SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementmet before an expansion decision may be made. PCMS has supported the useof tracked and wheeled vehicles for 22 years now, in accordance with theArmy’s land management programs. Fort Carson has directed considerableresources toward the restoration of PCMS and takes great pride in its abilityto sustain and preserve the environment while its Soldiers conduct militarytraining. While the Stryker is heavier than the IBCT’s light and medium trucksit would be replacing, Fort Carson would use existing institutional land managementprograms to manage the training impacts appropriately to minimizelong-term effects if it were selected for SBCT stationing.23. The DEIS fails to take a “hard look” at potential environmental, archaeological, historical,and socioeconomic impacts to PCMS. Impacts are stated as obvious generalities without anyattempt at quantification or discussion or are stated in a manner intended to mislead the publicinto believing they are insignificant. The DEIS contains no detailed information about thefrequency of training exercises at PCMS associated with the 2/25 th SBCT, the duration ofproposed training exercises, the weapons and equipment to be employed in training exercises,or the numbers of troops that will train at one time. The DEIS does not disclose or make useof the best available scientific information to analyze impacts. There is no disclosure of anymonitoring data, research, or analysis in the DEIS. The DEIS does not evaluate the efficacyof the proposed mitigation measures.Response: The purpose of this EIS is to present a comparative analysis of the ProposedAction and alternatives. It therefore includes the level of detail that is necessaryto perform that analysis and to inform the decision maker of the environmentaltrade-offs among alternatives. Section 2.7 describes the training thatwould occur at PCMS and Section 5.4 includes a detailed look at PCMS impacts.Chapter 5 and Chapter 8 provide references to the basis for the analysis.Chapter 5 also discusses specific mitigation measures.Impacts were stated in terms that are more general at Colorado training locationsbecause the Army has no monitoring data on impacts of Stryker at FortCarson or PCMS. The Army must therefore estimate the projected impacts atFort Carson and PCMS from other SBCT training sites. Mitigation measuresimplemented by the ITAM Program and by Environmental Division resourcemanagement personnel have been largely successful to this point in time. FortCarson and PCMS would receive more funding for institutional programs becauseof the increased MIMs of the SBCT. Given the success of its institutionalprograms in the past, the Army concludes that it could manage the impacts ofthe SBCT at Fort Carson and PCMS.24. The DEIS fails to acknowledge that PCMS does not have the capacity to support the trainingof the 2/25 th SBCT. Before November 2005, the Army issued reports that concluded thatPCMS lacks sufficient capacity to train the number of troops currently stationed at Fort Carson.Response: According to Army training doctrine, there is a shortfall of training land atPCMS. The exact extent of this shortfall with an SBCT replacing the IBCT currentlystationed at Fort Carson is shown in Table 2–10. It is important to notethat under Alternative C of this EIS, the SBCT would replace an IBCT, and thenet number of Brigades at Fort Carson would not change. The stationing ofthe 2/25 th SBCT at Fort Carson would involve a slight increase in the overallFebruary 2008 D–10 2/25th SBCT Final EIS