SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental ConsequencesMajor emission sources at Fort Greely (DTA) include vehicles and the burning of fuels, includingwood, gasoline, diesel oil, and fuel oil. Fugitive dust, forest fire smoke, and the occasional use ofhelicopters and aircraft were also cited as sources of emissions at DTA. Other currently plannedUSARAK mission-essential projects would contribute only short-term and relatively smallcumulative effects to air quality.Mission-essential construction projects planned for DTA include the construction of a battle areacomplex and combined arms collective training facility (BAX/CACTF) and would result in thegeneration of temporary emissions. Air quality impacts from the BAX/CACTF are essentiallynegligible. Some cumulative visibility issues remain with respect to Denali, but any BAX/CACTFeffects are essentially mitigated. The primary source of impaired visibility is local wildfires andnaturally-generated fugitive dust during high winds (USARAK 2006).Estimates of baseline air emissions from aircraft operations were calculated for Eielson AFB.Pollutant concentrations from aircraft operations would constitute a small percentage of the NAAQS,thus, no appreciable effects to air quality would result.Construction of the Cold Regions Test Center Automotive Test Complex would result in temporaryrelease of air pollutants from the combustion of fuel and from dust. Use of test facility buildings andtesting of vehicles on the paved track would also result in increased emissions; however, the need foradditional air quality permits is not expected.The addition of new permanent, stationary air emission sources by the Space and Missile DefenseSystem on the Fort Greely cantonment area would affect the overall ambient air quality within theairshed. This project has been issued a construction permit by the ADEC, and construction isunderway. The air quality effects may increase if the test bed evolves into a full missile defensesystem.The Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Renewal Project could affect ambient air quality. The maximumestimated concentrations of criteria air pollutants associated with the TAPS activities have been foundto be below applicable NAAQS. HAPs concentrations would contribute little to the backgroundconcentrations already found in residential areas. There are no predicted adverse effects to visibilityexpected to occur because of TAPS. Some of the projects identified as contributing to cumulativeimpacts would occur in or adjacent to areas where wildland fires could occur.The cumulative military projects are expected to contain mitigation measures to minimize potentialenvironmental impacts involving wildfires that can also contribute to air quality impacts. Militaryfires are usually quickly controlled. The FRA Fire Department provides the initial response forwildfire suppression. Cumulative fire management impacts to the region would mainly result from theaddition of new firing ranges, and expansion of existing or development of new maneuver areas, andpopulation growth in the forested areas bordering installations.Climate change is largely a global phenomenon that includes actions that are outside of the Armycontrol. Nevertheless, Army actions in Alaska contribute incrementally to this global situation.Stationing the SBCT in Alaska would produce greater emissions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gasses from both the use of explosives and the running of vehicle engines. Theseemissions can combine with carbon emissions throughout the world to contribute to one of the causesof global warming. As discussed in Sections 5.2.14, 5.3.14, 5.4.14, and 5.5.14, however, the Army isproactively working to reduce its overall consumption of energy and fossil fuels at all of itsinstallations. It can be argued that by reducing its consumption of energy and fossil fuels, the Army isreducing its contribution to "global warming."February 2008 5-265 2/25th SBCT Final EIS