Environmental Assessment for Integrated Natural Resources … Draft... · 2019-09-12 · Trinity...

Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

Environmental Assessment for

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Fort Rucker, AL

Prepared by Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

1002 North Eglin Parkway Shalimar, FL 32579

(850) 613-6800

September 2017


This page intentionally left blank.

INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN SEPTEMBER 2017

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORT RUCKER, AL

i Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action ......................................................................... 1-1 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................... 1-1 Scope .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 3-1

Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 3-1 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 4-1 Mission ............................................................................................................ 4-1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-1 Soils ................................................................................................................ 4-2 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 4-2

Wetlands Resources ....................................................................................... 4-6

Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 4-7

4.6.1.1 Forests....................................................................................... 4-8 4.6.1.2 Forest Inventory ......................................................................... 4-9

4.6.2.1 Game Fish and Wildlife Species ................................................ 4-9 4.6.2.2 Nongame Birds and Mammals ................................................. 4-12 4.6.2.3 Fish .......................................................................................... 4-12 4.6.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians ......................................................... 4-13

Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................... 4-13

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 4-20 4.9 Airspace Management and Safety……………………………………………….4-21

4.10 Air Quality………………………………………………………………………….4-21



ii Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

4.11 Noise……………………………………………………………………………….4-21

4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice…………………………………..4-21

4.13 Utilities…………………………………………………………..…………………4-22

4.14 Transportation and Traffic…………………………………….…………………4-22

4.15 Hazardous and Toxic Materials Waste (HTMW)………………………………4-22

5.0 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 5-1 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5-1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 5-2

Soils ................................................................................................................ 5-2

Water Resources ............................................................................................ 5-3

5.4.1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 5-3 5.4.1.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................. 5-4



Wetlands Resources ....................................................................................... 5-5 5.5.1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 5-5 5.5.1.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................. 5-5

Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 5-6


Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................. 5-7 5.7.1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 5-7 5.7.1.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................. 5-8

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 5-8

5.9 Airspace Management and Safety…………………………………………………5-9



iii Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

5.9.1.1 Proposed Action ....................................................................... 5-79 5.9.1.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................ 5-89

5.10 Air Quality…………………………...………………………………………………5-9

5.10.1.1 Proposed Action...................................................................... 5-79 5.10.1.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................. 5-89

5.11 Noise……………………………………………...…………………………………5-9

5.11.1.1 Proposed Action...................................................................... 5-79 5.11.1.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................. 5-89

5.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice…………………………..………5-10

5.12.1.1 Proposed Action.................................................................... 5-710 5.12.1.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................ 5-810

5.13 Utilities…………………………………………….………………………….……5-10


5.14 Transportation and Traffic……………………..….……………………..………5-10

5.14.1.1 Proposed Action.................................................................... 5-710 5.14.1.2 No Action Alternative……………………………………………...5-810

5.15 Hazardous and Toxic Materials Waste (HTMW)…….……….……………….5-10


Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 5-11 6.0 Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................. 6-1 7.0 Persons and Agencies Contacted ...................................................................... 7-1 8.0 References ........................................................................................................... 8-1



iv Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

List of Tables Table 4-1 Upper Choctawhatchee River Drainage Basin Hydrologic Units ................. 4-3 Table 4-2 Managed Game Species ........................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-3 Managed Fish Species .............................................................................. 4-12 Table 4-4 Rare and Sensitive Plants Potentially Located at Fort Rucker .................. 4-14 Table 4-5 Rare or Sensitive Animals Found on Fort Rucker Military Reservation ..... 4-18 Table 4-6 Rare or Sensitive Animals, Coffee County Alabama ................................. 4-20 Table 4-7 Rare or Sensitive Animals, Dale County Alabama .................................... 4-20 Table 5-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts ..................................................... 5-11

List of Figures Figure 4-1 General Location of Fort Rucker, Alabama Figure 4-2 Fort Rucker Reservation Figure 4-3 Fort Rucker Soils Figure 4-4 Fort Rucker Drainage Basins Figure 4-5 Fort Rucker Floodplains Figure 4-6 Fort Rucker Wetlands Figure 4-7 Fort Rucker Habitat Types

List of Appendices Appendix A Finding of No Significant Impact



v Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.




vi Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

Abbreviations and Acronyms AAF Army Airfield ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management AHP Army Heliport AR Army Regulation ARNG Army National Guard BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMPs Best Management Practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CWA Clean Water Act DoD Department of Defense DoDM Department of Defense Manual DPTMS Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization and Security DPW Directorate of Public Works EA Environmental Assessment ENRD Environmental and Natural Resources Division EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information Systems gpm gallons per minute ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan ITAM Integrated Training Area Management LMU Land Management Unit LRAM Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act



vii Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

MWR Morale, Recreation and Welfare NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places QDM Quality Deer Management RTLA Range and Training Land Assessment SAIA Sikes Act Improvement Act SAR Species at Risk SRA Sustainable Range Awareness TRI Training Requirements Integration USAACE United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence USAEC United States Army Environmental Command USAR United States Army Reserve USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VEC Valued Environmental Component



1-1 Trinity Analysis & Development Corp.

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Purpose and Need

Fort Rucker proposes to implement its Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2017-2021, hereafter referred to as the INRMP or the Plan, at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Fort Rucker has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to identify and evaluate potential environmental effects from implementing the INRMP. The INRMP has specified the land management practice strategies that will conserve ecological integrity, Army Aviation training, and promote the health of Fort Rucker’s ecosystems. The contents of the INRMP are incorporated into this EA; references to chapters or appendices identify where specific data can be located within the INRMP. The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate environmental consequences of implementing the proposed plan, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508 (CFR 2011a), Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Department of the Army 2007) and the Army NEPA Regulation at 32 CFR Part 651 (Environmental Analysis of Army Actions) (CFR 2011b). AR 200-1 is the regulation the Army uses to establish policy, procedures, and responsibilities for assessing environmental effects of Army actions. AR 200-1 specifically states that development of natural resources management plans requires preparation of an EA. NEPA and Federal implementing regulations collectively establish a process by which Fort Rucker considers the potential environmental impacts of its Proposed Actions and invites the involvement of interested members of the public prior to deciding on a final course of action. As such, this EA will facilitate the decision-making process regarding the Proposed Action and its reasonable Alternatives. This EA will also provide the basis for determining if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) is appropriate.

Scope The Proposed Action is restricted to the implementation of the INRMP. Environmental effects of implementing this plan on Fort Rucker are the focus of this study. Fort Rucker proposes to enhance natural resource management by implementing the 2017-2021 INRMP, providing for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources and support of the military mission. The INRMP enhances Fort Rucker’s ongoing compliance with applicable state and federal environmental laws/regulations, ARs, and Department of Defense (DoD) Instructions. The 2017-2021 INRMP has been developed to meet the statutory regulations of the Sikes Act Improvement Act (SAIA) of 1997 [Title 16, United States Code (USC) 670a et seq. (USC 1997)], DoD Manual 4715.03 (2013), DoD Instructions, and U.S. Army guidance. The Sikes Act specifically directs that INRMPs be reviewed at least every five years to determine whether existing INRMPs are being implemented and contribute to the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations. The purpose of updating and implementing the INRMP is to meet the requirements of the Sikes Act. The Fort Rucker INRMP is prepared in cooperation with, and reflects the mutual




agreement of, the Secretary of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) and the head of each appropriate state fish and wildlife agency for the state where the military installation concerned is located (Alabama). In accordance with the Sikes Act, the INRMP addresses the following: • Management of land, forests, fish and wildlife, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation • Wetland protection and enhancement • Sustainable public use of natural resources and public access for such use • Integration of and consistency among the various activities conducted under the

INRMP • Natural resource management goals and objectives • No net loss of the capability of the installation to support the military mission

Impact Analysis The analysis process involves the review of installation natural resources-related data collected by Fort Rucker, a variety of other governmental agencies, and private organizations. The process may also include interviews with Fort Rucker personnel involved with natural resources management, military training planning, and installation maintenance, as necessary. Impact Analysis will describe the potential environmental consequences at Fort Rucker from the implementation of each identified alternative. Both the affected environment and environmental consequences are described for comparison within broad resource areas know as Valued Environmental Components (VECs). Of the 14 VECs recommended for consideration by the 2007 Army NEPA Analysis Guidance Manual, U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC 2007), the following seven are evaluated for impacts within this EA, as identified below. • Land Use • Soils • Water Resources Management

o Water Demand Usage o Surface Water Quality / Storm Water Management o Groundwater o Source Water Protection / Drinking

• Wetlands Resources • Biological Resources

o Flora o Fauna

• Threatened and Endangered Species • Cultural Resources Water Resources Management and Biological Resources are broken into sub-VECs.




In accordance with Army NEPA Regulation, any resource or VEC that is not potentially affected by the Proposed Action does not need to be evaluated. Impacts to VECs are evaluated based upon the region of the Proposed Actions to be implemented. Potential impacts to Air Quality, Airspace, Noise Effects, Facilities (Utilities), Energy and Traffic and Transportation would be considered negligible as management and existing conditions of those resources would remain unaffected and unchanged by the Proposed Action. Potential adverse impacts to Hazardous and Toxic Substances and Waste would be short-term and localized in nature, to the extent of being considered negligible. Socioeconomics (Environmental Justice) impacts from dollars spent within the community would be negligible and no effects to the health and safety of children would occur. As a result, these VECs have not been evaluated within this EA.








2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Fort Rucker proposes to fully implement the INRMP. The INRMP was developed using Guidelines to Prepare Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans for Army Installations and Activities (USAEC, 1997) and DoD Manual 4715.03 (2013). All programs are integrated with no inconsistencies. Below is a list of INRMP chapters and major sections: 1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 Purpose 1.2 Scope 1.3 Goals 1.4 Responsibilities 1.5 Authority 1.6 Stewardship and Compliance 1.7 Review, Update and Revision Process 1.8 Management Strategy 1.9 Other Plan Integration 1.10 Installation Information 1.11 Physical Environment

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND MISSION SUSTAINABILITY

2.1 Supporting Sustainability of the Military Mission and the Natural Environment 2.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Requirements 2.3 National Environmental Policy Act 2.4 Beneficial Partnerships and Collaborative Resource Planning 2.5 Public Access and Outreach 2.6 Encroachment Partnering 2.7 State Comprehensive Wildlife Plan Integration

3.0 PROGRAM ELEMENTS 3.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Management 3.2 Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats Management 3.3 Law Enforcement of Natural Resources Laws and Regulations 3.4 Fish and Wildlife Management 3.5 Forest Management 3.6 Vegetative Management 3.7 Migratory Birds Management 3.8 Invasive Species Management 3.9 Pest Management 3.10 Land Management 3.11 Agricultural Outleasing 3.12 Geographic Information Systems Management, Data Integration, Access, and

Reporting 3.13 Outdoor Recreation 3.14 Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard 3.15 Wildland Fire Management 3.16 Training of Natural Resource Personnel




3.17 Coastal/Marine Management 3.18 Floodplains Management

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Process for Preparing Project Prescriptions 4.2 Achieving No Net Loss 4.3 Use of Cooperative Agreements 4.4 Funding

5.0 REFERENCES The INRMP identifies goals, objectives, and strategies for the management of Fort Rucker’s natural resources. Management practices and projects have been identified to support the strategies and accomplish the goals and objectives of the INRMP. The program serves to integrate Fort Rucker’s natural resources management in a manner that is consistent with maintaining high quality training land to support Fort Rucker’s critical military mission. The Plan summarizes the military mission, facilities, transportation, and the physical environment (topography, geology, soils, water resources, and climate) of Fort Rucker. The INRMP addresses flora and fauna, including species of special interest, such as rare, threatened, or endangered species (including the American alligator) and wetland protection. Responsibilities for the management of natural resources on Fort Rucker are fully outlined, including those of other governmental and state agencies and interested organizations outside of DoD. The INRMP includes plans for inventory and monitoring of flora, fauna, soils, and water quality; implementation of a geographic information system and general data storage/analysis capabilities; implementation of a fire prevention and suppression program; and, means to protect wetlands, areas of special significance, and cultural resources sites. Direct management of natural resources includes forest ecosystem management (timber stand improvement, prescribed burning, harvest, regeneration, and implementation of Best Management Practices), wildlife habitat management (prescribed burning, hardwood tree management, supplemental plantings and wildlife openings, nest boxes, and brush pile construction), game harvest management, fish habitat management (pond fertilization, aquatic weed control, fish attractors, liming, and pond maintenance), fish population control and stocking programs and pest and noxious plant management programs. The Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) is an Army-wide program designed to provide quality training environments in order to support the Army's military mission and is the primary method of land management employed at Fort Rucker. The ITAM program includes; 1) Range and Training Land Assessment (RTLA) - to survey and monitor the condition of the land and its vegetation; 2) Sustainable Range Awareness (SRA) - to instill a conservation ethic in military personnel and others using Fort Rucker; 3) Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance (LRAM) - to repair damaged land, reduce erosion, and minimize future damage; and 4) Training Requirements Integration (TRI) - to minimize damage to the land from military activities. The Fort Rucker Geographic Information




System (GIS) is associated with the ITAM program to assist land managers and users in making land use decisions using computer-generated spatial data. The INRMP also identifies the means to protect cultural resources during implementation of the natural resources program. The INRMP identifies the use of NEPA on Fort Rucker to provide consideration for natural and cultural resources during planning of construction projects, military operations, natural resources management, and installation maintenance. The INRMP describes and implements an integrated approach to managing natural resources on Fort Rucker for the period of 2017 through 2021. This plan is comprehensive and should be referred to for specific information. The INRMP is on file at the Directorate of Public Works, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Natural Resources Branch, Building 1453 Fort Rucker, Alabama 36362, phone (334) 255-9368.








3.0 ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action

Fort Rucker proposes to fully implement its Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2017-2021 as partial mitigation for environmental effects of the military mission. The INRMP presents information on the management of natural resources on Fort Rucker. The plan describes the natural and physical setting and defines how land management units will be administered to sustain ecological functions, protect endangered and other nongame species, provide sustained military training, provide forest products, and support outdoor recreational uses. The Proposed Action includes full implementation of the ITAM program, with major emphasis placed on proactive management to reduce the potential for negative environmental impacts due to the installation's military mission.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not immediately change management direction or the level of management intensity. Under the No Action Alternative, Fort Rucker would continue to operate using existing programs and management practices. Virtually every major natural resource program at Fort Rucker (forestry, fish and wildlife, ITAM, enforcement, pest management, etc.) has options different from ones selected for the INRMP. There are different strategies with regard to white-tailed deer harvest management, for managing small pond fisheries, and for forest management. Many of these management options interact with each other; for example, changing the forest management program would impact turkey, deer, and other game species management. However, various laws, compliance documents, Army regulations, and local ordinances prohibit the implementation of many of these possible options. For example, closing the installation to hunting is not a viable option due to public law and Department of Army policy. On the other hand, changing the management technique for controlling aquatic weeds is an option, and there are many choices. The same would be true of changing the monitoring program for land condition trends or changing the forest management strategy. The No Action Alternative would fail to meet the described purpose and need for the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative does not address changes in environmental regulation or training land requirements and does not allow Fort Rucker to adjust to the ever-changing regulatory mandates placed on management of natural resources. This is not a viable alternative. The potential for changes in laws and executive orders on endangered species, water quality, federal land management, outdoor recreation, wetlands, etc., as well as DoD and Department of Army policies, preclude the No Action Alternative.








4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment describes the current environmental setting and provides a baseline reference for understanding the intensity of any potential impacts or environmental consequences resulting from the Proposed Action, implementation of the INRMP.

Mission The primary mission of the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Rucker is to support aviation training programs, maintain and improve installation infrastructure, and provide sound stewardship of the environment and installation resources. Fort Rucker provides services and programs to support aviation training and enable readiness, ensures information management services meet mission requirements, executes installation plans, facilitates mobilization and deployment, provides public safety and security, and exercises command and control. The main objective of Fort Rucker’s mission is to provide the Army installation capabilities and services while supporting expeditionary operations and provide a quality of life for Soldiers and Families during their service (U.S. Army, 2016). The Fort Rucker population consists of approximately 13,662 military and civilian personnel. Major troop units assigned to the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) and Fort Rucker include the 1st Aviation Brigade, 110th Aviation Brigade and the 128th Aviation brigade (USAACE 2017). Fort Rucker utilizes leased sites to support its military mission. These sites total 1,463 acres and are located in Alabama and Florida. Leased sites are not included within the INRMP in terms of management of natural resources, as they are maintained in accordance with the lease agreements.

Land Use Fort Rucker is located on the East Gulf Coastal Plain in southeastern Coffee and southwestern Dale counties, Alabama, approximately 25 miles northwest of Dothan between the cities of Daleville, Enterprise, and Ozark. The main military reservation extends northwestward from the floodplain of the Choctawhatchee River. The main installation comprises 57,772 acres (63,251 acres if include satellite and leased lands) (Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization, and Security [DPTMS], 2009) and is nearly rectangular in shape, averaging 17 miles long by 9 miles wide (1204th Engineer Company, 1995), Figure 4-1. Range and training areas constitute the major portion of land use with 51,735 acres (DPTMS, 1994) available for ground maneuver training and operations (including the 13,159-acre impact area), Figure 4-2. Training areas and firing ranges are used extensively throughout the year by soldiers assigned to Fort Rucker, active Army units from other installations, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Army National Guard (ARNG), and U.S. Air Force units (Higginbotham /Briggs and Associates, 1991). Fort Rucker lands are used to conduct flight training associated with the USAACE, Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training, providing air traffic control services, maintaining tactical navigation aids, and conducting officer basic and advanced courses and warrant officer military development training. Fort Rucker also supports 7 USAR centers and about 100 ARNG units, and has terrain suitable for units up to battalion size to conduct training for extended periods. Extensive maneuver is possible, with a fair degree of realism, for smaller units (Higginbotham/Briggs and Associates, 1991).




Soils Soils of Dale County Alabama are classified in the Norfolk-Ruston-Shubuta Association and the Shubuta-Cuthbert Association, Figure 4-3. The Norfolk-Ruston-Shubuta Association is composed of well-drained soils on ridge tops and side slopes. This association includes Norfolk, Ruston, Shubuta, Red Bay, and Lakeland soils. These well-drained soils have friable fine sandy loam subsoil. The Shubuta-Cuthbert Association is composed of Shubuta, Cuthbert, Boswell, Ruston, and Eustis soils (USDA 1960). The predominant soil series (within the Soil Associations) that occur on the Fort Rucker main installation include the Troup-Orangeburg-Nankin-Lucy series and Troup-Luverne-Conecuh series. In the far eastern portion of the main installation, there is also an area of Troup-Red Bay-Orangeburg series soils. Dominant soil types are well suited for timber production. Forest site index varies with topography and degree of soil erosion present. Dry ridge tops with low water holding capacity and eroded areas have the lowest potential for timber growth. Site indices for southern pine species vary from 60 on poor sites to 100 on lower slopes and sandy alluvial bottomland areas. The INRMP contains a summary of soils on Fort Rucker. While no minerals are mined on Fort Rucker, and no petroleum deposits are known, there are limited resources of potential future economic value including brown iron ore, sand and gravel, and clay (Turner et al., 1965; Newton, 1968). No known prime or unique farmlands exist within the Fort Rucker installation boundaries.

Water Resources Drainage Basin

The Fort Rucker main installation and all satellite stagefields are located in the Choctawhatchee River Basin, with the Choctawhatchee River to the southeast and the Pea River to the northwest of the installation, Figure 4-4. The Proposed Action is located in the Upper Choctawhatchee River USGS hydrologic cataloguing unit, which encompasses 1,543 square miles of land. Due to the nature of the Natural Resources Management Program, the Preferred Alternative encompasses all properties within the Fort Rucker main installation boundaries, excluding hardened and developed surface located within the cantonment and range areas. The Preferred Alternative encompasses approximately 57,030.13 acres in the Upper Choctawhatchee River unit, or 5.8% of the total surface area within the Upper Choctawhatchee River unit. The Upper Choctawhatchee River unit is composed of twenty-three (23) sub-basins, of which eleven (11) are in immediate hydrologic contact with the corridor for the Proposed Action, at Fort Rucker main installation. The sub-basins in immediate hydrologic contact with the Preferred Alternative corridor include Clay Bank, Klondike – Hurricane, Harrand, Choctawatchee Wells, Bowles, Blacks Mill, Upper Clay Bank, Middle Clay Bank, Brooking Mill, Little Clay Bank – Bear Creek and Lower Clay Bank Creek. The sub-basins in immediate hydrologic contact with the Preferred Alternative include all sub-basins as identified for the Preferred Alternative. Potential impacts would occur in these sub-basins. The drainage basins are illustrated on Figure 4-4. The relationship of these drainage units to the Proposed Action is summarized in Table 4-1 below.




Table 4-1 Upper Choctawhatchee River Drainage Basin Hydrologic Units

Region Subregion Accounting Unit Cataloguing Unit

Sub-basin Preferred

Alternative INRMP Relationship to Sub-basin Preferred Alternative

03 South

Atlantic - Gulf

14 Choctawhatchee -

Escambia 15,000 sq. mi.

02 Choctawhatchee

4,653 sq. mi.

01 Upper

Choctawhatchee River

1,543 sq. mi.

Clay Bank Creek 36.18 sq. mi.

Approximately 0.80 % (463.11 acres) of the total acreage of the Proposed INRMP Alternative coincides with this sub-basin. This comprises approximately 20.00 % of the total land mass of this sub-basin.

Klondike - Hurricane Creek

27.10 sq. mi.

Approximately 0.80 % (468.34 acres) of the total acreage of the INRMP Alternative coincides with this sub-basin. This comprises approximately 2.70 % of the total land mass of this sub-basin.

Harrand Creek 20.54 sq. mi.

Approximately 3.30 % (1,879.76 acres) of the total acreage of the Proposed INRMP Alternative coincides with this sub-basin. This comprises approximately 14.30 % of the total land mass of this sub-basin.

Choctawatchee Wells

11.30 sq. mi.


Bowles Creek 29.59 sq. mi.


Blacks Mill Creek 21.37 sq. mi.


Upper Clay Bank Creek

11.26 sq. mi.


Middle Clay Bank Creek

15.98 sq. mi.


Brooking Mill Creek 26.06 sq.mi.


Little Clay Bank - Bear Creek

36.11 sq. mi.


Lower Clay Bank Creek

36.05 sq.mi.


INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SEPTEMBER 2017



Surface Water Fort Rucker has approximately 335 miles of streams and rivers within the main reservation. Claybank Creek and its tributaries constitute 82% of these streams and rivers on Fort Rucker. Claybank Creek flows from a source north of Fort Rucker, bisecting the reservation, and flows into the Choctawhatchee River southwest of Fort Rucker. Average annual discharge of the Choctawhatchee River at Newton (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Station 02361000) was 1,240 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a maximum discharge of 9,190 cfs. No USGS flow data is available for Claybank Creek (USGS, 2017). Fort Rucker has five lakes within its boundaries. Four (Beaver, Buckhorn, Ech, and Parcours) are reservoirs (less than 20 acres) built on tributary streams of Claybank Creek. The fifth lake, Lake Tholocco, is an approximately 620-acre impoundment located on Claybank Creek and is used for both recreation and training activities. Major stream locations are shown on Figure 4-4. Neither Fort Rucker, nor the surrounding areas, use surface water as a source of drinking water. However, surface water is used extensively for agricultural purposes. Recreational use of surface water at Fort Rucker is limited to Lake Tholocco. Surface water data from the Choctawhatchee River and tributaries indicates the rivers are moderately turbid, and hardness ranges from 20-30 parts per million. Primary and secondary drinking water parameters are acceptable compared to State standards, with exception of manganese and iron, which exceeded State standards. Waters comply with EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria, with the exception of iron. The Choctawhatchee River and most of its tributaries are classified as “Fish and Wildlife” waters by Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). This designation indicates that surface waters are suitable for the propagation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife but are not suitable for swimming, drinking water, or food processing. The waters of Lake Tholocco are designated as “Fish and Wildlife” and “Swimming” (ADEM, 2015). Wetlands are dispersed throughout Fort Rucker, mostly associated with numerous streams that traverse the reservation; therefore, most wetlands are linear in shape. Most wetlands on Fort Rucker are part of the tributary system of truly navigable waters and are therefore under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. The largest contiguous wetland complex is a floodplain forest in the south-central portion of the reservation. This wetland system includes floodplains of Claybank Creek, Steep Head Creek, and Black Mill Creek below Lake Tholocco dam. Claybank Creek also has a fairly extensive wetland above the Lake Tholocco bed, along the north- northeastern reservation boundary. Three wetland systems are present at Fort Rucker (Rust Environment and Infrastructure, 1996): riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. Rust Environment and Infrastructure completed a wetland study for Fort Rucker that identified 3,425 acres of wetlands.

Groundwater Groundwater resources in the Fort Rucker area include three regional aquifer units, which make up part of the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer System. The shallow aquifer (Lisbon Aquifer) is subdivided into the Lisbon Formation and Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee




Formations. This aquifer extends to a depth of 10-140 feet below land surface, with shallow locations existing on higher ground in northwestern Fort Rucker (in the impact area of land management unit [LMU]-1) and to the southeast at the cantonment area. The Lisbon Aquifer is separated from deeper aquifers by the Tuscahoma Sand Confining Unit. Immediately below the Tuscahoma Confining Unit are the Nanafalia and Clayton Formations. The Nanafalia and Clayton Formations range between 400-500 feet thick in the vicinity of Fort Rucker and are the primary source of drinking water for Fort Rucker. The Nanafalia and Clayton Formations are underlain by the Providence Sand/Ripley Formation, and in places are hydraulically connected. The Providence Sand/Ripley Formation varies from 600-800 feet in thickness, and groundwater flow is to the south. Still deeper formations include the Blufftown Formation and part of the Eutaw Formation, which are separated from the basal (deepest) aquifer by a confining unit of clay and chalk called the Middle Eutaw Formation. This confining unit lies 2,000-2,500 feet beneath Fort Rucker. Due to extensive local and regional pumping of groundwater, cones of depression have developed in the Nanafalia aquifer in the area of Fort Rucker and surrounding municipalities (Scott et al., 1984). The potentiometric surface decreased approximately 80 feet in the period between 1975 and 2006. Deeper formations have been tapped for groundwater use with no reported instances of drawdown in the aquifer, and provide a substantial potential auxiliary water supply. Although the Nanafalia aquifer has been impacted, no affects to habitation, biota or personnel on Fort Rucker (Cook, Jennings, and Moss, 2007) are anticipated. However, due to concerns of volume and water quality during extended pumping, Fort Rucker limits pumping time to no more than 18 hours a day per well. Also, Fort Rucker voluntarily limits groundwater usage to four million gallons per day for all uses (Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Directorate of Public Works [ENRD DPW], 2016).

Potable Water Average annual water demand on Fort Rucker declined between 2008 and 2013, a 51 percent reduction in annual demand (ENRD DPW, 2016). If installation operations are expanded, it may be necessary to increase water conservation measures and/or to rely more heavily on the deeper Ripley Formation for drinking water (ENRD DPW, 2016). Fort Rucker potable water is drawn from the Nanafalia/ Clayton and Providence Sand/Ripley formations, and consists of seven wells on Fort Rucker, drilled to a depth of 600 feet below land surface, with a total capacity of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Fort Rucker - American Water staff operate water treatment plants located on Fort Rucker which treats water from these various groundwater sources and has a capacity to treat approximately five million gallons of water per day (American Water 2012). The water supply system serves the cantonment areas for Hanchey Army Heliport (AHP) and Knox AHP. Hanchey and Knox have no other source of water. This system has been privatized and is now provided by American Water. Cairns AAF is connected to the City of Daleville water system. Shell AHP is connected to the City of Enterprise water system. Groundwater quality in the Nanafalia/ Clayton and Providence Sand/Ripley formations is good; however, constituents qualified as




Secondary Drinking Water concerns, such as iron and hardness, are occasionally seen at high levels. These contaminants are not considered a present risk to human health, per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 143 (CFR 2012).

Floodplains Floodplains are lowland areas adjacent to surface water bodies (i.e., lakes, wetlands, and rivers) that are periodically covered by water during flooding events. Floodplains and riparian habitat are biologically unique and highly diverse ecosystems that provide a rich diversity of aquatic and terrestrial species and act as a functional part of natural systems. Many portions of the Fort Rucker installation fall within the 100-year floodplain (areas with a one percent chance of being inundated by floodwater in a given year) (Figure 4-5). Most 100-year floodplains are in the northwestern portion of Fort Rucker, associated with Bowles Creek and its tributaries. The largest 100-year floodplain is associated with Claybank Creek and extends in a southerly direction through the east-central portion of Fort Rucker. Per Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, EO 11988, Floodplain Management, and AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, actions are only permitted to take place in these areas should the Proposed Action be analyzed and found to have no significant impact or that there is no practicable alternative. Floodplain management on Fort Rucker includes floodplain protection, floodplain boundary determination, and assessment of Proposed Actions within floodplains.

Wetlands Resources Wetlands

The U.S. Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” These resources are protected under Section 404 of the CWA, 33 USC 1344 (USC 2011), and at the state level under ADEM Administrative Code 335-8 (ADEM 2013). Wetlands on federal lands are afforded additional protection under Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, which sets a goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. The majority of jurisdictional wetlands in the U.S. are identified using three wetland delineation criteria: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland hydrology. Fort Rucker supports approximately 3,425 acres of wetlands influenced by seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, overland or near surface flow, shallow groundwater, or some combination of these processes, Figure 4-6.

Wetland Plants Unique floral assemblages exist in two wetland locations on Fort Rucker. The “bay swamp” below the beaver dam on Brooking Mill Creek, south of the southeastern perimeter road (TA 38) contains several rare plants (e.g., white arum). Changes in the water regime, cutting, or mechanical disturbance could alter the habitat to the detriment of the plant assemblage. A seepage bog containing several species of plants uncommon to scarce elsewhere on the reservation occurs in TA 21 between the stream crossing Ech Stagefield Road and Ech Stagefield.




Biological Resources Biological resources include native or naturalized plants and animals and the habitats, such as forests, grasslands, and estuaries, in which these resources exist. Sensitive and protected biological resources include plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS, the state of Alabama, or species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), per 16 USC 703-712 (USC 2004). Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC 1536 (USC 2016), an endangered species is defined as any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. The USFWS also maintains a list of species considered to be candidates for possible listing under the (ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, the USFWS has attempted to advise government agencies, industry, and the public that these species are at risk and could warrant protection under the ESA. Under the MBTA, migratory birds are protected throughout their range and protection includes migratory birds, parts, nests, or eggs of any such bird, or any product thereof. Alabama does not presently maintain a legal equivalent to the federal endangered species act, so Alabama species do not have regulatory protection as state endangered or threatened species. However, some species do receive protection through the Alabama Regulations on Game Fish and Fur Bearing Animals. These are the only regulations affording state protection for some species in Alabama, and are administered by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Protection and management of state-protected fauna are controlled under the Protected Nongame Species Regulation, Alabama Administrative Code 220-2-.92 (ADEM 2016). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the state list of plants designated as endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited for the State of Alabama, Endangered Species Act; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (USC 2016), through the Daphne, Alabama – Field Office.

Flora The areas around Fort Rucker and the outlying fields include an abundance of habitat types, plants, and animals. On a very broad scale, there are three forested communities on Fort Rucker, upland forests (dominated by either pines or hardwoods), pine plantations, and hardwood dominated lowland forests (wetlands or floodplains). Habitat descriptions in the INRMP are based on the Survey of Fauna and Flora of Fort Rucker, Alabama (Mount and Diamond, 1992). The six habitat types described are upland forested areas, pine plantations, agricultural lands, badly eroded sites, developed areas, and lowland areas. Section 1.11.7 of the INRMP includes a discussion of terrestrial habitats and their associated floral species. Appendix 8 of the INRMP contains scientific names of floral species known to occur on Fort Rucker and which are mentioned in the habitat descriptions. The former longleaf pine region is among the most disturbed landscapes in eastern United States. Historic uses including agriculture, open range grazing, logging, and elimination of naturally occurring wildfire have left less than 3% of upland landscape in entirely natural vegetation. At least 97% of uplands in the region consist of converted




lands and disturbance vegetation. Woodlands at Fort Rucker consist of stands that vary considerably in species, types, condition class, site indices, stocking levels, and operating conditions. Most of Fort Rucker is in the longleaf pine-shortleaf pine-hardwood transition zone with the longleaf pine pyroclimax forest (longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem) just to the south, in the Gulf Coast Plain. Fort Rucker has been described as a Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest (Ware et al., 1993), largely due to the absence of fire. Pine stands in the region include pine plantations (usually the rapidly growing loblolly, or sometimes slash, but rarely the slow-growing longleaf pine), post-cultivation successional stands, and limited areas where natural or inadvertent fire is still frequent enough to maintain longleaf-slash stands. The most abundant type of forest, pine-hardwood stands, may represent the middle stages of post-cultivation succession, but more often it is a product of one or two previous selective cuttings of pine. The relative proportion of various hardwoods in these stands is in part a product of repeated disturbance, but the composition of stands also reflects the influence of, and interactions between, topography, soil moisture, soil texture, and soil chemistry (Ware et al., 1993).

4.6.1.1 Forests Mixed Pine – Hardwood (Upland Forests): Mixed forests containing both pine and hardwood species on moderately well drained, mesic sites where mesophytic species predominate. Such forests are abundantly represented on the reservation in uplands with clay subsoils. They occur throughout Fort Rucker and are the dominant habitat type on the northwestern portion of Fort Rucker, as seen in Figure 4-7. This type of forest has developed naturally on much of the formerly cultivated uplands and consist of sandy clay loams or sandy clays. Most mixed forest sites are highly erodible, and the topsoil layer may be shallow. Pines include loblolly, shortleaf, and longleaf pine. Common hardwoods include southern red oak, water oak, diamond-leaf oak, sweetgum, and yellow-poplar. Predominant small trees include sassafras, dogwood, sourwood, hawthorn, persimmon, and wild cherry. Shrub understory include blueberry/huckleberry complex, wax myrtle, and young individuals of the trees described above. Ground cover includes a wide variety of grasses and forbs, including numerous species of legumes, but no particular species is dominant. A number of factors affect plant composition and frequency of occurrence, including the forest management system being employed. The herbaceous ground cover becomes thicker and more diverse following fire, and shrubby undergrowth is inhibited. Pine Plantations: Flora and fauna of pine stands from 10 to 30 years in age vary depending on tree-age classes, tree spacing, and forest management practices. Those pine stands in which intensive efforts are made to suppress other vegetation utilizing annual burning or herbicides, are not as biodiverse as those burned less frequently (three to four-year intervals). In addition to planted pines, flora encountered in mid-aged pine stands may be extremely variable, depending on light availability, soil type, moisture conditions, and history of the site. The presence of certain shrubs, such as blueberry, as well as the presence of dead trees and snags or rotting stumps and tree trunks on the forest floor also increase wildlife habitat.




Lowland Forest (Xeric): Xeric (low moisture) forests consist principally of plants that require minimal amounts of moisture and which, consequently, can grow in excessively well-drained soils. Trees strongly indicative of this forest type are turkey oak and bluejack oak. Longleaf pine is the most common dominant large tree species. Other woody species frequently occurring in this habitat type on Fort Rucker include hawthorn, southern red oak, dwarf (or sand) post oak, sand laurel oak, and occasionally, persimmon, and devilwood. Turkey oak and bluejack oak tend to be more fire susceptible than other oaks. Low-growing species include several grasses, pineweed, several legumes (goat’s rue and other Tephrosia species, beggar ticks, and wild indigo), milkweeds, prickly pear, sensitive brier, treadsoftly, and poison oak. Patches of blackberry may be present. Most, but not all, of the habitat within this category is found in the eastern portion of the reservation near the impact area. Much of the acreage on the reservation capable of supporting this habitat type has been cleared.

4.6.1.2 Forest Inventory Fort Rucker has 58,043 acres of forestland within the classifications listed below (ENRD, DPW, 2016):

• Regulated (All options for forest management): 40,0420 acres

• Modified (Limited timber harvest): 2,095 acres

• Restricted (Little, if any, forest management): 19,103 acres Fauna

Although Fort Rucker has a rich and diverse fauna, natural animal communities in the area, especially large mammals, have been affected by urbanization. For example, two large mammals, the panther (Felis concolor) and black bear (Ursus americanus) have been extirpated from the area. However, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are common, as are many smaller mammals which have been relatively undisturbed by urbanization.

4.6.2.1 Game Fish and Wildlife Species Census of game species is required for the establishment of harvest regulations that allow for the sustained use of game species. The State of Alabama provides the framework within which Fort Rucker must harvest game species, Table 4-2. In some cases, such as management of deer, Fort Rucker imposes more restrictive regulations. Harvest numbers provide an inexpensive means to monitor game populations. All game harvested must be reported. Combining harvest data with hunter effort provides information adequate to manage most game species. Other than the antlerless deer quota, there has never been a need to establish quotas on game harvest on the reservation. The annual harvest of game is relatively self-adjusting to population levels and does not, by itself, significantly affect the following year’s game populations. If, in the future, new quotas need to be set, the Fort Rucker Wildlife Biologist would consult with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources




game biologists to determine the maximum harvest allowable. A record of hunting harvest has been kept since 1964. Records include the number of each species harvested plus the number of man-days spent hunting the species. Data are summarized and analyzed at the end of the hunting season by Fort Rucker wildlife biologists. This information is furnished to the District Wildlife Biologist, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). White-tailed Deer: Fort Rucker strives to maintain a healthy and productive deer herd with natural sex and age structures while producing optimal sustained yield. However, harvest numbers remain low, most likely due to a prevalence of feral pigs and an abundance of predator coyotes. Corpora lutea counts from harvested females indicate normal reproductive rates for white-tailed deer in this part of Alabama, but fawn survival/recruitment appears to be low, perhaps indicating high fawn mortality. In cooperation with Auburn University and the ADCNR Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, a study was completed in 2011 which indicated that coyote predation was likely a leading cause for low survival rates (Ditchkoff, 2011). An additional study in 2014 found that feral pigs also displace deer due to competition for food sources (Ditchkoff & McGowan, 2014). Fort Rucker implements a quality deer management (QDM) program that requires antlered deer to have at least 3 points on one side to be harvested, while antlerless deer harvest continues during this program. Fort Rucker establishes a yearly deer harvest recommendation prior to the hunting season. Harvest data collection is the primary source of information to evaluate deer herd condition and establish antlerless deer seasons. Every three years Fort Rucker collects deer for necropsies to provide a general herd health check. Biological samples are sent to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Group for analysis. Every year the Natural Resources Manager and the Wildlife Biologists carefully analyze every aspect of collected biological data on the deer herd and make a recommendation to the Garrison Commander for the next years’ game harvesting plan. Natural Resources is very optimistic about the recovery of the whitetail deer population and are currently within the fourth year of antlerless harvesting restrictions and QDM guidelines, having already identified substantial improvements in animal quality and herd density. Eastern Wild Turkey: The turkey population on Fort Rucker is increasing, reflecting good hatching seasons and the availability of suitable habitat. Management techniques, such as controlled burning, maintenance of openings, and plantings have all contributed to good turkey habitat. Restriction on vehicular traffic during nesting season in certain areas has also decreased nest disruptions. Bobwhite Quail: Improvement of habitat through bush-hogging, fertilizing, liming, and planting of various wildlife foods is important for bobwhite quail on Fort Rucker. The thinning of dense pine stands followed by controlled burning creates desirable quail habitat. Historically, Fort Rucker’s quail density has been light to medium, a trend that continues today. However, a more intensive management effort is being directed towards quail habitat improvement through increased controlled burning and thinning of dense pine stands, cover interspersion, and establishment of a balanced variety of annual and perennial preferred food crops. Particular attention to managing for this habitat occurs in Land Management Unit (LMU) 3 due to the availability of open land in the area. This




program has resulted in more high-quality quail habitat, and quail numbers are increasing in these areas. Monitor programs are conducted to identify more precisely where quail are found on Fort Rucker. Whistling call counts are run May through June with the objective of learning where quail are absent in spite of good habitat. Data is used to identify potential transplant locations. Fort Rucker traps wild quail and transplants them to locations where quail habitat has developed, but there is inadequate breeding stock. In 2015 approximately 3,000 acres of Fort Rucker were specifically designated and developed as a primary quail habitat ecosystem with completed conservation practices as Timber Stand Improvement, Thinning, Burning and native grass planting. These areas maintain an open understory with towering pines and are burned on a regular basis. Mourning Dove: Resident dove populations on Fort Rucker, and the number of doves that use the post during migration are low. It is difficult to draw migrating doves on to Fort Rucker property due to vast amounts of farm land in the immediate area. Fort Rucker uses the standard USFWS mourning dove call count methodology as part of a nationwide effort to monitor this migratory species. Waterfowl: Fort Rucker is far removed from any major waterfowl flyway, and as a result, any large migration of waterfowl through this area is generally attributed to major storm activity. An increased effort on wood duck management is planned and will include banding, construction, maintenance, and monitoring of nest boxes, and habitat improvement (hardwood improvement). Waterfowl abundance is estimated using population data gathered through visual counts, hunter success, and nest box monitoring. Squirrels: Fort Rucker has initiated a program to improve the quality of hardwood stands by increasing the abundance of preferred mast producers. Squirrels are abundant on the installation, and hunting pressure on squirrels could be increased. Eastern Cottontail/Swamp Rabbit: Rabbit populations benefit from much of the same management as deer and quail. Winter food crops such as clovers, rye, and wheat are especially important to rabbits. Fort Rucker creates brush piles when site conditions allow to provide escape cover for rabbits in more open habitat. Rabbit population data are collected by harvest rates, track counts, flush counts, and pellet group counts. The following species are actively managed as game for sport hunting or fishing:

Table 4-2 Managed Game Species Common Species Name Scientific Species Name Birds Wood duck Aix sponsa Eastern wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Mammals White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Feral hog Sus scrofa Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger




Common Species Name Scientific Species Name Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Coyote Canis latrans Raccoon Procyon lotor Opossum Didelphis marsupialis

There is extremely light hunting pressure on raccoon, opossum, fox, and bobcat. Other species that are found on Fort Rucker, but are only lightly hunted, include snipe, rail, purple gallinule, common moorhens, and woodcock.

4.6.2.2 Nongame Birds and Mammals With the exception of Threatened and Endangered Species, Fort Rucker performs little direct species management for non-game species; however, most non-game species benefit from general habitat management, such as prescribed burning.

4.6.2.3 Fish Lakes on Fort Rucker experience population fluctuations over the short and long term, stemming from fish harvest, enforced regulations, stocking, fish kills, pond productivity, aquatic weed infestation, etc. Primary species emphasized in the Fort Rucker fisheries program are Florida largemouth bass, bluegill, and shellcracker (redear), Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Managed Fish Species

Fish and Wildlife personnel conduct creel surveys on an opportunistic basis while in the field. Fort Rucker uses seine surveys in its small ponds (5-15 acres) to monitor reproduction of fish species. Electroshocking is used to evaluate overall population dynamics in each body of water. Electroshocking is used both day and night, and principal data collected include species, length, and weight of each fish. Proportional Stock Density and length-weight relationships are calculated. Fish population data are used to make decisions regarding the need for rough fish control and stocking. Population data are also used to evaluate effects of harvest regulations on important game species, especially largemouth bass and bream species. To date, there has not been a need for direct control of undesirable species in Fort Rucker lakes. It is illegal to use baitfish in lakes on Fort Rucker, which reduces the problem of introduced species. Sterile grass carp (white amur) are stocked to help control aquatic vegetation in the smaller lakes.

Common Species Name Scientific Species Name Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Redear sunfish (shellcracker) Lepomis microlophus




4.6.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians Reptiles potentially encountered at Fort Rucker are the eastern box turtle, green anole, eastern glass lizard, gray rat snake, eastern garter snake, and three species of skinks. The copperhead and canebrake rattlesnake are moderately common, especially around thickets at the edge of intermittent streams and drains. During winter, the cottonmouth tends to move away from its usual aquatic habitats and into upland forests habitat to winter in stump holes and similar places. Amphibians are infrequent, however those most likely to occur are the southeastern slimy salamander, several treefrogs, and several toad species during the non-breeding period.

Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Plants

Numerous rare, sensitive, and listed plant species may occur on Fort Rucker, Table 4-4. Several former Federal Category 2 species, the incised groovebur, Flyr's nemesis, Baltzell's sedge, and Alabama anglepond, may occur on Fort Rucker, but are not confirmed despite recent surveys. Mount and Bailey (2003) conducted surveys in 2002 and 2003 and concluded that no federally listed plants occur at Fort Rucker. The State of Alabama has no official plant list of threatened or endangered plants. The table below describes rare or sensitive plants found or possible on the Fort Rucker Military Reservation and their listing status, rank, and preferred habitats. A survey for threatened, endangered or special concern plants was completed in November 2002 by A.R. Diamond and M. Woods of Troy State University, and their comments have been added to the table. Data within Table 4-4 has been compiled from Mount and Diamond (1992) and Mount and Bailey (2003). These species, except for the incised groovebur, are plants of rich undisturbed hardwood slopes. Most appropriate habitat consists of the steep hardwood north-facing slopes along Steep Head Creek and the tributaries of Claybank Creek on the east shore of Lake Tholocco and for a short distance, along the east bank below the dam. The existence of these species of concern on Fort Rucker necessitates careful planning of not only major ground disturbing activities, but also careful timing and planning for many of the ecosystem enhancement activities carried out by natural resources personnel.




Table 4-4 Rare and Sensitive Plants Potentially Located at Fort Rucker Species Name Listing Status Rank

Preferred Habitat Comments Common Scientific Federal State State Global

Incised groovebur Agrimonia incisa

NA S2 G3 Open, longleaf pine scrub oak habitats Most often found in thin xeric sandy woods.

Possibly occurring. Would benefit from prescribed bums and the thinning of overstory, as long as this was accomplished with a minimum of disturbance.

Price's potato-bean Apios priceana

T S2 G3 Habitat is associated with openings in the forest canopy in mixed hardwood stands where ravine slopes grade into creek or stream bottoms. Open, rocky, wooded slopes and floodplain edges.

Habitat destruction would be detrimental, also predation and tuber collection.

Georgia rockcress Arabis georgiana

T S1 G1 Typically occurs on rocky slopes with shallow soils above streams and rivers (sandy loam along eroding riverbanks) and on rocky bluffs. Inhabits areas where soils are dry in nature with high or moderately high light intensity.

Many of the occupied habitats in Alabama are unsuitable for logging operations due to terrain and proximity to water resources, therefore roads and other high use areas should be carefully planned to minimize negative impacts.

Flyr's nemesis Brickellia cordfolia

S2 G3 Rich. Undisturbed hardwood slopes. It requires well-drained sandy soils, but tolerates partial shade as well as sunnier locations.

Possibly occurs.

Baltzell's sedge Carex baltzellii

S1 G3 Rich. Undisturbed hardwood slopes. Especially common in wet / moist habitats in temperate zones.

Possibly occurs. Grows well in the heat of the southeastern United States.

Two-spike fingergrass Chloris floridana

NA S1 G2? Dry, sandy, open areas in full sun. Collected in 1992 survey, not relocated in 2002 survey. Thinning of overstory and fire would most likely aid these species. Intensive site preparation and establishment of plantations would likely eliminate these species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_(biology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwood




Species Name Listing Status Rank Preferred Habitat Comments Common

Scientific Federal State State Global Green-fly orchid Epidendrum conopseum

NA S2 G4 Epiphyte on large southern magnolias. Always found near streams where the humidity is constantly high and shade is constant.

Collected in 1992 survey, Observed in 2002 survey. Any change in the canopy would be detrimental to this species.

Large-stem morning glory Ipomoea macrorhiza

NA S1 G3, G5 Dry, sandy, open area. Collected in 1992 survey, reduced numbers in 2002 survey. Thinning of overstory and fire would most likely aid these species. Intensive site preparation and establishment of plantations would likely eliminate these species.

Southern twayblade listera australis

NA S3 G4 Moist areas near streams under canopy.

Collected in 1992 survey, Rare in 2002 survey. Intensive site preparation would likely eliminate these plants. Affecting soil moisture would likely harm these plants. Most likely never burned, fire would likely be detrimental.

Alabama anglepod Matelea alabamensis

NA S1 G2 Rich. Undisturbed hardwood slopes. Grows in ravines in forests, generally in the area between the dry upper slopes and the moist lower slopes, where there are other plants to climb but that also receive sunlight.

Collected Historically. Tolerant of shade but are more robust in sunnier areas.

Nodding nixie Apteria aphylla

NA S2 G4 Found on moist decaying organic matter near spring heads and seeps, where the ground never dries out or floods.

Collected in 1992 survey, still present in 2002 survey. Affected by any action that removes organic matter in which it grows or changes the moisture of the soil.

Winter grapefern Botrychium lunarioides

NA S1 G4? Most often found in cemeteries, lawns, and roadsides and seem to prefer sandy soil and full sun.

Presence unlikely; rare 2002. Application of herbicides when this species is present could cause their demise. Allowing the canopy to close would eliminate them.




Species Name Listing Status Rank Preferred Habitat Comments Common

Scientific Federal State State Global Soapwort gentian Gentiana saponaria

NA S3 G5 Moist areas near streams. Overstory is hardwoods or mixed hardwood-pine.

Collected during 1992 survey, not checked in 2002. Intensive site preparation would likely eliminate these plants. Affecting soil moisture would likely harm these plants. Most likely never burned, fire would likely be detrimental.

Bulbous adder's tongue Ophioglossum crotalophoroides

NA SNR G5 Found in cemeteries, lawns, and roadsides and seem to prefer sandy soil and full sun.

Collected in 1992 survey, Rare in 2002 survey. Application of herbicides when present could cause their demise. Allowing the canopy to close would eliminate them.

Alabama canebrake pitcherplant Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensis

E S1, S2 G4, T1, T2

Habitat sites are hillside seepage bogs, permanently saturated areas that attain their greatest development where an impervious layer of clay lies in close proximity to the ground surface or in association with bottomland or streamside vegetation.

Require full or nearly full sun.

Silky camellia Stewartia malacodendron

NA S2, S3 G4 Moist areas near streams. Overstory is hardwoods or mixed hardwood-pine.

Collected during 1992 survey; still present, new population 2002. Intensive site preparation would likely eliminate these plants. Affecting soil moisture would likely harm these plants. Most likely never burned, fire detrimental.

Downy shieldfern Thelypteris quadrangularis

NA S4 G5 Moist areas near streams, under canopy

Collected during 1992 survey. Site preparation would likely eliminate these plants. Affecting soil moisture would harm these plants. Most likely never burned, fire would be detrimental.

Notes: G1 – Critically Imperiled G2 – Imperiled




G3 – Either very rare and local throughout its range G4 – apparently secure G5 – globally secure

S1 – Critically imperiled, extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. S2 – Imperiled because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. S3 – Either very rare and local (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. S4 – Apparently secure (may be rare in parts of range). S5 – Demonstrably secure SNR – Element not yet ranked (temporary).

T – Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. E – Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.




Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern Animals Protection and management of threatened and endangered species will be conducted in accordance with the ESA, NEPA, AR 200-1, DoD Manual 4715.3 (DoDM 2013), USFWS regulations and agreements, and other applicable laws or guidance from higher headquarters. In accordance with the Fort Rucker INRMP (2107 – 2021), species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered will be protected and managed. The table below provides a summary of species that have been observed at Fort Rucker that are federal or state-listed, state-protected, or ranked by the Nature Conservancy. Comments are included regarding the status of each species found on Fort Rucker. Thirteen threatened and endangered species were documented and include five reptiles, three birds, one mammal, and two listed mussel species located on Fort Rucker. The bald eagle, which is protected by the BGEPA (16 USC § 668, 1940), has been observed on Fort Rucker. Table 4-5 provides a summary of species that have been observed or potentially could occur at Fort Rucker that are federal or state-listed, state-protected, or ranked by the Nature Conservancy. Included are habitat preferences and comments regarding the status of each species at Fort Rucker.

Table 4-5 Rare or Sensitive Animals Found on the Fort Rucker Military Reservation

Species Name Listing Status Rank Comments Common Name

Scientific Name Federal State State Global

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (SA) 4 5 Uncommon,

probably stable Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus

SC Uncommon, Likely declining

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus C T 2 3

Locally common, low-density population

Eastern coachwhip Masticophis flagellum SC Locally common

Eastern Box turtle Terrapene carolina SC Moderately common

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii SC Probably stable

Common ground dove Columbina passerine SC 2 5 Locally common,

stable American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SC Secure Secure Occasional on

migration Osprey Pandion haliaetus SC 3 5 Last seen at Lake

Tholocco in 1992




Species Name Listing Status Rank Comments Common Name

Scientific Name Federal State State Global

Bald Eagle Hailiaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA E 1/B and

2/N 3 Nesting pair at Lake Tholocco

Southeastern pocket gopher Geomys pinetis

3 Rare- 2 localities, declining

Choctaw bean Villosa choctawensis E

Located during 1998 – 2000 mussel survey

Fuzzy pigtoe Pleurobema strodeanum T

Located during 1998 – 2000 mussel survey

Note: Ranking scales are based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is critically imperiled and 5 is demonstrably secure. * From Mount and Diamond (1992) and Rust Environment and Infrastructure (1996) C - Candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act E - Endangered T - Threatened SA - Listing due to similarity in appearance SC - Special concern

A Memorandum regarding Management Guidelines for the gopher tortoise on Army installations was distributed in March 2008 and identifies the gopher tortoise as a priority Army Species at Risk (SAR) for Fort Rucker. The guidelines address Army policies such as conservation, ecosystem management, education/outreach, funding, and cooperation with the Gopher Tortoise Team. The management strategies include population goals, habitat management, population monitoring, burrow marking, translocation, and data records/ coordination. Mussels: There is suitable habitat on Fort Rucker for several federally listed mussel species. Of these species, the southern sandshell, southern kidneyshell, Choctaw bean, tapered pigtoe, and fuzzy pigtoe occur in the Choctawhatchee watershed, of which Claybank Creek and Steephead Creek on the Installation are part. The Choctaw bean and fuzzy pigtoe have been recorded on Fort Rucker in recent invertebrate surveys, however the other species have not been found in any recent surveys. Fort Rucker was excluded from critical habitat (CH) designations in the proposals because conservation efforts identified in Fort Rucker’s INRMP would be beneficial to these species in terms of reducing silt, sedimentation, and non-point source pollution. These efforts will continue as identified in the INRMP. Any activities affecting watersheds on the Installation must be reviewed for possible impacts to listed mussel species. This includes land disturbance, chemical use, low water crossings, roadwork, and any other activity with the potential to affect water quality or to constitute a barrier to mussel or fish travel within the waterway. The ADCNR and USFWS provide a listing of rare or sensitive species found in Coffee (Table 4-6) and Dale (Table 4-7) Counties (Alabama), including their listing of Greatest




Conservation Need (GCN). Species are listed below, including current status for state protected species.

Table 4-6 Rare or Sensitive Animals, Coffee County Alabama Group Common Name Scientific Name Status Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened Clams Choctaw bean Villosa choctawensis Endangered Clams Round Ebonyshell Fusconaia rotulata Endangered Clams Southern kidneyshell Ptychobranchus jonesi Endangered Clams Narrow pigtoe Fusconaia escambia Threatened Clams Southern sandshell Hamiota australis Threatened Clams Fuzzy pigtoe Pleurobema strodeanum Threatened Clams Tapered pigtoe Fusconaia burkei Threatened

Fishes Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf subspecies)

Acipenser oxyrinchus (oxyrhynchus) desotoi Threatened

Flowering Plant Gentian pinkroot Spigelia gentianoides Endangered

Flowering Plant Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered

Reptiles Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptiles Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Candidate

(USFWS 2011a)

Table 4-7 Rare or Sensitive Animals, Dale County Alabama Group Common Name Scientific Name Status Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened Clams Choctaw bean Villosa choctawensis Endangered Clams Southern kidneyshell Ptychobranchus jonesi Endangered Clams Oval pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme Endangered Clams Southern sandshell Hamiota australis Threatened Clams Fuzzy pigtoe Pleurobema strodeanum Threatened Clams Tapered pigtoe Fusconaia burkei Threatened

Fishes Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf subspecies)

Acipenser oxyrinchus (oxyrhynchus) desotoi Threatened

Reptiles Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptiles Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Candidate

(USFWS 2011b)

Cultural Resources DoDI 4715.16, Cultural Resources Management, provides instruction applicable to all DoD installations regarding cultural resource management. A more complete history is available in the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan Update (Fort Rucker, 2016) and in the Final Environmental Assessment of the Implementation of the Updated Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (CH2M, 2016).




Fort Rucker has completed 100% of all Phase I Cultural Resource surveys, including leased lands. Five sites on Fort Rucker are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Ten sites on Fort Rucker and eight sites on leased lands remain eligible. Only one structure on Fort Rucker is potentially eligible for the National Register. The inventory includes 315 archeological sites on Fort Rucker and 27 sites on leased lands (Harvey et al., 1996). Most of Fort Rucker is available for training purposes, with few exceptions. Ground disturbing activities are limited in locations with documented cultural resources.

Airspace Management and Safety Aircraft safety includes the following four key concerns: aircraft accidents, avoidance areas, bird/wildlife-aircraft strikes, and nighttime flying. Bird and wildlife strikes are an aircraft safety concern due to the potential damage that a strike might have on the aircraft or injury to aircrews. As required by AR 95-2, all personnel performing daily airfield inspections or checks shall inspect for obstacles, including birds and animals, and, therefore, must be trained in bird/wildlife watch conditions, attractants, and control measures (U.S. Army 2008), as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports (FAA 2007). The FAA, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, USEPA, USFWS, and the USDA signed a Memorandum of Agreement in July 2003 to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the Agreement, the agencies established procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and future environmental conditions contributing to collisions between birds or wildlife and aircraft (i.e., strikes) throughout the United States (FAA 2003). 4.10 Air Quality

Fort Rucker is in Dale and Coffee County Alabama. The Proposed Action wi l l be conducted in an area designated as atta inment for a l l cr i ter ia pol lutants as character ized by the USEPA. 4.11 Noise This INRMP does not propose management actions that have the potential to affect the ambient noise environment on Fort Rucker. 4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Socioeconomics. Socioeconomics are defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly population and economic activity. Regional birth and death rates and immigration and emigration affect population levels. Economic activity typically encompasses employment, personal income, and industrial or commercial growth. Changes in these two fundamental socioeconomic indicators can




be accompanied by changes in other components such as housing availability and the provision of public services. There would be no change in the number of personnel as result of the implementation of this INRMP; therefore, there would be no changes in area population or associated changes in demand for housing and services. Accordingly, Fort Rucker has omitted detailed examination of socioeconomics as a resource area. Environmental Justice. On February 11, 1994, President William Jefferson Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires that federal agencies’ actions substantially affecting human health or the environment do not exclude persons, deny persons benefits, or subject persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. Implementation of the INRMP would not render vulnerable any of the groups targeted for protection in the EO and no groups of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, would bear a disproportionate share of any resulting potential negative environmental consequences. Accordingly, a detailed examination of environmental justice has been dismissed from further analysis as a resource area. On April 21, 1997, the President issued EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This EO requires federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law and mission, to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children. The proposed action of implementing the INRMP would not pose any adverse or disproportionate environmental health risks or safety risks to children in the areas associated with the Proposed Action. Accordingly, a detailed examination of health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children has been dismissed from further analysis. 4.13 Utilities This INRMP does not propose management actions that have the potential to affect utilities on Fort Rucker. Therefore, utilities are not described in detail in this INRMP. 4.14 Transportation and Traffic This INRMP does not propose management actions that have the potential to affect Transportation and Traffic on Fort Rucker. Therefore, Transportation and Traffic are not described in detail in this INRMP. 4.15 Hazardous and Toxic Materials Waste (HTMW) The Fort Rucker Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) is the document that governs hazardous waste on the installation. The HWMP describes responsibilities, policies, and procedures for storing and managing hazardous materials and hazardous waste at Fort Rucker. As required by AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, dated December 13, 2007, the HWMP is written to ensure continued compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Fort Rucker is a large-quantity hazardous waste generator. The installation has a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 90 day Hazardous Waste central Facility. All hazardous waste is processed through the servicing Defense Reutilization




and Marketing Office, then recycled or transported off installation to a hazardous waste disposal facility.




5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section describes the potential environmental consequences at Fort Rucker from the implementation of each identified alternative. In accordance with Army NEPA Regulation, any resource or VEC that is not potentially affected by the Proposed Action does not need to be evaluated. Fourteen VECs as outlined below were evaluated. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this document, two alternatives are considered feasible:

a) The Proposed Action with full implementation of the INRMP. b) The No Action Alternative considers non-implementation of the INRMP, relying

on other management strategies not included within the INRMP. The impact on various systems in affected environments will be assessed based on these alternatives. Neither the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would have any anticipated significant negative environmental consequences compared to the existing conditions. However, the two alternatives differ in their ability to proactively or reactively manage natural resources, support the current military mission, mitigate environmental damage due to the Army mission, and comply with environmental laws. The INRMP provides guidelines for managing natural resources, designed to improve the management of Fort Rucker's natural resources. The INRMP is a living document, allowing flexibility in management options as more information becomes available, based on ongoing and planned studies.

Impacts Environmental impacts (consequence or effect) can either be beneficial or adverse, and can be either directly related to the action or indirectly caused by the action. Direct impacts are those effects that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR 1508.8). Indirect impacts are those effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). As discussed in this section, the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives may create temporary, short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts. Environmental impacts on each resource can vary in degree or magnitude from a slightly noticeable change to a total change in the environment. For the purpose of this analysis, the intensity of the impacts will be classified as negligible, insignificant/minor or significant/major. The intensity is defined as follows:

• Negligible: A resource would not be affected or the effects would be at or below the level of detection, and changes would not result in any measurable consequence.

• Minor: Effects on a resource would be detectable, although the effects would be localized, small, and of little consequences to the sustainability of the




resource. Actions needed to offset adverse effects, would be simple and achievable.

• Major: Effects on a resource would be readily detectable, potential long-term, localized, and measurable impacts. Actions, if needed to offset adverse effects would be extensive, but achievable.

Land Use Proposed Action

No impacts to Land Use are anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. Implementation of the INRMP programs would have positive effects on land use at Fort Rucker. The goal and objectives of the ITAM program and Ecosystem Management aim to preserve the natural terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the installation, while maintaining training lands, and restoring areas that have been disturbed by past land clearing and training activities. Implementation of the INRMP would result in an increase in ecosystem management between FY17 and FY21 but is not expected to impact military training or the use of the cantonment area of Fort Rucker. None of the management recommendations that are proposed in the INRMP would have a negative effect on present or projected land use on Fort Rucker.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, land use on Fort Rucker would not change during FY17 through FY21. Natural ecosystem restoration efforts would continue to take place; however, the management of such efforts may not be conducted in the most effective manner. Ecosystem management would maintain lands beneficial for military training and tenant unit missions. Minor impacts to land use are anticipated through implementation of the No Action Alternative of the Fort Rucker INRMP. The No Action Alternative would provide less protection toward the current ecosystem and land use than the Proposed Action, potentially resulting in the reduction of available lands for ground based training, habitat control and floral control. Reduction of the availability of maintained training lands could be compounded through uncontrolled growth of native and non-native flora and fauna, further reducing viable habitat at Fort Rucker. Implementation of the No Action Alternative could have minor effects on Fort Rucker land use, beyond the lifespan of the current INRMP.

Soils Proposed Action

Long-term beneficial impacts to soils are anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. Soil and vegetation disturbance have the potential to increase surface water runoff and soil erosion during rainfall events. The use of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize soil erosion is required during all erosion control projects. Brief periods of increased erosion could occur during maintenance and when rehabilitation activities are conducted, but results would be deemed beneficial through the enhancement of hardened sites such as hover pads, bivouac sites, and established roads and trails. Repair of significant erosion sites and considering




natural resources implications in military project planning would minimize impacts to soils. There may be slight increases in erosion during bare ground aspects of maintenance of firebreaks, harvesting timber, and other projects which disturb the soil, but the plan includes provisions to minimize erosion during and following these actions. The Proposed Action offers the most effective protection and mitigation for damages incurred to soils due to the Army mission. Overall, the continuation of current natural resource management practices will have long-term beneficial effects on soil resources.

No Action Alternative The Army ITAM program is the most intensive land management program in existence for preventing and mitigating damage to lands by military operations. More expenditure for ITAM implementation is required, versus a different soils protection/rehabilitation programs. Under the No Action Alternative, current natural resource management activities have the potential for minor temporary disturbance of soils during timber harvest, hardwood removal, prescribed burning, erosion control projects, and wildlife food plot establishment and maintenance. Minor adverse impacts could occur to soils if a substantial soil loss or soils compaction precluding the reestablishment of vegetation within two growing seasons would occur; or if a violation of applicable federal or state laws, regulations, or permitting occurred. Almost any other option would likely provide less protection and mitigation of soil losses than the Proposed Action. Although the LRAM portion of the ITAM Program exists, the status quo may not be the most effective procedure for maintaining soils and preventing erosion during FY17 to FY21. Failure to implement the INRMP could vary in impacts from loss of habitat dependent soils to no erosion control or damage prevention, which would have negative effects on Fort Rucker soils (and associated vegetation) over the next five years. Minor negative soils impacts would be anticipated through implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Water Resources Surface Water

5.4.1.1 Proposed Action Long term beneficial impacts to Surface Water are anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. The INRMP describes programs which impact surface water quality; namely soils resources management, the LRAM program, and fisheries management. Goals of the Fort Rucker INRMP are to support erosion control efforts of the ITAM program, protect and restore water resources, conduct management activities to maintain quality habitats for fishing and other outdoor recreation activities, protect and maintain surface water ecosystems for the purposes of maintaining water quality, wildlife habitat and to enhance biodiversity. Fort Rucker is required to comply with all NPDES requirements to minimize soil erosion during any land management activities. Activities such as pine thinning and hardwood removal, and invasive plant species eradication enhance the growth of




native groundcover, thus providing long-term protection against extensive runoff and surface water impairment. Other potential impacts to water resources could occur as a result of petroleum or oil spills from vehicle and equipment failures and refueling. The Proposed Action offers the most effective method to remove or limit damages incurred to surface waters due to the Army mission. Implementation of the Proposed Action would potentially result in long-term beneficial impacts to the surface waters of Fort Rucker.

5.4.1.2 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative offers a less comprehensive program than the Proposed Action for the control and repair of damaged areas, which contribute the most sedimentation. The No Action Alternative would reduce the planning capabilities of the program, so that the emphasis would be on repairing highly visible and disruptive damage rather than preventing or minimizing sedimentation from ongoing military activities. Consequently, impacts to surface waters would be greater than under the Proposed Action. Failure to implement the INRMP could result in partial loss of traditional erosion control programs which would provide relatively good sedimentation protection to virtually no erosion control, likely resulting in negative effects on Fort Rucker's surface water quality in areas of heavy military use over the next five years. Minor negative impacts to surface water would be anticipated through non-implementation of the INRMP, due to potential downstream effects from erosion in training lands to increased sheet flow from loss of vegetative cover from unmaintained areas.

Groundwater

5.4.2.1 Proposed Action No impacts to groundwater are anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. The INRMP includes groundwater, but it is not a natural resources program within the Army environmental program. The INRMP describes programs which impact surface water quality that have the downstream potential to impact groundwater recharge points. Goals of the Fort Rucker INRMP are to protect and maintain surface water ecosystems for the purposes of maintaining water quality, resulting in the protection of groundwater recharge. The Proposed Action offers the most effective method to remove or limit damages incurred to groundwater due to the Army mission. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not affect groundwater. However, the Proposed Action would potentially result in long-term benefits to the groundwater in the region of Fort Rucker.

5.4.2.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, soil and vegetation disturbance have the potential to affect downstream resources, including groundwater. Limited erosion control would have minor negative effects on Fort Rucker's water quality in areas of heavy military use over the next five years, potentially resulting in impacts to groundwater and water quality. Under the No Action alternative, current measures to protect




groundwater resources on Fort Rucker would still be maintained. However, groundwater resources may not be managed in the most effective manner. Negligible impacts to groundwater are anticipated through implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Floodplains

5.4.3.1 Proposed Action Beneficial impacts to floodplains are anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. Floodplain management on Fort Rucker includes floodplain protection, floodplain boundary determination, and assessment of Proposed Actions within floodplains. Per EO 11988, Floodplain Management, and AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, actions are only permitted to take place in these areas should the Proposed Action be analyzed and found to have no major impact or when no practicable alternative exists. The Proposed Action offers the most effective method to limit potential impacts through reduction of surface water flow, maintenance of soils, growth of ground cover and vegetation, and the assessment of programs to occur within the 100-yr floodplain area. Implementation of the INRMP would have long term beneficial impacts to floodplains.

5.4.3.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, current measures to protect floodplains and reduce surface water runoff on Fort Rucker would still be maintained. However, resources may not be managed in the most effective manner, resulting in long term negligible to minor impacts. The No Action Alternative would reduce the planning capabilities of the program, so that the emphasis would be on repairing visible and disruptive damage rather than preventative methods. Consequently, impacts to floodplains would be greater than under the Proposed Action. Negligible to Minor impacts to floodplains would be anticipated through implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Wetlands Resources

5.5.1.1 Proposed Action Long term beneficial impacts to wetlands are anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. Goals of the Fort Rucker INRMP include the protection and maintenance of wetland ecosystems for the purposes of rare species protection, water quality, and wildlife habitat, in addition to the restoration of disturbed wetland ecosystems to their historic conditions to enhance water quality, and biodiversity. Therefore, the Proposed Action would result in long-term benefits to the wetlands of Fort Rucker.

5.5.1.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action alternative, current measures to protect wetlands on Fort Rucker would still be maintained. However, the No Action Alternative would offer limited and less involved protection and maintenance of the wetland ecosystems at Fort Rucker, potentially resulting in reduced species protection, water quality, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in long term




minor impacts to wetlands, as resources may not be managed in the most effective manner.

Biological Resources Potential impacts on biological resources would be considered significant if one or more of the following conditions would result: • Substantial loss or degradation of habitat or ecosystem functions (natural features

and processes) essential to the persistence of native plant and animal populations;

• Substantial loss or degradation of a sensitive habitat, including surface waters and areas that support high concentrations of special status species or migratory birds;

• Disruption of a federally listed species, its normal behavior patterns, or its habitat that substantially impedes the installation’s ability to either avoid jeopardy or conserve and recover the species; or

• Substantial loss of population or habitat for a state-protected species increasing the likelihood of federal listing action to protect the species in the future.

Fish and Wildlife

5.6.1.1 Proposed Action No impacts to fish and wildlife would be anticipated through implementation of the Fort Rucker INRMP. The Proposed Action would provide management of fish and wildlife resources at Fort Rucker on an integrated basis. The INRMP uses an ecosystem management strategy to achieve biological diversity conservation, utilizing the Department of Defense Biodiversity Conservation Toolbox (DoD Natural Resources, 2017). The ecosystem management approach would serve to maintain native populations of fish and wildlife in their characteristic habitats. The following guidelines have been established for managing the ecosystems of Fort Rucker to maximize the benefit to fish and wildlife: • Protection of large, non-fragmented areas of quality habitat are required as

territory for survival and maintenance of viable species populations. • Buffer areas surrounding preserved habitat should be designated if adjacent

activities may result in negative impacts. • Leave standing dead trees (snags) and fallen logs (coarse woody debris), in the

forested and aquatic areas, when they are not safety hazards. Snags and course woody debris serve several important ecological functions. They provide structural habitat characteristics for various fish and wildlife species, are potentially important in long-term nutrient cycling, and help minimize effects of erosion on soil and water resources, buffering water quality.

• If a lake’s fish population reached the point where it could not be controlled using predation, all fish would be removed from the waterbody and the fish population re-established (stocking rate would be 100 largemouth bass and 1,000 bluegill per acre).




Fish and wildlife populations will be monitored through the RTLA, through surveys and research projects. The effects of the proposed ecosystem management on fish and wildlife populations will be determined based upon the results of the surveys. Modifications to the implemented management practices may be proposed at any time as the INRMP is periodically revised.

5.6.1.2 No Action Alternative Current practices established to manage the fish and wildlife on Fort Rucker would still take place under the No Action alternative. However, the fish and wildlife of Fort Rucker may not be managed in the most effective manner without implementing the INRMP. The No Action Alternative would likely produce a lesser degree of ecosystem-wide benefits or actually be detrimental to some fish and wildlife resources. However, the degree of effect would be dependent upon objectives of natural resources management and the alternative programs applied. Game species monitoring and habitat management will ensure game species population sustainment, however failure to implement the INRMP could impact habitat maintenance. Negligible impacts would be anticipated.

Threatened and Endangered Species

5.7.1.1 Proposed Action No impacts to Threatened and Endangered species would be anticipated through implementation of the INRMP. The Proposed Action, implementation of the Fort Rucker INRMP, would provide long-term benefits to the federal and state-listed rare species of Fort Rucker. An objective of the Fort Rucker INRMP is to protect and conserve federally and state-listed rare species while continually achieving the training requirements of the US Army and Aviation Center of Excellence. Identifying the distribution, abundance, and requirements of these species is essential in conservation. The general requirements of the federally and state-listed rare species on Fort Rucker will be determined from field investigations and surveys. Although the management of the natural resources on Fort Rucker is based on an ecosystem approach, management practices and recommendations will be inclusive of the requirements of federally and state-listed rare species.

Heavy disturbance of hardwood cover, intensive site preparation or establishment of plantations would likely eliminate rare species if they occur on the sites. Sites on which rare species occur probably have never experienced fire, and fire would probably be detrimental to these species, as would grazing. Thinning of the overstory would likely have no lasting effect if only small openings were made in the canopy and use of heavy equipment was contained in areas away from the rare plant species. Serious consideration must be given to all these factors when any major ground disturbing activity is planned.

Any management activities that are proposed for conserving rare species will be coordinated with recommendations and advice from the appropriate federal and state environmental agencies, including, but not necessarily limited to the USFWS and the




Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Identification of the general vicinity of federally and state-listed rare species and habitat should be made available through Range Control and the Natural Resource Office personnel to aid in the protection of the species.

5.7.1.2 No Action Alternative Current efforts to protect and enhance populations of federally and state-listed rare species on Fort Rucker would continue under the No Action alternative. Fort Rucker would be required to continue to adhere to the ESA, BGEPA and state regulations regarding rare species. The No Action Alternative would achieve compliance with state and federal laws, but it would not provide as many benefits to known biological resources. Resources required to conduct rare species surveys, research projects, and habitat management would likely be less available under the No Action Alternative. Negligible impacts to Threatened and Endangered species would be anticipated through implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Cultural Resources Proposed Action

The INRMP includes steps to protect cultural resources sites from damage during implementation of this plan. Natural Resource management activities proposed would continue the preservation, protection, avoidance and sometimes data recovery of discovered or known sites. Fort Rucker consults with state and Tribal representatives to identify, protect when feasible, or mitigate negative impacts to cultural resources. All regulatory requirements associated with soil disturbing or other land use activities would be followed, along with the guidelines for soil conservation as outlined in the INRMP. Ground-disturbing natural resources projects in areas with known sites must have site-specific surveys prior to implementation. Processing of projects through the cultural resources manager and NEPA (Chapter 14) are used to ensure protection of cultural resources while implementing the INRMP. The proposed implementation of the INRMP would be beneficial to the protection of cultural resources.

No Action Alternative A number of natural resource management activities have the potential to affect cultural resources (e.g., prescribed burning, timber harvesting, hardwood removal, site preparation and planting, erosion control projects, wildlife food plot establishment and maintenance). However, procedures are outlined within the INRMP and the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) to ensure that National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible or potentially eligible cultural resources are avoided or minimally impacted by these activities. All proposed projects will be reviewed by the Cultural Resource Management Program for potential adverse effects to cultural resources. The Natural Resources project proponent will coordinate with the Cultural Resources Management Program to ensure that activities resulting in ground disturbance are minimized within the boundaries of archaeological sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. The No Action Alternative will not alter current procedures for reviewing natural resource




projects and protecting cultural resources. Therefore, the No Action Alternative will have negligible impacts on cultural resources.

Airspace Management and Safety Proposed Action

Bird and wildlife strikes are an aircraft safety concern due to the potential damage that a strike might have on the aircraft or injury to aircrews. As required by AR 95-2, all personnel performing daily airfield inspections or checks shall inspect for obstacles, including birds and animals, and, therefore, must be trained in bird/wildlife watch conditions, attractants, and control measures (U.S. Army 2008), as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports (FAA 2007). 5.9.2 No Action Alternative

Minor, adverse effects would be expected. By failing to implement an effective WASH program wildlife strikes at Fort Rucker would be expected to continue.

Air Quality

Proposed Action Fort Rucker is in Dale and Coffee County Alabama. The Proposed Action wi l l be conducted in an area designated as at ta inment for a l l cr i ter ia pol lutants as character ized by the USEPA.

No Action Alternative Minor, adverse effects would be expected. The primary concern regarding air quality and potential environmental effects pertains to increases in pollutant emissions; exceedance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or other federal, state, or local limits; and impacts on existing air permits. Examples of natural resources management activities that could result in potential adverse changes in air quality conditions include changes in equipment, increased usage of equipment for management purposes, and smoke from prescribed fire.

Noise Proposed Action

This INRMP does not propose management actions that have the potential to affect the ambient noise environment on Fort Rucker.

No Action Alternative No effects would be expected. The primary concern regarding noise and potential environmental effects pertains to increases in sound levels, exceedances of acceptable land use compatibility guidelines, and changes in public acceptance (i.e., noise complaints). Current natural resources management actions do not involve activities that would affect noise conditions. Existing noise levels would not change. Therefore, there would be no effects regarding noise levels or sound quality as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative.




Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Proposed Action

There would be no change in the number of personnel as result of the implementation of this INRMP; therefore, there would be no changes in area population or associated changes in demand for housing and services.

No Action Alternative No effects would be expected. Under the No Action Alternative, typical changes in population, housing, and economic conditions would continue. The no Action Alternative does not involve activities that change existing socioeconomic resources. The primary concern regarding environmental justice and potential environmental effects pertains to disproportionately high and adverse consequences to minority or low-income communities. The No Action Alternative in itself does not create any advantage or disadvantage for any group or individual, and is not expected to create disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations or communities at or surrounding the installation. The installation would address, however, any project-specific issues regarding disproportionate adverse health or environmental effects on minority or low-income groups, should they arise, and would use best environmental management practices to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, there would be no effects as a result of implementation of the No Action Alternative.

Utilities Proposed Action

Implementation of this INRMP would not have any effect on local utility operations.

No Action Alternative No effect would be expected

Transportation and Traffic Proposed Action

Implementation of this INRMP would not have any effect on local utility operations.

No Action Alternative No effect would be expected

Hazardous and Toxic Materials Waste (HTMW) Proposed Action

Continued operation of RCRA procedures will be conducted during the entire course of the implementation of this INRMP. Negligible effect would be expected.

No Action Alternative No effects would be expected. Hazardous and toxic materials would continue to be handled in accordance with Federal laws and ARs, including RCRA, FIFRA, and the




Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Therefore, no adverse effects regarding the generation of hazardous and toxic materials would be expected under the No Action Alternative

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are defined as the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. The Proposed Action Alternative to implement the INRMP would have beneficial cumulative impacts on the management and sustainability of natural resources on Fort Rucker. Long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts on Fort Rucker’s resources would include re-vegetation efforts, increased biodiversity, implementation of erosion and sedimentation control measures, reduction of invasive and exotic plant species, rehabilitation of eroded landscapes, improved protection of wildlife habitats, and an overall increased knowledge of Fort Rucker’s natural resources.

Table 5-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative Land Use No Impacts Minor Soils Long Term Beneficial Minor Surface Water Long Term Beneficial Minor Wetlands Long Term Beneficial Minor Floodplains Long Term Beneficial Negligible to Minor Groundwater No Impacts Negligible Fish and Wildlife No Impacts Negligible Threatened and Endangered Species No Impacts Negligible

Cultural Resources Long Term Beneficial Negligible Airspace Management & Safety Long Term Beneficial Minor

Air Quality No Impacts Minor Noise No Impacts Negligible Socioeconomic & Environmental Justice No Impacts No Impacts

Utilities No Impacts No Impacts Transportation and Traffic No Impacts No Impacts Hazardous & Toxic Materials Waste Negligible No Impacts








6.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker should implement the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan at Fort Rucker, Alabama for the period 2017-2021 to manage natural resources, support the military mission, mitigate environmental effects of the overall military mission, and comply with various environmental laws. Full implementation of the plan will also ensure the continued use of Fort Rucker’s natural resources for military training and outdoor recreational uses. Implementing the Fort Rucker INRMP would result in no detrimental impacts to environmental systems. Minor adverse impacts on wildlife habitat will be mitigated by full implementation of restorative and proactive wildlife management provisions in the INRMP. There would be beneficial consequences to this plan, such as reducing negative impacts to soil, water, and biological resources, thereby avoiding violations of federal and state laws, including the Sikes Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and NEPA. Full implementation would allow the Army to manage its natural resources at Fort Rucker in a proactive manner to meet current and future conservation needs. Implementing the plan would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. Based on this EA and pursuant to NEPA, CEQ, and Army NEPA regulations, neither the Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) or No Action Alternative would generate significant controversy or have a significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment. As such, a “Finding of No Significant Impact” is warranted for this Proposed Action and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.




7.0 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Contact - United States Fish and Wildlife, Daphne Field Office, Daphne, Alabama








8.0 REFERENCES The INRMP contains 50 references. References below were specifically cited in this Environmental Assessment. 1204th EC 1995 1204th Engineer Company (Topo). 1995. Fort Rucker Special

Overprint (Map). Alabama Army National Guard, Dothan AL.

ADEM 2013 ADEM Administrative Code 335-8, Coastal Area Management Program

ADEM 2015 ADEM Administrative Code r. 335-6-11, Water Use Classifications For Interstate and Intrastate Waters

ADEM 2016 ADEM Administrative Code 220-2-.92, Protected Nongame Species

AFC 2007 Alabama Forestry Commission. 2007. Alabama's Best Management Practices for Forestry. 30 pp.

ALNHP 2011 The Alabama Natural Heritage Program, State Status Protected Species. http://alnhp.org/state_status.php, Accessed January 28, 2017

American Water 2012

American Water Military Service, 2012. Annual Water Quality Report. Fort Rucker, Alabama. PWS ID: AL0001489.

Atwood et al. 1994

Atwood, N.K., S.G. George, and A.C. Miller. 1994. A Survey for Endangered Macroinvertebrates at Fort Rucker, Alabama. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.

Brockington and Associates 1995

Cultural Resources Survey of Selected Training Areas on Fort Rucker, Coffee and Dale Counties, Alabama. Contract No. DACWO 1-94-C-OO 10, Fort Rucker, AL.

CFR 2012 National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation’s, 40 CFR § 143

CFR 2011a Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR § Parts 1500-1508

CFR 2011b Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR § 651, (Army Regulation 200-2)

Department of the Army 2007

Environmental Protection and Enhancement, 2007. Army Regulation 200-1, Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Ditchkoff 2011 Ditchkoff, S. S., 2011. Anatomy and physiology. Pages 43-73 in D. G. Hewitt (ed.). Biology and management of white-tailed deer. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.

http://alnhp.org/state_status.php%20Accessed%20January%2029




Ditchkoff & McGowan, 2014

Ditchkoff & McGowan, 2014. Factors Influencing Deer Density at Fort Rucker: An Adaptive Management Approach.

DoDM 2013 Department of Defense Manual, 2013. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) Implementation Manual 4715.03

Dothan Progress Ltd, 1995

Dothan Progress Ltd. 1995. Fort Rucker Unofficial Installation Guide and Telephone Directory. Fort Rucker, AL. 48 pp + advertising and phone number pages.

DPTMS 1994 Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization, and Security (DPTMSEC). 1994. Planimetric Analysis of Fort Rucker's Training Areas and Other Training Land Features. Fort Rucker, AL.

ENRD DPW 2016

Environmental & Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Directorate of Public Work (DPW), 2016b. Sustainable Fort Rucker. Energy. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=66. Accessed June 21, 2016.

EO 11990 Executive Order No., 11990. Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, May 24, 1977

EO 11988 Executive Order No., 11988. Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, May 24, 1977

Harvey and Others 1996

Harvey, B.G., T. McMakin, and E.C. Poplin. 1996. Historic Preservation Plan. Final Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District and U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, Contract Number DACWOl -94-D-0010, by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, GA.

HBA 1991 Higginbotham/Briggs and Associates. 1991. Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (ICUZ). Contract No. DACA41-88-D-0046. Fort Rucker, AL.

McGee, 1987 McGee, V.L. 1987. The Origins of Fort Rucker. Dale County Historical Society, Ozark AL. 197 pp.

Metcalf and Eddy 1992

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1992. RCRA Facility Investigation Final Report, Volume 1. Fort Rucker, AL.

Mount and Bailey 2003

Mount, R.H. & Bailey, M.A., 2003. Planning Level Survey for Threatened and Endangered Species, Fort Rucker, Alabama. April.

Mount and Diamond 1992

Mount, R.H. and A. Diamond. 1992. Fauna and Flora of Fort Rucker, Alabama. Contract No. DABTO I O I -C-0162. Fort Rucker, AL. 210 pp + appendices.

Newton 1968 Newton J.G. 1968. Geological Map of Dale County Alabama. Alabama Geological Survey Special Map 63.

https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=66




Office of President 1994

Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Practices on Federal Landscaped Grounds. Memorandum to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, April 26, 1994. The White House, Washington, D.C. 3 pp.

Osborne 1989 Osborne W.0., M.W. Szabo, C.W. Copeland Jr., and T.L. Neathery. 1989. Geological Map of Alabama. Special Map 22. Alabama Geological Survey.

Roberts 1996

Roberts, D.C. 1996.A Field Guide to Geology, Eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 402 pp.

Rust 1996 Rust Environmental and Infrastructure. 1996. Installation Master Plan and of the US. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Contract No. DACAO l-90-C-01 71, Fort Rucker, Al

Sapp and Emplaincourt, 1985

Sapp, C. Daniel, and Jacques Emplaincourt Physiographic Regions of Alabama, 1975. Map 168. Geological Survey of Alabama, University.

Scott, et al. 1984

Scott, John C., Law, Linda R., and Cobb, Riley H., 1984. Hydrology of the Tertiary-Cretaceous Aquifer System in the Vicinity of Fort Rucker Aviation Center, Alabama. U.S, Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4118.

Stout and Marion 1993

Stout, I.J. and W.R. Marion. 1993. Pine Fla/Woods and Xeric Pine Forests of the Southern (lower) Coastal Plain. In Martin, W.H., S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. pp 373-446.

SWS 1984 Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc. 1984. A Cultural Resource Survey of Fort Rucker, Alabama. Contract No. CX 5000-3-0332. Fort Rucker, AL. 209 pp.

The Keystone Center 1996

The Keystone Center, 1996. A Department of Defense (DoD) Biodiversity Management Strategy. Keystone Center Policy Dialogue on Department of Defense (DoD) Biodiversity, Final Report. Keystone, co. 37 pp.

Turner et al. 1965

Turner J.D. J.C. Scott, and J.H. Newton. 1965 Geological Map of Coffee County Alabama. Alabama Geological Survey Special Map 35.

USAACE 2017 US Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Tenant Units http://www.rucker.army.mil/tenants/ Accessed January 30, 2017.

USAEC 1997 U.S. Army Environmental Center. 1997. Guidelines to Prepare Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans for Army

http://www.rucker.army.mil/tenants/




Installations and Activities. U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 43pp.

USAEC 2007 Army NEPA Analysis Guidance Manual, U.S. Army Environmental Command, May 2007

USC 1997 Sikes Act Improvement Act, 16 United States Code 670, et seq.

USC 2004 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 United States Code 703 - 712

USC 1940 Bald and golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 United States Code 668DD

USC 2016 Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1536 (Interagency Cooperation [ESA Section 7])

USC 2011 Permits for Dredged or Fil Materials, 33 United States Code 1344

USDA 1960 United States Department of Agriculture, 1960. Soil Survey of Dale County, Alabama. Series 1956, No. 13.

USFWS 2011a US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological Service Field Office, Alabama Federally Listed Species for Coffee county, Alabama. https://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.html#Coffee Accessed January 29, 2017.

USFWS 2011b US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological Service Field Office, Alabama Federally Listed Species for Dale county, Alabama. https://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.html#Dale Accessed January 29, 2017.

USGS 2015 United States Geological Society, 2017. National Water Information System. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=02361000 Accessed January 29, 2017.

USGS 2017 United States Geological Society, Water Resource Links for HUC 03140201 – Upper Choctawhatchee Drainage Basin, https://water.usgs.gov/wsc/cat/03140201.html Accessed January 29, 2017.

Ware et al. 1993 Ware, S.C. Frost, and P.O. Doerr. 1993. Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: The Former Longleaf Pine Forest. In Martin, W.H., S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. pp. 447-49

https://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.html#Coffee

https://www.fws.gov/daphne/es/specieslst.html#Dale

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=02361000

https://water.usgs.gov/wsc/cat/03140201.html


FIGURES




APPENDIX A Finding of No Significant Impact



DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN (INRMP)

AT FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA

1. INTRODUCTION

An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to identify and evaluate potential environmental effects of the implementation of an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan at Fort Rucker for the period 2017-2021 to manage natural resources, support the military mission, provide outdoor recreation opportunities, provide timber products, and comply with various environmental laws.

Implementation will be ongoing operations over the five-year period using both in-house and external personnel. The primary focus of the program will be to survey and monitor natural resources and implement programs to conserve and manage them in a proactive manner, avoiding conflicts with environmental laws and regulations. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, and the Army NEPA Regulation at 32 CFR Part 651 (Environmental Analysis of Army Actions).

2. PURPOSE AND NEED

The INRMP identifies goals, objectives, and strategies for the management of Fort Rucker’s natural resources. Management practices and projects have been identified to support the strategies and accomplish the goals and objectives of this INRMP. The program serves to integrate Fort Rucker’s natural resources management in a manner that is consistent with maintaining high quality training land to support Fort Rucker’s critical military mission.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Proposed Action: Fort Rucker proposes to implement an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan at Fort Rucker for the period 2017-2021 to manage natural resources, support the military mission, provide outdoor recreation opportunities, provide timber products, and comply with various environmental laws. Implementation will be ongoing operations over the five-year period using both in-house and external personnel. The primary focus of the program will be to survey and monitor natural resources and implement programs to conserve and manage them in a proactive manner, avoiding conflicts with environmental laws and regulations.

Alternatives Considered and Evaluated: The NEPA, CEQ, and the Army NEPA Regulation require a range of reasonable alternatives to be considered and evaluated. The Army used screening criteria to determine which Alternatives were reasonable. Based on the screening criteria discussed in the EA, two Alternatives were analyzed:

• Proposed Action (Implementation of the INRMP): The INRMP presents information on the management of natural resources on Fort Rucker and defines how land management units will be administered to sustain ecological functions, protect endangered and other nongame species and provide sustained military training.

• No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, Fort Rucker would continue to operate using existing programs and management practices. The No Action Alternative does not address changes in environmental regulation or training land requirements and does not allow Fort Rucker to adjust to the ever-changing regulatory mandates placed on management of natural resources.

4. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The analysis in the EA provides a description of the existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions of the Alternatives being considered, and evaluates any individual or cumulative environmental and socioeconomic changes likely to result from the implementation of the Action Alternatives. Table 1 provides a summation of the anticipated environmental effects of all of the Action Alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative. The EA analysis demonstrates that adherence to applicable Federal and State environmental laws, regulations, and permitting processes that would minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from implementation of any of the Proposed Action Alternatives. As such, potential impact do not constitute any significant adverse impact that would preclude the determination of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for this proposed action. Table 1 : Comparison of the Potential Effects on the Evaluated Alternatives

Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Land Use No Impacts Minor

Soils Long Term Beneficial Minor

Surface Water Long Term Beneficial Minor

Wetlands Long Term Beneficial Minor

Floodplains Long Term Beneficial Negligible to Minor

Groundwater No Impacts Negligible

Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Fish and Wildlife No Impacts Negligible

Threatened and Endangered Species No Impacts Negligible

Cultural Resources Long Term Beneficial Negligible

Airspace Management & Safety Long Term Beneficial Minor

Air Quality No Impacts Minor

Noise No Impacts Negligible

Socioeconomic & Environmental Justice No Impacts No Impacts

Utilities No Impacts No Impacts

Transportation and Traffic No Impacts No Impacts

Hazardous & Toxic Materials Waste Negligible No Impacts

5. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS The EA and a Draft FNSI will be available to the public for a 30-day public comment period from XXXX - XXXX. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Final EA and Draft FNSI will be published in Fort Rucker Army Flier in accordance with the Army NEPA Regulation (32 CFR Part 651.36). The Final EA and Draft FNSI was also available at the following local libraries:

1. Fort Rucker Center Library 2. Daleville Library

In addition, the documents are posted on the Sustainable Fort Rucker Website’s NEPA Program Page at ####. The NOA has also been mailed to all agencies/individuals/organizations on the Fort Rucker NEPA distribution (mailing) list for the Proposed Action. Based on comments received during the public review period, revisions will made before the Final EA is and FNSI are signed. Comments will be addressed and incorporated into the Final EA.

6. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I have considered the results of the analysis in the EA, comments received within the public review period, and Fort Rucker’s needs. Based on these factors, I have decided to implement Proposed Alternative 1(Preferred Alternative) at Fort Rucker by allowing Fort Rucker DPW-

ENRD to implement the INRMP. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will not have a significant impact on the quality of human life or natural environment.

This analysis fulfills the requirements of NEPA, as implemented by the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as well as the requirements of the Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR 651). Therefore, issuance of a FNSI is warranted and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

_______________________ _____________________________ Date BRIAN E. WALSH COL, AV Garrison Commander

Date post:	17-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Assessment for Integrated Natural Resources … Draft... · 2019-09-12 · Trinity...

Documents