Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternative 3: Suspend ITAM ProgramUnder Alternative 3, ITAM activities would not continue on USARAK installations. This action wouldhave severe adverse impacts to water quality. Discontinuing TRI, SRA, and RTLA would have negativeimpacts to water resources by not allowing for monitoring of damage, not integrating training withenvironmental protection, and not educating soldiers about procedures for training near waterways. GISwould not be available to store and present spatial data relevant to water resources. Maintenance andrepair activities under the LRAM program would not take place under Alternative 3. This would result insediment in waterways from uncontrolled erosion.The following table presents a summary of qualitative impacts to water resources resulting from eachalternative. Descriptions of the qualitative terms are provided in Chapter 2, Description of ProposedAction and Alternatives.Table 3.4 Summary of Impacts 1 to Water Resources.ITAM Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Activity Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long TermTRI Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Severe SevereLRAM Minor Beneficial Minor Beneficial Severe SevereSRA Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Severe SevereRTLA Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Severe SevereGIS Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Minor Minor1 Short-term impacts are defined as impacts lasting for the duration of a project (approximately ten days) or until vegetation isstabilized.Cumulative ImpactsThe region of influence for water resource impacts resulting from the proposed action would be limited toUSARAK lands and areas immediately adjacent. Past impacts to water resources include sedimentation,explosive munitions training, and localized contamination (USARAK 2004). Current and futureconstruction, training, and non-military activities may all impact water resources. The purpose of ITAM,however, is to monitor and repair the impacts caused by training and recreation. Additionally, bestmanagement practices serve to mitigate construction impacts to water quality. ITAM activities wouldtherefore contribute long-term beneficial cumulative impacts to water resources.3.5 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES3.5.1 Affected EnvironmentWildlife and fisheries management on USARAK lands has traditionally supported recreational andsubsistence use, maintenance of populations and habitats, and preservation of biological diversity.Wildlife and fish populations and their habitats are managed cooperatively by USARAK, the AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.No federal or state listed threatened or endangered species have been found on USARAK lands(USARAK 2002d,e,f). The State of Alaska maintains a list of sensitive species, endangered species, andspecies of special concern for wildlife. Table 3.5.a lists wildlife species of concern found on USARAKlands. These state listed species are not afforded legislative protection (Alaska Department of Fish and_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 37
Game 1998). More information on wildlife and fisheries can be found in the Transformation of U.S. ArmyAlaska Final EIS (USARAK 2004).Table 3.5.a State of Alaska Listing of Species of Concern Found on USARAK Lands.Common Name Scientific Name USARAK LandsAmerican peregrine falcon 1Fort Richardson, Occasional FortFalco pereginus anatumWainwright, Donnelly Training AreaNorthern goshawk (southeast population) Accipter gentiles laingi Occasional Fort RichardsonOlive-sided flycatcher 2Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright,Contopus cooperiDonnelly Training AreaGray-cheeked thrushCatharus minimusFort Richardson, Fort Wainwright,Donnelly Training Are,Townsend’s warblerDendroica townsendiiFort Richardson, Fort Wainwright,Donnelly Training AreaBlackpoll warblerDendroica striataFort Richardson, Fort Wainwright,Donnelly Training AreaBrown bear (Kenai Peninsula population) Ursus arctos horribilis Possible Fort RichardsonHarbor seal Phoca vitulina Occasional Fort RichardsonBeluga whale (Cook Inlet population) Delphinapterus leucas Occasional Fort RichardsonSource: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 19981 Downlisted from the Alaska Endangered Species List2 Category 2 Candidate Species Under Federal Endangered Species ActFort RichardsonMammalsLarge mammals on Fort Richardson include black bear, grizzly bear, moose, and Dall sheep. Small gameand furbearers found on Fort Richardson include coyote, lynx, red squirrel, snowshoe hare, hoarymarmot, pine marten, beaver, river otter, wolverine, red fox, porcupine, mink, beaver, muskrat, andermine or short-tailed weasel.Two wolf packs inhabit the east side of the Glenn Highway and another pack probably occupies the westside, near Eagle River Flats (Kellie Peirce, personal communication 2002). The Ship Creek pack occupiesthe eastern portion of Fort Richardson, and the Eagle River Flats pack occupies the western portion.In recent years, beluga whales have been sighted within Eagle River Flats, as far as 1¼ miles up the EagleRiver and in Cook Inlet adjacent to Elmendorf Air Force Base. Beluga whales have also been observedpursuing salmon along rivers (Quirk 1994). Harbor seals and orca whales are sighted occasionally.Avian SpeciesSurveys have identified 75 species of birds in the tidal salt marsh, including 24 species of waterfowl(USARAK 2004). Additionally, approximately 40 species of passerines and neotropical migratory birdsand 6 species of raptors are found at Fort Richardson (Gossweiler 1984; CH2M Hill 1994; Andres et al.2001; USARAK 2002e; Schempf 1995).Three species on the list of Priority Species for Conservation are confirmed to be on Fort Richardson(Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group 1999). These include the Northern shrike, varied thrush, andblackpoll warbler. The golden-crowned sparrow, also a priority species, is found on Fort Richardson._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 38
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: effective site drainage. Required p
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?