SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us

Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences5.3.13.3 Impacts from Live-Fire TrainingNo ImpactsImpacts to airspace use. Implementation of this alternative would have no major direct or indirecteffects on airspace resources at FRA or DTA. The alternative would not require modifications toexisting controlled or special use airspace and no new special use airspace would be needed for livefiretraining. No modifications to the airfield would occur. Consequently, current airspace and airfieldrestrictions would remain in effect on all USARAK lands. Procedures established for existingrestricted airspace would continue to apply to all aircraft, including UAV operations. Althoughclosures of currently restricted airspace are expected to increase in frequency because of increasedtraining, the UAV is not designed to fly during high wind or extremely cold conditions, which wouldlimit the periods during which operation is possible.A CFA may have to be established above new firing ranges at FRA. However, CFAs pose noproblems for VFR or IFR flights because activities within a CFA must be suspended immediatelywhen radar, spotter aircraft, or ground lookouts detect an approaching aircraft.5.3.13.4 Impacts from Maneuver TrainingNo ImpactsImpacts to airspace use. Maneuver training would occur at both FRA and DTA. The proposed UAVflights primarily would be conducted within previously designated restricted areas. Flight safety forairspace users would be accomplished by ensuring visual observation of the UAV. Flight observer(s)would be located at strategic locations to maintain visual observation throughout the flight corridor.Flight observer(s) would have direct communication with the UAV operator and ground controlstation through handheld radio equipment.For UAV flights that could not be conducted entirely within restricted areas, operations would occurin accordance with well-defined FAA procedures for remotely operated aircraft. These proceduresinclude approval of the UAV flights by the FAA regional office at least 60 days in advance. Thisapproval would be contingent on the Army demonstrating that the flights would be as safe as thosefor manned aircraft. In addition, coordination, communications, route and altitude procedures, andlost link/mission abort procedures would all have to be identified.The SBCT would train with four UAVs, 15 less than the IBCT it would replace. Additionally, theIBCT that vacated FRA and relocated to SBMR had an airborne mission that the SBCT lacks. Theremoval of these two airspace uses by stationing the 2/25 th SBCT at FRA would have no negativeimpacts to airspace.5.3.14 Energy Demand and GenerationTable 5-33 summarizes the potential energy impacts of implementing Alternative B. Energy impactsare expected to be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.February 2008 5-116 2/25th SBCT Final EIS