Opinion ID: 3039072
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Action Alternative 2: Whereby the ATCP would

Text: only be partially implemented because of budgetary or other constraints. Id. To further publicize the scoping period for the PEIS, the Army published a notice in USA TODAY on December 19, 2000. A large title reads, “PUBLIC NOTICE.” In slightly smaller font is a subheading stating, “THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT FOR PROGRAM- MATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARMY TRANSFORMA- TION CAMPAIGN PLAN.” AR 0004167. Below that, in small type, the notice indicates that the Army is seeking public comment to determine the “appropriate scope of its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” and summarizes 17458 ILIO‘ULAOKALANI COALITION v. RUMSFELD the alternatives to be considered as the “no-action” alternative, “full implementation of the TCP,” and “partial implementation of the TCP.” Id. That the Army provided notice of the pending PEIS in the Federal Register and in USA TODAY, not in the Hawaiian media, is not in dispute. The Army did not invite state and local agencies to participate in scoping for the PEIS. The Army noted internally that there was “[v]irtually no public response to ‘scoping.’ ” Dep’t of the Army Transformation Office, Public Involvement and Outreach for Army Transformation and the Transformation PEIS, slide presentation, AR 0004584. Consistent with its practices during scoping, the Army published a Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIS for Implementation of Army Transformation in the Federal Register, 66 Fed. Reg. 54241 (Oct. 26, 2001), and in USA TODAY on October 31, 2001, making the Draft PEIS available for public comment. AR 0004593, 00010390-91. Again, the Army did not circulate the Draft PEIS to, and did not solicit comments from, state or local agencies. Neither did the Army provide written notice to national organizations or solicit comments from potentially interested individuals and communities. Plaintiffs did not comment on the Draft PEIS. According to Plaintiffs and confirmed by the Army’s distribution list, no one in Hawaii sought copies of the Draft PEIS. Nationally, one member of the public submitted comments on the Draft PEIS. Pls.-Appellants’ Opening Br. at 22-23. The Draft PEIS described how the transformation of certain brigades into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (“SBCTs”) would take place during the second phase, the Interim Capability Phase, of the Army’s overhaul. The Draft PEIS identified the 2nd Brigade stationed in Hawaii as one of the units that would undergo transformation during the Interim Phase.2 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Oct. 2001) (“Draft PEIS”), 2 While the Army’s formal announcement that the 2nd Brigade would be included in the Interim Phase came in July 2001, the 2nd Brigade had been selected, at least tentatively, before scoping for the PEIS began. ILIO‘ULAOKALANI COALITION v. RUMSFELD 17459 at 2-9, AR 0003597. The Federal Register and USA TODAY announcements did not contain any information that Hawaii would be affected by the planned transformation. Pls.- Appellants’ Opening Br. at 22. The Army’s Final PEIS, issued in February 2002, considered the no action alternative but, in summarizing its consideration of other alternatives, noted that “maintenance of forces status quo would impair the Army’s ability to maintain its commitment to the Nation and fulfill the Army Vision.” Final PEIS at 2-9, AR 0003882. The Final PEIS considered only two alternatives, the no-action alternative and full implementation of the Army’s Transformation Plan. Id. at ES-2, AR 0003847. The Final PEIS determined that the preferred alternative is full implementation of the proposed Army Transformation Plan. The Final PEIS also indicated that the Army expected to conduct transformation of existing units “in place,” rather than re-locating them. Id. at 4-3, AR 0004000. The 2nd Brigade remained a target for Interim Phase transformation. Fed. Appellees’ Resp. Br. at 11. The Army signed the Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the PEIS, proceeding with its preferred alternative and finalized designation of the 2nd Brigade for conversion to an Interim BCT, contingent upon a site-specific EIS. P-ROD at 1, 10, AR 0009656, 0009665. The Army’s own experts recognized the shortcomings of the PEIS and its ROD not long after they were published. The minutes of an internal June 2002 meeting preparing for the SEIS indicate that “the PEIS does not contain specific language about why each of the five sites was selected.” After Action Report from the Army Interim Force NEPA Process Coordination Meeting (June 4-5, 2002) (“After Action Report”), at 3, AR 0088102. According to this document, the Army “did know what the sites were and why they were selected, but didn’t want that detailed information to go into the PEIS.” Id. Because the five sites for Interim Phase transformation are in the ROD, “the main issue now is that the ROD has no supporting analysis in the PEIS.” Id. The Army’s 17460 ILIO‘ULAOKALANI COALITION v. RUMSFELD experts recognized this as a “potential deficiency.” Id. “In both Alaska and Hawaii, the question has arisen as to why the Army picked these sites.” Id. As to the alternatives considered by the PEIS, at a legal issues forum documented in the minutes, in response to the question whether the SEIS should look at other locations for the selected units, Army attorneys responded that the PEIS foreclosed consideration of other locations: unless the local situation suggests that it may be impossible to train where they are now. The PEIS leaves us short on alternatives. The only alternatives we have are no action versus action. The P&N [pur- pose and need] statements are crafted so tightly that we may be restricting ourselves too much. The PEIS only looked at one alternative. Id. at 5-6, AR 0088104-05. In response to questions of whether it is “reasonable for the public to ask why on the siting issue,” attorneys responded: “Yes; the ROD makes a decision that is not based on any analysis. Installations need a position paper on why the sites were picked, so that we have an administrative record of the decision that can be referenced.” Id. at 6, AR 0088105. When asked about whether the programmatic ROD can be fixed, attorneys responded: “The only alternatives are to have HQDA [Headquarters] bear the burden or have the installations bear it. Installations will probably have to drive on.” Id. C. Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement The Army then undertook a SEIS for the 2nd Brigade’s transformation in Hawaii, starting scoping by notifying and inviting comment from a breadth of Hawaiian organizations, including civic organizations, veteran groups, retired military officials, state and city government officials, members of ILIO‘ULAOKALANI COALITION v. RUMSFELD 17461 Congress, and neighborhood boards. The Army also reached out to groups representing low-income, minority and Native Hawaiian constituencies. Final Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement, Transformation of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Hawaii (May 2004) (“Final SEIS”), at 1-8, 1-9, AR 0051279-80. After the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register, the Army published notices in all major newspapers in Oahu and Hawaii on April 8, 2002, announcing scoping meetings. The Army held seven scoping meetings between April 16 and 30, 2002, five on Oahu and two on the island of Hawaii. The meetings on Hawaii are not at issue here. At the scoping meetings on Oahu, 100 oral comments were received from individuals and organizations. The Army also received written comments from 199 individuals and organizations, 21 comments through its website, 7 comments by telephone, and 77 comments at additional information meetings requested by organizations. Final SEIS at 1-9, AR 0051280. The SEIS considered three alternatives, the no-action alternative, the reduced land acquisition alternative, and the proposed action. Record of Decision, Transformation of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Hawaii (July 2004) (“S-ROD”), at 7-8, AR 0010317-18. The proposed action consists of converting the 2nd Brigade into a SBCT on Oahu. The reduced land acquisition alternative is identical to the proposed action, except for decreased land acquisition at the South Range Acquisition Area (“SRAA”). Id. at 8, AR 0010318. In response to public questions as to why alternatives outside of Hawaii were not considered, the Army responded that the decision to transform the 2nd Brigade in place had been made in the PEIS. The Final SEIS issued on May 28, 2004; the ROD followed on July 7, 2004 and recommitted to transforming the 2nd Brigade in Hawaii. D. Procedural History Plaintiffs-Appellants challenged the Army’s SEIS. On October 12, 2004, the district court entered the parties’ stipu17462 ILIO‘ULAOKALANI COALITION v. RUMSFELD lated agreement that the Army would not proceed with conversion of the 2nd Brigade until after the district court ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied that motion on November 5, 2004. Pls.- Appellants’ Opening Br. at 12. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to challenge the Army’s notice and comment efforts for the PEIS on January 4, 2005. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion and granted Defendants’ motion. Judgment was entered for the Army on April 29, 2005. Plaintiffs timely appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. This court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending this appeal and expedited briefing and our hearing of this appeal. Id. at 13.