Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 2: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ANDALTERNATIVESUSARAK proposes to institute a management plan for implementing the ITAM program. Thismanagement plan would provide a systematic approach to maintaining and improving its range andtraining land infrastructure in support of USARAK’s mission to provide ready combat forces forworldwide joint military operations, crisis response, and peacetime engagements. In order to prepare itscombat forces, USARAK must be able to provide the best possible training facilities. This requiresongoing maintenance and improvements to training land infrastructure, which is accomplished throughthe ITAM program.2.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES2.1.1 Alternative 1: Continue ITAM Program without a Management Plan (No Action)Under the No Action Alternative, the ITAM program would continue to operate without a managementplan and without standard operating procedures for project implementation. As a result, ITAM projectswould occur on an ad-hoc basis with reduced ability for consistency between projects, potential for lessaccurate assessment of impacts, and limited contractor oversight. Projected ITAM projects for the nextfive years include approximately 1,000 acres of vegetation management and 500 acres of trail upgradesand road and pad hardening (Appendix A). NEPA analysis and documentation is required under thisalternative but has not been consistently fulfilled for ITAM projects (see Appendix C for a sample Recordof Environmental Consideration). Alternative 1 represents how ITAM is currently implemented atUSARAK.2.1.2 Alternative 2: Implement ITAM Program through a Management Plan (ProposedAction)Under Alternative 2, the ITAM program would continue to operate but would follow a management plan.The USARAK ITAM Management Plan would outline goals, objectives, measures of effectiveness, policy,procedures, and projects for each of the five components of the ITAM program. By standardizing ITAM’soperations, the management plan would allow ITAM to better fulfill its objectives (Section 1.2.1).General project categories are provided for each component of the ITAM program (Table 2.1). ITAM’splanning (TRI), education (SRA), and spatial data (GIS) programs do not involve direct contact withnatural resources, as do the management (LRAM) and monitoring (RTLA) programs. Therefore, generalproject categories for LRAM and RTLA represent standard operating procedures and best managementpractices that would be developed and followed for these programs. Detailed descriptions of the generalproject categories and standard operating procedures are provided in the chapters of the management planidentified in the table. The management plan can be found on USARAK’s conservation website(www.usarak.army.mil/conservation/NEPA_home.htm). Best management practices are described inAppendix B.The implementation of standard operating procedures and best management practices for the LRAM andRTLA programs would provide consistency among management approaches, increase oversight, andstreamline processes and procedures to improve ITAM program efficiency. The management plan wouldprovide the standardization necessary to allow ITAM to more easily predict possible impacts of projectsand to determine efficacy of project procedures. As individual ITAM projects are identified, this EAwould be utilized as the foundation for NEPA analysis. A checklist (Appendix C) would be used to_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 9
determine whether additional NEPA analysis is warranted. If it is warranted, project-specific assessmentswould tier from this EA to account for local conditions and impacts.Under this alternative, the USARAK ITAM Management Plan would facilitate the assessment of impactsfor ITAM project NEPA compliance. The implementation of standard operating procedures and bestmanagement practices would result in impacts being more predictable and assessment potentially morethorough. Documentation of the standard operating procedures and best management practices wouldhelp ensure future NEPA documents for ITAM projects are more efficient and consistent. Informationfrom the USARAK ITAM Management Plan and this EA could be incorporated by reference in successiveNEPA documents. While this would be beneficial to institutional and administrative aspects of the ITAMprogram, it would not noticeably affect environmental or social resources.Table 2.1 ITAM Program General Project Categories. 1ITAM ComponentTraining RequirementsIntegration (TRI)Land Rehabilitation andMaintenance (LRAM)General Project Category-Range Facility Inventory-Terrain Analysis-Maneuver Land Capability, Capacity, and ImpactAnalysis-Training Load Distribution-Training Area Reconfiguration-Environmental Limitations and Restrictions-Berm Installation and Maintenance-Biological and Chemical Controls-Culvert Installation-Dust Control-Education Kiosks-Erosion and Sediment Control Structures-Fire/Fuel Breaks and Trenches-Fire Suppression-Gravel Crushing-Gravel Extraction-Gravel Pit Development-Gravel Pit Reclamation-Guard Rail Installation-Land Grading and Shaping-Latrine and Water Point Installation-Low Water Crossing Hardening-Maneuver Trail Maintenance and Upgrade-Pad Hardening-Prescribed Burning-Revegetation-Road Crossings-Road Hardening-Sign and Seibert Stake Installation-Soil Stabilization Practices (Permanent)-Soil Stabilization Practices (Temporary)-Streambank Repair (Interior Alaska)-Streambank Repair (South Central Alaska)-Tactical Bridge Installation-Trail ClosureUSARAKITAMManagementPlan ChapterChapter 4Chapter 5 andAppendix C2_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 10
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?