SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementment and participation in this public process. Your comment has been consideredand included in the administrative record for this process.90. The DEIS should disclose the gas mileage expected for the Strykers. I think the Strykerswould burn more gas in Colorado because of the altitude. Also, how much fuel per mile doesit take to transport a Stryker?Response: The Stryker has a 60-gallon fuel tank, and an average range of 300 miles,yielding an average of 5 miles per gallon. Fuel use will vary depending on thespecific variant of Stryker vehicle, terrain, and driving conditions. Fuel use totransport Stryker vehicles is highly variable, and depends on mode (air, sea,rail, or road) and what other equipment is being transported as well. It shouldbe noted that the Stryker vehicle is not the only type of vehicle in the brigade.Approximately 600 other vehicles are part of the brigade, and also have to betransported for training and deployment. We thank you for your comment andparticipation in this public process. Your comment has been considered andincluded in the administrative record for this process.91. The SBCT will pollute Hawaii’s air, water, soil, and ocean.Response: Part of the purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement is to determinethese impacts and ensure they are adequately assessed. We thank you for yourcomment and participation in this public process. Your comment has beenconsidered and included in the administrative record for this process.92. If the Army decides to base the 2/25 th SBCT in Hawaii, how will it deal with the significanteffects to soil erosion, wildfires, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, andincreased noise?Response: Section 5.2 of Chapter 5 in the FEIS identifies the levels of effects that are expectedto occur from permanently stationing the 2/25 th SBCT in Hawaii andmitigation measures that the Army has identified as appropriate for those levelsof effects. Please refer to Section 5.2 to review the effects and mitigationmeasures.93. The summary table on page 5–1 should use data on cumulative effects instead of data on directand indirect effects. The summary tables on pages 5–1 and xxi of the Executive Summaryappear identical. However, the cumulative effects summary table on page xxii of theExecutive Summary was not used. Impacts of the no action alternative should be shown separatelyfor each location, not combined.Response: The summary table on page 5–1 is intended to show only the direct and indirectimpacts of the Proposed Action. The impacts shown in the cumulative effectsanalysis considers the impacts from the Proposed Action as an additive,or cumulative, contributor of impacts. Section 5.5 contains the detailed analysisof the No Action Alternative at each of the alternate stationing locations.Section 5.6 contains appropriate analysis of cumulative impacts.94. On page 5–2, the DEIS states that the overall impact that would result from each alterativewould be similar. However, other statements and figures throughout the DEIS seem to contradictthis statement. Please reexamine this inconsistency.February 2008 D–29 2/25th SBCT Final EIS