SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementResponse: The Proposed Action will not result in a large increase in maneuver activitiesat PCMS. One must keep in mind that the Proposed Action involves the exchangean IBCT currently stationed at Fort Carson with the 2/25 th SBCT. Theoverall increase in maneuver training impacts at PCMS would be muchsmaller than adding a whole new brigade and all of its vehicles. This must beunderstood in conjunction with the assessment of impacts in this EIS. The Regional404 Permit addresses measures to repair damage. It is renegotiatedand renewed every five years. Military training does not violate the terms ofthe Regional Permit. Section 3.6.1 of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site Transformation(USACE 2006d) details procedures and measures the Army takes toadhere to the regional 404 NPDES permits.151. On page 5–19, the DEIS fails to take a hard look at the potential for groundwater contamination.Past studies have found “significant levels of RDX,” which is “known to migrate togroundwater,” from military training at Schofield Barracks and PTA, but the Army has failedto evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination from increased training associatedwith permanent stationing of the 2/25th SBCT. The Army must investigate the potential forall training-related contaminants, not only explosives, to impact groundwater. Moreover,there is no justification for the DEIS to limit its discussion of groundwater to only PTA, asthe 2/25th SBCT would train at ranges on Oahu as well.Response: The statement in Section 5.2.3.3 that “due to the depth of groundwater…andthe relatively low concentrations of explosives residues in soils” has been revisedto include Oahu ranges as well as PTA. The Army has started an assessmentof offsite potential for contaminants at Schofield Barracks and Makuaunder the Operational Range Assessment Program at (ORAP). While stillin the early stages of the assessment, preliminary results show no contaminationof groundwater or surface waters by explosive residues.152. “Regulatory Administrative Mitigation 2” on page 5–174 makes no sense. There are no“standard construction BMPs” or “land management practices” in the preceding discussion of“Impacts from Cantonment Construction.” (See DEIS at 5–173).Response: Section 5.5.2.1.2 has been updated to include the mitigation measures.153. The statement on page 5–176 that the Helemano Trail “would be constructed under the NoAction Alternative” conflicts with the discussion in Chapter 2 identifying the Helemano Trailas “unique to the needs of an SBCT.” (DEIS at page 2–20). Since there would be no SBCT inHawaii under the No Action Alternative, there would be no reason to build the HelemanoTrail.Response: The discussion in Section 5.5.2.1, Impact 6 has been changed to reflect that noconstruction would occur at the Helemano Trail under the No Action Alternative.154. It is unclear why the DEIS’ discussion on page 5–179 of potential impacts on water qualityunder the No Action Alternative includes use of the Dillingham Trail, which the DEIS identifiesas “unique to the needs of an SBCT.” (DEIS at page 2–20; see also id. at 5–180, 5–205).February 2008 D–51 2/25th SBCT Final EIS