SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementResponse: The discussion referenced in this comment has been updated to reflect the currentstatus of the development of TMDL for the Kaukonahua Stream. Pleaserefer to Section 3.1.2.1 to review the revised discussion.159. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 2002 surface soil investigation of Schofield Barracks andPTA analyzed water samples of only standing water from a single location at Schofield Barracks.No effort apparently was made to determine the potential for any contaminants to betransported beyond the boundaries of Schofield Barracks or PTA, including a total lack ofsampling any of the streams that drain Army lands. Had the Army undertaken such an effort,it likely would have found dozens of chemicals in surface water flowing beyond installationboundaries, as it did at Makua Military Reservation. The Army did not assess potential impactsto humans or non-human ecological receptors from direct contact with these militaryrelatedcontaminants.Response: The Army looks at offsite potential for contamination under the OperationalRange Assessment Program (ORAP). While still in the early stages of the assessment,preliminary results show no contamination of groundwater or surfacewaters by explosive residues. Please see Section 5.2.3.3 of the EIS.D.3.5 AIR QUALITY160. We agree with regulatory and administrative mitigations to address fugitive dust. However,these mitigations do not address the real-time response to dust control. How will dust be controlledin real-time?Response: As discussed in Section 5.2.11.2, dust control in Hawaii will be through applicationof dust control chemicals (palliatives), and operational controls thatwould be enacted in conjunction with Army military activities. If excessive dustoccurs, the Army will undertake measures to control the dust, such as applyingwater during construction activities and shifting or rescheduling militarytraining activities.161. The DEIS does not provide a full analysis of effects to air quality that will result from trainingactivities at PCMS. The Transformation EIS discloses the results of modeling and identifiesspecific effects that are not in the SBCT DEIS. Because the DEIS does not provideenough information for decision makers and the public to adequately analyze the impacts, itis inadequate.Response: Impacts described and contained in the 2007 Transformation FEIS for thePCMS have provided a basis for the assessment of impacts to resources inColorado in this EIS. The types of impacts analyzed in that EIS are the sametype of air quality impact, though to a slightly lesser degree, that would be anticipatedfrom implementing the Proposed Action in Colorado. The informationprovided in this EIS is adequate for the Army decision makers to decideon the permanent home station of the 2/25 th . If Colorado is selected for thepermanent stationing of the SBCT by Army decision-makers upon reviewingthe information contained within this EIS, a site-specific NEPA documenttiered to this EIS will be prepared.162. The DEIS’ claim on pages 5–53 and 5–54 that air impacts due to military vehicle use at PTAand the WPAA would generate only 211 additional tons of PM10 emissions — and, thus,February 2008 D–53 2/25th SBCT Final EIS