SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and Alternativesnated as potential stationing alternatives. Table 2–7 presents those Tier 1 and 2 training installationsthat have undergone range modernization and could support many of the requirements of the2/25 th .Table 2–7 Army Installations With Available Modernized Training RangesFort A.P. Hill Fort Campbell Fort Jackson Fort Richardson Fort SillFort Benning Fort Carson Fort Knox Fort Riley Fort StewartFort Bliss Fort Drum Fort LeonardWoodFort RuckerFort Bragg Fort Hood Fort Lewis Schofield BarracksMil. ReservationCamp Bullis (Fort SamHouston)Fort IrwinFort PolkFort StoryFort Wainwright2) Cantonment Support Infrastructure: The Proposed Action requires critical facilities for the2/25 th SBCT, including office space, housing, and parking and maintenance space. In addition,the 2/25 th SBCT would also require schools, medical, recreational, shopping, and other quality oflife facilities. As discussed, new unprogrammed military construction is not an option that can beexecuted swiftly enough to satisfy the garrison or training infrastructure requirements of theSBCT. In addition, eliminating a modular brigade from the Army’s approved force structure isnot an alternative that would allow the Army to continue to meet all of its national security anddefense responsibilities. The only way to meet the SBCT’s critical cantonment facilities requirementsis to swap a unit currently stationed at an existing installation with the 2/25 th . This wouldallow the 2/25 th to use the facilities vacated by the previous BCT to support a majority of its garrisonfacility needs.Under transformation, the Army only possesses three types of modular BCTs. These include theIBCT, the HBCT, and the SBCT. The Army has determined that the stationing of an HBCT inHawaii, with mechanized infantry, M1 Abrams tanks, and heavily armored forces, would notmeet compatible land use training objectives or training land sustainability goals. Therefore, theArmy has ruled out exchanging the SBCT with installations where only HBCTs are currently stationedbecause this would entail exchanging an HBCT back to SBMR. Installations that currentlyaccommodate only HBCTs that were screened from further consideration include Fort Stewart,Fort Bliss, Fort Hood, and Fort Benning. In addition, installations where only SBCTs are currentlystationed, including Fort Lewis and Fort Wainwright, were eliminated from further considerationbecause there are only SBCTs available to exchange with the 2/25 th , which defeats anypoint in exchanging units.When examining the remaining candidates that can exchange a modular BCT with the transformed2/25 th to provide the necessary infrastructure in a timely manner, the only remaining viableoptions are those installations that can accommodate the return of the 2/25 th by exchangingan IBCT back to Hawaii. This subset of Army installations currently stationing an IBCT is theonly subset of stationing locations that can provide a majority of garrison and quality of life facilitiesneeded to support the 2/25 th by the time required for the permanent stationing action.While it is theoretically possible to execute multiple BCT stationing moves to exchange theHBCT for the 2/25 th and send an IBCT to SBMR, the disruption of multiple sets of BCTs andtheir Families during time of ongoing operations requiring such frequent deployment violates theArmy’s stated need for action. These needs include adhering to national security and defense policy,meeting strategic deployment requirements, maintaining training readiness and providing ahigh quality of life for its Soldiers and their Families. Table 2–8 below depicts the installationsthat remain viable possibilities for permanent stationing of the 2/25 th after application of these criteria.February 2008 2–14 2/25th SBCT Final EIS