SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequencestemporary, and the length of disruptions would be minimized to the greatest extent possible duringthis period. Service would be returned to normal after construction.No impacts would occur to wastewater and stormwater at DMR. No new staff would be added and noadditional training facilities would be constructed at DMR, and the road from SBMR to DMR wouldinclude drainage improvements, culverts at stream crossings, grass and concrete swales, and drainagestructures and lines to manage stormwater runoff. Less than significant long-term adverse impactswould occur at SBMR and PTA because of new construction and facilities, and increased trainingvolume and intensity. The wastewater and stormwater collection and treatment systems at SBMR andPTA are expected to have adequate capacity to handle increases in volume that could result. Impactsto facilities, public services, infrastructure, and utilities are expected to be less than significant. Nomitigation is required.5.3 ALTERNATIVE B − PERMANENTLY STATION THE 2/25TH SBCTAT FORT RICHARDSON WHILE CONDUCTING REQUIREDTRAINING AT MILITARY TRAINING SITES IN ALASKA5.3.1 Summary of the Environmental Consequences of Alternative BTable 5-19 presents the potential impacts of implementing Alternative B as it is described in Chapter2. For each VEC, impacts from four activity groups were analyzed: Cantonment Construction, RangeConstruction, Live-Fire Training, and Maneuver Training. Impacts from the four activity groups aresummarized by a single impact rating for each area affected by the alternative. Details of each activitygroup’s impacts are presented below in the resource sections.Impacts on soils erosion would be significant but mitigable to less than significant across all activitygroups. Construction and maneuver training would expose stable, vegetated soils to vehicle and foottraffic. This would cause loss of vegetation, soil compaction, and alterations to drainage patterns thatwould increase soil erosion from both wind and water. BMPs and mitigation measures wouldminimize soil loss.Significant impacts to wetlands could occur from the use of Army lands. Construction and trainingactivities would increase the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds and increase thepossibility of accidental ignition of a wildfire. Mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to lessthan significant. General wildlife, habitats, vegetation, and threatened and endangered species wouldsustain only less than significant impacts.Air quality and water resource impacts, primarily from training activities, would be significant butmitigable to less than significant, or less than significant. The implementation of severaladministrative mitigation measures would reduce all significant but mitigable impacts to less thansignificant.Impacts to land use, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials would be mitigable to less thansignificant. Traffic, noise, airspace, energy, facilities, and subsistence would all experience less thansignificant impacts at all affected areas.The Army is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to assess the potential impacts associatedwith the resumption of year-round live-fire weapons training at Fort Richardson's Eagle River Flatsimpact area (ERF). The successful cleanup of white-phosphorus-contaminated sediment over the lastten years has resulted in an opportunity for the Army to resume year-round use of the impact area.This area is currently available only during the winter when ice is of sufficient thickness to preventFebruary 2008 5-70 2/25th SBCT Final EIS