Draft finding of no significant impact for high-altitude mountainous environment training (HAMET) for the 25th combat aviation brigade, Hawaii
- Author:
-
U.S. Army Pacific-Hawaii, Mission Support Element,
- Title:
- Draft finding of no significant impact for high-altitude mountainous environment training (HAMET) for the 25th combat aviation brigade, Hawaii
- Periodical:
- PTA
- Year:
- 2011
- Pages:
- 6
- Subject:
-
High-Altitude Mountainous Environmental Training (HAMET)
Environmental impact analysis
Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA)
Helicopter pilots training
United States Army Infantry Division 25th
- Summary:
- This Environmental Assessment (EA) was for the purpose of training helicopter pilots and crews of the 25th Infantry Division-25th Combat Aviation Brigade in High-Altitude Mountainous Environmental Training (HAMET) flight operations in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan and to satisfy mandated annual training requirements. HAMET training would be an incremental training process that would proceed from lower to higher elevations while building upon skills acquired at each altitude and would be taught in three phases. Phase I would consist of academic classroom instruction and simulator training conducted at Wheeler Army Air Field and Schofield Barracks, Oahu. Phase II would be an element of annual and pre-deployment individual flight technique training conducted on high-altitude landing zones (LZs) in mountainous environments, with aviators in their assigned aircraft. Phase III would be collective (group) training based at Bradshaw Army Air Field, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), and Schofield Barracks, where tactical and mission flight training would be conducted inside military training areas. The EA for HAMET flight training for the 25th CAB (USAG-HI 2011) would evaluate: a range of alternatives considered to be reasonable under the screening criteria of availability, the number of pilots that could be trained, feasibility (i.e., time and cost), and quality of life for the soldiers and their families. The Action Alternatives considered were: Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, where HAMET flights would be conducted from Bradshaw Army Airfield at PTA to three pre-existing Mauna Kea LZs and three pre-existing Mauna Loa LZs; Alternative 2, where HAMET flight operations would be conducted from Bradshaw Army Airfield at PTA to three pre-existing Mauna Kea LZs; Alternative 3, where HAMET flight operations would be conducted from Bradshaw Army Airfield at PTA to three pre-existing Mauna Loa LZs; Alternative 4, where HAMET flight operations would be conducted at other high-altitude state or federal lands locations in the State of Hawaii; Alternative 5, where HAMET flight operations would be conducted at an offsite flight training center in Gypsum, Colorado or El Paso, Texas. A "No Action Alternative" was also considered where HAMET Phase II flight training would not be conducted if no action were taken. After careful review of the analysis and guidelines (best-management practices, mitigations, conservation measures) set forth in the EA (USAG-HI 2010, Subsection 6.3), it was determined that no significant environmental impacts were likely to result from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Impacts were found to be less than significant or of no impact. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have adverse impacts on the resources or socioeconomics of any of the Action Alternatives proposed for training. Valued environmental components would not be significantly affected by this action. As a result, conservation measures were implemented in conjunction with the Preferred Alternative. Based on this analysis and public comments that were received as part of this process, it was concluded that allowing the use of the established LZs on Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea to provide high-altitude training of helicopter air crews was not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the environment within the conditions of section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for this Proposed Action was not required.
- Date:
- April 2011
- Collection:
- EIS