SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementdition, there are only minor impacts to hunting or other recreational activitiesanticipated as part of this EIS evaluation. These reasons have led the Army toassess impacts to Land Use and Recreation as mitigable to less than significant.The Army assesses the environmental impact of the No Action Alternative inSection 5.5 of the FEIS. This section has been updated to reflect the latest informationand analysis the Army has conducted as part of this process basedon the No Action Alternative presented in this EIS. The Army feels that analysispresented in Section 5.5 identifies the appropriate level of impacts associatedwith each VEC.27. The Army failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives by limiting alternative stationinglocations to just Colorado and Alaska. The Growth DPEIS identifies four other installationsthat could station an additional SBCT: Fort Bliss, White Sands Missile Range, FortLewis, and Yakima Training Center. Additionally, the Growth DPEIS concluded that the effectsof stationing an SBCT at any one of these installation could be mitigated to less thansignificant. The Growth DPEIS also debunks this DEIS’ assumption that it would take fiveyears or more to fund, design, and build the facilities needed to support the SBCT. TheGrowth DPEIS notes that with early Congressional approval and appropriation of funds, it ispossible to expedite the military construction process to 3 years. All these conclusions directlyconflict with statements in this DEIS that are used to eliminate installations other thanFort Richardson and Fort Carson from consideration in detail.Response: None of these installations mentioned, however, could accommodate the 2/25 thwhen it is scheduled to return from its initial combat deployment. Each wouldrequire significant new construction that would take much more time than isavailable. See Section 2.4.1.28. The Growth DPEIS refutes the Army’s claim that it must limit alternatives considered in thisDEIS to only those that include a swap of an IBCT for the SBCT. The Growth DPEIS identifies17 installations outside Hawaii where the Army could add one or more IBCTs. Thus,there are many other locations other than Hawaii that could receive a displaced IBCT fromFort Richardson or Fort Carson. There is no logical reason why the displaced IBCT mustmove to Hawaii to take the 2/25 th SBCT’s place. Given the substantial cultural, biological,and other environmental effects associated with military training in Hawaii and the shortageof available training land, housing and other facilities, the Army could reap great benefits byrelocating the 2/25 th without replacing it.Response: The Grow the Army PEIS process does not contradict the Army’s alternativesanalysis process put forward in this EIS. The fact that the Grow the ArmyPEIS looks at 17 installations at which an additional IBCT could be stationedhas no bearing on this EIS. The Grow the Army PEIS looks at stationing thatwill occur in the future and that will require new construction. As discussed inSection 2.4.1 of this EIS, new construction will take a minimum of 3 years. Theearliest new construction to support BCTs as part of the Grow the Army initiativewill not be available until late 2010, at the earliest. The SBCT, currently afully manned and equipped unit, will require garrison and training facilitiesimmediately upon completion of its deployment in early 2009. As discussed inSection 2.4.1, reducing the Army’s current force structure is not a reasonablealternative.February 2008 D–12 2/25th SBCT Final EIS