SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and Alternativesat PTA would generally be conducted by larger units i.e. the battalion or brigade level.. The total increasein frequency of maneuver area training resulting from the stationing of the modular 4/4 th incomparison to the 2/25 th ID (L) would represent a less than 10 percent increase for all USAG-HItraining areas.The number of MIMs required to support the 4/4 th in comparison to what was required to support the2/25 th ID (L) would increase under this Alternative from 39,320 MIMs to 49,576 MIMs. Given theexisting shortfall of maneuver acreage being experienced in Hawaii, the 4/4 th would need to utilizeSRAA and WPAA to support maneuver-training requirements.2.8 ALTERNATIVE D: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVEFunction of No Action AlternativeCEQ regulations require that an EIS evaluate a No Action alternative. CEQ implementing guidancefurther explains that the No Action Alternative may serve two functions; 1) the scenario of whatwould occur if the agency were not to carry out the Proposed Action; and 2) a benchmark or baselineof the existing condition against which the predicted effects of the Proposed Action and alternativescan be evaluated. In the present case, the No Action Alternative serves both functions. The No ActionAlternative is to return the 2/25 th SBCT to its original structure as a non-modular infantry brigade inHawaii as it existed prior to its transformation. The No Action Alternative would not involve any unitstationing moves and would not include any actions to transform the structure of the 2/25 th to anSBCT.Description of the No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative consists of three components: unit structure, facilities construction (to includeland acquisition), and training. The No Action Alternative assumes the 2/25 th SBCT would revertto the structure and equipment of the 2/25 th ID (L) as it existed in 2004 without changes resultingfrom modularity. The brigade would train in the same manner and on the same facilities as the 2/25 thID (L) had conducted training in 2004. For land and facilities, it is important to have a real baselineagainst which to compare the impacts of the Proposed Action. Therefore, the baseline for facilitiesand land acquisition includes the actual conditions in July 2007, as they existed at the time of thisanalysis.Unit StructureThe No Action Alternative includes the stationing of the 2/25 th ID (L) at SBMR, Hawaii, which wasthe condition that existed prior to the transformation of the 2/25 th to an SBCT. It also includes the retentionof the modular 4/25 th IBCT (Airborne) at Fort Richardson, Alaska, and the 4/4 th IBCT at FortCarson, Colorado, which are the current stationing locations of these BCTs. Table 2–16 shows theunit structure and manning of the 2/25 th ID (L), the 4/25 th IBCT (Airborne), and the 4/4 th IBCT.February 2008 2–48 2/25th SBCT Final EIS