PTA Infantry Platoon Battle Course final EIS

PTA IPBC EIS cover page

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Construction and Operation of an Infantry Platoon Battle Course (IPBC) at Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA), Hawaii

The full EIS document can be downloaded here:

http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/pta_peis/documents.htm

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes the impacts of constructing and operating an Infantry Platoon Battle Course (IPBC) at Pōhakuloa Training Area (PTA) on the island of Hawai‘i. Soldiers and Marines stationed in Hawai‘i will use the range for training and maneuver activities. The Final EIS concludes that that there are anticipated significant impacts on cultural resources.

From the EIS Executive Summary:

ES – PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose for the Proposed Action is to construct and operate a modern IPBC that is compliant with current Army training requirements, to ensure our Soldiers receive training in accordance with existing Army training standards. The proposed IPBC would support the live-fire collective training needs of Army, Army Reserve Component (RC), and Hawai‘i Army National Guard units (HIARNG), as well as other Service components that are stationed or train in Hawai‘i.The Army needs an IPBC at PTA. Presently, PTA does not have a range capable of supporting standard collective Infantry Platoon Live-fire Training that enables the unit to accomplish its Mission Essential Task List (METL) tasks using one range to train battle tasks tied to its METL, and accomplish its requirement of conducting platoon-level live-fire exercises twice per year. The proposed IPBC would improve the live-fire collective training capability for Army, Army RC, and HIARNG units, as well as other Service components that are stationed or train in Hawai‘i.

The Infantry Platoon Battle Course (IPBC) is described in detail in Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives:

The Proposed Action is to construct and operate a modern IPBC and associated infrastructure that is compliant with current Army training requirements.

2.1 INFANTRY PLATOON BATTLE COURSE (IPBC)
In the Draft PEIS, the IPBC was analyzed as part of a larger IPBA that included a MOUT Assault Course and a live-fire Shoothouse facility. Due to funding constraints, the MOUT Assault Course and Shoothouse are no longer part of the present project. The IPBC will be the only part of the IPBA analyzed in this Final EIS.

The Army proposes to construct an IPBC capable of supporting standard Infantry Platoon Live-Fire Training enabling units to accomplish their METL tasks using one range. An IPBC supports a variety of light infantry training events, day and night, such as reconnaissance and security, movement to contact, attack, raid, ambush, defend, and retrograde operations. An infantry platoon training on the IPBC would move from objective to objective while engaging targets.

The entire developed footprint of the IPBC would be approximately 110 ac (44.5 ha) (ground softened), and includes an unpaved access road to the IPBC, the Range Operations Control Area (ROCA), objectives with instrumented targetry that Soldiers engage during training exercises, and maneuver lanes (trails that Soldiers and their equipment use to move down the course to engage objectives).

2.2 IPBC CONSTRUCTION
The proposed IPBC would be sited within the impact area at PTA where no ranges currently exist. This action would reclaim impact area as training area and therefore, the reclaimed portion of the impact area was evaluated. Evidence of the MEC/UXO in the area of the proposed Western Range Area and Charlie Circle Alternatives demonstrates that the project location has been exposed to indirect fire (artillery fire). Information on the two proposed locations for the IPBC is discussed below along with a summary of the cultural and natural resources surveys conducted for each alternative location.

Figure 2.2-1. Visual simulation of the North Road and Objective A from the range control tower

Range Operations Control Area would include a number of different support facilities, like a 657 square foot range control tower, an 800 sf operations/storage building, a classroom, 726 sf bleachers enclosure, a 800 sf covered mess, a 120 sf ammunition breakdown building (for which an explosives safety plan would not be required), and six portable latrines.

The IPBC would be more than the “standard” battle course, according to Chapter 2 of the EIS.

A standard IPBC is approximately 1,640 ft (500 m) wide at the range entry point and 4,921 ft (1,500 m) wide at the final engagement point, and 13,123 ft (4,000 m) long. The Army intends to construct an enhanced IPBC that is 3,281 ft (1,000 m) wide at the range entry point to increase the number of targets on the range, and realign objectives to enable a unit commander to have greater flexibility when designing training scenarios, and/or allow up to two platoons to use the IPBC at the same time (Figure 2.2-9). Target arrays would include stationary and moving armor targets (SATs and MATs), Stationary Infantry Targets (SITs) and Moving Infantry Targets (MITs), trench obstacle(s), machine-gun bunkers (with sound effects simulator), and an assault/defend house.

The enhanced design also includes hardened targetry to protect sensitive targetry on the IPBC from aircraft live-fire engagements. 19 Target locations would be site adapted to meet established training requirements. All trenches, bunkers, and target emplacements would replicate typical threat scenarios and would also contain battle/sound effects simulators. Mortar simulation device emplacements would be located in areas where unfriendly mortar fire would be simulated.

To replicate a realistic training environment, the IPBC would incorporate the use of thermal targets, night illumination devices, and visual flash simulators. Targets would be fully automated and powered by photovoltaic panels. Dirt berms would be built-up behind targets to collect lead from expended ammunition. Berm maintenance (including lead removal) would be closely monitored and conducted in accordance with Sustainable Range Program (SRP) environmental activities.

Figure 2.2-11. IPBC enhanced design overlayed with the standard design

The use of the IPBC is described in Chapter 2’s 2.3.4.2 Training on the Enhanced IPBC:

The Army does not expect an increase in the number of Soldiers using the new proposed IPBC as compared with current levels on the existing, non-standard, IPBC Range 10.The 3/25 Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) would use the IPBC to train an estimated 68 platoonlevel live-fire events per year. In accordance with DA PAM 350-38 STRAC, each of the 34 rifle/weapons/scout platoons assigned to the IBCT is authorized to conduct two platoon-level live-fire events per year, thus equating to 68 live-fire events per year. The assigned weapons squads and elements from the engineer platoons will also support these platoons during these live-fire training events, as part of the collective combined arms training strategy.

The 2/25 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) would use the IPBC to conduct an estimated 90 platoonlevel live-fire events per year. In accordance with DA PAM 350-38 STRAC, each of the 45 rifle/scout/MGS platoons in the SBCT is authorized to conduct two platoon-level live-fire events per year, thus equating to 90 live-fire events per year. The assigned weapons squads and elements from the engineer platoons will also support these platoons during these live-fire training events, as part of the collective combined arms training strategy.

The proposed IPBC is not anticipated to result in an overall increase in helicopter activity at PTA.

Helicopters are currently used in conjunction with training at the non-standard Range 10 IPBC, as well as other sites at PTA (e.g., Range 20); however, Range 10 targetry is not designed/hardened to support airground integration training.

21 Helicopters training near Range 10 fire into the adjacent impact area. During operation of the proposed, enhanced IPBC, helicopter training activity near the enhanced IPBC is anticipated to increase as these aircraft would be employed in support of dismounted training. Those other ranges and training locations will experience a commensurate decrease of helicopter training operations.

The 25th CAB will support air-ground integration training at the IPBC in conjunction with platoon-level live-fire training events as described above because the IPBC targets will be hardened to accommodate air-ground integration. Air-ground integration training begins with UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters (about six) delivering the infantry platoon to the range. The UH-60 Blackhawk would fire machine guns to cover the landing. Later, as the platoon advances on the course, it could call for air support. The OH-58 Kiowas would arrive and fire on targets. It should be noted that this support would not be available or required for each exercise. It would depend on whether the CAB could provide the resources and whether air support is needed for the ground commander’s scheme of maneuver.

The annual IBCT, SBCT, and CAB ammunition expenditures which are currently authorized for these training events are outlined in Tables 2.3-1 to 2.3-4. STRAC authorizations are subject to change in future years, based on new and emerging Army training strategies.

Actual range usage as described above may vary based on deployment schedules, unit training schedules, range availability, and other factors. Other users of the IPBC may include units from the Hawai‘i National Guard, the Marine Corps, Special Operations community, U.S. Partners and Allies from the Pacific Region, as well as, local, state and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.

The EIS considered eight different locations at Pohakuloa as alternative actions. This map shows where they are.

Figure 2.4-1. Eight alternative IPBC sites considered at PTA

The Army named the Western Range Area Alternative (blue, below) as the preferred location for the IPBC, and also named the Charlie Circle Alternative (purple, below) as viable. “The IPBC would be built similarly at either of these locations as discussed above,” the document states. “Under these alternatives no new impact area would be required. No expansion of PTA’s boundaries would be necessary to accomplish the Proposed Action.”

Figure 2.7-1. IPBC Western Range Area and Charlie Circle Alternatives

The EIS states that both action alternatives would result in significant impacts on cultural resources, which are summarized in the executive summary, but detailed at great length elsewhere in the document.

Summarized below are the resource areas that would be expected to experience some impact from either of the action alternatives.

Land Use
A corner of the SDZs for the proposed IPBC at the Charlie Circle Alternative may encroach upon Training Area 23 and, without proper mitigation measures (e.g., restrictions on tracer ammunition), could result in operational restrictions under this alternative.2 This encroachment would interfere with training being conducted on both the Charlie Circle Alternative and Training Area 23; the Army could use Training Area 23 in the future for nonlive-fire activities or other compatible training. The SDZs for Charlie Circle Alternative fall outside the outer ungulate exclusion fenced area at Training Area 23; however, there may be a potential risk for species there.

Air Quality
Air quality concerns related to the IPBC would result from the quantities of fugitive dust expected to be generated during the construction phase. During the construction phase, these impacts would be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction. Mitigation measures could include the use of dust palliatives to temporarily moisten and bind loose soils to prevent them from becoming airborne.

Fugitive dust generated by travel to the IPBC and during operations could also be mitigated through similar management practices. Through mitigation, the expected impacts would be less than significant.

Noise
Elevated noise levels would be experienced during construction of the IPBC. Operation of the proposed IPBC at either alternative location would result in less than significant noise impacts.

Traffic and Transportation
The Army anticipates a temporary increase in traffic volume on Saddle Road during the initial period of range construction resulting from additional equipment, supplies, and construction worker personally owned vehicles. Construction is expected to last approximately two years. Traffic related conflicts with military traffic (multi-service units using the General Range Area) would not occur because no ranges currently exist in the immediate area of the proposed IPBC.

Given these factors, the potential impacts from construction at either alternative location would be less than significant.

Water Resources
Construction of the proposed IPBC could result in erosion and sediment, which would be mitigated by best management practices (BMPs) and would result in less than significant impacts. Operation of the proposed IPBC at either alternative location would result in less than significant impacts on water resources.

Geology and Soils
Construction activities such as site clearing and grading for the proposed IPBC would expose soils to enhanced erosion by water and/or wind. This impact could be mitigated through the use of standard erosion control practices and possible development of an erosion control plan. Operation of the proposed IPBC at either alternative location would result in less than significant impacts on geology and soils.

Biological Resources
Implementation of the IPBC at PTA could result in potentially significant impacts from the spread of invasive species. Movement of equipment into Hawai’i from the continental U.S. or foreign ports, as well as from other islands or sub-installations within Hawai’i, would increase the likelihood of invasive plant and animal introductions. Construction activities can introduce invasive species and other weeds through the use of sand and gravel that contains plant seeds and by equipment and vehicles carrying invasive plant material from offsite locations. The spread of invasive species would have both short- and long-term impacts on vegetation resources and sensitive plants and wildlife. The Army would implement mitigations to reduce the level of significance from the spread of invasive species (e.g., applying currently used and effective management controls to new range construction, and continue instituted controls through the use of washracks).

Construction and operation of the IBPC at PTA could result in potentially significant impacts on federally-listed plant species. Federally-listed plant species were found to occur in the Western Range Area Alternative and Charlie Circle Alternative IPBC locations. Potentially significant impacts may occur resulting from range construction and/or operation to these species at these locations, but could be mitigated through conservation and avoidance measures. The Army consulted with the USFWS on potential mitigation measures to protect federally-listed species. The USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the construction and operation for the Proposed Action on 11 January 2013 (Appendix G). The BO contains various mitigation measures the Army would implement during the construction and operation of the IPBC.

The BO also contains mitigation measures required to protect the Hawaiian goose (nēnē). These measures apply to the whole of PTA. As explained in Section 3.9.4 of this Final EIS, telemetry data indicates that the nēnē does not seem to reside at, or utilize, either of the proposed IPBC alternative locations as habitat; therefore, impact on the nēnē as a result of the proposed IPBC is anticipated to be negligible.

Cultural Resources
Significant and irreversible impacts could occur to resources in these areas. The Army consulted with the SHPD, ACHP, and other consulting parties, including Native Hawaiian organizations, on potential effects on cultural resources and mitigation of those effects. The Army anticipates that it and the consulting parties will sign a Programmatic Agreement (PA) (Appendix D) soon pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that establishes the means by which the remaining steps to the Section 106 consultation will be completed, and the mitigation measures for the potential adverse effects on cultural resources.

As explained in Section 3.10.5 of this Final EIS, during an archeological survey of the Charlie Circle (non-preferred) Alternative, human remains were discovered in a lava tube. As a result, impacts on cultural resources from choosing the Charlie Circle Alternative could be significant; however, consultation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is ongoing, the result of which could lessen this impact.

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste
Decades of using PTA as a training area have introduced a significant risk of encountering MEC/UXO.

MEC/UXO is known to exist in the impact area and is expected to be encountered during range construction activities; but there is also a medium risk of finding MEC/UXO outside the impact area. The Army would conduct surveys for these hazards prior to implementing the proposed project to mitigate the risks to a level of less than significant. Operation of the proposed IPBC would result in the firing of lead bullets. The potential for lead hazards to accumulate and cause health concerns to users and workers at the IPBC could be significant, but would be mitigated through BMPs to a level of less than significant.

The Army has determined that DU spotting rounds were used on PTA. The residual DU will be the subject of a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The activities proposed at the two IPBC locations will not affect the areas where DU is located.

Wildfires
The risk of live-fire training igniting wildfires in the General Range Area is high because of sparse fuel supplies with localized areas of heavier fuels (easily ignitable or dry vegetation). Regular monitoring and mitigation activities are required to prevent the damaging effects of wildfires on human health, sensitive cultural and biological resources, and range assets. The Army will continue to take measures to minimize the potential for wildfire ignition (e.g., use of fire breaks), and will continue to have readily available firefighting assets on-hand. Given these management controls, the potential impacts from wildfires could be significant mitigable to less than significant.

ES – CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Final EIS also identifies the potential cumulative effects from implementing the Proposed Action at PTA when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future military, public, and private actions that were determined to also pose impacts on the human environment. These are discussed fully in Chapter 5.

ES – MITIGATION
This Final EIS identifies mitigation measures for construction and operation of the IPBC. These measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate the potential environmental impacts from implementing the Proposed Action at PTA. In particular, as noted above, the USFWS BO at Appendix G contains various specific, required mitigation measures for biological resources. Similarly, the PA at Appendix D contains required mitigation measures for cultural resources. Mitigation measures are discussed fully at the conclusion of each resource area discussion in Chapter 4, and summarized in Section 4.18.

Subscribe to Big Island Video News (FREE)

About Big Island Video News