SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequencesimpacts to energy for Alternative B could be significant; but continued implementation of energyconservation measures would be expected reduce these impacts to less than significant.5.6.2.14 FacilitiesAlternative B would result in less than significant impacts to facilities, including public services,infrastructure, and utilities. Continued impacts to facilities are expected in the areas surroundingUSARAK posts as the result of projected population growth and development. Ongoing USARAKactivities, including training and range construction and expansion, are expected to continue to impactfacilities. A variety of capital improvement projects is planned or currently underway on installationcantonment areas. In addition, future range construction and improvement projects are planned onUSARAK lands. Cumulative impacts to facilities for Alternative B would be less than significant.5.6.2.15 SubsistenceAlternative B is expected to have less than significant impacts to both access for subsistence activitiesand availability of subsistence resources. Much of the proposed activities associated with AlternativeB on FRA would be located within previously disturbed areas. While there may be an increase inaccess closures and some less than significant effects on the availability of subsistence resources forsome areas on both FRA and DTA, an adequate amount of land would still be accessible forsubsistence activities. In addition, impacts to subsistence hunting and fishing at FRA are unlikelybecause this region is federally designated as a non-rural area.However, subsistence resources may be cumulatively affected because of other regional activitiesincluding military activities, resource extraction, and community growth. Subsistence access may alsobe impacted by military activities and area development. Impacts to subsistence in the interior Alaskaregion of interest are expected to be less than significant. Subsistence is curtailed in south-centralAlaska by federal and state regulations, so no significant impacts to subsistence are expected here aswell. Overall, Alternative B would is expected to result on less than significant impacts onsubsistence.5.6.3 Alternative C − Permanently Station the 2/25 th SBCT at Fort Carson WhileConducting Required Military Training at Training Sites in ColoradoThe cumulative impact analysis for Alternative C focuses on impacts on the environment resultingfrom the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable future actions. Past and present actions are accounted for in the description of the affectedenvironment for each resource. Reasonably foreseeable future actions for Colorado vary between theFort Carson area and PCMS. At Fort Carson, about 15 reasonably foreseeable future actions wereidentified. They are:• Various maintenance and capital improvements projects at and near Fort Carson pertaining tohousing, roadways, utilities, and other infrastructure.• Constructing the arrival/departure air control group facility at the Colorado Springs Airport tosupport deployment of Fort Carson troops.• Various capital improvements projects to surrounding municipal and county facilities now beingplanned or constructed.• Improvements to roadway connections directly from I-25 to the Colorado Springs Airport, ascurrently being evaluated in the City’s South Metro Accessibility Study and the SH 16 EA.• Improvements to Powers Boulevard/SH 16 and the I-25 interchange east of the installation.February 2008 5-267 2/25th SBCT Final EIS