SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental ConsequencesTable 5-52Summary of the Environmental Consequences of Alternative DLocationVEC Hawaii Alaska ColoradoSoil Erosion ☼ ☼Water Resources ☼ ☼Wildfire Management ☼ ☼Cultural Resources Land Use and Recreation ☼ ☼ ☼Traffic and Transportation ☼ ☼ Socioeconomics ☼ ☼ ☼Hazardous Materials and 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 ☼ N/A = Significant + = Beneficial Impact = Significant but mitigable to less than significant N/A = Not Applicable= Less than Significant☼= No Impact5.5.2 Geology, Soils, and SeismicityTable 5-53 lists the types of impacts associated with soil erosion impacts that would occur under theNo Action Alternative by activity group. The current baseline of existing conditions would continueunder No Action, and soil erosion related impacts would continue at their current levels. Under theNo Action Alternative, the 2/25 th SBCT would not be stationed at any of the alternative locations andno SBCT-specific impacts to soils would occur. Many of the impacts discussed for Alternative Awould still occur at USAG-HI under this alternative, but at a different magnitude or level ofsignificance. Only the differences relative to Alternative A are discussed here. Projects at eachinstallation that were already planned and unrelated to permanent stationing of the 2/25 th SBCTwould still occur. Impacts are described below for each alternative.February 2008 5-193 2/25th SBCT Final EIS