SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental ConsequencesWildlife on USARAK lands, including FWA and DTA, has been affected by military activity fordecades. USARAK mission-essential construction projects planned a may affect certain individuals orgroups of urban wildlife, but probably would not affect any priority species at the population level(Stout 2002a, b). Likewise, the activities planned would not impact priority species (USARAK 2004).Of the priority species, range improvement projects at FWA and DTA would not impact grizzly bearhabitat, but could compromise about 1 percent of the preferred habitats of wolverines, wolves, andolive-sided flycatchers. Although 1 to 2 percent of current moose habitat could be impacted, rangeconstruction could create additional habitat. Range development could compromise about 3 percent oftrumpeter swan habitat in these areas (USARAK 2004).The range improvement projects and subsequent artillery firing at DTA could negatively affect bisonthat migrate through the battle area complex area, but maintenance of the battle area complex in anearly seral state may also benefit bison. The noise could impact waterfowl and other birds in nearbyponds, but the effect of such training is not known. Development and use of the collective trainingrange could affect portions of grizzly bear and sandhill crane habitat in North Texas Range. This areais already used for weapons training. No additional impacts are expected from use of this range togrizzly bears, sandhill cranes, or other species of wildlife (Stout 2002b). Ongoing USARAK activitiescould negatively impact fisheries primarily due to habitat degradation or loss of water quality.Overall, cumulative impacts to general wildlife and habitat would be less than significant.5.6.2.10 Air QualityThe city of Anchorage is classified as a serious non-attainment area for CO, and the Eagle River areaoutside of Anchorage is in a non-attainment area for PM 10 . FRA is not within either of these nonattainmentareas; however, these pollutants are the main issues of concern in the larger south-centralairshed within which FRA resides.Historically, Anchorage has also been listed among the top 10 worst air quality regions in the westernUnited States for CO. The largest source of CO emissions is motor vehicles (83.6 percent), followedby aircraft (8.6 percent). Most exceedances to the CO NAAQS occur on weekdays when vehicletraffic is the heaviest. Morning starts of vehicles, or “cold starts,” are believed to be the leading causeof high CO levels during winter months (Municipality of Anchorage 1999).Vehicle emissions have decreased significantly in recent decades due to the requirement for emissioncontrol equipment on all new vehicles manufactured since 1981. In 1995, Anchorage adopted an AirQuality Control Plan to reduce CO emissions by using oxygenated fuels, increasing vehicleinspection requirements, and implementing a ride-sharing program.PM 10 is high in Eagle River due to the number of unpaved roads. Over 90 percent of the particulatematter in the area is generated by travel on paved and unpaved roads. Only 10 percent of the fugitiveemissions result from industrial sources, wood stoves, or automobile exhaust (Municipality ofAnchorage 1999). In 1987 a plan was implemented to pave or surface gravel dirt roads in the area.The state of Alaska modified winter road maintenance practices in the Anchorage and Eagle Riverareas to reduce the amount of traction sand on the road. Traction sand is believed to contribute tohigher PM 10 levels. No exceedances of the PM 10 standard have occurred since 1987 (Municipality ofAnchorage 1999).Major point emission sources in the area include power plants, standby power generating facilities,exhaust emissions from vehicle maintenance shops, small space heaters, and dry cleaning andpetroleum storage facilities.February 2008 5-264 2/25th SBCT Final EIS