SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

CHAPTER 5ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESThis chapter describes both direct and indirect impacts, as well as cumulative impacts, that wouldresult from the permanent stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT at the various alternative locations describedin Chapter 2. This chapter is organized by alternative to describe the impacts that would occur inHawaii (Alternative A), Alaska (Alternative B), and Colorado (Alternative C). In addition, impactsthat would result from the No Action alternative (Alternative D) are also identified to provide acomparative basis for the three action alternatives. The cumulative impacts of each alternative arepresented at the end of the chapter.5.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVETable 5-1 below provides a comparative summary of the potential direct and indirect impacts ofimplementing each alternative for the permanent stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT. The table exhibits thecomposite impact for each VEC resulting from implementation of each alternative.Table 5-1Summary of Impacts by AlternativeVECA -HawaiiImpacts inAlaskaB - AlaskaAlternativeC - ColoradoImpacts inColoradoImpacts inHawaiiImpactsin HawaiiD - NoActionSoil Erosion Water Resources ☼ ☼ Wildfire Management Cultural Resources Land Use and Recreation ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Traffic and Transportation ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ Socioeconomics ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Hazardous Materials/ Hazardous Waste ☼ ☼ ☼Wetlands ☼Vegetation ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Noxious Weeds ☼ ☼ Threatened and Endangered Species ☼ Wildlife and Habitats ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Air Quality ☼ ☼Noise ☼ ☼ Airspace ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Energy Demand and Generation ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Facilities ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼ ☼Subsistence N/A ☼ NA N/A NA ☼ = Significant + = Beneficial Impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant N/A = Not Applicable☼ = Less than Significant = No ImpactFebruary 2008 5-1 2/25th SBCT Final EIS