Air QualityYes No□ □ Could emissions resulting from the project cause the installation to exceed regulated airpollutant criteria?□ □ Could impacts to air quality resulting from this project be greater than those described inSection 3.12, Air Quality, of the USARAK ITAM Program <strong>Management</strong> Plan <strong>EA</strong>?Cumulative ImpactsYes No□ □ Could the project have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificantbut cumulatively significant environmental effects?□ □ Could cumulative impacts resulting from this project be greater than those described inSection 3.13, Cumulative Impacts, 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-4
APPENDIX E: AGENCY COMMENTSThe following comments have been made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fairbanks RegulatoryField Office addressing general concerns with the <strong>EA</strong> <strong>and</strong> ITAM Plan.Comments on Specific Sections of the <strong>EA</strong>.A review of the <strong>EA</strong> document by this office indicates that the evaluation of Wetl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>Water Resources Sections are incomplete or inadequate.3.3 Wetl<strong>and</strong>s1) USARAK does not have a current wetl<strong>and</strong> permit to conduct military training inwetl<strong>and</strong>s at Fort Wainwright, Tanana Flats <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong>, Yukon <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong>or in Donnelly <strong>Training</strong> area as noted on page 30.2) USARAK classifies wetl<strong>and</strong>s as “high-function” <strong>and</strong> “low-function”. It states thathigh-function wetl<strong>and</strong>s include riverine, permanent emergent, semi- permanentemergent areas, riparian areas, <strong>and</strong> other sensitive wildlife habitats that lie inwetl<strong>and</strong> areas. It does not state how the classifications were developed, or what“functions” are being reviewed for a given area. Wetl<strong>and</strong>s reviewed under thisfunctional assessment were obtained from the NWI mapping.3) CE/EPA wetl<strong>and</strong> definition not included in <strong>EA</strong>.4) Consideration should be given to the relationship between the CE technicalguideline for wetl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the classification system developed for the Fish <strong>and</strong>Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of the Interior, by Cowardin et al.(1979). The FWS classification system was developed as a basis for identifying,classifying, <strong>and</strong> mapping wetl<strong>and</strong>s, other special aquatic sites, <strong>and</strong> deepwateraquatic habitats. Using this classification system, the National Wetl<strong>and</strong> Inventory(NWI) is mapping the wetl<strong>and</strong>s, other special aquatic sites, <strong>and</strong> deepwateraquatic habitats of the United States. The technical guideline for wetl<strong>and</strong>s underthe1987 Corps of Engineers Wetl<strong>and</strong>s Delineation Manual includes most, but notall, wetl<strong>and</strong>s identified in the FWS system. The difference is due to two principalfactors:a. The FWS system includes all categories of special aquatic sites identified inthe EPA Section 404 b. (l) guidelines. All other special aquatic sites are clearlywithin the purview of Section 404; thus, special methods for their delineation areunnecessary.b. The FWS system requires that a positive indicator of wetl<strong>and</strong>s be present forany one of the three parameters, while the technical guideline for wetl<strong>and</strong>srequires that a positive wetl<strong>and</strong> indicator be present for each parameter(vegetation, soils, <strong>and</strong> hydrology), except in limited instances identified in themanual.3.4 Water ResourcesThe <strong>EA</strong> does not address waters regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers <strong>and</strong> HarborAct <strong>and</strong> “other waters” regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan E-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 and 102: APPENDIX C: SAMPLE RECORD OF ENVIRO
- Page 103 and 104: APPENDIX D: ITAM PROJECT ASSESSMENT
- Page 105: Fire ManagementYes No□ □ Could
- 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