SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental ConsequencesRegulatory and Administrative Mitigation 2: The primary mitigation in the PA is the avoidance ofsites during range design and layout so impacts would be minimized. All sites identified in thearchaeological inventory surveys prior to UXO clearance efforts have been avoided during rangedesign where feasible and the treatment of those that cannot be avoided is subject to consultation.Areas around known sites would be designated as no-use areas for maneuver training and protectivemeasures will be placed around sites to avoid impacts from firing points so training activities are notlikely to increase impacts to archaeological resources. There would be regular monitoring of knownsites by cultural resource personnel after training activities to ensure that the site protection measuresare working and adjust protection if needed. In accordance with the PA, if sites cannot be avoidedduring range layout and construction, appropriate mitigation measures that may include data recoverywould be implemented after appropriate consultation.5.2.5.4 Impacts from Maneuver TrainingSignificant Impacts Mitigable To Less Than SignificantImpact 3: Impacts to cultural resources. Potential significant impacts from maneuver training wouldbe the most widespread impacts associated with the SBCT. The permanent stationing of the SBCT inHawaii would entail qualitatively different maneuver training over larger areas than earlier IBCTmaneuver training. Current maneuver training areas would be used and additional training areaswould be added on SRAA, KTA, and the Keamuku Parcel. The SBCT would use existing trails morethan the IBCT, but maneuvers would extend over larger training areas. The SBCT has more andheavier vehicles, but is less likely to go cross-country. The SBCT is also more mobile and creates lessground disturbance for bivouacs and fighting positions. The potential for significant impacts tocultural resources from maneuver training is greater with the SBCT because of the more extensivetraining exercises. The nature of the impacts is somewhat different.Cultural resource surveys of SBMR (excluding SRAA) have identified 170 archaeological sites.There are also 47 archaeological sites on affected portions of SRAA. Most of these sites have notbeen evaluated for eligibility. Only 24 archaeological sites have been reported on DMR and theDillingham Trail, again these sites are evaluated as eligible or not yet evaluated for eligibility. Mostof the known archaeological sites at DMR are on densely vegetated steep slopes, and impact to themfrom Stryker training would be limited. To date, 182 archaeological sites have been reported on KTA(103) and KLOA (79). Thirty-eight of those sites are evaluated as eligible, the rest have not yet beenevaluated for eligibility. Many of these archaeological sites may be impacted by road constructionand use of training areas. Surveys of PTA have reported at least 383 archaeological sites, including 96at the Keamuku Parcel. Surveys along proposed trails have identified nine sites along the PTA trail,five along the DMR trail, and none along the HMR trail. Most of these sites have not been evaluatedfor eligibility. Portions of KTA and PTA have not been systematically surveyed for culturalresources; however, these are not areas that will potentially be affected by SBCT projects.Increased and more extensive training activities in these areas could also result in significant impactsto ATIs. Expansion of training exercises to SRAA and the Keamuku Parcel could limit NativeHawaiian access to and use of sites on these parcels for traditional or religious purposes. The Armywill continue to provide Native Hawaiians with access to traditional religious and cultural properties,in accordance with AIRFA and executive Order 13007, on a case-by-case basis. This access programwill be expanded to include new land acquisitions.Regulatory and Administrative Mitigation 3: The primary mitigation in the PA is the avoidance ofsites during range design and layout so construction impacts would be minimized. All sites identifiedin the archaeological inventory surveys prior to UXO clearance efforts have been avoided duringFebruary 2008 5-29 2/25th SBCT Final EIS