SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementTable D–3 Summary of Meetings in Colorado on the Draft Environmental ImpactStatementOctober 25, 2007 from 5:30-9:45pm in Colorado Springs at Mesa Ridge High SchoolNumber of Attendees 9Comment Forms/Letters Received 0Private Court Reporter Statements 0Video Statements 0Oral Comments 5October 26, 2007 from 5:30-9:45pm in Trinidad at Trinidad State Junior CollegeNumber of Attendees 48Comment Forms/Letters Received 0Private Court Reporter Statements 1Video Statements 0Oral Comments 16D.3 COMMENT STATEMENTS AND RESPONSESThis section presents the comment statements developed by the Army and their responses. The commentstatements are numbered sequentially from 1 to 228 to facilitate references to them in Table D–4. However, they are organized in this section to follow the discussions of resource areas in the EIS.Following the discussion of resource areas, comments and responses regarding alternatives, theNEPA process, editorial changes, and other related issues have been included.D.3.1 NEPA PROCESS/ALTERNATIVES/PLANNING1. What assurance does the public have that the mitigation identified in the DEIS will be implementedand adequately funded? Considering constraints on the federal budget, how willthe Army fund mitigation measures over the life of the project and the measures themselves?The Army must ensure that the funding exists to implement and maintain the mitigationmeasures identified in the EIS because the levels of impact described in the DEIS dependupon implementation of the identified mitigation.Response: The Army NEPA regulation requires that mitigation measures be funded. Essentially,mitigation measures that are adopted in the Record of Decision becomepart of the Proposed Action. All parts of the Proposed Action must befunded in order for the action as a whole to proceed.2. The Army needs to consider alternatives that involve the temporary stationing of the 2/25 thSBCT in Hawaii and then moving the SBCT to another site when permanent facilities areready. The DEIS’ assertion that temporary stationing would require that all projects under AlternativeA be built in Hawaii is baseless. The Army successfully converted and trained the2/25 th SBCT for deployment as an SBCT using only the facilities already in existence in Hawaiiand those SBCT-specific facilities that the Court allowed the Army to complete. Finally,a review of the schedule for construction of new facilities reveals that nearly all of the projectsthat the Army claims are vital to train an SBCT were not even scheduled to begin constructionuntil after the 2/25 th was scheduled to complete its conversion and be available fordeployment as an SBCT.Response: The 2/25 th was able to be deployed in 2007 only because it was able to utilizetraining facilities in the Continental U.S. to meet the balance of those trainingFebruary 2008 D–3 2/25th SBCT Final EIS