SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental ConsequencesOngoing and planned nonmilitary activities would also contribute to cumulative impacts onUSARAK lands. Ecosystem-level inventory and planning would promote long-term sustainability ofpublic access and recreation or subsistence opportunities within Alaska. Cumulative impacts to landuse and recreation resources under Alternative B are expected to be less than significant.5.6.2.6 Traffic and TransportationIndividually, Alternative B would result in less than significant impacts to traffic and transport in thearea. A variety of capital improvement projects is planned or currently underway on installationcantonment areas. In addition, future range construction and improvement projects are planned onUSARAK lands. Other military activities may also impact traffic and transportation resources in thearea. However, because of the wide distribution of the potential cumulative activities over time andspace, cumulative impacts to traffic and transport resources are expected to be less than significant forAlternative B.5.6.2.7 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Protection of ChildrenIndividually, Alternative B would result in less than significant and mostly beneficial impacts tosocioeconomic resources, environmental justice, and protection of children. Continuedsocioeconomic impacts are expected in the areas surrounding USARAK posts as the result ofprojected population growth and development. Ongoing USARAK activities, including training andrange construction and expansion, are expected to continue to impact socioeconomic resources. Avariety of capital improvement projects is planned or currently underway on installation cantonmentareas. In addition, future range construction and improvement projects are planned on USARAKlands. Under implementation of Alternative B, cumulative impacts to population, employment,income, housing, and schools are expected to be less than significant.Individually, Alternative B would have no disproportionate impacts to minority or low-incomepopulations or the health and safety of children. Ongoing mission-essential USARAK activities suchas construction of ranges and structures, as well as continued use of training lands, may result inimpacts to some low-income populations by affecting access to subsistence activities. Steadypopulation growth in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas may increase the level of recreationalhunting and fishing activities, thereby putting pressure on low-income populations dependent onsubsistence. With implementation of Alternative B, cumulative impacts to low-income populationswould be less than significant and would not be expected to cause significant impacts to subsistenceactivities. Existing and proposed USARAK mitigation measures as previously described would helpminimize any disproportionate effects under this alternative.No construction projects or training exercises would take place near schools, daycares, or other areaswith large populations of children. No cumulative adverse effects to the health and safety of childrenare expected under this alternative.5.6.2.8 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous WasteIndividually, Alternative B is expected to result in less than significant impacts to the human healthand safety from the use of hazardous materials and waste. Under implementation of Alternative B, theexpected impacts to human health and safety are expected to be significant but mitigable to less thansignificant at FRA and less than significant at DTA. However, additional cumulative impacts tohuman health and safety could result from continued development in the region. Increaseddevelopment in Alaska would result in an increased risk of inadvertent releases of hazardousmaterials and wastes.February 2008 5-262 2/25th SBCT Final EIS