SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequencessignificantly change, existing noise levels already present a significant impact. Therefore, noise fromordnance use would remain a significant impact on people residing on or working at SBMR.Airspace. Range construction and live-fire training would not require modifications to existingcontrolled or special use airspace and no new special use airspace would be needed. The 4/25 th IBCTwould add the use of 19 UAVs and increased airborne training and associated C-130 flights requiredto support airborne training drops. This training would affect the restricted airspace associated withthe training ranges and drop zones on both Oahu and Hawaii Islands. The new drop zone on theKeamuku Parcel and the existing Lightening Drop Zone on SBMR would also be used morefrequently for airborne training. Modifications of current airspace uses would be likely, but theimpacts are expected to be mitigable to less than significant.Energy Demand and Generation. Construction at SBMR and PTA could result in infrequent serviceinterruptions in order to connect new lines and extend service. This less than significant impact wouldbe temporary, and the length of disruptions would be minimized to the greatest extent possible duringthis period. Service would be returned to normal after construction. No impacts to energy use or costswould be associated with live-fire or maneuver training.Facilities. Although an IBCT would possess 530 more Soldiers and their Families than the 2/25 th ID(Light), it is still 562 fewer than the 2/25 th SBCT currently stationed at SBMR. The facilities atSBMR would be adequate to support the 4/25 th IBCT. Impacts to facilities, public services,infrastructure, and utilities are expected to be less than significant.5.4 ALTERNATIVE C − PERMANENTLY STATION THE 2/25TH SBCTAT FORT CARSON WHILE CONDUCTING REQUIRED TRAININGAT MILITARY TRAINING SITES IN COLORADO5.4.1 Summary of the Environmental Consequences of Alternative CTable 5-36 presents the potential impacts of implementing Alternative C as it is described in Chapter2. For each VEC, impacts from four activity groups were analyzed: Cantonment Construction, RangeConstruction, Live-Fire Training, and Maneuver Training. Impacts from the four activity groups aresummarized by a single impact rating for each area affected by the alternative. Details of each activitygroup’s impacts are presented below in the resource sections.The primary activity group responsible for immitigable soil erosion is maneuver training. Soils atFTC and PCMS are generally prone to erosion, a condition worsened by the dry, windy climate. Moreextensive maneuver training into areas not currently used for maneuver would expose stable,vegetated soils to vehicle and foot traffic. This would cause loss of vegetation, soil compaction, andalterations to drainage patterns that would increase soil erosion from both wind and water. BMPs andmitigation measures would minimize soil loss, but not to a less than significant level.Increases in live-fire and maneuver training would increase the potential a wildfire. This could resultin an irretrievable loss of individuals of sensitive species or known or unknown cultural resources.The Army has made a conservative determination that, although the mitigation will considerablyreduce wildfire risk, the impacts may not be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementing firemanagement plans such as the Prescribed Burn Plan and other fuel management projects willsubstantially reduce the impact, but not to less than significant.February 2008 5-130 2/25th SBCT Final EIS