Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fort RichardsonWetlands comprise approximately 8% (4,990 acres) of Fort Richardson (Lichvar and Sprecher 1998b).Wetland types on the post include estuarine, marine, palustrine, riverine, and lacustrine. They areclassified as Coastal Halophytic Zone, Lowland Forest Wetlands, Lacustrine Wetlands, Alpine, andSubalpine Wetlands.Eagle River Flats is the largest expanse of wetlands at Fort Richardson (2,165 acres). This site was placedon the national priorities list for investigation and cleanup of hazardous substances (USARAK 1998).USARAK has not used white phosphorus munitions in wetlands since 1989, when a study was initiated toevaluate the ecological effects of these munitions. USARAK banned the use of white phosphorusmunitions in all impact areas in Alaska in 1991, and this explosive is no longer used in any wetlandsthroughout the United States. Remediation throughout most of Eagle River Flats is complete, althoughtwo contaminated areas persist. Ongoing monitoring will assist in determining treatment options for theremaining contaminated areas (CRREL 2004).Fort WainwrightApproximately 42% (6,500 acres) of the Main Post is classified as wetlands, with palustrine, riverine, andlacustrine types (Lichvar and Sprecher 1998a). Bogs, fens, and marshes are distributed over the post.Wetlands comprise about 74% (483,500 acres) of Tanana Flats Training Area (Lichvar and Sprecher1998a). Most are classified as Lowland Wet Needleleaf Forest and Lowland Forest and ScrubThermokarst Complexes.Approximately 17% (42,600 acres) of Yukon Training Area is classified as wetlands (Lichvar andSprecher 1998a). The prevalent wetland types include Shrub Wetlands, Lowland Wet Needleleaf Forest,Riverine and Lacustrine Complexes. Most middle and lower portions of north-facing slopes in thewetland/upland complex of Yukon Training Area are probably wetlands.Donnelly Training AreaApproximately 68% (431,940 acres) of Donnelly Training Area is wetlands (Lichvar 2000), withpalustrine, riverine, and lacustrine types included. The palustrine shrub wetlands are the most commonfound on the training area. The Delta River glaciated lowlands, lower Delta Creek lowlands, and upperDelta Creek lowlands ecosections support most of the wetlands on Donnelly Training Area. Mostwetlands are classified as Lowland Wet Low Scrub and Lowland Tussock Scrub and Bog Lowland WetForests.3.3.2 Environmental ConsequencesAlternative 1: Continue ITAM Program without a Management Plan (No Action)Under the No Action Alternative, ITAM projects would continue to take place without a managementplan or standard operating procedures. SRA, TRI, RTLA, and GIS would continue to have beneficialimpacts to wetlands. GIS would benefit wetlands by providing spatial information important formanaging wetland areas. TRI would benefit wetlands by ensuring wetlands protection does not interferewith training needs. Environmental limitations maps would continue to be used to make militarypersonnel aware of sensitive areas to avoid. SRA, RTLA, and LRAM impacts are discussed below._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 31
SRAThrough the SRA program, soldiers would be educated on the types of activities that require a permit,including depositing soil or other materials into wetlands, extracting water from wetlands, refraining fromdigging in wetlands, and projects taking place in or near wetland areas. Environmental limitations mapswould continue to be distributed to soldiers so they would be aware of sensitive areas, including wetlands.RTLARTLA would benefit wetlands by monitoring wetlands use to prevent prohibited activities in thesesensitive habitats and to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation efforts. Military training activity anddamage to wetlands would be tracked, recorded annually, and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers if the five-year wetlands permit is renewed. Recreational impacts to wetlands would also bemonitored under RTLA.LRAMWetlands restoration under LRAM would have beneficial impacts. Wetlands restoration would includereturning the soils, hydrology, vegetative community, and biological habitat to a natural condition to theextent practicable. This may require the use of biological and chemical controls to control undesirableplant species and pests. Use of biological controls, such as predator or parasitic species, would beimplemented where available and feasible.Road hardening, road crossings and maneuver trail upgrades would benefit wetlands by improving roadconditions. This would encourage drivers to remain on the road and out of wetland areas. Drivers aremore likely to remain on roads if they are in good condition.Other LRAM projects are located so as to avoid wetlands whenever possible. Some LRAM activities,however, would have adverse impacts to wetlands if they cannot be avoided. These impacts includegravel pit development and mechanical cutting and clearing. This impact is considered minor adverse dueto USARAK’s preference to avoid wetlands for construction projects. Required permits would be securedprior to any dredging or filling of wetlands.Alternative 2: Implement ITAM Program through a Management Plan (Proposed Action)Impacts to wetlands from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Standardprocedures for all ITAM programs identified in the USARAK ITAM Management Plan will provideconsistent and efficient work practices. This may improve wetlands by ensuring that contractorsperforming the work would adhere to the standard procedures designed to protect and restore wetlandareas.Alternative 3: Suspend ITAM ProgramUnder Alternative 3, ITAM activities would not continue on USARAK installations. This action wouldhave severe adverse impacts to wetlands. The greatest impacts would result from maneuver vehicledamage if soldiers and trainers did not avoid sensitive wetland areas. Disturbed wetlands would notundergo remediation.The following table presents a summary of qualitative impact to wetlands resulting from each alternative.Descriptions of the qualitative terms are provided in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action andAlternatives._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 32
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: disturbance or removal, best manage
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?