Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3.3 Summary of Impacts 1 to Wetlands.ITAM Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3TRI Beneficial Beneficial SevereLRAM Minor to Beneficial Minor to Beneficial SevereSRA Beneficial Beneficial SevereRTLA Beneficial Beneficial SevereGIS Beneficial Beneficial Severe1 Short-term and long-term impacts are expected to be similar.Cumulative ImpactsThe region of influence for wetlands impacts resulting from the proposed action would be limited toinstallation lands. Past wetland disturbance due to maneuver training has been limited since most traininghas occurred during winter. Some wetland damage has occurred from training, munitions, and recreationimpacts. Current and future construction, training, and non-military activities could impact some wetlandson all installations. Clean Water Act Section 404 permits have been issued for construction, training, andvegetation management activities within wetlands. Impacts are reduced by following conditions outlinedin Section 404 permits or choosing sites where wetlands do not exist (which is part of USARAK’s bestmanagement practices). The ITAM program further mitigates impacts by restoring damaged wetlands,protecting sensitive wetlands from damage by training or recreation, and monitoring wetland quality.Some projects involving road and trail widening or tree clearing would add to adverse cumulative wetlandimpacts, but they would be considered minor and insignificant.3.4 WATER RESOURCES3.4.1 Affected EnvironmentWaterways in Alaska are designated for one or more of the following uses:Class A: Water supply(i) drinking, culinary, and food processing(ii) agriculture, including irrigation and stock watering(iii) aquaculture(iv) industrialClass B: Water recreation(i) contact recreation(ii) secondary recreationClass C: Growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life and wildlifeWater quality criteria were developed by the State of Alaska for each designated use (18 AAC 70). If awater body is designated as having more than one use class, the more stringent water quality criterionapplies.Fort RichardsonFort Richardson has 12 named lakes and ponds and several unnamed water bodies. The combined area forthe named lakes and ponds is 359 acres. Five relatively large lakes, Clunie, Otter, Gwen, Thompson, andWaldon, are managed for recreational fishing. The waters on Fort Richardson are protected by freshwateruse classes A, B and C, as assigned by the State of Alaska._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 33
Ship Creek (from the Glenn Highway bridge to the mouth) is listed on the state’s 303 (d) list of impairedwaters due to excess fecal coliform bacteria, petroleum hydrocarbon, oil, and grease. A total maximumdaily load for fecal coliform has been determined. According to Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation studies, most of the pollutants entered Ship Creek as non-point sources from surface waterrunoff and groundwater downstream of the post, where the watershed is increasingly urbanized. Aftercompiling and reviewing the data, the state concluded that no cumulative or increasing water qualitydegradation was occurring in the lower portion of Ship Creek (ADEC 1996). Water from Ship Creek isdiverted for Fort Richardson, Elmendorf Air Force Base, and the Anchorage Municipality. Ship Creekleaves Fort Richardson at the border with Elmendorf Air Force Base.Eagle River is a glacial waterway that ends at Eagle River Flats, a 2,200-acre estuarine tidal marsh. EagleRiver Flats was removed from the state’s list of impaired waters after extensive remediation efforts forwhite phosphorous were shown to be successful (ADEC 2002).Industrial activities have had some effects on groundwater. Through monitoring, pollution was found tobe associated with underground storage tanks, chemical storage facilities, and chemical dumpsites. FortRichardson was identified as a CERCLA (Superfund) site. These areas are monitored intensively and noindication of deep groundwater pollution has been detected. Pollution has been minor and localized andno significant risks to human health were found. Water quality has improved recently due to Armyrestoration projects to mitigate previous damage to the groundwater quality (USARAK 2004).Fort WainwrightOverall surface water quality on Fort Wainwright is good. The Chena River has been designated for ClassA, B, and C uses. Iron concentrations, which stem from natural sources, exceed state secondary waterstandards. The Chena River portion that runs through Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright is listed on thestate’s 303 (d) list for impaired waters. The pollutants of concern are petroleum, hydrocarbons, andsediment. The pollutant source is listed as urban runoff. A total maximum daily load for petroleum andhydrocarbons is expected this year (2005).Due to its remote location, surface water quality data are not collected for much of Tanana Flats TrainingArea. Data for the Wood and Tanana rivers upstream and downstream of the training area are used toestimate water quality. However, since these streams are surface-water and spring-fed (not glacier-fed) itis expected that water quality would differ greatly between these rivers and the streams originating withinthe training area.Due to lack of human development and activity on the training area, surface waters on Yukon TrainingArea are relatively pristine. Water bodies originating within Yukon Training Area flow into the ChenaRiver. The waters meet all primary drinking water standards, and iron is the only parameter to exceed theAlaska state secondary drinking water standards. All of Yukon Training Area’s surface waters have lowrates of primary and secondary productivity and high water quality.Groundwater in the Fort Wainwright area contains high levels of metals, especially iron. Elevated arseniclevels are prevalent in the upland areas. These are naturally occurring levels and are not related to humancausedpollution (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994).Industrial activity on Main Post has caused groundwater pollution associated with underground storagetanks, chemical storage facilities, and chemical dumpsites. These areas were identified and are monitoredintensively. Pollution at the sites is localized, and monitoring indicates no deep groundwater pollution._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 34
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: SRAThrough the SRA program, soldier
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?