Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION: The project has undergone NEPA review and qualifies for categoricalexclusion g(2) as listed in Appendix B, Part 651 of 32 CFR (Environmental Analysis of Army Actions)and that no extraordinary circumstances exist as defined in paragraph 651.29. All screening criteria havebeen met.Prepared by: __________________________________Reviewed by: _________________________________Chief, Environmental DepartmentDirectorate of Public WorksApproved by: ________________________________DirectorDirectorate of Public Works_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan C-2
APPENDIX D: ITAM PROJECT ASSESSMENT CHECKLISTPROJECT:DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:FORM COMPLETED BY:DATE:In reference to the above project, check yes or no for each item below. If “yes” isindicated for any of the questions, additional NEPA analysis may be needed for theproject. If “yes” is not indicated for any of the questions, the sample Record ofEnvironmental Consideration (REC) should be used. USAGAK NEPA staff should beprovided a copy of this checklist and consulted prior to project activity. Projectmanagers should maintain this checklist as part of the project administrative record.ProjectYes No□ □ Is this project in addition to those listed in Appendix A (LRAM Five-Year Project List) ofthe USARAK ITAM Program Management Plan EA?□ □ Is this project in addition to those listed in Table 5-2 (Standard LRAM Projects) of theUSARAK ITAM Program Management Plan?□ □ Is a procedure, method, practice, or technique being used for this project that is notlisted in either Table 2.1 or Appendix B of the USARAK ITAM Program ManagementPlan EA, or Table 5-1 (LRAM Standard Practices) of the USARAK ITAM ProgramManagement Plan?□ □ Is the project or its potential impacts considered environmentally controversial?□ □ Could the project result in high or uncertain environmental risks?Soil ResourcesYes No□ □ Is permafrost present within the project or construction footprint?□ □ Has the Department of Public Works (DPW) determined that a dig permit is necessary?□ □ Could impacts to soils resulting from this project be greater than those described inSection 3.1, Soil Resources, of the USARAK ITAM Program Management Plan EA?_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan D-1
Page 1:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUNITED STATES
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: PURPOSE
Page 7 and 8:
Table 3.9 Summary of Impacts to Hum
Page 9 and 10:
and Training Land Program, the rang
Page 11 and 12:
• Establish a defined land condit
Page 13:
Donnelly Training AreaDonnelly Trai
Page 17 and 18:
determine whether additional NEPA a
Page 19 and 20:
Table 2.2 Summary of Environmental
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 3: DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFEC
Page 23 and 24:
Maneuver Trail Maintenance and Upgr
Page 25 and 26:
Mungoven 2001). Engineering soil ty
Page 27 and 28:
projects and would result in wide,
Page 29 and 30:
growth. Wind and sand fences would
Page 31 and 32:
iological impacts of military train
Page 33 and 34:
willow scrub communities are common
Page 35 and 36:
disturbed. Further, hardening low w
Page 37 and 38:
disturbance or removal, best manage
Page 39 and 40:
SRAThrough the SRA program, soldier
Page 41 and 42:
Ship Creek (from the Glenn Highway
Page 43 and 44:
effective site drainage. Required p
Page 45 and 46:
Game 1998). More information on wil
Page 47 and 48:
Fort Wainwright and associated land
Page 49 and 50:
Long-term beneficial impacts to wil
Page 51 and 52: 1998).The Alaska Interagency Wildla
Page 53 and 54: Prescribed burns, mechanical thinni
Page 55 and 56: unplanned fires, soldiers are direc
Page 57 and 58: USARAK also implemented the USARTRA
Page 59 and 60: LRAM projects beneficial to public
Page 61 and 62: Cumulative ImpactsPast military act
Page 63 and 64: Two surveys conducted on Yukon Trai
Page 65 and 66: LRAM activities under Alternative 1
Page 67 and 68: 3.9.1 Affected EnvironmentFort Rich
Page 69 and 70: SRA program, which educates soldier
Page 71 and 72: 3.10.2 Environmental ConsequencesAl
Page 73 and 74: Fort Richardson receives few compla
Page 75 and 76: Table 3.11 Summary of Impacts 1 to
Page 77 and 78: oads and hauling fill and rock mate
Page 79 and 80: CHAPTER 4: PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTO
Page 81 and 82: Benson, A.M. 1999. Distribution of
Page 83 and 84: Neely, R. J. 2001. Early Mining His
Page 85 and 86: CHAPTER 6: AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS
Page 87 and 88: Project NameBulldog TrailWidening P
Page 89 and 90: Project NameYukon TrainingArea Demo
Page 91 and 92: Project NameYukon TrainingArea Firi
Page 93 and 94: Project NameEddy Drop ZoneVegetatio
Page 95 and 96: Project Name33 Mile LoopRoad Shortc
Page 97 and 98: APPENDIX B: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTIC
Page 99 and 100: Sediment Trap(Permanent) SeedingSil
Page 101: APPENDIX C: SAMPLE RECORD OF ENVIRO
Page 105 and 106: Fire ManagementYes No□ □ Could
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX E: AGENCY COMMENTSThe foll
Page 109 and 110: ___________________________________
Page 111 and 112: ___________________________________
Page 113 and 114: Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:00 PM
Page 115 and 116: Second paragraph - I do not underst
Page 117 and 118: sentence could read, "The trees are
Page 119 and 120: The third paragraph seems too speci
Page 121: USARAK does not have a current five
show all

Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?