SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statementwould take place in Hawaii under the No Action Alternative. Changes havebeen made in Section 5.5.13.1.4.38. On page 5–228, the DEIS fails to justify its elimination of Turtle Bay Resort improvementsfrom its analysis of cumulative impacts on Oahu. The DEIS must provide far greater detailregarding the nature of those proposed improvements, and of the project-specific impacts,than was included in the 2004 FEIS.Response: The Army has updated the Cumulative Effects Section 5.6. The Army feels thatthere is adequate analysis to inform the Army decision maker appropriately.39. On page 5–228, the DEIS improperly includes road construction from Schofield Barracks toHelemano Military Reservation among projects that would go forward independent of a decisionto station the 2/25 th SBCT in Hawaii. In Chapter 2 (page 2–20), the DEIS identified theHelemano Trail as “unique to the needs of an SBCT.”Response: As noted in Section 2.5, road construction from SBMR to HMR is an actionunique to the needs of an SBCT. Inclusion of this action on the list of reasonablyforeseeable future actions in Chapter 5 was an oversight. This action hasbeen removed from the list in Section 5.6.1.40. Undoubtedly, by now, the Army has a better understanding than it did in 2004 of the specificsof the Theater Support Vessel project and associated pier use at Kawaihae Harbor. These details,as well as detailed analysis of the associated impacts, must be disclosed in the DEIS onpage 5–229.Response: There are no reasonably foreseeable plans to move forward with the TSV inHawaii at this time. Therefore, it is not included in this analysis.41. The DEIS is so inadequate in complying with the Ninth Circuit’s command for the Army toprepare a legally adequate supplemental EIS that considers all reasonable alternatives, theArmy must prepare and circulate a revised draft that considers all reasonable stationing alternativesas well as a true No Action Alternative. Moreover, the revised DEIS must fully andaccurately disclose the impacts associated with the alternatives under review.Response: The range of alternatives considered as well as the No Action Alternative areboth legally sufficient and comply with the Court’s decision. The impacts arefully disclosed and adequately discussed. An additional supplemental EIS isnot required.42. We call for the inclusion of the community’s preferred alternative — the reduction of themilitary footprint in Hawaii and the clean up and restoration of lands to peaceful, productive,and sustainable uses.Response: Under all action alternatives proposed in this EIS, the reduction of the militaryfootprint (personnel and equipment) with regards to the No Action Alternativedoes not meet the Purpose and Need for Action. Reduction of the number ofmilitary personnel in Hawaii does not reasonably meet the Army’s needs forimplementing the Proposed Action given the need for the Army to implementtransformation and meet increased operational requirements. The Army doesFebruary 2008 D–16 2/25th SBCT Final EIS