SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 2 ⎯ Description of the Proposed Action and AlternativesTable 2–12Training RangesManeuver TrainingLandGarrison SupportInfrastructureSoldier and FamilyQuality of LifeStrategic CapabilityComparison of Army Installation Stationing LocationsAlternative A –HawaiiAdequateSupports the range requirements ofthe 2/25 th . Would require the constructionor modification of 3 ormore training ranges. Because mostranges are already programmed,ranges would be available in ashorter timeframe to support the2/25 th .Adequate but ConstrainedLand resources are capable of supportingmaneuver training of the2/25 th , though shortfalls exist inmeeting the doctrinal maneuvertraining requirement of the SBCT.FavorableGarrison possesses a majority ofthe necessary parking, office space,and garrison infrastructure to supportthe 2/25 th .FavorableFamily Housing and Single SoldierBarracks would be available tomeet the requirements of the 2/25 th .FavorableSupports U.S. commitments inPacific Rim with a versatile andflexible contingency force withSBCT’s enhanced capabilities.Alternative has capacity for rapidC–17 airlift and sealift capability.Hawaii provides a second set ofdeployment facilities for an SBCTto reach locations in the Pacificduring Alaska’s extended winterseason and inclement weather.Alternative B –AlaskaFavorableSupports range requirements of the2/25 th . Would require the constructionof two training ranges (UrbanAssault Course, MultipurposeMachine Gun Range). BAX atDTA would be ready for operationsin 2009.FavorableLand resources are fully capable ofsupporting the full maneuver landrequirement of the 2/25 th . However,spring/fall melt seasons and wetconditions limit maneuver training.AdequateOutdated temporary facilities initiallyavailable to support garrisonrequirements of 2/25 th . Space availableand projects are programmedto renovate these facilities.AdequateOutdated temporary facilities areinitially on hand to support singleSoldier housing. Surroundingcommunity has adequate capacityto accommodate Families off-postas new housing is constructed.AdequateSupports U.S. commitments inPacific Rim with a versatile andflexible contingency force, butconcentrates SBCT’s enhancedcapabilities in the Northern Pacific.Alternative has capacity for rapidC–17 airlift and sealift capabilitybut only one set of deploymentfacilities for use by both SBCTs.Inclement weather could disruptdeployment of both SBCTs.Alternative C –ColoradoAdequate but ConstrainedWould require the construction of 3or more ranges. A BAX would notbe able to be constructed because ofspace limitations at Fort Carson andabove ground natural gas pipelineslocated on Pinon Canyon. The2/25 th would need to use existingDigital Multipurpose Range Complexas a substitute to meet trainingrequirements.AdequateLand resources are capable of supportingmaneuver-training requirementof the 2/25 th , but maneuverland shortfall exists for all unitsstationed at Fort Carson.Adequate but ConstrainedLimited availability of combatvehicle parking space and outdatedoffice space. No space within theBCT area for expansion of facilities.Some elements of the 2/25 thwould need to park on unimprovedsurface separated from the unitmaintenance area.Adequate but ConstrainedSome single enlisted Soldierswould be required to live off-post.Shortfalls in Family and SingleSoldier housing would occur untiladditional facilities could be constructed.Off-post shortfalls exist inFamily Housing availability.Adequate but ConstrainedIs capable of supporting U.S. commitmentsin Pacific Rim withSBCT’s enhanced capabilities.Alternative has strategic airliftcapability, but would require railtransport to reach major seaportfacilities for deployment and mobilization.C–17 aircraft are not collocatedwith the SBCT. Infrastructureto access deployment airfieldmust be upgraded to facilitate rapiddeployment. Has decreased rapiddeployment capability and increasedlogistics requirement.2.4.3 Identification of the Preferred AlternativeOn December 12, 2007, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G–3/5/7 (Lt. Gen. Thurman) was presentedwith information and public comment from the DEIS. He considered that information andevaluated and compared the ability of each alternative to meet the Purpose and Need for the ProposedAction. He balanced the relative strengths and weaknesses of each alternative to meet the Army’sneed for the Proposed Action with environmental and socio-economic considerations and publicfeedback received from each stationing location.February 2008 2–18 2/25th SBCT Final EIS