Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

Air Force 611 th CES have an ongoing project, contracted to Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., to identifyand evaluate TCPs that may be present on military managed lands in the interior of Alaska, includingDonnelly Training Area. No information has been provided to date on USARAK managed lands. A finalreport is expected at the end of 2005.SubsistenceDonnelly Training Area is situated within federal subsistence management unit (or GMU) 20. GMU 20 issubdivided into six large subunits. Donnelly Training Area East is in subunit 20D and makes upapproximately 2.5% of the subunit. Federal subsistence management regulations apply to all of GMU 20.Immediately south of Donnelly Training Area East, and running along the length of the RichardsonHighway to the town of Glennallen, are vast tracks of federal land. Much of this federal land is similar tothat found in Donnelly Training Area East, and is managed to allow a subsistence harvest preference forlarge game animals. The close proximity of these lands to a major public highway also offers ready accessto game and plant resources.Regional populations with recognized subsistence interests (rural status) on USARAK lands includeHealy Lake Village, Village of Dot Lake, Native Village of Tanacross, Native Village of Tetlin,Northway Village, Delta Junction, Big Delta, Deltana, and Dry Creek. Data gathering on subsistenceactivities on (and around) USARAK lands is currently ongoing.3.8.2 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 practices. SRA, TRI, and GIS would continue to have no adverse effects oncultural resources, if properly applied. SRA would benefit cultural resources by educating soldiers to stayaway from known cultural resource sites and to immediately report any cultural sites found duringtraining events. If cultural artifacts are discovered while digging, excavation is to be halted at once andthe Environmental Resources Department contacted. TRI would compile known cultural resource dataand incorporate the information into overlays to ensure trainers do not disturb cultural resources.However, exact locations of sites are not placed on maps. GIS would assist cultural resourcesmanagement by storing and presenting cultural resources spatial data. Remote sensing tools additionallyhelp staff to identify possible cultural resource sites. RTLA activities would not involve cultural resourcesmanagement nor pose any risks to cultural sites or subsistence. LRAM impacts are discussed below.SRA, TRI, GIS, and RTLA activities would not impact subsistence resources nor restrict access tosubsistence resources. For specific impacts to wildlife and fisheries and public access, see Sections 3.5and 3.7 respectively.LRAMLRAM would not involve cultural resources management. LRAM projects, however, could have adverseimpacts to cultural resources, particularly if previously unknown sites are disturbed from earth-movingactivities. Activities with potential cultural resource impacts include gravel extraction; road, pad, firingpoint, and forward operations base hardening; maneuver trail upgrades; revegetation; fire suppression;vegetation management; gabion installation; latrine installation; streambank stabilization; low watercrossing hardening; water bars; guard rail installation; tactical bridge installation; and wetland restoration.In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, specific LRAM projects wouldundergo a review by cultural resources staff before implementation._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 57