaced with structural fill.

Standard construction practices and ElPaso County dust-control permits requireimplementation of short-term mitigationmeasures, such as application of water todisturbed surface areas, observation of re-stricted speed limits in disturbed areas, re-stricting earthwork during high-windperiods, and various other measures tominimize wind erosion and control runoffduring construction. Implementation ofthese practices would ensure that soil ero-sion due to the alternative is minimized.

4.2.10 Water ResourcesChanges in either surface water or

groundwater conditions would be consid-ered an impact on water resources if they:

• Result in degradation of surface wa-ter or groundwater quality such thatan existing use would be impaired, adesignated use could not beachieved, or new or additional viola-tions of water quality standards oc-curred; or

• Cause a shortage in the SAFB's oradjacent landowners water supplysystems under existing water rights.

This alternative would not cause or cre-ate changes in the existing groundwater orsurface water conditions or uses at SAFB.Currently, there are no surface bodies pre-sent that would be degraded by practicesassociated with this alternative. Stormwa-ter runoff is expected to infiltrate into thesoil and would not be received by perma-nent streams, ponds, or wetlands. Thus,there would be no impacts to existing wa-ter quality standards. Consequently, therewould be no direct or indirect impacts towater resources from this alternative.

A Construction Storm Water DischargePermit (NPDES permit) would be requiredfor the construction of this alternative. Apermit must be obtained from CDPHE,Water Quality Division, prior to the start ofconstruction activities, if more than 1 acresof land are disturbed. Since constructionof the MDC would result in the distur-bance of more than 1 acres, a NPDESpermit would be required. Standard con-struction practices, such as using siltfences, would be used to control the runofffrom the site.

4.2.11 WetlandsChanges in jurisdictional wetlands

would be considered an impact if they:


• Result in the permanent loss of wet-land areas because of filling or exca-vation activities or because ofsubstantial and permanent change insurface water or groundwater hy-drology; or

• Result in the loss or substantialchange in existing functions beingprovided by the existing wetlands.

Alternative 2 would not result in any di-rect or indirect physical or hydrologicalchanges to existing jurisdictional wetlands.This alternative would not producechanges in current wetland functions orhydrologic regimes. Thus, there would beno direct or indirect wetland impacts asso-ciated with this alternative.

4.2.12 Cumulative EffectsCumulative effects associated with this

alternative include a decrease in availableparking at SAFB. These cumulative ef-fects would not have a significant adverseimpact on the environment.


There would be an irretrievable com-mitment of materials, energy, fuel, and la-bor utilized during construction activitiesassociated with this alternative. Buildingand construction equipment wear (i.e., de-preciation) also would be irreversible. Theirretrievable resources to be committed aretypical for the scale of the proposed proj-ect. Implementation of best constructionmanagement practices, standard equipmentmaintenance schedules, and use of energyconservation and recycling measures dur-ing building operation would minimize theuse of irretrievable resources. At the endof the useful life of the facility, it is ex-pected that some building materials (e.g.,asphalt and concrete, scrap metal, and fix-tures) could be retrieved for recycling andreuse.

4.2.14 Environmental JusticeExecutive Order (EO) 12898, Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justicein Minority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations, was issued on 11 Feb 94. TheEO requires federal agencies to identifyand address, as appropriate, disproportion-ately high and adverse human health orenvironmental effects of their programs,policies, and activities on minority andlow-income populations.

• An adverse impact would have adeleterious effect on human health orthe environment that is significant,unacceptable, or above generally ac-cepted norms.

No adverse impacts would be borne byhuman populations; therefore, this alterna-tive would not have an adverse impactupon minority populations and/or low-income populations.

4.3 No Action

The medical – dental clinic (MDC)would not be constructed at SchrieverAFB. Personnel would continue to be re-quired to travel to Peterson AFB or theUSAF Academy hospital for routine medi-cal care. There would continue to be diffi-culties and hardships imposed on themilitary workforce at SAFB.

4.3.1 Air QualityThere would be no change in air quality

under the no action alternative.

4.3.2 Biological ResourcesThere would be no adverse impacts on

biological resources from this alternative.


4.3.3 Cultural ResourcesDirect or indirect impacts to cultural re-

sources would not occur because of the noaction alternative.

4.3.4 Land UseThere would be no direct or indirect

land use impacts associated with the noaction alternative.

4.3.5 NoiseThe no action alternative would not

change existing noise conditions. Newconstruction and associated equipmentwould not be required. Sources of loud orextreme noise would not be created. Therewould be no direct or indirect noise im-pacts caused by this alternative.


The no action alternative would con-tinue existing practices and safety meas-ures required under OSHA and NFPAStandard 1500.

4.3.7 Pollution PreventionSAFB has developed and implemented

a comprehensive set of effective pollutionprevention and control programs. Theseprograms have contributed to the smallquantities of wastes being generated bypresent practices.

4.3.8 Socioeconomic ConditionsThe no action alternative would not re-

sult in any change in work force, utilities,or service.

4.3.9 SoilsThe no action alternative would not cre-

ate or produce changes in existing soilconditions. A new facility would not beconstructed that would disturb the soil.

4.3.10 Water ResourcesThis alternative would not cause or cre-

ate changes in the existing groundwater orsurface water conditions or uses at SAFB.Currently, there are no surface water bod-ies present that are degraded by existingpractices associated with this alternative.Groundwater consumption and use are cur-rently well within legally authorized quan-tities. Thus, there would be no direct orindirect impacts to water resources withthis alternative.

4.3.11 WetlandsThe no action alternative would not re-

sult in any changes to existing jurisdic-tional wetlands. This alternative would notproduce changes in current functions beingperformed at existing wetlands. Thus,there would be no direct or indirect wet-land impacts associated with this alterna-tive.

4.3.12 Cumulative EffectsThere would be no significant cumula-

tive effects associated with the no actionalternative.


There would be an irretrievable com-mitment of materials, energy, fuel, and la-bor utilized to transport personnel to eitherPeterson AFB or the USAF Academy hos-pital for routine medical appointments.

4.3.14 Environmental JusticeThis alternative would not have an ad-

verse impact upon minority populationsand/or low-income populations.

4.4 Summary

A summary of effects for each alterna-tive is provided in Table 4.1. These de-


terminations support a FONSI for the pro-posed action (Alternative 1).


TABLE 4.1ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY

Resource Alternative 1Proposed Action

Alternative 2Construct West of Building 101

Alternative 3No Action

Air Quality Fugitive dust and CO emissionsduring construction are de minimus.

Fugitive dust and CO emissionsduring construction are de minimus

No change in current conditions

Biological Re-sources

Conversion of semi-improved landwould not effect wildlife, threatenedor endangered species.

Conversion of asphalt parking areawould not effect wildlife, threatenedor endangered species.

No changes in onsite habitat and noeffects to threatened or endangeredspecies.

Cultural Re-sources

No cultural resources are known tooccur on SAFB.



Land Use Slight increase in developed land.No prime farmland or state-important farmland is present.

Slight change in developed land.No prime farmland or state-important farmland is present.

No change in current conditions.

Noise Temporary local construction noiseincreases; no effect to noise sensi-tive receptors. Noise during con-struction would not exceedpermissible levels at propertyboundary.

Temporary local construction noiseincreases; no effect to noise sensi-tive receptors. Noise during con-struction would not exceedpermissible levels at propertyboundary.

No change in current conditions.

OccupationalSafety andHealth

No short-term or long-term adversesafety and health effects are ex-pected.

No short-term or long-term adversesafety and health effects are ex-pected.

No impact.

Pollution Pre-vention

Negligible hazardous materials gen-erated during construction.

Negligible hazardous materials gen-erated during construction.

No effect on pollution preventionopportunities.

SocioeconomicConditions

Short term benefit from constructionjobs. No significant long-termchange in SAFB work force, utili-ties service, or transportation

Short term benefit from constructionjobs. No significant long-termchange in SAFB work force, utili-ties service, or transportation

No changes in current conditions.

Soils Water is expected to infiltrate intosoils.

Water is expected to infiltrate intosoils.


Water Re-sources

No changes in current conditions. No changes in current conditions. No changes in current conditions.

CumulativeEffects

Incremental increase in developedland, impervious surface andstormwater runoff.

Incremental increase in developedland, impervious surface andstormwater runoff.


Irreversible andIrretrievableCommitment ofResources

Irretrievable commitment of materi-als, energy, fuel, and labor utilizedduring construction activities.

Irretrievable commitment of materi-als, energy, fuel, and labor utilizedduring construction activities.

No additional commitment of mate-rials, energy, fuel, and labor util-ized.


Resource Alternative 1Proposed Action

Alternative 2Construct West of Building 101

Alternative 3No Action

Wetlands No risk or threat to wetlands. No wetlands affected. No wetlands affected.

EnvironmentalJustice

This alternative would not have anadverse impact upon minoritypopulations and/or low-incomepopulations.




SECTION 5REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

This section lists the relevant laws per-taining to the alternatives and addressesregulatory review and permit requirements.

5.1 Relevant Federal, State,and Local Statutes,Regulations, and Guidelines

5.1.1 Federal RegulationsRegulations implementing NEPA are

detailed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Parts 1500-1508, 32 CFR Part 989,and AFI 32-7061. In addition to the re-quirements of NEPA, other federal re-quirements are considered in thepreparation of an EA. These regulationscomprise an important subset of the NEPAprocess. Environmental laws, with whichthe proposed action must comply, eitherdirectly or indirectly, are described below.

5.1.1.1 Clean Air Act of 1970, 42U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 is abroad federal statute that establishedNAAQS and set emission limits for certainair pollutants from specific sources. Majorprovisions of the act are intended to set agoal for cleaner air by setting NAAQS.

A few pertinent sections of the CAA areSection 109 and Section 176 (c). Section109 set standards for the following "crite-ria" pollutants: PM10, sulfur dioxide (SO2),CO, ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),and lead (Pb). Section 176(c) of the CAAestablished a conformity requirement forfederal agencies in which all EIAP docu-ments must address applicable conformityrequirements and the status of compliance(40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B).

The CAA requires states to develop andsubmit a SIP for achieving NAAQS withineach state. The SIP must establish state airquality control regions and specify emis-sion limits, schedules, and timetables forcompliance from both stationary and mo-bile sources. The CAA requires federalfacilities to comply with state air pollutionrequirements. Executive Order (EO)12088 directs federal agency compliance.DoD Instruction 4120.14 implements EO12088 for the USAF.

The Colorado Springs area has recentlybeen designated by the EPA as being inattainment for meeting federal NAAQS forCO.

5.1.1.2 Clean Water Act of 1987, 33U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct (FWPCA) of 1972, as amended by theClean Water Act of 1987 and the WaterQuality Act of 1987, forms the legalframework to support maintenance andrestoration of water quality, and also ad-dresses wetlands. The FWPCA establishedthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-tion System (NPDES) as the regulatorymechanism to achieve water quality goalsby regulating pollutant discharge to navi-gable streams, rivers, and lakes.

Implementing regulations are detailedin 40 CFR, Subchapters D and N. Execu-tive Order 12088, Federal Compliancewith Pollution Standards, directs federalfacility compliance. The proposed site lo-cations were evaluated for impacts to wet-lands. No industrial activities areconducted at SAFB and they are thereforeexempt from stormwater permit require-ments. In a letter dated 28 March 1995


from the EPA, it was confirmed that noFederal Stormwater Permit was required.

5.1.1.3 Endangered Species Act of1973, amended 1982 and 1987, 16U.S.C. §1531-1542.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of1973, as amended in 1982 and 1987, is in-tended to prevent the further decline of en-dangered and threatened plant and animalspecies and to help in the restoration ofpopulations of these species and theirhabitats. The act, jointly administered bythe Department of Commerce and the De-partment of the Interior, requires that eachfederal agency consult with the USFWS todetermine whether endangered or threat-ened species are known to exist or havecritical habitats on or in the vicinity of thesite of a proposed action.

Sections relevant to this EA includeSection 7(c) and Section 9(a). Section 7(c)of the ESA authorizes the USFWS to re-view proposed major federal actions to as-sess potential impacts on listed species. Inaccordance with Section 7(c) of the ESA,the USAF, in consultation with theUSFWS, must identify potential species inareas of concern. Section 9(a) of the ESAprohibits "take" of individuals of endan-gered species. "Take," as defined by theact, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,or to attempt to engage in any such con-duct." Habitat modification can be consid-ered "take" if death or injury of a listedwildlife species occurs from removing es-sential habitat components or impairingbehavior patterns, such as breeding, feed-ing, or sheltering. The absence of effectsto endangered species and their habitatswere verified through consultation with theUSFWS and CDOW.

5.1.1.4 Farmland Protection PolicyAct of 1981 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of1981 is intended "to minimize the extent towhich federal programs contribute to theunnecessary and irreversible conversion offarmland to nonagricultural uses, and toassure that federal programs are adminis-tered in a manner that, to the extent practi-cable, will be compatible with state, unitsof local government, and private programsto protect farmland." Prime farmland andstate important farmland were evaluatedunder land use in this EA.

5.1.1.5 National Historic Preserva-tion Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §470-470t.

The National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966, as amended, establisheshistoric preservation as a national policyand defines it as the protection, rehabilita-tion, restoration, and reconstruction of dis-tricts, sites, buildings, structures, andobjects significant in American history,architecture, archaeology, or engineering.It also expands the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60) toinclude resources of state and local signifi-cance and establishes the Advisory Coun-cil on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

NHPA Section 106, implemented byregulations issued by the ACHP (36 CFR800), requires federal agencies to consultwith the SHPO regarding impacts that aproposed action may have on cultural re-sources.

A cultural resource survey was con-ducted in 1992 at SAFB. None of the cul-tural resources evaluated were determinedas significant, based on the eligibility crite-ria of the NRHP. A cultural clearance wasapproved by the SHPO.


5.1.1.6 Noise Control Act of 1972,42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 estab-lishes that federal agencies, when engagedin an activity resulting in the emission ofnoise, should comply with federal, state,interstate, and local requirements respect-ing control and abatement of environ-mental noise to the same extent as privateentities. The principles involved are appli-cable to activities that produce sufficientnoise to result in incompatible land uses inthe surrounding community (40 CFR 209).In 1978, the Noise Control Act wasamended by the Quiet Communities Act.This amendment provides for greater in-volvement by state and local authorities incontrolling noise and provides for the de-velopment and implementation of a na-tional noise environmental assessmentprogram. These regulations were consid-ered in making the noise impact determi-nation associated with the proposed action.

5.1.1.7 Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970, 20 U.S.C. §333

The Occupational Safety and HealthAct administered by OSHA forms theframework for a body of regulations (29CFR 1910) which, among other things, areintended to ensure worker safety andhealth through regulation of work practicesand work environments. The Act specifi-cally addresses construction projects, haz-ardous waste operations, emergencyresponses, toxic and hazardous substanceoperations, and communication of infor-mation concerning occupational hazards,specifying appropriate protective measuresfor all employees. The proposed actionwas evaluated to determine if there was achange in work practices and the need foradministrative actions other than normalcompliance with OSHA's standards.

5.1.1.8 Pollution Prevention Act of1990, 42 U.S.C. §13101(b).

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990presents congressional findings on theneed for pollution prevention and sourcereduction programs. It states that "pollu-tion should be prevented or reduced at thesource whenever feasible; pollution thatcannot be prevented should be recycled inan environmentally safe manner, wheneverfeasible."

The Air Force implements this programthrough AFI 32-7080. It focuses on sourcereduction as the primary and first step to-ward pollution prevention, followed byrecycling/reuse and treatment/disposal, ifnecessary. AFI 32-7080 also implementsrequirements of the Superfund Amendmentand Reauthorization Act of 1986, ToxicsSubstance Control Act of 1976, Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990, Clean WaterAct of 1987, and Department of DefenseDirective 4210.15, Hazardous MaterialsPollution Prevention, dated 27 July 1989.

The proposed action and alternativeswere evaluated for potential pollution.Measures to prevent pollution are incorpo-rated wherever feasible.

5.1.1.9 Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.§1901 et seq.

Regulations prescribed under Subtitle Cof Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) mandate that hazardous wastewill be treated, stored, and disposed of soas to minimize the present and future threatto human health and the environment.These regulations established a cradle-to-grave system of identifying, testing, stor-ing, transporting, recycling, and disposingof hazardous waste. RCRA was amendedin 1984 to restrict the disposal of hazard-ous waste at landfill facilities and waste


minimization, and to require EPA to de-velop specific corrective action proceduresfor release of RCRA hazardous wastes.

Colorado has developed a program toimplement hazardous waste managementwithin the state, including RCRA correc-tive action. Colorado regulations arefound in Section 6, 1007-3 of CSR. Colo-rado Department of Public Health and En-vironment (CDPHE) has the authority todetermine whether SAFB is properly exe-cuting its RCRA responsibility as set forthby EPA. In addition, the Federal FacilityCompliance Act of 1992 dissolves anysovereign immunity under RCRA, and al-lows the state and EPA to collect fines forviolations.

Hazardous waste activities conducted atSAFB include generation, characterization,and manifesting to off site disposal. SAFBis a small-quantity hazardous waste gen-erator that generates more than 100 kilo-grams (approximately 25 gallons or 200pounds), but less than 1,000 kilograms(approximately 300 gallons or 2,500pounds) of hazardous waste per month.SAFB has a current spill prevention andresponse plan that establishes proceduresfor emergency notification and communi-cation, step-by-step initial action to betaken, and special precautionary measuresto be taken regarding hazardous materials.

5.1.2 Relevant State of Coloradoand Local Regulations

Relevant State of Colorado regulationsand guidelines appropriate to this projectare often the outcome of one of the afore-mentioned federal programs. Coloradoagencies associated with the administrationof federal regulations applicable to thisproject are listed below. Local agenciesrelevant to this project also are identifiedbelow.

5.1.2.1 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment

The Air Quality Control Division ofCDPHE administers the CAA. Coloradohas adopted the federal air quality stan-dards, and has promulgated dust-controlregulations for construction projects dis-turbing 25 acres or more of ground (CSRNo. 3), and for gravel-surfaced roads usedby 200 or more vehicles per day (CSR No.1, Section 3.D[2a]).

5.1.2.2 Colorado Division of WildlifeThe CDOW coordinates with the

USFWS to manage protected species andhabitat. It is responsible for maintainingstate-specific protected and special-concern species and habitat classifications,and works with the Colorado NaturalHeritage Program to maintain protectedspecies and habitat listings for the state.The CDOW also implements Senate Bill40 Wildlife Certification regarding con-struction within stream banks and tribu-taries.

5.1.2.3 Colorado Historical Societyand State Historic Preservation Offi-cer

The SHPO administers the NHPA andserves as liaison for the state with theACHP. The Colorado Historical Societymaintains site records for all documentedcultural resources in the state. Regulationsregarding historic, prehistoric, and ar-chaeological resources of Colorado are in-cluded in the State Antiquities Act of 1966.

5.1.2.4 Pikes Peak Area Council ofGovernments

The PPACG is responsible for regional-level enforcement of CAA and compliancewith the Colorado SIP. The PPACG isalso responsible for regional-level popula-tion development and transportation plans.


Regulations relevant to construction-related fugitive dust control have been es-tablished by El Paso County and the Stateof Colorado.

5.1.2.5 El Paso CountyEl Paso County has local responsibility

for land use and transportation planning,and maintenance responsibility for countyroads. The county also regulates fugitivedust control through the 1987 air qualityregulation, Regulations for Fugitive Par-ticulates and Open Burning, Section 10,which requires a permit for constructionwhen earth work disturbance exceeds 1acre but is less than 25 acres.

The county also regulates erosion con-trol standards required for construction ac-tivities. Depending on the activity, anerosion control plan may be required bythe county as set forth in the El PasoCounty Drainage Criteria Manual (Watt,1997). However, the county does not havejurisdiction over activities at SAFB unlessthe project drains toward a county prop-erty, a county road, or a private property inEl Paso County (Williams, 1997).

5.2 Permit Requirements

Only permit requirements identified forresource categories evaluated as a part ofthis EA are identified here. Routine per-mits required for construction and/ormaintenance of the project are not listed.

• NHPA, Section 106 Clearance -None required unless subsurfacecultural resources are identified dur-ing construction.

• Construction Storm Water DischargePermit (NPDES permit) - A permitmust be obtained from CDPHE,Water Quality Division, prior to thestart of construction activities, ifmore than 1 acres of land are dis-

turbed. Since construction of theMDC would result in the disturbanceof more than 1 acres, a NPDES per-mit would be required.

• El Paso County Dust Control Permit- This permit must be obtained fromEl Paso County prior to the start ofconstruction activities that disturbmore than 1 acre and less than 25acres.


SECTION 6AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED

Individuals consulted during the preparation of this EA are listed by agency or organiza-tion in the following subsections. Copies of correspondence with agencies are provided inAppendix A.

6.1 Schriever Air Force Base

Mickey Weatherman (50 CES/CECC) - (719) 567-4787

Bruce Nyhuis (50 CES/CECC) – (719) 567-4017

Ralph Mitchell (50 CES/CECB) – (719) 567-2075

S. Scott Vincent (50 CES/CEV) – (719) 567-3360

Ken Nevling (50 CES/CEV) – (719) 567-4027

6.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

LeRoy W. Carlson – Colorado Field Supervisor – (303) 275-2343

6.3 Colorado Natural Heritage Program

Beth Van Dusen – Environmental Review Coordinator – (970) 491-7331

6.4 Colorado Division of Wildlife

Information requested 4/26/00

6.5 Colorado Historical Society

Georgianna Contiguglia – State Historic Preservation Officer – (303) 866-4674

Printed on Recycled Paper7-1

SECTION 7LIST OF PREPARERS

Schriever Air Force BaseRichard Parkinson, P.E.Environmental Impact Analysis Program Manager


SECTION 8REFERENCES

Beranek, L. and L. Istvan. 1992. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering. Chapter18, page 643-663, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

CERL. 1978. Construction-Site Noise Control Cost-Benefit Estimating Procedures.Interim Report N-36, January. U.S. Army Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratory.

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 1998. Project CC 040-013, FalconAir Force Base Defense Access Road Biological Evaluation of Potential Impactson Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species and Rare Plant Communi-ties.

Environmental Science and Engineering Inc. 1987. Environmental Impact Analysisfor the Falcon Air Station Land Acquisition Amended to Include Analysis of Fal-con Air Force Station Buffer Zone.

Essington, K. 1997. Personal communications. Environmental Review Coordinator,Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Gurzick, A. 1997. Personal communications. District Wildlife Manager, SoutheastRegional Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Higginbotham/Briggs & Associates. 1999. Schriever Air Force Base General Plan.Prepared for United States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Schriever Air ForceBase, Colorado.

International Technology Corp. 1993. Environmental Assessment for the OperationalSupport Facility. Prepared for United States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, FalconAir Force Base, Colorado.

Larsen, L.S. 1981. Soil Survey of El Paso County Area, Colorado. U S. Departmentof Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Conjunction with the AgricultureExperiment Station.

Parsons ES. 1997a. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Prepared forUnited States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado.

Parsons ES. 1997b. Cultural Resources Management Plan, Falcon Air Force Base.Prepared for United States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Falcon Air Force Base,Colorado. June.

Parsons ES. 1997c. Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan. Prepared forUnited States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado.

Parsons ES. 1998. Environmental Assessment for Fiscal Year 1998 Growth Plan.Prepared for United States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Schriever Air ForceBase, Colorado. November.


Parsons ES. 1999. Environmental Assessment for the Physical Fitness Center. Pre-pared for United States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Schriever Air Force Base,Colorado. October.

Parsons Transportation Group Inc. 1998. Letter to Pikes Peak Area Council of Gov-ernments in response to Parsons Engineering Science request for traffic informa-tion on State Highway 94 and Enoch Road. Denver, Colorado.

Radian International LLC (Radian). 1996. Water Quality Compliance Action Plan, Fi-nal Report. Prepared for Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado.

Roybal Corporation. 1992. An Archaeological and Historical Survey, Falcon AirForce Base. El Paso County, Colorado. Prepared for United States Air Force,Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado.

Schriever Air Force Base. 2000. Schriever Air Force Base Fact Sheet. January.

Secretary of the Air Force. 1994. Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordinationfor Environmental Planning (IICEP). Air Force Instruction 32-7060. Head-quarters U.S. Air Force, 25 March.

Secretary of the Air Force. 1995. The Environmental Impact Analysis Process(EIAP), Air Force Instruction 32-7061. Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 24 Janu-ary.

State of Colorado. 1996. Noise Abatement. Colorado State Regulations, Title 25, Ar-ticle 12, 101 through 108. Department of Health and Environment.

United States Air Force. 1995. Draft Synthetic Minor Source Air Permit for Preven-tion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit ProgramApplicability. Permit No. 95EP772. Falcon Air Force Base.

URS Radian International. 2000. 1999 Air Emissions Inventory, Schriever Air ForceBase, Colorado. Denver, Colorado. Prepared for the 50th Space Wing, AirForce Space Command.

USAF. 2000. Environmental Assessment for Child Development Center. Preparedby United States Air Force, 50th Space Wing, Schriever Air Force Base, Colo-rado. March.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Determination of Wetlands and Sec-tion 404 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States for Falcon Air Force Base,Colorado (Revised November 4, 1991). Albuquerque District.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Con-struction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appli-ances. NTID 300.1, December.

USEPA. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutants Emission Factors Volume I: StationaryPoint and Area Sources (AP-42). 4th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards.


United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants: Final rule to list the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as athreatened species. Federal Register: 63(92). 13 May.

USFWS. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Proposed threatenedstatus of the mountain plover. Federal Register: 64(30). 16 February.

Watt, D. 1997. County Drainage Criteria Manual, El Paso County Department ofTransportation.

APPENDIX AAGENCY CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX BPUBLIC COMMENTS

The request for public review and comment on the Finding of No Significant Impact andthe Environmental Assessment for the Medical – Dental Clinic, was announced in TheGazette Telegraph on 30 Nov 00. The final draft EA and FONSI were placed in the Pen-rose General Library, Penrose local history desk and Colorado Springs main library for aperiod of 30 days. No public comments were received.