SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementResponse: The FEIS includes a summary of scoping comments in Section 1.8. This appendixincludes the comment statements submitted on the DEIS and the Army’sresponses to them. The Administrative Record for the analysis contains all theoriginal comments submitted during scoping and review of the DEIS. Allcomments that were submitted via mail, e-mail, comment forms, and oral testimonyare included in the record.46. The Army is not complying with the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Courtordered the development of a supplemental site-specific environmental impact statement to“consider all reasonable alternatives, most notably the potential for transforming the 2 nd Brigadeoutside of Hawaii.” The questions that this document is supposed to help decision makersanswer is where the 2 nd Brigade should transform, not where a fully transformed 2/25 thSBCT should be permanently stationed. The Army seems to be trying to conduct this alternativesites analysis outside of the context of the 2 nd Brigade transformation into an SBCT.Also, the word “supplemental” or some derivative of it is mentioned just eight times in theentire DEIS.Response: The comment is correct that this document is supplementing the original 2004Transformation FEIS. The 2004 FEIS included analysis of training, construction,and land acquisition actions. The stationing of the SBCT in Hawaii was avery prominent piece of the Proposed Action.The initial transformation of the 2/25 th was largely complete before the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling. Since this ruling, the transformationof the 2/25 th SBCT has been completed in accordance with the Court’s ruling.This was permitted to allow the SBCT to meet its initial combat deploymentrequirements. Given the reality that the brigade has already transformed, realisticalternatives do not involve transformation of another brigade into anSBCT, but rather where to station the 2/25 th SBCT now that it is transformed.The EIS takes this approach, which is entirely consistent with the direction theArmy received from the reviewing courts.47. OHA objects to the statement on page 1–1 of the DEIS stating that as of May 2007 the Brigadehad completed approximately 90 percent of it training and equipment fielding in Hawaii…ByNovember 2007, the Army requires that the SBCT be ready for deployment to meetthe ongoing operational requirements of the requirements of global conflicts. This means theSBCT has essentially already been placed in Hawaii.Response: It is true that the SBCT completed its transformation in Hawaii as was permittedby the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (See response to comment46 for more details). Completion of the transformation of the SBCT andits initial train-up were needed to support the SBCT’s current deployment toSouthwest Asia. This does not mean, however, that it cannot be permanentlystationed elsewhere when the SBCT returns from deployment. Consideration ofalternative stationing locations that can meet the requirements of the 2/25 thSBCT upon its return from deployment to Southwest Asia is the focus of thisEIS.48. The model used to assess the effect of Stryker training in terms of an Abrams tank per mile oftravel is unacceptable. Clearly, a Stryker vehicle and an Abrams tank are so dissimilar as torender this assessment singularly uninformative. Therefore, the Army finding of a “moderate”February 2008 D–18 2/25th SBCT Final EIS