SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and AlternativesThe only remaining installations that possess available maneuver lands in a great enough ratio totheir maneuver land requirements are those installations that have access to satellite maneuvertraining areas to meet the maneuver requirements of the SBCT. Viable installations that remaincandidates for the stationing of the 2/25 th SBCT include SBMR and Hawaiian training sites, FortRichardson in conjunction with Donnelly Training Area (DTA), and Fort Carson in conjunctionwith PCMS. Fort Riley, Fort Drum, Fort Polk, and Fort Knox are all considerably short of maneuverland required to train the SBCT, and all of these installations have maneuver land deficitratios of less than -2.00. Table 2–11 below depicts the installations that remain as viable stationinglocations for the 2/25 th SBCT. It should be noted that between the publication of the DEIS andFEIS, the Army has announced the stationing of an additional IBCT at Fort Carson as part of theGrow the Army initiative (Army 2007c). This new IBCT is scheduled to begin standing up at FortCarson in 2011 and has been captured in Table 2–10.Table 2–11 Installations Capable of Meeting Minimum Maneuver Land ThresholdsFort Richardson andDonnelly Training AreaFort Carson and Pinon CanyonManeuver SiteSchofield Barracks MilitaryReservation5) Strategic Considerations: The installations that remain as viable stationing locations for the2/25 th SBCT are capable of rapidly deploying to support contingency operations in areas of interestaround the globe. All of these installations have access to airstrips and air transport capabilities.SBMR and Fort Richardson also have sea deployment facilities readily available, which providegreater strategic flexibility. While there are considerable geographic differences in the locationsof the installations that present strategic advantages, the capacity of large-scale modernizedair deployment facilities at each of the remaining alternatives serves to a certain extent to compensatefor the differences in geographic location. Because of this, all three remaining installationsremain viable alternatives for analysis as stationing locations for the 2/25 th SBCT.As discussed in Section 1.2.1.12, an important consideration is the need to station adequate forcesin the Pacific Ocean area of operations. Since the 2/25 th SBCT was originally designated for Hawaii,it became part of the mix of forces available to the Pacific Combatant Commander. Thepermanent stationing decision for the 2/25 th SBCT must maintain adequate forces in the Pacific.This allows Pacific Command to meet its requirements, such as regional rapid response, deterrence,disaster assistance, and other contingency missions.Army Screening Process Summary: In selecting the permanent stationing location for the 2/25 thSBCT, the Army is evaluating the ability of alternative locations to support the needs and requirementsof the 2/25 th SBCT while taking environmental, social, and public considerations into account.Sections 1.2 and 1.3 define the Army’s Purpose and Need for stationing the 2/25 th SBCT, and theseneeds have been broken out for further consideration in Table 2–12. This table provides a consolidatedqualitative comparison of installation stationing alternatives and summarizes discussion of theability of these locations to support the requirements of the 2/25 th SBCT.Qualitative ratings provided below include “Adequate but Constrained”; meaning conditions must bemodified to meet the needs of the 2/25 th fully and there may be constraints that cannot be resolved.“Adequate” indicates the requirements of the 2/25 th would not be hindered by the conditions at the alternativestationing location, but might require some level of modification to meet the needs of the2/25 th . “Favorable” indicates the conditions at the alternative installation stationing location are highlysupportive of the needs of the 2/25 th SBCT. A summary discussion is provided that articulates the ratinggiven for each area of need under each alternative considered.February 2008 2–17 2/25th SBCT Final EIS