SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementResponse: It is important to understand that the stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT involves theexchange of the 4/4 th IBCT, a unit already stationed in Colorado, back to Hawaii.The net change in Soldiers that would be stationed at Fort Carson wouldnot be more than 700 Soldiers as discussed in Section 2.7. The EIS does notconclude that there will be any sewage treatment problems with accommodatingextra Soldiers of the 2/25 th in CO. We thank you for your comment andparticipation in this public process. Your comment has been considered andincluded in the administrative record for this process.D.3.11 SUBSISTENCE216. What are the criteria for subsistence? Why did the Army only consider subsistence applicablein Alaska and not in Hawaii or Colorado?Response: In Alaska, subsistence, which broadly speaking is the taking of fish, wildlife, orother wild resources for the sustenance of families, communities, and cultures,is protected by both federal and state laws and regulations. The Alaska Legislaturepassed Alaska’s first subsistence law in 1978. In 1980, Congressadopted Title VIII the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act(ANILCA). Under state and federal laws, subsistence uses in Alaska (on federal,state, and private lands) are accorded priority over other uses of fish andwildlife, including sport, commercial, and personal use. Subsistence uses inHawaii and Colorado do not have the same legal priority or protection as inAlaska. Consequently, the analysis of subsistence focused on Alaska.217. On page 4–20, the DEIS fails to justify limiting its analysis of subsistence impacts to onlyAlaska. Many individuals and communities in Hawaii depend on subsistence activities (hunting,fishing, gathering limu, harvesting marine and freshwater species, etc.) and such practicesare specifically protected by Hawaii’s constitution. The DEIS must consider impacts onsubsistence in Hawaii, which include, but are not limited to, limitations on access to areas forhunting and gathering and contamination of near-shore and marine resources used for subsistence.Response: As noted in the response to comment 216, federal and state laws specificallyprotect subsistence activities on federal, state, and private lands in Alaska.These laws accord subsistence uses priority over other uses of fish and wildlife,including sport, commercial, and personal use. An analysis of the effectsto subsistence in Alaska is required because of the legal protections. Althoughhunting and harvesting activities occur in Hawaii and Colorado, they are notaccorded similar priority protection by federal or state laws as in Alaska.D.3.12 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY218. The Army has not sufficiently analyzed the effects of increased training activities on soil erosion.Although the DEIS recognizes that increased training activities associated with the2/25th SBCT would result in significant effects to soils, it does not consider the consequencesof those effects on the area. Increased training activities will strip the soil of vegetative coverand permanently destroy soil structure, which will lead to devastating soil erosion and duststorms. The Transformation EIS admits that existing erosion management programs will notbe sufficient to mitigate the adverse effects to soils caused by an increase in training activi-February 2008 D–74 2/25th SBCT Final EIS