SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementamount of required maneuver training that is scheduled to take place at FortCarson and PCMS following the implementation of BRAC legislation andGDPR.. While this shortfall poses some training risk, this slight increase canbe managed as discussed in Sections 2.7 and 5.4.6. Locations with manageableshortfall of maneuver land and acceptable risk are presented in Section2.4.25. The DEIS does not adequately evaluate the effects of stationing the 2/25 th SBCT at FortRichardson or Fort Carson. Should the SBCT be stationed in Alaska, an UAC, an MPMG,larger barracks, additional administrative office buildings, and nearly 30,000 square yards ofvehicle parking space would have to be constructed at Fort Richardson. Similar constructionwould be needed at Fort Carson. The DEIS does not include any description of how andwhere these SBCT-related projects would be constructed and does not analyze the effects ofthese activities. Instead, it merely states that if Fort Richardson or Fort Carson is selected, additionalsite-specific NEPA analysis would be prepared. Site-specific effects must be evaluatedand disclosed in this EIS, not future NEPA documents.Response: More detail has been added to the sections discussing stationing of the SBCTin Alaska and Colorado.26. The Army must address inconsistencies and conflicts between this DEIS and other NEPAdocuments it has released. The assessment of effects for some resources in Hawaii, such asland use/recreation has changed since the 2004 Transformation FEIS to be less than significantinstead of significant. Similarly, the No Action Alternative in the 2004 FEIS wouldcause significant effects to noise and wildfire management. However, the No Action Alternativein this DEIS would have higher effects to cultural resources, land use/recreation, and airspaceand effects to noise and wildfire management would no longer be significant. TheGrowth DPEIS identifies only one significant impact (air quality) associated with stationingan SBCT in Colorado, but this DEIS claims stationing an SBCT in Colorado would result insignificant effects to soil erosion, wildlife management, cultural resources, and threatenedand endangered species.Response: The Army has remained consistent in its analysis presented in this EIS and theProgrammatic EIS for Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment (2007).It must first be recognized that the two analyses do not evaluate the same actions.This EIS evaluates the impacts that would result when an IBCT is exchangedfor the 2/25 th SBCT. Analysis in the PEIS evaluated the impacts thatwould be associated with the stationing of a whole new SBCT. Secondly, thestatement that the analysis of the PEIS for Army growth only identified onesignificant impact in Colorado associated with the stationing of the SBCT, thisis not accurate. In fact, the EIS for Army growth found that there would besignificant impacts to soils, biological resources, air quality, socio-economics,and traffic. Additional significant impacts were cited at the Pinon Canyon ManeuverSite. This assessment and the PEIS are, in fact, consistent.The Army feels that analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the FEIS adequatelyportrays the impacts. Section 5.2.6 presents impacts for land use and recreationassociated with the stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT in Hawaii. No residentialareas, schools, hospitals, or businesses would be significantly impacted bythe implementation of the Proposed Action in Hawaii. Impacts from constructionand range use would be localized to the vicinity around the ranges. In ad-February 2008 D–11 2/25th SBCT Final EIS