SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementment factors, such as aircraft and sealift, are being considered in the decisionmakingprocess. Sealift affords the Army the opportunity to transport largeamounts of equipment in the most cost effective manner. The absence of sealiftdoes not preclude an alternative from being considered, however, it enhancesaspects of strategic mobility and is considered favorably across alternatives.20. Is the analysis presented in the DEIS really objective? Adm. Timothy Keating stated in lateMay that the Stryker brigade will come back to Hawaii. Also, Senator Inouye announced tothe news media that he had been assured that Hawaii would get one SBCT. The Army needsto provide evidence of objectivity of its analysis and decision-making.Response: The EIS is objective. No decision has been made on the permanent stationingof the 2/25 th SBCT. No final decision will be made until the Record of Decisionis signed.21. A sentence in the “Dear Reader” letter states that public opinions for or against the ProposedAction seldom have any bearing on the criteria the agencies must use to make decisions regardingproposals. This statement, coupled with the Army’s past actions, give the impressionthat the Army will go forward regardless of public opinion.Response: Public input about the Proposed Action and its effects are critical to theArmy’s NEPA analysis. The Army relies on information generated in the publicparticipation process to help make sure all alternatives and impacts areproperly considered. Mere expressions of support or opposition, without moredetail or information, are not especially helpful. Specific questions and commentsare extremely helpful and will improve the NEPA process. We shouldhave made this clearer. We certainly were not trying to discourage public participationor implying that the Army will disregard any public comments received.22. The Army should not be allowed to expand the PCMS to accommodate the SBCT. The use ofeminent domain to acquire land for the expansion of PCMS is not right. The Army cannottake care of the land it already has at Fort Carson and PCMS and the ground suffers irreversibledamage from the training maneuvers. The land is too fragile to use for the SBCT.Response: This FEIS looks at installation training areas as they are today and does notconsider the possibility of future land acquisition as part of the decision makingprocess for where to station the SBCT. The military land acquisition processis a lengthy process that is very similar to military construction. To completethe process and prepare the land for training would take a minimum offive years and often much longer. A military land acquisition project must firstbe approved and funding must be appropriated. Environmental surveys andstudies must be completed before any real estate transaction may begin. Theentire process would take too long to meet the permanent stationing needs andrequirements of the 2/25 th SBCT and therefore the Army did not consider expansionof land holdings at an installation when selecting its Preferred Alternativein the Final EIS. Text has been added to FEIS Section 1.5 in response tothis comment.With regard to PCMS, Congress is in the process of withholding funds for expansion-relatedefforts and establishing reporting requirements that must beFebruary 2008 D–9 2/25th SBCT Final EIS