SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental ConsequencesThe composite impact incorporates the direct and indirect impacts from four activity groups that wereanalyzed (Cantonment Construction, Range Construction, Live-Fire Training, and ManeuverTraining) occurring in all specific areas that would be affected in Hawaii, Alaska, and Colorado. Tosummarize these impacts comparatively, the highest impact level to each VEC that would be realizedfrom any of the four activity groups in any of the impacted areas is used as the single impact ratingfor each alternative.Likewise, for the No Action alternative (Alternative D), the composite impact rating incorporates theimpacts that would occur in all three locations (Hawaii, Alaska, Colorado) under the No Actionalternative. Details of each alternative’s impacts resulting from the four activity groups and thevarious impacted areas are presented in the sections below.Table 5-1 displays the summary of impacts for each alternative. Many of the direct and indirectimpacts to the VECs are less than significant; however, significant impacts would occur with eachaction alternative. For all action alternatives, potential effects from wildfires and impacts to culturalresources would be significant despite implementation of mitigation measures. The presence ofthreatened and endangered species in Hawaii create the possibility for significant impacts to thoselisted species. Alternative A would exacerbate existing problematic noise levels at SchofieldBarracks, prolonging a significant noise impact. Soil erosion impacts from maneuver training and theresulting air quality impacts from wind-blown dust are expected to be significant in Hawaii andColorado. Expansion of maneuver training areas on PTA and the Keamuku Parcel would increasedust emissions from wind erosion, an impact to air quality that is difficult to estimate, but isconservatively determined to be significant. Likewise, increased dust emissions at Fort Carson areexpected to be significant. All other impacts to the VECs are expected to be either significant butmitigable to less than significant, less than significant, or would result in no impacts.Under Alternatives B and C, an IBCT would be exchanged with the 2/25 th SBCT and permanentlystationed at Schofield Barracks Military Reservation. Impacts of relocating an IBCT to Hawaii arepresented in Table 5-1 as a component of those two alternatives. Stationing a second modular IBCT(the first being the 3/25 th IBCT currently stationed at SBMR) in Hawaii would result in an increase inintensity of impacts related to construction and training activities. The primary difference betweenAlternatives B and C as they pertain to Hawaii is that the 4/25 th IBCT from Fort Richardson is anairborne unit. This unit would require the same construction projects as the IBCT exchanging toHawaii from Fort Carson, but would also require airborne facilities to accommodate the airbornetraining requirements of that unit.Generally, the broad comparison of alternatives as exhibited in Table 5-1 shows that there arevariations in the levels of impact that would be expected to each VEC by implementing eachalternative. Alternative B has the fewest VECs with significant impacts while Alternative A has themost. Each alternative has a similar number of VECs with impacts in the significant but mitigable toless than significant, less than significant, and no impact categories. However, this does not take intoaccount the relative differences among VECs or the areas where the impacts would occur.February 2008 5-2 2/25th SBCT Final EIS