Due to the lack of adequate gravel sources in Yukon <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong>, gravel pit development in thistraining area would include blasting bedrock with explosives <strong>and</strong> subsequent crushing <strong>and</strong> mixing tocreate gravel. The proposed quarry area, pending drill core testing, would be the northern Bravo Batteryin the northwest area of Fort Wainwright. This location is remote (approximately ten miles east of EielsonAir Force Base) <strong>and</strong> not near any human occupation, so noise impacts due to blasting would be temporary<strong>and</strong> localized. Impacts to wildlife are addressed in Section 3.5, Wildlife <strong>and</strong> Fisheries.SRASRA guidelines inform soldiers of military procedures regarding noise. These procedures includeprohibiting training activities that generate noise (firing blanks, pyrotechnics, simulators, etc.) in areasadjacent to populated areas between 10p.m. <strong>and</strong> 6 a.m., unless granted by Range Control. Additionally, allareas within one-half mile of the installation boundaries are closed to training activities to buffer adjacent,non-military l<strong>and</strong>s from military activities. The SRA program would help reduce military noise impactsby encouraging a l<strong>and</strong> stewardship ethic <strong>and</strong> minimizing unintended or unnecessary <strong>and</strong> negligent noisedue to military training.RTLAAerial monitoring under the RTLA program would result in minimal noise impacts. Much of the wildlifeaerial monitoring would be conducted at Fort Wainwright <strong>and</strong> Donnelly <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong>. Historically, a180 horsepower, single engine, 2-seat aircraft has been used, <strong>and</strong> 53 hours of flight time were logged atTanana Flats <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> in 2004. In 2005, approximately 80 hours of flight time is projected for aerialmonitoring at both Tanana Flats <strong>and</strong> Donnelly <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong>s. At Fort Richardson, a 200 horsepower,single engine, 4-seat aircraft has been historically used for about 10 hours of flight time annually. Themost recent surveys were conducted in 2003 on the north post of Fort Richardson, which is remote <strong>and</strong>not near any human occupation.Occasionally (once every 5-10 years) remote sites would be accessed by helicopter. These flights wouldgenerally be short in duration (15-30 minutes) <strong>and</strong> in remote areas. Overall, noise impacts from RTLAmonitoring activities would be infrequent, temporary, <strong>and</strong> localized.Alternative 2: Implement ITAM Program through a <strong>Management</strong> Plan (Proposed Action)Under this alternative, the ITAM program would be implemented through a management plan that wouldinclude st<strong>and</strong>ard operating procedures for LRAM <strong>and</strong> RTLA projects. Noise impacts due to TRI, LRAM,SRA, RTLA, <strong>and</strong> GIS activities would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative.Alternative 3: Suspend ITAM ProgramUnder this alternative, all components of the ITAM program would discontinue operation. <strong>Training</strong> l<strong>and</strong>rehabilitation, maintenance, <strong>and</strong> range improvements would cease despite continued use of USARAKl<strong>and</strong>s for Army training. In the absence of LRAM <strong>and</strong> RTLA activities, temporary noise impacts due toconstruction <strong>and</strong> monitoring would discontinue. However, elimination of the SRA program could causeminor adverse noise impacts due to unintended or negligent military activity.The following table presents a summary of qualitative impacts to noise resulting from each alternative.Descriptions of the qualitative terms are provided in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action <strong>and</strong>Alternatives._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan 67
Table 3.11 Summary of Impacts 1 to Noise.ITAM ActivityAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3:Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long TermTRI None None None None None NoneLRAM Minor None Minor None Beneficial NoneSRA Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Moderate ModerateRTLA None-Minor None-Minor None-Minor None-Minor Beneficial NoneGIS Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Minor Minor1 Short-term impacts are defined as impacts lasting from ten days up to one year, or for the duration of a project.Cumulative ImpactsPast activities have had adverse noise impacts through construction activities <strong>and</strong> use of weapons,vehicles, <strong>and</strong> air support during training on USARAK l<strong>and</strong>s. Most construction occurred on cantonmentareas, <strong>and</strong> noise impacts from training were generally considered minor (USARAK 2004).All current <strong>and</strong> planned construction activities have the potential for cumulative impacts to noise.Construction activities under the ITAM program would contribute localized, short-term <strong>and</strong> minorimpacts from increased vehicular traffic <strong>and</strong> construction equipment for the duration of projects (ten dayson average). Noise impacts from gravel blasting on Yukon <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> may be audible off installationboundaries, but this would occur infrequently <strong>and</strong> at locations distant from residences (10 miles east ofEielson Air Force Base, <strong>and</strong> 20-30 miles east of the cities of North Pole <strong>and</strong> Fairbanks). Aerialmonitoring would contribute minor noise impacts during monitoring overflights. ITAM would also helpminimize noise impacts from military training activities.The largest noise impacts on installations result from military training activities. In comparison, theoverall impact of ITAM activities under the proposed action to noise would be none to beneficial.3.12 AIR QUALITY3.12.1 Affected EnvironmentThe Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish nationalambient air quality st<strong>and</strong>ards (NAAQS) to protect public health <strong>and</strong> the environment. St<strong>and</strong>ards for thesix criteria air pollutants have been adopted by the State of Alaska. These include ozone, carbonmonoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, inhaleable particulate matter, <strong>and</strong> lead. Carbon monoxide(CO) <strong>and</strong> particulate matter (PM) are specific pollutants of concern for Alaskan communities. Moreinformation on air quality can be found in the Transformation of U.S. Army Alaska <strong>Final</strong> EIS (USARAK2004).Fort RichardsonWhile the city of Anchorage is subject to maintenance plan requirements for CO <strong>and</strong> the Eagle River areais in a nonattainment area for PM 10 , Fort Richardson is not within either of these areas.Fort Richardson is in attainment with the NAAQS for all the criteria air pollutants._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, <strong>Integrated</strong> <strong>Training</strong> <strong>Area</strong> <strong>Management</strong> Program<strong>Management</strong> Plan 68
- 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 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: Fort Richardson receives few compla
- 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