SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementResponse: All references were available at the Army Environmental Command. Uponmaking certain references available to requestors, the Army invited those requestorsto submit additional comments and provided them additional time todo so.32. On page 1–7, the DEIS overstates the effectiveness of the Stryker vehicle in providing protectionto U.S. soldiers. Experience in Iraq has shown that Strykers are much more vulnerablethan previously assumed.Response: The experience of Strykers in Iraq has been noted in the FEIS at Section1.2.1.5. The Army is facing a resourceful and committed opponent in Iraq andmust change tactics in response to enemy insurgents who would do U.S.Forces harm. The SBCTs have and continue to prove their effectiveness in ongoingoperations. In its 29 December 2006 Order, the District Court reviewedall the evidence that the Stryker vehicle does in fact save Soldier’s lives.33. On page 2–22, the DEIS states that under Alternative A the 2/25 th SBCT would conduct 105mm MGS qualifications on PTA range 11T. This represents a significant shift from pastArmy statements about training at that facility where the Army said use of the training facilitywould be temporary, serving only to ready the 2/25 th SBCT for deployment by November2007. The DEIS did not analyze the impacts of training with the MGS at Range 11T. If theArmy intends to conduct such training in the future, the DEIS must provide a detailed analysisof the training that is proposed and its impacts.Response: Range 11T was used temporarily in accordance with the U.S. District Court’s29 December 2006 Court Order. If Hawaii is selected as the permanent stationinglocation for the 2/25 th SBCT, construction would commence on thePTA BAX, which would be located in part on top of Range 11T. Prior to completionof the PTA BAX range 11T would still be used temporarily. Becausethe EIS analyzes the impacts of firing with the MGS on the PTA BAX, it includesthose impacts that would occur on range 11T.34. On page 2–23, the DEIS states the SBCT would use the WPAA for “live-fire operations.”This is a significant change from the 2004 FEIS, which stated the WPAA would be used foronly non-live-fire maneuvers (pages 2–12 and 2–37). If the Army intends to conduct live-fireoperations in the WPAA, the DEIS must provide a detailed analysis of the training that isproposed and its impacts. Given the cultural sensitivity of the WPAA, live-fire training thereclearly would cause significant impacts, which the Army is obliged to disclose.Response: The text in Section 2.5 of the FEIS has been updated to reflect that the Armyhas no plans to conduct live fire at WPAA.35. On page 5–22, the DEIS improperly fails to evaluate impacts associated with range constructionat KTA and KLOA. The DEIS’ claim that “[n]o SBCT-specific range construction”would be necessary at these locations cannot be squared with the FEIS, which identifies“SBCT” construction projects there (FEIS at page 2–24), or with the Modular Force EA,which said “[n]o new range construction would be required” to convert the 3/25 th into anIBCT (Modular Force EA at page 1–13). Since Alternative A would require all projects listedin SEIS Table 2–4 to be constructed, the DEIS must disclose the impacts of all of these projectsto comply with NEPA’s mandate to “present the environmental impacts of the proposalFebruary 2008 D–14 2/25th SBCT Final EIS