SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementsurface water and groundwater by explosive residues Please refer to Section3.1.2.1 to review the revised text. The Army has conducted a follow-on study atMMR and did not detect a pattern of bioaccumulation in fish and limu (seaweed)collected from nearby ocean waters. Based on the longer pathways associatedwith other Army installations analyzed in this EIS, it is highly unlikelythat bioaccumulation in near-shore biota is a threat to human health. TheDraft Marine Resources Study report is available for review at http://www.makuaeis.com/.183. On page 5–200, the DEIS fails to consider potential human health impacts associated withcontaminants transported by surface or groundwater accumulating in plants or animals thatpeople consume (such as limu. shellfish, and fish). As discussed above with respect to AlternativeA, the Army must evaluate the potential for contaminants associated with the No ActionAlternative to harm human health.Response: Section 5.5.3.1.3 of this EIS and Section 4.8.3 of the 2004 FEIS discuss the potentialimpacts from munitions and other contaminants for the No Action Alternative.The Army has started a field assessment of offsite potential for contaminantsat SBMR and MMR under the Operational Range Assessment Program(ORAP). While still in the early stages of the assessment, preliminary resultsshow no contamination of surface water and groundwater by explosiveresidues Please refer to Section 3.1.2.1 to review the revised text. The Armyhas conducted a follow-on study at MMR and did not detect a pattern of bioaccumulationin fish and limu (seaweed) collected from nearby ocean waters.Based on the longer pathways associated with other Army installations analyzedin this EIS, it is highly unlikely that bioaccumulation in near-shore biotais a threat to human health.184. On page 5–233, the DEIS acknowledges that, “[u]nder Alternative A, cumulative impacts associatedwith hazardous materials and wastes could be significant,” but fails to disclose thatconclusion on Table 5–68, giving a misleading assessment of the impacts of permanently stationingthe 2/25th SBCT in Hawaii.Response: Table 5–68 has been revised.185. Page 5–13 indicates that exposure to chemical contaminants in soils at the maneuver trainingarea could occur through several pathways, such as through inhalation of windblown dust.The discussion then turns to the existing concentrations of various chemical contaminants inthe soils at training sites and concludes with a statement that no public contact with thesesoils would occur. On what scientific or analytical data is this conclusion based?Response: See revised discussion in Section 5.2.2.4. It is based on the assumption that thehighest concentration of windblown dust would be close to the source (i.e., themaneuver areas) that is off-limits to the general public. The farther away fromthe source, the more dilution occurs. The Army is also implementing a Dustand Soils Mitigation Monitoring Plan (DuSMMoP) for inhalable PM 10 emissions(see Section 5.2.11 Air Quality) and will also implement fugitive dustcontrol through engineering or operational/administrative controls.186. Page 3–16, which is describing the existing environment at Ranges 5, 9, 10, and 11, statesthat “the combined non-cancer occupational health risk associated with exposure to the ob-February 2008 D–63 2/25th SBCT Final EIS