Military helicopters - Liberty Bell Roadless Area

Joint Base Lewis McChord is proposing helicopter landings/training at several high elevation sites in the eastern North Cascades. In the Methow Valley area there are three proposed sites. One of them is very near the Pacific Crest Trail just south of Harts Pass, another somewhere in the Cooney Lake area in the Sawtooths and another in the Tiffany, Rock Mtn area.

These landings could occur anytime 24/7, 365 days a year and could potentially be used by other military bases thereby expanding the impact.

For TAY folks the landing in the Azurite Pk area could impact backcountry skiing/touring in a significant way.

Comments are needed by July 30th. Scoping document  here

Imagine a program designed to train pilots with the reasonable expectation that occasional crashes will occur in remote areas that will require extensive recovery operations and a high risk of starting wild fires in years like we are currently experiencing.

As the term "wilderness area"s used in describing practices in the "Fly Friendly Program" is not capitalized, this could then mean that areas other than designated "Wilderness Areas" could be avoided by these training operations.

The maps showing the MTAs is showing no USFS or NPS land designations to base the scoping information on.

Do the noise standards allow for wind carried noise?

A complete EIS should be required for this program that uses the resources of multiple agencies near a National Park and Wilderness Area.

No-action is the preferred alternative!!!

What next, Navy wanting to run subs in Ross Lake?

...

What next, Navy wanting to run subs in Ross Lake?

The navy already has an extensive facility on Lake Pond Oreille and Ross Lake has nothing on that.

None of the proposed sites lie within designated wilderness. Since military helicopter s are used to rescue citizens from mountain environments stateside and soldiers in foreign mountains don't they need a place to train?

The navy already has an extensive  facility  on Lake Pond Oreille and Ross Lake has nothing on that.

None of the proposed  sites lie within designated wilderness.  Since military  helicopter s are used to rescue citizens from mountain  environments  stateside  and soldiers  in foreign  mountains don't they need a place to train? 

Up to seven helicopter at a time over a four hour period of landings and approaches. Just talking about the landing sites north of Lake Chelan - one is within spitting distance of a popular trail between Martin Lk and Cooney Lk in the Sawtooths, one (Azurite Pk area) is within the sound shed of the Pacific Crest trail and in mountain goat habitat (quite a few of studies showing impacts on goats from helicopters) and one near Tiffany Lake, a popular fishing lake and hiking area. Frequency is unknown as in the future other bases may use these sites also. Think there'll be any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts?

Knowing that military helicopters are used in civilian rescues in the Cascades and that the US military is active in other mountainous regions around the world can you suggest better alternative sites for training helicopter pilots in mountainous terrain? I agree that there are some serious issues to consider here but not proposing an alternative while saying no is just a NIMBY reaction.

I agree that there are some serious issues to consider here but not proposing an alternative while saying no is just a NIMBY reaction.

... well, as "No Action" is one of the alternatives on the scoping document...

What are they going to harm? Smash wild flowers? Scare a bear? Seems very harmless IMO.

Knowing that military helicopters are used in civilian rescues in the Cascades and that the US military is active in other mountainous regions around the world can you suggest better alternative sites for training helicopter pilots in mountainous terrain?  I agree that there are some serious issues to consider here but not proposing an alternative while saying no is just a NIMBY reaction.

As one of the reasons the military is proposing establishing these landings is to save money (they currently train Colorado) then yeah, I can suggest an alternative. They could save a lot of money in fuel cost and flight time by doing this closer to Lewis/MCchord, say Snoqualmie Pass area or any number of the rugged peaks and areas nearer to Lewis/MCchord than the northeast cascades.

Moving it further south toward the Snoq Pass area makes a lot of sense in terms of distance to the base but doesn't it really magnify the concerns already expressed here? I don't spend much time on the I90 corridor but it seems to be much busier than the Hwy20 corridor (hence why I don't spend much time there). Wouldn't this mean the same noise impact to a greater number of people down south? There might be an interesting study to see if the impact on wildlife would be better or worse since the wildlife down south is already impacted by people maybe the additional stress of helicopter noise would go unnoticed. Probably not.

Wouldn't this mean the same noise impact to a greater number of people down south? There might be an interesting study to see if the impact on wildlife would be better or worse since the wildlife down south is already impacted by people maybe the additional stress of helicopter noise would go unnoticed. Probably not.

Exactly why a real EIS and not a quick EA as suggested by the proponents...

Jason, I was being tongue in cheek sarcastic sorta........... I don't know what the best answer is. But I do know that in the Methow Valley we already are significantly impacted by military jets spring through fall. They are very visible and very loud and a huge pain in the ass if you value any sort of quiet while out hiking the ridge lines above the valley. Having up to seven military helicopters at a time fly through an already loud airspace is just going to add to that issue. And I do know that the Azurite Pk site is mountain goat habitat and the impacts to goats will almost certainly be significant if not severe. They don't like helicopters and they don't habituate. The site near Cooney Lk in the Sawtooths just seems dumb, right next to a popular trail and lake.

T. Eastman is right, an EIS is required and hopefully there will be enough pressure brought to require one. And hopefully the most egregious sites will be abandoned.

I might be more tolerant than most people here of the noise from military aircraft. I grew up in a Navy family, lived on or near a Navy base most of my childhood, and my parents still live directly under the flight path at NASWI. It was an everyday part of life to stop mid sentence in a conversation or phone call while planes flew over the house. I get out in the mountains to enjoy the solitude too but maybe I can tune out the Navy jets on the west side of the Cascades pretty easily.

I don't know the mountains on that side as well as I do on this side and agree with the points about picking training locations seemingly without regard to what's already going on there. I'm also not trying to justify their position, just trying to point out some of the reasoning that might have pushed them this far from JBLM. It'll be a stronger argument against them if you can justify other areas for them to use instead that still meet their criteria.

It's almost ironic to say that it spoils the wilderness experience at one of the most popular trails in the area. The solution is to send them to somewhere more remote but that interrupts the goats. Maybe the idea of Snoq Pass isn't so bad after all. Not so good for those who don't get far from the city but better for the critters.

Saw a Blackhawk heading that way yesterday.

Saw a Blackhawk heading that way yesterday.

Likely looking for the missing plane for Montana on the way to Bellingham.

Girl walked out, her grandparents and the plane have not yet been located. Girl was picked up near Rainey Pass TH.

Sad story

Freeski, I've been around the Maple Pass loop in spring, summer, and fall. I know the area ok and appreciate the mountains there.

You're right that it shouldn't be required that you suggest an alternative but if you can come up with one that satisfies the military I suspect it will be more successful than just saying no. The military has a lot of strength in the US and a lot of ability to give every one else the big FU, the only group that seems to have more power is CBP, I'd be concerned that if they didn't get a better proposal then they might just ignore all of the other concerns and carry on with what they originally want to do.

Where are you getting your information that mechanized transport is increasing? I'm not arguing, I'd just like to read up on the topic. On this side of the range it seems like access for mechanized transport is increasingly limited whether it's jeeps, dirtbikes, snowmobiles, or even mountain bikes. I'm basing that on personal experience with the activities and areas that I'm trying to access so I might be biased and missing other areas that have recently relaxed their access policies.

I think I saw that there is a proposed landing pad within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area...

... check the Seattle Times.

Not the Liberty Bell area but similar roll out of plans.

Here is my take on the landing sites:
MTA 1-4 and MTA 1-7 are the most concerning.

MTA 1-1 Stormy Mtn (summit)
MTA 1-2 Devils Backbone (just nw of Stormy Mtn)
MTA 1-3 Right in between Two Little Lakes
MTA 1-4 Big Lou. This is on the summit of Big Lou...which is just south of Big Jim. (south of Lake Augusta, and east of Lake Ida)
MTA 1-5 Rock Mtn. This is the summit just north of Tiffany Mtn
MTA 1-6 the south arm of Azurite Mtn.
MTA 1-7 NE of Coney Lake. This zone is .4 miles NE of Coney Lake

It sounds like the "no action" option is already off the board from their point of view.

4.1 Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative
Analysis of the No-Action Alternative is required by the CEQ (40 CFR Part 1500-1508) and Army
NEPA-implementing regulations (32 CFR 651). The No-Action Alternative serves as the baseline
condition for analysis of other alternatives.

Followed later in the section by this:

Therefore, the NoAction
Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.

I'm most concerned about the area required for training exercises.

Mission Essential Task List (METL) area requirements include but are
not limited to a 3 km radius for landing area reconnaissance, a 5 km radius for evasive
maneuvers, and a 10 km radius for firing techniques (includes simulation of target acquisition
and instrumentation prior to firing), team employment, close combat attack and combat
maneuvering flight.

I've been used as a target (without being warned) while I was working in Death Valley one summer. It was interesting and entertaining for a bit but I don't think I'd want the same experience out in the mountains.

And this bit is interesting too:

The majority of training would occur at night.

And this might limit the impact to AT skiers:

Sites chosen for HLZs must have soil conditions that are capable of supporting the weight
of the aircraft to prevent aircraft from being mired, creating excessive dust, or blowing snow.
Loose material can cause obscured visual conditions.

Think of all the public money spent, time, planning, and coordinating done over the last 75 years to preserve, designate levels of management, and actual management of these Wilderness and Recreation Areas, and supporting USFS and NPS lands.

And now the Army wants to do a land grab?

This needs some Congressional study...

It addresses the reason for not using the training sites in Colorado & Texas here:
'4.4.1 Established High-Altitude Training Sites
High-altitude training operations could be conducted at three existing locations: 1) the Army
National Guard training site in Gypsum, Colorado, 2) Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colorado,
or 3) Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. All three sites require extended travel times and scheduling
training slots with limited availability. Any out of state training site requires additional time
away from the home station, which is referred to by the military as “perstempo.” High
perstempo can have adverse effects on soldiers and their families. '

It also states that the chosen locations will respect local concerns and fly above 2000' to lower noise impact.

6 of the 7 proposed landing zones are away from most touring areas.

I am so glad that we are sacrificing out wild areas so the Army can provide less stress for the soldiers and their families...

The efforts made to secure these places for habitat, recreation, and as shelters from mechanical activity have cost time, money, and huge political capital.  Pleading that the shrinking military needs to tap into these natural reserves for training is bullshit.  Suggesting that family stress is a factor doubles the pungent odor of that bullshit.

The North Cascade Park and the Paysaten Wilderness are already is subject to the whims of the Border Patrol.  Do want another adjustment of the management standards for lands like this?

If you haven't commented about what you think the Army must consider during the proposed EA process please do so ASAP.

Is this what the Eastern North Cascades has to look forward to in years to come? Many more bases, including overseas bases, using the eastern North Cascades as a training ground?    Click here

Direct comments to:

Put “JBLA Off-base Helicopter Training” in the subject line and email your comments by July 30 to:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Also send a copy to the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest Supervisor Mike Williams: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thanks for the template freeski, good stuff. E-mail sent!

NOTE! - The Scoping Comment Period has been EXTENDED to Sept 4th...there is still time to share your input!

JBLM Proposal Info Page

Busy down there...

... now they want to test rockets at the artillery range south of the base...

www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/army-t...s-can-train-at-jblm/

NOTE! - The Scoping Comment Period has been EXTENDED to Sept 4th...there is still time to share your input!

JBLM Proposal Info Page

Thanks for keeping up on this. I just sent an email to JBLM after seeing that the comment period was extended.

Our local military's plans are drawing national attention:
www.hcn.org/articles/military-seeks-heli...ngtons-methow-valley

Sept 4 is approaching. Here is a comment submitted by a friend.


It concerns me that I couldn't find any explicit mention of public safety as an issue in the scoping document issues. On several occasions I have had to dodge rock and ice fall caused by military overflights while hiking and climbing in the Glacier Peak Wilderness. Noise is more than just an aesthetic issue. That is one reason MTA 1-6 and the area adjacent to it are unsuitable. The North Cascades Highway has been designated as a Scenic Area by the Washington State legislature and USDA Forest Service. It is easily accessible for recreation and has very heavy use for climbing from east of Washington Pass to Ross Lake. There has been a lot of support for getting that area designated as wilderness but the Forest Service has opposed designation because there is use of helicopters for winter recreation in the eastern portion of that area. Either way, the “arm” of the MTA along the North Cascades Highway is unsuitable for both aesthetic and public safety reasons.
I have spent time in the rest of the MTA and the HTAs and don't know of any serious problems which would make them unsuitable.  The Marines have a truly "high elevation" area well situated in the Sierras at Pickel Meadows that should be used for the advanced part of your training.

COMMENT NOW on Army Helicopter Training in Wilderness and near Pacific Crest Trail

The Army’s comment period on landing combat helicopters in pristine wilderness beloved by many has been extended to November 3, 2015. If you haven’t written them a letter, feel free to borrow language from these talking points:

www.wawild.org/get-involved/take-action/...-pacific-crest-trail