APPENDIX F: RESPONSES TO COMMENTSCOMMENTRESPONSEU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fairbanks Regulatory Field Office<strong>EA</strong> CommentsUSARAK does not have a current wetl<strong>and</strong> permit to conduct militarytraining in wetl<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.Accepted. Text corrected inSection 3.3.USARAK classifies wetl<strong>and</strong>s as “high-function” <strong>and</strong> “low-function”. It statesthat high-function wetl<strong>and</strong>s include riverine, permanent emergent, semipermanentemergent areas, riparian areas, <strong>and</strong> other sensitive wildlifehabitats that lie in wetl<strong>and</strong> areas. It does not state how the classificationswere developed, or what “functions” are being reviewed for a given area.Wetl<strong>and</strong>s reviewed under this functional assessment were obtained fromthe NWI mapping.CE/EPA wetl<strong>and</strong> definition not included in <strong>EA</strong>.Consideration should be given to the relationship between the CEtechnical guideline for wetl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the classification system developedfor the Fish <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of the Interior, byCowardin et al. (1979). The FWS classification system was developed as abasis for identifying, classifying, <strong>and</strong> mapping wetl<strong>and</strong>s, other specialaquatic sites, <strong>and</strong> deepwater aquatic habitats. Using this classificationsystem, the National Wetl<strong>and</strong> Inventory (NWI) is mapping the wetl<strong>and</strong>s,other special aquatic sites, <strong>and</strong> deepwater aquatic habitats of the UnitedStates. The technical guideline for wetl<strong>and</strong>s under the1987 Corps ofEngineers Wetl<strong>and</strong>s Delineation Manual includes most, but not all,wetl<strong>and</strong>s identified in the FWS system. The difference is due to twoprincipal factors: a. The FWS system includes all categories of specialaquatic sites identified in the EPA Section 404 b. (l) guidelines. All otherspecial aquatic sites are clearly within the purview of Section 404; thus,special methods for their delineation are unnecessary. b. The FWS systemrequires that a positive indicator of wetl<strong>and</strong>s be present for any one of thethree parameters, while the technical guideline for wetl<strong>and</strong>s requires that apositive wetl<strong>and</strong> indicator be present for each parameter (vegetation, soils,<strong>and</strong> hydrology), except in limited instances identified in the manual.The <strong>EA</strong> does not address waters regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers<strong>and</strong> Harbor Act <strong>and</strong> “other waters” regulated under Section 404 of theClean Water Act.Asphalt is noted as a structural material for erosion control that can beused in stream crossings.Wetl<strong>and</strong> Checklist addresses an impact threshold on wetl<strong>and</strong>s that doesnot exist.Water Resources Checklist does not address Section 10 <strong>and</strong> Section 404impacts to waters of the United States (waters not regulated as wetl<strong>and</strong>s).ITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan CommentsAccepted. Text clarified inSection 3.3.NotedAccepted. Text clarified inSection 3.3.Accepted. Text clarified inSection 3.4.NotedAccepted. Text clarified inchecklistAccepted. Text clarified inchecklist_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan E-14
USARAK does not have a current five-year general wetl<strong>and</strong> permit from Accepted. See changes inthe Corps of Engineers.ITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat <strong>Management</strong> <strong>and</strong> Permitting,AnchorageITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan CommentsCulverts installed in fish bearing streams should have a width that is atleast 120% of the ordinary high water width of the stream <strong>and</strong> should bebedded 20% of the diameter.Installed culverts should follow, as best possible, the natural contour of thestream.Sufficient depth of flow <strong>and</strong> appropriate water velocities for fish passageshould be provided in culvert installations. A minimum of 200 mm of depthshould be maintained. Depending upon the grade of the culvert <strong>and</strong>/or itslength, it may be necessary to construct a downstream step pool or installbaffles within the culvert to achieve the 200 mm minimum depththroughout the culvert.Culverts should be installed during low flow periods whenever possible.Where significant flow is present, generally acceptable techniques toisolate the construction site from stream flow include, but at not limited to,channel bypasses, temporary flumes, sheet pile or s<strong>and</strong>bag walls, waterfilled coffer dams, or pumping the stream flow around the work site.Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan.The LRAM should contain SOP's on temporary water diversions.If water withdrawals from fish bearing waters are planned within the ITAM,then a SOP should be added for this.State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat <strong>Management</strong> <strong>and</strong> Permitting,FairbanksPages E-7 through E-13Accepted. See changes inITAM <strong>Management</strong> Plan._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan E-15
- 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 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: The third paragraph seems too speci