SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 4 − Impact Methodology4.2.8 Institutional ProgramsPermanent stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT may affect installation management. Installation programsthat directly affect the environment include range management, environmental management, and realproperty management. Implementation of the following institutional programs at all training areasinclude: ITAM, an INRMP, an ICRMP, a range development plan, institutional controls, IWFMP,and a real property management plan. The Army would continue to fund these programs under anyaction alternative, as funding is available, with the complexity and scope of the program proportionalto the proposed land use.4.2.9 MitigationIn instances where adverse impacts are identified, measures that could be used to mitigate thoseimpacts are discussed. Mitigation is divided into two categories:• Regulatory and administrative mitigation which is required in compliance with federalenvironmental laws and regulations that are SOPs or BMPs, or that are part of an on-goingprogram to minimize impacts through careful project design• Additional mitigation, which is proposed by the Army, other agencies, or the public andwhich may be implemented, depending on funding availability.The Army has listed these additional mitigations to provide the public and regulatory agencies withinformation on all possible mitigations, and to request input on which mitigations the public wouldlike to see implemented. The Army will identify in the Final EIS which of these mitigations are likelyor unlikely to be implemented. The final determination on mitigation commitments will be outlined inthe record of decision.Where no significant adverse impacts are identified, mitigation measures are not proposed.4.3 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY4.3.1 Resource-specific Impact Analysis MethodologyGeologic impacts include all of the effects that result from the interaction between the project and thegeologic environment. For example, project impacts could include changes in soil erosion rates orchanges in the level of exposure of people and structures to earthquakes or unstable slopes.Identifying project impacts relied heavily on the use of available geologic studies, reports,observations, and engineering judgment to make reasonable inferences about the potential effects ofthe project, given the interpretation of the geologic setting described in the Affected Environmentsection. Additionally, some geologic impacts were evaluated in the context relative to regulatoryrequirements or guidelines. Regulatory requirements include state and local building codes, gradingordinances, and restrictions on development in protected areas or in areas subject to specific geologichazards.In order to provide additional information about existing concentrations of chemical constituents insoils, the Army investigated soils at training ranges at SBMR and PTA in 2002, which were evaluatedand compared to USEPA Region IX industrial soil PRGs to identify potential chemicals of concernand to determine if exposure to these chemicals in soils might impact human health. Similarinvestigations were performed at various specific locations on FRA, DTA, Fort Carson, and PCMS.The results of these investigations were summarized in the Affected Environment section and used inFebruary 2008 4–4 2/25th SBCT Final EIS