Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Donnelly Training AreaDTA has few issues relating to human health and safety. Due to the lack of a cantonment area, housing,and potential waste-generating facilities, Donnelly Training Area is not considered a USARAK propertyhaving significant human health and safety issues.Petroleum, oils, and lubricants are used during construction and training events. Fuel distribution pointsand refueling operations are constructed and operated in accordance with USARAK Regulation 200-4,Hazardous Waste, Used Oil, and Hazardous Materials Management.3.9.2 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. TRI and GIS would not have any impacts to human health andsafety. RTLA may occasionally require monitoring within impact areas. This would pose some risks tomonitoring personnel. LRAM and SRA impacts are discussed below.LRAMEquipment operators would wear appropriate hearing protection. If any pesticides or herbicides are used,adherence to all DOD and Army guidance for handling and use will be required. Benefits to human healthand safety include latrine installation, road hardening, and berm installation. Installation of latrines willprotect human health by properly disposing of human waste. Road hardening, maneuver trail upgrades,and guard rail installation improve safe driving conditions for both soldiers and recreationists. Berminstallations behind targets prevent ricochet and improve the safety of training ranges.SRASRA would continue to have beneficial impacts to human health and safety. Through the SRA program,soldiers are directed to properly dispose of or recycle wastes, properly dispose of human waste, keeprecords up to date, properly label hazardous waste, never mix hazardous products–not even for thepurpose of disposal–and turn in hazardous waste to the Department of Public Works. Additionally,soldiers are instructed to immediately report petroleum, oil, and lubricants and all other hazardousmaterial spills to 911 and then to Range Control. Any remnants of hazardous materials found in the field(e.g., fuel-soaked soil, asbestos-contaminated structures, and abandoned drums) are to be reported to theEnvironmental Resources Department.Alternative 2: Implement ITAM Program through a Management Plan (Proposed Action)Impacts to human health and safety from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described underAlternative 1. Standard operating procedures for all ITAM programs identified in the USARAK ITAMManagement Plan would provide consistent and efficient work practices. This may improve human healthand safety by ensuring that contractors would adhere to standard procedures, particularly those related toinadvertent petroleum, oil, or lubricant releases during LRAM projects. Overall, impacts underAlternative 2 would be beneficial.Alternative 3: Suspend ITAM ProgramUnder Alternative 3, ITAM activities would not continue on USARAK installations. This action wouldhave adverse impacts to human health and safety. Moderate impacts would result from discontinuing the_____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 61
SRA program, which educates soldiers about proper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes andprocedures to follow for inadvertent fuel releases.RTLA, TRI and GIS would not affect human health and safety. Additional regulations, not related toITAM but related to human health and safety issues, would continue to take place and benefit humanhealth and safety. These include, but are not limited to, Army Regulation 55-2, Transportation andTravel; Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement; and Army Regulation 200-5, Pest Management.The following table presents a summary of qualitative impacts to human health and safety resulting fromeach alternative. Descriptions of the qualitative terms are provided in Chapter 2, Description of ProposedAction and Alternatives.Table 3.9 Summary of Impacts 1 to Human Health and Safety.ITAM Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3TRI None None NoneLRAM Beneficial Beneficial MinorSRA Beneficial Beneficial ModerateRTLA Minor Minor NoneGIS None None None1 Short-term and long-term impacts are expected to be similar.Cumulative ImpactsPast human health and safety impacts on USARAK lands involved the use of explosive munitions,convoy use of public roadways, and inadvertent releases of hazardous materials (USARAK 2004). Sincehuman health and safety issues are so highly regulated, current and proposed actions are not likely to addto adverse cumulative impacts. Programs are in place to minimize impacts resulting from current or futureconstruction or training activities and from the proposed action. The ITAM program would further benefitexisting programs mainly through educating personnel on human health and safety measures.Additionally, best management practices (Appendix B) for managing storm water during constructionwould serve to prevent inadvertent contaminant releases from entering storm sewers or waterways.3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS3.10.1 Affected EnvironmentU.S. Army Alaska continues to play an important role in the regional economies surrounding its threemain installations/training lands: Fort Richardson (Anchorage), Fort Wainwright (Fairbanks), andDonnelly Training Area (Delta Junction). Total payroll for statewide U.S. Army operations at theseinstallations are about $331 million while the non-payroll expenditures account for about $297 million(Department of Defense, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports 2004). Together, thesecontribute approximately $1.3 billion in direct and indirect economic activity for the state of Alaska.Additional information regarding socioeconomics surrounding USARAK installations can be found in theTransformation of U.S. Army Alaska Final Environmental Impact Statement (USARAK 2004)._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 62
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 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: 3.9.1 Affected EnvironmentFort Rich
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?