- Posts: 23
- Thank you received: 0
Military helicopters - Liberty Bell Roadless Area
- mattfirth
- [mattfirth]
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Randito
- [Randito]
- Offline
- Elite Member
- Posts: 960
- Thank you received: 1
...
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mattfirth
- [mattfirth]
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 23
- Thank you received: 0
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jason4
- [Jason4]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 178
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
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...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- hyak.net
- [hyak.net]
- Offline
- Premium Member
- Posts: 601
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mattfirth
- [mattfirth]
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 23
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jason4
- [Jason4]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 178
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
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...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mattfirth
- [mattfirth]
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 23
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jason4
- [Jason4]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 178
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- wickstad
- [wickstad]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 253
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jason4
- [Jason4]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 178
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
... check the Seattle Times.
Not the Liberty Bell area but similar roll out of plans.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Stefan
- [Stefan]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 102
- Thank you received: 2
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jason4
- [Jason4]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 178
- Thank you received: 0
Followed later in the section by this: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.
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
And now the Army wants to do a land grab?
This needs some Congressional study...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Mattski
- [Mattski]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 83
- Thank you received: 0
'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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mattfirth
- [mattfirth]
- Topic Author
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 23
- Thank you received: 0
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- water
- [water]
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 44
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ski_photomatt
- [ski_photomatt]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 141
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- J.P.
- [J.P.]
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 94
- Thank you received: 0
JBLM Proposal Info Page
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- T. Eastman
- [T. Eastman]
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 288
- Thank you received: 0
... 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/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- telemack
- [telemack]
- Offline
- Premium Member
- Posts: 564
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gary Vogt
- [vogtski]
- Offline
- Premium Member
- Posts: 511
- Thank you received: 8
www.hcn.org/articles/military-seeks-heli...ngtons-methow-valley
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- melchap
- [melchap]
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 45
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- runcle
- [runcle]
- Offline
- New Member
- Posts: 27
- Thank you received: 0
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.