Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

FINAL FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management Program ManagementPlanThe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider potentialenvironmental impacts prior to undertaking a course of action. Within the Department of the Army,NEPA is implemented through regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality [40CFR Parts 1500 – 1508], with supplemental guidance provided by Army NEPA regulations [32 CFR Part651]. In accordance with NEPA, U.S. Army Garrison, Alaska (USAG-AK) has prepared anenvironmental assessment (EA) to consider the environmental effects of a proposed management plan forits Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) program.Description of Action: U.S. Army Alaska (USARAK) proposes to institute a management planthrough which to implement its ITAM program. This management plan would provide a systematicapproach to maintaining and improving its range and training land infrastructure in support ofUSARAK’s mission to provide ready combat forces for worldwide joint military operations, crisisresponse and peacetime engagements. Currently, the ITAM program performs range and training landmaintenance and improvements in an ad-hoc fashion without a formal, systematic approach. Amanagement plan would institute standard operating procedures and best management practices for allITAM component programs and projects to provide consistency among management approaches, increaseoversight, and streamline processes and procedures to improve ITAM program efficiency. Themanagement plan would provide the standardization necessary to allow ITAM to more easily predictpossible impacts of projects and determine efficacy of project procedures. As individual ITAM projectsare identified, this EA would be utilized as the foundation for NEPA analysis. Project-specificassessments would tier from it to account for local conditions and impacts.The decision is whether to implement Alternative 1: Continue ITAM Program without a ManagementPlan (No Action); Alternative 2: Implement ITAM Program through a Management Plan (ProposedAction); or Alternative 3: Suspend ITAM Program. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2.Procedure: Analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative action is setforth in the United States Army Alaska Integrated Training Area Management Program ManagementPlan Environmental Assessment. The findings of this EA are incorporated into this final decisiondocument. Potential issues were determined to be relevant if they fell within the scope of the proposedaction, if they suggested different actions, or if they influenced the decision on the proposed action. Earlyin the process, USARAK and agency stakeholders or experts were informed of the proposed action, andtheir comments were solicited. Solutions responsive to public concerns and questions were integrated intoelements of the proposed action.Public comments were solicited following public announcements in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner andthe Anchorage Daily News during the comment period that ran from 27 Apr 05 to 27 May 05. Commentswere received from two state and two federal agencies. No comments were received from the public. Allcomments were positive and provided clarifications relating to specific regulatory requirements for theITAM Plan.Discussion of Anticipated Environmental Impacts of the Implementation of a USARAKITAM Program Management Plan: After consideration of potential environmental impacts,community concerns, and USAGAK mission requirements, Alternative 2: Implement ITAM ProgramThrough a Management Plan (Proposed Action) was found to offer the best course of action.