VegetationYes No□ □ Could the project significantly contribute to the introduction, continued existence, orspread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area(E.O. 13112)?□ □ Will the project occur in an area where there are federally listed, endangered, orthreatened vegetation?□ □ Could impacts to vegetation resulting from this project be greater than those describedin Section 3.2, Vegetation, of the USARAK ITAM Program <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?Wetl<strong>and</strong>sYes No□ □ Is the project located within a wetl<strong>and</strong>?□ □ Will the project involve dredging, disposal of dredged material, excavation, or filling of awetl<strong>and</strong> as described under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act?□ □ Could the project result in modifications or adverse effects to wetl<strong>and</strong>s?□ □ Could impacts to wetl<strong>and</strong>s resulting from this project be greater than those described inSection 3.3, Wetl<strong>and</strong>s, of the USARAK ITAM Program <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?Water ResourcesYes No□ □ Is the project located within a floodplain (E.O. 11988)?□ □ Is any part of the project footprint depicted as a red area on the environmental limitationsoverlay?□ □ Will the project expose one or more acres of soil?□ □ Will the project involve discharge (or runoff) of sediment into a waterway or storm sewer?□ □ Will the project result in diversion or obstruction of stream flow?□ □ Will the project impact a wild or scenic river?□ □ Will the project involve dredging or filling of a water body as described under Section 404of the Clean Water Act?□ □ Will the project involve construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, orunder a water body, or would any work affect the course, location, condition, or capacityof a water body as described under Section 10 of the Rivers <strong>and</strong> Harbors Act?□ □ Could the project result in potential impacts to surface water quality?□ □ Could impacts to waters resulting from this project be greater than those described inSection 3.4, Water Resources, of the USARAK ITAM Program <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?Wildlife <strong>and</strong> FisheriesYes No□ □ Will the project occur in an area where there are migratory birds or federally listed,endangered, or threatened wildlife or habitat?□ □ Could the project affect the marine environment?□ □ Could impacts to wildlife <strong>and</strong> fisheries resulting from this project be greater than thosedescribed in Section 3.5, Wildlife <strong>and</strong> Fisheries, of the USARAK ITAM Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan D-2
Fire <strong>Management</strong>Yes No□ □ Could this project interfere with Alaska Fire Service or military firefighting efforts?□ □ Could impacts to fire management resulting from this project be greater than thosedescribed in Section 3.6, Fire <strong>Management</strong>, of the USARAK ITAM Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?Public Access <strong>and</strong> RecreationYes No□ □ Will the project significantly hinder compliance with the Sikes Act?□ □ Could impacts to public access <strong>and</strong> recreation resulting from this project be greater thanthose described in Section 3.7, Public Access <strong>and</strong> Recreation, of the USARAK ITAMProgram <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?Cultural ResourcesYes No□ □ Could the project involve disturbance of previously undisturbed ground?□ □ Has the project undergone Cultural Resource <strong>Management</strong> staff review?□ □ Could impacts to cultural resources resulting from this project be greater than thosedescribed in Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, of the USARAK ITAM Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?□ □ Could impacts to subsistence resulting from this project be greater than those describedin Section 3.8, Cultural Resources, of the USARAK ITAM Program <strong>Management</strong> Plan<strong>EA</strong>?Human Health <strong>and</strong> SafetyYes No□ □ Will the project involve the demolition of a structure?□ □ Could impacts to human health <strong>and</strong> safety resulting from this project be greater thanthose described in Section 3.9, Human Health <strong>and</strong> Safety, of the USARAK ITAMProgram <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?SocioeconomicsYes No□ □ Could the project have disproportionately high <strong>and</strong> adverse effect on low income orminority populations (E.O. 12898)?□ □ Could impacts to socioeconomics resulting from this project be greater than thosedescribed in Section 3.10, Socioeconomics, of the USARAK ITAM Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?NoiseYes No□ □ Could the project generate significant short-term or long-term noise impacts?□ □ Could impacts to noise resulting from this project be greater than those described inSection 3.11, Noise, of the USARAK ITAM Program <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan D-3
- 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 and 102: APPENDIX C: SAMPLE RECORD OF ENVIRO
- Page 103: APPENDIX D: ITAM PROJECT ASSESSMENT
- 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