SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Appendix D ⎯ Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementResponse: The statement about similarity of levels of impacts among the alternatives hasbeen updated. Please refer to the last paragraph of Section 5.1 in the FEIS toreview the revision. We thank you for your comment and participation in thispublic process. Your comment has been considered and included in the administrativerecord for this process.95. The Army incorporated by reference into the DEIS numerous documents that were not reasonablyavailable to the public, and remain unavailable. Even with respect to the two documentsthe Army belatedly provided to Earthjustice, the mere fact that Earthjustice now hascopies does not make those documents much less the host of other documents incorporatedby reference-anymore available to other “potentially interested persons,” who were entitled tohave those documents “reasonably available for inspection...within the time allowed forcomment.”40C.F.R. §1502.21.Response: 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.Earthjustice was the only entity that requested background material. When itwas discovered we had not provided this material in timely manner, it wasprovided to Earthjustice and the comment period extended for Earthjustice toprovide comments.96. The DEIS failed to provide the public with any valid citation to the sources of personal communicationson which the Army based its analysis of a host of potential impacts. This is nomore lawful than incorporating by reference inaccessible documents. The Army must “makeexplicit reference by footnote to the...sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.“40C.F.R. §1502.24. The DEIS’s failure to do so precluded the public scrutiny that is “essentialto implementing NEPA.”Id. §1500.1(b).Response: Most of the personal communications referenced in the document and citationsincluded in Chapter 8 were personal communications cited in previous NEPAdocuments. Consequently, these personal communications were removed fromthis EIS and replaced with a reference to the appropriate NEPA document.Personal communications made during the preparation of this EIS and cited inthe EIS are documented in the administrative record. We thank you for yourcomment and participation in this public process. Your comment has beenconsidered and included in the administrative record for this analysis.97. The USAEC’s analysis of Fort Lewis confirms the reasonableness of this alternative for permanentstationing of the 2/25 th SBCT and the DEIS’s inadequacy due to its failure to includeFort Lewis among the alternate stationing locations. The Army apparently has plans in theworks to station a fourth Stryker brigade on land at Fort Lewis’s North Post, with the areasfor the brigade (Areas F) already mapped out and the necessary facilities programmed to bebuilt. The Army must consider stationing the 2/25 th SBCT in this North Post location, whichsatisfies all the criteria for a Stryker brigade. In addition, the Army must consider stationingSBCT5 at the site of closed Landfill #5 on North Post (Area A), which the USAEC acknowledgeshas adequate contiguous acreage for the brigade’s facilities. There is no justification forthe USAEC’s claim that buildings and motorpools cannot be built on landfills.February 2008 D–30 2/25th SBCT Final EIS